Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰeyh₂-

Many questions

@Victar, what is the evidence for the quality of the laryngeal (i.e. h₂)? I see it in Mallory & Adams, but they do not provide any reason why they make this claim, and none of the descendants seem to support this claim, and everyone else reconstructs *bʰeyH-. Also, @CodeCat, LIV has the Slavic present as being *bʰiH-yé-ti. Why are we reconstructing *bʰeyH-ti when it is a Slavic -je- present? Cheung and LIV have 𐬠𐬌𐬌𐬈𐬧𐬙𐬉 (biieṇtē)/𐬠𐬀𐬌𐬌𐬈𐬧𐬙𐬉 (baiieṇtē) as being from a different and unrelated root *bʰeyh₂- meaning "to fear". —JohnC5 01:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In Slavic, all vowel-final stems became ye-presents, so we can't tell either way. —CodeCat 13:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Mallory/Adams is my only source for it. --Victar (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: So, unless they give an explanation, I would consider that a minority opinion. Also, we need to extract the "to fear" root from the "to strike" root. Would you agree? —JohnC5 15:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I have no objection to moving it to *bʰeyH-, if you think that's what's best. @CodeCat, thoughts? --Victar (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the deal with these athematic presents in Slavic?

Some Slavisits (Dybo, Vailliant, Kortlandt, Villanueva Svensson, and likely others) reconstruct a Slavic verb from PIE present stem when the aorist looks secondary: e.g. briefly explained here. In the case with *biti, LIV derives the aorist from PIE, so it's more logical to reconstruct the Slavic verb from the root aorist. To quote note 2 under LIV *bʰeiH:

Nach Vailliant III 275 sekundär zum Aorist (referring to present stem)

The present stem on the other hand behaves like regular R[0]-yé present - nothing athematic with it. 2.217.103.95 15:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)