Holodwig21

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 18:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, also wanted to say welcome. Thanks for your good work on Gothic! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been working on Gothic as a way to help with my own dictionary. Seeing that the Language belong to the Goths, my favourite Germanic tribe, I decided to dedicate some time to fill the red links that I find around Wiktionary and match them with Proto-Germanic. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Inherited

Please only use {{inh}} for inherited terms, thank you. —Rua (mew) 17:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

𐍃𐌰𐍂𐍅

Are you certain of this lemma? Both Köbler and Lehmann seem to opt for a plural lemma sarwa, and the few uses in the Gothic Bible do suggest it was used as a plurale tantum (plural Gothic forms translating singular Greek forms), indicating to me that the lemma should indeed be at sarwa. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje Likely; After checking more thoroughly I concluded that I'll change the 𐍃𐌰𐍂𐍅𐌰 page while having the 𐍃𐌰𐍂𐍅 deleted. However, should I change the meaning?

That resolves it. The meaning seems right to me. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

M:User:Victar/iir-decl-noun

My module M:User:Victar/iir-decl-noun is not finished and is not really to be ported to Iranian. Please don't use it. (Also, yellow? Gross.) --{{victar|talk}} 17:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar Ok, I won't use it. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar In addition I was modifying the module so that it wouldn’t be a copy past work but apart from not using it, I need to know two things. If it isn’t finished why is it being used in Proto-Indo-Iranian? And what is wrong with the Module? I would appreciate an explanation. (about the yellow table, I’ll just say that we all have different opinions). 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 04:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's only being used for certain declensions. --{{victar|talk}} 05:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Reconstructions

Holodwig, if you create reconstructions for PII and PIr entries, you need to cite them with sources. Also, please be careful with forms that could be secondary. Many suffixes were productive in both branches--{{victar|talk}} 13:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar Well I did spent almost an hour trying to find sources for *wáypati and *wiprás but I came across nothing. In Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages Sanskrit विप्र (vipra) and Avestan 𐬬𐬌𐬟𐬭𐬀‎ (vifra‎) were listed as cognate with Latin vibrō although no reconstructed form was given for the Indo-Iranian form.

Concerning *wáypati, I didn't find any dictionary that i could source, the reference in the page is only for Proto-Iranian, it doesn’t give us the verbal suffix but the root verb, yet it gives us the PIE etymology of the word, for which I found it valuable to cite. Because I don't have access to a dictionary of PII is why I haven't created any more pages. I was already, before you telling me, avoiding the creation of more pages until i could find a etymological dictionary which i could use as source, although i haven't had much luck. In addition, you mention productive suffixes and secondary forms, is this regarding *wáypati? 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned up and fixed the two entries, adding sources. Please take note and see my edit comments. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 15:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar Thank you for fix, I saw the comments and noted my mistakes, but please don't assume that I neglect sourcing in PII as I already explained; I'm trying to contribute and not the oposite. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The entries were lacking; I fixed them and brought them to your attention. There was no assumption anywhere. --{{victar|talk}} 15:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar there is no problem with your edits, I am talking about your comment in *wiprás where you said "User:Holodwig21 you confused two different Skt words. Also, you neglected to add any sources" you said I neglected but that isn’t what happen. To me that means I didn’t care much about adding a source. Maybe I’m taking the word "neglected" too serious, if so than I apologize. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I often neglect to bring an umbrella on a rainy day. :p --{{victar|talk}} 15:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar Ok Thanks for clarifiying. Since your here I want to mention something, in *h₂rey- you give Proto-Germanic *rīmaz but in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic it gives as neuter, *rīmą. The former has no link while the latter has, since the former is sourced on the page but the source gives us the latter, is there a reason for keping *rīmaz? Just wondering. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've gone ahead and fixed it. --{{victar|talk}} 16:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Victar You're Welcome! 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Celtic entries

