Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₂wéh₁n̥ts

Declension

@CodeCat, according to Kloekhorst, the inflection in this case should be *h₂wéh₁n̥ts ~ *h₂uh₁éntm̥ ~ *h₂uh₁n̥tés based on nom.sg. ḫu-wa-an-za / ḫu-u-wa-an-za, gen.sg. ḫu-wa-an-da-aš / ḫu-u-wa-an-da-aš. This does not seem to be possible with the current version of the module. If we added a |nom_sg_m= parameter, it would probably work. What do you think? 00:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Kloekhorst's paradigm represents the so-called "Leiden model" of nominal ablaut classes, which is far from universally accepted. I don't think we should commit to it. —CodeCat 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we've dicussed it before. I always forget he's at Leiden University. De Vaan also supports that interpretation, by the way. —JohnC5 01:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not technically relevant that he's at Leiden, but more that his reconstruction is recognisably the Leiden type. It's characterised by a three-way ablaut distinction between nominative, accusative and the remaining cases. Even if the reconstruction is correct (which it may well be), the difficulty is that the model also collapses the amphikinetic pattern into it, e.g. the pattern of *ǵénh₁tōr with its characteristic o-grade suffix. Leiden would reconstruct this as *ǵénh₁-tr̥-s ~ *ǵn̥h₁-tér-m̥ ~ *ǵn̥h₁-tr-és, which is much less useful in explaining the attested forms as there's no trace of the o-grade found in Greek and Latin. —CodeCat 01:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)