Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Vulgar latin verbs300:00, 23 September 2020
maraid and absolute vs. conjunct issues002:07, 6 August 2020
Derivation of Maid, Maidli, Meydli510:13, 18 July 2020
Inflection of tinke119:32, 13 July 2020
Proto-Indo-European7111:40, 13 July 2020
nl-interj416:22, 10 July 2020
*maiwaz "gull"021:35, 6 July 2020
PGmc keluz Etym 2108:55, 3 July 2020
ghenoeghen208:43, 30 June 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/*kāsijaz718:35, 18 June 2020
hwalbą010:30, 9 June 2020
Hellenic daughters321:00, 3 June 2020
Zeeuws009:46, 21 May 2020
Template:prefixsee109:12, 28 April 2020
My change to *gʷelbʰ-018:57, 26 April 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bō-109:02, 25 April 2020
van006:57, 25 April 2020
werpijan218:21, 24 April 2020
Synonyms for aiskōną110:25, 23 April 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/masgás310:42, 20 April 2020
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Vulgar latin verbs

1. Do you know any vulgar latin verb pages? So far I have only managed to find danciare (reconstruction;latin/dancio), but im looking for other verbs (like say verbs in -ire, -ēre, -ere) 2. You removed the vulgar latin essere page, why? Maybe I overlooked but I saw no reason. Is there a way I could see this page? I wasn't able to find the logs.

OudgrieksStudent (talk)19:25, 16 June 2020

Vulgar Latin is no longer considered a separate language from regular Latin, so all terms that have classical equivalents are now placed there.

Rua (mew)20:34, 16 June 2020

If neither the Vulgar Latin form is explicitly stated in the Classical Latin form's article nor its Vulgar Latin conjugations given, I think we lose a lot of information as has happened through the deletion of "voleo". Doesn't seem right to me...

RayZa (talk)09:52, 11 August 2020

I agree. I don't think these should be deleted... Who set this policy? When was it decided and why wasn't I notified? Word dewd544 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Word dewd544 (talk)00:00, 23 September 2020
 
 
 

maraid and absolute vs. conjunct issues

Apparently the mainstream theory of Old Irish absolute vs. conjunct etymology in Celtic circles was that Celtic had innovated a apocope of -i in the primary IE verbal endings that was blocked by a conveniently transphonologized enclitic. The encliticized verb forms became absolute forms and the apocopated forms became conjunct forms. This theory is so mainstream that virtually everyone mentioning the subject today follows it (this does not mean that I myself support it), the only exceptions seeming to be Matasović and Kortlandt.

This theory causes headaches in places like maraid, since your form *marati would end up truncated to *marat, but we see mair as the Old Irish conjunct with the palatalization appearing out of thin air.

A few outsiders of Celtic circles (Kortlandt and Matasović) are completely baffled by this theory. There's obvious problem of *ɸeruti (last year) leading to Old Irish uraid which obviously conflicts with the desire to get a sound law that apocopates the 3sg ending *-ti down to *-t and *-nti to *-nt. In an attempt to eliminate it, theorists note the accusative definite article being always used before uraid in Old Irish and extrapolate an accusative *(ɸ)erutam into Proto-Celtic (I personally believe the use of the accusative article is analogical). Kortlandt notes that such an accusative form of that adverb has no IE parallel and *péruti shows blatant fossilization in other IE branches already.

In short, the business of reconstructing Celtic verbs is more complicated than we expect.

mellohi! (僕の乖離)01:45, 6 August 2020

Derivation of Maid, Maidli, Meydli

Hi there!

I originally wanted to search for the right place of the Alemannic word for girl Maydli or Maidli (east Alemannic) or Meydli (west Alemannic). This term is quit near to the English word maid. However, because of the li ending, which is a reduction form, it stands not for young women, it stand for a girl (mostly a younger one, not a teen). This principle is typical (Swiss) Alemannic and can be observed in many other words like Bergli (smaller mountain), Schiffli (smaller ship), and so on.

While the term Maid (for young women) is fully outdated and replaced by "jungi Frou", the word Maydli, Maidli, Meydli are in heavy use.

So whats the problem of the following derivation for maid, Maydli / Meydli?

  • magaþ => magadīn => maiden, meiden => maid
  • magaþ => magadīn => mait => Maidli, Maydli, Meydli
Lion10 (talk)14:46, 12 July 2020

Why do you think maid must be from *magadīn? It looks much more like *magaþ.

Rua (mew)19:01, 12 July 2020

Yes, I was wrong I thought also "maid" means somehow "girl". However this is true only for the Alemannic words Maydli, Meydli or Meydschi were the meaning is effectively little girl (= magadīn). I have now learned that the sense of a word is in that context here not the relevant point, the genetic relationship is what really matters.

magaþ => maiden, meiden => maid (young women)

magaþ => magad => maget => Maidli, Maydli, Meydli, Meydschi (girl, young girl)

And by the way, the page for German word "Maid" could be regarding this aspect improved. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Maid

The same is true also for the the High German word "Mädchen" (which is effectively derived from magadīn). Also this page could be in this aspect somewhat improved.

magadīn => magedin => Mädchen

Thanks and regards

Lion10 (talk)13:52, 13 July 2020

Unless I'm really missing something, German Mädchen is not a descendant of Proto-West Germanic *magadīn. Rather, German Mädchen is from German Magd + diminutive suffix -chen. German Magd is descended from Proto-West Germanic *magaþ.

Also, English maid is not derived from maiden, but is instead descended from *magaþ, same as German Magd. Meanwhile, English maiden is descended from *magadīn. The etymology currently given in the maid entry appears to be incorrect.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig15:44, 13 July 2020

Well, it seems that this overall topic is somewhat more complex than I thought. So according to the answer from Eiríkr Útlendi, the following Mädchen entry in magaþ is also incorrect.

It would be really great if someone with a linguistic background can check & correct the whole matter.

However, at least the following derivation should be correct:

Alemannic Maydli is from (old?) German Mayd + diminutive suffix -li. So, the Alemannic term Maydli is effectively descended from Proto-West Germanic *magaþ.

Lion10 (talk)09:45, 18 July 2020

Derived, not descended. Descent implies that the same word continued to exist and be propagated through the generations.

Rua (mew)10:13, 18 July 2020
 
 
 
 
 

Inflection of tinke

Hello, I see you wrote a comment in the inflection heading of tinke that says the verb isn't strong. This seems consistent with English think, and the existence of the -t suffix would indeed point to it being a weak verb that only changed its vowel stem because of non-ablaut sound changes. However, wouldn't it be easiest to use Template:fy-infl-verb-st. It doesn't seem that tinke fits in either of the weak verb categories, and I'm not even sure if their respective templates support irregular past tenses like tocht. If you have any suggestions for how to add the inflection to the entry, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Ppcosta (talk)18:31, 13 July 2020

As of right now, there is no template that is suited to verbs such as these. But {{fy-infl-verb-st}} would not be correct, because it not only says "strong" in the template but also categorises the verb as such.

Rua (mew)19:32, 13 July 2020
 

Proto-Indo-European

I'm going to create a Babel template for Proto-Indo-European, but I don't know much about the inflection. Anyways I created a sentence without much knowledge how-to (...):

Manus (nom. sg., m.) oinos (nom. sg., m.) wéwkontes (pp. of wewk "to sound", acc. plural., m.) g̑erontes (pp. of ger "to be old", acc. plural., m.) bhlēu (bad) au̯edti (she, he, it speaks, primary active).

This human speaks the old spoken badly.

Could you be kind and correct it? The things I don't know are: the word order and the adverb forming of Proto-Indo-European.

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

HeliosX (talk)09:39, 23 July 2012

We don't use ĝ or u̯ as letters, but ǵ and w, and diphthongs normally end in y or w as well.

I think a better term for language would be Template:termx, which is commonly used to mean language in many descendants (including Latin, Slavic and Germanic). The accusative is Template:termx.

Template:termx means primarily "speak" or "sound out" so it's probably the best verb to use. Unfortunately, I don't know what its present tense is, which would be the tense to use for habitual statements like this. The only descendant that has a candidate for this is Sanskrit, which has two forms, vakti and vivakti. I don't know anything about Sanskrit but the first looks like an athematic present and the second like an i-reduplicated present (what the difference is between them I don't know). So I think we could have a wild guess and say it has an athematic present Template:termx.

I don't think 'manus' was the IE word for human, and I'm not even sure it existed at all. But there is Template:termx, which is the ancestor of Latin homo and Germanic Template:termx.

