Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlitós

Germanic

The Germanic forms have the accent on the root, not on the suffix. They can't be direct descendants. —CodeCat 23:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: They're pretty clearly related. How would you derive them? --Victar (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are that there are actually two forms:

1. Old English ġehliþ < Proto-Germanic *hliþą (“cover, lid”) < Proto-Indo-European *ḱli-tós (“covered”) < root *ḱley- (“to cover”)

2. Old English hlid (“cover, lid”) (short -i- from hliþ) < Old English hlīdan < Proto-Germanic *hlīdaną < Proto-Indo-European *ḱléy-dʰ-e-ti < root *ḱley- (“to cover”)

Good chances I'm missing something. --Victar (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how they are derived, but they are clearly not derived from this form. —CodeCat 09:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In reference to Ancient Greek ἄκλῐτος (áklitos), the negative *n̥- caused a recessive accent. As to the Germanic forms, Code is correct that Verner's Law does not predict these forms. —JohnC5 15:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Thanks for the reply. Could you explain more on how it conflicts with Verner's Law? What's wrong with my explanation and what should be expected? Do you have an alternative etymology you can put forth? --Victar (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So if Proto-Indo-European *ḱli-tós (“covered”) were the protoform, then the Proto-Germanic would be *hliðą ~ *hlidą. Your explanation 2 could work, I suppose. —JohnC5 17:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that PIE had an internal derivation rule where an adjective could be turned into a noun by retracting the accent. This may account for the root accent of the Germanic form. But I'm not sure if I'm remembering the rule right. —CodeCat 18:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That's the traditional explanation for *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. I've certainly heard mention of it in Greek and Sanskrit, but I've never been sure of the time depth. —JohnC5 18:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and find some parallels. --Victar (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to take inventory of the Gmc forms, we have:

A cover, lid: Old English hlid, ġehlid, ġehliþ, Old Saxon hlid, Old High German hlit, Old Norse hlið, hleði

To cover (with a lid): Old English ġehlidian, hlīdan, Old Frisian hlidia, Old Saxon bihlīdan

I'm guessing ġehlidian is a denominative of ġehlid. The ġe- prefix in OE ġehliþ may have been to disambiguate from hliþ (“slope, incline”). Conversely, the ġe- may have been added to Old English ġehlid under the confluence of Old English hlid and ġehliþ. --Victar (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2017–October 2021

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlitós

Only one descendant given, which is not enough to reconstruct a PIE form. There used to be a Germanic descendant listed, but it was dubious as the accent didn't match, so I removed it. Even two descendants is not particularly strong evidence given that the *-tós suffix is very productive. Independent innovation is very possible. —CodeCat 13:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Victar has now put back the Germanic descendants that I removed. I removed them because they violate Verner's law. Are we allowed to ignore basic linguistics just because someone's source says so? —CodeCat 15:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5, stay or go? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I think stay. —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - if it's properly sourced to credible material, we keep it. if there are conflicting opinions in sourced material, we include information about the conflict. we shouldn't be making the call on which is "right", that would be original research (though debating/arguing about it on talkpages is fun! ^__^). Lx 121 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary doesn't disallow original research, that's a Wikipedia thing. It's part of how Wiktionary works in the first place. —Rua (mew) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? since wheninthehell did that proposition get past the wmf? o__0 please show me where that policy is included in the project's rules & guidelines(!) Lx 121 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
      • There is no policy that says anything about OR, so it's not disallowed, and given that things do not have to be explicitly allowed to be allowed, it is allowed. Our WT:OR points to a page explaining why Wiktionary doesn't have Wikipedia rules (which is not a policy page btw). We have WT:CFI, which is not an OR policy and is not intended to be one, because it fundamentally requires original research as part of the verification process. WT:CFI would be unenforceable if OR were banned. —Rua (mew) 13:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
      • You may find Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/September#What is Wiktionary's stance on reconstructions missing from sources? enlightening. —Rua (mew) 13:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
        • It's not quite that simple. It's true that most of the content in entries is OR, but we tend to require something approaching Wikipedia-style sourcing for etymologies and reconstructions. Approaching- not identical. Where to draw the line is a matter of some debate. In this case, though, our practice is clear: there's no point in a dictionary providing a reconstruction that's not connected to attested words. That's not OR, that's editorial discretion. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
          • @Chuck Entz What do you think of this particular case. Keep in mind that the Germanic descendants still violate Verner's law and should not be there. That leaves the first entry with only Celtic as a descendant. —Rua (mew) 14:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Long since RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)