Talk:добрый

Etymology of this word
I noticed that this word was listed as a descendant both in Appendix:Proto-Slavic *dobrъ and добръ, Old Church Slavonic. Since Old Church Slavonic was descended from Proto-Slavic, is it fair to see that also the word was born from Proto-Slavic? Thanks. --Luixxiul 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, for most pratical purposes, OCS = Late Proto-Slavic, Macedonian South-Slavic specific developments aside (which are easy, if not trivial, to see and discard). Sensu stricto, OCS entry shouldn't really have ====Descendants==== section except for words such as popъ, and both Russian and OCS entry should be listed as descending from Late Proto-Slavic reconstruction.
 * This issue was already raised a couple of times...So far I've been removing ====Descendants==== section of OCS entries as the Appendix entries were being created. In the meantime, it's good to have them listed at least somewhere ;)
 * Another problem is that (Old) Church Slavonic was much influential on literary Slavic languages in later period, and lots of words were borrowed from it...some of which are impossible to weed out from normally inherited ones.. In both cases, Proto-Slavic is the ultimate source, and it doesn't make much of a difference saying that pop < OCS popъ < LPSl < popъ or just pop < LPSl. popъ. --Ivan Štambuk 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. So I think I understood correctly...Both Russian and OCS derived from Late Proto-Slavic. Neither of them descended from the counterpart, but OCS has influenced on Russian in abstract and literal words (because initially OCS was standardised from the dialect for missionaries?).
 * Has someone written here in wiktionary a list of the vocabulary? It would be very helpful. --Luixxiul 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You call look at Category:Old Church Slavonic language. —Stephen 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Russian was probably the most influenced by (Russian recension of) Church Slavonic, when compared to other Slavic languages and recensions in their own dialects.. As for the OCS - yes, it was first-class literary language (fact very often overlooked; contemporary vernaculars certainly didn't have in their vocabulary words such as жєстоколѣганьникъ or лъжєсъвѣдѣтєль ^_^). Up until the middle 19th century (with Vuk Karadžić's vernacular-based reform), Serbian literary language was Slavoserbian - an obscure mixture of Russian and Serbian recension of Church Slavonic, which was unintelligible to common folks. OCS and CS are not a real "spoken languages"; they're languages more in a sense "attested evidence in a set of manuscripts", which was already dialectally stratified. --Ivan Štambuk 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July 2014
Rfv-sense "(colloquial) solid". Never heard of this, and also I have not idea what sense of solid is meant. (pinging User:Stephen G. Brown as the one who added this sense). --WikiTiki89 18:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Too many years ago. I probably had some specific example in mind, but I don’t remember it now. Removed. —Stephen (Talk) 23:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at this but there are some senses and "solid" should probably be restored. The term "добрый" could also mean "good", "solid" as in "добрая половина" - "good few" (a big half), "ждал добрых два часа" - "waited for good two hours", "идти добрых десять километров" - "to go a good ten kilometres". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored the sense with a usage example. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied and withdraw the nomination. But is it really only colloquial? --WikiTiki89 02:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's colloquial. This won't be used in the formal speech/writing. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)