Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:PIE word. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:PIE word, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:PIE word in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:PIE word you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:PIE word will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:PIE word, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This template is hardly used. While it’s been very common to categorize terms by their PIE roots, categorization by PIE word is very rare. And worse, Category:Terms derived from Proto-Indo-European words hosts an embarrassingly inexhaustive list of terms. And in general, we seem to be focusing too much on PIE by way of such a template. Categorization by roots should be more than enough. It should be noted that we already categorize inherited terms using {{inh}}, thereby making it redundant. I see no convincing reason to have this one and the unnecessary category the templet generates. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ14:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep: The template was created to categorize words derived from small PIE words that aren't currently described as deriving from a root, like *swé. {{root}} doesn't serve that purpose. I don't see that rationale argued against here. It's possible that the template is used more than it should be, for words that are derived from a PIE root, but in those cases it should be replaced with {{root}}. — Eru·tuon20:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: Could you explain your reasoning? Erutuon’s understanding is flawed, because he thinks I want to replace {{PIE word}} with {{root}}, which is however not the case. To summarize my stand again: {{PIE root}} has already been deprecated in favour of {{root}}— certainly because a language-specific template bearing the same function is redundant. Likewise, {{PIE word}} is redundant because {{inh}} serves the same job. This reasoning by itself is convincing enough, but another drawback of the template is that this template is hardly used: we have failed to employ it extensively, and naturally because of the overlapping template {{inh}}. I am yet to see any valid reason for keeping it. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ12:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: When there’s no PIE root for a term but there‘s a word, the word could function as a root. This is perhaps what Erutuon meant by:
The template was created to categorize words derived from small PIE words that aren't currently described as deriving from a root…{{root}} doesn't serve that purpose
There’s probably not much in CAT:Terms by Proto-Indo-European word by language because there appear to be very few PIE words of this kind leading to a lack of awareness regarding the template’s existence. {{PIE word}} differs from {{inh}} / {{der}} in that it creates categories by PIE word such as
It can certainly be changed to not show a box. I don't know about generalization: whether it's necessary (do other languages that use {{root}} have short words that don't derive from a root?) and exactly the steps required because other people did more of the work on {{root}}. — Eru·tuon02:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we should have categories for words derived from them. "kinda too much ": I'd be fine if T:word is created for all languages and is used like {{word|LANG|ine-pro|*swé}}; either do it for all languages or for none. Other languages also have such words, not necessarily short. Like Sanskrit नक्र —Svārtava2 • 03:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's not "kinda too much" to do a perfectly sensible thing for just one language. We have plenty of things that are done for only some languages because people haven't gotten around to doing it for other languages. If we couldn't do anything unless it has already been done or been made easy to do for all languages, we wouldn't get anything done. I've got no objection to a template doing the {{PIE word}} thing but for non-PIE.
Sorry, my syntax wasn't clear. My question was, in languages that use {{root}}, can you think of examples of rootless words where you'd use a non-language-specific version of {{PIE word}}? — Eru·tuon07:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Erutuon: sorry for the late reply (plz ping me in the next reply). Yes, there are really a lots of such words in Sanskrit; like चिक्कण, नक्र, इन्दु, कमल, कर्पूर, लंपट, कपोल(cikkaṇa, nakra, indu, kamala, karpūra, laṃpaṭa, kapola). for there descendants, i would like to use a non-language-specific version of {{PIE word}}. Svārtava2 • 05:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch, Erutuon: I think there is a argument to made that a lot of these PIE terms should either also exist as roots and prefixes. We have something of an inconsistent standard for roots that have verbal descendants and those that only exist as nouns, even though they function chiefly as roots. --{{victar|talk}}17:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Category:English terms derived from the Old English word docga doesn't look illogical, either. To further reduce repetition and redundancy, my proposal is that we categorise only when the given term is the last — i.e. beyond that we do not have any root or any term in any language. For example Assamese পৈ(poi) be categorised only by Proto-Indo-European *pótis since that is the last word we know, and not by Proto-Indo-Iranian *pátiš or Sanskrit páti. It does seem unusual, being unprecedented, but is there any strong argument against this? Svārtava2 • 09:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava2: There can't. Any stem is either a root or a derivation thereof and every lexeme has a stem, so also a root. I would ask you to provide a single lexical lemma without a root, but I see you have already resorted to polarisation, so I'm afraid this conversation wouldn't be very pleasant. Thadh (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
That's not universally true: For example, the Finnish edessä is a postposition analysable as an inflection of a stem (esi-). Surely, this could be done for IE terms too, but since the adpositions are typically not inflected, it's quite pointless in most contexts (the roots would be equal to the term). Thadh (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I suppose the real question is whether we find it useful to have categories in the format "English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European word XYZ"? The template {{root}} adds entries to "English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root XYZ"; {{der}} and {{inh}} do not add entries to any such categories. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: the difference is that {{PIE word}} and {{root}} place entries into categories specifically relating to roots or words (as I mentioned above, in the form "English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root/word XYZ"). Thus, the question is whether such categories are useful. We have these categories in many languages, not just English. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
So, as I said, the real question is whether categories in the form "English/French/etc. terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root/word XYZ" are useful. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw: See this entry: hollow ({{inh|en|ine-pro||*ḱelḱwos}}), which is categorized in the cat. Category:English terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Just one of many examples. {{inh}} can indeed serve the same purpose as {{PIE word}}. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ 15:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. Oh I see that one difference is that the cat. for PIE XYZ is not generated, but the distinction between Category:Lang terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European and Category:Lang terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European XYZ is very little in my opinion. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: the generation of the latter form of category seems to be the main reason for the use of {{PIE word}} and {{root}}, which is why I think that we need to ask the question whether such categories should be retained or not before asking whether {{PIE word}} should be deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Question: Is {{PIE word}}, under its current usage, supposed to only be included on words that are directly inherited in their reconstructed form, excluding reflexes, compounds, affixes, etc.? For example, Latin duo, English two are directly inherited words from "dwóh₁", whereas duplicate (from du-) and bijection (from bis < *dwís < *dwóh₁) are not. (Note: both of these entries currently use the template.) If we are to include this template for every single morpheme that can be traced to PIE, rather than just whole inherited words, that changes things considerably. 70.175.192.21704:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
You are right, terms like duplicate, bijection, etc shouldn't be put into such categories, it's just a misuse and quite redundant. —Svārtava11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
