Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁rep-

RFD discussion: November 2019

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

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁rep-

Nonsensical entry. Please delete. --{{victar|talk}} 05:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As the page is indeed based on Pokorny's entry for *rep-, I say keep in the absence of linguistic arguments that there was no such root. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@RichardW57: 1. *rep- does not equal *h₁rep-, and 2. none of those items, with the exception of maybe Italic *rapiō, belong under such an entry. This is a garbage entry, and if you understood the area of work, that would have been apparent to you. --{{victar|talk}} 07:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: My recollections is that most *Hr- reduce to plain **r- in Pokorny. (Though Birgit Olsen has pointed out that Greek and Armenian don't actually demonstrate that PIE *r- didn't exist; Greek and Armenian might just have innovated in this respect.) The Greek word ἐρέπτομαι (eréptomai) has been recorded in its etymology section as deriving from *h1rep for over 11 years. So, the entry may well be wrong - Pokorny's assemblage for this alleged root doesn't generate a great deal of confidence, though it does pass the three branch test, but I believe it merits a refutation. 'Nonsensical' is not a fair assessment. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@RichardW57: If Pokorny thought the reconstruction was *h₁rep-, he would have reconstructed it as *erep-. That's really beside the point, because, as I mentioned, the entry is a nonsensical garbage pile, with entries from multiple roots, incoherently strewn together. Having such entries on the project makes us look incompetent and should be deleted on sight. --{{victar|talk}} 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ἐρέπτομαι (eréptomai) looks like it could come from *h₁rep- as well. — Eru·tuon 08:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erutuon: *h₁rep- is based on ἐρέπτομαι (eréptomai), but *h₁r̥p- is problematic for Latin, as it probably would have yielded an e-grade, so Schrijver reconstructs *h₁r̥h₁p- to just connect *rapiō and Lithuanian rė́pti. In my opinion, this is probably an a-grade, as most "seize" words are, but that would preclude the Greek. Either way, this entry is ill conceived and should be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 15:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they belong to different roots, like Proto-Germanic *raubōną is already at *Hrewp-, apparently also Albanian rrjep belongs to it. Isn’t that even the same root, save the words that don’t belong to the root at all like the sickle words? One shouldn’t base anything on Pokorny. Delete because of inferior contradiction/duplicate. Fay Freak (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

First: That page is—or was—obviously a newly-created work-in-progress subject to much further revision and re-organization; impossible to make such a page perfect instantly when researching, tracing out, verifying roots and descendant etymologies. But "nonsensical entry"? No. "*h₁rep-" would not have been my personally preferred nomenclature, but "*h₁rep-" is the form already in use cited and written as such in etymology sections across dozens of articles in many languages for many years—all of which had hitherto been red links. Unlike some individuals here, I respect other contributors and stare decisis, I don't arrogantly assume I know better than everyone else and disregard the collected wisdom of hundreds of contributors and sources over many years, my superior intellect and dazzling brilliance are just so stunningly obvious that I don't even need to give a reason why something is wrong, if I don't like something just rudely dismiss it as "nonsensical", and if anyone disagrees well you're just not smart enough to understand....if you think the entry is "nonsensical", then there are countless entries across many languages that are in need of revision to fix their "nonsensical" etymology sections citing/linking to "nonsensical" roots, then instead of just whining, insulting, and tearing down—why don't you go and fix all those "nonsensical entries" then with the correct roots that I'm sure you must know, O brilliant one..?

Liddell and Scott state under Ancient Greek entry ἁρπάζω (harpázō) ("to snatch, seize") "From Root ΑΡΠ, come also ἅρπη (hárpē) ("bird of prey; sickle"), Ἅρπυιαι (Hárpuiai) ("Snatchers"; "Harpies"), cf. Lat. rapio." And all related terms refer back to ἁρπάζω. In turn, Lewis and Short state under Latin entry rapio ("to snatch, seize"): "v. a. root ἁρπ; Gr. ἅρπη, ἁρπαγή, ἁρπάζω; Lat. rapidus, rapax, rapina, etc.". And under entry sarpo (to cut off, trim, prune): "perf., sarptum, 3, v. a. root sarp-; Gr. ἁρπάζω." Under verb harpago ("to rob, plunder"): "āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. ἁρπάζω", noun harpago ("a hook for drawing things to one's self"): "ōnis, m. ἁρπάγη (harpágē)". At the very least, Pokorny is almost certainly correct in connecting together what he calls "*rep-" with "*serp-" (*sarp-, *sr̥p-) . Proto-Hellenic would have debuccalized PIE initial /s/ (as preserved in e.g. Slavic *sьrpъ and its many descendants like Russian серп (serp)) to aspiration /h/ e.g. *sarp->*harp-, which in Greek becomes simply αρπ- (arp-) without later added asper/rough breathing diacritics...

