Template talk:PIE word

RFD discussion: September–December 2021
This template is hardly used. While it’s been very common to categorize terms by their PIE roots, categorization by PIE word is very rare. And worse, Category:Terms derived from Proto-Indo-European words hosts an embarrassingly inexhaustive list of terms. And in general, we seem to be focusing too much on PIE by way of such a template. Categorization by roots should be more than enough. It should be noted that we already categorize inherited terms using inh, thereby making it redundant. I see no convincing reason to have this one and the unnecessary category the templet generates. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  14:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that had created this templet as an ’alternative to Template:PIE root’— but Template:PIE root itself is deprecated, having been superseded by root. Thus this justifies why this templet should be deprecated as well, in favour of inh.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  20:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete ; I do not like this template, and agree that . —Svārtava2 • 15:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The template was created to categorize words derived from small PIE words that aren't currently described as deriving from a root, like . doesn't serve that purpose. I don't see that rationale argued against here. It's possible that the template is used more than it should be, for words that are derived from a PIE root, but in those cases it should be replaced with . — Eru·tuon 20:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you did not read carefully what I have said. I never said its functionality has been taken over by root, did I? ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  10:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't basing this on what you said, but simply pointing out that should not be used for PIE words that have a root, as T:PIE word/documentation says now that I look at it: "entries for words deriving from the PIE word  should have ". — Eru·tuon 02:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Templates like der or inh already generate the cat. Category:Lang terms derived/inherited from other languages . Just check out. We should get rid of redundant templets. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  11:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 *  Keep  per Erutuon Kutchkutch (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your reasoning? Erutuon’s understanding is flawed, because he thinks I want to replace PIE word with root, which is however not the case. To summarize my stand again: PIE root has already been deprecated in favour of root— certainly because a language-specific template bearing the same function is redundant. Likewise, PIE word is redundant because inh serves the same job. This reasoning by itself is convincing enough, but another drawback of the template is that this template is hardly used: we have failed to employ it extensively, and naturally because of the overlapping template inh. I am yet to see any valid reason for keeping it. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When there’s no PIE root for a term but there‘s a word, the word could function as a root. This is perhaps what Erutuon meant by:
 * The template was created to categorize words derived from small PIE words that aren't currently described as deriving from a root…root doesn't serve that purpose
 * There’s probably not much in CAT:Terms by Proto-Indo-European word by language because there appear to be very few PIE words of this kind leading to a lack of awareness regarding the template’s existence. PIE word differs from inh / der in that it creates categories by PIE word such as
 * CAT:Terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *méǵh₂s
 * rather than simply
 * CAT:Terms derived from Proto-Indo-European
 * Is there a way that the template could be generalised for languages other than PIE and categorise without displaying a box like root? Kutchkutch (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It can certainly be changed to not show a box. I don't know about generalization: whether it's necessary (do other languages that use have short words that don't derive from a root?) and exactly the steps required because other people did more of the work on . — Eru·tuon 02:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO categorisation by words is kinda too much. Svārtava2 • 03:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to expand on "kinda too much"? What about words without roots, like, shall we have no categories for words derived from them? — Eru·tuon 03:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should have categories for words derived from them. "kinda too much [for PIE alone]": I'd be fine if T:word is created for all languages and is used like LANG; either do it for all languages or for none. Other languages also have such words, not necessarily short. Like Sanskrit नक्र —Svārtava2 • 03:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "kinda too much" to do a perfectly sensible thing for just one language. We have plenty of things that are done for only some languages because people haven't gotten around to doing it for other languages. If we couldn't do anything unless it has already been done or been made easy to do for all languages, we wouldn't get anything done. I've got no objection to a template doing the thing but for non-PIE.
