Here a collection of (probably) skew-related headwords: asquint, schief with the saxon word skef in its ety, different definiton of skew in Merriam-Webster based on slanting, f:échouer maybe (cf. ety),
The ety of grab, namely PG grab- seems very wrong. I can't find enough indication, how the meaning changed from dig/engrave to "to snap". --Utonsal (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The german descendents of Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/mailą seems to have been gone askew. The suggested entries of the form "meil" have no german entries, while it seems obvious to me, that it should be "Mal". --Utonsal (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem of "nachhaken": In nachhaken, the etymology is declared to come from Haken, but I haphazardly stumbled on the fields of hearken,harken, hark as well as West Frisian harkje,associated with horchen (see it's ety). --Utonsal (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
punctuo macrons are missing in the etymology --Utonsal (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
categoria: the different semes have only one representative, while eg. the second representative has itself 3 meanings. Thus no clear definition. How is this done generally? --Utonsal (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
there is this problem: against my expectance, "referent" (cf. w:Referent) doesn't denote the subject, but the object of the verb refer. In the above cited w:Referent, it is argued, that akin to other english verbs, it can denote the subject as well as the object of the verb. But this deems me contrasting with referent's etymology stating an origin from -ent#English, which in turn delivers only the subject significance.
can refero mean carry back, and not rather carry again, as one would think when reading to the (resp. transitive or intr.) meanings of refer? Which is the object, which the subject, which one the referee, which the referent? WP articles of w:Referent and w:Reference also exist.--Utonsal (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
English asquint very probably comes from Old French esquiver -> esquint , even if it's modern PPP is esquivé, cf. e.g. the PPP of restreindre. esquiver, as I've learned in voc already, is one of the Old French forms of the ancestor of skew. --Utonsal (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
the meanings of tendo need some thorough checking --Utonsal (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
stretch out the german translations don't look right. --Utonsal (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
yet meaning 4., citation 1918: meaning of citation doesn't fit into definition, but entails need for new definition. Utonsal (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
template <- templet <- templet <- templum (see below for "tempe"), but which is yet missing in templum#Latin.
"tempe" is an alternative form of "temple", which has an entry here too. Still, it's sample meaning is not noted in tempe. --Utonsal (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
why can't I find the PIE augment by "pie h₁é-" in browser. Instead, I searched through Special:Search (why???) to find the page Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁é. What's the difference? Is it the height of number one digit? Utonsal (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
WT:ETY#Jargon "akin to" vs. cognate -> but first WT:ETY generally (cleanup etc.)
PIE:mey- -> misdh(h1)os : layout for Reconstructed:PIE entries. Why are short definitions mostly lacking in the long list? 7.12.2022
dēleō and intellegō, #etymology resp.: change -ere links to -ō 7.12.2022
research:OE blaed <- blade and OE bled are said (in the latter article) to be Alternative form of another, yet having different meanings, but both descending from PG blada. --Utonsal (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
research:The PG and PIE etymology of steel. --Utonsal (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
is heuristics etymologically related to one of the several noteworty forms of ὁράω#Etymology, namely the imperfect ἑώρων ? --Utonsal (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
