Greenismean2016, your entry for *kelh₂- lacking sources and reconstructions and is not ready to become a mainspace entry. I recommend you move it to User:Greenismean2016/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kelh₂- while you work on it, otherwise I'm going to recommend it for deletion. Perhaps you can try and use some of the well-sourced entries in Category:Proto-Indo-European roots as a template. --Victar (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Greenismean2016, you need to add sources to your PIE entries. Please do so for your following entries: *sélos, *ḱlewH-, *kón-. The same should go for your other reconstructions, such as *ujь, *kolъ, and *kalˀtá. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
{{reconstructed}}
at the top of your proto- pages (diff). Thanks! Per utramque cavernam 08:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Greenismean2016, If I'm not mistaken, these are also your entries and edits. Can you please source them as well? Thanks. --Victar (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Greenismean2016, I see again you are creating Vulgar Latin reconstructions without any sources. Please source all, and I mean ALL, of your reconstructed entries. --Victar (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Greenismean2016, You still have not sourced *sélos, *ḱlewH-, nor *sokʷos. Please source or have will request that they be deleted. --Victar (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Another thing: beware that Vasmer often mixes up Cyrillic and Latin characters; you should be very careful with copy pastes. Here's an example; another; another; another. Per utramque cavernam 09:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed this old edit of yours. Please don't remove the |bor=
parameter again; it's an important distinction. Per utramque cavernam 09:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Greenismean2016, you need to better familiar yourself with how to use the {{der}}
and {{inh}}
templates. Please read their documentation. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
{{etyl}}
again in etymologies like you just did here, you're libel to get slapped with a block. --Victar (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC){{etyl}}
. --Victar (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Thanks, I will do that -- Greenismean2016
Please don't change "Cognate with" to "Baltic cognates include". "Cognate with" is a formatting standard. --Victar (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Understood -- Greenismean2016
I noticed you added a lot of alternative reconstructions to PSlv and PBS entries. Those each need to be sourced as well, and if they cannot, please remove them. --Victar (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Please, ensure that the language mentioned in the category fits with the language of the lemma. If a term belongs to "Proto-Balto-Slavic terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European", then all the terms should be reconstructed Proto-Balto-Slavic. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It is critically important that create correctly spelled Ancient Greek entries with all appropriate diacritics in the page title. If you are unsure, or unable to tell the difference, this is a sign that you should not be making Ancient Greek entries. See WT:AGRC for more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Do not add descendants just because they look right. Only add them if they actually derive from the word in question! Your Latin entries are not well defined, and the descendants you are placing on them are probably not correct in many instances, like this one. There seems to be a trend of carelessness in your entries, and if you can't be careful, you shouldn't be making the entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The idea of combining the roots commun + -isme may have originated in French, but the roots themselves are from Latin communis + -ismus as are the roots of: Italian: comune + -ismo, Portuguese: comum- + -ismo, Spanish: común- + -ismo which is why I put them here. The Italian, Portuguese, Spanish words are definitely not borrowings from French, but if they don't belong under Latin, then where do they belong?. And also, the roots communis + -ismus, from which communismus is composed, could not have been borrowed from French as they were attested long before the French language existed, but you listed it as a borrowing from French. Greenismean2016 (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
BTW Are there any other of my Latin entries with problems?
So would this be called a "learned borrowing" then?
Hello Greenismean2016, you askedː "Shouldn't Proto-Slavic *dьbrь be under PIE dʰubʰr-i- instead of dʰubʰr-o-?"
Sourceː Kapović, Mate. et.al. The Indo̠-European Languages, Second Edition, Routledge Language Family Series, London & New York, 2017, pp.16
I noticed that you are specifying head=
in the headword line even when the given form is exactly the same as the page name. What is the point in that? —Rua (mew) 14:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Greenismean2016, are you sure that *čelnъ (“member, article”) is an adjective? I think it's just a noun. I'm going to correct it. Probably, you meant *čelьnъ (“frontal, headmost”)? Bezimenen (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
That was a mistake, thank you for catching that User:Greenismean2016
Greenismean2016, I reverted your edits to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kʷer- because 1) you don't cite any PIE sources reconstructing this alleged root, like {{R:ine:LIV}}
or {{R:ine:LIPP}}
, only secondary sources, and 2) there are no verbs associated with this root, which, though possible, are very rare and demand extra scrutiny. --{{victar|talk}}
16:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
{{victar|talk}}
16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
{{R:ine:LIV}}
is often referenced by the sources I've been using. However, I don't understand the basis for the claim that my entries are "generally very poorly formatted in that most alleged descendants are just all thrown under unsorted formations". I only provide reconstructions that I can find a reference for and if a word is mentioned, but a reconstruction isn't given, I put it under "unsorted formations". The only entry in which I put most of the terms under "unsorted formations" is *weth₂- because the references I could find gave several different reconstructions for the same term. Here is a list of all the PIE entries I have created: *weth₂-, *len-, *leh₁-, *h₂eym-, *yemH-, *dʰelbʰ-, *(s)telH-, *selh₁-, *temh₁-, *ǵʰer- (3), *tend- (2), *telkʷ-, *terkʷ-, *serp-, *seh₁- (2), *steyh₂-, *ken-, *leh₂w-, *swenh₂-, *h₂meh₁-{{ping}}
us. I recommend you also read Wiktionary:About Proto-Indo-European which can help you in your formatting. --{{victar|talk}}
00:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
{{desc|-}}
Greenismean2016, you've been doing {{desc|-}}
in many entries. The only time this should be done is 1) for languages that shouldn't be reconstructed, like Proto-Armenian, 2) for dialect lists, ex.
, 3) for script lists, {{desc|lang|-}}
↲ Dialect:
. Never do {{desc|lang|-}}
↲ Script:{{desc|grk-pro|-}}
, for example. --{{victar|talk}}
21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)