Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dvьrь



I sugguest to move this page to since you can find this form in Derksen (128) and ЭССЯ (5-171), and remove text "(plural only)". --Useigor (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support that. What confuses me is how far we are supposed to go with reconstructions. Since everything is reconstructed anyway, why can't we reconstruct the singular of a plural-only word? After all, we can't know for sure that the singular was not used. --WikiTiki89 23:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the singular is not attested anywhere, then it's unlikely that it existed. —CodeCat 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's likely that it existed at some point; we just don't know when it died out. But in this case, the singular is used in Russian and, according to Useigor, the reconstruction is attested in the two dictionaries he mentioned above. I just checked Derksen and it gives dvьrь as a singular in OCS, as does Vasmer, which gives . --WikiTiki89 01:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even so, it leaves one question open. If the plural means door, what does the singular mean? It can't also be "door" because then people wouldn't have decided to use the plural. —CodeCat 01:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem. Even in English, "doors" can be used to refer to what others would refer to as "a door". Another example of this is "keys", which is very often used even in cases where it is known that there is only one key. --WikiTiki89 01:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you give me source where is written that plural means door in Proto-Slavic? Unfortunately this article has no source. According to Derksen singular means "door". —Useigor (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, i got a theory. Look at images. So in first case dvьri is space that is closed by 2 "boards". And in second dvьrь is "board" that closes space. —Useigor (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first one is usually "doors" but sometimes "door" in English, while second one is almost always "door". I would think that there could have been a similar scenario for the ancient Slavs. --WikiTiki89 14:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging native Slavic speakers. —CodeCat 15:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none of us are native Proto-Slavic speakers. --WikiTiki89 15:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * двьрь was attested in Old Church Slavonic, Old Russian and Russian Church Slavonic, together with derivations such as двьрьникъ. It's suboptimal to argue that those, along with Russian дверь are back-formations from plural. SC is a Church Slavonicism ( with vocalized jer is already attested in Codex Suprasliensis) - the real reflex is  (singular) which is now obsolete/archaic. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, i'm gonna rename this page after 1 day. —Useigor (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why wait? --WikiTiki89 17:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just hope that other 2/3 of pinged users will say something. But i'm not sure that they will be against. Ok, i rename it now. —Useigor (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, you already did it for me. :D —Useigor (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the change. Not much too add for me. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Could you create an entry for (the form Ivan is speaking of above)? Per utramque cavernam 23:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Per utramque cavernam 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Glagolitic form of двьри
What's the Glagolitic spelling of ? Even if singular is attested, the plural must have been more common. Can Cyrillic be converted to Glagolitic or vice versa? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they don't quite map one-to-one. The letter that represents ě also represents ja. In Cyrillic, sometimes ě stands for ja also, but there's also a separate leter ꙗ for it, which is missing from Glagolitic. —CodeCat 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's possible to convert one-to-one from Cyrillic to Glagolitic. We could do this programmatically, if we agree to it. Benwing2 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should, if there is no ambiguity - or maybe the conversion should restrict to such cases. I also think that CFI should be relaxed for Old Church Slavonic - only one script's citation should suffice and only one citation, not three. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I think we already make exceptions for low-resource languages, and a language like OCS with a limited corpus surely applies. Note that in reality many of the forms listed in the standard sources are hypothetical (e.g. the infinitive isn't attested but various other forms are and it's clear what the infinitive would have been), but aren't usually identified as such, and are always given in Cyrillic regardless of the original script. Benwing2 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)