Disputatio:Lingua Protoindoeuropaea

Nomen[fontem recensere]

Fortasse debemus ad Lingua proto-Indoeuropaea movere? Hoc verbo proto- (Graeco, non Latino) utuntur philologi communiter in multis linguis ut linguam originariam familiae designent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:59, 12 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Si elementis Graecis ut proto- et Indo- utimur, fortasse melius erit removere has o litteras extraneas, quae solum ante consonantes (et digamma) adhibendae sunt; ita, Protindeuropaea. —Mucius Tever 15:27, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nefas est. Secunda o in proto- non omissibilis. -Roggy 21:28, 15 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opinabilis[fontem recensere]

Bob A, why did you delete opinabilis? The first sentence—Protoindoeuropeaea lingua (PIE) est opinabilis mater communis linguarum Indoeuropaearum.—was translating the first sentence of en:Proto-Indo-European language: "The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Indo-European languages." (Opinabilis = 'hypothetical, conjectural'.) Since the Latin version was made, the English has been revised to read: "The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the unattested, reconstructed common ancestor of the Indo-European languages." If you were going to delete opinabilis, what's the reason you didn't insert Latin words for "unattested, reconstructed"? At least one of those hedging words (hypothetical, unattested, reconstructed) is needed as a modifier to make the sentence true. IacobusAmor 04:54, 18 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence now says that PIE is a reconstruction expressing the relationship of the attested languages. So I think the word "opinabilis" has at last served its purpose and I've taken it away again. There is no doubt that PIE has that function. If I'm mistaken please revert. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 26 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]