Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/sěverъ
@Gnosandes: Dybo does not reconstruct Proto-Balto-Slavic *śjā́weras (it should be *śjā́ˀweras even if it was correct), rather he only refers to a dynamic root Proto-Indo-European *(s)ḱyeh₂w-. Proto-Balto-Slavic *śjā́ˀweras would have yielded **šěverъ even under Zubatý's analysis (I'm not sure if he had ever formulated a law, as Dybo claims, rather he only postulated that *j frontens back vowels). Moreover, Lithuanian šiáurė exhibits short -ia-, not long -io- < BSl *-jā́-.
I think it's better not to reconstruct Balto-Slavic forms when Slavic and Baltic cognates don't agree, since we still don't know what sort of ablauting Balto-Slavic inherited from PIE. Just give the PIE reconstructions.
PS Do you know what is meant with these "баритонированной акцентной парадигмы", etc.? I struggle to translate them into the Western notation. 90.196.180.211 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @90.196.180.211 I don't think it would be superfluous to reconstruct the Balto-Slavic form. However, I was not going to explain the Lithuanian form. You could see this for themselves. On account of Zubatý: the Moscow school does not like the term "law", it is most likely a side name. But I agree with you, let's not do this. At the same time, this *ˀ is a very controversial thing.
- "баритонированной акцентной парадигмы" — taken out of context.
- accent paradigm a — the barytone? (barytonity?) accent paradigm, fixed accent on the basis of all word forms, and the root is marked with a dominant valence;
- accent paradigm b — the oxytone? (oxytonity?) accent paradigm, fixed accent on inflection in all word forms, and the root is marked with a dominant valence;
- accent paradigm c — the mobile accent paradigm, and the root is marked with a recessive valence;
- accent paradigm d — the mixed accent paradigm, part of accent paradigm b. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: Thanks for the clarification. This classification, however, only works for Slavic. What about the PIE classification? PIE (at least according to the Erlangen model) have 3 different dynamic types for polysyllabic words. I guess I need to read the whole paper to understand what Dybo talks about. Did you find his reconstruction in this paper? There, Dybo discusses Balto-Slavic and Germanic parallels, so I thought he talks about Proto-Indo-European reconstructions. 90.196.180.211 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @90.196.180.211, Yes. This is called a paradigmatic accent system. The Balto-Slavic accent system is arranged in the same way as the Proto-Slavic accent system. At the same time, I think that the phonetic theory, which is also used by Wiktionary, considers Vedic Sanskrit archaic. However, this was not proved, but I was very much waiting for this proof in Jasanoff's work, but he repeated the ancient arguments again in a new wrapper. At the same time, no matter how many works I read, a small percentage of the material is discussed in the works of Olander, Jasanoff and others... When checking this, there is a problem of Balto-Slavic mobility, and the theory in the new wrapper works for two-thirds. The Indo-European system works the same way as the Balto-Slavic system thanks to valences and the Dybo's contourly algorithm (rule). Although I don't understand why you need it. :D
- 1. Dybo (2012) Balto-Slavic accentual system, and the results of the reconstruction of Indo-European accentological
- 2. Dybo (2000) Morphonologized paradigmatic accent systems
- 3. Nikolaev (1993) Fundamental of Slavic accentology
- 4. Nikolaev (2012) East Slavic reflexes of the accent paradigm d and Indo-European correspondences to the Slavic accent types of masculine nouns with o- and u-stem
- 0.1. Oslon (2017) [Review of] Jasanoff Jay H. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent
- 0.2. Oslon (2009) [Review of] T. Olander. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility
- 0.3. Oslon (2011) [Review of] F. Kortlandt. Baltica & Balto-Slavica
- I think that you will understand this material. If you need it. There are many more works, as well as works by Kapović, Oslon, and others. Read. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @90.196.180.211, Yes. This is called a paradigmatic accent system. The Balto-Slavic accent system is arranged in the same way as the Proto-Slavic accent system. At the same time, I think that the phonetic theory, which is also used by Wiktionary, considers Vedic Sanskrit archaic. However, this was not proved, but I was very much waiting for this proof in Jasanoff's work, but he repeated the ancient arguments again in a new wrapper. At the same time, no matter how many works I read, a small percentage of the material is discussed in the works of Olander, Jasanoff and others... When checking this, there is a problem of Balto-Slavic mobility, and the theory in the new wrapper works for two-thirds. The Indo-European system works the same way as the Balto-Slavic system thanks to valences and the Dybo's contourly algorithm (rule). Although I don't understand why you need it. :D
- @Gnosandes: Thanks for the clarification. This classification, however, only works for Slavic. What about the PIE classification? PIE (at least according to the Erlangen model) have 3 different dynamic types for polysyllabic words. I guess I need to read the whole paper to understand what Dybo talks about. Did you find his reconstruction in this paper? There, Dybo discusses Balto-Slavic and Germanic parallels, so I thought he talks about Proto-Indo-European reconstructions. 90.196.180.211 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)