"not a root"

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Rua

I agree on all points that this form is low-quality as an IE reconstruction. What surprises me is the practice that an individual's editorial judgment is good enough to reject a reconstruction that appears in a reputable source.

Also, if the policy were that being securely traced to a root (with just one phonemic vowel) was necessary for a reconstruction to deserve an entry, I'd have to call that too dogmatic. That would make us get rid of the entry for *kʷetwóres!

4pq1injbok (talk)03:53, 5 October 2016

(For example, I could spend months getting rid of all the dubious stuff in Karulis' etymological dictionary that we currently quote in Latvian entries. So far I've mostly held back...)

4pq1injbok (talk)04:04, 5 October 2016

I have my doubts about the Latvian stuff as well.

CodeCat13:27, 5 October 2016
 

It's ultimately a good policy, since if something is changed incorrectly, it will eventually get changed back to something correct. One day those Latvian entries will be correct. That's the aim of wiktionary, the way I see it. Keep beating things with a hammer until they are good.

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:05, 5 October 2016