Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰuH-

Redirect?

Do we need a redirect from bhu to bheu? Currently there are three links to bhu. Or should there be a distintion between zero grade and e-grade? --MaEr 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you have to fix them all back :P --Ivan Štambuk 12:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Brythonic

Welsh bod is currently claimed by two different routes:

• *bʰuH-yé-ti > [Celtic] *buyeti
• *bʰuH-tó- > [Celtic] *butā

And presumably Cornish “bod, bod” should be “bos, bod”? --Caoimhin (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the bʰuH-yé-ti route is talking about the verb as a whole, of which bod is the lemma form, and the bʰuH-tó- route is talking about the verbal noun specifically. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How can this root not have a full grade?

Nothing personal against Jasanoff, in general, but how could *bʰuH- not have a full grade? Proto-Germanic *beuną, Proto-Indo-Iranian *bʰáwati and Proto-Slavic *baviti, Proto-Indo-Iranian *bʰāwáyati all exhibit various non-zero grades (respectively e-grade and ō-grade). To add on top of this, Proto-Slavic *byti actually shows traces of nasal-inflex in Future tense. Clearly, there is enough data to reconstruct a fully fledged, ablauting root. Bezimenen (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)