Thread:User talk:Rua/Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/təmnēmi

Hi Rua, 10 days ago I believe you added an tag to the article at Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/təmnēmi and stated "This doesn't fit the Greek form, which reflects *temnō." I wanted to ask what you think about the response I made, which is below:

"Quite right. According to Beekes 2010 in the entry for τέμνω, 'The nasal present τάμνω << PGr. *tamnēmi < PIE *tm-neh₁-mi is original, as is the root aorist 3sg. *etemet < *h₁e-temh₁-t, which was replaced by a thematic aorist ἔτεμον. This situation was levelled in various ways in the dialects: Att. innovated with the present τέμνω, while epic Ion. and Dor. secondarily created the aorist ἔταμον.' Beekes states at the beginning of the entry that the form τάμνω is attested in Epic Ionic as well as Doric. This τάμνω appears to be simply a thematicized version of the original athematic nasal present PIE *tm-neh₁-mi attested in several IE languages."

Does this information and the entry from Beekes 2010 meet Wiktionary's attestation criteria for a proto-language? Thank you!