Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/ablъko


 * ablъka is South-Slavic only, and *ablъkъ has reflexes only in Old East Slavic, dialectal Russian and Belarusian, so it's best to have this lemmatized on a single page on the most widespread (and original?) form - *ablъko. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Old East Slavic я
OES я is not transliterated correctly, so I assume ꙗ or something else should be used instead? --Vahag (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Prothetic (j) and alternative variants
Why where they removed from the headword line? According to About Proto-Slavic: Optionally provide them in the  parameter of the headword-line template as (j) or (v).

The entry still has declension tables for other variants than the title, and they were marked as different grammatical gender (information now lost), so it’d make sense to include them in the head. Also, every descendant other than OCS has prothetic j-. // Silmeth @talk 15:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , it only says about jь-, vъ and vy-. You can add alternative reconstruction if you know the dictionary that writes "*jablъko". —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , nope. It says that j is compulsory before ь (“Always include prothetic *j- before *ь- and prothetic *v- before *ъ- and *y-” – both in page name, and in headword line), that in other cases they shouldn’t appear in page names (“Otherwise, don't write any other prothetic consonants in page names”), and that in other cases you may add it in parentheses (as (j)) in headword line (“Optionally provide them in the  parameter of the headword-line template as (j) or (v)”). So (j)ablъko, (j)ablъka, (j)ablъkъ were agreeing with the rules. You can find similar cases in entries, , although counterexamples would be ,   // Silmeth @talk 12:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)