The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread

[JounaPyysalo]

2+4. The Neogrammarian+Monolaryngealism. Typical for this trend is to avoid external typology (or paradigm) and define the Indo-European vowels by means of inductive comparison of the Indo-European languages. Between 1870-1940 a system of eight phonemes for vowels Neogr. *a *e *o *ā *ē *ō *å *ǝ was established and despite the domination of the laryngeal theory the correct solution to the laryngeal problem was established: Hitt. h = PIE h.

The trouble is that this sort of inclusive 'induction' method from all attested sources tends to produce extra spurious phonemes in the reconstructed protolanguage. This is because regular conditioned changes become blurred in the daughter languages by analogy and random variation.

JOUNA: I've felt quite the contrary: By now this has resulted in a very few phonemes required in the laryngeal+vowel problem, viz. *e *o *ē *ō *ɑ *h/ɦ. If you compare that to the set presented by Eichner with *h₁/ǝ₁ *h₂/ǝ₂ *h₃/ǝ₃ for laryngeals and *a *e *o *ā *ē *ō for vowels, it is pretty modest actually.

No, the stem final *·ɑ- is posited due to the ‘a-vocalism’ in Greek, implying that PIE *ɑ had to be present (it being the sole cause of ‘a-vocalism’). Since the vowel *ɑ could not precede PIE *h due to the absence of ‘a-colouring’ in Hitt. ueh- = Umbr. ue- it had to follow PIE *h, thus implying PIE *uehɑ-. Hitt. u̯eḫan- is taken from PIE *u̯ehɑen- but also PIE *u̯ehɑon- would be possible Trad *a and *o colliding in Hitt. a.

And here you provide a perfect example. There is an observed mismatch between the expected developments in Hittite/Umbrian vs those in Greek, and your solution is to 'multiply entities' rather than accept that most probably either

JOUNA: the situation is quite similar with the data under the root PIE √mehɑ- ‘time, age’ in PIE Lexicon. You only need to add Lat. māne ‘early’ to the data to see that it is identical. I don't see entities multiplied but sufficient features to explain the whole data with a single root.

(i) there was some conditioned process at work, the causes of which may no longer be apparent, or

JOUNA: I spent a whole lot time with this and saw no possibilities for a conditioned change, whence the regular solution had to be based on the PIE phoneme inventory

(ii) an analogical or random change took place in one of the branches. As I've already remarked it's amazing and rather useful that most of the time sound changes are regular, they "run on rails". Sometimes however a word will "jump the tracks". Accidents happen!

JOUNA: I dropped this quote already earlier in this discussion, but let's have it again from Hock (1991:535):
“Given a choice, analyses postulating sound changes are more highly valued than analyses which require analogical or other non-phonetic changes. Similarly, everything else being equal, analyses operating with regular changes (sound change and/or rule-governed analogy) are preferred over those which require sporadic or less regular changes.”
— With a regular treatment of any and all IE vocalism why to resort to analogy or anything of the sort?

[WeepingElf]

Yes, indeed: Actually Juha and I have discussed this several times. We both agreed that we could do with a single PIE *h thus sticking to the traditional theory and notation due to which the issue is somewhat "cosmetic". On the other hand there are several factors why PIE *h : ɦ was ultimately opted, viz.
1. The traditional notation for the series bh dh gh is wrong (still so in IPA). The proper notation is actually *bɦ dɦ gɦ (with a voiced glottal fricative) which makes them in terms of PIE as clusters b+ɦ, etc. with *ɦ.

This is nothing else than nitpicking. Of course, writing "bɦ" is more phonetically precise than writing "bh", but the latter is not really ambiguous, as "h" without an index does not occur in the standard notation of PIE (where a laryngeal of unknown index occurs, it is capitalized), and easier to type, too. Every Indo-Europeanist knows what "bh" means, be it phonetically precise or not. There are other non-IPA symbols in the standard notation as well.

2. More importantly I wanted to bring forth the distinction PIE *h : ɦ because the traditional roots with a single inspirited media D are of the form *ɦ—D or D—ɦ, i.e. the feature ‘voice’ implies a laryngeal PIE *ɦ, which is critical for the reconstruction because with the help of this we are able to identify numerous items otherwise lost.

What in all of the world does breathy voice have to do with the consonants conventionally named "laryngeals"? And how do you explain, with just one laryngeal, the triple reflex of laryngeals in Greek?

3. Finally the distinction between PIE *h : ɦ is important in particular in PIE Lexicon because with the explicit distinction of the voiceless and voiced items we can make accomplish comprehensive digital searches in PIE Lexicon gathering all instances of the voiced PIE *ɦ together, thus enabling the study of its causes and the possible formulation of the voicing rule, if possible at all.

I'm sorry, but I still haven't got how your theory manages to reduce things in PIE to a simpler system than the standard model. All I see is a system that is more complicated than the standard model, and full of "phonemes" that only occur in specific combinations and not as such. This is typologically unnatural, and most likely wrong. There are some ideas in it that deserve considering, but there is much work still to be done to make them work. So far, you are just guessing.

[marconatrix]

(b) The idea of the co-occurence of PIE *ɑ and PIE *h is hardly nothing but a way to explain the "colouring effect" erroneously attached to the "laryngeal" in the laryngeal theory. Although the proponents of LT are often ignorant of the history of the field, it should be underlined that Neogr. *ə is a comparatively well-defined phoneme and a vowel. The a mistake Kurylowicz made in equating that vowel (= PIE *ɑ) with a consonant Hitt. h (in 1927), is now corrected in OS PIE Lexicon. The issue is that whenever the Old Anatolian suggests a laryngeal (Hitt. h) the rest of the group seems to respond with ‘a-vocalism’ at least in some forms – and vice versa. Therefore both two items are reconstructed.

So where an /h/ is found in Hittite, other IE branches show a-colouring. The reasonable conclusion is therefore that some element accounted for both phenomena. And since consonants can colour vowels and/or become vocalised under certain circumstances, an unknown 'h-like' consonant is deduced for the parent language. There is no reason to postulate a double entity as you do, *unless* you can show at least one (and ideally both!) of these elements occurring independently. Unless or until you do this, your theory is untenable.

(c) Finally the general structural features of PIE, in particular the consequences of the existence of the zero grade in the schema PIE *ē : e : Ø : o : ō should be taken into account: Although this is structural argumentation, it is clear that had PIE *h not been accompanied with the vowel PIE *ɑ this would have yielded a huge number of unpronounceable root shapes in hCC ChC CCh.

Where morphology produces 'unpronounceable' combinations, an epenthetic vowel is inserted. This is widely attested cross-linguistically. Also what is 'unpronounceable' varies widely between languages. Your intuition may be at fault here, there are languages with (to us) 'impossible' consonant pile-ups. (Classical Tibetan ??)