As mentioned, there are entries with etymology sections that erroneously link to the wrong PIE root that happens to look similar or the same (as written on Wiktionary) leading to much confusion and contradictory information as with e.g. "*Hrewp-" ("to break"). Likewise, after mapping out "*h₁rep-", for further clarity/precision I was planning on splitting off and creating a separate entry for the *sr̥p- (*serp-/*sarp-) root related to "*h₁rep-", as right now many etymology entries erroneously link to different unrelated existing entries like *ser- ("to bind") *serp- ("to creep, crawl")...sorry to inform him, but not even our Mensa genius here, despite what his ego might have him believe, can state with absolute certainly ANYTHING about PIE roots and the roots/words whence they are derived, and exactly which words in descendant languages came from which roots. Again, on principle of stare decisis and respect for established collective wisdom of many contributors and sources over many years on such matters (e.g. the Germanic roots) I have deferred to what is already written in countless etymology sections of entries in multiple languages to conform to what is already written all across Wiktionary to maintain uniformity, not introduce confusion forcing my lone personal opinion on how things should be (creating confusion and contradiction across Wiktionary) believing I alone know better-and anyone who disagrees is just too stupid to understand my brilliance. If I am wrong on a particular root, then instead of just complaining, go and also fix the many descendant entries with etymology sections (some quite detailed) that have been wrong for years. But for a rude and condescending know-it-all genius-in-his-own-mind with an oversized ego to claim everyone else is wrong and with no explanation just dismissively mock this entry itself as "nonsensical" is...nonsensical.

Inqvisitor (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inqvisitorm: Have a look at my user page "Works in progress" section. Entries that are not ready to be published should be created on a sandbox page first. If you create rubbish main space entries, like you did with this one, they are subject to scrutiny and deletion. It doesn't take a "genius" to look around and see what other users are doing first.

Also, don't base PIE entries on 176 year old books like Liddell and Scott. Many more comprehensive and up-to-date works can be found at Category:Proto-Indo-European reference templates. --{{victar|talk}} 18:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor: Pokorny actually says that the *serp root is unrelated ('unverwandt') to his *rep root. (And I notice that what we have as *h1reyp he has as *reip despite the Greek verb. Did Pokorny ever believe in laryngeals? Did he and Walde believe in them back in 1932 when they write larger, precusor work?)--RichardW57 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

On the principle that bad pages should be cleaned up rather than just deleted, I was about to snip out the *serp sickle-related and *raubōną sections. I think the Greek, Latin and Baltic may be related, though a 'health warning' might be appropriate as *h1rep might not be the right reconstruction - and they might just be a coincidence. Did you throw out the Sanskrit 'rapas'? As you're about, I'll let you do the work.

You may want to consider using {{desctree}}. It makes maintaining lists of descendants easier - so long as it doesn't start running out of time or memory. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Victar: Ancient Greek and Latin words haven't changed their meanings in the past 176 years, genius. ;)

...Anyway @RichardW57: German "unverwandt" doesn't mean "unrelated". "Unver-" (not)+ "-wandt" (change)= "unchanged, fixed, invariable", ergo Pokorny: "-rep...Asper nach dem unverwandten ἅρπη, ἁρπάζω worüber s. *ser-, serp- , Sichel'" i.e. "Asper to the unchanged ἅρπη (arpe), ἁρπάζω (arpazo), over which s. *ser-, serp, Sickle".' (Asper is Greek rough breathing mark ἁἑἡὁὑὡ /h/). Plus it would make no sense to say "Asper unrelated to ἅρπη"...And as mentioned, that's what would be expected based on standard Proto-Hellenic debuccalization of initial /s/ to /h/, easily observed in Latin which clearly has terms derived directly from *rəp- AND *sr̥p likely most of the latter via Greek. One word harpago meaning both "to rob" and "harpoon" is telling. I don't know what Greek verb you are alluding to, but *h₁reyp is a different root from this *rəp-...

...There are dozens of etymology entries which cite some form of *rəp, the most common already in use "h₁rep-" as e.g. Proto-Italic "*rapiō", hence Latin "rapiō, rapidus, raptor, rapax; ēripiō, ēreptor, etc., Ancient Greek ἐρέπτομαι, ἐρεπτόμενοι (eréptomai, ereptómenoi), etc., Germanic *rafjaną; *rafisjaną...rīpaną...raubōną, etc. To @Tom 144:, even if it were "only" Proto-Italic/Latin, that would be understatement of the millennium (heard of the Roman Empire?) considering the degree to which modern Indo-European languages are derived from and influenced by Latin, the single largest European language family directly descended from Latin, and I need not mention the many Germanic lang words from Latin as in English derivatives of "rapt-" alone and Slavic too (and even borrowed into Finno-Ugric). And from *rəp-iō + s further derives *sr̥p- (*serp-/*sarp-), yielding PIE *sr̥pa ("sickle, hook"), *sr̥piō ("snatch, seize") from both root meanings, as seen just in Ancient Greek ἁρπάζω (harpázō), like rapiō+s in wide range of direct, derived, and transferal meanings, whence many countless more words are derived in every branch of Indo-European languages and beyond...

