Talk:Proto-Iranian language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smash160.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit 12 March 2013
"Horse" in Vedic Sanskrit isn't "asva", it's aśvaḥ; Asva is a village in Estonia, and that's what the link led to! I've also replaced the ç in the Proto-Indo-Iranian reconstruction with the more usual and much less ambiguous ć.

I'm disappointed by the complete lack of Proto-Iranian reconstructions. Have such never been undertaken? Does everyone just use Avestan instead?

David Marjanović (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorization
, please check pages like Category:Indo-European languages, Category:Indo-Iranian languages, and also the corresponding "peoples" categories. We need to use one system for all of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that Proto-Indo-Iranian language, Proto-Balto-Slavic language and Proto-Anatolian language are classified directly under the category you've linked to. These are departures from the general pattern (and hence need fixing). For the ones that do follow the general pattern, see for example Proto-Germanic, Proto-Greek, Proto-Armenian, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Italic etc. I think the system used will appear more logical if you consider the placement of the root proto-language for the top-level family: if Proto-Iranian etc. are all categorised directly under Category:Indo-European languages, then where will Proto-Indo-European go? There's no higher-level category for it to go under. And besides, an article about a proto-X language has generally more relevance for the X languages, rather than the family of X–Y–Z languages. If you'd like to change that system, I guess the best place to bring it up is WT:LANG. – Uanfala 23:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hypothetical
Is this edit some kind of pov-pushing or personal commentary/analysis? Proto-Indo-Iranian vs. "Hypothetical" Proto-Indo-Iranian. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just redundant. Any concrete reconstruction of any proto-language is hypothetical by definition, even though we can treat these proto-languages themselves (Proto-Indo-European, for example, or Proto-Uralic) as established fact. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What Florian said. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Section "Phonological correspondences" requires restructuring
Some of the content in this section needs to be moved to Proto-Indo-Iranian language, and vice versa. For example, the table outlining the phonological correspondences between Proto-Indo-Iranian and its daughter languages would be better suited for Proto-Indo-Iranian language. In place of this table, we require a table outling the correspondences between the reconstructed Proto-Iranian forms and its (Iranian) daughter languages. Some of the information from the former table may thus be relevant for the latter, given that they be properly sourced; in particular, the Persian and Kurdish tables require sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.56.46 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

era
What is the era of this language? 78.190.49.87 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)