Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/steh₂-

Proto-language roots are not attested by definition and thus not information for Wiktionary proper

I disagree with this statement. In fact they are specifically attested in the dictionaries and other scholarly works in which they are discussed. This should be perfectly good enough for Wiktionary purposes. — Hippietrail 03:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

By definition, they are not attested (i.e. in running text!) Or are you saying that texts that list them and define them are running text? --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

By the definitions in the Collins and Encarta dictionares, to witness, to provide evidence for, they are attested. Neither mention anything to do with running text. If that's part of our own private definition it only sensibly applies to written languages and not to spoken languages, sign languages, or proto-languages. It seems rather sensible that something else should apply to those cases and that something else should be based on what dictionaries for those languages do.

Try not to confuse Wiktionary's private technical definitions of words it uses internally with normal words. — Hippietrail 18:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well OK, but in this context, it clearly was meant as the Wiktionary private technical definition per se.

Rather than argue semantics, could you help me find the BP archive entry for when proto-languages were last discussed? Perhaps it is time the issue was reviewed or reopened. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it: Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/October-December 05#Hypothesized Indo-European root words. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Connel. I think it's worth reopening. We can treat the various systems as alternative spellings but in this case we'll have the luxury of being able to label those spellings since they'll be in some system, from some etymological dictionary, or due to some linguist... I think (: — Hippietrail 00:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ossetian

Is the Digor Ossetic истун also a cognate? We have a well preserved st, but it is a dialectal verb. I hesitate to add it, because there are no other Iranian cognates listed... Bogorm 10:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"here are a couple more"

What on earth is this supposed to contribute? Which of these references is the reader asked to consult to verify which claim exactly? --Dbachmann (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Each of these references is repeated after one or more of the reconstructed present stems. I'd say it's sufficient to list them there; we don't also need them at the top to verify the stem itself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've done that now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to change this elsewhere, see also *meyḱ-, *deḱ-, and probably several others (I don't remember off the top of my head). I stand by my principle of heavy referencing, and headword placement was mostly so that I could find them easily while editing a giant entry all at once. I would ask though that no references be removed. —JohnC5 18:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to heavy referencing, and I'm pretty sure I didn't remove any. But listing them all in the headword line is information overload, as it doesn't take 23 references to verify the existence of *steh₂-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it an overload? Where is the victim? I find it useful to see which sources reconstruct the root exactly as in the headword line, especially when there are alternative reconstructions as in Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/sek-. --Vahag (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Having one or two sources to verify each reconstruction when there are multiple ones is fine. Having 23 sources to verify a reconstruction basically everyone agrees on is overkill. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Grk. στύω < *sth₂u-?

Beekes derives Ancient Greek στύω (stúō, “to make stiff”) (and from there Ancient Greek στύση (stúsē), etc.) from *sth₂-u-. There is no trace of -h₂- and I don't see a suitable environment to apply Saussure effect, so I'm reluctant to add it in the official entry. If anyone has an explanation for the missing laryngeal vocalization, feel free to add it. The reference code is <ref>{{R:grc:Beekes|head=στύω|page=1419|vol=2}}</ref>. Bezimenen (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)