Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/koxati

Etymology
Maybe Wiktionary should, after all, adopt a policy like Wikipedia's No Original Research, at least when it comes to etymology? Or should the public really be treated so liberally to the fruits of the deep minds of unacknowledged geniuses of historical linguistics, which may, after all, be clouded by excessive horniness? 62.73.69.121 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it original research if the authors are named? Though I added additional comparisons to illustrate their theories, once I caught up on the autistic thought loop. Else I find reconstruction bare unerotic, so you are greatly mistaken about the motivations of authors, and rather project your shame after being aroused by a sex story your horny mind concocted from this scientific writing. But I point out that Proto-Slavic culture was more orgiastic than we now admit, and neighbouring cultures were, a bit like with secluded bonobos against chimpanzees; you probably agree that outside ideologies added inhibitions, albeit after enlightenment and technological progress also broken down. Fay Freak (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're a playful one! Very nice, but still, jokes aside, this is original research. First, it's OR that you take it upon yourself to adjudicate between Machek and Boryś - and some unnamed alii, too - on the one hand, and Jacobson, on the other, and that in favour of Jacobson. This means that you are giving precedence to the less common (and, it seems, older) view just because you apparently happen to like it better. Second, the only thing that is explicitly attributed to Jacobson is the claim that there is some connection to the root for chicken; everything else that follows is not explicitly attributed to him and it is unclear what part of it is your own guesses, i.e. OR again; in fact, what you are saying here about 'adding comparisons to illustrate ... theories' sounds as if it is, in fact, your own guesses. Does anyone else but you say that *kočanъ is from the same root as *koxati and *kokošь? Or that *orzkošь is, for that matter? And even that *kočanъ means 'penis' 'across Slavic'? And that 'делать кому-то куры', clearly involving the refined French cour (for courtship), still somehow evoked, for Russians, the 'erotic' use of kur to denote a penis, which is common in South Slavic? (OK, perhaps you meant that the actual crowing bird is somehow self-evidently 'erotic' (?!) and that is what the Russians appreciated in the evocation. Not much of an improvement on the hypothesis, IMO.) If so, it should in the entry who else says it, so people know why and whether they should believe it. But even then, I doubt that this is the prevalent view, so it probably shouldn't be presented as the truth. I'm feeling too lazy to even check each Slavic etymological dictionary that I have access to on every one of these issues, but the ones I did check mostly seemed to agree with Machek and none involved your 'erotic' hypothesis. I will take on faith your assurances that your motivation in proposing such etymologies was perfectly chaste and that your intentions were honourable, but when you posit, ahem, co... roosters in the most implausible places, you shouldn't be surprised that people get ideas.--62.73.69.121 23:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why you lazy? I opened Jakobson again where I left him five years ago and yeah, all these words are likened by Jakobson, wherefore I also could resolve a few other Proto-Slavic lexicon entries than this page and adduced him at, bar , which gave you ideas, and consolidated the picture on an example of a more recent past, since historical philologists may disregard recent philology, even if it would benefit the pedagogy and confirm the knowledge of the paster past. The adjudication is barely present through the contrastive conjunction “but” and the adverbial “in fact” and irrelevant: the material presented, enabling mental reproduction of the connections, is where it’s at. If facts are blurry we turn to effect to get the most out of it. That you can readjust the picture to your liking, instead of going over a loose lump of unconnected infoscraps that adds nothing in so much as you lose the memory thereof. Admit it, without juxtaposition, a suggestion of weighing merits of versions of what happened, you would just have forgotten the details. Although I don’t know, some students were beaten by their parents so they learn the Bible verses and everything by rote, and this jihad squires them to carbonado every effortpost gaincoming their rigid rule-oriented mindset. In either case you are now capacitated to vividly report to people what outrageous thing you read the other day about Slavic etymology, because I didn’t just infodump but connected to the reader. You cannot claim I misinformed here, no matter what it is, it makes the reader smarter than what it would make if it were that which you wished it to be. Fay Freak (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)