I'd like to suggest that Kubokota 508-185_we-2 and Tabar 129-185_we-1, which both have the form gita, should probably be in cognacy class 1 rather than 2 and 2? resp.
Some other members of 1: hita, gita, gida, 'gita, kita.
Some other members of 2: gami, gia, yami
Kubokota and Tabar are both Oceanic and the reconstructed form in ABVD for proton-oceanic is *kita which is tagged as cognacy 1.
I'd be more convinced if there was a comment saying that the forms are specifically inclusive for Kubokota and Tabar, but I still think it's a good idea to review if they should both be classed as 1 rather than 2/2?.
HedvigS
commented
1 month ago
I'd like to suggest that Kubokota 508-185_we-2 and Tabar 129-185_we-1, which both have the form
gita, should probably be in cognacy class1rather than2and2?resp.Some other members of 1: hita, gita, gida, 'gita, kita. Some other members of 2: gami, gia, yami
Kubokota and Tabar are both Oceanic and the reconstructed form in ABVD for proton-oceanic is
*kitawhich is tagged as cognacy 1.I'd be more convinced if there was a comment saying that the forms are specifically inclusive for Kubokota and Tabar, but I still think it's a good idea to review if they should both be classed as
1rather than2/2?.