Talk:брадатъ

, I don't understand you. I didn't find this word in the source. Perhaps this example can be fictitious. At least the Russian National Corpus does not even issue this. Gnosandes (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody understands you either. The word is in the source you link in the top right, in the determinate state so to speak . The lemma form does not need to be attested specifically. Fay Freak (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As User:Fay Freak says, it’s in the source, lemmatized under its long (‘definite’) form. There is also a source quotation given right there (‘Ефимии брадатꙑи. Прол. 143.’). Based on the lack of pleophony (полногласие) in this form ( instead of ), it must have been borrowed from South or West Slavic, probably from Old Church Slavonic like most other such words found in East Slavic. The Russian National Corpus mostly covers texts since the mid-18th Century, so it’s no surprise if an Old East Slavic word like this one isn’t found there. (If that is what you mean.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Russian National Corpus shows this word in poets. Therefore, the "бородатый" could be reinterpreted as "брадатый", for the Russian language. However, I don't see any borrowing from Old Church Slavonic to Old East Slavic. This is similar to the bilingualism of Church Ministers. With all this, Old East Slavic was divided into dialects, so there was never such a single language. It's like a phantom and a fiction. Gnosandes (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, the Corpus shows the modern Russian word, but that’s not really what we’re talking about; the RFV you added is specifically for the Old East Slavic predecessor. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘"бородатый" could be reinterpreted as "брадатый"’; they’re a classic case of linguistic doublets. Old East Slavic was divided into dialects but none of them had Proto-Slavic *TorT clusters become *TraT in inherited words AFAIK, not even Old Novogorodian. That sound change was limited to South Slavic, Czech, and Slovak. If you’re claiming it’s not a Church Slavonicism, then where (according to you) does the form come from? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am writing to you that this word was not borrowed in Old East Slavic, because it is pure Old Church Slavonic, with bilingualism in the clergy. This implies that the Russian "брадатый" was not inherited from the Old East Slavic. And I don't need to explain your metathesis of the Proto-Slavic language. Thanks. Gnosandes (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not borrowed in OES but it's neither inherited nor an OCS word as well. It's an OES derivative from a Slavonic borrowing (lack of pleophony wasn't a characteristic feature of the bookish language until perhaps 18th century). Ain92 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, Continue in the discussion? , I think you wrote it correctly, but I don't agree that this is an OES derivative. Gnosandes (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand your position, you’re saying the use of this word in OES texts is an instance of code-switching. Sure, it’s possible, but I don’t see any reason to suppose that’s the case when Church Slavonic borrowings are otherwise plentiful in OES and the word has been included in several East Slavic dictionaries compiled by experts in the field. (Also note that the attestations aren’t limited to the one given in the link in the entry; the Словарь русского языка XI-XVII вв. gives another from the 14th century.) User:Ain92’s position that it’s a derivation formed internally in OES seems plausible to me but I don’t know on what basis one can judge one way or the other. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–March 2020
--- Gnosandes (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cited. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * RFV-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)