[JounaPyysalo]

Yes, indeed: Actually Juha and I have discussed this several times. We both agreed that we could do with a single PIE *h thus sticking to the traditional theory and notation due to which the issue is somewhat "cosmetic". On the other hand there are several factors why PIE *h : ɦ was ultimately opted, viz.
1. The traditional notation for the series bh dh gh is wrong (still so in IPA). The proper notation is actually *bɦ dɦ gɦ (with a voiced glottal fricative) which makes them in terms of PIE as clusters b+ɦ, etc. with *ɦ.

This is nothing else than nitpicking. Of course, writing "bɦ" is more phonetically precise than writing "bh", but the latter is not really ambiguous, as "h" without an index does not occur in the standard notation of PIE (where a laryngeal of unknown index occurs, it is capitalized), and easier to type, too. Every Indo-Europeanist knows what "bh" means, be it phonetically precise or not. There are other non-IPA symbols in the standard notation as well.

JOUNA: It's not just nitpicking, because there are also alternations of Th : Dh within the IE data. The notation Th : Dh would imply that the alternating term is the stop whereas it was actually the laryngeal in T h : T ɦ -› T h : D ɦ. The error goes back to the absence of a phoneme for voiced /ɦ/ at the time when they romanised the Sanskrit alphabet with unfortunate choice of marking Skt. /ɦ/ with h and Skt. /h/ with ḥ (More on this in my dissertation if of interest.

2. More importantly I wanted to bring forth the distinction PIE *h : ɦ because the traditional roots with a single inspirited media D are of the form *ɦ—D or D—ɦ, i.e. the feature ‘voice’ implies a laryngeal PIE *ɦ, which is critical for the reconstruction because with the help of this we are able to identify numerous items otherwise lost.

What in all of the world does breathy voice have to do with the consonants conventionally named "laryngeals"?

JOUNA: I am unsure where are you referring to with this, but the discussion here is meant to say that the series traditional series *Dh (PIE *Dɦ) is segmentally analysable as d+ɦ b+ɦ g+ɦ similarly as the traditional series Th = t+h p+h k+h.

And how do you explain, with just one laryngeal, the triple reflex of laryngeals in Greek?

JOUNA: I don't think there are triple reflexes of laryngeals in Greek, just triple reflexes of the PIE vowels and their clusters in Greek. Perhaps you should CTRL+F the root PIE √tɑh- √dɑɦ- (vb.) ‘geben, schenken’ in PIE Lexicon. There you can see that the vowel in Gr. δό- ‹- PIE *doɑɦ- corresponds with the Italic /o/ in Fal. doui- etc. (Note also the lengthening of Brugmann’s Law II in the Indo-Iranian open syllable: PIIE *doɑɦCV -› PIIr. dāCV in Gr. δόμεν- = RV. dā́man- ; Gr. ἐδόμην [1sg] : RV. dāta [2pl] ; ODor. δόϝεν- : RV. dāván-

[JounaPyysalo]

OS PIE Lexicon has the following set of laryngeals (written à la laryngeal theory):
PIE *h₂ : *₂h (voiceless) PIE *ɦ₂ : *₂ɦ (voiced) (In which LT *₂ ≡ PIE *ɑ)
Since in comparative method the numerical subscripts are only a temporary measure before the phonetic interpretation has been fixed I simply write
PIE *hɑ : *ɑh PIE *ɦɑ : ɑɦ
It's simple as that.

[Pole, the]

Second: The mainstream postulates at least /(i u) e o h₁ h₂ h₃/, with the values of the last three commonly assumed to be [h x ɣ] or similar.

JOUNA: It is very difficult to discuss meaningfully what is the mainstream, since there are dozens of versions these days: The theories accepting Lex Eichner also postulate long vowels – and often the schwa is added from nowhere.

That's why I put “at least” here. Different interpretation can disagree on the presence of /ē ō/, or /a ā/, or /ī ū/, or /ə/, but the “core” present in, I think, almost all variants is /e o/ + three laryngeals.
The distinction between primary *o and coloured *h₃e (and also, analogically, between *oH and eh₃) is crucial and commonly agreed upon.

[KathTheDragon]

Hittite wehan- / wahan-. I do not know anything about Hittite derivational morphonology, but it does not seem immediately impossible to segment this as weh-an- instead of weha-n-?

I don't think any judgements about this word can be made until it can be identified. The only word I could find resembling this is a verb with stem weh-^zi~wah-, weh-^ari. Not that this cannot be taken back to a root of the supposed form, but must instead reflect *weih₂-, the active paradigm being secondary to the middle.

I know that the mainstream LT attempts to posit weih2, but this makes no sense in the face of the ablaut alternative Hitt. uah- (from PIE *woha-) incompatible with the assumed PIE *i in the root.

If having problems with the data why not follow the links to PIE Lexicon from which you'll find references to the dictionaries from which the forms are taken? The full entry for Hittite in PIE Lexicon answers to your questions providing all this information:
PIE *u̯ehɑ- Hitt. u̯eḫ-(1A.) ‘sich wenden, drehen, (hin und her)bewegen’)(HHand. 200)(Hitt. ú-e-eḫ-zi [3sg.], Kimball 1999:210, HIL. 1149f)

Jouna

It's actually trivially easy to create the attested active verb, if you assume it was not inherited. Starting from a middle verb *wéih₂-o > Hit. weḫa (with lenited ḫ, not ḫḫ), we can create a new active verb weḫzi, waḫanzi from its root, with ablaut based on other root verbs like eszi, asanzi. Note that *weh₂- (or equivalent) cannot yield the attested root, with consistent lenited ḫ, as this consonant could only arise after a Proto-Anatolian accented long vowel, which simply would not occur.

[marconatrix]

Of course consonants (obstruents/fricatives) are not vowels and therefore have no vocalisations.

This critique seems to be quite common, but I think it confuses synchronic and diachronic sound changes. Obstruent vocalization is well attested, usually with an intermediate approximant stage (e.g. Latin noctem > Old French noit /nojt/ > French nuit /nɥi/). As I see it, the sensible analysis is that a "zero-grade laryngeal" develops into a vowel in late PIE, not that it immediately alternated with a "vocalic laryngeal".

(Although, take a look at Berber or Salishan languages or the Ōgami language of the Ryukyuan family sometimes: they do some quite wild stuff with phonotactics, and "syllabic fricatives" could be quite well posited for them.)

This argument also does nothing to rule out epenthetic vowels. Have you followed recent work by e.g. Andrew Miles Byrd on this matter?

An epenthetic vowel may be coloured by an adjacent 'weak' consonant which then drops out. If the intermediate stages are not attested it would be difficult to distinguish this process from a more direct vocalisation of the consonant, if indeed a clear line can be drawn between these two processes.

An Example :
The Common Celtic word for 'beer' is reconstructed as /kurmi-/ (Gaul. κουρμι, OI. cuirm) which with British intervocalic* lenition and loss of final syllables gives /kurμ/ > /kurṽ/ and with epenthesis > /kurəv/ (OCorn. coref ~ -uf; MWelsh kwryf; MBret. coreff). In welsh the /ə/ then rounds to /u/ (OW curum; MW cwrwf) = /'kuruv/, after which the final unstressed /v/ drops (a very common tendency throughout ModW) leaving us with the familiar cwrw /'kuru/ as seen on pub signs etc. If the intermediate stages were unrecorded we'd be left with /kurm-/ > /kuru/ suggesting /m/ > /u/.

