Reconstruction talk:Proto-Balto-Slavic/bū́ˀtla

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Imetsia in topic *bū́ˀtla
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Rua, The accent paradigm b will not allow you to deduce Balto-Slavic mobility. — Gnosandes (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

But then why does Derksen give a final accent? —Rua (mew) 11:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rua, If I remember correctly, this is called Derksen's law. I.e. a hypothetical retracted accent in Lithuanian of type dė̃klas < *dē-tlá-. At the same time, he believes that the Proto-Slavic oxytone is primary, i.e. *bydlò... However, I don't understand why it doesn't take into account Dybo's law, because the accent paradigm b came about because of this law. Accent paradigm a and accent paradigm b are reduced to a single fixed accent.
*ženà (AP b) < *génāˀ (Fixed accent), compare *vě̀ra (AP a) < *wḗˀrāˀ (Fixed accent). After that, I begin to get the feeling that Derksen somehow understands accent paradigms differently. And on closer inspection, it looks unconvincing. Read his monograph (Derksen 1996) — Gnosandes (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

*bū́ˀtla[edit]

@Theknightwho: First, provide the source. Secondly, write down how you understand Dybo's law, Hirt–Illich-Svitych's law, Derksen's law and Nikolaev's metatony.

  1. Why does Derksen restore the final accent?
  2. Why should Proto-Slavic oxytonesis correspond to Lithuanian baritonesis?
  3. Why is Dybo's law ignored?
  4. Why does Derksen think that laryngeal break occurred in a form?
  5. Why, after the admin Rua changed the place of accent, the Proto-Slavic does not show the accent paradigm (a)? ɶLerman (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@ɶLerman Post this on the WT:Etymology scriptorium. All I did was revert your unexplained removal. Theknightwho (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: No, all you did was bring back vague reconstructions without a source. ɶLerman (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@ɶLerman Just take it to the WT:Etymology scriptorium - removing things without discussion is the wrong approach. You have been told this many times. Theknightwho (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: See diff. Thadh removed my edit without discussion, but I didn't add the source (I didn't add the source consciously, for the sake of experiment and reaction). ɶLerman (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Imetsia: Hello, could you please clarify the situation why this admin uses a multi-vector policy towards users? ɶLerman (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@ɶLerman: I'm not sure why I was pinged here, as I'm not involved in this discussion. I'm not aware of this "multi-vector policy" that you're talking about either. Imetsia (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply