Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago you have here. The definition of the word Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofAppendix talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Seems to have been reconstructed on the basis of a single branch (Indo-Iranian). Slavic *bagu (*bogъ) is usually considered an Iranian borrowing in the literature. Furthermore it contains phoneme */a/ which is of disputed status in the reconstruction of PIE segments. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
a and o merge in Balto-Slavic, so from the evidence of Slavic alone, *bʰogo- is equally valid. And there's nothing against replacing *bʰ with *b or *g with *gʰ either. So this reconstruction isn't really well founded enough to include it. —CodeCat16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Bahuvrihi adjectives *ubogъ and *nebogъ "poor, miserable" and *bogatъ "rich" prove that *bogъ was originally also an adjective, and that it meant meaning something along "earthly wealth/well-being; fortune" and then "dispenser of wealth/fortune" and then "god". Exactly same thing happened in Iranian which according to some is too much of a coincidence to happen in parallel (hence the borrowing theory, postulated even before WL was discovered which on a more formal level implies the same).
However, I've found out that according to Beekes PIE *bʰ(e)h₂g- (LIV: bʰag-) would be the source of ἔφαγον(éphagon, “to eat, devour”) as well, but how the meanings match to II and Slavic escapes me. At any case, PIE noun *bʰago(s) "god, deity" seems worthy of deletion, because that meaning arose independently in two different subbranches. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Too uncertain for us. We should avoid giving the impression that certain etymological connections have widespread consensus among historical linguists if they don't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Weak delete: Potential but debatable connections of this type may be better discussed on the pages for the involved Proto-Slavic, Proto-Indo-Iranian and Greek words. --Tropylium (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
