User talk:Useigor/2021

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Vahag (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

*Daďьbogъ и *perunъ

Мы не используем заглавные буквы в реконструкциях. --WikiTiki89 12:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Почему? В прагерманском, например, используют. Это же имя собственное, а оно пишется с заглавной буквы. Тогда уж исправьте и *Rimъ — это же реконструкция. Забавно, что эта страница была создана CodeCat (talk • contribs). Получается, что *perunъ ("молния, гром") и *Perunъ ("бог, бьющий, ударяющий, разящий (громом и молнией)") будут на одной странице — это странно, у них же разные категории. К тому же в польском первое слово дало piorun, а второе — Perun. В общем, на мой взгляд, это только запутывает, а не упрощает словарь.—Useigor (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Значит надо будет обсуждать в WT:BP. То, что два значения окажутся на одной странице, — легко решаемая проблема. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Glagolitic OCS

I'm not sure if all these words are actually attested in Glagolitic. Then again, I don't know if all of them are attested in Cyrillic. But it does seem like something that might need discussion first; I don't know what the agreed practice is in cases like this. —CodeCat 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @CodeCat, @Ivan Štambuk, i just noticed that Glagolica is not used in dictionaries (Derksen, ЭССЯ, Vasmer) but at same time i see that we use it. Maybe i'm wrong but i think that Glagolica is just alternative writing system to Cyrillic like Cyrillic and Latin in (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Serbo-Croatian. —Игорь Телкачь 19:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  Both scripts are OK, regardless of attestation. Actual attestations should be provided on citation pages, and what is attestation and what transliteration/transcription should be indicated in the entry. There is no infrastructure for that in the templates just yet however, because it's PITA to research each word and set it up. In the meantime, Glagolitic is certainly not forbidden, even though they were ill-thought attempts by CodeCat to do just that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  Correction, my attempts were to treat Cyrillic as the main lemma and Glagolitic as alternative form. I don't know why you think I wanted to forbid Glagolitic or remove it, but if that's what you thought at the time it certainly explains the stubborn irrationality I got from you. —CodeCat 21:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  Reducing Glagolitic spellings to soft-redirects that shouldn't be used outside specific environments for efficiency's sake is effectively forbidding it. It's not irrationality, but higher-order rationality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  I guess I was wrong, you're still making irrational claims. —CodeCat 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  It is not surprising that you are wrong. I blame the misguided instinct to see and enforce regularity and order where there is none. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Frenkish Swadesh list

Thanks for editing some parts. Frenkish is an international auxiliary language (IAL) created by David Parke based mostly on words from the Germanic language family. There's an online dictionary page and a Facebook page. He has released two PDF files (one dictionary and one grammar), both of which are under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2. --Glennobrien (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC+11:00)

квас

Привет,

Как слово "квас" связано со словом "кислый"? По-польски "кислота" - kwas, "sour" - kwaśny, но это нельзя обозначить как "cognate", скорее они имеют общие корни. Мне кажется, это не совсем правильно, то, что ты написал. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1) Об их связи:

Черных: "аблаут к *kys- (*kysnǫti, *kyslъ)"

ЭССЯ: "Праслав. *kvasъ и проиводный от него глагол *kvasiti родственны *kysnǫti, *kysěti, *kysiti и производным прилагательным и существительным"

Vasmer: "с другой степенью вокализма: кислый"

Сравни с *xytiti : xvatati.

2) Значение я переписал из словаря Derksen'а (с. 258), так что все вопросы насчёт правильности к нему. —Игорь Тълкачь 02:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Спасибо, извини, что сразу не ответил. Посмотрю ссылки. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

хозяин

Привет, Игорь. Есть rfe для хозяин. Интересует? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Извини, не удержался, сделал сам. Можешь поучаствовать в обсуждении или добавить что-то, если нужно. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

