Reconstruction talk:Proto-Iranian/Haĉwarayčah

RFD discussion: January–February 2018

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/Haĉwarayčah

With just a single attested descendent, not strong enough for a proto reconstruction. The -sp- in MP ʾsplys also demonstrates that it was either a late formation, or borrowed. --Victar (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calak I see you created a MP entry. Can we delete this now than? --Victar (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@JohnC5, could you comment on this one as well? --Victar (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Victar this reconstruction is based on two reliable sources, it is not my supposition. Thank you.--Calak (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calak: Really? That's funny, because you never cite any sources. Regardless, you can always rebuild a compound using the base elements, but that doesn't mean it ever existed in that proto language. We don't just assume *watōrbadją existed in Proto-Germanic, despite having the word waterbed. --Victar (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a wikipedian and sysop in both Kurdish and Persian wikipedia. Yes I know wiki works with reliable sources and I just want you to be sure that I never creat an entry without reliable sources.--Calak (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because I don't cite, doesn't mean I don't use reliable sources.--Calak (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calak: Perhaps than you can actually adhere to the standards we have for proto languages and cite the entries you create. By not taking the extra 2 minutes to cite a word you pulled from a source, you're forcing everyone else to spend much more time to try and verify the entry from our sources.

Again, just because someone creates a reconstruction of a compound word, it doesn't mean that word existed. On this project, we only create entries for proto lemmas a) with more than one directly inherited descendent, or b) as a step between two established forms. If you cannot provide that, that is clear grounds for deletion. Please read {{WT:PROTO}}. --Victar (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calak: What on earth are the proposed semantics of this compound? "Horse pouring"? —*i̯óh₁nC^[5] 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the lingo at this point is cites or it didn't happen. --Tropylium (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnC5: for the semantics see ʾsplys. --Vahag (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes Victar, I agree. Please delete this entry. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool, and thanks for moving those descendants to a MP entry. --Victar (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Deleted. --Vahag (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)