Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰéymn̥

Etymology
Lead-up to this: Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁én.

What I wrote is backed by the following:
 * In sum, the *m seen in *g̑hei̯men- and *g̑hei̯mer- is unlikely to be traced back to the suffix(es) -men-/-mer-. Instead, whether or not we reconstruct an actual m-stem or a root noun *g̑hi̯em- as the most primitive form (with final *m) that serves as the basis for all the rest of the ‘winter’ derivations, for all intents and purposes, late PIE treated *g̑hi̯em- as the ‘winter’ root (or base) from which all other nominal derivatives may be traced. This, in turn, necessitates that *g̑hei̯-men- (and *g̑hei̯-mer-), while securely reconstructible on the basis of numerous daughter languages, must itself be somehow secondary to *g̑hi̯em-. (Ozoliņš 2015 p. 77)
 * Ausgehend von einer Wz. *g̑ʰei̯- wäre eine Primärbildung *g̑ʰéi̯-men- n., ggf. *g̑ʰéi̯-mer-, möglich; da andererseits nur Bildungen mit m-Suffixen fortgesetzt scheinen, liegt es nahe, alle Formen als Sekundärbildungen zu dem m-Stamm anzusehen. (NIL p. 165 fn. 9)

If I made a mistake, or if you don't like the phrasing or the formating, you're welcome to change it, but please be constructive! —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my reversion notes, you're misinterpreting the sources. I really recommend you read the various material out the on the relationship between m-stems and mn-stems. You also completely deleted the etymology of it being possibly rebuilt from an m-stem accusative singular, *ǵʰéy-ōm + *-mn̥ is nonsensical, and the sources you used to cite *ǵʰéy-ōm + *-n̥ are actually sourcing a *ǵʰéym- root + *-n̥. Please try and improve it before wheel-warring. -- 19:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's absurd that you keep saying I haven't read the sources, when by all appearances you haven't read them.
 * *ǵʰéy-ōm + *-mn̥ is discussed in the references works I have now repeatedly cited. As is *ǵʰéy-ōm + *-n̥. (NIL fn. 9 & Ozoliņš §4.4.1)
 * Whether the base is a root *ǵʰyem- or an m-stem *ǵʰéy-ōm is discussed separately in both works (NIL fn. 1 & Ozoliņš §4.3)
 * It's right there, all of it. Have you read it?
 * Your proposed rebuilding from an accusative singular is unsourced and I don't understand how it could work. Where would the *n have come from?
 * Your most recent edit repeats the claim that I have refuted above.
 * I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. I wish we could converse sensibly. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)