Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁n̥gʷnís

Doesn't Mayrhofer give the Hittite term a likely Indo-Aryan origin, from the nearby Mitanni kingdom? At least that's how Witzel references it. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No, he says that it's unsettled and that there are three possible theories. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is labiovelar here -gʷ- provable? 5.141.124.234 19:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all "plain velars" that were followed by a front vowel, or were followed by a resonant that preceded a front vowel were regularly "palatalized" in pre-PIE. That means that the sequence "*gni" didn't exist in PIE, so we must reconstruct "*gʷni" instead. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Woah woah woah. To clarify, all of the theories about the palatals coming from PIE are very speculative and should not be taken as facts. —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 21:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

They're not theories. Lysdexia (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Then how would you disambiguate? And should we move this to *h₁n̥gʷnís, or a proterokinetic *h₁éngʷnis? --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 15:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)