Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kr̥snós. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kr̥snós, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kr̥snós in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kr̥snós you have here. The definition of the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kr̥snós will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofReconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kr̥snós, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
The root to this word is otherwise unknown, the PBS could be an Iranian borrowing, and the Albanian, as Albanian etymologies tend to be, is a wild guess. @Bhagadatta --{{victar|talk}}08:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Victar Why not? That's true for entries with descendants from only one branch. Even without counting Albanian we have Balto Slavic and IIR. It's not like we don't have PIE entries with only two branches of descendants; *gʷey- is one of many such examples. -- Bhagadatta(talk)09:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bhagadatta: Because, again, PBS borrowings from Iranian are known, and with possibly only a single branch of descent, there isn't a strong enough argument for it. The fact that there is also no root makes it extra dubious. --{{victar|talk}}09:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: Yes, PBS borrowed from Iranian, but that does not necessarily mean this particular word was also borrowed, especially when the sources (one more:{{R:ine:HCHIEL}}) agree that it was inherited by the two branches. We have no reason as of now to believe or consider that the PBS term was borrowed. Sure its root is not documented but that would make an entry for *kr̥snós unwarranted if there was a single branch of descendants. But there are two, as per the sources (without counting Albanian). -- Bhagadatta(talk)16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bhagadatta: you seem to me missing my point -- if there is any chance that the PII term is the only actual descendant of this word, that would make this PIE entry completely invalid because it could either be an internal derivation, or a substrate borrowing. That is why this entry should be deleted. --{{victar|talk}}18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: I agree in principle; except that right now we have no reason to disregard the standard sources for PIE and suspect that the PBS term is not inherited. I'd like nothing other than the deletion of the entry if there indeed is a possibility of IIr being the only descendant - but so far I've only ever heard you say it. So unless more PIE editors weigh in here or it can be proven that PBS was not inherited, we've reached an impasse. -- Bhagadatta(talk)04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Interesting reasoning. There is 'a possibility' of many, many things. This minimalistic approach, where you reconstruct a form and make an entry for it only if you're *100%* sure that it existed in the reconstructed language, is news to me. It certainly isn't followed in most other reconstructing dictionaries. FWIW, not only Mallory & Adams, but also Pokorny and Watkins reconstruct some version of this root. --95.42.19.21109:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I have little grounds for suspicion of the Proto-Balto-Slavic term being borrowed, but this is a valid argument as the similarity is too easy and there are always in languages some imported colour names, and if not borrowed then the consonants are the most common ones, and the descendant tree of the Proto-Indo-Iranian is not that convincing for us to be without doubt about the Proto-Indo-Iranian form including its existence, it’s like Orel and Stolbova go straight over Proto-Semitic to Proto-Afro-Asiatic via a single Arabic word. The Albanian etymology is a wild and unlikely guess – the words for crow and raven don’t actually seem to be derived from words for black that often.
I stress again if in some works reconstructions reoccur there is no need to parrot them on the level of pretending these published ideas are all established reality. The cited authors with probability wouldn’t create such web-pages themselves – they only mention known possibilities because they touch upon a term in their current subject and otherwise their treatise or dictionary is incomplete. Fay Freak (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep; get a lot of Google hits for this and the Proto-Balto-Slavic term can't be treated as a borrowing from Indo-Iranian unless a source says so. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥10:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: I think the practice of keeping by no consensus is well-established. Here are just seven examples I found (from various users closing the RFD discussions) going all the way back to 2009: , , , , , , . The vote has gone on for six months without any clear consensus (2 votes to keep and 2 to delete), so I think it's appropriate to close it in favor of the status quo. Imetsia (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Keep votes are trolls because they don't agree with my unreasonable doubts about the entry's validity" - LOL.
@Imetsia It was not 2-2, it was actually 3-2. In case it wasn't clear, I want to keep the entry because there is no basis in the literature for even the possibility that PBsl may have borrowed the term from PIIr. The "don't create entries for reconstructions with just two descendants" rule is something that Victar just made up - and not for the first time either. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)12:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
