Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/sěverъ


 * Dybo does not reconstruct 🇨🇬 (it should be *śjā́ˀweras even if it was correct), rather he only refers to a dynamic root 🇨🇬. 🇨🇬 would have yielded **šěverъ even under Zubatý's analysis (I'm not sure if he had ever formulated a law, as Dybo claims, rather he only postulated that *j frontens back vowels). Moreover, 🇨🇬 exhibits short -ia-, not long -io- < BSl *-jā́-.

I think it's better not to reconstruct Balto-Slavic forms when Slavic and Baltic cognates don't agree, since we still don't know what sort of ablauting Balto-Slavic inherited from PIE. Just give the PIE reconstructions.

PS Do you know what is meant with these "баритонированной акцентной парадигмы", etc.? I struggle to translate them into the Western notation. 90.196.180.211 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be superfluous to reconstruct the Balto-Slavic form. However, I was not going to explain the Lithuanian form. You could see this for themselves. On account of Zubatý: the Moscow school does not like the term "law", it is most likely a side name. But I agree with you, let's not do this. At the same time, this *ˀ is a very controversial thing.
 * "баритонированной акцентной парадигмы" — taken out of context.
 * accent paradigm a — the barytone? (barytonity?) accent paradigm, fixed accent on the basis of all word forms, and the root is marked with a dominant valence;
 * accent paradigm b — the oxytone? (oxytonity?) accent paradigm, fixed accent on inflection in all word forms, and the root is marked with a dominant valence;
 * accent paradigm c — the mobile accent paradigm, and the root is marked with a recessive valence;
 * accent paradigm d — the mixed accent paradigm, part of accent paradigm b. Gnosandes (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. This classification, however, only works for Slavic. What about the PIE classification? PIE (at least according to the Erlangen model) have 3 different dynamic types for polysyllabic words. I guess I need to read the whole paper to understand what Dybo talks about. Did you find his reconstruction in this paper? There, Dybo discusses Balto-Slavic and Germanic parallels, so I thought he talks about Proto-Indo-European reconstructions. 90.196.180.211 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes. This is called a paradigmatic accent system. The Balto-Slavic accent system is arranged in the same way as the Proto-Slavic accent system. At the same time, I think that the phonetic theory, which is also used by Wiktionary, considers Vedic Sanskrit archaic. However, this was not proved, but I was very much waiting for this proof in Jasanoff's work, but he repeated the ancient arguments again in a new wrapper. At the same time, no matter how many works I read, a small percentage of the material is discussed in the works of Olander, Jasanoff and others... When checking this, there is a problem of Balto-Slavic mobility, and the theory in the new wrapper works for two-thirds. The Indo-European system works the same way as the Balto-Slavic system thanks to valences and the Dybo's contourly algorithm (rule). Although I don't understand why you need it. :D
 * 1. Dybo (2012) Balto-Slavic accentual system, and the results of the reconstruction of Indo-European accentological
 * 2. Dybo (2000) Morphonologized paradigmatic accent systems
 * 3. Nikolaev (1993) Fundamental of Slavic accentology
 * 4. Nikolaev (2012) East Slavic reflexes of the accent paradigm d and Indo-European correspondences to the Slavic accent types of masculine nouns with o- and u-stem
 * 0.1. Oslon (2017) [Review of Jasanoff Jay H. Prehistory of Balto-Slavic Accent]
 * 0.2. Oslon (2009) [Review of T. Olander. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility]
 * 0.3. Oslon (2011) [Review of F. Kortlandt. Baltica & Balto-Slavica]
 * I think that you will understand this material. If you need it. There are many more works, as well as works by Kapović, Oslon, and others. Read. Gnosandes (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)