Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₂éryos

RFD discussion: November 2019
PII and Greek are not direct cognates. Please delete. -- 21:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello all, I am the fellow who has created this page. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the etymon given on Wiktionary as "h₂er-". Pokorny seems to give this as "ar-" with the meaning: "to fit, to suit", but are these thought to be actual distinct etyma? I thought not, but do not claim anything approaching expertise when it comes to IE etymologies. If these etyma are really one in the same, then it would seem to make the PII and Sanskrit entries cognate with the Hellenic ones. I am yours to instruct... In any case, if they are not found to be cognates, why delete the entire page? If the instant etymon does not exist, then whence "*h₂éristos", which is given as the source in the etymology here: ἄριστος. (That is not my work, but rather I found the etymology there as it is.) Said "*h₂éristos", if it indeed exists, would seem to be the superlative of a hypothetical "h₂éryos" (keeping in mind, of course, that all of the PIE is hypothetical in nature), would it not? Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
 * If you look at, 🇨🇬 is built on , so not from . Since 🇨🇬 is the only descendant of , it shouldn't have a PIE entry. -- 04:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Victar, I did not even make the distinction between and . Sorry about that. I will delete the  page if you see fit (pardon the pun) for me to do so, please let me know that. I have a couple of questions on Wiktionary policy: why do you say that  should not have a page here if it is a generally accepted etymon and has a descendant (actually more than one, since Sanskrit 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 can all be said to descend fron it)? Rather, it seems to me, in light of your instruction, that both  and  should have entries, since they both have descendants. Also, should the rationale: [ἄριστος < *h₂éristos < *h₂ér-yōs < *h₂er-} be clarified on the ἄριστος page by the insertion of *h₂ér-yōs into the etymology, even though that etymon does not have a page on Wiktionary? Sorry to ask so much so quickly, but I am utterly ignorant about Wiktionary policy and protocol. I have a few other questions that I would like to pose to yourself, but I will do so on your talk page, as they are somewhat beyond the scope of this deletion request discussion. Again, just say the word, and I shall either eliminate the  page or remove the Greek items from the "Descendants" section. Thanks.
 * Yes, please go ahead and add delete to the page. should not have a page because 1. there is only one potential descendant (PII), and 2.  is a productive suffix in Sanskrit and every step between, so it could have been newly formed any any point since then. As a policy, we don't create PIE entries with a single branch of descent. --  19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. I added the immediate delete it to the very top of the page. If that is not correct procedure, then please feel free to complete the job.
 * Yep, I see now that I was apparently successful at killing that page. No use in putting it through an unnecessary process, with Victar having explained the rationale to me, which seems reasonable.