Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/derti

Long vowel

@Benwing2 Any idea why the e is long here? It's not originally a long vowel. —CodeCat 14:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been putting long marks on pre-tonic er, el, or, ol in words with accent paradigm b because they are clearly reflected with a long vowel in Czech, Slovak and probably Polish and Sorbian, whereas similar words with accent paradigm c (where Dybo's law didn't apply) have a short vowel in the same languages. Compare *bōrzdà (accent paradigm b) vs. *bordà (accent paradigm c). In reality the metathesis of liquid diphthongs occurred before Dybo's law and pretonic shortening, and the liquid diphthongs that we include in our Proto-Slavic reconstructions are merely shorthand for the various metathesized versions. Serbo-Croatian doesn't reflect the difference so clearly; I think this may be due to analogy, as there are other cases where Serbo-Croatian also has unexpected long vowels due to analogy (per Kortlandt). Note that Derksen doesn't include such a long vowel. Benwing2 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

So ēr is just a shorthand for what was really already rě̄? I guess this is the problem of applying laws like Dybo to a language that was no longer unified. —CodeCat 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Benwing2 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Verification request?

@Gnosandes, what exactly bothers you? The accent paradigm? I see that Olander and Derksen don't agree whether it's AP b (Derksen) or AP c (Olander). I suppose this is case of what Derksen calls Balto-Slavic metatony.

Formally, the ablaut could also be questionable, however, there are other parallels such as Proto-Slavic *tęti (pres. stem *tьn-), Proto-Slavic *biti (pres. stem *bьj-), which demonstrate that it was a natural process in Balto-Slavic when processing athematic PIE roots.

Other than that, I don't see problems with the descendants:

• South Slavic: *derti > *drěti (eR-metathesis) > SCr. дриjети, Sl. drẹti
• West Slavic: *derti > pre-Pl. *drʲetʲi > drzeć / pre-Cz-Slk. *drʲětʲi > Cz. dřít, Slk. drieť

90.194.209.129 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@90.194.209.129, @Rua, @Benwing2, In my opinion, there is no reason to reconstruct the accent paradigm b, as Rick Derksen does. You correctly put the accent in the Balto-Slavic form *der(ˀ)téi, but did not take into account that the accent paradigm b would not allow you to do this. Since the accent paradigm b is derived from the Balto-Slavic immobility (fixed accent), from Dybo's law.

In fact, you should refer to the data of the Old Russian language: дра́ти (dráti), не́ дралъ (né dralŭ), по́дралъ (pódralŭ), со́дралъ (sódralŭ) – accent paradigm c [Zaliznjak 2014, p. 278].

I don't see any sense in "Derksen's metatony" either in a long vowel.

*dь̏rǫ, *dertì – accent paradigm c, as well as *dȅrǫ, *dьràti (and *mь̏rǫ, *mertì) – accent paradigm c [Nikolaev 2014], [Nikolaev 2019], [Jasanoff 2017], [Olander 2001] .

Gnosandes (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: Add also M. Villanueva Svensson to the list of scholars advocating for AP c. I quoted him for the BSl accent on the ending. He points out, though, that the reconstruction is "problematic" and refers to Praust 2000: Altindisch dr̥- / dr̥̄-: seṭ oder aniṭ? See footnote 9 (p. 304) in his paper on molō-type verbs in Balto-Slavic. 5.150.99.73 10:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Accordingly, you need to remove the long vowel and change the accent paradigm. However, there is no problem. This is a re-decomposition of the BS stem. Gnosandes (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January 2020

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/derti

There is an opportunity to revise the accent paradigm and the long vowel. Gnosandes (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)