Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Template talk:reconstructed. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Template talk:reconstructed, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Template talk:reconstructed in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Template talk:reconstructed you have here. The definition of the word
Template talk:reconstructed will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Template talk:reconstructed, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Link the word attested, to an explanation of what it means. Jidanni (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
- I added a link to WT:ATTEST, but switched it to w:Attested language because that might be more relevant. Most of the reconstruction pages are probably for terms in unattested languages. Some are for unattested terms in attested languages, or in languages that include attested varieties, such as Latin, which as it's defined on Wiktionary includes Proto-Romance, so that Proto-Romance terms like *blancus are put under Reconstruction:Latin. — Eru·tuon 03:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
This template adds LANGUAGE entries without References or Further reading header category but it is hidden. I think it is better to make this problem visible by default to pay more attention. It can be partly solved by using Template:rfref with 2= link to reference list of some language. Pages like *accognitare perhaps should be excluded manually by some parameter (e.g. noref=1) or automatically by checking "LANGUAGE non-lemma forms" category (if possible).
It will affect Proto-Germanic (2860/5000), Proto-West Germanic (2538/3610), Latin (545/39440), Proto-Finnic (494/1605), Proto-Slavic(324/3594), Proto-Brythonic (266/643), Proto-Celtic (244/838), Proto-Indo-Iranian (234/635), Proto-Italic (205/491). @Rua, Wikitiki89, Benwing2, Mnemosientje, The Editor's Apprentice, Hazarasp, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Lambiam, Nicodene, Atitarev, Guldrelokk, Bezimenen, Jurischroeer, Greenismean2016, PUC, Vorziblix, Mahagaja, Vahagn Petrosyan, ZxxZxxZ, Dijan. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
- It's a hidden category because it's only of use to editors, not to casual readers. I don't understand why we have nonlemma forms of reconstructed terms at all (except for cases of suppletion where a nonlemma form has a different etymology); they're pointless. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
- While we're on this subject, nearly every entry in Category:Latin reconstructed noun forms and Category:Latin reconstructed verb forms, should be deleted, as they are indeed pointless or in some cases simply mistaken. The only exceptions are *boem, *habutus, and *dire, which are useful and not predictable from the corresponding lemmas. Nicodene (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
comma
"As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence." - isn't the comma after "attested" superfluous? 2603:3003:4FE2:0:4968:F8DA:9053:9E5F