~A little uncomfortable with the statement that the Tocharian loss of 'd' is unexplainable in the entry when possible causes are suggested in the entry but not expanded upon and are indeed out there or there is new research that states otherwise.
I am not a history expert or have vast linguistic experience hence I place this forward for discussion to improve the entry but await someone with better judgement for the sources I place forward here.
If 'or' is the current hypothesis. Might it be better stated that if one follows the hypothesis of the reconstruction to perhaps an earlier isogloss, then the inclusion of the 'd' is in fact a later innovation peculiar to a set of isoglossies? loosley stated what I mean is Europe? If that is found as possible this assists with migration hypotheses, or indeed these will inform what I just asked. In which case, Grimm's law could also be refined as a trail for the 'd' stop, from origin and illustrative of relative migration directions. —This unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) at 23:00-23:01, 29 April 2010.
Or that the loss of/or original state of the absence of the 'd' might be a phenomena resulting from Tocharian or not being cognate at the time of migration (migration times or information regarding the use of trees in culture at the times of migration would better inform such a hypothesis). While this explanation seems improbable it is plausible as there is some suggestion of this as Tocharian two, by comparison of the carriage of sounds, has 'w.'
Other Tocharian Evidence including T and D [as well as DR] sounds
As I do not know how Tocharian is formed in use the finding of a dictionary of Tocharian B...
...offers me more confusion as the entry for tree is 'Dru' yet on this page it is 'or.'
Further, Tocharian B 'Tronk' was determined to be proto Tocharian in the entry in this dictionary. This also intimates that the Chinese word [of the same date and semantics] is either phenomenologically the same or derived from Tocharian [more likely]. There is no mention in some sources [dictionary reference] of the loss of a 'd' sound, rather that a 't' sound is likely the earliest stop...which also effects Grimm's law. If Tocharian A was liturgical I would assume that the task of relating it would be as straightforward as old church Slavonic spellings and placement in the language tree according to known dates and writings, but there appears to be some anomalies.
The proof of the 'd' in the reconstruction doru is also not given by evidence and/or the logic by which its inclusion is deemed viable is not stated, in the entry so these are merely ideas, right or wrong, that one might arrive at by reading of the entry in current state.
TY There are likely multiple discussion areas in this entry and additions or refinements, especially qualified ones, to what has been placed forward for discussion are welcome. —This unsigned comment was added by Protobaltoslav (talk • contribs) at 29-30 April 2010.
- As a complete layman, more restraint would be appropriate. Academia does not care for the opinion and (usually badly informed) scepticism of random dabblers, for good reason. If you lack the background, read up on the topic or ask an expert, but without presumption. The assumed loss of PIE *d in some Tocharian words does seem irregular at first, but there are several examples and so there is probably a sound law involved that seems to have had specific conditions. Check this source in German point 184.108.40.206: originally, the loss probably happened only when a consonant followed. (You should be able to follow the examples given in the source even if you don't read German.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It might also be that Tocharian Or refers to wood which is not the same as tree. Though in some of the Indo-european languages the 'd' stop was carried and the comment of the loss of 'd' might be valid but better restated in the wood entry. It looks as if the semantics of the 'd' stop reference to things of wood is also noteworthy in the whole of this entry for all of the derivations. —This unsigned comment was added by Protobaltoslav (talk • contribs) at 02:40, 30 April 2010.