Reconstruction talk:Proto-Balto-Slavic/kā́ˀmō

@Gnosandes: The fact that a doublet form *ákmō exists shows undoubtfully that the very hypotetical *kā́ˀmō (which has no descendants in Baltic btw) is a metathesized form of the first. Ентусиастъ (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ентусиастъ: Are you an adequate person? I already wrote that this is a synonym. You add to this some phantom thinking. How do you derive laryngeal phonation *ˀ from *ákmō? Gnosandes (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: Yeah, so you can't even comprehend what I've written which is that: 1. a reconstruction *kā́ˀmō is impossible to have existed, and 2. even if one accepts such a fantasy, this would be nothing but a metathesis of *ákmō. Isn't it obvious that the water is wet. Ентусиастъ (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ентусиастъ: If reconstruction *kā́ˀmō cannot exist, then to what do you erect the Proto-Slavic reconstruction *kàmy? I accept, but it won't be a metathesis from *ákmō. For I will have to ask you for an explanation of two entities: а. how did laryngeal phonation appear? and б. how did the long vowel appear? The water is not wet, but liquid. Gnosandes (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What text is the Matasovic hypothesis from?

See title

Vindafarna (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)