 * Could you give some examples of such rootless words in non-PIE languages that currently use ? — Eru·tuon 04:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really have examples rootless words in non-PIE languages that currently use root. It's wrong, isn't it? PIE word should be replaced by something like word (for all languages) like PIE root. Svārtava2 • 05:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my syntax wasn't clear. My question was, in languages that use, can you think of examples of rootless words where you'd use a non-language-specific version of ? — Eru·tuon 07:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

sorry for the late reply (plz ping me in the next reply). Yes, there are really a lots of such words in Sanskrit; like. for there descendants, i would like to use a non-language-specific version of. Svārtava2 • 05:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is a argument to made that a lot of these PIE terms should either also exist as roots and prefixes. We have something of an inconsistent standard for roots that have verbal descendants and those that only exist as nouns, even though they function chiefly as roots. -- 17:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Would not support that usage. That's like asking for Category:English terms derived from the Old English word wæter. -- 06:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you even support, sarvavirodhī? Svārtava2 • 06:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No not like Category:English terms derived from the Old English word wæter because it does derive ultimately from which is root. We will exclude such terms which ultimately derive from any root in any language. Svārtava2 • 07:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, Category:English terms derived from the Old English word docga. -- 07:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:English terms derived from the Old English word docga doesn't look illogical, either. To further reduce repetition and redundancy, my proposal is that we categorise only when the given term is the last — i.e. beyond that we do not have any root or any term in any language. For example be categorised only by  since that is the last word we know, and not by  or . It does seem unusual, being unprecedented, but is there any  strong  argument against this? Svārtava2 • 09:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're asking for Category:Pali terms derived from the Sanskrit word कमल, a category of one item and no of use, for a word that's perfectly well serviced by its descendants section. This is pointless category overkill. -- 16:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Victar How is that any more useless than Category:Assamese terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *pótis? Svārtava2 • 04:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue for or against the usefulness of PIE word, just against your intended usage. -- 20:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You do understand every single lexical lemma and non-lemma alike has a root, right? Thadh (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here comes the “You do understand” -ian sarcasm. AAMOF you don't understand that there can be lemmas w/o roots. Svārtava2 • 04:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There can't. Any stem is either a root or a derivation thereof and every lexeme has a stem, so also a root. I would ask you to provide a single lexical lemma without a root, but I see you have already resorted to polarisation, so I'm afraid this conversation wouldn't be very pleasant. Thadh (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That only goes for verbs and nominals. Adpositions like, *kóm, pronominals like *éǵ, and particles like don't reduce to roots, at least not in the conventional sense. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not universally true: For example, the Finnish is a postposition analysable as an inflection of a stem . Surely, this could be done for IE terms too, but since the adpositions are typically not inflected, it's quite pointless in most contexts (the roots would be equal to the term). Thadh (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no reason to delete this template. — Fenakhay ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 08:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: are all PIE words resolvable to roots? I use when a particular PIE entry does not indicate that it derives from a root, in which case  can't be used. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer is, no. But, you could simply use der/inh instead. PIE root has already been deprecated in favour of root. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the real question is whether we find it useful to have categories in the format "English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European word XYZ"? The template adds entries to "English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root XYZ";  and  do not add entries to any such categories. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:English terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European is generated by using inh (as well as dercat and PIE word). I see no reason why we should have redundant templets. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the difference is that and  place entries into categories specifically relating to roots or words (as I mentioned above, in the form "English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root/word XYZ"). Thus, the question is whether such categories are useful. We have these categories in many languages, not just English. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * inh also does exactly the same thing, I believe. That category also contains terms categorized using inh. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  15:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * no, it doesn't:
 * → Category:English terms derived from Proto-Indo-European.
 * → Category:English terms derived from Proto-Indo-European + Category:English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *bʰedʰ-.
 * So, as I said, the real question is whether categories in the form "English/French/etc. terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root/word XYZ" are useful. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See this entry: (en), which is categorized in the cat. Category:English terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Just one of many examples. inh can indeed serve the same purpose as PIE word.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  15:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. Oh I see that one difference is that the cat. for PIE XYZ is not generated, but the distinction between Category:Lang terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European and Category:Lang terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European XYZ is very little in my opinion.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the generation of the latter form of category seems to be the main reason for the use of and, which is why I think that we need to ask the question whether such categories should be retained or not before asking whether  should be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are very right, I should start a BP discussion on this… ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * “Oh I see that one difference is that the cat”: so you didn't see that thing till now before arguing? Svārtava2 • 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you never realised that my IQ is pretty low? XD ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lmao no. But I do think you have poor observation and tend to carelessly do many things. Like Special:PageHistory/পৈ. Svārtava2 • 16:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, weak delete for . &mdash; surjection &lang; &rang; 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Question: Is, under its current usage, supposed to only be included on words that are directly inherited in their reconstructed form, excluding reflexes, compounds, affixes, etc.? For example, , are directly inherited words from "dwóh₁", whereas duplicate (from du-) and bijection (from bis < *dwís < *dwóh₁) are not. (Note: both of these entries currently use the template.) If we are to include this template for every single morpheme that can be traced to PIE, rather than just whole inherited words, that changes things considerably. 70.175.192.217 04:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, terms like duplicate, bijection, etc shouldn't be put into such categories, it's just a misuse and quite redundant. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)