Reconstruction talk:Proto-Uralic/peje-

Is it not *pexe- or *pexi-? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 19:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Per Sammallahti, yes. We could move it if we want to (though IMO the data seems mostly ambigious). --Tropylium (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Jaakko) Häkkinen supports x, *pexi- to be exact: [1]. (Referenced to Koivulehto) SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

And Koivulehto sources it from Sammallahti (in {{R:HPUL}}); who in turn sources it from {{R:Janhunen 1981}}; but I doubt we need to lay the full research history out in the open. My usual practice on Proto-Uralic entries has been to mostly source things from Sammallahti, mentioning UEW if their reconstruction substantially disagrees (and our notation is closer to the UEW on a few issues such as *-e instead of *-i), unless there's some newer source that actually argues otherwise.

Most cases of *-x- are iffy though since Janhunen reconstructs this for all cases where Samoyedic shows a shortened *CV root; this has by now been refuted by {{R:Aikio 2002}} who argues that *-j-, *-w- and *-k- are also lost; but UEW at least in a few cases underreconstructs *-x-, so they're not an entirely reliable source on this matter either. --Tropylium (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)