Talk:хаш

Guessing
Way too many improvements to revert but, if the source is explaining that qas is the modern form, shouldn't that also involve "correcting" the etymology from calling it the Classical Mongolian form of the word? Is there some second source that the form with -š- developed out of a form with -s-? or is it simply better to remove that entirely from the entry given that it seems to be the alternate form of хас? — LlywelynII  10:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @LlywelynII If you look, the Classical form (apparently) uses a different form for the final s. I don't know why that is, since it was already there in the entry, and it may be bullshit since it's common for the Classical spelling to be exactly the same, since was written comparatively recently. We've talked about merging it into Mongolian (and it probably should be, with labels where appropriate), but nothing has come of it yet.
 * In terms of the sound change, see my reply at Talk:Или for context on why it's difficult to know without hard evidence. It's very possible that the spelling divergence only emerged with Cyrillic, since dialectal pronunciation differences aren't reflected in CM (which was the point, since it was a koine). However, it's not impossible there were multiple spellings in CM as well, for whatever reason (e.g. if they're cognate borrowings from different languages). Theknightwho (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of the sound change, see my reply at Talk:Или for context on why it's difficult to know without hard evidence. It's very possible that the spelling divergence only emerged with Cyrillic, since dialectal pronunciation differences aren't reflected in CM (which was the point, since it was a koine). However, it's not impossible there were multiple spellings in CM as well, for whatever reason (e.g. if they're cognate borrowings from different languages). Theknightwho (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)