кудеса, кудить

Я сделал кудеса по «Словарю русского языка XVIII века», а кудить — по «Словарю русских народных говоров». Есть ещё кудити ‘хулить, порицать; осуждать || выставлять на всеобщее осмеяние’ в «Словаре русского языка XI—XVII вв.».--Cinemantique (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cinemantique, спасибо. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

jьzkonь

Аноним создал такую статью. В ЭССЯ нет этой формы. Не выдумка ли?--Cinemantique (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cinemantique, поскольку он указал искони (iskoni), Serbo-Croatian ѝскон (которые согласно ЭССЯ произошло от *jьz koni), я страницу переименовал и её содержимое заново написал. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Спасибо.--Cinemantique (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

sinjь

Прочитал эту тему. Возможно, в ЭССЯ имеется в виду существительное, от которое произошло слово синь? У Шапошникова прилагательное синий восстановлено как *син’ь(йь). Не уверен, что означает апостроф.--Cinemantique (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cinemantique, синь (sinʹ) является производным (см. Черных-2-163, ср. *čьrnь < *čьrnъ [ЭССЯ-04-157]). В ЭССЯ обычно не пишется jь при упоминании прилагательного и по какой-то причине иногда пропускается символ для обозначения мягкости (например *kъniga — *kъnjiga, *konь — *konjь, *datelь — *dateljь). Апостроф обозначает мягкость н, то есть *sinjь(jь) по текущим правилам. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

*oměgъ

• Не нашёл статью об этой форме в ЭССЯ (см. омег).--Cinemantique (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cinemantique, поскольку в Vasmer написано, что слово связано с мигать (migatʹ), в слове ожидается приставка, и в 28 выпуске ЭССЯ на странице 58 как раз есть статья. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Спасибо.--Cinemantique (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cinemantique Я теперь эту страницу праславянскую *oměgъ создалъ если что. Я такой приставки не ожидаю. Fay Freak (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak написание этого слова зависит от правописания и ЭССЯ в основном следует морфологическому правописанию, поэтому там *obměgъ. В прочих словарях оно бывает другим. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on *meyḱ-

I accidentally saved it before I was done. I'm glad someone is checking to make sure there are no errors in new pages! :) —JohnC5 04:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Cat's paw

Thanks for your note. Where has its paw left the wrong mark its time? Here: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix_talk:Proto-Slavic/granica?

Pawing it on a mobile so short. Zezen (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Zezen (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zezen, compare *jalovъ or *svatъ and *dьgnǫti. Simply: etymology at top, descendants at bottom, etc. Also check bottom bar "Categories", you know Proto-Slavic isn't English or Serbo-Croatian. Note that languages at etymology use template {{m}}.—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Pokorny

Just so you know, Pokorny is vastly outdated for PIE, and shouldn't be used as a reference. —CodeCat 18:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat, well, i heard but i used it because it was used in other entries. I'll take this advice into account. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ta for accepting my edits

Fixing them and not reverting for formal errors. Them wiktionary 'ety' codes are beyond my feline ken, meseems. Zezen (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Klewos/es etc

I still do not get it. If they be descendants, why not list them there exempli gratia, under *ḱléw-es- then? Zezen (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zezen, reduplication. It's much easier to handle data in 1 entry than in 2+ entries. That's why there is link to *ḱléwos in entry *ḱlew-. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Twardy

Re your revert, compare inter alia Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (c) 2012 Fernando López-Menchero, where it is derived therefrom.

Do your sources claim otherwise? Zezen (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zezen, Derksen doesn't claim that PIE *tuōrH- gave PS *tvьrdъ (501) but *tvarь (500). Černyx (2:231) gives PIE *tuer- for PS *tvьrdъ. Simply: PIE ō gave PS a, PIE o gave PS o (Derksen: PIE *tuorH- > PS *tvorъ ) and so on.—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, Игорь Тълкачь. Zezen (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(moved "Accent pattern references for verbs and adjectives" to Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Slavic since it's not specific to Useigor)

Proto-Slavic verb aspects

Where are you getting all those from? Such a distinction didn't exist yet in Proto-Slavic. —CodeCat 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. If this is true, we should delete all the verb aspects from Proto-Slavic verbs. OTOH, what we call Proto-Slavic in Wiktionary is really Late Common Slavic, and it seems quite possible the aspects did exist at the time, given that the descendant languages are pretty consistent in e.g. putting *pasti "to pasture" as impf. and *pasti "to fall" as pf. Benwing2 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages often mentions, for example (volume 23, page 24-25) it says *naryvati is imperfective (therefore *naryti is perfective). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Swedish word 'mimra' (on the page for the Proto-Slavic 'němъ')

Привет!

