Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/bosti


 * In the 2009 edition the article is named *bostì; has it been changed?

Chakavian dialects are not written in Glagolitic; it is also not needed here, being identical to the standard form. Guldrelokk (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the reference is to the Baltic dictionary. Why? Guldrelokk (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the form is attested in this script, as I believe it is, it should be included, despite being not being standard form, archaic, etc.
 * It is a Balto-Slavic dictionary. --Victar (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * --Victar (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking more into it, it appears the standard way to display it is, which is what I've now done. In the future, please be more careful when deleting data. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The form may be attested in this script for Church Slavonic. Vernacular Chakavian was never written in Glagolitic. Vernacular Chakavian forms come from dialectologists’ works, who write them in Latin. Derksen names the works he takes his Chakavian forms from on page 34. Listing all dialectal forms that are identical to the standard one will make any entry quite long; usually it only make sense to list the divergent ones, unless the dialect is functioning relatively independently, which is not about Chakavian.
 * Derksen’s Baltic dictionary is not Balto-Slavic: it lists Baltic words with no Slavic cognates, and it doesn’t list Slavic words without Baltic cognates that must have been present throughout the intermediate stage. Here it is irrelevant, but in general it’s better to reference the Slavic dictionary in Slavic entries for consistency, and because people consulting these entries are more likely to have access to that dictionary.
 * Please stop reverting my edits unconsciously. Guldrelokk (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will revert all incorrect edits, regardless of who makes them.
 * Deleting the Vrgada form was the wrong move, regardless of what script it was or wasn't attested in, and for the record, Vrgada was written in Glagolitic as well, and is the oldest attestation of Glagolitic.
 * R:Derksen 2015 specialties and Baltic and Slavic lemms and provides reconstruction in PBS -- it is a Balto-Slavic dictionary. It is a completely appropriate dictionary to cite and changing the citation headword as foolish mistake on your part. Please do not do this again without actually referencing the cited work.
 * --Victar (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted correct edits while introducing nonsense.
 * Vernacular Vrgada Chakavian was never written in Glagolitic; the language of the oldest Glagolitic monuments is called Old Church Slavonic, listed separately here. The later forms of this language are called Church Slavonic recensions and are very different from the vernacular speech of the scribes, which doesn’t even descend from it except for the Bulgaro-Macedonian area.
 * I already apologised for changing the headword, because I expected it to reference Derksen’s Slavic dictionary. Your definition of a Balto-Slavic dictionary is incorrect, however; Derksen’s Baltic dictionary introduces evidence from other languages inasmuch as they help to explain Baltic words; would you call an English etymological dictionary an Indo-European etymological dictionary as well and reference it in a Persian entry which it lists as a cognate of some English word? Guldrelokk (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your other edit to the Persian entry, which was incorrect, and I have replied there as well. It seems you have a habit of deleting content without explaining or giving references.
 * I'm finding myself having to repeat myself, but regardless of the script, deleting the Vrgada form was incorrect. A simple search would have revealed how we standardly treat Čakavian forms.
 * It could be a book on Sino-Tibetan, it's still is a completely valid source, and a standard for sources both Baltic and Slavic reconstructions. --Victar (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * --Victar (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have also reverted an edit to which you clearly had no idea about.
 * Chakavian forms are normally referenced whenever they have an accent different from Standard Chakavian (usually an older one). When they don’t, it is needless to list them – there is no way to include them in entries either. There are many dialects that have bȍsti as bȍsti. Every Croatian city could be listed. Here, Vrgada is in no way special.
 * Guldrelokk (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely true that I'm less informed on that particular word, which is why I haven't been fighting you over it, but it would behoove you to start adding sources when you completely change an etymology.
 * That's a totally valid argument, but you could also argue that knowing the Čakavian form is important information to know on etymological grounds, as seen on . Perhaps you should start a discussion.
 * --Victar (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would equally behove you to think before reverting whether you are informed or not, and if not, ping people to ask what you’re not sure about, instead of introducing a wrong etymology, which is unreferenced as well. This is simply a matter of collaboration and good faith. I’ll reference the correct etymology.
 * I don’t really mind Chakavian forms here – I‘m just glad that a nonsensical Category:Serbo-Croatian terms needing Glagolitic script is empty. It should be deleted as well. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not introduce the etymology -- it was introduced by another editor whom I trust over you. I also did not create that category page which was created by an admin several years before this entry was added. --Victar (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t accusing you of creating the category – I was emptying it. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. With "I did not introduce the etymology -- it was introduced by another editor whom I trust over you", are you're referring to ? If you are, thanks for the confidence, but you'll be much better off trusting Guldrelokk than me in Slavic matters: he knows far more than me. All I can do is parrot Derksen and Vasmer. Per utramque cavernam 14:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. With "I did not introduce the etymology -- it was introduced by another editor whom I trust over you", are you're referring to ? If you are, thanks for the confidence, but you'll be much better off trusting Guldrelokk than me in Slavic matters: he knows far more than me. All I can do is parrot Derksen and Vasmer. Per utramque cavernam 14:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)