The presence of the laryngeal is confirmed by the-h- in Sanskritahám. 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:
*éǵ (Hittite𒌑𒊌(ūk), Proto-Balto-Slavic*ēź-,*eś,*ēˀźun, Old Lithuanianeš, Old Prussianes/as, Sudovianes, Proto-Slavic*(j)azъ, Avestan𐬀𐬰𐬆(azə))
*eǵHóm (Sanskritअहम्(ahám), Avestan𐬀𐬰𐬇𐬨(azə̄m), Old Church Slavonicазъ(azŭ), Epic Greekἐγών(egṓn))
*eǵóH (Latinegō, Ancient Greekἐγώ(egṓ), Venetic𐌄𐌙𐌏(ego))
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 *eǵóH being younger, dialectal variants. Thesandhi form of *éǵ - *éḱ, with a final devoiced plosive, is attested in Baltic (Old Prussianas,es), Armenianես(es), and apparently in the Hittite variant𒌑𒊌(ú-uk).
For the oblique singular stem, a reconstruction of an initial *h₁ can be justified on the basis of Ancient Greekἐμοί(emoí), Hittite𒄠𒈬𒊌(ammuk), and Armenianիմ(im).
A user suggests that this Proto-Indo-European reconstruction entry be cleaned up, giving the reason:“manual table should be moved to a template”.
Please see the discussion onRequests for cleanup(+) or thetalk page for more information and remove this template after the problem has been dealt with.
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, as𐬨𐬀𐬌𐬠𐬫𐬁(maibyā). AlsoSanskritमह्यम्(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, page374
^Sihler, Andrew L. (1995),New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press,→ISBN, page378
^Ringe, Donald (2006),From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (A Linguistic History of English; 1)[1], Oxford: Oxford University Press,→ISBN,page57
^Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008),Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 5), Leiden, Boston: Brill,→ISBN,page111
^Beekes, Robert S. P. (2011),Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edition, revised and corrected byMichiel de Vaan, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, page233
^Kortlandt, Frederik (2006),Balto-Slavic Personal Pronouns and Their Accentuation[2], 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,page367
^De Vaan, Michiel (2008), “mē”, inEtymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 7), Leiden, Boston: Brill,→ISBN,pages367-8
^Kapović, Mate (2006),Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns with emphasis on accentuation[3] (PhD dissertation), Zadar, Croatia: University of Zadar, page159