The word for 'this' isn't Template:termx, that word meant 'one'. For 'this' we can probably use Template:termx.

For 'old' we can use Template:termx.

So now we have:

Só dʰǵʰémō séneh₂m dn̥ǵʰwéh₂m (badly) wékʷti.
This human/person (NOM) old language (ACC) badly speaks.

But we can also try other phrases to suit our knowledge of PIE words. For example:

Só dʰǵʰémō séneh₂m dn̥ǵʰwéh₂m (well) ne wékʷti.
This person (NOM) old language (ACC) well not speaks.

Or:

Só dʰǵʰémō séneh₂s dn̥ǵʰuh₂és (much) ne wékʷti/wóyde.
This person (NOM) old language (GEN) much not speaks/knows. (This person does not speak much of the old language)

Or even:

Tósmey dʰǵʰm̥éney/dʰǵʰm̥néy séneh₂s dn̥ǵʰuh₂és (much) ǵnéh₃tis ne ésti.
This person (DAT) old language (ACC)) (much) knowledge (NOM) not is. (PIE had no word for 'have', instead the dative was used with 'is', so read it as This person does not have much knowledge of the old language)

There are several different ways to phrase things like 'well', too. For example it could be translated at 'with ease' using an instrumental. 'badly' could be phrased as 'with difficulty'. We could also choose to use Template:termx and Template:termx as terms for the user, or something else if we can find a PIE term for 'use' and 'user'.

CodeCat12:29, 23 July 2012
Edited by 3 users.
Last edit: 11:35, 13 July 2020

Thanks for this certain answer! The term Proto-Indo-European *neud means to "to make use of", whence German "nutzen" descended, I guess. Anyhow I think it wouldn't fit it, because it'd sound like someone sells Wiktionary entries...

1: Só dʰǵʰémō apo séneh₂y dn̥ǵʰwéh₂y ad nū meg ne prepe. This human hasn't learnt much of the old language yet.

2: Tósmey dʰǵʰm̥éney séneh₂s dn̥ǵʰuh₂és sem ǵnéh₃tis ésti. This human knows some about the old language.

3: I dʰǵʰémō peri séneh₂y dn̥ǵʰwéh₂y ano suy keleuy wóyde. This human knows about the old language in a good way.

The 4 is for you, I think we can enhance with every number the sentence complexity.

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

HeliosX (talk)20:06, 23 July 2012

Uh... well I think it may be better to use simple phrases, that will probably reduce the chance of errors. After all neither of us really know how they spoke PIE, and although presumably the oldest IE languages are closest to it, I don't know any old languages fluently either. It was already hard enough for me to create these templates for the old Germanic languages, and those are actually attested!

I have some questions and comments about the sentences you created as well.

  1. What does 'apo' mean in the first sentence? And what about 'meg', I can't recall seeing that pronoun before. The dative of 'old tongue' is séneh₂ey dn̥ǵʰuh₂éy. Sénos is a thematic adjective and so it does not ablaut, its feminine form is séneh₂ and consequently the dative is made by adding the dative ending -ey to it. Meanwhile, dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s is athematic (hysterokinetic) so its stem shifts from dn̥ǵʰwéh₂- to dn̥ǵʰuh₂´- in the oblique cases, hence dn̥ǵʰuh₂éy. Finally, what is 'prepe'?
  2. Does 'sem' mean 'some'? If so, then it ought to be an adjective or a pronoun and should have a case ending. Do you know which descendants have such a pronoun?
  3. What is 'I'? I also think that knowing 'about' is the same as knowing 'of' and hence would simply use the genitive case, so an adverb like 'peri' would not be necessary (and in its spatial sense, it would take the locative case most likely). I also have no idea what 'ano suy keleuy' is... those last two words don't even seem possible in PIE, my guess is they ought to have been 'swi' and 'kelewi' instead.
CodeCat20:42, 23 July 2012
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 00:55, 26 January 2016

Thanks for the response!

  1. With "apo" I meant "of", but you maybe know the more correct phrase. Alternatively we can use "aw", btw so I'd have to move the entry "au" I created... The term "prepe" should be the perfect indicative of "prep" ("to catch sight of"). Of "prep" English furbish descended.
  2. Yes, I meant "some" with "sem", I just forgot to decline it... So it'd be "semtis"? Of course, I think all the Germanic with *samaz, as example English "some" or German "-sam".
  3. With "i" I meant the pronoun whence English "yon", Dutch "geen" and German "jene" descended. With "swi" I meant "good" and "kelewi" "way" and "ano" "on". Of "sw" Hindi सुख (sukh) ("delight") comes from. Of “kelew" Lithuanian keliáuju descended.

