On the development of initial *Hu, *Hi and the rise of initial acute diphthongs in Baltic and Slavic

We can conclude that the hypothesis that initial stressed *Hu- and *Hi- became glottalized in Balto-Slavic does not meet with any serious counterexamples.20 Unfortunately, there are no words that unambiguously reflect initial (stressed) *i- or *u- without an initial laryngeal. The glottalization explains the acute accent of Lith. áiškus, ýškus, éiškus, ukis, ìnas, ýnas, víenas, áuksas, ieškóti, íeškoti, iesm¡, dial. íeva and ánka, Latv. viêns, iẽva, iẽskât, dial. aũstra and añka, PSlav. *jiskra, *ěsnъ, *jistъ, *vyk-, *vysokъ, *jinъ, *jiva, *īskàti, and *utro. It could also explain the metatony of Latv. àustra, Lith. aušrà (4) vs. Latv. dial. aũstra, PSlav. *utro (a), and possibly Latv. aĩza, aîza vs. àiza. The metathesis most probably occurred in late Balto-Slavic, in view of the examples of metatony we find