Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/dʰawgʰ-

@Victar Hi, could you look this over? Especially the etymon for Sanskrit दुग्ध (dugdha, “milk”). —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@AryamanA: I've fixed it up. The Iranian descendants needed to be split up between here and *déwkti. Also, we need to be careful not to confuse stems with roots.

I'm still a bit confused as to why Sanskrit दुघ् (dugh) (zero-grade) is descended from Proto-Indo-Aryan *dawgʰ- (full-grade). --Victar (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: Thanks! The Sanskrit grammatical tradition usually has roots in zero-grade. Sanskrit दोघ् (dogh) is the full grade form. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 13:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Well, my question is, why not reconstruct the PIA in zero-grade? Also, I see this as the nonsense that comes with reconstructing roots. --Victar (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: I think we should, but I doubt most of the reconstructed PIA roots that will be necessary will even have Sanskrit descendants. Check out Cat:Hindi terms inherited from Proto-Indo-Aryan for some examples. And if we didn't have root entries, where would दुग्ध (dugdha) go? There's no Iranian forms AFAICT so *dugdʰás wouldn't deserve an entry. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

*dugdʰás would fit fine just under a PIA entry for the verb. Right now, it gives the false impression that *dugdʰás is a PII formation. --Victar (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@AryamanA: For reference, here is the verb entry I created, *dáwgdʰi. --Victar (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)