Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/gʷeyh₃-

@Tom 144: Hello. Are you sure about this? These compounds are so transparent that it seems unlikely they were inherited; they look like independent coinages. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Another thing: PIE *gʷ > AGr. δ before front vowels. So βέομαι (béomai) must be analogical. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: Your probably right, it's unlikely that all of these were directly inherited, if any. Although, as I understood it, the word formation section doesn't need to be reconstructible, it just shows the morphological shape that the word represents. They are descendants either way, If you notice there are plenty of etymons with insufficient descendants to be reconstructible. Any way, I do not have a problem if you want to erase them, and now that I think about it, it makes more sense to leave them at *gʷih₃wós. Also my source reconstructed an "h₁" to account for the long "ē" but I see here we reconstruct it as *sēmi-. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I moved them to *gʷih₃wós. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 15:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)