Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₂et-

...why would we compare Proto-Turkic for this? Unless there’s an obvious borrowing (which is nearly impossible looking at the time period for these languages) I think this is pretty far-fetched. GabeMoore (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps for you and others to see why there is perhaps no such Proto-Indo-European root. The same way the words are so similar to Turkic it may be a coincidence that the Tocharian and the Balto-Slavic are so similar. We did not talk about borrowing or inheritance, but these ways of thinking have adherents we can appease to without taking sides. The similarity is interesting for various reasons, but the reasons for the similarity are not certain therefore not stated.
 * But well, are there other descendants to strengthen this alleged Proto-Indo-European root? You also omitted most Slavic ones, this is at least why I need to ask. Fay Freak (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If I've left any out I didn't mean to; I'm working solely off the reference I gave. I intend to add a few more (Ossetic and Lycian), but my source only gave Polish and Russian. If there are any more descendants then by all means add them.
 * I have added already the bulk of the Slavic, but I don’t know possible cognates outside it. It is just that even if it stands in a book it might not be enough for Wiktionary, it might be half-baked. You should see how the likelihoods stand, and two descendants is as weak as it can get when what connects is just a common vowel and a common consonant – it can also be a proposal or hypothesis by an author, right? And like there are language families like and  that are not generally accepted there are etymologies for accepted groups everywhere that are yet questionable. But for Proto-Slavic there is usually a lot more to find, as there are many Slavic languages with many well-accessible resources (and you would not need a book to see for such a term that they all descend from it) and their common ancestor is ca. 200–700 AD while Proto-Indo-European was way before 3000 BC, so this is of course why you have it easier to find more material for Slavic but one has to make more efforts to substantiate  a Proto-Indo-European root or term. Are you getting a picture now of the expectations? For Slavic one should give more because there is more because it is closer, and for Indo-European one should give more because it is farer, so to say, a paradox. Fay Freak (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Latin “annus”
Presumably the h₂et- (“to go”) which Latin is supposed to be derived from is a different word? --Caoimhin (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Incongruence between the meanings of the basic form and the derivatives
It doesn't make sense to say the derivative means 'back, again, away' while the main form is claimed to only mean 'but'. It would need to be assumed that the conjunctional use is secondary to an original spatial meaning. 62.73.69.121 21:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That's correct. That is exactly what Dunkel also assumes. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)