Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁én

Under
Does * n̥-dʰér n̥dʰ-ér, mentioned at  and at, fit under this root? It doesn't have the laryngeal, but maybe that's a simple omission. — Eru·tuon 18:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * De Vaan and Kroonen seem to to consider a unit and not to contain . — JohnC5 23:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Move to *én
I'm in favour of moving this page to *én. As shows, there is no evidence that points to an initial laryngeal and Greek and Vedic speak against it. —caoimhinoc (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

01:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Victar, I don't know what to say. There are two references in the paragraph you keep deleting which discuss . And this is the second time I've pointed it out. And all main etymological dictionaries of Greek (Beekes, Frisk, Chantraine) state that is a compound of ἐν and κάρη. I appreciate your other edits and I welcome your input in this section too, provided it's constructive! —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I it deleted it because, for one, is derived from, and any connection to  is completely fictitious.  and  are often presumed from , but if you read Nussbaum:1986:72-74, he is sceptical, as  is unexpected even without a leading laryngeal. Beekes:2010:50 goes on to reconstruct #h₁n̥, albeit tentatively, but the point is this: using either of these words as proof that it lacked a laryngeal is ridiculous. --  17:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're of course right that there are problems with these explanations. But if you look carefully at all the evidence (I only named these two pieces as examples. There's more.) it's not ridiculous at all. You have a whole array of apparent isolated locative singulars in Vedic and for ἀκαρος, etc. this is the only sensible explanation around. (Beekes has none.) If you have better explanations for these facts I'd love to see it. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm no trying to be rude, just emphatic, but it's not just problems but in fact misinformation., which is fossilized with the locative meaning , is simply in an mn-stem locative case ending. Trying to reconstruct **ǵʰey-h₁én is just absurdly spurious. As for the Ancient Greek, to reiterate, we can't tell either way from if it had a laryngeal or not, so using it as evidence either way is misleading. --  22:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Victar, what's absurd is you dismissing serious scholarship as misinformation without offering a shred of evidence, reasoning, or citations yourself—just repeating over and over what you've already said. I'd love to consider your views if you actually put some effort in. (If you thinκ ἀκαρός can come from *h₁n̥- you're shaky on your Greek sound laws. That could only give ἐγκαρός by Rix's law, compare .) —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not, you're just putting all your eggs into a single Dunkel-sized basket. He's a sourced n-stem entry for you: RC:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰéymn̥. As for, I've already walked you through Nussbaum:1986 and Beekes:2010; you can read them for yourself. And no, I'm not "shaky on my Greek sound laws", and neither is Beekes. Both are irregular, as we would expect from , invalidating any argument either way. --  06:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned five sources besides Dunkel. I generally read the sources that I add. I know what the unsolved problems are and I know what the alternative theories are. I happen to be most persuaded by Dunkel's explanation. You're welcome to make a different case, but so far you haven't walked me through anything, despite claiming that you have. And you've casually dismissed Rix's law in the process. -Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? What source have you mentioned, other than Dunkel, that argue for no laryngeal? That's funny, because you gave the wrong page for Nussbaum:1986. I haven't dismissed anything personally, the but the sources I've given sure have, i.e. Beekes. -- 21:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to renarrate this thread for you. I've even quoted your own source back at you, with bold font. And no, I didn't give the wrong page number. It's page 189, section 50.5. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is another paper that goes into depth on . To quote on a related note, "ἀκαρός [..] is, however, too late and uncertain to have any crucial bearing on the issue." -- 08:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is more like it. I wish you replied seriously the first time I ask. Note however that this paper does not back up the absurd claims you've made in the meantime ("misinformation", "ficti[ti]ous", "single Dunkel-sized basket"): "Although the view that ἀ- reflects a zero grade corresponding to ἐν- is widely accepted today,17 there are two potential problems with it." (p. 41, emphasis mine). Note also that Van Beek, like Beekes, has no explanation for ἀκαρός. Note also that Van Beek goes to great lengths to offer an alternative explanation for ἀτενής (pp. 62-68). He may be right, but it's no slam-dunk. There's much more evidence you haven't come close to addressing.
