Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/leb-

Just a quick question: doesn't lăbĭa, -ōrum (as in Latin for "lips") belong here? I think I saw so at the Appendix: List of Proto-Indo-European nouns... 179.234.186.128 23:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * According to De Vaan 2008, this root probably didn't really exist, but is from a substrate language. *b is always suspicious in PIE, it's often said that there are very few properly constructable roots with *b in it, if any. 23:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that! That's interesting... and sad... Does *bʰ count as *b in this saying? And by the way, shouldn't this article be merged to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leh₂b-? 179.234.186.128 01:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You could bring it up at WT:RFM if you think they should be merged (I think they should). *bʰ is an entirely separate sound from *b, so it doesn't count. *bʰ is common, *b is very rare. But it has to be *b in this case because Germanic *p always comes from an earlier *b. You'll find that because of this, Germanic words with *p are still rare, and the ones that do exist tend to have no cognates in other Indo-European languages (implying they are loanwords from after PIE times). 03:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

*lh₂P-
As if there weren't enough problems with this root, it appears that nobody has considered how syllabification would work. Laryngeals did not participate in syllabification rules in PIE, they were considered pure consonants. So the result would be *l̥h₂P-, with a syllabic l! So unless I'm missing something, neither the Balto-Slavic nor Germanic forms can descend directly from this, as both would develop *Vl here. —CodeCat 20:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The same in Armenian. I think we are dealing with independent onomatopoeic formations in various Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages. Ačaṙean compares also Arabic laff “to lap up” and several other words in Turkic, Kartvelian and Semitic. --Vahag (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I assent to this. Irregularities all around. The more “related” terms, “descendants” or ”derivations” you find, the less likely any particular Proto-Indo-European “reconstruction” appears. At we admit this, but then again nonsense at  and, and  is cute: Recorded in the 1560s but possibly inherited from PIE anyway. It reminds me of the Moscow theory of , a word only attested from the 20th c., but because spontaneous creations are inaccessible to direct observation and science takes place in a thought collective even more so with the reds, in , even though introspection can be intersubjectively transparent, Russians got a reconstruction anyway.
 * There is a certain anatomical necessity why the sequence /lap/ refers to lips and licking, beginning with the tongue at the alveolus in a targetted movement to hit either lip, opening with that particular vowel for easy access and ending with an occlusive but likely a stop when abruptly closing the gob and ending the action. The PIE at is of course also a fake. For  from the platter name  see the brazen etymology of, a Wiktionary discovery.
 * But luckily those who are not naive enough to not notice are rarefied and will not scold us with a strict timeframe to fix the falsehoods and we can continue to make fake comparisons for cross-links. Because Descartes won against Vico. Fay Freak (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

RFM discussion: March 2014
Hi... perhaps it is not of my concern, but I do believe Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leb- and Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leh₂b- should be merged, or, rather, that the former should be supplanted by the later. Would someone verify this for me? Perhaps provide reasons for not doing so? I'm no one to say, but I understand that *leb- is an alternate form of *leh₂b-; the descendants of the former are among the descendants of the later, at least, and I'd expect leb- rather the lab- as Italic reflex if the PIE should be *leb-... I might be wrong... Any way, thank you for reading this... 179.234.186.128 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)