Open main menu

Wiktionary β

es Este usuario es hablante nativo de español.
en-3 This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English.
ine-pro-1 Só dʰértōr ph₂wóm séneh₂s dn̥ǵʰuh₂és wékʷti.
hit-1 𒅗𒀀𒀸 𒀀𒀭𒌅𒀪𒊭𒀸 𒉈𒅆𒇷 𒆷𒆷𒀭 𒋼𒂊𒅁𒀀𒃾𒌍 𒊭𒀀𒀝𒆠
This user's native script is the Latin alphabet.
Search user languages or scripts

Hello, you might see me here contributing mainly to Hittite entries, and from time to time PIE too.


Things yet to be satisfactorily explainedEdit

  1. The origin of the alternation between "*o" and "*e".
  2. The origin of the alternation between "*r" and "*n".
  3. The origin of the alternation between "*m" and "*u̯".
  4. The rarity of the phoneme "*b".
  5. Lachmann's law.
  6. The alternation between "*-s" and "*-e/os".
  7. The rise of the feminine gender from the plural/collective "*-h₂".
  8. The distribution on which "T", "D", and "Dʰ" appear.
  9. Root constraints.
  10. The origin of the pronominal morphemes "*-sm" and "-i-".
  11. The origin of the media-passive primary desinential element "*-r".

My views on PIEEdit

I don't believe in accentual paradigms. I reject the idea that once PIE deleted all vowels except for tonic "*é". I believe PIE could in fact accentuate a resonant. I remain unconvinced of pre-glottalization of voiced stops. I remain skeptical of whether voice was a distinctive feature in PIE.


I agree with Sihler and Kortlandt on the fact that front dorsals appear in complementary distribution with back dorsals. Rejecting that fact would somewhat imply that the 3 by 3 grid in the dorsal series was created by random chance. It is obvious that the two columns must have a common origin. I also agree on the fact that it's impossible for palatovelars to become velars when preceding a front vowel, just like the sequence /mb/ never becomes /nb/. I therefore do not reconstruct the front series as palato-velars, but instead as plain velars. I do not believe however, that this is proof of the theory of the 2 velar series, since there's no reason to think that the dorsals were fronted exclusively in satem languages, and the fact that Luwian preserved the three way distinction proves that the the "palatal" series wasn't exclusive to satem languages.


I follow Erhart, who reconstructs un extra nasal phoneme to account for the alternation with "*u" and "*m". I reconstruct it as a nasalized rounded velar approximant. Therefore, I believe this phoneme merged with "*u" and "*m" before Anatolian split, leaving few alternations that must have been phonologically conditioned, and later obscured by analogical developments and generalizations. If that is right, we can safely assume that the first person verbal desinences "-mi" and the secondary plural "-me" alternated with "-wi" and "*-we" respectively, both "-w-" desinences are attested solely in Anatolian (if we ignore the dual). Unfortunately, the distribution is unknown.


I do not reconstruct laryngeals as part of the dorsal series, since this would imply a common origin, which it's clearly incorrect. Some reconstruct them as "*h₁" being a palatal fricative, "*h₂" velar fricative, and "*h₃" labialized velar fricative. This can be disproven by the fact that "*h₁" and "*h₂" do not appear in complementary distribution as the front and back series of dorsals usually do. And "*h₂" & "*h₃" cannot belong to the same series of obstruents because "*h₂" happens to be a fortis consonant, reflected by Hittite "ḫḫ", and "*h₃" a lenis, since it causes assimilatory voicing in PNIE. Besides, reconstructing a fricative series for the velars would rise the question of why don't the dental an labial series have them too. Reconstructing them in the same place of articulation of the other dorsals would attribute their colouring quality to their fricativeness, but in that case, why "*h₁" doesn't colour? If it's in fact the fricativeness what causes the colouring, then we should reconstruct "*h₁" as a stop.

Because the second and third laryngeal do not belong to the same series (fortis or lenis), "*h₃" cannot be analyzed as the labialized form of "*h₂". If we suppose laryngeals were labialized by the same process that created labiovelars, then we would need to comclude that both second and third laryngeals had labial counterparts. If we assumed that "*h₃" was always labialized, then it cannot be through the same process that labialized dorsals, since then we would expect a non-labial "*h₃". Also, Hittite is said to preserve "*h₃" after a sonorant and word initially, but it does not show any labialization. There are no grounds for holding a loss of the labial element, since no other obstruent lost their labialization in PAnatolian. If we suppose that the labial element caused the "*e" ⟶ "*o", then why don't "labio-velars" colour vowels too? For these reasons, I conclude that reconstructing "*h₃" as a labial consonant does not only lack any support, but also requires unnecessary assumptions.

And for PIE:

However, on the basis of the evolution of *méǵh̥₂s > μέγᾰς (mégas), where "*h₂" may have been voiced due to assimilatory voicing, Pooth concludes that voicing wasn't the only distinctive feature for "*h₂" and "*h₃". In that case, "h₂" and "h₃" must be reconstructed with either a place of articulation, or a secondary articulation.



Only morpheme "*-bʰi-" is reconstructible to PIE (attested in Hittite kuwāpi). The idea that "*-m-" belonged to the dative/ablative and "*-bʰi-" to the instrumental is absurd. We would have to assume that the exact opposite innovation, (replacing one morpheme with the other) took place at least 3 times. Once in Italo-Celtic, another in Balto-Eslavo-Gremanic, and once more in the rest of the languages. That assumtion does not only mess up all the analysis of PIE's subgrouping (if it's not already messed up), but ignores completely the Anatolian evidence. On this issue I follow Jasanoff's explanation. I reconstruct for the dative/ablative the desinence "*-ós", and for the instrumental "*-ís" for PIE. For PNIE the morpheme "*-bʰ-" must be regarded as original, and "*-m-" imported from pronominal inflection.

Reconstruction of the numbersEdit

On the genitive/ablative I follow Kloekhorst, who states that the original function was an ablative , and that the genitive meaning is secondary (just like latin ablative preposition de evolved to genitive in romance). The genitive plural "*-oHom" and the ablative obviously have unrelated morphological origins. I follow Pooth, who reconstructs "*-oHom" as a transnumerical partitive genitive that was reanalyzed as a genitive plural. The ablative, therefore would be transnumerical too, as in Hittite (although there it's a genitive). The partitive function is still preserved in Latin distinction between "vestrī & vestrum" and "nostrī & nostrum" where "-um" is used solely in as a partitive genitive. Kloekhorst also argues that Hittite "-an" can be used as a genitive singular in Hittite, although the partitive function is not preserved, so he reconstructs the distinction differently. Lastly, the fact that in pronouns the ending "-soHom", ( clear in latin -rum), is marked with an "*s", like the singular cases, instead of an "*i", as the plurals, proves it originally was a singular.