I'm glad that you analyize my sentences very certain.

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

HeliosX (talk)21:58, 23 July 2012
Edited by author.
Last edit: 22:03, 29 May 2014

I get the feeling you don't really understand all that much about Indo-European grammar and how the cases work. Prepositions really weren't very common in Indo-European because of the case system; the usage was probably similar to that of Finnish. A case was used whenever possible, and prepositions and adverbs were used only to specify the meaning further.

Another thing about PIE that is very important to understand is roots and ablaut. Without knowing how that works you can't really go into the depth of the grammar. To give a very short introduction, every root has a consonantal base consisting of one syllable where a single ablaut vowel e is inserted. That e can be replaced with o, or lengthened to ē and ō, or removed entirely. So, in a root like *bʰer- (to carry), the root itself is really *bʰ_r-, where the _ stands for the ablaut vowel. That means the root can take the forms *bʰer- (e-grade or 'full grade'), bʰor-, bʰr̥-, and also the lengthened grades bʰēr- and bʰōr-, although those are rare (if they occur at all). Suffixes also have ablaut vowels, and the same rules apply. Which grade a syllable has depends on the grammar: some cases have one ablaut pattern and other cases have others, and similarly for verbs. Changes in ablaut vowels are often accompanied by a change in accent as well. Roots are normally cited in the full grade (e-grade), so a root's entry on Wiktionary will always contain e. There are a few roots that apparently did not have any ablaut, but those are very rare. So a root with no e is suspicious.

Roots themselves always begin and end with a consonant. There are some words that begin with a vowel but they are not 'real' roots, usually they form adverbs and particles rather than nouns, adjectives and verbs. So the same applies here: a root beginning or ending with a vowel is suspicious and probably wrong.

One thing I haven't mentioned yet is the vowel a. That is a rather strange vowel in PIE. Several linguists believe it didn't even exist in PIE, while others believe it was very limited. In any case, it is a very rare vowel in PIE, so any word that contains it is again very suspicious and probably needs some close examination.

I looked at the entry 'au' you created. It uses indo-european.info as a reference. Please don't use that site as it is not a reliable source for PIE. The people of that site are creating a conlang out of reconstructions for PIE, but what they have created is not PIE at all. On Wiktionary we follow the scientific reconstruction of PIE only. In particular, their conlang does not have laryngeals, which are a standard feature of reconstructed PIE. The root 'au' that you added probably should be h₂ew- (because a is suspicious, most cases for it really come from h₂e), but I can't be sure.

Now about your new sentences...

  1. I am not familiar with the root *prep-, but judging from its meaning I don't see how it can mean 'learn'. But anyway, we should probably use a simpler word like 'know' or 'speak'.
  2. Instead of saying 'has knowledge' why not just say 'knows'?
  3. I believe the normal term for 'this' was *ki(s) or *kos, but it's uncertain and I don't know its inflection. But even then, the 'general' pronoun *só suffices in this case, there is no need for anything else. 'In a good way' seems unnecessarily complicated when 'well' works too.

Personally I would like to keep the sentences as similar as possible, so we don't need to write three completely different sentences (with more chance of errors).

CodeCat23:39, 23 July 2012
 
 
 

It's interesting that that dative-"to be" construct for "to have" is also used in Finnish and Hungarian, and therefore most likely in Proto-Uralic as well.
Also, do you know if the presence of the PIE accent on a given symbol directly affects its reflexes? For example, if the first person plural pronoun was **wey rather than *wéy, would there be any difference in the derivatives?

Jackwolfroven (talk)01:01, 3 February 2013

That depends on the language. Aside from languages that preserve the accent placement itself, there are also languages that preserve indirect traces of the accent. Verner's Law in Germanic is a good example of that.

CodeCat01:53, 3 February 2013

Ok. Do you have any idea how PIE *méme ~ moy reflexed into PG *mīnaz?

Jackwolfroven (talk)02:40, 3 February 2013

I don't think they did. *mīnaz probably goes back to an earlier *meynos, but I don't know where that came from.