----
Edit : In this case of course lenition takes place between a liquid and a vowel, another regular environment.

Addendum :
Who needs a beer now?

[Nortaneous]

Does Berber have syllabic fricatives? I thought it just had predictable schwa epenthesis, like Kalam or Moloko.

Re: Celtic, PIE > English has gʰ > əu̯: *swergʰ- > *surgō -> sorg -> sorrow. (OE /ɣ/ vocalizes word-finally after /r/ and probably /l/, probably by way of schwa epenthesis as in Welsh.)

[Tropylium]

PIE is by definition the last common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, not the "most regular" common ancestor stage. If a rule exists in identical shape in every descendant, and is not preceded by any developments that only apply to some branches, it is necessary to consider it to have already taken place in PIE — even if the rule introduces morphophonological complications.

No. PIE is defined on the basis of two factors, viz. the (primary) phoneme inventory and the sound changes. We define the point when both are intact and unchanged as the Time T+0.

This seems to be, once again, circular. You claim that your reconstruction is PIE, because no changes have occurred; and you claim that no changes have occurred, because the starting point is PIE.

Or I suppose you might also be claiming that no pre-PIE changes had ever happened, and that PIE was some kind of a linguistic Big Bang; though of course this would be flouting the absolute basics of historical linguistics.

However, when the first sound law applying to all languages, viz. the colouring rule
define RColouring1a e -> a || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑe → ɑa | Colouring rule for *ɑe | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.5.3)
took place there also emerged a new phoneme PIE *a previously non-existing phoneme *a to the language. This clearly indicates that PIE *T+1 is no longer PIE *T+0 i.e. this change cannot be considered to have taken place in PIE, but to have created a new language form from PIE.

These are of course two different stages of language development, but if you admit that your "T+1" stage is common to all IE languages, then this ipso facto implies that it is either PIE proper itself or a stage of pre-PIE, and in particular, your T+0 stage is not PIE proper, but an earlier stage of development.

I don't think the problem is in the sector you are discussing of: Already the Neogrammarians proved the existence of the cover symbol *ǝ, a vowel. Once done it is strictly speaking illegitimate to remove (or in this case replace) it with a consonants, because consonants and vowels are fundamental oppositions.

The proposal is not really one of removing it from the comparative reconstruction, but positing a consonant as its historical source in pre-PIE.

Simply indicating that the standard procedure in the Comparative Method has been and is the same: Attestation in two Indo-European branches suffices for the reconstruction with the obvious reservation of loan words.

The reservation, however, is in fact quite strong.

Any given etymological data may represent wholly or in part a loanword, and usually it is not possible to disprove this. Perhaps the strongest argument possible is that a word has existed in a language already before various sound changes that are specific to its history — and even this is violable due to the process of etymological nativization: loanwords acquired from a closely related linguistic variety will be adopted to the phonology of the speaker's native variety, and not maintained in the phonology of the original variety, and this can create the illusion of common inheritance (as in: the American-founded service Blogger /blɑgɚ/ is known as /blɒgə/ in Britain, although the word certainly does not date back to the time of the sound changes ɑ > ɒ or ɚ > ə).

As I see it, the implication is that the general outline of historical phonology can only be based on the most robust and widespread data. Increasingly provincial forms are increasingly unreliable.

On the other hand, this is again a problem that I think applies, to some extent, to mainstream approaches to IE reconstruction as well.

Yes, i understand that, but what happens in the examples above (similarly also, e.g., in Hindi) is a coarticulation. In the laryngeal theory there is only /e/ (i.e. no distinctive articulation) whereas the distinctions of the vowels /a/ /e/ /o/ are assumedly emerging from the throat. I think this is a very bad idea: Have you ever tried so pronounce a h1 h2 h3 in your throat in a such manner that it turns an /e/ in your mouth cavity into /a/ or /o/?

Right, I see. I agree that a direct coloring such as e > a is not plausible as a single-step change. We would need to assume at least two stages:
1) /e/ is broken into a couple of coarticulated allophones, e.g. a lowered [ɛ]
2) to enforce a simpler vowel system, these allophones are unconditionally changed into more distinctive vowels, e.g. ɛ > a.
This might even have occurred in the case of the original, uncolored allophone. At the time of vowel coloring, pre-PIE could have had a vowel system comprising only e.g. /i ə a u/; later *ə and *a would have by default evolved to PIE *e and *o (and their coarticulated allophones elsewhere).

But as long as we're on phonetic plausibility: you suppose the changes *ēa, *aē > *ā. These do not seem to me like changes for which parallels are easy to find at all.

The proof for this is sought in PIE Lexicon through an extensive study of the vocabulary itself by means of complete induction – just as for other induction hypotheses presented in OS PIE Lexicon.

Would you mind defining "complete induction" for us?

you can only posit "epenthetic *ə" if at least two branches imply that – and be able to formulate the conditions for it appearance in positions əhCC CəhC CCəh or əhCC CəhC CCəh which is impossible: First the IE languages only allow the postulation of PIE *ɑ rather than PIE *ə and secondly its position cannot be predicted, but it must be comparatively inferred on the basis of the data.

Call it an epenthetic *a if you prefer. I also believe research like Andrew Byrd's shows that its position is generally predictable. Do you have any near-minimal pairs in mind where the location of a "vocalized-laryngeal" vowel is somehow unpredictable?

It is not a corollary of Occam's Razor but the fundamental principle of Comparative Method, explained by Pedersen (1962:274) to mean that:
“If a word [or an object of any level]is found in the two branches, then it was also to be found in the original language which divided into these branches.”

And yet, this only holds for inherited material, not for material that has undergone later innovations in common (either independently or as a shared areal innovation).

Later common innovations are also common as dirt at all levels of language, and I think we need quite strong argumentation to be able to claim that an object is most likely inherited.

(Also, in principle, if we were to know for certain that an object is inherited, even a single witness would be sufficient… after all, "inherited" already means "was present in the proto-language under discussion".)

the part of your thesis I was quoting here is exactly the point where you attempt to argue in the first place that PIE *d implies a laryngeal at all.

Not so, because both PIE *ɦ and PIE *ɑ (in diphonemic PIE *ɦɑ) imply the very same position (PIE *deɦɑ·)

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at: you're suggesting that the Armenian form is a zero grade, and that here we then have the development *∅ha > *a, in contrast to the full-grade *eha > *e?

I suppose we will have to backtrack to your postulation that there exist "vanishing syllables" like *eha > *e in the first place, which seems like one of the primary unwarranted complications in your theory.

I also do not know what is the mainstream explanation of the Armenian form — but I presume one exists? (Do we have any Armenian experts at the forum?)

