96.232.245.156

ob

As I stated in the summary, Old English of and æf is from Proto-Indo-European *h₂epó, not *h₁epi, from which modern English by (Old English bī) comes from. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• *h₁epi: Ancient Greek ἐπί (epí), Sanskrit अपि (api), Old Armenian եւ (ew)
• *h₂epó: Ancient Greek ἀπό (apó), Sanskrit अप (apa), Latin ab

Not to mention the formatting issues with your edits, such as the spurious bunch of combining diacritics. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

--96.232.245.156 11:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

       I apologize for the format error. It was an attempt to fix indentation.

By the wiki's data you are correct, but I do believe something is extremely incoherent with the etymologies of either Latin ob or Old English of

I run by these postulates,

• Latin ob stands equivalent to Old English of/æf "of" , Please see Proto-Germanic *ēbanþs for comparison.
• Latin ad stands equivalent to Old English æt "at"
• Latin de stands equivalent to Old English to/te "to"
• Latin ab stands equivalent to Old English af "off"

For example; English abdicate. -dicate "declare" ,ab- "off" or obduct -duct "lead" ob- "in the direction of"

These postulates tend to work, and my mission is to understand why. For these to function justly, there must be something not true about the etymology of "of". The argument I made stands as inductive.

If you're going to do something that disagrees with the existing theories of the existing of the Latin and English words and how they relate to each other, I recommend taking the topic to WT:ES before making changes like the ones you made. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 11:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)