Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/pró

@Victar Should पूर्व (pū́rva) remain under *pr-oH-wo- or should it be under a separate zero-grade form? —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA, yep and in fact *pr-oH-wo- is wrong for all the entries. --Victar (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think a pr̥h₃wo- could account for greek. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom 144, according to Beekes, the Greek is from *pr̥h₃-wr-ih2. Can you please add sources to this page? Some of the etymologies on this page need fixing. --Victar (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar:, I imported the derived terms from *per-, since they were listed under *pro-. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom 144, that's fine and good, but they still need fixing and sourcing. Is that not something you're able to do? --Victar (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: Ik, I'll look into it. I just said it so you wouldn't think I was making stuff up.Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom 144, cool, best of luck, and let us know if you need some help! --Victar (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom 144, I went and cleaned up the entry, adding sources. It's not enough to just cite the entry itself, but also the individual derived reconstructions, which are often the most disputed. --Victar (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom 144 The Devanagari is good 👍 —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA thanks for converting the descendants to {{desc}}, but I noticed you nulled out all the levels lacking reconstructions with |2=-. If a level can be reconstructed, it shouldn't be nulled-out so that it can be added to a term requests category, ex. Proto-Indo-Aryan term requests.

Incidentally, if you want to tool that converts to {{desc}} automatically, you can swipe that code from from my common.js. --Victar (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: Thanks, I didn't know there was an automatic tool! And yeah, I'll keep that in mind. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 14:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA, it's just a simple preg_replace script I wrote. Keep it in mind? Do you have some valid reason for nulling para 2 out? --Victar (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: There is not a single work fully written in Sauraseni Prakrit (it's only attested in dialogue in Maharashtri dramas), so I often have to blank {{desc|psu}} in Sanskrit descendant sections. It's kind of a habit now. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: OK, I'll chalk up the |2=- for Italic and Hellenic as a mistake of habit. As for Sauraseni Prakrit, is that not something that can be reconstructed? If so, it also shouldn't be nulled. --Victar (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: Hmm, looks like I have my project then. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

*h₃

@JohnC5, could I get your Greek expertise? Beekes uses *h₃ as the reconstructed laryangal is some descendants, while others, like Adams, reconstruct it as *h₂, on the basis of Latin prae and παραί (paraí) from *pr̥h₂éy. To confuse things even more, we have Doric πρᾶτος (prâtos) which points to *h₂ as well. I'm also confused as to where *h₃ would come from. For *h₂, we can use the loc.sg. *preh₂-i and even *h₁ from ins.sg. *pro-h₁, but *h₃? --Victar (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: So Beekes seems to be a confusing mess on this topic. There are a bunch of forms that (he claims) require *pr̥h₃-. For these forms, however, I'm uncertain why they are necessarily the zero-grades of *pró over *per-. I'd have to look a lot more carefully, but he seems not to differentiate between *pró, *preh₃-, or *pr̥h₃- consistently, or at least, he does not flag them as being different. —*i̯óh₁nC^[5] 07:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)