Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dupl̥ce

l̥

@ZomBear: Take a look at this word, what do you think about it? ɶLerman (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ɶLerman I think it needs to be renamed to *duplьce. ZomBear (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ZomBear: Why? ɶLerman (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ɶLerman the only reason: it's because, I don't see here, that the use of *l̥, *r̥, *n̥ is valid in entries for Proto-Slavic on Wiktionary. Or I'm wrong? ZomBear (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ZomBear: OK, try changing it and we'll look at the behavior of the template. I hope you know what accent paradigm to use here. ɶLerman (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ZomBear: Wow, I liked that you found a book that had these wordforms in it :) ɶLerman (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ɶLerman чувак, прекращай подъёбывать) Yes I knew that you took them from the book Dybo (2000) when you created *dupl̥ce, *stьkl̥ce, *vesl̥ce, *rebr̥ce, *vědr̥ce, *stegn̥ce. I am a kind of countryman V. Dybo... I was born 50 km from the place where he was born. ZomBear (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ZomBear: Hahaha, nice. Then you will need Template:R:sla:Dybo:1974‒1975. ɶLerman (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: The syllabization of -ьR/Rь- into -R̥- are post proto-Slavic developments. In Bulgarian, even the clusters -rǫ-, -lǫ- got syllabized within those dialects in which *ǫ > *ɤ (cf. Bulgarian гърда (gǎrda), кълбо (kǎlbo) < *gr̥da, *kl̥bo < Proto-Slavic *grǫda, *klǫbo). On this account, it could be presumed that the aforementioned syllabization happened around late Antiquity at earliest, not within Proto-Slavic. 2A00:23C7:9C97:8201:2458:C7A4:6CCC:11C3 14:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@2A00:23C7:9C97:8201:2458:C7A4:6CCC:11C3: I refuse to consider your system without accent systems. ɶLerman (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)