Talk:bi
Page contents not supported in other languages.
English'bi- is a prefix'Bi, alone, is not a word, but an implied prefix. Therefore, it can be implied to mean two of anything depending on the context.
The Navajo language entry here seems to be a mistake. For one, this entry heading is for standalonebi, whereas the prefix is located at the page forbi-. TheNavajo entry on thebi- page appears to be correct. For two, the standalone third person possessive pronoun in Navajo isbí with a high tone, notbi with a low tone.
I'm tempted to remove thebi#Navajo entry altogether, moving this definition to thebí page. Before I do so, does anyone know if low-tonebi might be a dialectical variation among Navajo speakers? If so, we should keep thebi#Navajo entry, but if no, it needs to go. -- Curious,Eiríkr Útlendi |Tala við mig07:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Should Scottish Gaelicbi 'to be' be derived from PIE*bʰuH- or PIE*gʷeih₃w- (along with Bretonbeva, Cornishbewa, and Welshbyw)? I've seen it associated with both on Wiktionary (and inMacBain, but MacBain is from 1896). Associated with*bʰuH-/*bʰew- (among others): "bí", "bʰuH-" (the Irish formbí given only). Associated with*gʷeih₃w- (among others): "bevañ" and in this very article.
Also, could someone, please, shed some light on why SG hasbi if Old Irishbí has a long vowel? Lots of thanks in advance!Ryba g (talk)20:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
For the example for the Vietnamese one it says "Á! Dập bi tao rồi! Ow! My bawlls popped!", is "bawlls" a typo and is "balls" whats meant to be typed?Thomas Norren (talk)11:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply