Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/akīnos

Why the long ī?
, out of curiosity, what would lead to this long ī? The PIE form listed would not produce it, nor does Matasovic propose it. Also why is the Breton derived from Middle Welsh? — JohnC5 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't derived from Middle Welsh. And it can only have produced ī, otherwise the descendants would be Welsh egyn and Breton egen, not the correct ones. It doesn't particularly matter if you're not satisfied. This is a waste of time. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/akino#rfd-notice-- Not meaning to be rude, but it really is. If you'd still like to oppose it, you can always discuss it here, as you did. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably the suffix -īnos, as seen also in >  > . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this would be the same as 🇨🇬, but this then somewhat invalidates Matasovic's claim that this lemma is the exact equivalent to 🇨🇬, unless we think the ī is secondary by analogy or some other process. — JohnC5 14:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but I put more trust in the attested Welsh and Breton vocalism than in Matasovic's desire to make it a perfect match with a Latin word that has a different meaning anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Coolio. — JohnC5 15:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Angr, we should reconstruct from the bottom up first. —CodeCat 15:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh certainly. I wonder why Matasovic made this mistake then. — JohnC5 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea. It may be significant that it isn't in the published version of his dictionary, it's only in the "Addenda et Corrigenda" PDF available online, which could mean it hasn't been peer-reviewed as thoroughly as the the published dictionary was. On the other hand, as I just commented at Requests for deletion/Others‎, there are some things even in the published dictionary that don't make a lot of sense to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you may understand why I wasn't too keen in giving supremacy to sourcing in the past. A lot of the time, I think Wiktionarians can do just as good a job, sometimes better. —CodeCat 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a double-edged sword though, because while some Wiktionarians can do just as good a job or better, others have a proclivity to tracing everything back to Proto-Basquo-Caucaso-Dravido-Arawakan or some such nonsense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't consider sources to be the be-all and end-all, especially not Matasovic. They are just a very good jumping off points and should be cited when relevant. I do find it odd when there are such clear inconsistencies in reconstructions, though. — JohnC5 15:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–February 2022
User:UtherPendrogn entry (or merge it into Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/ėgin). --Gowanw (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Attn —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, attn . —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't respond before because I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. The word is attested only in Brythonic, but it's unlikely to have been coined within Brythonic, so a Proto-Celtic form is likely, even if it's not attested in other branches. Abstain. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can see why I wanted your opinion on an Uther creation! Anyway, in that case, it comes down to our usual practice, which would be to reconstruct as conservatively as possible, and as we have no non-Brythonic cognates (nor any proposed IE etymology!), I will close this as RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)