CodeCat02:55, 3 February 2013
 
 
 
 
 

Waarom heb je {{nl-interj}} verwijderd? Dit is verwarrend.

Alexis Jazz (talk)14:13, 10 July 2020

Het deed niets bijzonders, het is precies hetzelfde als {{head|nl|interjection}}. Normaal worden sjablonen die geen bijzondere functie verrichten verwijderd.

Rua (mew)15:45, 10 July 2020

Dat is bij zoveel sjablonen het geval. Ondertussen bestaan {{de-interj}}, {{es-interj}}, {{zh-interj}}, {{ko-interj}}, {{it-interj}} en ruim 80 andere sjablonen nog gewoon.

Alexis Jazz (talk)16:01, 10 July 2020

Ja, die zouden ook best verwijderd kunnen worden denk ik.

Rua (mew)16:03, 10 July 2020
 
 
 

*maiwaz "gull"

Wnat seems to be the problem, officer?

We cannot refer to a completely nebulous substrate theory and at the same time expect any alternative to derive completely regularly. So I'm sure that whatever formal problem you might see with relating avis to Lua error in Module:languages at line 453: The language or etymology language code "gmc-pro" is not valid., it's no grounds for you to deny inclusion. Having just about any IE comparison, the more the merrier, to balance the view would be prefered.

On the talk page you wondered long ago about the i-stem reflex in Old English. Any updates on this? Oh, look at that: *Hew=i-s.

109.41.1.17521:35, 6 July 2020

PGmc keluz Etym 2

Hi Rua ! I just created an Etymology 2 at Proto-Germanic *keluz (throat); however, the Inflection table insists on displaying the term as a u-stem despite the fact that I am explicitly setting the stem to "=z". Can you please check ? Thanks !

Leasnam (talk)05:04, 3 July 2020

z-stems end in -az in the nominative singular, so -uz would not match. How do you think this would be inflected?

Rua (mew)08:55, 3 July 2020
 

ghenoeghen

I think you are wrong here https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ganugan%C4%85&diff=prev&oldid=53853693 It is a quirk of Dutch orthography that [u] is written as "oe"..

Cf. en: good nl: goed de: gut

Please don't tell me they are from different origin just because of the spelling.

Jcwf (talk)20:16, 29 June 2020

Rua knows that <oe> is /u/. It's that (Middle) Dutch /u/ comes from PGem *ō, not PGem *u.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:23, 29 June 2020

Indeed, the descendant of this verb in Middle Dutch, if one had existed, would be *genōgen, whereas genoegen is a derivative of *ganōgaz. Note the difference in the vowels: ō > oe, u > ō.

Rua (mew)08:42, 30 June 2020
 
 

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/*kāsijaz

The entry for *kāsijaz was originally placed under Proto-Germanic since I found descendants for this word in the North Germanic languages. Here is an article by Guus Kroonen where the author discusses a reflexes of Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz existing in North Germanic languages on page 21. (https://web.archive.org/web/20171110004825/http://nors.ku.dk/ansatte/?pure=files/35220983/elfdalian.pdf). The original entry for *kāsijaz included these descendants in the entry so I have no idea why you decided to move the entry to West Germanic.

Rigognos Molinarios (talk)16:44, 18 June 2020

Ringe gives it as a borrowing from Latin into West Germanic.

Rua (mew)16:51, 18 June 2020
 

Additionally, I have just looked through Kroonen 2013 right now and as I originally suspected, the author cites North Germanic descendants of Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz on page 275 [1]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Kroonen, Guus (2013) , “*kāsja-”, in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 11), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 275
Rigognos Molinarios (talk)16:54, 18 June 2020
 

I suggest checking the two sources I have mentioned to see whether they are worth including in the Proto-Germanic entry. If the sources are valid, then it may be prudent to restore the original entry for *kāsijaz under Proto-Germanic. Because of the large number of redirects and page edits that were necessary after transferring the entry to West Germanic, it might be easier for you to use MewBot to change the links than to manually change them individually.

Rigognos Molinarios (talk)17:04, 18 June 2020

It's not so much the sources, but the question of whether the Norse forms are inherited or borrowed. Ringe thinks they're borrowed, Kroonen thinks inherited. What does Wiktionary think?

