Talk:वसन

Sanskrit etymology

@Pulimaiyi, what's your source for the derivation from PIE? Or is it just reasoned from what's at *wes-? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: I did not check the sources on this one. However, I want to say, for instance, the Avestan and Sanskrit are a formal match, so one can hypothesize the structure of the PIIr form that can be reconstructed using these two terms, even if there is a possibility that these are later formations. I applied the same logic to the PIE form as well. Whereas I agree that creation of entries should be backed by strong sources, I think a little more leniency can be adopted when writing etymology sections; especially if these etymologies are shown as just text instead of a redlink (as many believe that a redlink is a tacit request for an entry to be created). I can de-link the etymology if you are not comfortable by having it that way; however, I do want the PIE etymology to be mentioned. Or do you believe there are some formal changes to be made to the PIE term? -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 03:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally am a fan of references in etymology sections, unless I guess the etymology is really obvious. But that's just me. In this case I'm befuddled by the development *h₂ > *Ha and was wondering if someone has argued for this. FWIW Wackernagel says the suffix must be *-n̥no if it's cognate with ἑᾰνός (heanós), which is true formally, but I imagine some reshaping has occured because I doubt *-n̥no can be PIE. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)