Talk:drkati

*drъgati, *dьrkati
leads me hither. too, and the page derives from. only mentions the Slovene, not Serbo-Croatian. Though both Proto-Slavic words are related you should check what is what. Also, the accent over *dь̋rkati does not adhere to WT:ASLA, no double acute there; that’s because Snoj’s notation is different from ours, to know. Can you incorporate Snoj in the Comparison of prosodic notation on WT:ASLA? The accent marks in Slovene books still confuse me. Fay Freak (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just corrected the accent mark on (I mechanically copied it from Snoj). Unfortunately, I don't know exactly what notation Snoj follows. I believe it's the academic historical one, but he may also follow notation adjusted to the modern Slovene accentology. I don't have access to the physical form of his dictionary, so I'm clueless as to which of the two cases is in place. Rua may possibly know?


 * As far as and  go, these forms are not related morphologically, despite their similar meanings.  is from  +, while  reflects , from . The later is probably related with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. I don't know who had put Slovene and Serbo-Croation  under , though. The correct descendant of  is , which also reflects . In that regard, if there is any overlapping, then it should be between  and . Bezimenen (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I just expanded the etymology of and added references. Hopefully, this helps clarifying some of the confusion. Bezimenen (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You have put *dьrgati as a related term under *dьrkati though. Probably meaning semantically related terms, or as German Wiktionary has it: Sinnverwandte Wörter. We should find an equivalent term sooner or later because people continue to put unrelated terms under “Related terms” or remove synonyms which are not wholly synonymous.
 * Doesn’t really matter who added it. Ten years ago editors didn’t have that many sources, and they often copied from HJP, which is very often very wrong. It’s one example why I value if our editors know etymologies better than the sources; while I can’t blame the HJP people for their glosses I had to remove many ridiculous derivations from them like at which they relate to  when it is just, or for  which they relate to an obscure 🇨🇬 (the heck?) and 🇨🇬 and reconstruct  when in reality it is an artificially pushed form of  and it has been formed in Serbo-Croatian from  and borrowed into the rest of South Slavic, no mysterious Proto-Slavic. And surprise, HJP relates  to . Fay Freak (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I've been able to tell, Snoj follows the traditional notation, but with a few caveats. The main one is that the forms are pre-Ivšić's law, so with final yers still accented etc. Secondly, short accented vowels, both initial and non-initial, are indicated with a double grave. —Rua (mew) 19:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * and are related in the sense that both are velar extensions of  (e.g. per ESSJa). They are not doublets, though. The only provable doublet of  is . There are other examples of -k- and -c- alternating, however, I can't think of (native) doublets with -k- and -g- alternating. Bezimenen (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)