![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This is an export from List of Proto-Indo-European roots and needs serious cleanup and expansion.
I don't know if this qualifies as a particle, because I'm not so familiar with PIE grammar, but it seems to be used the same way as many of the other words in the "Particles" section in the daughter languages (see here). I was wondering whether it merited inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.99.248 ( talk) 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
This has many cognates between more modern languages, so I think that using old Hittite in this table is unfair. Such as Lat cum, Russ s(n) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.111 ( talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This article should be split into Proto-Indo-European pronouns and Proto-Indo-European particles. There is no reason why these two should be treated together while verbs, nouns and numerals have their own articles. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I cross-checked the reflexes against Fortson 2004, referenced all that I found there and marked the others with {{ Fact}}. Please add references and move them into the upper part of each table cell if you can. Note that your sources need to confirm that the words in question are actually reflexes of the PIE forms (i.e. derived from these via sound laws), it does not suffice if they merely have the same meaning. A number of reflexes could be deleted in my opinion (one example per branch would probably do), but I left them for the time being.
Preferred order to sort referenced reflexes into the list (to maintain some sort of system):
Thank you -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Did I understand correctly? PIE language had no disjunctive pronouns, hadn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.116.138 ( talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
And no possessive pronouns? -- 83.167.116.138 ( talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be any vocative pronouns or have I misunderstood something? 83.226.206.82 ( talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It might hel[p to have some idea of the evidence for this, as proposed by the different linguists. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This is an export from List of Proto-Indo-European roots and needs serious cleanup and expansion.
I don't know if this qualifies as a particle, because I'm not so familiar with PIE grammar, but it seems to be used the same way as many of the other words in the "Particles" section in the daughter languages (see here). I was wondering whether it merited inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.99.248 ( talk) 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
This has many cognates between more modern languages, so I think that using old Hittite in this table is unfair. Such as Lat cum, Russ s(n) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.111 ( talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This article should be split into Proto-Indo-European pronouns and Proto-Indo-European particles. There is no reason why these two should be treated together while verbs, nouns and numerals have their own articles. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I cross-checked the reflexes against Fortson 2004, referenced all that I found there and marked the others with {{ Fact}}. Please add references and move them into the upper part of each table cell if you can. Note that your sources need to confirm that the words in question are actually reflexes of the PIE forms (i.e. derived from these via sound laws), it does not suffice if they merely have the same meaning. A number of reflexes could be deleted in my opinion (one example per branch would probably do), but I left them for the time being.
Preferred order to sort referenced reflexes into the list (to maintain some sort of system):
Thank you -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Did I understand correctly? PIE language had no disjunctive pronouns, hadn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.116.138 ( talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
And no possessive pronouns? -- 83.167.116.138 ( talk) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be any vocative pronouns or have I misunderstood something? 83.226.206.82 ( talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It might hel[p to have some idea of the evidence for this, as proposed by the different linguists. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)