Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlewH-

Latin

Latin fluō looks more like tudati-type present. Not sure why the proto-Italic form is reconstructed as simple thematic? Similar thing happens with Latin pluō : *plovō (“to rain, to pour”), so it may be regular? Bezimenen (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It should be under a ye-present, per {{R:ine:Sihler:1995|535}}. --{{victar|talk}} 22:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

That's questionable. We need further evidence before declaring it ye-present (which is secondary in nature in the first place). The whole formation R[0]-ew- is a construction of itself. It's not particularly likely that the first derivative which a language creates with it is a secondary ye-present. In general, early PIE employed -y- as a default imperfective marker and -w- as a default perfective marker. Mixing them from the get-go is logically inconsistent. Bezimenen (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bezimenen: you're spewing a lot of bunk science here on the project that isn't supported academia, nor this project. My sources for my edits on this page are there, including the ye-present from Sihler. You also seem to have a problem properly reading sources, because Rix, whom you mistakenly cite, claims the s-aorists are secondary, and if you knew anything about Greek (and PII), you would know that they add prefixes to their aorists (not to even mention that *Hbʰlew- would be an invalid root). You also need to stop just making up definitions -- I trust Beekes definitions of Greek terms over anything you're pulling from your head. As for the final laryngeal you insist should be in the reconstruction, laryngeals are lost in a VCHy position. --{{victar|talk}} 15:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@victar: Sihler, p. 522:

Primary verbs in -έω-, mostly presents of the simple thematic class in origin, with loss of the intervocalic -w-, -y-, or -s- as
... πλέω 'float' (< *plewō < *plew-e/o-) ... (which is always compares with φλέω)

Other dictionaries and sources:

• Frisk, Hjalmar (1970) “φλέω”, in Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (in German), volume II, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, page 1025: “Die Formenreihe φλέω, φλεῦσαι, πέφλευσμαι stimmt zu πλέω, πλεῦσαι, πέπλευσμαι...”
• Caruso: ΕΤΥΜΟΛ. Το ρ. φλέω (< φλέFω, πρβλ. πλέω < πλέFω, ῥέω < ῥέFω)^{Greek Monolingual}

Expected outcome from *pʰlew-ye/o- > *pʰleẅ-ẅe/o- > **φλέιω.

Sihler, p. 533: nothing regarding φλέω (only about Latin fluō which may as well be a doublet of **flovō judging from Latin pluō : *plovō). Conclusion = ?

I guess I cannot trust my own eyes, so I'm giving up on further work on PIE entries. Let them stagnate. Bezimenen (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Athematic?

@Victar: Where is the evidence for this athematic, ablauting inflection in φλύω and *bljauˀtei (I'm skipping over the fact that initially you gave it as "ablauting thematic")? Besides the ablaut, the athematic inflection is also characterized by sg. endings -μι, -ί, -τί(ν) in Greek and -мь, -си, -тъ in Slavic (within the same stem!). Check how the Greek and Balto-Slavic forms inflect. Neither of them suggest athematic or ablauting inflection. None of the sources (including LIV) explicitly classifies the discussed descendants as athematic, either.

PS If you insist on ignoring others' requests for explanation, could you at least add |passage=...}} to the references you are giving? Other members have the right to know what exactly you're quoting. I bet there is a rule in Wiktionary guidelines in this regard. 2.217.103.95 17:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar PS2: The proto-Hellenic form should be Proto-Hellenic *pʰlūmi if it was athematic. 2.217.103.95 17:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bezimenen: You should familiarize yourself with zero-grade leveling. --{{victar|talk}} 23:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: I'm familiar with it. I spent the whole day today comparing parallel constructions of φλύω and *bljauˀtei and couldn't convince myself that leveling is the go-to answer. The Balto-Slavic terms are specifically discussed here. The author, M. Svensonn, derives the primary form *bljauˀtei from R[é] ye-present. The iterative Proto-Slavic *blyjati in this case would probably be secondary stative (so-called "essive"). I'm tired arguing, so I leave it to you.

PS Can you check the proposed Sanskrit descendants under *(H)yeh₁-‎. They look dubious. I'm also unsure which form of the root aorist of Greek to give. In *pleh₁-, the author has given the 3p. middle form. I doubt that is the norm... 2.217.103.95 00:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)