| | ::: Why would it need some cleaning up? {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 02:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC) | | ::: Why would it need some cleaning up? {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 02:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |
| | :::: In my experience, nobody agrees on how to notate Slavic reconstructions. Whether that's just orthography or real reconstructional differences is beyond me, because I've never studied it. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 02:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC) | | :::: In my experience, nobody agrees on how to notate Slavic reconstructions. Whether that's just orthography or real reconstructional differences is beyond me, because I've never studied it. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 02:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | ::::: From my own experience they are easier than Germanic reconstructions because there is much less time between Proto-Slavic and the attestation of Old Church Slavonic. In a sense, OCS still ''is'' Proto-Slavic, albeit with significant Bulgarian dialectal features. It is very easy to reverse the OCS changes and find the original form, if it differs at all from the OCS form. And when there are differences usually there are clear patterns that are easy to recognise. Such as East Slavic -oro-, South Slavic/Czech -ra-, Polish -ro- which implies Proto-Slavic -or-. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 03:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC) |
