Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁ésti

Removal of the descendants
I don't understand why the descendants have to be removed from here? *h₁és- doesn't list them in this form, and apparently this form of the word was notable enough to be listed by Mallory and Adams. EliasAlucard / Discussion 12:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't list descendants of inflected forms unless they are irregular or special in some way, to avoid duplication of information that can be inferred elsewhere. That's why I didn't remove the descendants of . But something like doesn't need entries for all of its inflected forms with descendants, because they form part of a regular paradigm. And this is a regular verb too, so its forms are predictable.  12:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that h₁ésti is indeed a special word, and its descendants are quite commonly used in English and other languages ("c'est la vie" is a case in point). This isn't the same as creating a PIE entry for "ran" or "running" when there's already an entry for "run", as an example. This is a very commonly used verb, and it is frequently used in many Indo-European languages. If there had been one or two descendants for it, then yeah, it would be redundant with an entry, but there are many documented and frequently used descendants for *h₁ésti. EliasAlucard / Discussion 14:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are terms in PIE that have many more descendants than this one, like . In fact, the verb only seems to have one or two descendants in most languages. There is no need to list the descendants of every single form of the verb on every separate page.  14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian es-
Is it okay to change this to ? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the actual verb descended from the PIE one. How will you lemmatise verbs in PII though? Will presents, aorists and perfects receive their own lemma as in PIE, or will they be combined into one? —CodeCat 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Woops, I didn't notice this discussion here. I'd so go for 3sg. — JohnC5 02:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

1sg. optative irregular form
In the second edition of Ringe From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic the conjugation on p. 44 gives the 1sg. optative. I haven't been able to work out if this arose from < by a regular process. I checked the first edition and it gives the regular. Either way it seems the irregular version should be listed as it is accepted by Ringe, which is the only source listed. I am not sure how one goes about adding an irregular item to the conjugation. jajaperson (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)