Talk:pętla

Hi. This etymology is at odds with the one found at 🇨🇬. Are the two words actually unrelated? Per utramque cavernam 14:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Polish ę is from contamination with unrelated (🇨🇬), per Vasmer. With the old vocalism, petlica is attested. Guldrelokk (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the current etymology at is wrong? And what is that  word? Is it an alternative form of or a mistake for ? Per utramque cavernam 08:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another thing: is a plurale tantum, or does  exist? Vasmer entry for this word is at пу́то:
 * Per utramque cavernam 10:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The current etymology references A. Brückner’s old etymological dictionary of Polish, who seemed to believe that pętla/петля and pęto/путо are in fact related, but Vasmer discards this theory as implausible contra its advocates: ‘Недопустима исконнослав. этимология из *pętьl-, вопреки Соболевскому (Лекции 82), Преобр. (II, 52), Младенову (420)’.
 * Pęta is listed in Brückner on the same page as a variant of pęto.
 * In the standard and common language is a plurale tantum, while in dialects there is a singular . In Vasmer’s dictionary entry headers often reflect dialectal or archaic forms and spellings when they are more original. Guldrelokk (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Our entry says is a feminine; even though it could be, it's actually a neuter then, right? Per utramque cavernam 00:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably. Russian pluralia tantum are actually genderless, that is purely etymological information. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it’s tied with declension. пу́та would be ‘neuter’. Dahl has both пу́та and пу́ты. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops, yes, of course. Per utramque cavernam 01:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops, yes, of course. Per utramque cavernam 01:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)