Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁ólos
@Victar: Alexander Lubotsky (in the essay "the Indo-Iranian substratum") says Finno-Ugric *ora is a loan from specifically Indo-Iranian. The form of the word also makes it apparent that the word is borrowed from PII & not PIE. ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @माधवपंडित: Then cite with
{{R:iir-pro:Substrate|head=|page=}}and change it. --Victar (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
*h1
[edit]Why is this thing reconstructed specifically with the first laryngeal? We don't have a Gk avatar, and none of the laryngeals would have had a colouring effect on the following *-o-. So why is this reconstructed with the first laryngeal?
Edit: I just realised that only Kroonen reconstructs it with a first laryngeal for who knows what reason (he's attempting to connect it with another lemma that is most likely unrelated). Mayrhoffer and Adams/Mallory both reconstruct it with *H (unknown laryngeal). So whoever cited Mayrhoffer and Mallory/Adams as having reconstructed it with the first laryngeal either didn't read those texts or is being academically dishonest by indicating that more than just Kroonen reconstructs it with a first laryngeal. Furthermore, the reconstruction at the top of the page doesn't even reflect Kroonen's reconstruction(!); Kroonen reconstructs it as *h1oh1l-, so the reconstruction of this lemma on this page is wrong from the viewpoint of all three of the citations... Who does this stuff?! One can't just go ahead and posit what they think the reconstruction is and then attempt to pass others' work off as supporting their reconstruction if none of those works actually reconstruct a term in that manner...