Talk:Кꙑевъ

Кꙑевъ
Hi! You can't be sure that this pronunciation is valid. In addition, you do not know how to write the Old East Slavic accent system in the IPA. No need to repeat my mistakes. They were pointed out by Rua a long time ago and rightly :v Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you link to the appropriate discussion? We can guess pretty precisely that OES was a stress-system, and we know where most of the accents were located due to sound changes. And the whole point of IPA is give an idea of the reconstructed sound system, not the exact phonetics. What I'm adding is entirely in accordance with Zaliznyak and modern research as far as I know. Thadh (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't give a link to the discussion, because it was a very long time ago, I just put it in my memory that she was right in this situation, not me. Why are you sure of this? Aren't you confused by the problem of forming a categorial system from a paradigmatic system? But why didn't you take some other sound for ы or ъ? This does not accordance to either Zaliznyak or modern research. Besides, entirely. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? And it's phonemic, we use some sound to convey any sound that might be close to it because no, we don't know the exact phonetics of Old East Slavic, but that's true for most languages in the world and the fact that OES is extinct is a heads-up to readers that any IPA we give is reconstructed. Thadh (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I repeat once again that it just doesn't make sense. This is a simple speculation on phonemic in similar languages. The accent system also stops you. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The accent system has nothing to do with the pronunciation of a single word, it has to do with morphology. We don't note morphological occurences in the pronunciation section. Unless of course you mean the existance of tones in OES, in which case: That doesn't matter, it's still a type of stress and we don't know enough about it to reconstruct it. Thadh (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But how is it that the accent system has nothing to do with pronunciation? It should be added that not only morphology, but the system of this language is based on morphophonology. And, unfortunately, I have not seen any arguments in favor of such a record. Therefore, it is probably necessary to remove this misconception. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't add morphophonology to Russian pronunciation sections either, that's simply not how we do things. Thadh (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just the argument that "you can't reconstruct ancient languages", which holds no water. Vininn126 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you look at this argument. But I didn't have one. Why did you write this? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you're not making any sense, and you're advocating for the removal of something completely normal. Vininn126 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you just don't see that he is trying to give a seemingly more accurate pronunciation by choosing some phonemes and not others. And why exactly such, and not others? This move will simply confuse readers. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm giving a specific, standardised across the wiki (as per WT:AORV), approach to displaying phonemes using pre-defined symbols. No, we don't know what <ꙑ> sounded like, but it was somewhere around [ɯ]. It could be anything from [ɨ] to [ɤ] and anything in between, but /ɯ/ is the abstraction we've chosen and as long as we stick to it, no harm's done. Same goes for all other phonemes. It's a phonemic transcription, it doesn't matter which specific character we use, as long as we're consistent, which we are. If people like you cannot interpret IPA correctly, and insist on seeing phonetic notation where there isn't one, maybe they shouldn't be using the pronunciation section of these entries. Thadh (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, did you write this after the discussion, or was it your idea? Is the range from [ɯ] to [i] possible in your understanding? Why are ъ and ь closer to u and i? For example, in the The Tale of Igor's Campaign they try to display them more also o and e. Why is yat not diphthongic? For example, the tsar family of Nicholas 2 had just such a yat. Is it also in this range? And there is still a lot of incomprehensible, this construction is becoming too shaky. You have a reference to phonetics, but you don't know it. That's why it doesn't need to be used for such languages. However, with [ɡə̝̆vʌˈɾʲit̠ʲ] and /ɡovorʲitʲ/ the case is clear. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * a) yes, i-ɯ is an easy transition, happens all the time and still does. b) Early East Slavic is pre-Igor's Campaign, by then they already dropped the yers and got their full vowels when stressed. ɪ and ʊ are about in the middle of i, u and e, o, and are definitely what is reconstructed for that period. And how in heavens does Nikolaj II have anything to do with Old East Slavic?! Yes, the yat is reconstructed differently by different people, sometimes around [eː] and sometimes [æ], we've purposefully decided on the first one, but you have to choose in this scenario.
 * Now, please stop wasting everyone's time with insisting a phonemic transcription of a well-reconstructed phonological system isn't correct because the phonological representations don't fit what you personally think were the exact phones at the time. Thadh (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * However, yers have fallen optionally. In Igor's campaign they are still functional. No relation, but because of the isolation of his family, they still pronounced yat as a diphthong. In addition, the Old East Slavic language was not really such. In addition, your system turns out to be a fiction to a lesser extent. The letter reflects much better what you have. Therefore, time must be spent to remove errors. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)