2) A laryngeal h2 is inferred from each occurrence of ‘a-vocalism’ in the mainstream laryngeal theory as well

I have already said I for one reject this, and accept other sources of *a, such as loanwords.

[KathTheDragon]

I also do not know what is the mainstream explanation of the Armenian form — but I presume one exists? (Do we have any Armenian experts at the forum?)

Not an expert, but I have an etymological dictionary. Can you quote the form?

[jal]

see German [h x ʁ] or Dutch [ɦ x ɣ] — both languages also have [ʔ]

Slighlty off-topic, but standard Dutch doesn't have [ʔ], and standard Netherlands Dutch has [χ] instead of [x ɣ].


JAL

[JounaPyysalo]

On the rules of natural science and reconstructive 'maximalism' as applied to the PIE reconstruction of Gr. θάνατος-group

Dear all,

I'm in a bit tight spot since I've got a third deadline of submitting an article, so let's see how much I can attend to the discussion today. There is however an issue that I'd like to discuss in detail, viz. the use of rules of natural science and the reconstructive 'maximalism' (as someone called it above) exemplified with the Gr. θάνατος-group.

These things mean the following
1. When saying that I am a natural scientist I mean that I am committed to the rules of natural science in reconstruction, compressed to the pages 18-19 of my dissertation (and slightly supplemented every here and there with more details).
2. The reconstructive 'maximalism' of PIE Lexicon actually reflects especially two of these rules, namely the requirement of validity, i.e. completeness + soundness of the reconstruction. That is all attested forms (and only those) must be generated from the reconstruction to ensure the validity of the system. This includes in particular that no forms are left outside with any excuse (e.g. analogy or any sort irregularity), because it is actually not difficult to present incomplete reconstructions if conflicting data is simply ignored. This is not acceptable within the standards of PIE Lexicon.
3. In the θάνατος-group this means that all the attested bases quoted below (the rest are similar and offer no extra difficulties) have to be generated regularly:
√dɦɑn- √dɦɑon- √dɦɑen- ‘Tot’(IEW 266)Frisk: Maced. + Čop: Hitt.)
√dɦɑen-(Čop apud HEG T:112)
PIE *dɦɑen·Σ- Hitt. dan·dugi-(a.) ‘vergänglich, sterblich’(HEG T:111-3)(Hitt. ta-an-du-ki-iš; Oettinger 1979:550)
PIE *dɦɑen·Σ- Hitt. dan·dugi-(c.) ‘Mensch’(HHand. 165)(Hitt. da-an-du-ki-iš, Kimball 1999:422)
PIE *dɦɑen·Σ- Hitt. dan·dugišn-(n.obl.) ‘Vergänglichkeit, Sterblichkeit, Menschheit’(HHand. 165)(Hitt. da-an-du-ki-iš-ni [sgL], da-an-du-ki-iš-na-š·a [sgG])
√dɦɑeno
PIE *dɦɑéno- Gr. θάνο-(ao.) ‘sterben’(GEW 1:653)
PIE *dɦɑéno- Maced. δάνο-(m.) ‘death’(GEW 3:103)
PIE *dɦɑenónt- Maced. δανόντ-(pt.) ‘κτείνων’(LSJ. 369)
√dɦɑeneɑh-
PIE *dɦɑéneɑhto- Gr. θάνατο-(m.) ‘Tod’(GEW 1:652)(Gr. θάνατος)
PIE *Π·dɦɑéneɑhto- Gr. ἀ·θάνατο-(a.) ‘unsterblich’(GEW 1:652)(Gr. ἀθάνατος)
√dɦɑneɑh-
PIE *dɑɦédɦɑneɑh- Gr. τέθνα-(pf.) ‘tot sein’(GEW 1:653)(Gr. τέθναμεν [1pl.])
PIE *dɦɑneɑhíski̯o- Dor. θναίσκο-(pr.) ‘to die’(GEW 1:652-3)(Aiol. θναίσκω [1sg])
PIE *Π·dɦɑnɑhi̯ou- OPhryg. ε[.]ι·θνιου-(vb.) ‘to die’(DPhryg. 104)(OPhryg. ε[.]ι·θνιουμενος)
PIE *dɑɦédɦɑnēɑhk- Ion. τέθνηκ-(pf.) ‘tot sein’ (GEW 1:653)(Gr. τέθνηκα [1sg])
PIE *dɦɑnēɑhtó- Ion. θνητό-(pp.) ‘sterblich’(GEW 1:653)

With regard to the most difficult of all, Greek, this means the forms Gr. θάνο-, Gr. θάνατο-, Gr. τέθνα- (with a short final /a/!) and Ion. θνητό-.

In what follows I show you in detail why I claimed the standard reconstruction was inconsistent and how the 'maximal' reconstruction of PIE Lexicon is obtained with successive applications of the rules of natural science.

1. To begin with, lets start with the base θναC-, which can only be reconstructed as *dhnh₂C- in the mainstream theory. The problem is that this kind of proto-form is supposed to yield a long vowel, i.e. the base θνηC-.
What can be inferred this is therefore that
2. *dhnh₂C- does not yield the base θνηC-, because *dhnh₂C- -> θναC- (with a short /a/). Hence the base θνηC- has to be reconstructed with E-vocalism (where E denotes to *e or *e: to be settled soon).
3. Secondly, since *dhnh₂C- -> θναC- the laryngeal cannot account for the root vowel Gr. α of the base θάναC- either which therefore requires a different explanation
4. In order to account for the roots in zero grade (Gr. θν-) and in normal grade (θαν-) the distinction can only made within the root because the suffix conglomerate is the same in both θναC- and θάναC- to which there is only one possible course in System PIE: As PIE *ɑ -> Gr. Ø and PIE *ɑe -> Gr. α, the corresponding vocalisms must be supplemented inside the root. Thus, for θναC- we obtain first PIE *dhɑnh₂C and for Gr. θάναC- we obtain PIE *dhɑénh₂C.
5. Finally, as the unaccented PIE *ɑ -> Gr. Ø the the the extension *h2 in PIE *dhɑnh₂C and PIE *dhɑénh₂C has to represent and *e-grade, i.e. for these forms we obtain reconstructions PIE *dhɑneɑhC (Gr. θναC-) and PIE *dhɑéneɑhC (Gr. θάναC-)
6. As PIE *eɑh -> Gr. α (see above), the base Gr. θνηC- has to contain a long vowel PIE *ē, i.e. we set PIE *dhɑnēɑhC = θνηC-
7. The remaining base Gr. θάνο- (paralleled by Maced. δάνο-) is taken from *dhnh2V in the mainstream theory, but the respective Anatolian form Hitt. dan·dugi-(a.) ‘vergänglich, sterblich’ implies that actually there was a root without laryngeal extension and we can simply postulate PIE *dhɑen- (or PIE *dhɑon-?) for Hittite and PIE *dhɑéno- for Gr. θάνο- = Maced. δάνο-.

