Template talk:inherited

Do abstract descendant-less "roots" ever come up outside of Indo-European? I get the feeling they are a distinctly PIE phenomenon. In most language families, word stems remain largely static, and they are habitually called also "roots" just the same. --Tropylium (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Must every term 'der' from proto-language be replaced with 'inh'? For example to  ?--Octahedron80 (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. —CodeCat 14:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unbroken chain of inheritance only?
Say an English term is borrowed from French, but that word is inherited from Latin, should this template be used? Most etymologies are a mixture of borrowing/derivation/inheritance, the description makes it sound like should only be used for pure chains of inheritance. Is the way I did is at slæmur allowed? "Borrowed from, which borrowed it from , from ." If not how should it be done? —caoimhinoc (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Use in that case.  is for direct, unbroken chains of inheritance only (and does not include derivations either, as per the note "this template should not be used for terms that were reformed morphologically during their history"). &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

vs. vs.
As a newcomer, I don't understand why there is direction to distinguish between inherited, derived, and mention. The reader of the article doesn't seem to see a difference.

For example, see the article chair. The code for the etymology section, slightly simplified, reads:

From, from , from , from , from

As a reader, I see the word "from" in each case, even though the templates specify,  , and.

I'd enjoy to get some clarity here.