When adding Celtic entries, please use {{desc}} in the descendants list, particularly {{desc|cel-bry-pro}}, and don't bother adding Goidelic, nor should you be adding sources to attested forms, unless it's some unusual form or (re)borrowing, or something. --{{victar|talk}} 23:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@victar Ok, but do we even have information for reconstructing those Proto-Brythonic words? Either way I have no problem in adding the {{desc|cel-bry-pro}} and of doing the rest. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We reconstruct Proto-Brythonic all the time. If you don't have the know-how to do so, just leave them blank for someone else to fill in. --{{victar|talk}} 00:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok :) .𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Celtic declension

Holodwig21, what are your sources for your Celtic declension tables templates? --{{victar|talk}} 23:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victar for the o masculine stem i took the ending from mapos which weren't added by me and were there since 2017. Regarding the o neuter stem i just changed the Nominative, Vocative, Accusative singular and plural. I only used the wikipedia article Gaulish language for the neuter plural Locative. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend that before you add any more declension templates for any language, you consult some published works first. Wikipedia should never be a primary source. --{{victar|talk}} 00:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victar The only one that I took from Wikipedia was the neuter plural Locative and that's is why I added a"?". But if this is unethical I will remove the neuter plural Locative. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victar Regarding sources, is there any Gaulish I could use that isn't Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise: une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental?, because I haven't been able to access that particular book. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It's online. Try searching around some more. --{{victar|talk}} 01:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

For when you can't find a book simply by Googling, I'll give you a hint: I have heard pirates speak of an arcane library named after the first book of the Old Testament, where scholarly works are shared by all and paid for by none. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: hahaha :), thanks for the information however, I had already stubled upon this arcane library and others similar to it, after this discussion. Still, Thanks for the information! 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Entry formatting

Hello again. I wanted to go over someone of the formatting you used on *Gabromagos:

• Because {{R:cel:EDPC}} does not explicitly reconstruct *Gabromagos, it should instead be cited to the etymology, or perhaps placed under as ==Further reading=== section if cognates are also listed. (Also, why are you using {{R:cel:Matasovic 2009}} and not {{R:cel:EDPC}}?)
• {{desctree}} shouldn't be used when then entry has no descendants, and especially when no entry exists. We also generally don't use {{desctree}} for borrowings.
• |bor=1 needs to be used to indicate borrowings.
• I could be wrong, but I don't think adding {{wikipedia|Windischgarsten}} is appropriate in the case, because it's a completely separate word. Perhaps it would be better for under Further reading, if at all.

--{{victar|talk}} 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: The source works to explain where I got the word, of course most of the Gaulish words given are written in Latin phrases so I barely have the original meaning. Whenever it's place in the etymology section, the title, or in further reading I really don't mind, perhaps the former is better given the source is of Proto-Celtic entries, so long as I can state "I took it from here ..." I'm fine with any method. (Right now I use {{R:cel:EDPC}}, the only time I didn't was before, so many of my entries have {{R:cel:Matasovic 2009}}, or is the {{<ref name="Matasovic">}} also part of the latter?

The {{desctree}} and forgetting the |bor=1 are mistakes that are a result of my careleness, I'll try to be more attentive in dealing with this.

The Wikipedia article only served to given more information about the city. It's true that Windischgarsten isn't the Gabromagos but I don't want to leave readers with a vague knowledge of what Gabromagos is or was, some information on the city exists in the Wikipedia article (dunno if it's true), but it could also help the readers know were Gabromagos was located (or was near what), since cities don't usually move drastically from place to place (although exception occur, especially with Aeminium and Conimbriga). 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding the source behind the head implies that the reconstruction can be sound is said source. If it does not contain the reconstruction, that should not be done. Period. Full stop. You are linking to Windischgarsten in the definition and that's plenty information. We're not Wikipedia here. {{R:cel:Matasovic 2009}} is the old template name. Please use {{R:cel:EDPC}} instead. --{{victar|talk}} 21:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: Sorry, I saw the usage of {{R:cel:Matasovic 2009}} in my Gaulish entries therefore, I went and fixed some already. When I have the time I´ll fix all my older entries still using the older template. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem, not such a big deal, really (thus the small text), and no real need to go back and fix old entries (unless you want to).

