Reconstruction talk:Proto-Balto-Slavic/źámbas

I've removed the inflection because it's largely original research. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus for that change. —CodeCat 14:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for a particular edit, than it's best that that edit isn't present at all. The burden of evidence is upon the one making the controversial edit, not others. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I particularly like it how you reference Derksen (Kortlandt) on satemization and loss of aspiration, but only Matasović on *o > *a change which is not supported by Kortlandt. This is the cherry-picking of sound changes that I'm talking about. Such derivation makes absolutely no sense at all - either you subscribe to a particular framework of Proto-Balto-Slavic, or none at all. Otherwise you end up with original research that appears to be citeable, but is in fact w:WP:SYNTH. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)