Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kʷelh₁-

kʷól-os

kʷól-os appears twice in the list of derivatives. Should these be amalgamated? --Caoimhin (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I see two separate nouns, one a thematic stem and one an s-stem. —Rua (mew) 14:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just an amateur. --Caoimhin (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Laryngeal issues

1. Per Matasović it doesn't seem like the laryngeal is necessary to explain PCel. *kʷalnati, which may even just be from PIE *kʷl̥- + PCel. *-nati; in fact it seems to complicate it. What is the basis for the claim that this provides evidence for the laryngeal?
   Edit: Ah, it's probably because it's assumed that only the infix *-né- exists and not a suffix *-neH-. But Kroonen regularly invokes a suffix *-néH- (specifically *-néh₂-?; cf. links thereto) in Germanic etymologies, and I'm sure I've seen it reconstructed elsewhere.
2. If Wiktionary upholds *kʷelh₁- as the correct root reconstruction, shouldn't *kʷékʷlos either be renamed to *kʷékʷl̥h₁os or list the latter there as an alternative reconstruction (and the certainty of its etymology be diminished)?
3. The page title and the title of Category:Terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *kʷel- do not match.

— Ganjabarah (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)