Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/pró

Should remain under  or should it be under a separate zero-grade form? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , yep and in fact *pr-oH-wo- is wrong for all the entries. --Victar (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a pr̥h₃wo- could account for greek. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , according to Beekes, the Greek is from *pr̥h₃-wr-ih2. Can you please add sources to this page? Some of the etymologies on this page need fixing. --Victar (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I imported the derived terms from, since they were listed under . --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , that's fine and good, but they still need fixing and sourcing. Is that not something you're able to do? --Victar (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ik, I'll look into it. I just said it so you wouldn't think I was making stuff up.Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 18:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , cool, best of luck, and let us know if you need some help! --Victar (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I went and cleaned up the entry, adding sources. It's not enough to just cite the entry itself, but also the individual derived reconstructions, which are often the most disputed. --Victar (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Devanagari is good 👍 —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for converting the descendants to desc, but I noticed you nulled out all the levels lacking reconstructions with -. If a level can be reconstructed, it shouldn't be nulled-out so that it can be added to a term requests category, ex. Proto-Indo-Aryan term requests.
 * Incidentally, if you want to tool that converts to desc automatically, you can swipe that code from from my common.js. --Victar (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know there was an automatic tool! And yeah, I'll keep that in mind. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 14:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's just a simple preg_replace script I wrote. Keep it in mind? Do you have some valid reason for nulling para 2 out? --Victar (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not a single work fully written in Sauraseni Prakrit (it's only attested in dialogue in Maharashtri dramas), so I often have to blank psu in Sanskrit descendant sections. It's kind of a habit now. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 20:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * : OK, I'll chalk up the - for Italic and Hellenic as a mistake of habit. As for Sauraseni Prakrit, is that not something that can be reconstructed? If so, it also shouldn't be nulled. --Victar (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like I have my project then. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

*h₃
, could I get your Greek expertise? Beekes uses *h₃ as the reconstructed laryangal is some descendants, while others, like Adams, reconstruct it as *h₂, on the basis of Latin and  from *pr̥h₂éy. To confuse things even more, we have Doric which points to *h₂ as well. I'm also confused as to where *h₃ would come from. For *h₂, we can use the loc.sg. *preh₂-i and even *h₁ from ins.sg. *pro-h₁, but *h₃? --Victar (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So Beekes seems to be a confusing mess on this topic. There are a bunch of forms that (he claims) require *pr̥h₃-. For these forms, however, I'm uncertain why they are necessarily the zero-grades of over . I'd have to look a lot more carefully, but he seems not to differentiate between *pró, *preh₃-, or *pr̥h₃- consistently, or at least, he does not flag them as being different. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 07:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)