Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/mitstos

Is it a root?

This lemma is given as a root, but *mitstos looks perfectly as *mit- or like this + *-tós - *s was given between 2 *t in PIE It doesn't look like root, more like a word. Also, why this lemma doesn't have meaning or sources? 'Ba'ri Hong (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May 2024–January 2025

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

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/mitstos

Here we go with users going crazy with {{etymon}} creating incorrect proto reconstructions in areas they have no knowledge in. Delete RC:Proto-Germanic/missaz too while we're at it. @Ioaxxere, Mahagaja -- Sokkjō 06:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. -saph 🍏 19:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Proto-Germanic may exist, though the Dutch and Old Norse terms may be explained differently. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I'm pretty sure this is just a misreconstruction of *mitH-tó-s, all of the links to it have been removed. Grande1900 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted PIE. Svartava (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)