Talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian language

message: "reconstructed" is enough
ok Nasz 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you agree. I can live with the present version although the specialists differentiate between the "occurent proto-language" (the one that was actually spoken at a time past) and the "reconstructed proto-language" which is a scientific theory. We mix the two entities nicely in this article but in a text written for non-specialists it may be acceptable. I hope we can now move on. Friendly Neighbour 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: It would be nice to see the postulated phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian.  It currently seems to be lacking from this article.  Cheers.  Grover cleveland (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What, no voiceless aspirates? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The voiceless aspirates of Sanskrit are usually hypothesized to originate from sequences of plosives + laryngeals.  I don't think any authorities posit them in PII, except perhaps older sources that also posit them in PIE.  Grover cleveland (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology? 

message: Perhaps somebody could clarify what are the origins of Avestan .
: According to Beekes, pp. 73ff (where C means any consonant):
:pC -> fC  
:tC -> θC
:kC -> xC
: but a preceding s prevents these developments.
:v is just another name for w.
:According to Beekes, ð and ɣ are merely allophones, of θ and g respectively.
Grover cleveland (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fricatives in Avestan 

message: The Indic languages and Iranian languages are a single branch of Indo-European known as Indo-Iranian.  They are not two separate branches.  NO historical linguist separates them.  (Taivo (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no controversy whatsoever concerning the close genetic relationship between the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages.  They are not similar to Balto-Slavic, which is still somewhat controversial and not universally accepted as a valid node of Indo-European.  Indo-Iranian is completely non-controversial.  Do not continue trying to separate Iranian and Indo-Aryan as if they are separate branches of Indo-European--they are not.  (Taivo (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no controversy about Indo-Iranian as a node of Indo-European.  Show me a reference to one historical linguist that says there is.  I'll show you references to a hundred linguists that prove otherwise.  Stop edit warring here.  (Taivo (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Iranian, NOT "Indian" and :"Iranian" 

message: Somebody has redirected Proto-Indo-Aryan here. I wonder why. Now we have Proto-Iranian as it should be, but no Proto-Indo-Aryan, although both are parallel descendants of Proto-Indo-Iranian. It'd be nice to have an explanation, if there's any. 85.76.196.54 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been that way for two years.  I doubt that you'll get an explanation after such a long time.  --Taivo (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe, but the person who did the redirection seems still to be around. ¶ Given the scarcity of those interwiki links relating to Proto-Indo-Iranian, it seems to be the case that people aren't too accustomed to thinking in terms of family trees. And Proto-Iranian lacks almost all iw parallels. Taivo, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. To me, it's quite feasible to think of Proto-Indo-Aryan as the hypothetical, reconstructed ancestor to the Indo-Aryan languages, in the same vein as it is feasible to think of Proto-Iranian as the hypothetical proto-language of the Iranian branch. Or should we stop at Proto-Indo-Iranian? 85.77.76.79 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that there's a distinct linguistic entity that was Proto-Indo-Aryan.  If someone is willing to write the article, then it should, indeed, have a separate existence.  --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect now pointed in the direction of Indo-Aryan languages, as protolang redirects usually do. (Vedic Sanskrit might've been another choice…) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An odd redirection 

message: What evidence is there for the laryngeal in PII? Is there a particular reason why it must be reconstructed still for PII? CodeCat (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for laryngeal? 

message: I’m no expert in Avestan but the form for ‘and’ is given as:
    ́ča "and"
The first character is a combining character — is this just a misordering for:
     č́a "and"
Or should the first character be a U+2032 prime? babbage (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avestan ́ča "and" — typo? 

message: I think we are used to proto-languages being thought of as somewhat more theoretical in nature than historically attested languages, and for this reason it seems logical to simply label them as "proto-x language". However, this proto language is very unique in that we can reconstruct the actual autonym of the language quite confidently. I'd be interested to hear opinions on the prospect in using a title or at least a noted alternative name which deviates from the typical proto language naming formula. 2607:FEA8:4B5C:27AC:B193:E977:9068:FE7B (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the title