I am a native Swede, and while reading the etymology for the Proto-Slavic word němъ, I noticed the Swedish word mimra as a related word. This intrigued me, as I've never heard the word before. It intrigued me even more when I couldn't find it in the etymological Swedish Academy Dictionary, nor in the massive 156-million-word corpus provided by Språkbanken of Gothenburg University. I did find a few examples of mimra after some googling, though. A common pattern, which I discovered after quite a while of looking, is that nearly all of the users of mimra have some connection to Norway.

Indeed, I looked in a Norwegian dictionary and found mimre, with the following definition (translated from Norwegian):

"move the lips involuntarily and quickly, without sound; mumble; reminisce about old days"

Specifically, the last definition ("reminisce about old days") matches the (extremely small) usage I've seen in Swedish.

I am only here because I am curious: How did you find the word mimra? Do you have any connection to Norway or the Norwegian language?

This word has really become a mystery for me, and I'd love to get some answers! :-)

Срасибо большое!

--Jocap (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jocap Hej. Max Vasmer (see link in references for *němъ) gives the word with sense "move the lips" (шевелить губами), he have references but i couldn't expenand some of his abbreviations and check:

• Mi. EW 215 == F. Miklosich, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen, Wien, 1886

(no mention) https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rFHRAAAAMAAJ&q=mems

• В. Шульце, KZ 50, 129 == ??? (W. Schulze, Kleine Schriften, Göttingen, 1933) or (Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, begründet von A. Kuhn, Berlin, 1852)

1: could not check

2: (no mention) https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CUZKAAAAcAAJ&q=mimra

• М.--Э. 2, 615 == K. Mühlenbach, Lettisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, Redigiert, ergänzt und fortgesetzt von J. Endzelin, Riga, 1923–1932, 4 Bde

Could not check

• Грюненталь, AfslPh 39, 290 == ??? (Грюненталь = Grünenthal?) (AfslPh == Archiv für Slavische Philologie, begründet von V. Jagić, Berlin, 1876—1929)

1: ...

2: (no mention) https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lGUoAAAAYAAJ&q=mimra

• Петерссон, Vgl. slav. Wortst. 50 == H. Petersson, Vergleichende slavische Wortstudien, Lund, 1922 (= Lunds Univ. Årsskr. N. F., Avd. 1, Bd. 18, № 2)

Could not check

Last one is Swedish, possibly Vasmer took the word from there. Usually i don't translate words from Vasmer dictionary because their meaning may be inaccurate. I don't have connection to Norway and Norwegian language. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Useigor Thank you so much for the information! Thank you extra much for searching for mimra in the sources that are available online. Vergleichende slavische Wortstudien by Petersson looks promising. I will go to my university library tomorrow and borrow it, as they have several copies. I'll keep you updated, if you want to. --Jocap (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jocap ok, thanks. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

template:sla-conj

Hello. From a visual point of view, I preferred the old templates: I don't like the grey of the new one, and the fact that it's horizontal messes up the display on my screen. Would you agree to change that? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam Changed, now horizontal is blue.—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Use {{l/sl-tonal}} for Slovenian tonal orthography

Please use {{l/sl-tonal}} when linking to Slovenian words using the tonal orthography. Slovenian words are normally quoted using the non-tonal orthography, which confusingly uses some of the same diacritics as in the tonal orthography but with different meanings. In etymologies, we prefer to quote the tonal orthography, and {{l/sl-tonal}} displays a message by the link indicating that it is in the tonal orthography, for disambiguation purposes, e.g.:

{{l/sl-tonal|jézik}} → jézik (tonal orthography)

Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Is tonal notation in Slovenian very different from Serbo-Croatian? Why is it only Slovenian that is marked? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I didn't mean to sound rude, just curious if the template could also be used for 'sh'. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev We could easily create a {{l/sh-tonal}} but it wouldn't be necessary because there isn't the equivalent non-tonal orthography in Serbo-Croatian. The problem is that, for example, é in the Slovenian tonal orthography means "long low-mid vowel, rising tone" but in the non-tonal orthography it means "long high-mid vowel, any tone" (!). See Appendix:Slovene pronunciation for the true horrors of this notation. Benwing2 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Suffixations to nonexistent stems in Slavic

While there is no problem with giving morphological equivalents of Slavic words, I think it goes too far to give affixations from words that don't even exist in Slavic. Affixation should reflect the synchronic state of Slavic as we know it, and so it should only be used when all elements are reconstructable, both the stem and the affix. They should not be used where an affix may be historically present, but not analysable as one because the base form has gone missing, or because the form differs from what would be expected if you threw the two elements together within Slavic. I particularly disagree with giving an etymology from Proto-Balto-Slavic or Proto-Indo-European, and then sticking an affix at the end of it. That's not how affixation works; you always take a base word and an affix and that creates a new word. If there is no base in Slavic, then there is no affixation in Slavic. —Rua (mew) 22:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rua: *ovьca (“sheep (female)”) and *ovьnъ (“ram (male sheep)”) are analyzable because they share same root and same meaning. Word *ovьnъ can be obtained via back-formation: *ovьca minus *-ьca plus *-ьnъ (though I'm not sure if there is any word with similar suffix if it's not just substantivized adjective). Anyway IMHO it's useful to list all suffixes that can be separated from analyzable words.—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am skeptical that Proto-Slavic speakers would have made such a formation. Do you know any modern Slavic speakers that would strip the second syllable off *ovьca to make a new word? —Rua (mew) 20:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rua: Back-formation seem to be improbable in languages where both *ovьnъ and *-ьca are rare/lost. In сase of Russian, there is dictionary that mentions word ове́цъ m (ovéc) (Pre-reform orthography (1918)) together with ове́нъ m (ovén) and овца́ f (ovcá).—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Useigor/2021,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Useigor/2021,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Useigor/2021,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Slavic *-jь

Hello, Useigor, I think it's better to create an independent page for Proto-Slavic *-jь. It may not be productive suffix in Slavic, however, there are plenty of fossilized yo-stem examples, which prove that the suffix is distinct from Proto-Slavic *-ьjь. Here are a few:

• Nouns:
  • Inherited from PIE (or whatever the origin of *koňь is):
    • *mǫžь (“man”)
    • *koňь (“horse”)
    • *moľь (“moth”)
    • *ǫ̃žь (“snake”)
  • Derived from i-declension (causative) verbs:
    • *voďь (“leader”) ← *voditi (“to lead”)
    • *lučь (“ray”) ← *lučiti (“to pinpoint, to target”)
    • *nožь (“knife”) ← *nožiti (“to skewer”)
    • *gojь (“fest, abundance”) ← *gojiti (“to feed”)
  • Derived from a/ja-declension (factive) verbs:
    • *sъlučajь (“occasion”) ← *lučati (“to hit a target, to connect”)
    • *ortajь (“peon, servant”) ← *ortati (“to struggle”)
    • *xodatajь (“solicitor”) ← *xodatati (“to mediate”)
    • *golšatajь (“herald, announcer”) ← *golšatati (“to utter”)
• Adjectives:
  • Inherited from the Caland system (Proto-Indo-European *-yós was one of the suffixes attached to Caland roots):
    • *dobľь (“honest”) (cf Proto-Slavic *dobrъ)
    • *ryďь (“ruddy, ginger”) (cf. Proto-Slavic *rъdrъ, Proto-Slavic *rъděti, etc)
    • *siňь (“glaucos blue/gray”) (cf. Proto-Slavic *sivъ, Proto-Slavic *śěrъ, etc)
  • Of uncertain origin:
    • *lošь (“bad”)
    • *dužь (“strong”)
    • *bujь (“aggressive, fierce”) (may be a Caland adj. if forms like Proto-Slavic *buřa (“storm”), Proto-Slavic *buna (“riot”) were originally adjectives)
• Pronoun possessive:
  • *našь (“our”)
  • *vašь (“your”)

Currently, Proto-Slavic *-jь directly sends you to Proto-Slavic *-ьjь, so I can't create it. Probably, it's best to undo your edit and make the page on itself, don't you think? If you agree, just copy the examples that I listed (of course, if you wish, feel free to add more). The explanations need to be formalized, but we can do that at any point as long as the page exists.

