Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wl̥kʷíh₂s

User:Gnosandes While I am thankful for some of your revisions, I must insist that the suffix here is distinct from the one you linked, with different accent and different inflection. It is in fact eponymic to the vṛkī́(ḥ) noun type as opposed to the devī́ noun type (from -ih₂ ~ -yéh₂s). I will try and find scientific support should it be necessary. Anatol Rath (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What kind of language are we talking about? If it is Sanskrit, then I think that the declension is wrong there. Gnosandes (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The one on the Wiktionary page for vṛkī́ indeed is because it is identical to the devī́ one. The one on the Sanskrit grammar Wikipedia page is probably at least somewhat better. But the difference in Sanskrit is caused by a difference in PIE, where this suffix was more alike to *-eh₂- than *-ih₂ in its declension (as it was shown on this page previously). The reconstruction is also supported by Anatolian as shown in Widmer 2005 I think (this connection of his was widely accepted unlike his proposed etymology). If this page didn't meet this resistance I would have also added a page for the suffix -íH.
 * Wut? First, you reconstructed the direct form in the form, but User:Glésan changed this form to this form . My task was to lower the ending of into the Indo-Iranian language. I have reconstructed a ending like this . The stress of Sanskrit is confirmed by the Balto-Slavic data. Maybe you mean changing from proterokinetic to hysterokinetic: gen.sg.  ~ ? Gnosandes (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you moved the page. User:Glésan, please look at this, do you have any positive evidence for this being -íh₂/being inflected like this? Anatol Rath (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And also, please put your signature ( at the end of the text), otherwise we will not receive a notification. I think we can call User:Victar here, maybe he will help. Gnosandes (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . I most sincerely apologize. I had not looked properly at the Sanskrit entry and had somehow got it into my head (by some kind of brain cramp) that was a devī́-type noun; the zero grade in Sanskrit  of course makes that impossible, and as you yourself said, it is of course the classic example of a vṛkī́ḥ-type. I will undo my changes at once. --Glésan (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Victar re: always need to be sourced. That would be nice indeed, just seeing how no one does it, I haven't adopted it either. One more thing, does it make sense to link to -ih₂, seeing how it could be easily interpreted as being the same suffix and they aren't even identical in the nominative through the accent, if you do reconstruct it as h₂. Anatol Rath (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I would argue 1. PIE entries have gotten a *lot* better in the the past few years, and 2. so many more PIE sources have come out and become readily available. and  are both well know feminizing suffixes, and the nom. and gen. singulars of its descendants point to the latter. --  23:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fully on board with assigning this its own suffix (as it is, as I pointed out, the eponymous word to the distinct vrki-declension) but the details are of course a bit more difficult to handle, one of them being whether the suffix in the etymology section should link to seeing how every part of their declension is different. Optimally, we should create a new page for this suffix. Anatol Rath (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)