Wiktionary talk:Reconstructed terms


 * Archives
 * 2006
 * 2007–16

Descendants

 * Don't we have a rule that reconstructions must be supported by at least one (two?) descendants? Should we add it somewhere, or is it self-evident? --Per utramque cavernam 15:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it sufficiently goes without saying. --Victar (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In some cases, like Proto-Hellenic, we reconstruct on the basis of just one word, but for others, we do not. This is to avoid people just adding PIE Transponaten based solely on one language. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 19:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series
Hey, I would like to start reconstructed terms on polish wiktionary. Can I cite "Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series" which are used on english wiktionary (eg. ěsti)? Author stated that book can't be quoted without permission but since english wiktionary uses it I assume polish can too. Sławobóg (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Derived terms?
Currently no distinction is made in derived terms between terms which existed in proto-languages and terms which were derived later within daughter languages. I've been putting the latter under the miscellaneous '* unsorted formations' heading, although I know that's not what it's for, in order to avoid the impression that the term existed in the proto-language.

For example, in Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰrews- none of the derived terms is shown to have existed in more than one daughter language. So the only thing we can safely say about Proto-Indo-European is that the root *bʰrews- existed in some form or other. All derived terms should come under a heading Derived terms reconstructable in daughter languages.

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁ed- would then look like this: alt_entry_layout. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)