Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/olsь
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Rua in topic jo-stem vs i-stem
jo-stem vs i-stem[edit]
@Rua, what about *lososь (still soft o-stem on Wiktionary), from PIE *loḱs-os-, also no progressive palatalization (and it would give PSl. *ś, not *s, and in West Slavic š/sz, but it’s s/ś there)? I am not disagreeing with you, just both are jo-stems in Derksen’s dictionary and I’m trying to understand why he assigned that stem to them then (and if *lososь and perhaps other entries shouldn’t be corrected too). // Silmeth @talk 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's possible he assigned them based on what inflection is attested in the later languages. Like u-stems, masculine i-stems were very much a dying category, and tended to get absorbed into the o-stems or changed to feminine gender. However, this also means that they were more numerous in the past. A form like this that lacks both iotation and the progressive palatalisation, but nonetheless is an o-stem in the descendants, cannot have been an o-stem at the time these changes took place. This points to an original i-stem that lost its status as such later. Derksen himself reconstructs a PIE i-stem for *olsь, which means the o-stem inflection must be secondary. He apparently dates the change to Proto-Slavic times, but it's not clear whether we should. —Rua (mew) 18:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, seems like it, as the attested forms look o-stem. Perhaps we should then give both declension patterns or at least add a note that in all later attested languages these words took (j)o-stem case endings? // Silmeth @talk 21:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- How's this? —Rua (mew) 22:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, seems like it, as the attested forms look o-stem. Perhaps we should then give both declension patterns or at least add a note that in all later attested languages these words took (j)o-stem case endings? // Silmeth @talk 21:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)