Template talk:Proto-Indo-European language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestion about renaming this template[edit]

This template really covers only the language, other (P)IE topics are in Template:Indo-European topics. I'd suggest renaming it to "PIE language", perhaps with a footer like "see also Indo-European studies". Comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it has this name because the article Indo-European studies has the same name, and that article is also just about linguistics. Perhaps for clarity both that article and this template should be renamed "Indo-European linguistics". —Angr 17:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with either name. I'd be happy to see other concepts added to this template (e.g. PIE sound laws, all PIE terminology that has its own articles like augment, vrddhi, thematic/athematic, the PIE copula..). I thought that "Indo-European studies" more generally also encompasses stuff like sociology, religion and archaeology, but the way [[Indo-European studies]] defines it it appears to be strictly linguistics-connected. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to extend this template with other pages related to PIE linguistics, it would be nice to have more cross-links here. I'd just ask you to wait till the renaming dispute (here and on Talk:Indo-European studies#Move proposal) is over. Alternatively, you could place a list of suggestions here and we'll include them afterwards. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Osthoff's law[edit]

It is obviously post-PIE, but still applies to several divergent branches, so I don't know whether it would be OK to put it in the template or not. Perhaps there should be added another row added, for listing important post-PIE sound laws, but only those which occurred in the the individual branches (e.g. Grimm's, Verner's, RUKI, Brugmann's, Grassman's, Winter's etc.), and not those that occurred after the split of proto-languages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with adding sound laws which apply to several branches like Osthoff's or RUKI (in an additional section), but I am not sure about laws belonging to a single branch. If we added Grimm's and Verner's and Holtzmann's, we'd probably end up with the Germanic a-mutation and umlaut... Personally, I'd draw the line at laws affecting several branches since this template is called Proto-Indo-European language, so specific Germanic (or other) laws don't belong here in my opinion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
But how much sense does it make to show a sound-shift that affects the Indo-Iranian branch (Bartholomae's law), but not Germanic (Grimm's Law)? Consistancy... (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)