Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/dʰawgʰ-

Hi, could you look this over? Especially the etymon for 🇨🇬. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it up. The Iranian descendants needed to be split up between here and . Also, we need to be careful not to confuse stems with roots.
 * I'm still a bit confused as to why 🇨🇬 (zero-grade) is descended from 🇨🇬 (full-grade). --Victar (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Sanskrit grammatical tradition usually has roots in zero-grade. 🇨🇬 is the full grade form. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 13:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, my question is, why not reconstruct the PIA in zero-grade? Also, I see this as the nonsense that comes with reconstructing roots. --Victar (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should, but I doubt most of the reconstructed PIA roots that will be necessary will even have Sanskrit descendants. Check out Cat:Hindi terms inherited from Proto-Indo-Aryan for some examples. And if we didn't have root entries, where would go? There's no Iranian forms AFAICT so  wouldn't deserve an entry. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * would fit fine just under a PIA entry for the verb. Right now, it gives the false impression that is a PII formation. --Victar (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is the verb entry I created, . --Victar (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)