Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéǵʰōm

How did this become Sanskrit kṣa? Wyang (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably something along *dʰǵʰe- > *dʰjʰa- > Indo-Iranian *džʰa- > Sanskrit kṣa. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Kloekhorst to my mind convincingly argues that the Sanskrit and Anatolian evidence point towards a reconstruction of *dʰeǵ- as opposed to *dʰeǵʰ- on the basis that

1. In the Sanskrit oblique stem jm-, -j- cannot reflect *ǵʰ-, which would regularly give -h- in all positions.
2. The long vowel in the Hittite nom. sg. [tēkan] suggests a "voiced unaspirated" (pre-glottalised) velar. See Kloekhorst 2012.
3. The *ǵʰ apparent from Latin, Germanic and Greek can be explained in the glottalic theory as a simplification of the cluster *dʰǵ /dˀg/ to *dʰǵʰ /dg/. The opposite development is much less likely.
   

Further to this, the inflection provided here (Ringe 2006) is outdated as it neglects the Hittite gen. sg. [t(a)knás] (where the initial *dʰ is still preserved). The Hittite evidence suggests a regular hysterokinetic inflection:

Nom. Sg. *dʰéǵ-m-
Acc. Sg. *dʰǵ-ém-m
Gen. Sg. *dʰǵ-m-és

A further interesting idea alluded to in this article is that *dʰéǵ- may be connected with *(s)teǵ- (“to cover”), via Siebs' Law. This is perhaps rather fanciful though.

--Itsacatfish (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Itsacatfish: Add it to the article, no one reads the talk page. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivan Štambuk: The main reason I wrote this in the talk page is that if the evidence provided here by Kloekhorst were to be accepted (as it generally has by other Leiden scholars), that would require the article to be moved to *dʰéǵm̥ (with *dʰǵōm being a late PIE (post-Anatolian) innovation.) However, as this view is still highly marginal, I doubt that a move would get much support amongst the community here. But I'll happily copy this information over to the current article. --Itsacatfish (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be mentioned here and listed in the headword line as a reconstruction, with the the other appendix page redirecting here as an alternative form. It's better to list all of the marginal opinions along with the issues of the generally accepted reconstructions rather than ignore them altogether (as is the common practice). See *h₁éḱwos --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

*-ōm

Rua: Assuming this word comes from a root *dʰéǵ(ʰ)-, as has been suggested, it belongs in Category:Proto-Indo-European words suffixed with *-ōm along with *ǵʰéyōm.  — J​as​p​e​t 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but there should be an entry for *-ōm explaining its function. —Rua (mew) 12:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's an unreasonable prerequisite. --{{victar|talk}} 05:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

So I'm supposed to assume that this isn't just an ad-hoc invention instead of a well-known suffix? —Rua (mew) 14:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The reconstruction of this word is well attested, both root and suffix. It's no more an "ad-hoc invention" than any reconstruction. --{{victar|talk}} 19:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)