Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/weyd-

Latin vīsus

Among the derived terms, Latin vīsus is currently claimed by both wid-tó-s and wéyd-tu-s. --Caoimhin (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There's two Latin terms. —Rua (mew) 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahh! I understand - noun and participle. Thanks. --Caoimhin (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Germanic *witją

There is a page for English wit < Germanic *witją that leads here, but that reconstruction is not listed here. Can it please be added? --Tibetologist (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added it now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Balto-Slavic *weiˀdēˀtei

@Djkcel I see you gave the reconstruction *weiˀdēˀtei at Proto-Slavic *viděti, and now my question is where it should go on the PIE page, as I'm fairly sure it's not a thematic root present. LIV isn't very clear about where it comes from (acrodynamic root present? root aorist?), but it's probably a secondary formation. Exarchus (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Root aorist maybe, similar to *sluti? DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 15:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Djkcel The problem is that it's not clear whether there was an athematic root aorist. The addenda to LIV also put a question mark next to it and say that a thematic aorist is more commonly reconstructed, which is what the page currently gives. Exarchus (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Exarchus: I think leaving it as a secondary formation is good enough. It is worth noting that OCS (and some modern descendants) have imperative form виждь (viždĭ, “you see!”) < *vid-dь as with athematic verbs, e.g. ꙗждь (jaždĭ, “you eat!”) (standard i-pres. would have yielded *vidi). Additionally, Lithuanian is rendered as veizdė́ti which also points to an archaic imperative *w(e)id-dʰi. 2A02:C7C:3848:1700:93C:91B8:BC15:13AD 08:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)