Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/lauwu

RFD discussion: February 2020–August 2023
,, , , ,.
 * Apparently: and, and .  Gnosandes (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It might help if you explained why you're throwing all these redlinks at us that aren't mentioned in the entry. The Old English reflexes in the entry look like they're from, but you would have been better off linking to and its parent  than dumping a random-looking heap of their descendants in front of us. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks to these examples, you provided help. However, the reconstruction of is unconvincing; I suggest removing this reconstruction. It is likely that the  and  dates back to the . The  probably dates back to the.
 * Unconvincing reconstruction of ; it must be changed to <  (watch the discussion above). The  (with Hirt's law), as well as the  (with Holtzmann's law and Dybo's law), date back to the . At the same time, it is a big mistake to associate the  with, with incorrectly specified semantics by the user  (how to output this?). But  ≠ ? Emphasis paradigms should be taken into account. And do not unite the roots, as is customary.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * *leh₁w- (a revision of the semantics) (to let (go)?) || *leh₂w- (berth?, bed?)
 * *lawh₁- (to cut off; to cut, to slice) || *lewH- (louse)
 * } Gnosandes (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your PIE should be deleted. At best, any connection between the two words is only worth mentioning in an etymology. Otherwise, PWG  is just fine. --  03:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * } Gnosandes (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your PIE should be deleted. At best, any connection between the two words is only worth mentioning in an etymology. Otherwise, PWG  is just fine. --  03:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Kept. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)