Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/derti

Long vowel
Any idea why the e is long here? It's not originally a long vowel. —CodeCat 14:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been putting long marks on pre-tonic er, el, or, ol in words with accent paradigm b because they are clearly reflected with a long vowel in Czech, Slovak and probably Polish and Sorbian, whereas similar words with accent paradigm c (where Dybo's law didn't apply) have a short vowel in the same languages. Compare (accent paradigm b) vs.  (accent paradigm c). In reality the metathesis of liquid diphthongs occurred before Dybo's law and pretonic shortening, and the liquid diphthongs that we include in our Proto-Slavic reconstructions are merely shorthand for the various metathesized versions. Serbo-Croatian doesn't reflect the difference so clearly; I think this may be due to analogy, as there are other cases where Serbo-Croatian also has unexpected long vowels due to analogy (per Kortlandt). Note that Derksen doesn't include such a long vowel. Benwing2 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So ēr is just a shorthand for what was really already rě̄? I guess this is the problem of applying laws like Dybo to a language that was no longer unified. —CodeCat 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Benwing2 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Verification request?
, what exactly bothers you? The accent paradigm? I see that Olander and Derksen don't agree whether it's AP b (Derksen) or AP c (Olander). I suppose this is case of what Derksen calls Balto-Slavic metatony.

Formally, the ablaut could also be questionable, however, there are other parallels such as 🇨🇬 (pres. stem ), 🇨🇬 (pres. stem ), which demonstrate that it was a natural process in Balto-Slavic when processing athematic PIE roots.

Other than that, I don't see problems with the descendants: 90.194.209.129 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * South Slavic: *derti > *drěti (eR-metathesis) > SCr. дриjети, Sl. drẹti
 * West Slavic: *derti > pre-Pl. *drʲetʲi > drzeć / pre-Cz-Slk. *drʲětʲi > Cz. dřít, Slk. drieť


 * ,, , In my opinion, there is no reason to reconstruct the accent paradigm b, as Rick Derksen does. You correctly put the accent in the Balto-Slavic form , but did not take into account that the accent paradigm b would not allow you to do this. Since the accent paradigm b is derived from the Balto-Slavic immobility (fixed accent), from Dybo's law.


 * In fact, you should refer to the data of the Old Russian language:, , , – accent paradigm c [Zaliznjak 2014, p. 278].


 * I don't see any sense in "Derksen's metatony" either in a long vowel.


 * , – accent paradigm c, as well as,  (and , ) – accent paradigm c [Nikolaev 2014], [Nikolaev 2019], [Jasanoff 2017], [Olander 2001].
 * Gnosandes (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Add also M. Villanueva Svensson to the list of scholars advocating for AP c. I quoted him for the BSl accent on the ending. He points out, though, that the reconstruction is "problematic" and refers to Praust 2000: Altindisch dr̥- / dr̥̄-: seṭ oder aniṭ? See footnote 9 (p. 304) in his paper on molō-type verbs in Balto-Slavic. 5.150.99.73 10:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course. Accordingly, you need to remove the long vowel and change the accent paradigm. However, there is no problem. This is a re-decomposition of the BS stem. Gnosandes (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January 2020
There is an opportunity to revise the accent paradigm and the long vowel. Gnosandes (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)