I also want to point out that Gaulish is, for the most part, unattested. Gabromagus is strictly a Latin word borrowed from Gaulish and not Gaulish itself, so you could source the Latin borrowing, but we generally don't cite attested words in descendants lists as that's something that should instead be on the entry itself as a quote. The most important thing to source is the etymology (after the reconstruction itself), which is why I moved it to there. --{{victar|talk}} 21:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: Ok, I already move most (I think all) of my sources in Gaulish to the etymology section like in *Rigomagos. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

👍 --{{victar|talk}} 21:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry I´ll fixed them in an instant :) .𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: Done! 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please take note of some of your formatting mistakes here. --{{victar|talk}} 19:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Celtic words with a single line of descent

It's probably for the best that PC words with a single line of descent be kept to etymologies. For instance, Proto-Celtic *wertos would be better found at Proto-Brythonic *gwerθ since it has no extra-Brythonic cognates and is likely a Germanic borrowing. Other words might be secondary derivatives specific to that child language. --{{victar|talk}} 05:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no Problem. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar I want to state something about the situation.

I think it would be better if we make this policy public so as to tell people why PC words with a single line of descent don't have pages of their own or why they shouldn't be created.

I also think that PC words that have cognates in other Indo-European languages should be kept, e.x. Proto-Celtic *saitlom (“age, lifetime”) and Latin saeculum (“race, breed, generation, lifetime”) who have very similar meaning and could likely be inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Essentially words that in Proto-Celtic were inherited by one branch but were once widespread in Proto-Indo-European.

Lastly I want to thank you for moving these pages. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

About Proto-Celtic *sɸenyos, Matasović, said the word had likely Gaulish origin, but as far as I can tell he wasn't sure of his reconstruction. I don't know anything about French sound changes so I can't verify it derives from that specific word, so I'll leave the judgement to you. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you be 100% sure these words existed in Proto-Celtic? Even though they may have direct cognates, that doesn't mean they aren't newly built when you're dealing with productive suffixes, or even borrowings. --{{victar|talk}} 15:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Proto-Celtic *sɸenyos should be deleted and that reconstruction moved to the etymology of the Irish entry, with a mention of a possible cognate in French. You created the entry, so you should be the one to mark if for deletion if you agree. --{{victar|talk}} 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: No I can't be 100% sure, but productivity of a suffix, IMO, doesn't assure us that the word was newly built or existed long ago. As far as I can tell, they could have existed during the period the suffix was productive, which could span the Proto-Indo-European period to the (Proto-Brythonic period? I don't know when the suffix stopped being productive).

Regarding sẹnyọ, could Matasović be talking about a Romagnol word?, he gives the word with underdots and says it belongs to a French dialect, I never seen French use underdots before so I never included them, but I wonder why he used them. While Romagnol isn't a French dialect it belongs to the Gallo-Romance branch, the same as French (maybe this is too far fetched); just want to make sure that it is a real French word. In addition Proto-Celtic *sɸenyos seem to have been formed in a similar manner to Proto-Balto-Slavic *spenis, so maybe it was inherited; Matasović speaks of the "pst" cluster being simplified in various daughter languages, he also poses the possibility of it being simplified in Proto-Indo-European. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is that you want to assume the least you can. What we can say is that a PBr form existed. We can't say the same for PC if there are no cognates outside of Brythonic, and just as we don't reconstruct PIE words like *h₁enternHdyom for internet, *saitlom, in principle, may never have exited, especially when you take productive suffixes and borrowings into account. (I did however create a new entry for *saitlom based on some strong evidence.)

Any way you try and pretty up that pig, Holodwig21, it's a pig, and it belongs as a footnote, not as a serious reconstruction. --{{victar|talk}} 07:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar Looking at the Matasović, I notice he also gives Gaulish Setlocenia however, I can't remember the reason why I never added it (I'm sure I didn't ignore the word, since I have it in my Gaulish word list). (Also, why no inflection table?) 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/-tlom

Holodwig21, for suffixes and prefix entries, only include descendants that are productive and please include sources that state that they're productive. See *-ayHnah. I think it also goes now without saying, don't create blank entries, like you did for the Irish entries. --{{victar|talk}} 09:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar "only include descendants that are productive" When was this a policy? I don't even see the benefit of doing this. For example, Lets imagine the English suffix -ness had stop being productive in Old English, all words suffixed with -ness (found only in English) were formed in Old English and that these words were inherited by Middle English and English; having Old English -nes without a descendant list would give the idea that every word with Old English -nes had ceased to exists and weren't inherited by Middle English or English. A better option is to have a note saying "obsolete" or some information that clarifies the situation of the suffix in that/those specific daughter language(s). (I've removed the Irish entries and I´ll add sources for the others if I find them.) 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that in this case there's a bit of a disconnect between theory and practice: I have seen people focussing on older languages and etymology advocate the view Victar is espousing here, yet we also have an entry -th for Modern English for example (cf. also the entry *-iþō which lists this non-productive suffix) and many others like it. I don't think we have a policy on the inclusion of non-productive suffixes, and I think there is a case to be made (although I am not sure if I am convinced by it) for their inclusion for the purposes of synchronically identifying how a word relates to others in a language. Certainly there is plenty of precedent for the inclusion of non-productive suffixes. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a simple way to look at it: Two core tenets of Wikt are a) never create links to entries that shouldn't exist, and b) only create entries that could pass WT:CFI. So now we have to ask ourselves, is Welsh -thl fit for a dictionary? If not, it shouldn't be in a descendants list.

To cite another somewhat relative example I gave recently, it would be bad form if we created entries like Punjabi ਟੈਲੀ- (ṭailī-) because of ਟੈਲੀਫ਼ੋਨ (ṭailīfon, “telephone”) or Uyghur كوم- (kom-) because of كومپيۇتېر (kompyutër, “computer”). --{{victar|talk}} 17:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: If Welsh -thl serves a similar purpose as English -th then I would see no danger in it. Having a page stating that "This suffix is no longer productive" won't cause confusion and would kill false hopes. IMO, the note strategy (no page but a note in the Proto-Celtic entry) is the best strategy to avoid any misunderstanding.

I agreed with your example, but they aren't daughter language of Latin, Greek or English so I would never even consider listing them nor creating a page.

My main argument for including them is to show how the suffix developed in the daughter languages even if it wasn't productive. Proto-Germanic *-aną wasn't even productive in Proto-Germanic yet it has its own page and with it a decedants list. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't and your argument doesn't hold weight. If you add Welsh -thl to a word in Welsh, people will not have an understanding of what you're doing. This is made more pronounced by the fact that PIE *-trom was very much subject to it's environment, and in many cases, it has been come unrecognizable in modern Celtic languages. I would even question if the suffix was productive in PC. If you can't even prove that, that's like creating English entries for PG *-umnijō. --{{victar|talk}} 19:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: Nor would English speakers understand English -th or English -t being adding to a word.

Doesn't Proto-Celtic have *-tlom suffixed words that other languages don't?, just because Proto-Indo-European *-trom has different forms, in compound words, because of its environment isn't a reason to suspect unproductivity (certainly in the Modern langauge but this doesn't hold true in Proto-Celtic), there are suffixes and preffixes that change because of their environment; there was Proto-Germanic *-þiz, *-tiz, *-diz depending on the preceding consonant, there is also the different forms of Latin con- based on the following consonant.

I ain't convinced by your argument but, I will remove the Welsh forms nonetheless. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

English [en] spans the 15th c. to modern day and what was productive in 1476, might not be productive today. At no stange in Welsh as a language does it appear that -thl was productive. If you look at the few examples of PC *-trom, if they don't have direct PIE cognates (*krētros/cribrum (“sieve”)), their etymologies are often ambiguous (*riyatros (“torrent, waterfall”)). --{{victar|talk}} 20:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: wait, what? I wasn't arguing for the productivity of PC *-trom, nor had I even heard of it; only of Proto-Celtic *-tlom, which is in the title and which derives from Proto-Indo-European *-tlom an alternative of Proto-Indo-European *-trom, thereby my assumption you were referring to "*-tlom". The *-trom may have well been a relic from Proto-Indo-European but, I don't what to present explanation since I don't know much about its situation nor have I even seen what experts say about it. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm referring to both. --{{victar|talk}} 21:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: I can't defend the PC *-trom, what I can only say is that Proto-Celtic carries some words with *-tlom, and if those words don't have cognates in other Indo-European branches I would say they were built by the Proto-Celtic speakers. Until there is evidence that they are relics, I think it is premature to consider the suffix unproductive. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Proto-West Germanic

We now have Proto-West Germanic as a separate language on Wiktionary. From now on, could you group all West Germanic languages under a {{desc|gmw-pro|}} branch? You can leave the term empty if you don't know it, it'll put them in a category for others to look at. —Rua (mew) 14:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rua: Sure, no problem. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

*swāslīk

Ringe notes that *winiskapi and *bodaskapi both preserve the linking vowel in OHG after a light syllable, and Old Dutch must have preserved it too judging by the Middle Dutch form. That suggests that such vowels were still present in PWG, even -a- which was lost word-finally. So this word was probably still *swāsalīk at that point too. —Rua (mew) 10:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: Sorry, I actually intended to write it with a linking vowel. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it wasn't criticism. :) —Rua (mew) 11:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: I understood you weren’t criticizing me. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

PIE *ǵebʰ- "branch"?

Holodwig21, I'm not sure if that's the same Proto-Indo-European *ǵebʰ- that you have referred to in Proto-Germanic *kabalaz, but in the context of Balto-Slavic I've seen this root reconstructed with the meaning "to munch, to chew": Lithuanian žė̃bti (“to munch”), Proto-Slavic *zobь (“fodder”), *zobati (“to peck, to devour (for animals)”). Apparently, Proto-Germanic *kaflaz (“jowl”), *kebą and Avestan 𐬰𐬀𐬟𐬀𐬭𐬆 (zafar^ə, “mouth”) also belong there. Are you sure this is not the same root as in *kabalaz? Безименен 18:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bezimenen: I have my doubt about Proto-Germanic *kaflaz (“jowl”) being from Proto-Indo-European *ǵebʰ-. Proto-Germanic would require *ǵep- as *ǵebʰ- would result in Proto-Germanic *kablaz. In regards to Proto-Germanic *kabalaz; Kroonen list Lithuanian žãbas (“branch, cane”) as cognate so I assume the root from which *kabalaz and žãbas derived already meant "stick, branch". I'm guessing by this that they aren't from the same root. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems so. Afterwards, I've seen *ǵebʰ- 'to munch' reconstructed as *ǵeph₃- > *ǵebH-. It seems the mess is full with it. Неактивен 17:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

PWG descendants

Sure, strong verbs weren't productive in PWG, but that doesn't mean we need a PG entry for every word inherited for PG. For the same reason, we don't create Proto-Indo-Aryan entries for every Sanskrit one, because it would be just masterbation.

Also, per above, you should be moving PG entries with only PWG descendents, not copying them to new entries, like you did with *hart and *nāmijan. This is actually the same issue I brought up above with Proto-Brythonic *gwerθ. --{{victar|talk}} 07:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: Actually, we do. If a word can't be formed in PWG, because of formation process no longer available, there is no reason to create a page only in PWG, it gives people the wrong impression. To not have Proto-Germanic *trampaną is to say that to those who only search in PG lemmas that it didn't exists, which, IMO, isn't true. Furthermore, Mahagaja had already moved PG pages to PWG for having only PWG descendants, with Rua moving them back.

Why *hart and *hartą, *nāmijan and *nēmijaną exist is the same reason why I moved *trampan back to *trampaną

Not quite. You argued that Proto-Brythonic *gwerθ could have been a borrowing from PG, while these are formation that must have existed in PG due to formation only available in Pre-Germanic era. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 07:20

No, we actually don't. It's sufficient to write each point of inheritance in the etymology. The problem with creating an entry for every step is that you're increasing the probability of something actually not existing, and doubling the amount of entries unnecessarily. Your reasoning flawed because 1) you're illustrating the steps in the etymology, as I mentioned, and 2) searching for *trampaną, for example, would turn up the entry in search results.

My point with Proto-Brythonic *gwerθ is that some of these entries you're creating could have been innovated in PWG. For instance, *-ēn was a productive suffix in PWG, and yet you created both *rīpāną and *rīpēn. @Mahagaja, Rua --{{victar|talk}} 07:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should aim at the latest possible reconstruction, just as we already do for the shapes of proto-forms. If we know some form α was present in PWG, and it has no reflexes outside PWG, then we should only create an entry for its PWG form. Doing so does not in any way imply that the form was created within PWG or that it didn't have an ancestor in PG, merely that it did exist in PWG and we remain agnostic as to whether it existed in PG. Languages do create words using unproductive processes all the time. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: That's a good point too; just because a suffix isn't "productive", that doesn't mean new words can't be created with the suffix analogously. --{{victar|talk}} 08:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If we know a term must have existed in a language, then it can be reconstructed. It's really not that hard, and I object to Victar edit warring over it (i.e. re-doing an edit that was undone). —Rua (mew) 09:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: It's the very same reason we don't have entries like *ǵʰólh₃is -- because with only one descendant, we can't be certain it ever existed. I'm surprised I have to explain that to you, of all people, someone who was such a vanguard for that in the past. Also, whom have I edit-warred in your objection? @Metaknowledge, Chuck Entz, JohnC5 --{{victar|talk}} 16:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said, you re-did an edit that someone else had undone. The number of descendants is irrelevant, what matters is whether we can infer that the term existed. If a term must have been formed before PWG and existed in PWG, it follows that it existed in PG. —Rua (mew) 17:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: You can hardly call moving back an entry once "edit-warring" without sounding libelous. @Mahagaja and myself beg to disagree with you opinion on such terms existing with the certainly you claim. Please see above. --{{victar|talk}} 17:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: I agree with Rua. *trampaną couldn't have been formed within PWG, therefore it must have existed in PG. The etymology isn't enough and the probability of something actually not existing only exists with words formed by suffixes that are productive which I agreed is the case for *rīpāną but not for *trampaną.

That is only if you search for *trampaną. I was talking about searching for "to step"(the meaning of the verb) with "deepcat:"Proto-Germanic lemmas"" which doesn't give *trampaną. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you agree, thats why we're here. I've tagged some relative people and if they dont reply here, I'll have to start a new discussion elsewhere. LOL, then search West Germanic. You're making a strawman argument. --{{victar|talk}} 15:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

kwēbijaną

Hi! I saw that you created *kwēbijaną. There you list kvæfja and kœfja as its descendants in Old Norse. Looking up the source mentioned (the entry for *kwēbjan- in Guus Kroonen), it mentions kvæfa and kœfa. That is, it has them without the letter "j". It goes on to mention kvefja and kvafna in the note.

The reason I wonder is because I looked up the respective words in A Conicse Dictionary of Old Icelandic by Geir Zoega. It has kefja (with kvefja as a variant). It has kœfa (with kvæfa as a variant). It also has kafna.

It, however, does not list kvæfja or kœfja. What is your source for these forms of the words? Is there a source mentioning them in this form?

Secondly, I'm interested in the connection between *kwēbijaną and *kwabjaną, created that same day. Is it just two different proposed reconstructions of what is supposedly the same underlying verb? Or are they assumed to be different, but related, words? Gabbe (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gabbe: Hi, Sorry for not responding for so long. In case of kvæfja and kœfja I don't currently remember why; It is possible that I made a mistake in writing the verb, although I'm not sure. in the case of *kwēbijaną and *kwabjaną, *kwabjaną is a causative verb of *kwebaną while *kwēbijaną may be based on *kwabjaną. In short, they are deffinately related but are unlikely to be the same verb. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)