. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Are there any sources that actually reconstruct Lpl -asъ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- It's actually attested in Old Czech. Ronald Kim says in his paper:
- "The operation of this sound change (the famous “ruki-rule”,also known from Indo-Iranian) is consistent in Slavic, where it accounts for alternations such as locative pl. o-stem *-ěxŭ, i-stem *-ĭxŭ, u-stem *-ŭxŭ vs. ā-stem *-asŭ (Old Czech -as; replaced elsewhere by *-axŭ) < *-oy-su, *-i-su, *-u-su, *-eh₂-su, "
- —CodeCat 12:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Interesting, but I couldn't find anything about it anywhere else. It is very doubtful that it was simultaneously lost everywhere in post-Common-Slavic times except in some Old Czech dialects. Perhaps it would be best to list both *-asъ and -axъ ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- It's very likely that both endings existed, as this was the only example remaining of -s- in the locative plural, and the locative plural isn't a very frequently used form anyway. If you look at modern Slavic languages for example, they all seem to have more or less the same endings in the oblique plural cases, it's only the singular endings that differ much. So this was a straggler already in Proto-Slavic that managed to hang on for a bit until it was levelled out finally. —CodeCat 20:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I'm still suspicious because he doesn't list any sources. If true, this is a major finding, and plenty of books will need to be updated. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The i/ja stems are missing from the module currently. —CodeCat 23:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Which nouns belong to i/ja-stem? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oh you meant those in -i, I thought this was some new other category. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- They're the nouns with -i in the nominative/vocative, and -ja- + ending elsewhere. —CodeCat 00:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- But vocative singular is *-je?! Also, special support is needed for those ending in *-ti, and *-di, because these would then change to *-ť- and *-ď- --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- There is a function for iotation in Module:sla-common which could be used for this. And the vocative singular -je is the regular outcome of Balto-Slavic -ja; it's found in OCS too. —CodeCat 11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- There are currently only for palatalizations but I will add one for iotation as well. But you wrote -i in the vocative? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I thought the vocative would have -i as well, but it was -je in OCS so that needs to be changed. And I thought there was a function for iotation already... —CodeCat 14:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dersken in EDoftSIL classifies these nouns as "ī (a)" in the headword. Perhaps they should be categorized in a separate category from much more numerous "normal" soft a-stems? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- We can do that, but probably as a subcategory? —CodeCat 11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Sounds reasonable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, CodeCat, could we use the parameters module to clean up the input for this? I would do it myself, but it would take me a little while, and I know Benwing is in the process of editing the module so I don't want to merge conflict. —JohnC5 18:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @JohnC5 I'll look into it. Benwing2 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Benwing2: Don't worry, I fixed it. —JohnC5 02:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @JohnC5 Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: By the way, could you provide a mapping describing the relation of all the accent systems and how the Wiktionary version relates to them? —JohnC5 06:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK, I think the correspondence is as follows:
| Traditional accent |
Context |
Traditional (WT:ASLA) |
Leiden school (Derksen 2008) |
Wikipedia (Proto-Slavic)
|
| Old short |
original short vowel, "monosyllable" |
ȍ |
ȏ |
ȏ
|
| Old short |
original short vowel, non-"monosyllable" |
ȍ |
ȍ |
ȍ
|
| Old circumflex |
original long vowel or liquid diphthong, "monosyllable" |
ȃ, ȏr |
ȃ, ȏr |
ȃ, ȏr
|
| Old circumflex |
original long vowel or liquid diphthong, non-"monosyllable" |
ȃ, ȏr |
ȁ, ȍr |
ȁ, ȍr
|
| Old acute |
original long vowel or liquid diphthong |
a̋, őr |
à, òr |
à, òr
|
| Neoacute |
original short vowel |
ò |
ò |
õ
|
| Neoacute |
original long vowel or liquid diphthong |
ã, õr |
á, ór |
ã, õr
|
| Final accented syllable, short |
original long or short vowel |
a̍, o̍ |
à, ò |
à, ò
|
| Final accented syllable, long |
original long vowel |
o̍ |
á |
á
|
Some comments:
- Despite the apparent differences, all systems are convertible to all others if you keep in mind the differences between original short vowels (e o ь ъ), original long vowels (a i u y ě ę ǫ) and liquid diphthongs (an original short vowel + l or r, followed by a consonant). The sole exception has to do with final-accented originally-long vowels, where the traditional system admits no contrastive length distinction.
