This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proto-Indo-European language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Proto-Indo-European language was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Isn't a "desinence" always an ending, suffix, or terminator?
I found this source that could be useful for whether or not there was evidentiality in PIE. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238680799_Evidentiality_in_Proto-Indo-European_Building_a_CaseI might need to read into it for the conclusion. And maybe more. Kaden Bayne Vanciel ( talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I switched to the Persian version of this article to see how it would be different from the English version only to realize some of the wild claims the Persian article was making about P.I.E. Thewikixx ( talk) 12:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is this not Indo-Germanic languages? 79.106.203.121 ( talk) 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
At a glance I see no mention in the article that the family has been called Indo-Germanic (for the most distant subfamilies); that name is out of fashion in English, but not wholly forgotten, and I think it is still usual in some other languages. Whether the article ought to mention it, and how, is worth some consideration. —Tamfang ( talk) 05:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When I'm typing this protest, the article contains the text "Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European language family", and also contains "...; its proposed features have been derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages." That agrees with my understanding, and what I've heard and read everywhere else.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proto-Indo-European language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Proto-Indo-European language was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Isn't a "desinence" always an ending, suffix, or terminator?
I found this source that could be useful for whether or not there was evidentiality in PIE. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238680799_Evidentiality_in_Proto-Indo-European_Building_a_CaseI might need to read into it for the conclusion. And maybe more. Kaden Bayne Vanciel ( talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I switched to the Persian version of this article to see how it would be different from the English version only to realize some of the wild claims the Persian article was making about P.I.E. Thewikixx ( talk) 12:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is this not Indo-Germanic languages? 79.106.203.121 ( talk) 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
At a glance I see no mention in the article that the family has been called Indo-Germanic (for the most distant subfamilies); that name is out of fashion in English, but not wholly forgotten, and I think it is still usual in some other languages. Whether the article ought to mention it, and how, is worth some consideration. —Tamfang ( talk) 05:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When I'm typing this protest, the article contains the text "Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is the reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European language family", and also contains "...; its proposed features have been derived by linguistic reconstruction from documented Indo-European languages." That agrees with my understanding, and what I've heard and read everywhere else.