Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/pérkus

Labiovelar pérkʷus

I know that pIE *-kʷ- was generally debuccalized before *-u-, but nonetheless I think it's quite misleading to reconstruct this word with plain -k-. Plain -ku- clusters didn't prompt *p..ku- > **kʷ...kʷ- in Celto-Italic, while this lemma clearly did. Not to mention that *perk- (direct, straight) /a k-extension of *per-/ existed as independent root. Also, why is it given as female? To me, it looks like a normal male noun. Bezimenen (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me. --Victar (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please move it back, we always show the surface form in these cases. —Rua (mew) 08:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to do so yourself if you disagree. --Victar (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)