Appendix talk:Proto-Slavic adjectives

Greetings guys :-)

Today I found an excellent document about colours :-)) (http://www.cis.uni-muenchen.de/~wastl/pub/magister/SemGFWsn.pdf) It is in german language, also für mich kein problem! ;-) I'll try to add the included informations here...

As I looked to the animate characteristics section, I found some errors there: In the meanings - *dobrъ is a derivative adjective from *doba = "good time (for st.)" so the right meaning of *dobrъ should be "good" as in all the slavic languages (see Derksen's SIL or Trubačov's ESSJ). Next one *svętъ as "holy" is a OSC meaning, but originally was it something like "powerful/strong by magic". The last one is *xudъ could be "gaunt" rather than "bad". Some PIE rec. miss their suffixes: f. e. in *dobrъ: *dʰobʰ- mean only "doba", but with derivative adjective suffix "-ro" is it *dʰobʰro- "*dobrъ" :-)) The same problem is with adjective *mǫdrъ and probably similar also with *veselъ. I would like to know, what do you think about it... H.patera 14:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Proto-Slavic *dobь, *doba meant originally ("age, time"), and that meaning is still retained at least in South Slavic branch (cf. doba). I've put the exact semantic evolution that you describe already in the Etymology section of OCS entry . I do agree that already in Late PS *dobrъ started to mean "good", since that is the meaning retained in all Slavic languages, so yes - it should be changed :) It's one of those remnants from the list in Schenker's book that needs to be fixed.. Similar development is exhibited in other derivatives of *dob-, like *vъdobьnъ - Croatian, Russian etc.


 * That paper looks most interesting! I learned German for nine years in school, but all three of my teachers were drunkards so subsequently I can make out only some parts of it :( But it would be great if you could extract some valuable conclusions, and especially discuss it in the  ==Etymoloy  section of Proto-Slavic lexemes in the Appendix: namespace, or Old Church Slavonic entries already present.


 * Are you sure about *svętъ ? Baltic Cognates listed here seem to preserve the meaning "holy" (although the Latvian is borrowed from Slavic according to Derksen), so it could date even back to Balto-Slavic period? I don't know... All interpretations are, of course, welcome, and should be mentioned (non-mainstream ones cited).


 * You're also right about . The original PIE meaning appears to be "small", "bad" was only secondary development in some Slavic languages..


 * PIE roots - yes they should be cited in "extended" form, where applicable. One particular problem is that not all derivational suffixes like -or-/-ar- that were present in Balto-Slavic (Lithuanian dabar - "now" :) can be reconstructed for PIE proper.. There are some great books on PIE that "reconstruct" forms on the evidence of only one branch (usually Germanic :), and that is kinda wrong.. --Ivan Štambuk 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes that meaning has the word "doba" also in czech/slovak, but I don't agree with you, that it meant originally ("time, age"). It is the same paralell like between *goditi (sę) and *godъ ("befit" and "fitting time"). I think that *dobrъ had always the meaning ("good") and *doba ("good time to do st."). This is included in the baltic "daba" which means ("habit"). I think that the difference in meaning between slavic "dobrъ" and baltic "dabar" is caused due to independent creation of both these adjectives from the maternal word. But I agree, that in the LPS was the meaning of *doba as you say.


 * What could know in the 7th century some pagan slav about christian terms like "holy"? :-) For example the Old-Prussian language from the Baltic family hadn't this root, because Prussians refused to become christians. Their end came in the name of christianity in 13th century, when they were conquered by teutonic knights and exterminated or germanized. I'm sure also with that meaning, but don't know how it shortly express.


 * I agree with *xudъ, I found in Derksens's SIL "small, thin". You're right.


 * The main problem of PIE is, that never existed as united language. It existed only as some similar dialects. I don't think, it would be a problem to add real PIE derivative suffix -or-.. :-) H.patera 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, pagan Slavs certainly had their own gods whom they celebrated as "holy ones" :) Derksen also mentions Avestan spanta- as a possible source/cognate? Slavs where affected with contacts with Iranian tribes, out of which some religious terms can be sourced (*bogъ <? Old Persian baga-, *rajь <? Avestan rāy-), maybe this is the case too? Dunno... I think that the prose discussion about doubtful meanings should be done in prose on the appropriate pages in the Appendix: namespace (where from can link to); I've already extracted some of those from the tables here, but there's whole lotta of them left.. :)


 * "Central PIE" without Anatolian, Tocharian and Italo-Celtic branch does make some sense..but yes, it never existed as a single "language". OK, you can add the derivative suffix if you want to (just separate it from the root with hyphen). Derksen is doing that, so I guess Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi does not apply ;) --Ivan Štambuk 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The terms "holy" or "sacred" seems to me christian, and besides I'm not sure that they're right. I found in russian sources that it ment "magnificent, splendid, glorious, grand, superb, great, gorgoreous" which is for me a little bit more acceptable :-))


 * I noted, that you have had here some PIE roots with the suffix but without hyphen. I will have to add them according to derksen if possible. H.patera 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, separate them. I feel very uncomfortable seeing Derksen postulating PIE reconstructions on the basis of only (Balto-)Slavic evidence :/ The PIE roots with their basic meaning is what matters the most. --Ivan Štambuk 21:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did. Look on it please.. 62.77.101.188 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks great ;) --Ivan Štambuk 14:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian
Hmm.. some of Russian words aren't adjectives but adverbs. For example: далеко instead of далёкий. Maro 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to correct any mistakes/typos/misspellings you come across. Big lists are typically prone to these. --Ivan Štambuk 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In Russian, most adjectives have short forms in addition to the long forms. The neuter short form often is the same as the adverb. —Stephen 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)