Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/vyšьjь
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Does it really make sense to have comparative forms of adjectives listed as separate reconstructions? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't it? For some words it's the only way to list them at all, because they have no corresponding positive form. And some adjectives also have irregular comparatives. —CodeCat 00:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exceptions are exceptions and irregular paradigms always require special treatment, but in general for regularly formed comparatives (well, this is a bit different with *-ok being dropped) it seems unnecessary to me. We might as well create separate entries for definite forms of adjectives, superlatives, participles etc. Positive, comparative and superlative forms formed a paradigm of a single lexeme and should be treated as such within a single entry. This kind of approach seems a bit too dispersive to me - the useful information is listed on several pages, when it would be more more clear to have it in one place. Surely everyone interested in Proto-Slavic *vysokъ would be interested in *vyšьjь as well, and vice versa. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But it becomes much harder to list the descendants that way. Not every language that has a descendant of *vysokъ necessarily has a descendant of *vyšьjь as well. And we may have entries in the future that link to the comparative in etymologies. —CodeCat 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but how many cases are there like that? Bulgarian will never get listed because it ditched Proto-Slavic way of forming comparatives altogether. I suspect that in most of the cases those that do have the reflex of a Proto-Slavic positive form, and have inherited Proto-Slavic comparative forming mechanism (with all it peculiarities), will have a regular reflex of the corresponding Proto-Slavic comparative as well. Regarding descendants - well they could all be listed next to each other, separated by a slash or something. Comparatives in the main namespace are usually treated as inflected forms, rather than full-blown entries, and rarely have their own etymologies (irregular paradigms are of course an exception). If we gave etymologies to nominative singular masculine comparatives (our chosen citation form, a pure culturally-induced convention), we might a well start adding etymologies to other inflected forms of the base adjective, in different grammatical genders, cases and grades... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- But it becomes much harder to list the descendants that way. Not every language that has a descendant of *vysokъ necessarily has a descendant of *vyšьjь as well. And we may have entries in the future that link to the comparative in etymologies. —CodeCat 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exceptions are exceptions and irregular paradigms always require special treatment, but in general for regularly formed comparatives (well, this is a bit different with *-ok being dropped) it seems unnecessary to me. We might as well create separate entries for definite forms of adjectives, superlatives, participles etc. Positive, comparative and superlative forms formed a paradigm of a single lexeme and should be treated as such within a single entry. This kind of approach seems a bit too dispersive to me - the useful information is listed on several pages, when it would be more more clear to have it in one place. Surely everyone interested in Proto-Slavic *vysokъ would be interested in *vyšьjь as well, and vice versa. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)