Appendix talk:Russian doublets

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Erutuon: I suspect you might like this one even more. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam Note this kind of alterations: надежда (nadežda)надёжа (nadjóža), одежда (odežda)одёжа (odjóža). And many more. Regard Orthowiki: Церковнославянизмы, there are a lot more ways to see doublets, you should reflect it at least in the description. (I don’t edit anything now know lest I disturb your work.) Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 01:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Palaestrator verborum: Do you know if there's a template similar to {{l}} but without automatic transliteration? It's frankly annoying to have to write |tr=- everytime. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, but [[]] is fine enough for Russian mostly, innit. You could make a wrapper for l with tr=- but dude, these are just five additional signs. What I would need is a template that does transliterate but not link, as for شُنَارَى‏ (šunārā) in سِنَّوْر(sinnawr). Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer to use [[]], if only because we wouldn't have any memory overload, but the problem is that it doesn't redirect you to the right section, and that (relatedly) it's not enough for the orange links gadget to work.
Yes, I know five characters is not a lot, but having to add parameters to suppress a behaviour is always annoying; that's why I wanted to remove the automatic text from {{bor}}, for example.
I see that Erutuon is working on a doublets table at Appendix:English doublets/table, though; maybe that table could be devised so that there be no translit. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: That table template already doesn't add transliteration. It might even work as-is on this page. — Eru·tuon 21:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Erutuon: It works :-) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Erutuon Hello. It's not really important, but this causes a module error. Could you look into it? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Yes, that was the wrong module error. A different, more informative one was intended. ^.^ — Eru·tuon 13:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Erutuon: Ahah, thanks, but what I meant was: it would be nice to be able to write "хоро́мы (“mansion”, plurale tantum)". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: I knew that needed to be done, but knew it was going to be complicated. Done. — Eru·tuon 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Erutuon: Thanks! I don't realise what I'm putting you through :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Useigor: I thought it could interest you as well. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Unresolved cases[edit]

No direct morphological equivalence[edit]

Synchronic coinages[edit]

One of the or both term(s) was/were coined (*) in Russian and/or in OCS, and isn't/aren't inherited from Proto-Slavic

Old Russian vs Russian[edit]

The inherited term is found only in Old Russian

Derived terms, simplex unattested[edit]

No idea[edit]

Possibly unattested[edit]

See also[edit]


@Erutuon Hello. The current sorting is on the second column (the inherited Russian terms). Do you think it would be possible to add sorting on the first and third columns as well? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I notice there is a module error when I'm trying to input Proto-Slavic *(j)elenь. This is probably due to the brackets. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, this particular case is solved, and we can use redirects anyway if others crop up. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Done. Yeah, parentheses mark qualifiers, so the code would have to be rewritten if you wanted parentheses in the terms. — Eru·tuon 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Erutuon: Whoops, apparently piped links are faulty now. See Appendix:French doublets. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Fixed. — Eru·tuon 20:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

предрагой, предрагая[edit]

+предрагой, предрагая n and adj, e. g.: предрагая ...Ты ж, кончая, к предрагой молви велегласно... --Bookvaedina (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Belarusian doublets[edit]

* {{m|sla-pro|}}: {{l|be||tr=-}}–{{l|be||tr=-}}


{{/table|langs=sla-pro, be, be
|Proto-Slavic|Inherited from East Slavic|Borrowed from Polish

@Guldrelokk Hello. Would you know other cases like these, either in Belarusian or in Russian? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam I’ll try to add some a bit later. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


No idea[edit]


I would question counting угль as a doublet of уголь, unless there are sources that say so about this particular word, since they always know better (and since that surely may be true). Forms with non-syllabified final sonorants were possible in poetry even for explicitly non-Church Slavonic nouns: one finds вымысл for вымысел with вы- unknown to South Slavic, or even пепл for пепел entirely contradictory to Church Slavonic, which has пепелъ, /e/ isn’t from *ь at all here and the original non-analogical genitive was пепела, or in genitive plural one finds оглобль and сабль, which do not exist in CS and so on. It is very conceivable (I believe unquestionable) that they owe to Church Slavonic influence; nevertheless, a different, non-lexical kind of influence. And they do not owe to it alone. They also reflect morphological levelling, very common in Russian in such cases: it is exactly by this kind of levelling that you get proscribed yet very common найм for наём and it’s by levelling that you get non-etymological пепл for пепел. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk: Yes, I wasn't sure about this one (I don't have any source that says it's from OCS). I've removed it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


Another problematic one is раз-. It is a loan, but it’s an orthographic loan. Раз- isn’t only written so when unstressed for no reason: all р{а,о}з- are pronounced [roz-] in Northern dialects regardless of how they are written. Many words now written with раз- go back to Proto-Slavic and have East Slavic reflexes of everything, and of course you can’t say that the prefix is different in раздать and роздал. I believe this should be reflected in some way. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed it too; the case is not compelling enough to go in the table. We should add some notes to the раз-/роз- entries.
If you have other objections don't hesitate! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk Hello again. I see you've removed the *obortiti|обороти́ть|обрати́ть line; was it wrong? I'll have to edit the etymologies of the entries as well then. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: No, it was correct, but I thought that since *vortiti|вороти́ть|-врати́ть is already listed there is no need in listing them again with a prefix. However, since the Church Slavonic one’s meaning is idiosyncratic, may be that does make sense, I don’t know. After all, *врати́ть isn’t a word in Russian, all the prefixal derivations were borrowed independently. Guldrelokk (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: How do you explain the а (a) in ладо́нь (ladónʹ)? Could it be an orthographic loan from OCS when the OCS word is actually длань (dlanĭ)? --WikiTiki89 22:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: There are not a few cases of vowel reduction being reflected in spelling: паром (parom), калач (kalač), крапива (krapiva), каравай (karavaj), барсук (barsuk) and so on. They typically arose when speakers of dialects with akanye didn’t have a clue what to write in words they only knew from their vernacular, and it’s the case here: one can’t find this word in Church Slavonic books, with a metathesis that is, the usual correspondence ла ~ оло doesn’t work either, so one had to choose the vowel arbitrarily. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldreklokk: Then why is it still а (a) when stressed, as for example, in ла́душки (láduški)? --WikiTiki89 23:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: ла́душки (láduški) is the plural of ла́душка (láduška), a diminutive of ла́да (láda): since it is obsolete and because of the hand game, the folk-etymological association is natural, but morphologically ладушки (laduški) is not derivable from ладонь (ladonʹ).
There are cases like тво́рог (tvórog), however, when the vowel was incorrectly restored in speech as well – it was never accented in the original paradigm, so again, no clues. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)