Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/éǵh₂

Laryngeal

Why do we reconstruct the second laminal *h₂? It seems like this would develop into a Greek and Latin **ega/egā. Is it possibly a typo or a different PIE orthography, or is there a sound rule involved? Thank you, 97.89.216.62 15:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Formally we reconstruct PIE *éǵ (Hittite ūg, Old Lithuanian eš, Slavic ja, Avestan azə), *eǵHóm (Sanskrit ahám, Avestan azə̄m, OCS azъ, Greek ἐγών) and *eǵóh₂ (Latin egō, Greek ἐγώ, Venetic ego). Armenian es can be derived from either the first or the second form, and I'm not sure about Germanic (eka variant form seems weird). The laryngeal in the second form could be -h₂- but we cannot know for sure (there was certainly one due to Sanskrit -h-). The second and the third form bear uncanny resemblance to the first-person singular thematic verbal endings -o-h₂ (primary) and -o-m (secondary), but god knows which was analogical to what. The table is taken from Ringe:2006, other authors reconstruct the paradigm differently, and we should certainly provide alternative forms as well as extensive commentary on each. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tocharian

How did this become Tocharian A ñuk/näṣ? Wyang (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering (deprecated template usage) ñuk, the most obvious phonological correspondence is the k, which in Proto-Tocharian is the reflex of PIE *ḱ, *ǵ, or *ǵʰ (or any other dorsal for that matter). As for the u, Tocharian A is known to round vowels in many environments. The development of the u from a PIE *é could have occurred as a result of one of three factors (that I can think of): influence from a neighboring Proto-Tocharian *kʷ, umlaut processes, or the PIE diphthong *ew. If we weren't assuming that (deprecated template usage) ñuk derived from *éǵh₂, the first possibility (*kʷ) could be considered, but we assume that this wasn't the case, since the PIE pronoun had a palatovelar and not a labiovelar. Similarly, the last case is improbable since there was no diphthong (*ew) present in the PIE word. So, if it was the result of an umlaut process, we predict a Late Proto-Tocharian form *(ä)ñäkU (where *U is ad hoc notation for one of the vowels *u, *ọ, or *o, i.e. those which could trigger this umlaut process) < Early Proto-Tocharian *(ä)nyäkU < Late PIE *(u/i)n-éǵā/ū < PIE *éǵh₂. The *(ä)n- is most likely then a Tocharian innovation, perhaps related to the nasal found at the end of Tocharian oblique nouns used to signify that the noun is animate or personal (e.g. Tocharian B (deprecated template usage) yakwe vs. (deprecated template usage) eṅkweṃ). Considering (deprecated template usage) näṣ, the lack of ñ or ś suggests that this word was etymologically unrelated, except for, perhaps, the nasal affix. — This unsigned comment was added by Jackwolfroven (talk • contribs) at 01:43, June 18, 2013.

See [1] and [2] --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

eho

It lacks Umbrian eho.--Manfariel (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Any relation with *h₂eǵ-?

Is it possible this pronoun to have any relation (possibly after metathesis of *h₂) with the verb *h₂eǵ- > act, drive away?

Move

Should we move the page to a more consensual reconstruction? As outlined above, there isn't any reason to think that the laryngeal was a *h₂ besides its statistical abundance. There're evidently many variants for this word but all authors agee on *(h₁)éǵ-. I propose we move this to *éǵ. There is no reason to think there was an initial first laryngeal besides root constraints, but this is not derived from a root as far as I know. And there are descendats that support that reconstruction. Given that it's the simplest, it's most probable that it's also the oldest in this case. What do you think? --Tom 144 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Derived terms

@Corgame3, What is "*h₁me- ~ *h₁me-n-" supposed to be, is it an inflected form? --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced Declension Tables

Does anyone know what works the Kloekhorst, Kortlandt, and de Vaan reconstructions are taken from? I can check that Beeks and Ringe are from the same works cited on wikipedia later and add them as references, but when quoting declension tables we really ought to be explicitly referencing to avoid plagiarism. Tristanjlroberts (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Kloekhorst and de Vaan are probably from their etymological dictionaries. I do not know where the Kortlandt reconstruction is from --Ioe bidome (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)