Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/wlixto-

RFD discussion: July–November 2020
Tagged but not listed by Victar almost a year ago with the comment "with no extra-Brythonic cognates, why do we need this entry?". I don't have strong feelings either way, but I suppose the answer to the question is, "to be a bridge between and . —Mahāgaja · talk 12:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If indeed the Proto-Brythonic form cannot have been formed in Proto-Brythonic times (perhaps due to it showing some sort of derivation pattern that was no longer productive in Proto-Brythonic times), indicating that the term must have been inherited from Proto-Celtic, I would support retention of the Proto-Celtic entry, but I cannot judge whether that is the case, so I will wait until others weigh in. The Proto-Brythonic entry lists a different Proto-Celtic form in its etymology, by the way. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, because Victar changed it at the same time that he tagged this reconstruction for deletion. Strictly, though, can only come from something with a -xt- or -tt-, not directly from the  currently given (which itself is clearly a mistake for, since x appears only before consonants in PCel). We can say that it comes from the root of , though. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming PBr derives from PIE  (seems solid), the PC form could either be, , or . Given the uncertainty, due to of the lack of extra-Brythonic cognates, seems like it would be best to just leave it to the etymology. --  03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds convincing. Delete. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, delete. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RFD deleted — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)