Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Indo-European

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

This creative page needs to specify that all these entries need to start with "Appendix:Proto-Indo-European ". --Connel MacKenzie 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios all?[edit]

Looking at the sources being cited, perhaps we need a blanket prohibition against all this recent research. (Recent, meaning not before 1923.) Absolutely none of this can be free of copyright? --Connel MacKenzie 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Started vote for wholesale removal instead, at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-12/PIE. --Connel MacKenzie 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the English meanings are direct copies from Pokorny 1959. Compare:
*peḱ, pēḱ-, pōḱ- "to make pretty; to be joyful"
with [1]
all of the other info has to be either copyvio or original research. (IMNSHO) Robert Ullmann 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There was research during the 1800's, but it seems to be considered outdated for various reasons by the modern proponents; even Pokorny is apparently outdated. It is a bit disturbing that this page advocates taking entries from it: "One main source for PIE entries will be Pokorny's 1959 dictionary, ..." which would be clear copyio. Robert Ullmann 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

by your logic, all material is either copyvio or original research, there is no middle ground left. Dbachmann 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct...for all P-I-E material. That is another reason there should be no P-I-E information anywhere on en.wiktionary.org. --Connel MacKenzie 03:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a suggestion to use Pokorny "as a main source". Most of it reconstructions are obsolete anyway. --Ivan Štambuk 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no copyright in an idea[edit]

To clarify, using knowledge contained in a copyrighted work, without copying part of the work, is never an infringement. 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others - kept[edit]

Kept. See archived discussion. 09:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplications of descendants on two proto-pages[edit]

As has been suggested here - This would leave only single-language descending families listed, and would miss the whole point of the ===Descendants==== section: to list all the ancient and modern descendants of a particular proto-word (or a root/word family), including borrowings. This would enable the creation of a giant, unparalleled semantic network that would ease the memorization of both etymologies and the meanings of words. If the descendants section grows too big (which I doubt, but which would be awesome if we get to that point!), collapsibility of the families at the first level of indentation could be implemented in javascript to ease the browsing. If the duplication by itself is the problem, it should be solved at the lower levels of inheritance, with entries of proto-languages using either labeled section transclusion to selectively map the content of the master descendant section to that of inheriting proto-language, or by plain periodic bot-synchronization. --Ivan Štambuk 13:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect policy[edit]

I think redirects should be allowed for PIE, because there are common spellings of certain known PIE roots, such as *ekwos or *kmtom. This would also make it easier for people to find the actual PIE root, because not everyone knows how to spell h₁éḱwos or ḱm̥tóm on a keyboard. EliasAlucard / Discussion 04:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, such redirects are already allowed, and there are quite a few of them. —CodeCat 12:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

derived stems on separate pages[edit]

I don't agree with splitting of stems and derived terms on separate pages. For example on Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/dʰeh₁- we have four derivations, each of which is on a separate page. What is the point of ====Descendants==== section there anyway? To list unsorted terms that need to moved to the derived terms pages? It should also be noted that for most of the roots such derivations generally come with a big question mark because they are often postulated on the basis of very little evidence (e.g. reflexes in a single branch, usually Sanskrit or Greek which preserve PIE verbal system the best). This layout makes it very hard to navigate and observe the evidence in the daughter langauges.

My preferred layout would have the root listed under the ===Root=== section, and have all of the derivations listed either as as subsections. (e.g. for *dʰeh₁- we'd have ===Root=== and then ====*dʰédʰeh₁-==== or ====Present====), or just in a one big two-column table with derivations in the first column, and reflexes (which generally won't be many, a dozen tops) in another. Inflection would then come at the very end, after the evidence for particular stems has been presented. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have wondered about this as well. Most descendants don't clearly preserve the original primary verb inflection. Germanic and Slavic for example have almost only thematic verbs left. I think your solution may work well; alternatively we can list the verbs on the same page but under a ===Verb=== section. But we should keep secondary formations distinct as these were still clearly derived verbs. —CodeCat 01:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


Over the past year, I have encountered quite a few words that say they derive from PIE roots that contain either a turned e (ǝ) or a schwa (ə); for example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/wenǝ-, Special:WhatLinksHere/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/wenə-. (I have AWB set to alert me to turned es because they are frequently misused in IPA transcriptions.) PIE mentions schwas, but this page's list of canonical symbols does not. Should it? If not, how should the pages that currently link to wenǝ-/wenə- be changed? - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Schwas are an alternative notation for laryngeals that appear between consonants and therefore become "vocalised" in many descendant languages. So there are really three schwas to match the three types of laryngeal. The notation is a bit outdated though, and most modern sources just write the laryngeal. That's what our practice page reflects. —CodeCat 03:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The pages that currently use wenǝ- or wenə- should be changed to use wenh₁- if fine is correct. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)