Rua (mew)17:14, 18 June 2020

I reviewed Ringe 2014 and the author did not address the descendants of the term in North Germanic. They are not brough up anywhere in the book.[1]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Ringe, Donald; Taylor, Ann (2014) The Development of Old English (A Linguistic History of English; 2), Oxford: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 135: “PWGmc *kāsī”
Rigognos Molinarios (talk)17:23, 18 June 2020

Um, caseus is listed as Latin borrowing into PWG, so of course that means the Norse word was borrowed.

Rua (mew)18:11, 18 June 2020

I do not deny that a Proto-Germanic term *kāsijaz would have been borrowed from Latin cāseus. I'm simply stating that the term may have been borrowed earlier that the West Germanic period since at least one author lists reflexes for the term in North Germanic languages.

I don't want this discussion to drag on too long, but Don Ringe makes no mention of West Germanic *kāsī being borrowed into North Germanic yielding Old Norse kæsir. Before assuming that Don Ringe implies that the term was borrowed into North Germanic through West Germanic at a relatively late date, keep in mind that it could also be possible that he simply does not consider Old Norse kæsir an inherited term from a Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz since there is a significant semantic shift between the Old Norse term and the West Germanic terms. The Old Norse word, kæsir, means "rennet, abomasum" rather than specifically "cheese". There is also a possibility that Don Ringe simply wasn't aware of the Old Norse term so he didn't include it in his 2014 book.

Rigognos Molinarios (talk)18:33, 18 June 2020
 
 
 
 
 

Hello Rua,

regarding the change of hwalbą's descendents, it is likely that Middle English wholve derives from the Norse form hválfr/hvolfr, rather than Anglo-Saxon hwealf, which would have become *whalve (split vowel ea reforms back to a). However, while it is equally likely that it was influenced by both forms, and the O could be a dialectical form of A (as was common in Anglo-Saxon, cf: mann/monn, þanne/þonne, þancan/þoncan etc.), as well as the common sound development into Modern English of eal- to become ol- (cf: eald > old, weald > wold, healdan > hold, ceald > cold, etc.), there is no sign of the intermediary al- of Middle English (cf: ald, wald, halden, cald), nor any other examples that suggest this sound change occurs without D dental stop in words with eald, where it often remains as al (cf: wealt > walt, heals > halse, sceal > shall, heall > hall) without further development into O.

My source is from the Michigan Middle English dictionary which suggests wholve to derive mainly from Old Norse rather than Old English: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED52642/

You will also find that the examples there, even into late southern (i.e. less direct Old Norse influence) dialects are spelled with U (whulve), suggesting that O is the primary form, and there is no sign of an Anglian *whalve spelled with A, which must certainly have been replaced by the Norse form, rather than develop alongside it.

Consequently I conclude that Middle English wholve derives from Old Norse and not from Old English.

Arkhaeaeon (talk)09:20, 2 June 2020

Hellenic daughters

I notice you refuse to provide any argument in favour of your edits, preferring instead to edit war, and then have the audacity to block me for edit warring. I have provided my argument repeatedly: there are different opinions on what the accentuation of the Proto-Indo-European word for "daughter" was before the Hellenic branch split off from Proto-Indo-European, as explained in detail on the linked Proto-Indo-European page. Therefore, our readers are best served by an unaccented Proto-Indo-European form with a link to the page that explains the two different reconstructions of the accent placement.

The page for the Proto-Indo-European word has the accent, so that is the Wiktionary consensus form of the word. The link should not display one form and then link to another. If you want to change the form, you'll need to discuss it with other editors to reach a new consensus.

Rua (mew)17:11, 3 June 2020

The page for the Proto-Indo-European word gives three different forms corresponding to three different stages of Proto-Indo-European. Obviously only one of them can be the page title, so the fact that the page title is what it is does not mean that that is the Wiktionary consensus form of the word.

It makes no sense to ban piped links, but even if it did, the link does not go to another form. The link is to the Wiktionary page for the reconstructed forms *dʰwégh₂-tr̥, *dʰúgh₂tēr and *dʰugh₂tḗr, which happens to be located at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰugh₂tḗr because it has to be located somewhere, and this is as good a choice as any as it is the last PIE form that existed before most branches split off. According to that page, opinions differ as to whether *dʰúgh₂tēr or dʰugh₂tḗr is the form the Hellenic forms descend from. In order to maintain a neutral point of view in the Hellenic articles, I propose to just write *dʰugh₂tēr, which covers both *dʰúgh₂tēr or *dʰugh₂tḗr without giving precedence to either. The form *dʰugh₂tēr isn't a different form from *dʰugh₂tḗr, just the same form unspecified for accent.

