Reconstruction talk:Proto-Balto-Slavic/-iškas

Two questions

1. How is this evidence of the ruki sound law? Bare /i/ is not one of the sounds that participates in the ruki sound shift ... it has to be /j/.
2. Is it possible this affix was just a loan from a centum language into early Balto-Slavic? Similar things have been loaned. It would help explain why this is the only satem group that has it, and possibly also explain why Slavic has it with /s/ when the ruki sound law would predict /š/ or perhaps even /Ø/ (assuming /xk/ > /k/). —Soap— 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

š instead of s

Why *-iškas and not the expected *-iskas or *-iśkas? Cf. Latvian -isks, Proto-Slavic *-ьskъ, Proto-Indo-European *-iskos. Ентусиастъ (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Despite my comments above, someone somewhere told me that is > iš is in fact the expected reflex .... in my defense, I was wrong because my source was wrong. I think I was reading Wikipedia's w:ruki sound law article and that that has now been corrected. Reflexes of original /is/ showing /š/ are known from outside Balto-Slavic, as well, or at least reflexes that we believe must have had /š/. Hope this helps. —Soap— 11:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Soap: Thank you for your reply. Yes, there are a lot of examples of the ruki law being in force in different PIE descendants such as Lithuanian, Avestan, etc. but then how could one explain the presence of "s" in Latvian and Slavic. Defricatization? Ентусиастъ (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ентусиастъ: I asked the same question at this page last summer. While the answer I got isn't solid undeniable proof, it was enough to convince me that my original assumption was based on incorrect information, and that a rogue shift of /šk/ > /sk/ in Slavic may have been missed by writeups describing the broader picture. I dont know. Im sure someone somewhere has noticed this and written about it, perhaps describing more than one answer .... for example, it could still be a loan .... but I dont have easy access to academic journals where more information might be available.

As for Latvian, I think it just does /š/ > /s/ all the time, at least in the coda. —Soap— 18:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Soap: Thank you for the link. I saw the discussion and both of you have made some good points :) I'll stay on my position that the ruki law doesn't apply in this case due to the unexplained outcome in Slavic and that it was in force only in Lithuanian after the Balto-Slavic split. Ентусиастъ (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)