PS We should also add the nominal sense of Proto-Slavic *-ьjь because there are a handful of nouns with this suffix: *červьjь (“worm”), *solvьjь (“nightingale”), *pyrьjь (“couch grass”), *žerbьjь (“lot”), etc. I'll look for more examples and add it tomorrow, because it's getting late today. Bezimenen (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In the case of *-iti and *-ati/*-aj- verbs I'm not convinced that the suffix is *-jь. Rather, it appears that it's just *-ъ, in which the j is supplied by the verb stem itself. —Rua (mew) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rua: Yes, that's right. Technically though, any IE *-yós/*-wós derivative is probably just a thematization of an earlier i-stem/u-stem, where -y-/-w- was part of the stem. If this bothers you, we can split the whole suffix Proto-Slavic *-ajь/*-ějь and make Proto-Slavic *-jь = i-conj + *-ъ under Etymology 2 (distinct from *-jь < PIE *-yós). I see that Latvian -ājs, Lithuanian -ojas, Lithuanian -ėjas have done exactly that. I don't insist that all proposed derivational patterns have to go together. Bezimenen (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bezimenen: *-jь and *-ьjь intersect in possessive sense. I created redirecting page just because it was redlink. It can be edited, there is link under entry title ("Redirected from Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/-jь"). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Useigor: I don't question the overlapping between the two suffixes, however, I think it's better if each one has a separate page. Morphologically, they are not identical. If you don't have anything against, I'll create the page of *-jь on its own? I just didn't want to overwrite your edit without consulting with you. Bezimenen (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

BER reference thanks

Useigor, apologies for the many references to BER with the old format. I hope you didn't have to go manually through all links to refresh them. (Bezimenen) 2.217.103.95 12:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't do if there was too much links, similar thing i did with {{R:sla:ESSJa}} 1 year ago. I think it could be done with bot but i rarely do such work and i don't have time to study how exactly bots work here, so it's easier to do manually. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Etymological dictionary of Russian

Hi. I'd like to buy a good etymological dictionary of Russian (not of Proto-Slavic, so not Derksen), not too voluminous (that means single volume, preferably), and not too old (so not Vasmer, which is easily accessible online anyway). What would you recommend? Черных, Шапошников, Шведова, Свиридовой, something else? I've found a list here. Thanks in advance. Canonicalization (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicalization Hi. From the given authors i only know Черных (i don't read much dictionaries), but now i checked some other authors.

1. Suitable: Черных ("1970") and Шапошников (2010): both provide definitions and dates of attestation. I still prefer Черных because he extensively lists Slavic and IE cognates, such manner allows to compare, but that makes his entries longer. You can check some random words in both dictionaries to see how they are explained and what is better.
2. Unsuitable: Шведова (couldn't find, described as СРЯ with [probably little] etymological information), Свиридова (lil ety info), Крылов/Семёнов/Шанский (available online), other authors are unchecked (btw i found another list). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that! Canonicalization (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Columns vs tree

The tree view is, and has always been the default on Wiktionary for descendants sections, and is used in the majority of cases. It does not do to have a tree in most cases and columns in some other cases. That's confusing and inconsistent. The tree view should be the default, with the experimental column view being an opt-in gadget. That way, users who want it can activate it, without affecting the rest of the users. —Rua (mew) 16:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• It was dicussed more than once and it lead to the poll and its result is demonstrative. There is nothing to discuss in general. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding Template:templ

Can you point me to the vote where this was approved? —Rua (mew) 11:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)