Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/dyew-

More cognates
More cognates here. I add Lithuanian. --Fsojic (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that is not from ? 16:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I have wondered. I remove it until we are sure. --Fsojic (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The same question should be asked about the Old Church Slavonic word. It looks like a direct descendant from, too. However, it seems to be attested with the meaning "demon" sometimes, and has often been suggested to be a borrowing from Iranian, thus only indirectly from the PIE protoform; in any way, the meaning "astonishment, wonder" that we give does not fit either etymology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Inflection
I'm sure the root is rather (which per Beekes cannot be the same as ). This way the connection with "dei-n-" in BSl is far less ad-hoc.

I believe that this root should be rather interpreted as *dey-w-, with being an early thematicization, perhaps still within PIE. The original inflection would therefore be better seen as a regular hysterokinetic:

Nom. Sg. - déy-u-

Acc. Sg. - di-éw-m

Gen. Sg. - di-w-éś

This possibility is discussed in

--Itsacatfish (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

'back-formation from *deywós'
'*deyn-o-s (“day”) (probably a back-formation from *deywós, interpreting *dey- as the root)'

But *deywós is glossed only as '(sky) god'. The development posited here would, on the contrary, seem to require *deywós to have kept a closer association with the concept of 'sky' and probably a more general meaning such as 'celestial'. Also, Mallory and Adams, unlike Wiktionary, gloss the very root 'dyew-' as 'day' and not only as 'sky', and that would not be without precedent (in Sumerian, Classical Chinese etc.). 62.73.69.121 12:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)