Thread:User talk:Rua/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂meygʷ-/reply (2)

I'm not sure if I fully understand what you want to say (What is obscured?). There are two options for us to display this (unlikely, but) possible connection: derivation from mey- and derivation from h2mey-. In my eyes to write "derivation from/extension of mey-" is wrong because there's no way an h2- would be added in a dervational process. "Derivation from h2mey-" is proposed by LIV so at least it seems to be a possible assumption (You seem to say that's implausible, and I agree). If by "mov[ing] the term to the correct place" you mean moving mey- to h2mey-, wouldn't this be going too far because all the descendants that show no sign of h2- would be derived from a root with h2- because of a very weak assumption, and wouldn't this create new problems (μισθός)? But this would in my opinion still be better than to display an impossible derivational process (h2meygw- from mey-). Best solution I can think of is the one I proposed with my edit, second best to outright delete the connection.