Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/h₃nobʰilos

RFM discussion: May 2020–March 2021
The given reconstruction makes no sense phonetically nor morphologically. It seems to be an attempt to reconcile the original stem in *-l- with a thematic form given that the descendants are all thematized. Rather, the "descendants", i.e. derivatives, listed point to an original (neuter) l-stem noun, though this original morphological form is not preserved in any of its attested reflexes (c.f. the situation with under ). For reference, Beekes 2010:1080 notes that it was an “originally athematic l-stem”; Kroonen 2013:380 gives Germanic (= ) as deriving from  (and in fact throughout the book refers to *nablan- as the typical example of a formation in *-l-); Matasović 2009:33 gives the Celtic form  (attested only in Old Irish) as deriving from ; De Vaan 2008:639 gives Latin  as from Italic  from IE  and explains, exactly as I would have, that:
 * “Latin umbilīcus has a complex suffix, which in theory can be explained in several ways. In view of the l-suffixes in Celtic, Greek and Gm.,  it seems likely that umbilīcus too contains an original l-stem. This was then thematized to *-(e)lo-, after which the suffix *-īko- was added.”

The suffix has been explained as either a sort of diminutive noun-deriver or as a variant of, but regardless of its function it is securely reconstructible. Like nouns in *-r-, *-n- or *-u-, the original morphology of l-stems is often obscured by subsequent thematization as per de Vaan's description. Compare the derivatives of the phonetically similar (given as acrostatic) as on the page  (which for some reason covers the root  in general), of which the only morphologically intact ones appear to be in Iranian; the "descendants" listed at *h₁óngʷl̥; and the various descendants and derivatives at.

It's evident from earlier stages of this page that it was originally used as a cover entry for all derivatives of the root without regard for formalism. (It was created in 2011, five years before the page even existed. Until the present time the page had been sorely neglected and several clearly non-descended forms were left there. The page's creator has been known for questionable PIE reconstructions, though in fairness Wiktionary's standards for formal reconstruction nine years ago were not what they are today.) Though not as important, my point here is that this page should never have existed with this title in the first place, as its original purpose was to be virtually synonymous with the root *h₃nebʰ-, and it has managed to continue to overlap with it even after the page for the root has been created.

Finally I wish to remark that this is related to the broader issue of inconsistency in the organization of descendants and derived terms on entries for proto-languages, especially PIE, in the case (1) where varying derivations from a common root are incorrectly listed as descended or derived from the same word, or the more general case (2) in which derived terms are listed as descendants, without any indication of the derivation(s) that took place between the proto-language and its daughter stage(s). But fortunately they are rarely as obviously problematic as the page in question; others tend to be more subtle, and the line between "descended" and "derived" is not always made clear—not to say that this distinction was ever defined precisely, nor that the derivational chronology is always known. — 69.120.69.252 02:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what's the story here? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the move, not so much the rest. -- 02:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved the entry to . -- 05:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)