Appendix talk:Proto-Slavic nouns

Here are the rules for adding new entries:
 * 1) Proto-Slavic forms are those of Late Proto-Slavic (not Early PSl.), aka "Common Slavic"; that is, the form reconstructed just prior to the dialectal diversification. A large number of those are in fact attested in Old Church Slavonic (those are that have L4 "Descendants" header), but there are also lots of lexemes of OCS canon that exhibit changes specific to South Slavic languages. For example, liquid metathesis ol > la didn't occur in East Slavic, and wouldn't therefore be factually wrong to say that Ukrainian  < OCS  (< PSl. golva). One of the reasons for making this list is to make a central place for such, not so rare, cases, where users could lookup both other Slavic cognates and etymology for those not mediated via (or even recoreded in) OCS.
 * 2) I've intentionally left Slovincian, Kashubian and other obscure ones. If someone wants to add entries in those too, he is free to modify the table structure (or express his wish here for others to do it in his name).
 * 3) This table is supposed to contain only the list of cognates, not translations as the Swadesh lists. Some meanings of words have over the time became archaic, some words have became archaic completely, some are rarely used (e.g. only in fine literature), and some cognates have been preserved outside standard language, in dialects. It would be good to indicate such cases with superscript: rare, archaic and dialectal . E.g. PIE *gʰrHdʰ > LPSl *gręsti ("to go") has been preserved only in Croatian nonstandard Čakavian dialect, as gresti. Lexemes of "Old" languages such as Old Polish, Old Russian (aka Old Ukranian, Old East Slavic) etc. are to be treated as archaisms.
 * 4) Some cognates have been preserved only in specific branches (e.g. only in South Slavic) - absence of cognates in other branches is to be specifically indicated with - sign. This is also valuable information, as opposed to leaving the corresponding field empty (which could mean that there could be cognate, but no one has added it yet).

Please ignore alphabetical sorting of entries for the time being, it will be taken care of once the table grows large enough to be split, or when all the LPSl. words have been added. Rules for deducing LPSl. words are simple and straightforward, so I don't think there's potential for much of dispute over them.

I'll be glad to hear any comments ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 02:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Template expansion limit reached
Apparently too many of s are used, so MediaWiki software reached it's memory limits while expanding templates. So either these calls to shoud be  subst: ed, which would enormously increase page size and ruin nice-looking table colums, or the list should be split. I was thinking on splitting by section names, both this list and the list of adjectives, and adding them as subpages of the base page. So basically I would create: Edit history would of course be preserved on this base page, but not on subpages. Beside me, other contributors so far are User:Maro and User:Stephen G. Brown. --Ivan Štambuk 11:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Agriculture and crafts
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Animals
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Body
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Household
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Landscape and seasons
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/People
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Vegetation
 * Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic nouns/Society


 * I did fix "l" to use {language} instead of {t-sect} (the latter is an optimization when there are lots of different languages, and extra overhead otherwise). But pre-expand still hits 2MB. The page is rather large, dividing it up would seem like a good idea anyway? Robert Ullmann 12:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll just wait a bit to make sure Stephen and Maro don't mind, because cut/paste method would ruin the edit history. --Ivan Štambuk 12:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting is good idea. The table is too large. Maro 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. --Ivan Štambuk 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

