Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/gʰleh₂dʰ-
Add topicLatest comment: 1 month ago by 62.73.72.3 in topic Etymology
Germanic
[edit]PIE dʰ becomes d in Germanic. Germanic t requires PIE d. See w:Grimm's law. —CodeCat 16:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved Proto-Germanic *glantaz to *glandaz, which would fit with this root and still easily fits with Old High German glanz, as well as Saterland Frisian glënd, glënnd. I think that makes a lot more sense than reconstructing a whole new extended form for a word with nearly the same meaning. --Victar (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't fit with Old High German glanz. OHG z reflects PIE t, not d! You can't just say it's "close enough", that's not how historical linguistics works. —CodeCat 17:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no reason to be so condescending and patronizing. I'm just trying to work towards solutions for everyone. I have no personal agenda. If a make a mistake, that's all you need to say. --Victar (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would be more forthcoming if you showed you were more aware of basic sound changes like Grimm's law and the HG consonant shift. Missing those is really a rookie mistake. —CodeCat 18:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Being forthcoming has nothing to do with it. Everyone should be treated with respect regardless of your personal opinion of them. If you can't be civil, perhaps you need to take a breather from Wiktionary. --Victar (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would be more forthcoming if you showed you were more aware of basic sound changes like Grimm's law and the HG consonant shift. Missing those is really a rookie mistake. —CodeCat 18:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no reason to be so condescending and patronizing. I'm just trying to work towards solutions for everyone. I have no personal agenda. If a make a mistake, that's all you need to say. --Victar (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't fit with Old High German glanz. OHG z reflects PIE t, not d! You can't just say it's "close enough", that's not how historical linguistics works. —CodeCat 17:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Etymology
[edit]What is going on here? PIE velars and palatals happily alternating in the same root, the second and the third laryngeal likewise... I don't think that these are normal assumptions in current Indo-European studies at all. I've said it many times and I'll say it again - Wikipedia-style No Original Research and Verifiability policies need to be adapted here. The conversation from eight years ago above is just another argument in favour of that. --62.73.72.3 22:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)