Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/dwípōds

, are you convinced that this actually should be reconstructed for PIE? Seems fishy to me. (Ditto for the three- and four-legged equivalents.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur; all the descendants seem too transparent to go back all that way. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I, too, am not convinced. I also notice that Vedic accent is dvipā́d ~ dvipád. I think the AG accent indicates a secondary formation using AG's default left-periphery accentuation. Latin and German are definitely secondary. I'll say that for the Vedic cátuṣ-pād ~  cátuṣ-pad matches AG  and has normal bahuvrihi accentuation. For . Vedic again has tripā́d ~ tripád. Taken together, I'd say that these would at least be oxytonic in PIE, but even then, almost none of thee forms match and could all be secondary. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 21:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kʷétwr̥pōds
There does not seem to be a reason to reconstruct these to PIE, and there is some potentially conflicting evidence. See Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/dwípōds. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understood correctly, I think should be kept, since the AGr. evidence matches the Vedic one. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because it matches does not mean that there is any positive evidence that it should be reconstructed, simply that there is no reason it absolutely can't be. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Forget my objection, I prefer that it be deleted. And I agree with . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * RFDO failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)