Appendix talk:List of Proto-Indo-European nouns

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

*yeh₁kʷr̥-[edit]

It should be *yēkʷṛ/yĕkʷṛ-, cf. Klaus Strunk, which is today's standard theory. Never seen the reconstruction with laryngeal in a scholar publication. Moreover, the list is very problematic overall. It contains a lot of words which we don't know if they were PIE. There is no PIE expression for 'bow', for instance. And there was definitely no *h₃reǵ- (ruler) in PIE. I would change the headline from PIE nouns to IE nouns and their possible form in PIE. Belleslettres 16:30, 06 June 2013 (UTC)

Theos[edit]

I deleted "Theos"! Theos did not come from Deiwos! Theos & Zeus are not cognates! Theos & Deus are not cognates! (but Zeus & Deus are cognates! They came from Deiwos...)

THEA: fem. proper name, from Gk. thea "goddess," fem. equivalent of theos "god," from PIE base *dhes-, root of words applied to various religious concepts, e.g. L. feriae "holidays," festus "festive," fanum "temple." from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Thea&searchmode=none Böri 11:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I found two mistakes[edit]

Bear in Gaulish was ARTOS.

.

Fox in Latin was VULPIS.

.

I don't change anything, I wait for an opinion as I'm no specialist.

EDIT : I changed it.

Mister A 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Formatting mistakes[edit]

About a billion, give me till next week to fix them all! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What's Pst.? Pashto? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done here, though there is more to be done, it seems to be beyond my capabilities using only regular expression and straight one-to-one text replacements. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Sanskrit parkatī = oak ???[edit]

Is there a reference for this? I can't find it in any dictionary. It seems to refer to a Fig tree.

It's not claiming that, any more than it's claiming that English fir means oak. Don't assume that every cognate is supposed to have the original meaning (which probably isn't really oak, in this case) There are lots of problems with this appendix, but that isn't one of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)