*barъva
farba almost certainly comes from German, Slovenian word is a Czech borrowing, and I thought that Common Slavic word for colour was *mastь ?! --Ivan Štambuk 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, but these words came from the same germanic root - *barъva is (in opinion of f.e. Grzegorz Jagodziński) Proto-Slavic borrowing from OHG "Varwe" (slavs hadn't letter 'f' >> replaced with 'b') and farba is later version of loanword. So I think, that it could be listed here. The other word for a color, that I know, is *šarъ, word of probably turkic origin. H.patera 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In Köbler's OHG database is word for color = "farawa". H.patera 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that OHG farawa > LPSL. *barъva > modern Slavic farba, which is basically identical with modern German :-) For once, there was no historical sound change /b/ > /f/ and /v/ > /b/ in South Slavic that I know of, but in German /v/ > /b/  was a regular part of High German consonant shift. I wouldn't advise inclusion of any speculative borrowings except for those that are both 1) supported by modern evidence 2) known for some time. --Ivan Štambuk 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't said that *barъva > farba; i have said that (OHG farawa > *barъva) and independent later (HG farbe > farba). If you really want to have there all precious, you could delete the "farba" forms. But this word is not only, which has this problem. For example in the animal section *bažanъ and fasan is the same, both originating from greek word "pheasant". But this is only a philosophical problem. H.patera 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know about *bažanъ, and I didn't add any South Slavic cognates to it; fazan certainly comes from German, where I even put BCS nouns as direct descendants some time ago. IMHO Grzegorz's reconstructions for Common Slavic period of *barъva and *bažanъ are completely untenable, since they are present only in one branch, only in some languages of that branch. They give absolutely zero google hits, and also on books.google.com, which makes them his personal guesswork. We can't afford to add speculative borrowings not supported in mainstream sources. I have no idea where do barva and bažant come from, but I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with farba and fazan''. --Ivan Štambuk 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To say that "Jagodziński's reconstructions" are untenable is very courageous. You should know that entire section is well-founded with a literature. http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/lingwpl/polemika.html#biblio If you want to impeach anything, start with the sources. That some words are only in one branch is not an argument, as same as zero google hits. I don't know what do you mean under the term mainstream, maybe you could tell me some definition.


 * *bažanъ and german Fasan are both descendants of greek phasianos. If it is for you a real problem, erase the descendants of "german" words starting with f-. H.patera 15:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've checked 2 etymological dictionaries for South Slavic, of Croatian and Slovenian, and they both trace fazan to late German source. Considering that in both reconstructions the change *bažanъ > fazan and *barъva > farba is not supported by any known sound laws, and that both of them can be found only on the website of some amateur Polish linguist, it would be absurd not to pose this question. "Google hits" are no arguments - as you say, but are nevertheless very good indication, as almost all the other reconstructions on these lists can be found on dozens of other places on the Web, from a few available Slavic etymological dictionaries, up to various discussion boards and college courses. Some of the sources Jagodziński cites - such as Gołąb, are known for their fallacious reconstructions, him specifically tracing every single word-inital /x/ to some "Iranian source", often not attested at all.
 * "Mainstream" means "verifiable in most relevant sources and agreed upon by most authors"; i.e. a communis opinio. These two are certainly not in that category. --Ivan Štambuk 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr Štambuk, I have never stated that *bažanъ > fazan and *barъva > farba. You should read more carefully before you share your opinions! Polish barwa and farba are two independent loans from the same German word, which has been said very clear in this discussion, so your argumentation is taken out of nothing (or out of your problems with understanding English?). And please stop using your sarcastic titles like "some amateur Polish linguist" - all my views are verifiable, not only in Gołąb. Besides, I am not "some". It is you who cannot read (or understand English). Grzegorz Jagodziński. 31.11.242.188 11:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't there for some time and it seem I will not have a lot of time now.. I'm very busy with school/work/band. Yes, you're right with *bažanъ > 'fazan' and *barъva > 'farba', but I've said it before. As I said before too, this problem between us is only philosophical, cause f.e. *bažanъ and 'fazan' are etymologically very closely related. If you want to have there inly direct descendants of "PS words", delete those which start with "f"... With the mainstream maybe, but, when you cannot see some word somewhere, you cannot say that the word is "wrong", it is logically incorrect. H.patera 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ǫže
Ukrainian віжки (pl.; sg = віжка) ‎does not belong here. This word is related to Polish wodza (much more frequently used only in plural: wodze) ‘reins’ from Proto-Slavic *vodja (the Ukrainian word contains the diminutive suffix *-ik-). See Етимологічний словник української мови, free to download in the electronic version from here.

31.11.242.188 11:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)