Entries needing correction Edit

Will you be continuing to correct the Median, Old Persian, Saka and Scythian entries that I had created now that you are back? Antiquistik (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the etymology of ἀκινάκης (akinákēs), do you think there is any viable Old Iranic period reconstruction? Something like *akayinakaʰ or *akayīnakaʰ? Antiquistik (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ossetian Edit

Hi. Can I ask you to give approximate reconstructions for Old Ossetic and Proto-Scythian forms of Ossetian саг (sag), please? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't remove RFV templates Edit

It doesn't matter if you think it's been attested: we still need to go through the process of having a discussion. If you look at what I wrote on both entries, the issue is whether the terms are attested in Proto-Brythonic or Latin. Theknightwho (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entry already passed a previous RFV with the same argument, but sure @Theknightwho. --{{victar|talk}} 19:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it didn't - you merely removed the RFV template on the same incorrect grounds. Theknightwho (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artognou passed both an RFV and RFC, neither of which were resolved by me. See Talk:Artognou. --{{victar|talk}} 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither of those discussions show any kind of consensus; they just petered out. Feel free to address the reason behind the nomination, by the way. Theknightwho (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Hwi-(H)was-want Edit

@Victar Recently you requested my entry Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hwi-(H)was-want for deletion. You wrote the explanation that it is a "Zoroastrian borrowing", then quickly deleted it. What do you mean by that? Can you also define a source for your statement? *Diwodh₃rós (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted my RFV and instead cleaned it up. My comment regarding religious terminology borrowings was chiefly referring to this. The nominalisation of PII *HwiHwáswāns just means "the shining one", which can be extended to a deity, the sun, dawn, etc. --{{victar|talk}} 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you for explanation. *Diwodh₃rós 05:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ossetian Edit

Hi. Can I ask you once again to make a reconstruction for the Ossetian гӕн (gæn), please? ɶLerman (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LMFAO. Someome gets lifted every day. Sure. --{{victar|talk}} 05:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ɶLerman: Reconstruction:Old Ossetic/gænæ. --{{victar|talk}} 08:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much <3 ɶLerman (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where and why and whom does someone lifted? :o ɶLerman (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question re: IPs Edit

The geolocation is wrong and neither are proxies. Besides which, most of the second IP's edits don't even mention Persian even when they could have shoehorned in Irman-style bad Persian etymologies. Right or wrong, I don't think they're Irman. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for checking. --{{victar|talk}} 20:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unþasaggjungu Edit

*unþasaggjan is not a class II weak verb, so the suffix on *unþasaggjungu should be *-ingu. Looking at the Descendants, it's OHG that shifted the original -ingu to -ungu (> Old High German intsagunga). Leasnam (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leasnam: no objection from me. --{{victar|talk}} 03:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Page has been moved to *unþasaggingu. Leasnam (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*froggo Edit

Why is it *prewgʰ- but not *prowgʰ-ō ~ *prugʰ-nos? Leasnam (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leasnam: Because I was reconstructing that step in pre-PG per Kroonen, not a PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 04:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*īsajikilljā Edit

Your revert here [[1]] is wrong. The OE & GML are masculine; the Middle Dutch is masculine or neuter. None are feminine. Leasnam (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to bed. I'll get up with you again tomorrow :) Leasnam (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, but you deleted the content without moving it, as expressed in my edit comment, "create the entry first, then move". -- Sokkjō 05:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. It's been created, so I'll remove it again. Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{d}} Edit

Please fix incoming links before nominating entries for speedy deletion. Creating more work for the deleter keeps the category from being emptied. I appreciate that you left rationales at e.g. Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hay- and Reconstruction:Proto-Nuristani/eká, but they're not really actionable; it's not like replacing links to a simple typo. Ultimateria (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ultimateria: My mistake for not checking those. Done. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 03:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I was also referring to Category:Terms derived from the Proto-Indo-Iranian root *Hay- and its subpages. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the links to the remaining reconstruction entries in CAT:D. Ultimateria (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ultimateria: I see the confusion. It's because we use roots for the categories without creating the entries in PII and PIIr. --{{victar|talk}} 06:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pashto Edit

What is your basis for reverting my Pashto edits? They were all wrongly reverted. Both شیر and روشن are obvious Persian loanwords in Pashto (identical to their Persian form), with روڼ being the inherited form in Pashto. So I removed them as they were listed as inherited forms. It is fine to list those words, but they should be specified as being Persian loanwords in Pashto rather than as inherited forms. And the transliteration of ښ in Pashto is <ṣ>, but <ṣ̌> and <x̌> are also seen as acceptable. It represents the /ʂ/ sound. Gharandune (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gharandune, if they're borrowings from Persian, you need to mark them as such, not simply delete them. We mark borrowings using {{desc}} template with the |bor=1 parameter. As for transliterations, please use our guide at WT:PS TR. --{{victar|talk}} 17:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]