Talk:Proto-Indo-European language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proto-Indo-European language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Proto-Indo-European language was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Desinence?

Isn't a "desinence" always an ending, suffix, or terminator?

Wiktionary link is deleted

The Wiktionary link in the External links section is dead Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phrygian's classification?

(kinda new to this btw) I knew about the huge language tree chart. Phrygian is not included on it. I wanted to see how it would be classified, but I checked for a while and it just isn't on there. Which is extremely strange, because "fringe" languages (off the top of my head: Yola, Juhuri, Knaanic) that are rarely discussed about are included in the tree.

To be honest, Phrygian is really lacking in all of Wikipedia. It only appears on its own pages and is mentioned in a subsection whenever Greek comes up. I understand that its classification is a little debated, but it should still be added to the page to the full extant others are. Kit Fisto Bro (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot about Phrygian all over the place. It's lacking in that monstrous tree, but only there. First of all, it's in the infobox of Indo-European languages. It's also mentioned in this article in the context of the Graeco-Phrygian hypothesis. Check also Paleo-Balkan languages, or even (weirdly enough) Armeno-Phrygian languages. –Austronesier (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidentiality

I found this source that could be useful for whether or not there was evidentiality in PIE. [1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238680799_Evidentiality_in_Proto-Indo-European_Building_a_CaseI might need to read into it for the conclusion. And maybe more. Kaden Bayne Vanciel (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Persian version of this article has a completely different meaning to the English version

I switched to the Persian version of this article to see how it would be different from the English version only to realize some of the wild claims the Persian article was making about P.I.E. Thewikixx (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? That's none of our business. This page is for improving the article on the English Wikipedia. Remsense诉 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems legitimate to ask here for bilinguals to look there. —Tamfang (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's the best place, but I do concede I don't really know where the best place would be. Remsense诉 10:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why is this not Indo-Germanic languages? 79.106.203.121 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]