Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/pewH-

Laryngeal

@JohnC5 Hi, should this be *pewH- or *pewh₂-? Kroonen gives *pewh₂- and De Vaan too reconstructs with *h₂-. The rest give *pewH-. I feel with the currently listed descendants, there's no way to know which laryngeal it was so we should stick to *pewH-. What do you think? -- माधवपंडित (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fortson's textbook has *pewh₂- as well. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 18:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: *pewh₂- looks better than *pewH-. But as per my understanding, you need Ancient Greek or Anatolian to be sure if we have *h₁, *h₂ or *h₃. Only the laryngeal remains to be decided upon, content wise this entry is complete, I believe. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित: I agree, we have no basis for *pewh₂- so far. (There are a bunch of Latin nominal derivatives left to add, btw) —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA, माधवपंडित: I think it's because people want to relate it to a *u-extension of *peh₂- (“to strike”) as in Latin paviō. This seems like a load of Leiden hogwash to me, but there might be sources I'm missing. At present, the color of the laryngeal seems entirely speculative. —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 08:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Thanks! -- माधवपंडित (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

पव

Should Sanskrit पव (pava, “purification”) be here? If so, where? It doesn't seem to fit under any of the derivations, but I don't know much about Indo-European/Iranian/Aryan linguistics. I came across it in पवित्र (pavitra, “purifying”). – Gormflaith (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @AryamanA. – Gormflaith (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gormflaith: Added, but I don't know of any cognates in other Indo-European languages for that specific form. (also "Indo-Aryan" is preferred instead of "Aryan" or "Indic" here) —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 15:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Thanks. And I meant to distribute the "Indo-" (Indo-European/Indo-Iranian/Indo-Aryan). Sorry if "Aryan" is offensive. – Gormflaith (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: If I may make a proposition. These forms are all secondary and should be under this reconstruction proper. I'm really sorry and don't mean any offence but the page seems a bit cluttered with too many Sanskrit words. It would be ok if they were real formations but there clearly are no cognates in other languages for those formations. Case in point is "pava" and "pavana". These might just be derivations of the Sanskrit root "pav" right? Just because it's there in Sanskrit doesn't mean it was in IE use! I think you will agree that Sanskrit lexicographers usually derive/come up with large number of words from roots. I'm ok with having "püta" because Latin "putus" exists as an exact formal cognate. There are several other words: nouns, verbs and adjectives that come from "pav" and it would definitely not be ok to list every last one of them here. I hope you understand. 168.235.207.100 09:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@168.235.207.100: I agree with you in principle, but I've seen entries doing the same thing with Greek so I though it would be fine if I added the Sanskrit. As for pavana, I think Mayrhofer does list some more IE cognates but I don't have access to the book right now. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 12:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: It's ok. Since we're on the subject, Farsi "pāk" ("pure") is also from this IE root, from Old Iranian *pavāka. 168.235.207.167 08:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@168.235.207.167: I've added it to unsorted formations, because I'm not sure about the PIE reconstruction. Sanskrit पावक (pāvaká, “fire”) seems to be related to it. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 15:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)