...But whatev, forget it. NOT as a matter of principle, but 'tis not worth arguing with rude, arrogant, obnoxious Victar character, waste of time/energy. If he or anyone had better recommendation of what form should be used as entry for PIE *rəp- root, I would happily move the page per consensus-ensure all entries on Wiktionary adhere to that decision, not a messy patchwork of confusion/contradiction. (Keeping in mind this is an online dictionary for popular use, not a private academic playpen: form should be as simple/recognizable as possible, not one person's unique speculative hypothetical form that nobody else can find.) When I said "work-in-progress", I did not mean wrongbut revisions in light of new information verified in sources for that language as is the case for any entry. As if anyone who knew PIE (if it existed) would recognize any of these pseudo-recons using Phoenician-Greek-Latin-derived artificial alphabet to opine strongly about laryngeals...

I wasn't playing Proto-IE reconstruction speculative games guessing all different made-up complex variations, I seek only to create simplest root entry possible to complete all etymology trees in real languages that source back to that *root for completeness and uniformity, so all entries derived from one root link to the same functioning entry, no red links, confusion, contradiction. If it says x=true on one entry, shouldn't be any place else on Wiktionary that says x=false. Yet we have dozens of articles that link to this one root, dozens more link to variants or to incorrect roots, far more damaging to functioning of Wiktionary as a whole-a dictionary for people looking up real words-than whatever the feigned complaint is re: a widely-used root entry doesn't compute with Victar's personal opinion, therefore "nonsensical", misrepresenting my entry+my stated reason for creating the entry (NOT a duplicate). Proto-Indo-European is integrated with all of Wiktionary, not hidden away as a separate academic project just to play around speculating every possible alternate form before basic widely-recognized base root entry can be created. Oh the irony of Victar telling me to "look around and see what other users are doing first" are you for real?!...Shouldn't be a source of controversy but some can't resist the urge to boss others around on a power trip rather than work with others to improve Wiki for everyone...done arguing over this. Inqvisitor (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• (Um, no, the sense you seem to be thinking of for unverwandt doesn't mean "unchanged", so much as "fixed, not turning away". See also Duden. Also, there is no German prefix *unver-. The prefix is un-, in Pokorny's case, added to verwandt (“related”). See also Duden for un- and verwandt. Pokorny brings up Ancient Greek Ἅρπυια (Hárpuia), then has a parenthetical comment where he says "Asper nach dem unverwandten ἅρπη, ἁρπάζω, worüber s. *ser-, *serp- „Sichel“" ("Aspiration after the unrelated ἅρπη (hárpē), ἁρπάζω (harpázō), about which see [root] *ser-, *serp-, “sickle”", which root appears later in this same work). From the context, the "not turning away" sense doesn't fit Pokorny's text: he's saying that the Ancient Greek terms ἅρπη (hárpē) and ἁρπάζω (harpázō) are unrelated, either to each other, and/or to the term Ἅρπυια (Hárpuia) mentioned just before this parenthetical comment. Here's Pokorny's text for anyone interested. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC))

