Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₁wed-

Proto-Slavic věno and Proto-Germanic wetmô are currently being claimed by both the root and the root. --Caoimhin (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how? This looks extremely dodgy and partial to a Leiden citation cartel. I have looked into Kroonen, Derksen and Beekes, and little justification is given. Why the laryngeal? Why *dʰ?. Kroonen is also unsure: “the PIE root was *h₁ued- rather than *h₁uedʰ-.” Beekes writes “on the aspiration, see : 227”, which can’t be from the age of laryngeal theory, and speaks of a “prothesis” (himself in talking marks) (does one know more about this prothesis?). Apparently it only has this “prothesis” because there is a Greek variant  for . He himself admits “this old word for ‘bride-price’ is often derived from […] *uedʰ-”. Then claiming it “impossible because of the *dʰ”, yet to be proven. The semantic connection to  is strong and any consonant discrepancy may be just because of assimilation to the suffix. And this extreme splitting is based on a single rare Greek variant, as often, which may be due to a prefix, or with Gustav Meyer a digamma-induced prothesis, so all are actually parallel (not “old” in Indo-European terms) formations due to the continued meaning of the PIE “leading” root and idea. . Fay Freak (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think having two separate roots is warranted, one and another, . The semantics of merging them is dodgier, IMO. The Slavic -d- is explained as Winter's Law by Kloekhorst. Iranian has a few descendants which can fall under here, which I'll add. --  23:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, if there is more then it makes more sense, because a meaning being extremely specific for a root (there being varying interpretations of the suffixes) is also what attracts suspicion. If 🇨🇬 is still not from this root then the distant comparison at the English page with 🇨🇬 must be removed, unless from . Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)