Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/olni

Why *nj when there was no palatalization? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There weren't any nouns with just -i in Slavic, or even in PIE for that matter. Only -ji/ja nouns (PIE: -ih₂ / -yéh₂-). And there certainly is palatalisation in many of the descendants, isn't there? 18:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why isn't OCS written with kamora on  then? ī-stems were almost merged with jā-stems (soft a-stems), but they preserved -ī in the nominative singular of a few nouns. The only palatalized forms that I see is dialectal Slovene  and East Slavic forms, which could easily be explained as later derivation by analogy. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The OCS form can't descend from this no matter if the original had n or nj; it's different altogether. From what I can see, the form ancestral to that word would be *alъn(j)ьji or *alъn(j)ьjь. Initial *or- gives *ra- in OCS, and initial *ol- would give *la-. So there is something else going on with the OCS form, I just don't know what. The Old East Slavic forms aren't much clearer; in all of them there is a medial syllable between the n and the ending. So this reconstruction is really far from secure either way, too many contradictions and different forms.  18:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've investigated it a bit further and seems that both Vasmer and Derksen mixed reflexes of several different forms: *olni, *olnę, *olnьjь. Proto-Slavic ī-stems were pretty much an unproductive category, so OCS is some unexplained derivative of Balto-Slavic *alni-. Regardless, lack of written kamora and plenty of reflexes that lack palatalization (whereas the presence of palatalization is something easily explainable, and the lack of is not) leave me unconvinced. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, all the West Slavic forms unambiguously reflect a ji/ja-stem *olnji or a ja-stem *olnja, and not a plain a-stem *olna or *olni with whatever stem class that is supposed to be. If it is *olni, how do you explain the unique declension class that no other noun seems to have in any Slavic or Balto-Slavic language, and which has no PIE origin either? 19:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Slovene has -nj- as well, although it extended the stem further, and I'm not sure if it could not come from *olnьjь with yer-collapse. 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just the nominative singular, it's not a separate declensional class. In Balto-Slavic they merged with jā-stems almost completely: in Lithuanian there is also, with -i in Nsg but compare e.g. Gsg -čios < PIE *-yeh₂s. It's a perfectly regular reflex of PIE ih₂-stems. In (all?) modern Slavic languages these were eliminated and moved to normal jā-stems. That shift is perfectly normal and explainable because these were a non-productive category even in Proto-Slavic.
 * What about Old Polish and Old Czech ? Old East Slavic forms with otherwise unexpected medial -и- could easily be explained as reanalyzed old NSG лани(и) with paradigmatic я/ꙗ appended. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but as far as I know, the nominative singular had developed into *-ji in Proto-Slavic by analogy with the other forms. It's hard to be sure, but Lunt's OCS grammar says the ending is -ji and not just -i. 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also a weird pair alъdii : ladii, so perhaps this medial -ъ in OCS alъnii is just to open the syllable. Except for the -ynii nouns, none of these are written with kamora according to Старославянский словарь. So this is the evidence:
 * Old Polish and Old Czech  are not palatalized AFAICS (perhaps someone more familiar with Old Polish and Old Czech orthography could shed some light on this, there appear to be some depalatalizations in Old Czech etc.)
 * OCS is not a regular reflex, could spell either alъnii or alъnji
 * Old East Slavic has plethora of forms, at least some of which (алъния, ланиꙗ) point to paradigmatic leveling to ja-stems, meaning that the noun was not originally a typical ja-stem.
 * Given that this noun is just about everywhere reconstructed as *olni, I suggest that we move it to that spelling unless some additional evidence is presented. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What should we do with the declension then? 22:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've modified the declension module so that j is automatically added in all the cases except the nominative singular. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will you move all the other i/ja stems to the forms without the j? 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there is only other noun left: and the corresponding suffix. In the meantime I came across an interesting footnote in this paper (page 15 in the document, footnote 21) which confirms that it's only the nominutive singular (of which I had some doubts). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't read it though. Can you translate? 00:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Proto-Slavic suffixal formant -y-ni. The original form of this suffix was likely PSl. *-yn-i, Gsg -ynję, with a hard consonant in the nominative singular, since this is a declensional pattern parallel to Old Indic devī (OInd. devī devyāḥ ‘goddess’, Greek μοῦσᾰ μούση ‘muse’, Goth. mawi maujōs ‘girl’, Lith. martì marčiõ ‘daughter in law’ < PIE -ih₂, -yéh₂-s, i.e. originally a proterokinetic type). Already in the Old Church Slavonic it is attested in the nominative singular a leveling of soft consonants in the entire inflectional pattern. (OCS,  ‘goddess’, ,  < PSl. *bogyni *bogyńe ‘goddess’, *nesǫti *nesǫťę ‘carrying’).
 * These "ī-stems" also appear to occur in the feminine present/perfect participles. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense, thank you. Should we add it to the source for the declension template? 11:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean ? I'd rather that we delete those once they're orphaned and the Lua version is completed and tested. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanings
Apparently this word should have two meanings: doe, see and last year, see regional. Could the second meaning be added as well, which is important for etymology? --2A00:1370:8115:53ED:D934:9CB9:1ECB:9F0F 14:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Added now. Zezen (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)