• (I don't know why I'm wasting time on this since the core issue is over, Victar wins this round, too exasperating to continue beating this dead horse. But for the record, "unverwandten" as used by Pokorny does mean "unchanged", not "unrelated". Slightly archaic, equivalent to un+ver+wanden, essentially "without change", from wandeln (“to change, transform”), verwandeln (“to transform, metamorphose”). Alois Walde and Julius Pokorny first wrote their full work in the 1920s, Pokorny wrote and published his revised Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch in the 1950s. My 2011 Langenscheidt Deutsch-Englisch does not contain "unverwandt", (does contain verwandeln, wandeln). My 1978 Cassell's German-English dictionary does contain a specific entry for "unverwandt": "fixed, resolute, steadfast, unwavering, unswerving"...nothing about "unrelated" at all, not even as an alternate meaning, no entry meaning "unrelated". That modern meaning is just a simpleton obvious observation derivation from what modern un+verwandt would mean, but 'tis not even in common use, one would just say e.g. "ohne Beziehung (zu)" or as Duden's example ("die beiden Dinge stehen miteinander in keinem Zusammenhang", "the two things are unrelated") or at most relevance just "nicht verwandt". "Unverwandt" is not regularly used as an adjective idiomatically to translate literally what in English would simply be called adjective "unrelated". (Example to illustrate, on the flip side, a literal translation of "unverwandt" would be like "untransformed" or "unmetamorphosed", both of which are words in the English dictionary e.g. Merriam-Webster defines as "not changed in form" and a fluent Anglophone would know what they mean, "un-" prefix+<root> word—but such a literal translation "un-"+"transformed"/"un-"+"metamorphosed" as words would not reflect common regular English usage for an Anglophone to say that something is unchanged in form.) "Unver-" is of course not its own prefix, but there are many words prefixed with un+ver+<root>, and in many cases the inherited German root word may no longer perfectly match a regular modern German form but the adjective still lives on (or at least lived on in the time that Pokorny was writing), and you can discern what the root word is here easily. And again, it makes absolutely no sense in context for Pokorny to say "unrelated". Your translation ("Aspiration after the unrelated ἅρπη (hárpē), ἁρπάζω (harpázō), about which see [root] *ser-, *serp-, “sickle”", which root appears later in this same work) makes even less sense for Pokorny to say. Asper AFTER the "unrelated" arpe, arpazo would be not only a nonsensical statement but, um, WRONG. The asper ˂̔˃ is put before the words ἅρπη/ἁρπάζω in front of the initial vowel (/h/ + arpe, /h/ + arpazo), not "after"! And if they were unrelated, there would really be no reason for Pokorny to even bring them up in this context! I have page 865 in front of me, you fabricated "which root appears later in this same work" out of thin air. The exact quote discussing Greek under the -rep entry on p. 865: «gr. ἐρέπτομαι `rupfe, reiße ab, fresse', ἅρπυια (Asper nach dem unverwandten ἅρπη, ἁρπάζω, worüber s. *ser-, serp- `Sichel'), ἀρέπυια `Harpye', hom. ἅρπυιαι ἀν-ηρέψαντο (Hs. ἀνηρείψαντο);»...And those words ARE all related FFS, ἅρπη (hárpē),ἁρπάζω (harpázō) from root ΑΡΠ... ἍΡΠυιαι "Snatchers" comes from the same root as the verb ΑΡΠάζω, "to snatch", yes. What Pokorny was saying under the first -rep entry (after -rent), middle of page 865: "Asper (̔) to the fixed/unchanged ἅρπη (arpe), ἁρπάζω (arpazo) He is saying that because anyone who knows anything about Greek would know that A)*arp- is an Old Greek root and B)Proto-Hellenic would debuccalize initial /s/ to /h/ (Asper) as e.g. *sarpazo, *sarpe to *harpazo, *harpe written as ΑΡΠΑΖΩ, ΑΡΠΗ, which later get an Asper added in front of them, which is why the root is unchanged, unlike comparable PIE '-serp root-derived words in other languages starting with /s/; that's why those terms are related and relevant to include in the entry in the first place...sheesh know-it-alls trying to outdo others and prove you're smarter accusing others of getting things wrong when you're the one who actually has it wrong, not a good look, pointless debate...now let this wretched post die already. Out. Inqvisitor (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC))

• The word you're thinking of for "untransformed" would be unverwandelt, not unverwandt. The only place where I've encountered any putative sense of "untransformed" for unverwandt is in your writings above, and in our entry under [[unverwandt#Etymology_2]] -- which apparently you added, and which is incorrect, according to both my own understanding of German verbs, and German references such as Duden: see the Herkunft section for verwandt, which clearly notes that this is the participle from verwenden.

The term unverwandt derives from root verb wenden, not wandeln.

1890 edition of A Dictionary of the German and English Languages

You mention the age of Pokorny's text, and argue that the term has changed meaning. I happen to have a German-English dictionary from 1890, frontispiece at right. This dictionary has entries for both unverwandelt and unverwandt, as shown here.

My concern is whether our content is correct and usable. If an editor is basing their additions on sources written in a language they don't understand very well, that is a big concern. It's even more of a concern if they react aggressively when potential mistakes are questioned. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@RichardW57: In theory, I get the argument of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, but there are a limited number of users that work in PIE on en.Wikt, and it may be months, if ever, an entry gets cleaned up, and to have a bad entry like that, just sitting on the mainspace, reflects poorly on the project. Better to delete them or move them to user sandboxes. --{{victar|talk}} 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with @Victar, delete. If you cleaned all the descendants up, you'd en up with only Latin rapio at most. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the user says it's "obviously" a "work-in-progress", the solution is that they just move it to a sandbox page so they can work on it in their own space and publish if/when it's cleaned up. --{{victar|talk}} 19:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• As the user claims to be still actively working on this page and has yet to be completed, I have moved the entry to their user space. --{{victar|talk}} 17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)