Reconstruction talk:Proto-Turkic/kiši

Chuvash issue

Seriously @Allahverdi Verdizade, Proto Turkic did not have /š/. And what is the reasoning behind no Proto Turkic reconstruction if no Chuvash descendant? This is why we have reconstructions, having no Chuvash descendant doesnt change the fact that Common Turkic *kiši comes from Proto Turkic *kiĺi unless you can prove it is some sort of borrowing in Common Turkic era. Applying your logic, we could have little to no proto IE reconstructions. --Anylai (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Zaten kelime Ortak Türkçe olarak işaretlendi. Eğer sözün Çuvaş formu yoksa, başka l formu da yoksa *kiĺi'den geliyor nasıl diyebiliriz? Söz Ortak Türkçe döneminde oluşmuş olabilir, sonraları başka bir dilden de geçmiş olabilir. BurakD53 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The difference to the Indo-European is that the latter has many primary branches, whereas Turkic only has two. In the case of IE it can be enough to only have reflexes in two non-adjacent branches to posit a proto-reconstruction, but in Turkic, it must either be attested in both branches or else an external borrowing must point to its existence in PT. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)