The presence of the laryngeal is confirmed by the -h- in Sanskrit ahám. Instead of the unknown medial laryngeal *-H-, *-h₂- is often reconstructed here on the basis of Indo-Iranian assimilation, but there is no secure evidence that would prove such an assumption.
Three forms can be reconstructed formally for the nominative singular, using the comparative method:
*éǵ (Hittite 𒌑𒊌(ūk), Proto-Balto-Slavic *ēź ~ *eś, Old Lithuanian eš, Old Prussian es/as, Sudovian es, Proto-Slavic *(j)a, Avestan 𐬀𐬰𐬆(azə))
*eǵóH (Latin egō, Ancient Greek ἐγώ(egṓ), Venetic 𐌄𐌙𐌏(ego))
There seem to be no grounds for assuming an initial *h₁ in the nominative singular (although it is not impossible) or a final *-H in the form *éǵ. The form *éǵ is the most archaic one, with *eǵHóm and *eǵóH being younger, dialectal variants. The sandhi form of *éǵ - *éḱ, with a final devoiced plosive, is attested in Baltic (Old Prussian as, es), Armenian ես(es), and apparently in the Hittite variant
𒌑𒊌(ú-uk).
For the oblique singular stem, a reconstruction of an initial *h₁ can be justified on the basis of Ancient Greek ἐμοί(emoí), Hittite 𒄠𒈬𒊌(ammuk), and Armenian իմ(im).
A user suggests that this Proto-Indo-European reconstruction entry be cleaned up, giving the reason: “manual table should be moved to a template”.
Please see the discussion on Requests for cleanup(+) or the talk page for more information and remove this template after the problem has been dealt with.
Oblique plural *n̥s- possibly continues earlier **m̥s- (same element of singular oblique stem with plural -s). This n was made common to the whole paradigm, with even enclitic *nos for *mos, but the verb endings *-me(dʰh₂), *-mos(dʰh₂) were not disturbed.[1]
Dative *mégʰi for *mébʰi is attested in Italic and Indic, but not in Iranian, as 𐬨𐬀𐬌𐬠𐬫𐬁(maibyā). Also Sanskritमह्यम्(máhyam) may be from original -bʰ-, as this sometimes becomes Indic -h- (even more here by dissimilation from initial m-).[2]
^ Sihler, Andrew L. (1995), New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 374
^ Sihler, Andrew L. (1995), New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 378
^ Ringe, Donald (2006), From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (A Linguistic History of English; 1)[1], 1st edition, Oxford: University Press, →ISBN, page 57
^ Beekes, Robert S. P. (2011), Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edition, revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, page 233
^ Kortlandt, Frederik (2006), Balto-Slavic Personal Pronouns and Their Accentuation[2], Leiden University
^ De Vaan, Michiel (2008), Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 367
^ De Vaan, Michiel (2008), “mē”, in Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, pages 367-8
^ Kapović, Mate (2006), Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns with emphasis on accentuation[4] (PhD dissertation), Zadar, Croatia: University of Zadar, page 159
