Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dubati

This is nonsense
There are words that can be reconstructed in spite of most or all outcomes being irregular, like high frequency words, whose irregularities are sort of constantly kept in mental cache (think to be, to do), or words that happened to sound in a way that got them adideated to different things in different languages (think kopriva/pokrzywa/крапива), but this one is over the pale. The proposed protoform should've yielded dzubać in Polish, zibat in Czech, dzubať in Slovak, жубаць in Belarussian, жубать in Russian...

It's clearly a later onomatopoeia. My guess would be that if it didn't arise independently (the similarities between languages are indeed remarkable), then it's either Polish or East Slavic & borrowed into Border Polish, then spread southward. 37.190.156.25 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the protoform is unsuitable. I think it can be *dubati, judging by cases below:
 * > >   (cp. )
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)