Reconstruction talk:Proto-Bantu/mʊ̀ntʊ̀

@CodeCat: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there's no stable internal classification of Bantu, so trying to organise descendant lists that way is fruitless. That's why Bantuists use Guthrie zones as a matter of convenience — we'd probably be best off doing that as well. (At the very least, we should list which Guthrie zones each reconstruction is attested for.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware, and painfully so after doing this work yesterday. However, Southern Bantu is probably the most stable subgrouping, and the smaller groups like Nguni certainly are. My main aim is to reduce this from being merely an unhandlably large list of cognates. Ideally, we'd have smaller proto-languages to spread the load a bit, but i don't know if that's feasible. —CodeCat 19:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Besides Proto-Nguni, I don't think there's been much work done to reconstruct smaller proto-languages. Guthrie zones are one way to break up the list, but whatever works. If you really want a challenge, try organising Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/-jíjì. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)