Talk:The king and the god

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Actually if you look at Sampson's page:

It seems the text was not originally composed by Sen; rather he identified a traditional text.
As Sampson found it published, the text used "the spelling system traditional among Indo-Europeanists." Sampson transliterated it to his own system because he didn't know how to display it in HTML. Sampson cites J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London and Chicago, 1997.

Does someone have access to Mallory and Adams who could provide their spelling? --teb728 21:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, I checked it out. dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, nice improvement--it makes a really professional article! I would suggest one more change: Use the Unicode or IPA template on the PIE text. Whatever the merits of italicizing individual words, italics hurt the legibility of continuous text. --teb728 21:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that there are disagreements about the original sound values, so IPA wouldn't be useful, here. 81.232.72.148 15:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names

What are the full names of the individuals here? Hard to link without knowing. Rmhermen 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and unstressed personal pronouns

The first reconstruction given here surprises me in its lavish use of demonstrative pronouns as (all but) unstressed personal pronouns and articles. (- or at least of the 3. sg. m. nom. demonstrative.) It feels very modern to me, and contrary to all we seem to know of older Indo-European languages, as far as my knowledge goes - and that of many others, I fancy. Has anybody an explanation to give, please - in the article, not here! - whether that the reconstruction is likely chronocentric, or that it relies on some (what?) evidence little known among educated amateurs like me? Keinstein 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, it seems to be TOO Latin-like. 12.71.155.26 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]