Help! Why does the numbering restart (1,1,2 instead of 1,2,3)?
I fixed it. The problem was the examples were indented with: instead of#:. Using the latter form stops the numbering from getting restarted afterwards. By the way, it's nice to sign talk pages; you can do that by putting ~~~~ after your message.Ortonmc 23:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Reading about the Phoenix Mars mission, I get the impression that the wordsol is bsing used to mean aday but on another planet. E.g.Over the last couple ofsols, the Phoenix team made its first test scoop and dig into the Martian surface. Can anyone confirm this? Is it current use, or prologism? --Algrif11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
No it's an established word, used for some reason only of Mars. The OED traces it back to the early 70s. I'll stick it in.Widsith11:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
According to recent additions to the etymology of Latinsol, it is cognate with Old English and Old Norsesol. But doesn't Old English havesonne as the native term for the "sun"? I have always understood thatsol in Old English and Old Norse was borrowed from Latin, like so many other words. --EncycloPetey01:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wouldn't have been simpler to instead of complaining about misleading templates to have gone ahead and used- as the second argument of{{etyl}} to suppress adding the category. I would have thought at least one of you three would have recalled how to do that. —Carolina wrendiscussió19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
There are no less than five distinct words (that is, five different etymologies) in the entrysol, all with only one floating pronuciation section at the top. I've added the pronunciation which applies to the musical term, but does anybody else care to figure out to which of the senses that floating pronunciation applies? --Beobach97222:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would add a request for clarification on capitalization. Is the period of time capitalized (as here) or not (as on wp)? May the name of the star (our star) be written in either capitalization?\Mike20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
@Victar Intriguing, though considering that loss of laryngeal by far pre-dated vocalisation of syllabic resonants in Latin's history wouldn't that give**sūl? No matter how unusual that*e looks, it seems like Sihler's*súh₂el (> Lat.*sŭŏl >sōl) works better also for explaining the PII form.Catonif (talk)15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif: You're right. I go through this crisis every 2 years it seems. PIE*súh₂ol seems more likely then for the Latin and works fine for the PII as well. --{{victar|talk}}17:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I updated the etymology and ran with Sihler's work, where he also cites an s-stem to account for the gender change, which makes the most sense. --{{victar|talk}}05:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Victar Neat, but the PIt. outcome can't be*swōl, but rather*sūōl ~ *sūeles (or*suōl ~ *sueles, depending on when you date the shortening, on project we date it as post-PIt.) > (Pre-)Lat.*sŭōl ~ *sŭŏlis, which we can see going tosōl ~ sōlis by Sihler's contraction and likely by yet more levelling. I must admit I'm somewhat confused by the refs you kept, should we remove de Vaan's ref since he claims something quite different? (i.e.*séh₂ul > regularly*saul > sporadicallysōl. Ideally we should probably mention this theory as well). Also, could you change the Sihler ref to link to the page and section where he provides this explaination (the "s-stem" and gender change, that is)? I can't find it, the index only mentions §88.3c and §294.2 forsol.Catonif (talk)11:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif: See the footer on page 84. *uHV- > *(u)wV- is the expected outcome in PIE languages with the loss of laryngeals, so the PIt. would regularly be either*swōl or*suwōl. --{{victar|talk}}20:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
That was an initial comment...I no longer hold that opinion. I can see why theyassume it to be feminine, but it is still conclusively unknown for sure.Leasnam (talk)16:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
