Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/diwyós

Syllabification
What do we think? The template gives the expected syllabification but not the reconstructed one. — JohnC5 03:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I noticed this one too. I'm not really sure what to do about it. Apparently the rules were not as rigid as you might expect. Consider and . The syllabification of the genitive seems quite off, but what underlying rule there is I don't know. I don't really understand why PIE speakers would favour  over, though it seems that there may be some rule favouring two adjacent consonants in some situations. Maybe a question for a wider forum? —CodeCat 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should pose it elsewhere. My worry is that we there may be some annoying explanation like analogy or, even worse, a speaker preference for “root-shaped” roots (i.e. a favoritism for CVR over CRV.) — JohnC5 19:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , Done. --Tom 144 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Undone. That's a horrible "solution", if it even is one. The proper solution is to fix the modules of course, not workarounds. —Rua (mew) 23:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's better than deliberately giving a wrong inflection table. And it takes way less effort to correct it that way than fixing the modules. --Tom 144 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The inflection table is correct according to the currently known rules. If there's a problem with that, then obviously the rules need re-examining. —Rua (mew) 23:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We reconstruct according to evidence, and the evidence does not point to this reconstruction. I politely ask you to unrevert my edit, or to delete the inflectional table. Which ever you prefer, but we cannot publish an erroneous reconstruction that no one has reconstructed, with no support by the attestations just because of syllabification rules. --Tom 144 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not being very helpful. —Rua (mew) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hold my point. We cannot give ourselves the luxury to reconstruct etymons without support on the daughter languages nor recognizable authors. Maybe we should ask for other opinions. But again, I ask you to remove the erroneous table, or fix it. --Tom 144 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , Again. If you don't provide references that support *dyuyó- we must reconstruct *diwyó-, since the references reconstruct it that way. That's how it works here on wiktionary. --Tom 144 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make your solution the right one. We shouldn't put HTML entities in entries. They are ugly and make it impossible for anyone to understand. They might even be replaced back by a future bot run. Find another way. —Rua (mew) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Stem change?
Would a stem change from dyu- to diw- be expected in the feminine? Anticontradictor (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. —Rua (mew) 23:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)