Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/Xъrsъ

Disputed etymology

@Vahagn Petrosyan, @Mahagaja, @Kwékwlos (I'm not sure who else has knowledge on Slavic-Iranian contacts) check my last edit regarding the Iranian hypotheses (the one which Sławobóg has reverted) + the references on w:ru:Хорс (I don't recommend the English version, since it has been plagued by Sławobóg, too). The lunar theory is virtually limited to Polish authors and not supported by anyone else. This moron Sławobóg, however, has decided on his own that it as the only possible interpretation. I've caught him on several occasions to add utter nonsense (e.g. deriving Proto-Slavic *grěxъ from Proto-Indo-European *ǵers-, deriving pSl. root *-ě- from a BSl. nasal root, etc.), which strongly suggests his amateurish background. These transliterations in Japanese, French, English and other unrelated languages are also his doing. Nobody else provides such information under reconstructed terms (I suspect he's giving them just to show off). I can't deal with his arrogance anymore, so I'm leaving him to you. Безименен (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not my area of knowledge, but when I see things like "Paleo-Balkan" or "Thraco-Scythian", I know the etymology is probably pseudo-scientific. Vahag (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop brazenly lying Bezimenen. Such etymology for *grěxъ is given by a number of etymologists, is not my invention, and has better semantic justification. PS *-ě- can ultimately come from PBS nasal root because of the -ę- : -ě- alternation you don't know about. You literally added ǵʰ for this lemma, and it is pretty easy to debunk this (ǵʰ gives Slavic g, z or ž). And you call me amateurish or arrogant? Laughable. Sławobóg (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sławobóg: I'm listing referenced opinions, without judging them. If you have a problem with the way I presented certain hypothesis, feel free to edit it. Unlike you, I don't insist I'm impeccable. Regarding *ǵʰ-, Borissoff proposes a borrowing (it's my fault for not expressing his opinion explicitly); he doesn't claim it's directly inherited. If you strongly disagree with his theory, earn a degree in Linguistics and publish a paper arguing against it. If you happen to hate his view so much, you can delete only it. Nobody, however, has authorized you to uphold the final verdict on unresolved questions such as the current one. Wiktionary does not allow favouritism. Безименен (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wiktionary does not allow favouritism:" yes we do. We favour correct and good etymologies over incorrect and bad ones. Degrees in linguistics and published papers don't matter. Most of the field is charlatanry anyway. Vahag (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

As Vahag, Wiktionary allows that, and actually prefers that. And what you do is spamming tons of often very outdated etymologies and tons of surnames without any checking or context. That is not always helpful. Sławobóg (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan:, @Sławobóg: What are the criteria for "good and correct etymology" in the current case, though? We have a dubious deity's name, without explicitly attested meaning and function, barely mentioned in historical records, barely remembered (if at all) by modern folklore traditions, and just recently reimagined and reintroduced to the wild public by scholars. Which of these circumstances allow us to single out a correct etymology? If you haven't noticed, the current etymology leaves the impression that the provided explanation is uncontested. How come others' guesses are all fault and only Slawobog's is authoritative? If I didn't know better, I may not have even realized that there are alternative views. Безименен (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Can't speak about the current case, but don't make appeals to authority. I have a large library: for every correct etymology I can cite 10 incorrect peer-reviewed etymologies. Vahag (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: I'm trying not to, but I struggle to avoid it. As of right now, Proto-Slavic *Xъrsъ claims that Хъrsъ is "god of the Moon"; w:Khors (deity) (Wikipedia page) says it "a Slavic god of uncertain functions", and w:ru:Хорс (Russian Wiktionary) says he's "обычно соотносимое с солнцем". The reader is left with an dilemma and I don't see how Wiktionary's etymology helps to resolve it without even acknowledging it. I see two possible options (if no changes are made):

• every person jumps into the bag of worms on their own and eventually draws their own conclusion;
• the reader picks the most assertive source and trusts it (i.e. appeal to authority).

A third option is what you've done with երախայ (eraxay), however, User:Sławobóg refuses to embrace it. You've addressed the potential source of confusion and you've provided explanation. Short and clear. Безименен (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Wiki says. Wiki forces me to write bullshit as long it is popular within scientific community. I found ton of scholars who believe that *svętъ meant "strong", but that doesn't mean we should even mention that, that's absurd view. Khors being Moon God is not matter of interpretation, it is about factual accuracy, and it is explained on Wikipedia. This is why we have that definition. Get over it. There are more problematic theonyms. Using your logic, we should create PS lemma for Lada because some poorly informed (to say it nicely) scholars believe she was real goddess. Oh, you have lada on your page even as something bulgarian, i also never heard about Rod being part of the bulgarian folklore, very interesting. Until today you also had Triglav on your side. That says a lot. Sławobóg (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sławobóg: Who exactly are you to tell me how to use my SandBox? In the list that you refer, I have been systematizing supernatural entities which I have encountered in books and dictionaries. Originally, I intended to focus only on Bulgarian mythological creatures, however, over time it intrigued me to expand the scope of entries, as long as they have been discussed in relation to Bulgarian concepts. Go judge me. I am not entitled to report to you when I change my mind. Безименен (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

+ What is this logic of mine that made you think I wanted to create PSl. *Lada? Another one of your distorted assumptions? It's your speciality to add Proto-Slavic theonyms without properly addressing the intricacies of their function and origin. And no matter how much you lecture me, the issue at hand remains - your Wiktionary's entries and regularly quoted sources disagree with each other. Until you clarify these disagreements, your entries will keep prompting confusion. That has nothing to do with me. Безименен (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It just shows that you don't have even basic knowledge about topics you touch. I already had 2 edit wars on Wikipedia, I won both and I was supported by other editors, including admins. You are just another who posts whatever he find on the internet without any actual knowledge or analysis. It is getting boring. Sławobóg (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sławobóg: Do you imply that I've started an edit war? I did an edit > you reverted it > I raised a request for verification of your style of presentation. You barely commented on the issues that I've raised and just twisted my words however it suits you. 80% of your accusations towards me are result of your misconstruction of what I say (e.g. in the case of sin-related comprehension among pagan cultures). Keep going in that manner and you'll gather a mountain of edit wars in the future. Безименен (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sławobóg The wrong but popular alternative theories can be mentioned in Further reading, preferably with a rebuttal, as I did in երախայ (eraxay). If you don't, then someone – usually a Wikipedian – will eventually add it in the main section because it is in a SOURCE. Vahag (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan That is doable. Sławobóg (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)