Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dvorъ


 * Your note is not correct. Although Kortlandt, unlike Illič-Svityč and the MAS, does believe that the ‘bifurcation’ of barytone and oxytone neuters is of Balto-Slavic origin, he never proposed the impossible scenario in which the barytone neuters fell together with old barytone masculina already in Proto-Balto-Slavic, because non-acute IE barytone masculina become Slavic a. p. c masculina. Cf. Kortlandt Slavic accentuation p. 46 (nom. *dvor uN ), Derksen p. 11: ‘Illič-Svityč’s law implies that barytone neuter o-stems were still distinct from masculine o-stems.’, p. 20: ‘With respect to morphology, it is important to note that the barytone neuters have a Nsg. in *-um < *-om, while the originally oxytone neuters have *-o < *-od << *-om.’ *dwórum is the correct Leiden reconstruction, and something like *du̯áran is the traditional one. Note also that the Leiden view is that IE *-om > *-um already in Balto-Slavic. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it should be from 🇨🇬 and not directly from ? Ентусиастъ (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)