The consensus Wiktionary needs to reflect is that of the sources, and they differ on the accentuation of this form at the time when Hellenic split off from Proto-Indo-European. On the individual Hellenic pages, we should give *dʰugh₂tēr, unspecified as to accent, since that is the consensus pre-Hellenic-split form and there is no scientific consensus on the placement of the accent. We have no basis for electing one accent placement over the other, so the only neutral alternativeto my suggestion would be to give both *dʰúgh₂tēr and *dʰugh₂tḗr. Everyone agrees that *dʰugh₂tḗr is the parent form of all non-Anatolian and non-Hellenic Indo-European languages, but there is actual scientific disagreement, which we need to reflect, as to whether this form is also ancestral to Anatolian and Hellenic.

If you want to see the page moved to *dʰugh₂tēr, you should discuss it on WT:TR.

Rua (mew)21:00, 3 June 2020
 
 
 

Dag Rua, ik zie dat je vorig jaar wat basaal werk aan het Zeeuws hebt gedaan. Aangezien het lijkt voort te bouwen op het beginnetje dat ik twee maanden eerder heb gemaakt, wil ik je daar even voor bedanken. Overigens ga ik er graag nog een keer mee verder, maar ik kan weinig beloven aangezien ik offline dringender bezigheden heb.

Steinbach (talk)09:46, 21 May 2020

Template:prefixsee

You seem to be the chief creator of this template. I wish to let you know that it does not, at least not always, arrange the prefixed terms in a correct alphabetic order, see uudis-.

Hekaheka (talk)09:08, 28 April 2020

The template seems to put first those terms that have been defined with "affix" and only then start listing the ones created with "prefix". I don't know whether this is an intentional feature.

Hekaheka (talk)09:11, 28 April 2020
 

My change to *gʷelbʰ-

Hello Rua, thanks for the advice on my change to *gʷelbʰ-, but in the entry *kalbaz a way is mentioned in which the word could have been derived from *gʷelbʰ-. That's also why I added the "uncertain" parameter.

Malcolm77 (talk)18:56, 26 April 2020

Hi Rua, I was wondering if you could help sort the descendants (in the "unsorted" group) at *bō-; I'm not familiar enough with the sound change laws. Thanks!

Julia 01:59, 25 April 2020

Not really, it looks almost like each descendant came from its own form.

Rua (mew)09:02, 25 April 2020
 

Hi :) It looks like somethings going wrong here. Due to the long/short vowel distinction in Old Dutch: fán=catch, fan=of. dum. "van" and decendants are derived from fané, not from fanhanã. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)06:57, 25 April 2020

I've always observed the same, that the vowel should be 'i'. Due to the by-forms (worpio, gurpio, etc) I wonder if this is actually from *wurpijan, which I had added a few days ago. Do you think this might have been the case ?

Leasnam (talk)18:00, 24 April 2020

Quite possible. I think it should be moved and the aberrant term deleted.

Rua (mew)18:11, 24 April 2020

ok, shall do.

Leasnam (talk)18:21, 24 April 2020
 
 

Synonyms for aiskōną

I've added *frēgōną and *spurjaną as synonyms for *aiskōną. Today their descendants are used by multiple languages (e.g. German and Dutch use descendants of frēgōną, the North Germanic ones use descendants of spurjaną) to mean "to ask". Is it thus acceptable to list those words as synonyms?

RayZa (talk)09:53, 23 April 2020

I'm not sure if they were exact synonyms. *aiskōną seems to be more wanting to have something, while *frēgōną seems to be about wanting to know something.

Rua (mew)10:25, 23 April 2020
 

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/masgás

Why do you cancel edits?

Gnosandes (talk)10:35, 20 April 2020

Why do you? And why do you make edits that you know are disputed?

Rua (mew)10:36, 20 April 2020

How are they disputed? The presence of an accent paradigm d? Which you write as two paradigms b and c? At the same time, oxytone shows a good number of dialects. This is accentology ignorance. And I'm not talking about terrible etymology...

Gnosandes (talk)10:42, 20 April 2020
 

Also, you're very close to getting blocked again.

Rua (mew)10:40, 20 April 2020
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page