Once the *dh is written with the (proper) voiced laryngeal PIE *dɦ we therefore have explained all the forms (completeness) with a consistent (sound) set of sound laws, i.e. our reconstruction is valid:
PIE *dɦɑen- (or PIE *dhɑon-?) for Hitt. dan·
PIE *dɦɑéno- for Gr. θάνο- = Maced. δάνο-.
PIE *dɦɑneɑhC for Gr. θναC-
PIE *dɦɑéneɑhC for Gr. θάναC-

There it is.

[JounaPyysalo]

I also do not know what is the mainstream explanation of the Armenian form — but I presume one exists? (Do we have any Armenian experts at the forum?)

Not an expert, but I have an etymological dictionary. Can you quote the form?

JOUNA: I do Armenian and work with quotes in PIE Lexicon. Although the root is not posted to the website here's the respective line from my personal dictionary:
Arm. tasan- (num.) ‘zehn’ (: ten’ *deḫae·kiaḫn-) (Esq. 42) (ArmGr. 496) (Arm. tasn [N], tasanc‘ [G])
All explanations for Arm. a are – as usual – irregular and/or impossible. The issue is commented by Martirosyan (EtDiArm. 602) as follows:
"Hübschmann ibid. derives tasn from *tesn with the unexplained development of *e > a on which see 2.1.1. Many scholars assume an assimilation *tesan > tisane, cf. s.v. grain ‘spring’. More probably, however, tasn reflects a zero-grade form taken from the ordinal dk’mto-, vs. also the compositional -tasan (for discussion, see Pedersen 1906: 21, 103-104, Jahukyan 1982: 27, 210n9; Kortland 1994a:225 = 2003: 100; Clackson 1994: 206n21.”

[JounaPyysalo]

Hittite wehan- / wahan-. I do not know anything about Hittite derivational morphonology, but it does not seem immediately impossible to segment this as weh-an- instead of weha-n-?

I don't think any judgements about this word can be made until it can be identified. The only word I could find resembling this is a verb with stem weh-^zi~wah-, weh-^ari. Not that this cannot be taken back to a root of the supposed form, but must instead reflect *weih₂-, the active paradigm being secondary to the middle.

I know that the mainstream LT attempts to posit weih2, but this makes no sense in the face of the ablaut alternative Hitt. uah- (from PIE *woha-) incompatible with the assumed PIE *i in the root.

If having problems with the data why not follow the links to PIE Lexicon from which you'll find references to the dictionaries from which the forms are taken? The full entry for Hittite in PIE Lexicon answers to your questions providing all this information:
PIE *u̯ehɑ- Hitt. u̯eḫ-(1A.) ‘sich wenden, drehen, (hin und her)bewegen’)(HHand. 200)(Hitt. ú-e-eḫ-zi [3sg.], Kimball 1999:210, HIL. 1149f)

Jouna

It's actually trivially easy to create the attested active verb, if you assume it was not inherited. Starting from a middle verb *wéih₂-o > Hit. weḫa (with lenited ḫ, not ḫḫ), we can create a new active verb weḫzi, waḫanzi from its root, with ablaut based on other root verbs like eszi, asanzi. Note that *weh₂- (or equivalent) cannot yield the attested root, with consistent lenited ḫ, as this consonant could only arise after a Proto-Anatolian accented long vowel, which simply would not occur.

JOUNA: I do not quite follow what you are after, but I assume it was inherited and regular. I do not, however, place much trust in the speculations concerning the alleged Anatolian accent the rules all too often conflicting with the data. Although in PIE Lexicon only stems are reconstructed (because we will deal with the inflection automatically in the future) I can give you here the OS PIE Lexicon reconstruction:
PIE *u̯ehɑ·[3sg] -> Hitt. ueh·zi; PIE *u̯ohɑ·[3pl] -> Hitt. uah·anzi
The ablauting inflection is commonplace in Hittite, similarly e.g. for the root PIE √s- ‘to be’ (ABLAUT : *es- os- s-):
PIE *es·[3sg] -> Hitt. es·zi; PIE *os·[3pl] -> Hitt. as·anzi

[KathTheDragon]

I also do not know what is the mainstream explanation of the Armenian form — but I presume one exists? (Do we have any Armenian experts at the forum?)

Not an expert, but I have an etymological dictionary. Can you quote the form?

JOUNA: I do Armenian and work with quotes in PIE Lexicon. Although the root is not posted to the website here's the respective line from my personal dictionary:
Arm. tasan- (num.) ‘zehn’ (: ten’ *deḫae·kiaḫn-) (Esq. 42) (ArmGr. 496) (Arm. tasn [N], tasanc‘ [G])
All explanations for Arm. a are – as usual – irregular and/or impossible. The issue is commented by Martirosyan (EtDiArm. 602) as follows:
"Hübschmann ibid. derives tasn from *tesn with the unexplained development of *e > a on which see 2.1.1. Many scholars assume an assimilation *tesan > tisane, cf. s.v. grain ‘spring’. More probably, however, tasn reflects a zero-grade form taken from the ordinal dk’mto-, vs. also the compositional -tasan (for discussion, see Pedersen 1906: 21, 103-104, Jahukyan 1982: 27, 210n9; Kortland 1994a:225 = 2003: 100; Clackson 1994: 206n21.”

Ah, Martirosyan is the one I have. I agree that influence from the ordinal is the most likely source, and I personally do not see why it isn't a valid reason. Such influences are very natural, and there are parallels.

I do not quite follow what you are after, but I assume it was inherited and regular. I do not, however, place much trust in the speculations concerning the alleged Anatolian accent the rules all too often conflicting with the data. Although in PIE Lexicon only stems are reconstructed (because we will deal with the inflection automatically in the future) I can give you here the OS PIE Lexicon reconstruction:
PIE *u̯ehɑ·[3sg] -> Hitt. ueh·zi; PIE *u̯ohɑ·[3pl] -> Hitt. uah·anzi
The ablauting inflection is commonplace in Hittite, similarly e.g. for the root PIE √s- ‘to be’ (ABLAUT : *es- os- s-):
PIE *es·[3sg] -> Hitt. es·zi; PIE *os·[3pl] -> Hitt. as·anzi

[/quote]
There is no a priori reason to assume all verbs are inherited, when they can be generated in the independent development of the language, either analogically or by new derivational methods.

[JounaPyysalo]

PIE is by definition the last common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, not the "most regular" common ancestor stage. If a rule exists in identical shape in every descendant, and is not preceded by any developments that only apply to some branches, it is necessary to consider it to have already taken place in PIE — even if the rule introduces morphophonological complications.

No. PIE is defined on the basis of two factors, viz. the (primary) phoneme inventory and the sound changes. We define the point when both are intact and unchanged as the Time T+0.

This seems to be, once again, circular. You claim that your reconstruction is PIE, because no changes have occurred; and you claim that no changes have occurred, because the starting point is PIE.

Or I suppose you might also be claiming that no pre-PIE changes had ever happened, and that PIE was some kind of a linguistic Big Bang; though of course this would be flouting the absolute basics of historical linguistics.

