Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/éǵh₂. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/éǵh₂, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/éǵh₂ in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/éǵh₂ you have here. The definition of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/éǵh₂ will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofReconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/éǵh₂, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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), Armenian ես(es), and apparently in the Hittite variant
𒌑𒊌(ú-uk).
For the oblique singular stem, a reconstruction of an initial *h₁ can be justified on the basis of Ancient Greek ἐμοί(emoí), Hittite 𒄠𒈬𒊌(ammuk), and Armenian իմ(im).
Oblique plural *n̥s- possibly continues earlier **m̥s- (same element of singular oblique stem with plural -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]
Dative *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
^ Ringe, Donald, Taylor, Ann (2014) The Development of Old English (A Linguistic History of English; 2), Oxford: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 57
^ Beekes, Robert S. P. (2011) Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edition, revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, page 233
^ Kortlandt, Frederik (2006) Balto-Slavic Personal Pronouns and Their Accentuation, Leiden University
^ De Vaan, Michiel (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 367
^ Kapović, Mate (2006) Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns with emphasis on accentuation (PhD dissertation), Zadar, Croatia: University of Zadar, page 159
