Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The current laws for laryngeals presume the following reconstruction rules:

  • ē is reconstructed as eh1

  • ā is reconstructed as eh2

  • ō is reconstructed as eh3

  • word-initial e- is reconstructed as h1e

  • word-initial a- is reconstructed as h2e

  • word-initial o- is reconstructed as h3e

Why we cannot reconstruct u̯ the same way? ū would be reconstructed as eu̯ and the word-initial u as as u̯e.


  • The word for wolf would be u̯elqos;
  • The word for wheat would be peu̯ros;
  • The word for son would be seu̯nos.

Why not?

share|improve this question
Are there any phenomena which such an analysis would make easier to explain? If not, Occam's razor suggests the answer. – Colin Fine Nov 20 '12 at 13:36

First, [u] and [w] (i.e. u̯) are just allophones in PIE, so the only consequence of reconstructing *w- as *we- will be that it forces you to come up with some theory of why the following *-e- was lost. Plus it doesn't really make sense. If you wanna get rid of word-initial *w- by reconstructing it as *we-, you'll notice that *w- is still initial. So now you need to reconstruct *we- as *wee-, *wee- as *weee- etc. ad infinitum.

More importantly, we don't reconstruct *w- as *we- and *ū as *ew because there are lots and lots of examples of PIE *we- and *ew that didn't become *w- and *ū.

share|improve this answer
Do you support the idea that PIE had long ū? – Anixx Nov 23 '12 at 0:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.