JOUNA: Not so. Proto-Language, by definition, can be traced back exactly as far as our inductively obtained rules for sound changes can trace it back. Naturally there was a proto-language behind that, and naturally even older, but the definition restricts the boundaries of known to us. Needless to say, all the errors in red in PIE Lexicon desktop indicate exactly this state of affairs: If it is possible to comparatively derive the rules that generate, say, the all the accents/tones of the IE languages in a flawless manner, then we have indeed successfully pushed back the proto-language with the addition of these rules.

However, when the first sound law applying to all languages, viz. the colouring rule
define RColouring1a e -> a || ɑ _ .o. RepeatAll; # PIE *ɑe → ɑa | Colouring rule for *ɑe | (Pyysalo 2013: 2.2.5.3)
took place there also emerged a new phoneme PIE *a previously non-existing phoneme *a to the language. This clearly indicates that PIE *T+1 is no longer PIE *T+0 i.e. this change cannot be considered to have taken place in PIE, but to have created a new language form from PIE.

These are of course two different stages of language development, but if you admit that your "T+1" stage is common to all IE languages, then this ipso facto implies that it is either PIE proper itself or a stage of pre-PIE, and in particular, your T+0 stage is not PIE proper, but an earlier stage of development.

JOUNA: No. There was no vowel /a/ in the PIE proper, which emerges in the Post-PIE T+1. It is pointless to argue about the definitions, rather one should adopt those.

I don't think the problem is in the sector you are discussing of: Already the Neogrammarians proved the existence of the cover symbol *ǝ, a vowel. Once done it is strictly speaking illegitimate to remove (or in this case replace) it with a consonants, because consonants and vowels are fundamental oppositions.

The proposal is not really one of removing it from the comparative reconstruction, but positing a consonant as its historical source in pre-PIE.

JOUNA: Yes, I am keenly aware of that, but this is not correct: I am not allowed to change vowels into consonants, say in the case of *e and *o either. When a phoneme is defined by a correspondence set it is also defined with regard to its articulation, including its properties such as +VOWEL. Tischler's observation against this is worth quoting here in full:
Tischler (1980:514) writes: “Zu diesem weit verbreiteten Irritum kam noch ein zweiter, als Kuryłowicz im hethitischen ḫ den Vertreter der idg. Laryngale erkannte bzw. erkennen wollte, und dieses ḫ genau an den Stellen auftrat, an denen sonst ein ǝ angesetzt wurde. Kuryłowicz selbst sah zwar sogleich, daß der Laryngal H bzw. ǝ, der ja ein Konsonant ist, nicht mit dem vokalischen Schwa identisch sein kann [...].”

Simply indicating that the standard procedure in the Comparative Method has been and is the same: Attestation in two Indo-European branches suffices for the reconstruction with the obvious reservation of loan words.

The reservation, however, is in fact quite strong.

Any given etymological data may represent wholly or in part a loanword, and usually it is not possible to disprove this. Perhaps the strongest argument possible is that a word has existed in a language already before various sound changes that are specific to its history — and even this is violable due to the process of etymological nativization: loanwords acquired from a closely related linguistic variety will be adopted to the phonology of the speaker's native variety, and not maintained in the phonology of the original variety, and this can create the illusion of common inheritance (as in: the American-founded service Blogger /blɑgɚ/ is known as /blɒgə/ in Britain, although the word certainly does not date back to the time of the sound changes ɑ > ɒ or ɚ > ə).

JOUNA: Compiling the most comprehensive etymological dictionary ever I have never felt loan words as a problem of any sort, except when needlessly claimed to be that (e.g. in equations such as Russ. bog- ‘god’ = Av. baga- ‘idem’ 

As I see it, the implication is that the general outline of historical phonology can only be based on the most robust and widespread data. Increasingly provincial forms are increasingly unreliable.

On the other hand, this is again a problem that I think applies, to some extent, to mainstream approaches to IE reconstruction as well.

Yes, i understand that, but what happens in the examples above (similarly also, e.g., in Hindi) is a coarticulation. In the laryngeal theory there is only /e/ (i.e. no distinctive articulation) whereas the distinctions of the vowels /a/ /e/ /o/ are assumedly emerging from the throat. I think this is a very bad idea: Have you ever tried so pronounce a h1 h2 h3 in your throat in a such manner that it turns an /e/ in your mouth cavity into /a/ or /o/?

Right, I see. I agree that a direct coloring such as e > a is not plausible as a single-step change. We would need to assume at least two stages:
1) /e/ is broken into a couple of coarticulated allophones, e.g. a lowered [ɛ]
2) to enforce a simpler vowel system, these allophones are unconditionally changed into more distinctive vowels, e.g. ɛ > a.
This might even have occurred in the case of the original, uncolored allophone. At the time of vowel coloring, pre-PIE could have had a vowel system comprising only e.g. /i ə a u/; later *ə and *a would have by default evolved to PIE *e and *o (and their coarticulated allophones elsewhere).

JOUNA: Speculation with Pre-PIE is completely useless and fruitless. At this point there is nothing in the Indo-European languages that we could not generate with the PIE primary phoneme inventory of OS PIE Lexicon, i.e.

PIE *o *e *ɑ *h *i *k *l *m *n *p *r *s *t *u
PIE *ō *ē *ɑ̄ *ɦ *i̯ *g *l̥ *m̥ *n̥ *b *r̥ *z *d *u̯

When none these items cannot reduced to each other horizontally and the connection exists only vertically what would be the point of adding or removing phonemes?

But as long as we're on phonetic plausibility: you suppose the changes *ēa, *aē > *ā. These do not seem to me like changes for which parallels are easy to find at all.

The proof for this is sought in PIE Lexicon through an extensive study of the vocabulary itself by means of complete induction – just as for other induction hypotheses presented in OS PIE Lexicon.

Would you mind defining "complete induction" for us?

JOUNA: A set of induction hypotheses, in practice the sound laws of all languages are set in chronological array and digitised in order to make it possible to test them. After that the complete set of induction hypotheses is applied to the complete set of data – creating all the Indo-European stems in existence. If all forms are correctly generated in PIE Lexicon desktop (i.e. no phonemes in red appear) a proof by complete induction is successful.

you can only posit "epenthetic *ə" if at least two branches imply that – and be able to formulate the conditions for it appearance in positions əhCC CəhC CCəh or əhCC CəhC CCəh which is impossible: First the IE languages only allow the postulation of PIE *ɑ rather than PIE *ə and secondly its position cannot be predicted, but it must be comparatively inferred on the basis of the data.

Call it an epenthetic *a if you prefer. I also believe research like Andrew Byrd's shows that its position is generally predictable. Do you have any near-minimal pairs in mind where the location of a "vocalized-laryngeal" vowel is somehow unpredictable?

JOUNA: According to my experience the mutual order of PIE *ɑ and PIE *H is always a matter of data at hand, never predictable according to any rules.

It is not a corollary of Occam's Razor but the fundamental principle of Comparative Method, explained by Pedersen (1962:274) to mean that:
“If a word [or an object of any level]is found in the two branches, then it was also to be found in the original language which divided into these branches.”

