Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰh₂éns
Add topicLatest comment: 11 years ago by Ivan Štambuk
Should this better be *ǵʰh₂ens? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that this noun ablauted at all, though, even though it was an athematic noun. That should indicate that the root vowel has to be -a-. —CodeCat 21:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Genitive *ǵʰh₂nsos is sometimes taken to explain the origin of depatalization of *ǵʰ in Slavic ([1] p. 119). At any case, absence of evidence is not an evidence in favor of something else. The existence of PIE *a is controversial by itself, and reconstructing *ǵʰans- is really bad lingustics IMHO. If all of the descendant forms can be derived from *ǵʰh₂ens- (which I'm not sure, so I'm asking :), there is no reason to postulate *ǵʰans-. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with the zero grade h₂ is that you'd expect -i- in Sanskrit (and maybe Iranian), but there is no trace of that. And what about the Ancient Greek stem? —CodeCat 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sanskrit and Greek can be derived from ǵʰh₂en-s-, later being generalized to a-stem and n-stem respectively. Just because there are no (obvious) traces of ablaut it doesn't mean that it wasn't there, or that there was medial *-a- present. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with the zero grade h₂ is that you'd expect -i- in Sanskrit (and maybe Iranian), but there is no trace of that. And what about the Ancient Greek stem? —CodeCat 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Genitive *ǵʰh₂nsos is sometimes taken to explain the origin of depatalization of *ǵʰ in Slavic ([1] p. 119). At any case, absence of evidence is not an evidence in favor of something else. The existence of PIE *a is controversial by itself, and reconstructing *ǵʰans- is really bad lingustics IMHO. If all of the descendant forms can be derived from *ǵʰh₂ens- (which I'm not sure, so I'm asking :), there is no reason to postulate *ǵʰans-. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)