Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hyaȷ́atás

RFV discussion: June 2020–May 2021
The thematic vowel points to these being secondary. Probably should be deleted. -- 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Victar: We would be keeping the Proto-Iranian entry? The Sanskrit does seem derived regularly rather than inherited. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Iranian would also be secondary, but it's possible that Iranian would have thrown in a thematic vowel. I'll have to look more into that. Certainly wouldn't've been IIr. -- 01:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The PIIr entry and the reconstruction are both valid in my opinion. Even R:inc:IAIL reconstructs it. Moreover, Sanskrit yajata can't have a convincing synchronic derivation from the root yaj, be it formally or semantically. Going back to PIIr is what best explains its structure and meaning. I believe that it's an innovation for sure but at the IIR stage. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 15:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe de-tag the entry then? 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 02:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 🔥 ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ 🔥 07:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)