Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/péysks
Why is a palatovelar indicated? From the -sk conjugations? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Palatovelar seems to come from some speculative etymology, not really a concrete basis for reconstruction. See RFD [1]. -saph 🍏 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
from Proto-North Caucasian language
[edit]Böri (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can see: apsədz (in Abkhaz) = psa (in Ubykh) = "fish" / And "a" is just the article in Abkhaz language, so it's: psədz Böri (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
IP forgot to make a post. Although the distribution is really restricted and claims of substrate can be found, it is still citable as PIE lemma, perhaps without palatal (e.g. D. Kölligan (2018) in Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, Vol. 3, p. 2241) and the etymology rn is on fire. That wont-fix, yet it does not deserve deleted. 141.20.6.93 12:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but move to *peysk-. It may have been borrowed from a substrate language, but some form of the word must have existed in Western PIE at least. The links to *peyḱ-, पिच्छ- (piccha-, “feather”), or पिच्छा (picchā, “calf”) are speculative, but can be mentioned. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move to *peysk-. -saph 🍏 17:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Moved it to RC:Proto-Indo-European/peysk-. --
{{victar|talk}}02:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)