Talk:Proto-Indo-European roots

I have started to merge the various PIE words into one page. My view is that this should have: (1) intro blurb about PIE words and how we know what they were (may have been). (2) A list of words that we have information on. I think this should be in pros rather than as lists. (3) We should then link to List of common Indo-European roots (or should we merge this with this page.

However, the first task is to get everything in one place without loosing information. Andreww 21:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge
The result of the AfD was to merge all the words here. You guys can do this, I'll remove the AfD notices from their pages, and remember to replace the merged pages with #REDIRECT Proto-Indo-European roots

R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh Dyeus!
This is quite horrible. We will essentially reproduce Pokorny and LIV here. Is this even legal? I mean, I have the etexts, I could just dump it here and be done. We can have this article, but it shall not be a list of roots (which would go to wikisource, if it was legal to reproduce them. We can talk about roots, of course, no need to delete the article. dab (&#5839;) 20:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, look at this:


 * Do you really want to put here more than 1152 roots with their descriptions? Then you should start another wiki project.--Nixer 21:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look at User:Doric Loon/PIE Roots project page as a possible way forward on such matters. --Doric Loon 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at your Roots project page and it isn't up-to-date. You reconstruct *reg- "to rule" but it's original meaning is "to straighten" and you're missing the *H3 at the beginning that helps to explain Greek orektos that you ironically list despite. You've disproven yourself, hehe :) --Glengordon01 20:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have an objection of my own -- Pokorny's laryngeal-deficient reconstructions have been worthless since the 1970s. Perhaps valuable only if you're interested in the history of the field of comparative linguistics. Even so, this article is shoddy and full of inaccuracies. I really wish that librarians would stop stocking the shelves of major libraries with Pokorny's posthumous nonsense. These roots were published decades ago and I only wish that we could enlighten everyone on how Indo-European is currently reconstructed in the 21st century replete with a thing we like to call laryngeals, fully proven beyond a doubt thanks to Anatolian languages like Hittite. Since there's already another list being developed on Wikipedia that's way more up-to-date (ie: List of Indo-European roots), why don't we just abandon this one altogether? --Glengordon01 20:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Scope of Page
Please do not include additional languages unless no other cognate can be found in the included languages. Since Latin is included, there is no need for Romanian on this page since this is the English language article. azalea_pomp