Talk:Proto-Indo-European root

message: Good start.  Well done.  Needs a bit more explanation, though.  Why can a word not start and end with the same consonant?  But all very interesting.  --Doric Loon 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good start

message: the root constraints are wrong.  the correct rule is
* no two plain voiced stops
* no voiceless with voiced aspirate (except when an s precedes, e.g. stebh-)
Benwing 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll try to sort it out as soon as my time allows. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewritten the article now. The problems should be solved. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong constraints 

message: I need help.  I get many boxes instead of characters reading the Indo-European language transcriptions.  Any suggestions?
Kathleen Weber
:(1) Make sure you have a font installed that includes the correct characters. (2) Make sure you aren't using Internet Explorer. —Angr 05:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: In the chart, what do the square brackets mean?  Does [HR]mean that a root can have a sequence HR or nothing in that location, or that it can have H or R or HR or nothing, or that it must have H or R, one or the other?  24.186.215.227 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The square brackets seem to mean "optional" in most cases, but of course e isn't a possible root shape. —Angr 19:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Square brackets

message: Do some of the thorn clusters violate the basic root structure, or are all of them zero grades like  (vs. full grade , obeying the rule)? For example, what about the full grade of ? Neither  nor  would have the right structure. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a full grade of  even attested? If it does have a full grade, I'd expect it to be  anyway. —Angr 09:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that mean the root structure (at most one stop before and one after the vowel, with very few exceptions like ) is wrong? There are quite a number of roots with thorn clusters. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the thorn clusters count as if they were single stops for the purposes of root shape. Just because modern scholarship reconstructs them as  etc. rather than  doesn't necessarily mean they weren't affricates, or didn't behave like them. —Angr 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They can't have been  etc. before Anatolian and Tocharian split of. But you're right, of course we can't say whether they behaved in some way differently from other combinations of stops. Do you think it would count as original research to add something like "The role of the thorn clusters in PIE phonotactics is unknown", just to make readers aware that the reconstructed phonotactics don't answer all questions? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't anyone who's written about root phonotactics talked about the thorn clusters? —Angr 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read anything, but that isn't saying much. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorn clusters 

message: Hello.
It is written that, according to the sonority hierarchy, the basic root structure is the following:
*{P, -} {w, m, -} {l, r, y, n, -} e {l, r, y, n, -} {w, m, -} {P, -}-
It's kind of difficult the explanation for *agro- *āter- *dekm- *dʰǵʰem- *gheslo- *kwetwer- *newn- *rtko- *tauro- *tkei- (Lat. ager, ater, decem, humus, mille (?), quattro, novem, ursus, taurus, situs (?)). 
Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because these are stems and not roots, with derivational suffixes appended, some not in e-grade and some not in laryngeal form (there was no */a/ in PIE..). Lots of these don't have corresponding verbal root out which you can derive them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubts: Basic root structure

message: I don't think that this article meets the Wikipedia:Good article criteria at present. Specifically, it uses a lot of jargon, see; Wikipedia:Explain jargon, and doesn't present enough context to allow the general reader to understand it. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Started addressing these problems. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: , hopefully. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Good Article nomination 

message: ;Well-written
*Lead section
**In the third sentence of the lead paragraph, change "...the language: complete..." to "...the language with complete...".
*See also section
**Add In German after "...Verbs"),..."
;Factually accurate and verfiable
*All sources listed in References section except Köbler's are offline, so WP:AGF is assumed.
*All External links listed are valid.
*Look at WP:CITET for sources listed for consistency on references listed.
;Broad
*Covers aspects of the main root of languages. Despite the complexity, it is broad. No issues.
;Neutral
*No issues.
;Stable
*Last edit was on 6 May 2010. Nine edits since 18 April 2010 used to prepare for GA.
;Images
*Only two images shown, but they were from math equations. No issues.
;Overall
*Hold. A few minor edits. Some quick fixes and you will have a GA.
Chris (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: In the "Lexical meaning" paragraph it says "some roots did exist that did not have a primary verbal derivation [...] They included at least *h₁rewdʰ- "red","
In the "Nouns and adjectives" sub-section it says "Adjectives are also derived by suffixation of verbal roots. An example is *h₁rudʰ-ró-s "red" from the root *h₁reudʰ- "to redden"."
Don't these statements contradict each other? Also, the renderings of the glides follow two different traditions. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They do. I think the writers of this article have tried a bit too hard to make everything seem like it's derived from a verbal meaning. You can turn anything into a verb if you try hard enough (*(h1)eḱw- "to be a horse"!). But there isn't actually any verb *h₁rewdʰ- attested in any language, and it's generally held to be an adjectival Caland root nowadays. So I've removed that now. CodeCat (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong: LIV lists numerous verbs in various IE languages. And trying to make 'horse' into a nominal root is even more forced. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?