 * As I've said, you're welcome to add your view on *(h₁)én to the reconstruction notes. Just try to keep it constructive. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dunkel's etymology for is absolutely a spurious embarrassment of fiction. Are we done disputing that with the creation of RC:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰéymn̥? Again, the arguments brought up in van Beek:2018, themselves echoes of those addressed in Nussbaum:1986, point to  being irregular and lacking any good explanation. Solid evidence for no leading laryngeal it does not make.
 * I've updated the reconstruction note for Dunkel's rational and included more sources on . -- 21:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not remotely an adequate reply., could one of you please help. This is getting ridiculous. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I havent read any of the papers mentioned here but I just wanted to ask .... is it possible that there was elision of initial h₁ in unstressed syllables? Then the root could be h₁en when stressed and en when unstressed. It's the same sort of variation we have in English with them ~ 'em and other words.  Also there's a similar situation with the 1st person pronoun: eǵ, with no initial laryngeal. — Soap — 07:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are speaking very generally, I'm sure that is a possibility to be considered. After all, *h₁ is taken to be the weakest of the laryngeals. But I'm not aware of any evidence that points that way. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The fact that you just demonstrates that you are an uncooperative, hostile editor. Pinging PIE and PII editors  --  17:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To recap for those that I tagged above, the hypothesis proposed by Nussbaum (1986) is that is a compound of  + adverb, acting as a locative suffix. Looking past the fact that PIE didn't typically append adverbs in compounds, the term is quite transparently , as sourced on , with  being fossilized from the locative singular. As for , the arrival at  is debated, and claiming it as hard proof of *h₁én lacking a laryngeal, as Dunkel (2014) suggests, is ill-founded.  --  20:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should take a step back and reflect on what we are really arguing about here. Sometimes the evidence doesn't point in one clear direction and multiple explanations must be considered. As it happens, your prefered explanation is generally considered the least likely one. But I concede it's a possibility, so it deserves to be listed in.
 * You added a really good reference there by the way: Ozoliņš (2015). I wonder if you've read the whole of chapter 4? I would recommend it. Funnily Ozoliņš also considers my prefered explanation *ǵʰéym én "in winter" unequivocally the best one: "Friedman’s scenario, when juxtaposed with the alternatives outlined above is clearly the most attractive solution;" (page 78). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Both editors in this argument have now pung me, asking me to weigh in, but I haven't read any of the papers cited and haven't been actively involved in IE studies in almost 30 years. There must be a way for our entry to briefly sum up the arguments of both camps without taking sides ourselves (beyond the fact that our entry has to be at either *én or *h₁én). I know that NPOV is a principle of Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, but I think it would serve us well here. "Authors A, B and C believe the form had no laryngeal for these reasons, but authors D, E and F provide counterexamples/argue that the forms in question are too late to be decisive/whatever." And both of you, please refrain from the name-calling and personal attacks. It's counterproductive. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that even when I make compromise edits Caoimhin ceallach simply reverts them, allowing for no cooperation. At this point, only 3rd party intervention can be of any help. -- 23:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've invited you three times in the course of this thread to add a note on the traditional view (*h₁en) or on why the opposing view (*en) is wrong. Instead you twice removed and once gutted my note. You're still welcome to add a note of your own that you deem beneficial. The same goes for the other thread. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand it's difficult to weigh in on the substance of this dispute at this point. It's become too long and daunting. I would love to be able to have a productive discourse with Victar. His contribution to Wiktionary has been immeasurably greater than mine. There is undoubtedly much I could learn from him. But it seems that whenever I ask him a question or disagree with him on some detail, I get absolutely nowhere. I have gone to great lengths to accompany every edit with the appropriate citations, quotations, and explanations, but too often it results in an effective revert by him. I am inclined to agree with Victar that without some outside intervention I don't see a satisfactory resolution. It's as if we see two completely different threads. I am not experienced enough here to know where/who I could ask. Victar's recent post in the Etymology Scriptorium has brought up little. Any advice is appreciated. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And of course, User:Theknightwho is at it again with a and personal attacks.  --  22:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Victar Stop being so manipulative. There’s a clear pattern emerging in your misuse of sources to try to win arguments. Theknightwho (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)