User talk:Caoimhin ceallach

Belated welcome
A personal welcome and thank-you, for the contributions you've made in Indo-European language entries & discussions! --Frigoris (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Creating reference templates
Caoimhin ceallach, please search to see if a reference template already exists before creating one. I've had to delete three of your duplicates. Thanks. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

beocere
Thanks for improving the Etymology at. But I wonder if meant "vessel-maker, keeper" rather than "basket, vessel". There are two Middle Low German related terms, and  (where  (< ) substitutes for "bee"). Here we see that kar "basket" (from ) is distinct from ker "keeper" (from ), which is of course derived from the former. Mind if I update it to point this out ? I may also go ahead and create as well. Leasnam (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Leasnam: That actually seems much better. I just couldn't find a source for . What did you use? Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've not found anyone who has definitively stated it yet, but it seems apparent to me through simple comparative process. So since it's not (yet) sourced [ - and this could be because the term is PWG-only, as opposed to PGmc] I'll softly stipulate its possibility rather than definitively declare it. Leasnam (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

See WT:AINE
On the project here, we reconstruct all PIE terms with a leading vowel with a laryngeal before it. So, for example, would be an invaid reconstruction, demanding instead. – Sokkjō 01:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sokkjo Yes I know you do and it's outdated as the reference I added clearly shows. Particles don't behave like roots. But the least we could do is to not hide the evidence from view, by showing that there is an alternative reconstruction. -Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not "hiding", it's normalizing reconstructions. – Sokkjō 01:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sokkjo It's normalising a wrong reconstruction. We should at least show the better motivated one as an alternative form instead of presenting a false consensus. Please have a look at the reference (LIPP) and if you feel that I'm overlooking something, respond on substance citing your own linguistic sources, as per WT:RECONS —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not wrong, perse, outmoded. As I wrote here, R:ine:LIPP is considered by most academics as crackpottery. Use with a grain of salt. – Sokkjō 10:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sokkjo I hadn't seen that. But all you did there is dismiss LIPP out of hand. Can you please elaborate? And cite sources. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * IYKYK, but sure, see DOI:10.1515/zcph-2019-0009. – Sokkjō 11:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sokkjo Can you be more specific? In that review the author expresses a reservation. That is by no means an invalidation of the entire work ("Ces remarques ne retirent rien à l’importance de l’ouvrage"). What do you base "considered by most academics as crackpottery" on? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please reply to the RFM because I don't really want to just have to keep quoting myself from there. – Sokkjō 23:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)