Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰruHnós

RFD discussion: March 2019–July 2020
One many bad edits from this user. Latin form is impossible, as PIE *bʰr- would have yield *fr-. -- 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I put it as either borrowed from, itself descended from *bʰruHnós, or as directly descended from that reflex. The former one is more likely, but I wasn't completely sure so I put both. How does this constitute the deletion of the entire page?
 * Additionally, I at first had the page as *bʰruHn-, which is listed as the source of . It was Bezimenen who moved the page to *bʰruHnós. The only thing I've been doing here is going off of what other pages have. GabeMoore (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As the Latin cannot possibly be descended from this PIE form, that only leaves the Proto-Germanic and as we do not allow for PIE reconstructions with only a single descendant, this entry should be deleted. -- 23:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the change to *bʰruHnós: Technically, *bʰruHn- is not a root [at least not within early Proto-Indo-European]. The available literature (mainly V. Orel) points towards it being a Caland adjective and all other Caland adjectives, which I've seen on Wiktionary, are given in their full form. For this reason, I changed it. Bezimenen (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , and that was the correct thing to do, but it's really a moot point in light of the issues I listed above. -- 23:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * lists as a descendant. If the latter is deleted, its descendants should be moved to *bʰrewh₁-. A related issue: The etymology of  states that it is from a nominalization of . Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰrew- redirects to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰrewh₁-, and the latter gives *bʰrew- as an alternative reconstruction, but the only senses listed are to boil and to brew. Is the sense “brown” mentioned in the etymology section at *bʰébʰrus in error?  --Lambiam 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That has since been deleted as well. -- 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Orel mentions a plausible Greek cognate, which I've added; this reconstruction seems legit.
 * He also mentions as evidence for a root  that supposedly underlies both formations, which is not an unreasonable hypothesis. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I created a more proper entry at, though it's pretty shaky, which may be why we didn't have an entry for it. -- 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)