Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/-oda
PIE origin[edit]
User:Sławobóg: I have to admit this is not as straightforward non-sense as others that you add, so I own you an explanation. The d-suffixes in Greek and Latin that Matasovic talks about, even if they appear somewhere with thematic declension, originally where athematic d-stems. The origin and meaning of these consonantal stems is still unclear, but it is practically certain that the athematic stage precedes the thematic. In Balto-Slavic (as well in other branches) ancient consonantal stems were re-grammaticized and thematized, perhaps giving rise to families like *-oba, *-oda, *-oga, *-oza, etc. On this regard, it is better to leave the topic open, rather than spreading misleading hypotheses. PS In the past, I was also trying to give detail etymologies to suffixes of this sort. I've given up on this endeavour since then, but if you (or anyone else) see any controversial statement on posts that I made in the past, you have my permission to remove it. Likely best is just to give correspondences with other IE branches and to leave it there. Безименен (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here is some literature on the topic: On the origin of Latin suffixes in -d- and -es, -itis. Безименен (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still don't know what non-sense I made, but I noted that ESSJa and SP are non-sense. You can add or fix etymologies whenever you want, but I don't see why you removed Matasovic's proposition, it was not stated it must be true. Also I don't see you being upset with forged PBS words or weird PBS reconstructions like *médu. Sławobóg (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg: Read more carefully what Matasovic has written: "If this suffix is related to Slav. *-oda, we may reconstruct PIE *-h₂ed-, which was extended by *-eh₂ > *-ā in Slavic...". This is not the same as reconstructing PIE **-h₂edeh₂. Regarding Balto-Slavic: in contrast to you, I don't act as an overlord over the whole project. Unless I notice some blatant non-sense (like deriving pSl. *-ě- from nasal pBSl. *-en-), I leave it open for discussions. And by the way, *médu is one of the least weird reconstructions in the Balto-Slavic section. Inherited neuter u-stems regularly become masculine in Slavic (and are by default non-neuter in East Baltic), cf. *álu. There are significantly more dubious BSl. reconstructions than this one. Безименен (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen you could at least leave first part of the PIE suffix. And if you actually looked into sources you would read about ę : ě swap, but you rather talk about some imagined nonsense. Sławobóg (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's funny to me as always LUL Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen you could at least leave first part of the PIE suffix. And if you actually looked into sources you would read about ę : ě swap, but you rather talk about some imagined nonsense. Sławobóg (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Sławobóg: Read more carefully what Matasovic has written: "If this suffix is related to Slav. *-oda, we may reconstruct PIE *-h₂ed-, which was extended by *-eh₂ > *-ā in Slavic...". This is not the same as reconstructing PIE **-h₂edeh₂. Regarding Balto-Slavic: in contrast to you, I don't act as an overlord over the whole project. Unless I notice some blatant non-sense (like deriving pSl. *-ě- from nasal pBSl. *-en-), I leave it open for discussions. And by the way, *médu is one of the least weird reconstructions in the Balto-Slavic section. Inherited neuter u-stems regularly become masculine in Slavic (and are by default non-neuter in East Baltic), cf. *álu. There are significantly more dubious BSl. reconstructions than this one. Безименен (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)