Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/médʰu

Is it cognate with *mélid ? --Fsojic (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. At least not at a level where we can figure it out with our current knowledge. —CodeCat 17:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this answer ! --Fsojic (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing dash

This entry should have a dash at the end of it, denoting an unknown suffix. --Victar (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

But is the ending really unknown, or is it just no visible ending at all? There's a difference... neuter nouns have no ending for the nominative/accusative singular in PIE. So we'd have to confirm whether this was a masculine or neuter noun, since the descendants seem to be both. A masculine noun would be *médʰus, but a neuter one would be *médʰu with no ending. —CodeCat 17:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

More descendants

http://www.eki.ee/dict/ety/index.cgi?Q=mesi&F=M&C06=et

This page lists the following languages as descending from this root: Estonian Livonian Votic Finnish Izhorian Karelian Ludic Veps Erzya Mokša Mari? Udmurt Komi Hungarian

Might be a slightly later loan from Indo-Iranian.

It's indeed usually considered a pre-Indo-Iranian loan, which are probably best listed separately rather than under Indo-Iranian proper. Anyway, see now Proto-Uralic *mete (and also Proto-Finnic ) for more. --Tropylium (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

On this topic, we could add also Chinese among the descendants; Old Chinese *mit is usually considered a loan from Tocharian. --Tropylium (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does it say Middle Chinese? Wikipedia lists it in w:Old Chinese#Loanwords. That also makes better chronological sense. Proto-Tocharian wasn't contemporary with Middle Chinese, but with Old Chinese, AFAICT. Only attested Tocharian is contemporary with Middle Chinese, but the loan appears to be older than that. I think the reason is phonological (I'm not an expert on Chinese historical phonology, though). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic: *medwḗˀd

@Victar The reconstruction for the Balto-Slavic language is incorrect. It is best to interpret this as a Proto-Slavic phenomenon. Gnosandes (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote in my comment, if you're suggesting a possible PIE formation for a PSl word, you *must* also infer a PBS form. You can't simply have a PSl word directly inherited from PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar I didn't suggest this nonsense. It was already written. Check it out in history. Gnosandes (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar If you suggest a Balto-Slavic stem, which in my opinion is equally incorrect, explain it in a Proto-Slavic article: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/medv%C4%9Bd%D1%8C. I refuse to participate in your marginal games. Gnosandes (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The "you're" in this sentence is in the form of a Generic you. I can see how that's confusing for someone that doesn't speak English well.

I see nothing conflicting with the PSl. entry. Please see the two sources beside *medʰu-h₁éd-. --{{victar|talk}} 15:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove references

@Victar, You deleted the Caucasian form for no reason. Calling it "total garbage". There are 3 examples and, possibly, 2 more examples. This conforms to "Meillet's rule". At the same time, it has long been known that the Indo-Europeans were familiar with the Caucasians. This is why this isogloss is quite good: *médʰu : *mĭʒ̱ū "sweet" > *hw-mĭʒ̱ū "honey". In the same way, you can delete the link to the great linguists Adams and Mallory. And you should have noticed that Starostin gives exactly the same information. And makes a remark on the Semitic comparison. (Perhaps it is even a loan in Indo-European, judging by this variation in semantics.) Perhaps there will be a necessary Etruscan form matu "wine".Gnosandes (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking for a new way to get perma-blocked, adding Nostratic garbage is a surefire way to go about it. Adding it to the etymology as a cognate, instead of as a borrowing, like you're suggesting above, is why it was deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 14:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, Where do you see Nostratic linguistics here? (This word has an exact definition, and the Caucasian languages were never there). You could have changed my edit instead of deleting it. You made a remark to me about it a couple of days ago. ) Gnosandes (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding crackpot BANNED theories is not the same of not correcting typing mistakes. See User_talk:Gnosandes#Starostin. --{{victar|talk}} 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, Where do you see the BANNED theory here? This is a loan from the Caucasian languages. Gnosandes (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to repeat myself. See above. --{{victar|talk}} 14:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, You didn't repeat yourself because you didn't answer the question. Gnosandes (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, in my first reply. --{{victar|talk}} 15:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, Why do you copy the same reconstruction twice? These are two different works where the reconstruction can be refined. *dʷ and *dw is these are different things. Gnosandes (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Etruscan

What's the source for maθcva? It contains the plural marker -cva. Seems like a wild guess to me. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Link with Proto-Semitic

@Caoimhin ceallach I see you reverted an edit by an IP user, which is still there at Proto-Semitic *mataḳ-. I think the idea is that a borrowing from Hittite into Proto-Semitic is about impossible given the timeframes involved. Sounds plausible to me. Exarchus (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea suggested by Mallory & Adams (2006) is that the PIE term was borrowed from a Semitic language.

As for the Rabin (1963) paper, I can't access it. Maybe he simply suggests a borrowing from Hittite into early Hebrew. Exarchus (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Victar as you seem to added most content here.

I also have no idea how Hittite /⁠mitgaimi/ could have developed from Proto-Anatolian *médu, the borrowing from Akkadian mutqûm is much more plausible. Exarchus (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that edit because it was totally unclear what they were even trying to say. "Possibly related to" is very broad. It allows for borrowing in either direction or from a common third source at a wide range of times. IP seemed to be thinking about some narrower, but unspecified proposition. The references, lacking page numbers, seem to only serve to support that Proto-Semitic and Hittite were spoken out very different times, but that doesn't rule out a link. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree the edit in itself was not clear, but I also very much doubt the Rabin paper ("Hittite words in Hebrew") actually claims a borrowing from Hittite into Proto-Semitic. Maybe a claim is made that the Hittite term spread to several Semite languages, but then that would suggest there never was a Proto-Semitic *mataḳ-. Exarchus (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)