Talk:Sievers's law

The link to the Lindeman article is actually a link to an article on a trial of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. An interesting diversion, to be sure, but I think this mistake should be corrected or the link removed. Ibnalhamar (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

This article contains much more (and better) information about

Edgerton's law than the article itself. Rather than migrate content out of here, I'd redirect Edgerton's law to this article (or the Edgerton section), unless someone can improve the Edgerton article considerably. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Merged --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

All sources I find online refer to this as "Sievers' law", with no additional s. Per

WP:COMMONNAME, it should stay at that name. Rua (mew) 20:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You missed some sources. This is not a spelling issue, but a possessive punctuation style issue. Wikipedia editors decided to follow all modern grammar and style guides, which recommend the final s; most recently with an RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#RFC on forming possessive form of singular names, MOS advice simplification. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the first cited source uses the final s, and you reverted my fix of its title to a wrong version. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more information about its current status in PIE reconstructions

Half of the text of this article seems to be devoted to discussing and then refuting Edgerton, then a second section about Germanic. The only section that seems to discuss how it is actually believed to have worked in PIE is the introduction. What does current scholarship believe about the law in PIE itself? We know Edgerton was wrong, but does that mean the whole thing should be thrown out? Cyllel (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]