Template:Did you know nominations/Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon

 * ... that, according to Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon, the Lithuanian word for pelvis is derived from a Proto-Indo-European word stem meaning "deep"?
 * Reviewed: Gilindire Cave

Created by Anypodetos (talk). Self nominated at 11:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg All the technical criteria seem to be in order here, the hook seems interesting and everything is within policy. However, I will say that I found the portion of the article that actually contains this fact a bit confusing:


 * Consequently, many of NIL's entries contain words with widely different meanings. For example, *dʰeu̯b- "deep" treats the Lithuanian words for "deep, bowl, pelvis", Celtic "dark, black", and Albanian "sea", among many others.


 * The way it's phrased makes it seem like there's a single Lithuanian word that means "deep", "bowl" and "pelvis". Is this true? I think that the article would also benefit from the inclusion of these words in their original languages, to illustrate (at least roughly) the derivations. Additionally, it seems to me that "treat' is some sort of term of art with which I am not familiar. From context, it seems like it means that these words are derived from *dʰeu̯b-, but I don't think most people will be familiar with that form of the word. I'd suggest cleaning it up to make it less confusing.


 * Personally, I'd like to see that cleaned up before the hook goes to the front page, but as far as I can tell having the fact included in the article in a clear way is not an actual requirement of DYK. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. Hope my latest edit clarifies that. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)