Appendix talk:Cognate sets for Uralic languages

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

8 and 9[edit]

Seeing as no reconstructed form is given, I'm questioning how much it makes sense to italicize the Khanty forms of the numerals 8 and 9, especially seeing as not all of the other forms for these numerals are cognate with each other either. Could the italicization be removed? AnonymousMusician (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I reckon it could have made more sense if we gave the Finno-Permic forms for 7-9, but we apparently don't, so the italicization makes no sense there. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose or lack thereof[edit]

On reflection, this entire appendix is a poorly developed WP fork redundant to Appendix:Uralic Swadesh lists and Category:Proto-Uralic lemmas, and should perhaps be deleted or at least heavily refactored. --Tropylium (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Appendix_talk:Cognate_sets_for_Uralic_languages&oldid=52328774"