And yet, this only holds for inherited material, not for material that has undergone later innovations in common (either independently or as a shared areal innovation).

JOUNA: Yes, but this is totally obvious. PIE Lexicon is about reconstructing PIE, the proto-language, and the loan word questions are only a secondary issue. It would be very cumbersome to notify every restriction everywhere.

Later common innovations are also common as dirt at all levels of language, and I think we need quite strong argumentation to be able to claim that an object is most likely inherited.

(Also, in principle, if we were to know for certain that an object is inherited, even a single witness would be sufficient… after all, "inherited" already means "was present in the proto-language under discussion".)

JOUNA: Yes. This is true in a degree, since it is possible to refer to the principle of "family consistency": Even if not a single language outside the Old Anatolian had preserved any trace of the glottal fricative PIE *h/ɦ) we would still postulate that on the basis of Hitt. h (= Luw. h = Pal. h) to the protolanguage as it would make no sense to assume that it had somehow been innovated by the Anatolian group. The rationale for this can also be sought from the ex nihilo nihil-argument that is acceptable in the context of natural science in general.

the part of your thesis I was quoting here is exactly the point where you attempt to argue in the first place that PIE *d implies a laryngeal at all.

Not so, because both PIE *ɦ and PIE *ɑ (in diphonemic PIE *ɦɑ) imply the very same position (PIE *deɦɑ·)

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at: you're suggesting that the Armenian form is a zero grade, and that here we then have the development *∅ha > *a, in contrast to the full-grade *eha > *e?

JOUNA: Almost: *deɦɑk'- > Gr. dek-, but deɦɑek'- -> Arm. tas-
Thus Arm. /a/ -> PIE *ɑ and Gr. d = Arm. t -> PIE ɦ. Since Greek lacks ‘a-colouring’ the diphonemic *ɦɑ has to be present. Note that Armenian could not have zero grade in the first syllable because d(Ø)ɦɑek´= dɦɑek´would have yielded Arm. das-.

I suppose we will have to backtrack to your postulation that there exist "vanishing syllables" like *eha > *e in the first place, which seems like one of the primary unwarranted complications in your theory.

JOUNA: Schwa-loss is a widely recognised phenomenon appearing in System PIE in more extended form than usually thought yes. (See my posting concerning the Greek thanatos-group for details and examples on how it works.

I also do not know what is the mainstream explanation of the Armenian form — but I presume one exists? (Do we have any Armenian experts at the forum?)

For this see my response to KathAevera posted above.

2) A laryngeal h2 is inferred from each occurrence of ‘a-vocalism’ in the mainstream laryngeal theory as well

I have already said I for one reject this, and accept other sources of *a, such as loanwords.

JOUNA: With regard to this, please observe that when writing System PIE I had a font problem with the result that I had to postulate PIE *a to the protolanguage.

This is not quite correct, since actually PIE had a vowel *ɑ, not which is not identical with the Indo-European /a/ attested in most of the languages.

You should observe this distinction when writing the rules of System PIE in order to avoid confusion (I am often unable to follow you due to this). Thus, for instance, not “*eha > *e”, but “*ehɑ -> e” – and so forth.

[JounaPyysalo]

I also do not know what is the mainstream explanation of the Armenian form — but I presume one exists? (Do we have any Armenian experts at the forum?)

Not an expert, but I have an etymological dictionary. Can you quote the form?

JOUNA: I do Armenian and work with quotes in PIE Lexicon. Although the root is not posted to the website here's the respective line from my personal dictionary:
Arm. tasan- (num.) ‘zehn’ (: ten’ *deḫae·kiaḫn-) (Esq. 42) (ArmGr. 496) (Arm. tasn [N], tasanc‘ [G])
All explanations for Arm. a are – as usual – irregular and/or impossible. The issue is commented by Martirosyan (EtDiArm. 602) as follows:
"Hübschmann ibid. derives tasn from *tesn with the unexplained development of *e > a on which see 2.1.1. Many scholars assume an assimilation *tesan > tisane, cf. s.v. grain ‘spring’. More probably, however, tasn reflects a zero-grade form taken from the ordinal dk’mto-, vs. also the compositional -tasan (for discussion, see Pedersen 1906: 21, 103-104, Jahukyan 1982: 27, 210n9; Kortland 1994a:225 = 2003: 100; Clackson 1994: 206n21.”

Ah, Martirosyan is the one I have. I agree that influence from the ordinal is the most likely source, and I personally do not see why it isn't a valid reason. Such influences are very natural, and there are parallels.

I do not quite follow what you are after, but I assume it was inherited and regular. I do not, however, place much trust in the speculations concerning the alleged Anatolian accent the rules all too often conflicting with the data. Although in PIE Lexicon only stems are reconstructed (because we will deal with the inflection automatically in the future) I can give you here the OS PIE Lexicon reconstruction:
PIE *u̯ehɑ·[3sg] -> Hitt. ueh·zi; PIE *u̯ohɑ·[3pl] -> Hitt. uah·anzi
The ablauting inflection is commonplace in Hittite, similarly e.g. for the root PIE √s- ‘to be’ (ABLAUT : *es- os- s-):
PIE *es·[3sg] -> Hitt. es·zi; PIE *os·[3pl] -> Hitt. as·anzi

There is no a priori reason to assume all verbs are inherited, when they can be generated in the independent development of the language, either analogically or by new derivational methods.[/quote]

JOUNA: Indeed there is no reason to assume that all verbs are inherited, but this one is on the basis of several witnesses. The principle of postulation allows us to build a root
PIE √uehɑ-, √uohɑ-, √uhɑ- (vb.) ‘wenden, drehen, bewegen’(IEW –)(Pyysalo)
√uehɑ-(Pyysalo 2013:130f.)
PIE *u̯ehɑ- Hitt. u̯eḫ-(1A.) ‘sich wenden, drehen, (hin und her)bewegen’)(HHand. 200)(Hitt. ú-e-eḫ-zi [3sg.], Kimball 1999:210, HIL. 1149f)
PIE *u̯ehɑ- Umbr. ue-(vb.) ≈ ‘wenden’(WbOU. 835-6)(Umbr. uetu [3sg])
For the exact details, CTRL+F these items in PIE Lexicon, then click the reconstructions in blue.

[JounaPyysalo]

I also do not know what is the mainstream explanation of the Armenian form — but I presume one exists? (Do we have any Armenian experts at the forum?)

Not an expert, but I have an etymological dictionary. Can you quote the form?

