Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlewH-の英語

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 (かつ 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: