Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ḱomt

Noun?

@SpinachMaid: I haven't encountered anyone explicitly calling *ḱomt a noun within the framework of Proto-Indo-European. It could be an acrostatic neutral in Indo-Hittite if we accept the ergative theory and consider -t the neutral absolutive marker (or something else made up along these lines), but that's distinct from PIE. Mallory and Adams call -k̑m̥t- "a unit of some kind" (p. 62 in Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE world). Probably, it's safer to reconstruct a particle or suffix with the meaning "counting unit", not a noun? 90.194.220.234 16:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2019–March 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱomt

Meaning contested, part of speech contested, this should be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oi. It's like the creating editor didn't even look at the entries for the purported derived terms, which all clearly state a separate and incompatible derivation. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, this Korean user obviously has no idea what they're doing. The only entry needed is *déḱm̥. It's a good example of why you shouldn't create redlinks to disputed hypothetical entries; noobs are all about filling those out. --{{victar|talk}} 18:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete, this hand derivation seems a bit far-fetched. A cool hypothesis is that a form *dḱómt-h₂ is an old collective form of *déḱm̥t, so decads like *trih₂-dḱómt-h₂ and *kʷétwr̥-dḱomt-h₂ are compound forms originally meaning three tens and four tens. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 22:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — *komt is whence the PG *handuz. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)