意味 |
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlew-の英語
追加できません
(登録数上限)
Wiktionary英語版での「Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlew-」の英訳 |
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlew-
Latin fluō looks more like tudati-type present. Not sure why the proto-Italic form is reconstructed as simple thematic? Similar thing happens with Latin pluō : *plovō (“to rain, to pour”), so it may be regular? Bezimenen (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- It should be under a ye-present, per
{{R:ine:Sihler:1995|535}}
. --{{victar|talk}}
22:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)- That's questionable. We need further evidence before declaring it ye-present (which is secondary in nature in the first place). The whole formation R[0]-ew- is a construction of itself. It's not particularly likely that the first derivative which a language creates with it is a secondary ye-present. In general, early PIE employed -y- as a default imperfective marker and -w- as a default perfective marker. Mixing them from the get-go is logically inconsistent. Bezimenen (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen: you're spewing a lot of bunk science here on the project that isn't supported academia, nor this project. My sources for my edits on this page are there, including the ye-present from Sihler. You also seem to have a problem properly reading sources, because Rix, whom you mistakenly cite, claims the s-aorists are secondary, and if you knew anything about Greek (かつ PII), you would know that they add prefixes to their aorists (not to even mention that *Hbʰlew- would be an invalid root). You also need to stop just making up definitions -- I trust Beekes definitions of Greek terms over anything you're pulling from your head. As for the final laryngeal you insist should be in the reconstruction, laryngeals are lost in a VCHy position. --
{{victar|talk}}
15:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen: you're spewing a lot of bunk science here on the project that isn't supported academia, nor this project. My sources for my edits on this page are there, including the ye-present from Sihler. You also seem to have a problem properly reading sources, because Rix, whom you mistakenly cite, claims the s-aorists are secondary, and if you knew anything about Greek (かつ PII), you would know that they add prefixes to their aorists (not to even mention that *Hbʰlew- would be an invalid root). You also need to stop just making up definitions -- I trust Beekes definitions of Greek terms over anything you're pulling from your head. As for the final laryngeal you insist should be in the reconstruction, laryngeals are lost in a VCHy position. --
- That's questionable. We need further evidence before declaring it ye-present (which is secondary in nature in the first place). The whole formation R[0]-ew- is a construction of itself. It's not particularly likely that the first derivative which a language creates with it is a secondary ye-present. In general, early PIE employed -y- as a default imperfective marker and -w- as a default perfective marker. Mixing them from the get-go is logically inconsistent. Bezimenen (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
意味 |
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlew-のページの著作権
英和・和英辞典
情報提供元は
参加元一覧
にて確認できます。
Text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) and/or GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Weblio英和・和英辞典に掲載されている「Wiktionary英語版」の記事は、WiktionaryのReconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlew- (改訂履歴)の記事を複製、再配布したものにあたり、Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA)もしくはGNU Free Documentation Licenseというライセンスの下で提供されています。 |
ピン留めアイコンをクリックすると単語とその意味を画面の右側に残しておくことができます。 |
ログイン |
Weblio会員(無料)になると 検索履歴を保存できる! 語彙力診断の実施回数増加! |
「Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlew-」のお隣キーワード |
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/witjaną
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlew-
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰlewH-
weblioのその他のサービス
ログイン |
Weblio会員(無料)になると 検索履歴を保存できる! 語彙力診断の実施回数増加! |