Category talk:Proto-Iranian lemmas

Proto-Iranian case endings

@Vahagn Petrosyan, ZxxZxxZ, have either of you given any thought to case to put the PIr nouns in? Perhaps the nom.sg., i.e. Proto-Iranian *-ah (masc. a-stem), *-aH (fem. a-stem), *-am (neut. a-stem.), etc. --Victar (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to use stems with a hyphen, because that is how most sources cite Iranian nouns, e.g. {{R:ira:ESIJa}}. I don't know enough about Proto-Iranian to reconstruct the nominative from the stem. --Vahag (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You can say the same thing for PCelt, where Matasovic doesn't use any stem endings in his reconstruction, but we added them here on Wiktionary. I don't think that should be what holds us back from doing so. We have other sources that do give stem ending for guidance. It's really just a matter of what form we want to use. --Victar (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the expected ending would be -h, or -š after i or u. —CodeCat 14:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Proto-Iranian *-ah (nom.sg.masc. a-stem), *-iš (nom.sg.masc. i-stem), *-uš (nom.sg.masc. u-stem). We have to also take the gender into account though, which we can usually take from the OPers form. --Victar (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is a laryngeal reconstructed there, anyway? What evidence is there for laryngeals in PIr? —CodeCat 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

From {{R:ine:Cheung2007}}: "From The main tenet of the laryngeal theory is the existence of three kinds of laryngeals, *H1, *H2 and *H3 in the Indo-European proto-language. These three laryngeals would have merged in a single laryngeal *H in Proto-(Indo-)Iranian." --Victar (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not evidence, that's just someone who says so. —CodeCat 15:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Do your own research than, CodeCat. I can find plenty of people who agree by simply Googling in. --Victar (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)