Appendix talk:List of Proto-Indo-European roots/p

http://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/fly

<<Greek πετώ (peto) means to fly. how do i put it in there? it's far more obvious than πτερυξ...150.140.229.175 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I put in, the Ancient Greek variant (we generally prefer the older variants to the newer ones, when we can get them; although we do include modern English variants, as this is the English Wiktionary). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the preferred form for Greek is both forms; Ancient/Modern, although that barely has been implemented so far. Wakuran 17:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think we've set a policy on this per se. However, I would certainly prefer to limit ourselves to older forms.  I think it superfluous to have the French when we have the Latin.  Now, if there were a case where the French is attested, but the Latin is not (a rare situation, I imagine, but probably not nonexistent), then the presence of the French would be justified.  However, in general, I think that limiting ourselves to the older forms will make for a much more focused and lean appendix.  Further depth can certainly be present in the appendices of the individual roots themselves.  Other opinions?  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. I would also remove all instances of Russian except in the cases where the corresponding OCS etymon is not attested. ====Descendants==== section of the corresponding mainspace entry is intended for the purpose of establishing genetic relationship between the old and modern form [which is esp. useful when there are multiple descending forms of anc. languages, e.g. Old Norse, Persian varieties, even English/Scots. Giving prominence to just one of them would be POV ^_^] --Ivan Štambuk 08:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One caveat to my previous statements. I think it might be reasonable to leave modern English descendants (when genetic descendants, and not borrowings), as this is the English Wiktionary, and I think people would be interested in that.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, English would make a reasonable exception. --Ivan Štambuk 08:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question which might be worth considering is whether we should assign priorities within language families which spring out of nowhere, so to speak, such as Germanic; families which don't have a classical language like Ancient Greek, Latin, Old Church Slavonic, and Sanskrit. Perhaps Gothic could be posited as the older Germanic language, but with such a limited corpus, there are plenty of roots which aren't attested in Gothic, but are in Old English, Old Norse, etc. I'm somewhat torn on this, as I think it would be a little silly to have an Old Saxon, an Old High German, an Old English, a Gothic, and an Old Norse. At the same time, I dislike the idea of a Gothic word excluding the possibility of an Old Norse word. Also, I tend to lean towards always allowing Old English, going along with the previously mentioned exception of English. In any case, the same is true of Celtic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, a problem is that some mother languages have several daughter descendants, while some basically only has one major. As far as I have understood, the reasoning has generally been to include the oldest/major of languages from each subgroup (such as west/east/north/south), and not to include daughter languages unless there's a single major descendant language. The only exception to this is the inclusion of two West Germanic languages, English and German. Wakuran 13:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is nitpicky, but of course a proto-language doesn't "spring out of nowhere", just because it lacks a corpus. Wakuran 13:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For *pulh₂- (hair) I would suggest adding the Latin pilum (cf. Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores), with descendants like It. pelo, Rom. păr. Klewos 23:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish examples
pelh₂- > / ;
 * peg- > /
 * pekʷ- >
 * pel- (skin) >
 * perkʷu- >
 * pet- (to fly) > (feather),  (to fly)
 * pisd-eh₂- > ("womb")
 * plus-, *psul-, *pusl-, *bʰlus- >
 * pénkʷe >
 * pneu- >
 * pṓds > ,

Urdu examples
Is it not necessary to include Hindi and Urdu examples because the roots of those words are in Persian and Sanskirt? The Persian words for each of the following are there in Urdu as well:
 * peḱ-
 * ph₂tḗr
 * pénkʷe
 * pṓds
 * psten-
 * dluh₂gʰó-
 * dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s
 * ḱer-
 * dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s
 * dwóh₁, *dwó
 * dóru
 * ḱer-
 * ḱm̥tóm
 * h₁dónts
 * h₂ep-
 * h₂ows-
 * h₂stḗr
 * méh₂tēr

I spotted at least one Sanskrit/Hindi word that's there in Urdu as well:
 * deh₂iwer (husband's brother).

Russ. птенец (ptenets'), related to *pet- PIE root 199.200.243.253 22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

*pent-
For this root, would'nt the English derivative be "path"? This is copied directly from the entry for path
 * "Old English pæþ, from Proto-Germanic *paþaz (compare West Frisian paad, Dutch pad, German Pfad), from Scytho-Sarmatian (compare Avestan pɑntɑ, gen. pɑθɑ 'way', Old Persian pɑthi-), from Proto-Indo-European *pent- (compare English find). More at find."

And this is from the entry on find
 * From Old English findan, from Proto-Germanic *finþanan (compare Dutch vinden, German finden, Swedish finna), a secondary verb from Proto-Indo-European *pontHo-

So I think there may have been an error made here. DerekWinters (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

*pisd-eh₂
Brazilian Portuguese (perhaps European Portuguese too): buceta

fjǫrðr
`fjǫrðr`, under the entry for `*per-` (go), seems to be accidentally described as "Norwegian". Neither "ǫ" nor "ð" are graphemes in Norwegian, and the entry links to a page that solely has an Old Norse entry. Am I correct in thinking this should be labelled as "Old Norse"? And the corresponding Norwegian word seems to be "fjord".
 * Fixed

plãns
Is the Latvian term correctly typed in the article? It is now plãns (with ã not known to me in the Latvian alphabet). I know of plāns and wonder if it is what is meant.