Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/želza

See also Talk:жалеза. Per utramque cavernam 17:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have simplified the descendant section; phonetic details can be covered in the respective entries. I accidentally wrote ‘Old Russian’ since it is synonymous with ‘Old East Slavic’; for this reason it also cannot be used for XV–XVII century Russian, if it ever gets a representation here, without creating confusion. There is a term старовеликорусский ‘Old Greater Russian’, used e. g. by Zaliznyak. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * About the descendant section: all right, fair point. About the second point: is the appellation "Middle Russian" in use, by any chance? (I see a few hits on GB but I don't know if they pertain to the relevant time period) It would have the advantage of being in alignment with "Middle Armenian", "Middle English", "Middle French" and so on. Also, I'm no native speaker, but "Old Greater Russian" (or Old Great Russian?) might sound a bit pompous in English. Per utramque cavernam 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently yes, cf. 1, 2. However, the same designation is also used for the Central Russian dialects (среднерусские диалекты), cf. 3. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mh, this will need more discussion. I'll make a collective ping at the Beer Parlour or the talk page of About Russian soon. Per utramque cavernam 19:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian žljezda?
This form seems dubious. The historically regular forms ought to be žlézda and žlijézda (žlijèzda). Žljezda would contain a later shortened yat, and I don't know for what reason it might arise. No modern dictionary attests this form, the exceptions are the historical Akademijin rječnik and [https://www.google.hr/books/edition/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%D1%81%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA/dnXlAAAAMAAJ Речник с.х. књ. и нар. језика, p. 424] which contain one attestation each. I checked the first attestation, which was Josif Pančić's Зоологија (1872). I couldn't find the book online, but I found an another publication by the author: Јестаственица, where on p. 16 he also mentions 'жљезде'. However, the text is otherwise ekavian (део, после). The form might simply be an idiosyncrasy, a result of mixed dialectal influences.

If nobody disagrees, I'd remove that form. At the very least, the accent should be removed or changed into žljèzda (assuming the ě was shortened). — Phazd (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)