From: Miguel Carrasquer
>On 05-02-17 00:05, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:Yes. Latin and Celtic have *-eh1ye- (presumably *-éh1ye-),
>> What was Pinault's law again?
>In a nutshell, the syllabification of postconsonantal laryngeals with a
>following *j and their coalescence with it, as in *krewh2-jo- > *krewjo-.
>> But you know what I think of Caland-variants: they're nothing but
>> **-n- palatalized (*-y-, *-i-), labialized (*-m-, *-w-, *-u-) or
>> plain (*-n-, *-r-).
>I know. However, I think Jens's explanation is more convincing -- not
>without its little problems, to be sure, but I understand that it's
>still work in progress. Both models share the merit of invoking just
>phonetics and no magic, but Jens stays closer to orthodoxy by making
>fewer assumptions about pre-PIE, which is the main reason for my current
>> But Caland aside, I think that an /i/ was also present in the
>> essive/fientive suffix *-eh1- (*-eh1i-). I see no other way to
>> explain the Baltic and Slavic reflexes /e:/ < *-eh1- (aorist,
>> infinitive), /i/ < *-h1i- (Baltic present) /i:/ < *-eih1- (Slavic
>Do you see any difficulties with *-eh1-/*-h1-je/o- outside Balto-Slavic?