Appendix talk:Cognate sets for Uralic languages

8 and 9
Seeing as no reconstructed form is given, I'm questioning how much it makes sense to italicize the Khanty forms of the numerals 8 and 9, especially seeing as not all of the other forms for these numerals are cognate with each other either. Could the italicization be removed? AnonymousMusician (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, I reckon it could have made more sense if we gave the Finno-Permic forms for 7-9, but we apparently don't, so the italicization makes no sense there. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 21:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Purpose or lack thereof
On reflection, this entire appendix is a poorly developed WP fork redundant to Appendix:Uralic Swadesh lists and Category:Proto-Uralic lemmas, and should perhaps be deleted or at least heavily refactored. --Tropylium (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)