User talk:188.238.254.213

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/handuz

Please look at the etym section with a fresh eye, at the entry in general, and perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about. A hint: your list is much too long. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be clearer. By "ridiculous", I don't mean the content you added was wrong (I've no idea); I mean it doesn't belong there, and it's given a totally disproportionate weight. Perhaps mention one or two cognates if you must; not a whole list. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Added the one a professional linguist considered worthwhile of investigation, and then another which is phonetically closer but semantically more distant. --188.238.254.213 23:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not how languages work. You can't just pick words which look similar and say they're related, and if you call them "false cognates" then they aren't relevant to the etymology. If you have a real source relating the Finnish and the Germanic, at least cite it and then it can be added to the etymology section. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I listed them as false cognates of mere annoyance. Please do not remove them. I was told that Peter Schrijver had looked into this and has concluded there seemingly is no Indo-European root for the word. So if I present a promising lead (considered by a person who does this shit for living), please let the clue be there. And please don't come tell me how languages work. --188.238.254.213 23:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. I can't find a single reference supporting the connection you're suggesting. And just because there no reconstructed PIE yet for it (and I agree with you on that), doesn't mean you can put whatever you want willy-nilly without providing a scholarly source. Kroonen even says in his Proto-Germanic dictionary on page 207: "There is no compelling reason to assume that the word is somehow connected to Fi. kasi 'hand' < PFU *kati". —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, connection to käsi is far fetched. You are being willy nilly if you think a foot called kontti is not a noteworthy clue for a hand called kontus in the absence of any other clues. --188.238.254.213 00:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

May I please have a source supporting your connection. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There you stand in your throne. Must feel awesome. --188.238.254.213 08:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

By convention, the "compare" references are uncertain, and there are plenty of them. Otherwise the actual relationship would be stated. Do not pretend otherwise. --188.238.254.213 09:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you actually just making stuff up? What am I doing wrong by asking for a source? —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 12:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

All the stuff in linguistics are made up in a very deep sense. I thought it was you trying to teach me linguistics, not the other way round. --188.238.254.213 15:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The source is right there, in Wiktionary: kontti. --188.238.254.213 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not denying the word exists, just that a connection between the Finnish and the Germanic is not viable. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 18:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that there was no mention of feet or shinbones in the entry when the etymology was added in 2013. How do we know that Proto-Uralic *konte refers to anything even remotely connected to feet, or that the foot and shinbone senses are descended from it? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)