My preferred approach is simply to ignore Ethnologue and use Glottolog instead. It's not ideal for the field to be treating an American missionary organisation as a load-bearing part of the basic infrastructure, and I don't think it's necessary.

Afaik that's how it's taught too, or at least that's how I was taught

Thank you! My (belated) wishes to you as well!

That has a very different sound to me because ɾɘnɖi is Hindi for ‘wh**e’ 😬

The worst imo is when journalists write “researchers from XYZ(famous) university say this”.

😲 plus the resumptive proforms too

The semantics of it may have changed but the etymon *bayt itself is pretty solidly PSemitic, no?

Aha, I see. Thanks!

Now that I think about it, the English word 'hell' itself probably underwent something similar, as the older polytheist understanding of an underworld was replaced by the Christian one.

Černy says ⲁⲙⲛⲧⲉ 'hell' comes from ı ͗mntt 'the west'. How true is that, and how might 'west' have come to be used in the sense of the Christian hell?

The real linguistics is the fun with words we have along the way

Shit, I meant to say: when 2nd syllable begins with an apical consonant, the vowel in the first syllable is deleted and you get either a word-initial cluster or a word-initial apical, neither of which existed before. E.g.:

*uɻu > Telugu d̪unnu 'to plough' (< *ɖunnu), Konda ɽū, cf. Old Kannada uɻ-.