The presence of the laryngeal is confirmed by the -h- in Sanskrit ahám. Instead of the unknown medial laryngeal *-H-, *-h₂- is often reconstructed here on the basis of Indo-Iranian assimilation, but there is no secure evidence that would prove such an assumption.
Three forms can be reconstructed formally for the nominative singular, using the comparative method:
There seem to be no grounds for assuming an initial *h₁ in the nominative singular (although it is not impossible) or a final *-H in the form *éǵ. The form *éǵ is the most archaic one, with *eǵHóm and *eǵóh₂ being younger, dialectal variants. The sandhi form of *éǵ - *éḱ, with a final devoiced plosive, is attested in Baltic (Old Prussian as, es) and apparently in the Hittite variant
𒌑𒊌(ú-uk).
Oblique pl. *n̥s- possibly continues earlier **m̥s- (same element of sg. oblique stem with pl. s). This n was made common to the whole paradigm, with even enclitic *nos for *mos, but the verb endings *-me(dʰh₂), *-mos(dʰh₂) were not disturbed.[1]
Dat. *mégʰi for *mébʰi is attested in Italic and Indic, but not in Iranian, as 𐬨𐬀𐬌𐬠𐬫𐬁 (maibyā). Also Sanskritमह्यम्(máhyam) may be from original -bʰ-, as this sometimes becomes Indic -h- (even more here by dissimilation from initial m-).[2]
^ Sihler, Andrew L. (1995) New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 374
^ Sihler, Andrew L. (1995) New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 378
^ Kapović, Mate (2006) Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns with emphasis on accentuation[1] (PhD dissertation), Zadar, Croatia: University of Zadar, page 159
