| Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Slavic Aug 14th 2013, 23:23, by Ivan Štambuk | | | | Line 24: | Line 24: | | | :: The difference between -gt-/-kt- and -tj- is not reconstructable via the comparative method. They all share the same outcome in the Slavic languages which means that they merged in Proto-Slavic at some point. Only by internal reconstruction, or by referring to earlier forms (Balto-Slavic, PIE) can we know which of the two was the original form. We could decide to write it as tj instead, but ť seems more suitable as an abstract symbol as the exact pronunciation of this sound is rather uncertain. [[w:Proto-Slavic]] and [[w:History of the Slavic languages]] give more information. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | | :: The difference between -gt-/-kt- and -tj- is not reconstructable via the comparative method. They all share the same outcome in the Slavic languages which means that they merged in Proto-Slavic at some point. Only by internal reconstruction, or by referring to earlier forms (Balto-Slavic, PIE) can we know which of the two was the original form. We could decide to write it as tj instead, but ť seems more suitable as an abstract symbol as the exact pronunciation of this sound is rather uncertain. [[w:Proto-Slavic]] and [[w:History of the Slavic languages]] give more information. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | | | ::: There is lots of evidence in onomastics (toponyms, personal names) written in other languages, as well as borrowings from Latin and Greek to Slavic. We can even date these changes very precisely. Georg Holzer in ''Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen'' shows that ''kt'', ''xt'' > ''k'ť'', ''x'ť'', and only much later do these change to ''ť''. --[[User:Ivan Štambuk|Ivan Štambuk]] ([[User talk:Ivan Štambuk|talk]]) 13:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | | ::: There is lots of evidence in onomastics (toponyms, personal names) written in other languages, as well as borrowings from Latin and Greek to Slavic. We can even date these changes very precisely. Georg Holzer in ''Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen'' shows that ''kt'', ''xt'' > ''k'ť'', ''x'ť'', and only much later do these change to ''ť''. --[[User:Ivan Štambuk|Ivan Štambuk]] ([[User talk:Ivan Štambuk|talk]]) 13:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | | | + | | | | + | Now that I think about it, we should definitely provide ''all'' alternative forms for reconstructions, as they appear in the literature. I was thinking of using some box to list these instead of cluttering the headword line, which would then contain only the "Wiktionary standard form". The box would have two columns, one for reconstructions and another for the list of works that use them. Works would be listed by shortcuts which would on click link to an appendix page that lists their full name, author, etc.. --[[User:Ivan Štambuk|Ivan Štambuk]] ([[User talk:Ivan Štambuk|talk]]) 23:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 23:23, 14 August 2013 Some proposed changes[edit] - removing 80% of the article which deals with history - that's encyclopaedic. WT:AEN doesn't explain Great Vowel Shift. Some of it is quite disputable (e.g. proto-language being spoken, IPA values for reconstructed segments, where exactly was Proto-Slavic spoken)
- document existing templates used for headword line and inflection
- references on which entries should be created (i.e. no OR)
- templates (textual, not MW) for the list of descendants, new entries (noun, adjectives, verbs).
- notation for accents - I prefer the classical one, the one by Derksen based on Serbo-Croatian gives me headaches --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Stuff to do[edit] - Create an appendix on Common Slavic accent paradigms
- Add an optional parameter to {sla-PoS} to indicate accent paradigm and link to the appendix. Should accept two values (in case of uncertainties).
- Rewrite inflection templates in Lua so that their number, as well as the number of parameters they require, is reduced - i.e. detection of the type of stem, and whether the consonant should undergo palatalization before the desinence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Early Proto-Slavic[edit] Recently mostly Early Proto-Slavic (i.e. the "real" Proto-Slavic, as opposed to Common-Slavic which we term Proto-Slavic) forms is dealt with in the literature, i.e. forms with distinctive lengths, diphthongs, closed syllables etc. We could provide both proto-forms, together with inflections (which differ from sources to source, because the development of word-final clusters is disputed, so there would be multiple inflections per specified sources), and a description of changes (sounds, accents) that occurred in the Common Slavic period. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC) *kt, *gt -> *ť?[edit] Whence is this rule? What for? Especially when only page titles follow it. E. g. there is page Appendix:Proto-Slavic/moťi but all derivatives linking to it list PS form *mogti. So what's the purpose of this change in PS lexicon? Same with *noktь/*noťь – Silmethule (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC) - That change was Common Slavic. Strictly speaking, both *noktь and *noťь are true, it's just that the former is an earlier form of the latter. (note that before velar consonants, kt and xt change to t instead) *noktь is the traditional form used in the dictionaries. Personally I'm agnostic on the issue.
- The reason why etymologies link to *mogti is because the Proto-Slavic page was originally created as *mogti, and the person who moved it hasn't followed the standard procedure of updating the references to the old page as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- The difference between -gt-/-kt- and -tj- is not reconstructable via the comparative method. They all share the same outcome in the Slavic languages which means that they merged in Proto-Slavic at some point. Only by internal reconstruction, or by referring to earlier forms (Balto-Slavic, PIE) can we know which of the two was the original form. We could decide to write it as tj instead, but ť seems more suitable as an abstract symbol as the exact pronunciation of this sound is rather uncertain. w:Proto-Slavic and w:History of the Slavic languages give more information. —CodeCat 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is lots of evidence in onomastics (toponyms, personal names) written in other languages, as well as borrowings from Latin and Greek to Slavic. We can even date these changes very precisely. Georg Holzer in Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen shows that kt, xt > k'ť, x'ť, and only much later do these change to ť. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, we should definitely provide all alternative forms for reconstructions, as they appear in the literature. I was thinking of using some box to list these instead of cluttering the headword line, which would then contain only the "Wiktionary standard form". The box would have two columns, one for reconstructions and another for the list of works that use them. Works would be listed by shortcuts which would on click link to an appendix page that lists their full name, author, etc.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC) 
 |