JOUNA: I do Armenian and work with quotes in PIE Lexicon. Although the root is not posted to the website here's the respective line from my personal dictionary:
Arm. tasan- (num.) ‘zehn’ (: ten’ *deḫae·kiaḫn-) (Esq. 42) (ArmGr. 496) (Arm. tasn [N], tasanc‘ [G])
All explanations for Arm. a are – as usual – irregular and/or impossible. The issue is commented by Martirosyan (EtDiArm. 602) as follows:
"Hübschmann ibid. derives tasn from *tesn with the unexplained development of *e > a on which see 2.1.1. Many scholars assume an assimilation *tesan > tisane, cf. s.v. grain ‘spring’. More probably, however, tasn reflects a zero-grade form taken from the ordinal dk’mto-, vs. also the compositional -tasan (for discussion, see Pedersen 1906: 21, 103-104, Jahukyan 1982: 27, 210n9; Kortland 1994a:225 = 2003: 100; Clackson 1994: 206n21.”

Ah, Martirosyan is the one I have. I agree that influence from the ordinal is the most likely source, and I personally do not see why it isn't a valid reason. Such influences are very natural, and there are parallels.

JOUNA: I do not prefer such explanations because System PIE has been build in such a manner that it responses all to similar problems such as the Arm. a here (and the problem of the root-initial *d regularly and in an uniform manner. From the point of view of PIE Lexicon Arm. a is the expected vocalism due to the voice of *d.

I do not quite follow what you are after, but I assume it was inherited and regular. I do not, however, place much trust in the speculations concerning the alleged Anatolian accent the rules all too often conflicting with the data. Although in PIE Lexicon only stems are reconstructed (because we will deal with the inflection automatically in the future) I can give you here the OS PIE Lexicon reconstruction:
PIE *u̯ehɑ·[3sg] -> Hitt. ueh·zi; PIE *u̯ohɑ·[3pl] -> Hitt. uah·anzi
The ablauting inflection is commonplace in Hittite, similarly e.g. for the root PIE √s- ‘to be’ (ABLAUT : *es- os- s-):
PIE *es·[3sg] -> Hitt. es·zi; PIE *os·[3pl] -> Hitt. as·anzi

There is no a priori reason to assume all verbs are inherited, when they can be generated in the independent development of the language, either analogically or by new derivational methods.

JOUNA: Indeed there is no reason to assume that all verbs are inherited, but this one is on the basis of several witnesses. The principle of postulation allows us to build a root
PIE √uehɑ-, √uohɑ-, √uhɑ- (vb.) ‘wenden, drehen, bewegen’(IEW –)(Pyysalo)
√uehɑ-(Pyysalo 2013:130f.)
PIE *u̯ehɑ- Hitt. u̯eḫ-(1A.) ‘sich wenden, drehen, (hin und her)bewegen’)(HHand. 200)(Hitt. ú-e-eḫ-zi [3sg.], Kimball 1999:210, HIL. 1149f)
PIE *u̯ehɑ- Umbr. ue-(vb.) ≈ ‘wenden’(WbOU. 835-6)(Umbr. uetu [3sg])
For the exact details, CTRL+F these items in PIE Lexicon, then click the reconstructions in blue.

[/quote]

[Zju]

Which book(s) about PIE presents the latest research in the field, as in, has the most recently postulated theories? I'm interested in the deep waters, as opposed to your regular introduction to PIE, as the latter is abundant online.
Does a book, or indeed any resource, exist that lists all developments from PIE to all or most attested main languages of each branch of PIE in more or less chronological order?

-----

Could a mod put all these recent discussions in a new topic? It kind of deserves its own topic by now.

[Sumelic]

Jouna, I think it's been said earlier, but please learn how to use the quote-markers in the standard way (your words are not supposed to be inside of them; other people's words are). Also, you only need to quote the minimum necessary to put your answer into context, not the entire previous post.

[JounaPyysalo]

Jouna, I think it's been said earlier, but please learn how to use the quote-markers in the standard way (your words are not supposed to be inside of them; other people's words are). Also, you only need to quote the minimum necessary to put your answer into context, not the entire previous post.

Ok. I'll improve, sorry for that: I'm temporarily under enormous pressure due to multiple deadlines trying to perform only the absolutely necessary, but I'll do that as soon as possible. Thnx.

[marconatrix]

Looking now at the Lexicon. I see you have red mismatches flagged up for MidIr. bot /bod/, MidW. both, Gaul. buðð-, which you need to derive from IE /busd^h- -os ~ -ā/.

Assuming these are all the same word, and there is some doubt about the second, the main development you've missed is /-sd(h)/ > /-zd/ > /ðd/ > /ðð/ according to the textbooks, which gives the Gaulish and presumably PCeltic (?) form. Then in Welsh /ðð/ > (/θθ/ ?) > /θ/.

In Irish (and QCeltic?) the assimilation must have gone the other way : /ðd/ > /dd/ > /d/.

As for the vowels, the final /-ā/ lowers the /u/ > /o/ in Brittonic (final ā-affection); whereas in Irish original /a, o/ in the lost final lower a main high vowel. This is a much more widespread lowering than the very specific Welsh change.

All these developments are therefore regular, and the rules involved can be found in the standard texts.

----

As for your starting forms /ɦɑbusdɑɦ- -os ~ -ēɑh/ and the gymnastics you have to perform to transform these into the more 'classical' /busd^h- -os ~ -ā/ ... probably the less said the better.

[JounaPyysalo]

Looking now at the Lexicon. I see you have red mismatches flagged up for MidIr. bot /bod/, MidW. both, Gaul. buðð-, which you need to derive from IE /busd^h- -os ~ -ā/.

Assuming these are all the same word, and there is some doubt about the second, the main development you've missed is /-sd(h)/ > /-zd/ > /ðd/ > /ðð/ according to the textbooks, which gives the Gaulish and presumably PCeltic (?) form. Then in Welsh /ðð/ > (/θθ/ ?) > /θ/.

In Irish (and QCeltic?) the assimilation must have gone the other way : /ðd/ > /dd/ > /d/.

All these developments are therefore regular, and the rules involved can be found in the standard texts.

As for the vowels, the final /-ā/ lowers the /u/ > /o/ in Brittonic (final ā-affection); whereas in Irish original /a, o/ in the lost final lower a main high vowel. This is a much more widespread lowering than the very specific Welsh change.

----

As for your starting forms /ɦɑbusdɑɦ- -os ~ -ēɑh/ and the gymnastics you have to perform to transform these into the more 'classical' /busd^h- -os ~ -ā/ ... probably the less said the better.

JOUNA: Yes, Marconatrix, you are quite right, but thank you very much for the confirmation. In the PIE Lexicon desktop there is a note saying
"The site is under construction. Errors in generation of the data shown in red are removed when sound law scripts are updated."
I presented this equation in the FB group "Proto-Indo-European" in april/may making the remarks you just noted, and promised the corrections when the foma scripts are updated next time (the procedure is bit cumbersome for the moment and it is easier to update them all once).

Very well done, Marconatrix!

Sincerely,

Jouna

[marconatrix]

It occurred to me later that if the root is only attested from within Celtic then we can go no further back than CC /buzd-/. If this is of IE origin then the /d/ could be from either PIE /d/ or /d^h/, and the initial /b/ from PIE /b/, /b^h/, or (and is this not more likely?) /g^w/.

With all these possibilities maybe there's a chance of identifying some cognates in other branches?