Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰengʰ-

Celtic addition
, your is not only misplaced within the entry (if anything, it would be under ) but also phonologically impossible without the intervention of some other sound change. Matasovic mentions this in a word list but provides no PIE etymology. , do you have any advice? I don't know why the GPC proposes this solution with no explanation. — JohnC5
 * R:cel:Matasovic 2009 takes Celtic *kanxsman back to the root of, from , whence also and . I'm adding this information to  and . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't be mean - the Sanskrit word also features a suffix (-ati), but you didn't immediately and breathlessly delete that word. So it's reasonable to place a Celtic word there too which is missing a suffix (-mn).

Still, thanks to you both for following up, for looking into the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru and other sources beyond my ken, and for adding the céim and *kengeti entries.

P.S. Can't Brythonic *kanksman and Goidelic *kenksmen be added to the *kengeti page? The GPC is a legitimate reference.

Traversetravis (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the find in Matasovic. I was looking around, but I didn't think to check under . Sorry if that came off a bit harshly. On my behalf, the first bullet point is marked as a "root present" and is short for the longer present system lemma form *ǵʰéngʰ-e-ti. You are quite right that GPC is a legitimate reference, but even well respected sources make crazy claims from time to time. — JohnC5 04:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I feel mollified, and I understand better.

Related to * ?
Is this word related to, given that both begin with *ǵʰ-, have (almost) the same meaning and that in German, is said to come from  and  is said to come from  ? Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)