Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/déh₁

@Vahagn Petrosyan, of course I looked at the entry. LIPP gives "*borderless" as the origin, which is much more compelling than "*house-borders". Don't you agree? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * no, that would be an irregular formation, that's not how Armenian morphology works. Also, it's not "*house-borders", it's "inhabited world", a parallel and maybe even a calque of . Vahag (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * is supposedly a variant of the genitive of . How then do you get from +  not to "*house-borders" but to "*inhabited world"?
 * "Inhabited world" is not "world" or "universe", which also contains uninhabited parts.
 * is not a compound, it's a participle, literally "that which is inhabited". seems to neither mean the same nor to be formed in remotely the same way. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Trust me bro. Leave the Armenian to me. Vahag (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's neither here nor there. Could you please address what I said? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You can find all the answers in the literature I have referenced. I have uploaded the two pages of Kölligan 2019:, . The rest you can find yourself online. Vahag (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I read everything you referenced. It's still an iffy etymology.
 * If it was indeed a partial calque, wouldn't we expect the regular as the first part?
 * The meaning "universe" is not well-motivated. is not a good parallel, because it's never used in that sense . Semantically kringla heimsins evokes the view you have of the world from a high vantage point.
 * I don't see how could give . Rasmussen (1999, p. 558) is wrong.  is from  and raising *ē > *ī happened before compensatory lengthening *ems > *ēs, so you'd get †dwyar at best.
 * On the other hand of the sources you've given Ačaṙean, Kölligan also give, in addition to | Petermann, | Windischmann, | Bolognesi, Schmitt (p. 168), and the others cited by Kölligan and none give a good counterargument. (That it's never attested as literally "the boundless" is hardly worth mentioning.) —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I know of course about the alternative etymology first proposed by Petermann. Ačaṙean records all proposed etymologies for all Armenian words, including that one. He does not accept the identification of with the privative suffix . He thinks  in, ,  means "big" and is of uknown origin.
 * I can't explain why I don't like the explanation of as "boundless". As a native speaker such a formation feels unnatural. But you can add the alternative proposal if it is important for you. Vahag (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your immense learned knowledge of Armenian is more important than your native speaker intuition. Anyway, it's not like you are a native speaker of Old Armenian or of its predecessors. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the flattery, it works. I will explain my misgivings below.
 * I perceive as "region, land" like . For that sense Acharian points to Proverbs 8:26:, though here it may simply literally translate  of the Septuagint, and does not necessarily mean "region, land". Therefore,  for me is "ti-region". The most natural explanation would be ti- = inhabited.
 * The alternative abstract, poetic explanation of the world as "the boundless" may be suitable for ghey Ancient Greeks but not for hard-nosed Armos. We do not perceive the world like that. Vahag (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)