Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/žigъ

Shouldn't it be *žьgъ and not *žigъ - with /*ь/ from PBSl /*e/ in accordance with Lithuanian dė̃gis (“burn scar”)? Thanks in advance. Ентусиастъ (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC) @Bezimenen:, @Gnosandes:

@Ентусиастъ: Both the Lithuanian and Slavic forms are vṛddhi-constructions, so - yes and no. On the one hand, it is certain the Slavic forms underline 0-grade (given the structure of the root *√ žeg-) but it has to have been enlonged. Hypothetical **žьgъ would have given Bulg. **жъг/жег, SCr. **žag, Sl. **žəg, which contradicts the attested data. Perhaps, *žь̄gъ would be a more pedantic reconstruction, but Wiktionary normally displays the surface form of proto-lemmas, so *žigъ is what I have given. Безименен (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bezimenen: Ясно, благодаря Ви много :)