Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/redьky

RFV discussion: December 2019
Controversial reconstruction. *rьdьky ~ *redьky, see: Max Vasmer. Gnosandes (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional source. —Rua (mew) 16:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what’s the point? Does not say the page title should be Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/rьdьky ~ *redьky or something like that. It is not even controversial either, like that someone would say it was *rьdьky and not *redьky, but what Vasmer said is that there actually were both forms. Ukrainian points to *rьdьky, Russian, Belarusian and Slovak to either, Polish, Sorbian, Czech and Slovene to *redьky, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian to neither. And most importantly the Germanic origin term points to *redьky. Fay Freak (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you're all Germanic. There is *rьdьky ~ *redьky! And this is your personal guess. And to show that there is an alternative reconstruction? Gnosandes (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * : What are you talking about? What do you want to achieve? To show an alternative reconstruction is possible with the header, to show an alternative form is possible with the header  . But there is little indication of a form *rьdьky, we can also omit it, the Ukrainian can well be a coincidence, as the Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian too are irregular. This has nothing to do with WT:RFV, the form under which I created is held by the literature and the related terms. Moreover, WT:RFV has nothing to do with disputing the form of reconstructed terms, since whether it existed is not disputed, only the how it existed, or the what to show. Fay Freak (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)