Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/golǫbь

, Why did you delete top3? >:o Gnosandes (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Etymology is completely misleading here. There is a reference to Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon, where it literally says that connection with Latin word is impossible. --77.35.174.82 08:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Which is a blatant lie—not by you, but by Indo-Europeanists. By you it is cherry-picking, since with sources saying the opposite we have to decide according to our lexicographic experience. Possible it is obviously, the difference between  and  is little hindrance, the word needs to come out exactly like this when borrowed. The idea that the Latin would be cognate and not borrowed from Greek is also ridiculous. With other language families than Indo-European one would not do such things. Bare linguists look at a list of words and treat inheritance as a default assumption, in spite of borrowing being more likely in certain semantic fields. Why? Because if you write a book to reconstruct Indo-European, you engage a bias. But languages don’t just inherit words for cultivated birds without difficult changes. See also the : the there ranks with the  3000 BCE, a millennium after PIE was spoken, and the dates provided there by Wikipedia seem quite generously give the earliest attempts of domestication rather than the spread of the domesticated animal, when findings become more frequent: For the Arabian camel it did not happen 4000 BCE but two or three millennia later (as we know by bones and paintings near human settlements), yet all around the term for the camel is declared Proto-Semitic. Slanted problem awareness. Fay Freak (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)