Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/ȷ́iȷ́ʰwáH

@Aryamanarora Wouldn't the nominative singular be *ĵiĵʰwáH? madhavpandit (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@माधवपंडित: This reconstruction went through a lot of changes between PIE and Sanskrit/Avestan. I don't think the final *-s is dropped because both of the languages show versions with a u-stem that did have final -s. The change to no final -s probably happened later, or perhaps as a dialectical variation within PII. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 03:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Iranian form should be *hiźuH(ā), hiźu̯āna-.--Calak (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA Shouldn't the Proto-Indo-Iranian declension be something like *ĵiĵʰwáH- ~ *ĵiĵuH-? Avestan still shows the morphological alternation hizuuā- ~ hizū- m. (!), and the alternation is still present (if lexically fixed) in Indo-Aryan as well as in Nuristani, so this doesn't seem to be a plain (feminine) *-eh₂-stem, but a (masculine) stem ending in *-weh₂- ~ *-uh₂-, and still remained as such well into the Common Indo-Iranian period (even after the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian).

@Calak Judging from the Avestan evidence, where there is no trace of the *-n(a)- suffix, this suffix wasn't originally present in Proto-Iranian, but was added later in Western Iranian – while in (most of) Eastern Iranian, a suffix *-kaH- was added in parallel with this. The Avestan evidence, indeed, also suggests the reconstruction *hiź-, not *hiž-. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply