Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/bladą

Is it certain that this lemma continues *bʰleh₃- +‎ *-tóm? Except for the grade, this construction is identical with Proto-Germanic *blōþą (“blood”) which bears quite a different meaning from *bladą... Don't we exaggerate a little too much the potential connection with Latin folium and Ancient Greek φῠ́λλον (phúllon)?

Perhaps, if there were other examples where two different grades of the same morphological construct yield noticeably different meanings, it would be more believable to trust the proposed reconstruction. Can anyone give such an example?

PS I just checked Orel's Proto-Germanic Dictionary (p. 46) and apparently, Germanic *bladą is cognate with Tocharian A pält, Tocharian B pilta. I don't see a reason, though, why all of these lemmas should reflect exactly **bʰl̥h₃-oto-. They could alternatively be from *bʰel- +‎ *-dʰh₁om (> *bʰledʰ- for the pre-Germanic case) or something of this sort. Neither the Germanic, nor the Tocharian data suffice to distinguish the two constructions. Bezimenen (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)