- "Monosyllable" means the word is monosyllabic when final yers (ь ъ) are ignored.
- Both the traditional and Leiden-school systems bake various assumptions into them. The entire notion of the "traditional accent" class isn't accepted by the Leiden school. The Leiden school is coherent in that it is (by its own views) supposed to represent the actual state of Late Common Slavic. The traditional notation is (according to most modern views) incoherent in that it mixes the Middle Common Slavic accents (short, circumflex, acute) with the Late Common Slavic neoacute. The Wikipedia notation compromises between the two by essentially adopting the Leiden school with the addition of special notation for the neoacute to call out its separate origin from the other accents.
- The traditional notation has 6 stressed accents while the Leiden school has only 4; the Wikipedia notation has 5.
- Old short and old circumflex are mutually exclusive, with the former occurring only on originally short vowels and the latter never occurring on such vowels. Essentially they are allophones of each other, and in the Leiden school they merge entirely.
Benwing2 (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- This is very helpful! —JohnC5 08:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Benwing2: I realize we should also probably move the accent paradigm categorization and header out of the t:sla-decl-noun code and into the mod:sla-noun code. —JohnC5 08:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Yup, it's next on my list. Benwing2 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Do you mind if I move this template over to a different number number control system than the |u= vs. |pt= system? I was thinking |n=s for just singular, |n=d for just dual, and |n=p for just plural. You will also be able to specify |n=sdp, |n=sp, and the like for other combinations. What do you think? We can even supply the aliases |num= and |number=. —JohnC5 18:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @JohnC5: That would be great. Go ahead! Benwing2 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @Benwing2: It took me a little futzing about, but I did it. —JohnC5 04:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
@CodeCat, JohnC5, Ivan Štambuk, Wikitiki89, Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wanjuscha, KoreanQuoter I implemented a first pass at adding accents. Specifically I added accents for masculine hard o-stem nouns. Hopefully I got all (or at least most) of the various cases properly. Note for example:
Some comments:
- I am following the paradigms in Proto-Slavic, which are in turn based on Verweij (1994), which in turn is based on the Leiden school. I'm sure these are at least somewhat controversial but I don't know how controversial.
- Short, long and liquid-diphthong paradigms all seem to be slightly different. In particular, I am assuming that only long vowels (not including liquid diphthongs) can take a macron in class b, and that only short vowels (also not including liquid diphthongs) can take double-grave, which otherwise turns into inverse-breve (i.e. circumflex). The former assumption is based on Derksen 2008, who has class b *borzdà "furrow" rather than #bōrzdà, where pre-tonic vowel length is expected in class b ā-stems. This assumption might be wrong; for example, *borzdà produces Chakavian brāzdȁ and Czech/Slovak brázda, in all cases with clear reflexes of pre-tonic length. What I don't know is whether the pre-tonic length appeared automatically when the liquid diphthong was resolved to ra, i.e. whether that length also appears in class c ā-stems. Compare class c *bordà "beard" (where pre-tonic length is not expected), which produces Chakavian brādȁ but Czech/Slovak brada, with the former showing pre-tonic length and the latter not. Comments?
- Wikipedia (and thus presumably Verweij) has -ъmь in the instrumental singular, whereas previously we had -omь. Which one is correct?
- Wikipedia's and Verweij's tables don't cover the vocative singular or the dual, so I leave those forms without accents unless it's obvious what the accents are (i.e. class a). Can someone help fill those in?
- I'm highly suspicious of the genitive plural form *vẽčerъ that my code generates in multi-syllable class-c nouns. I suspect this should be *večẽrъ. Comments?
Benwing2 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I don't know much about the PS accent paradigms, but the tables look good and are definitely a good idea. One problem is that ě does not display well, at least for me, when combined with other accents, but I'm not sure there is anything we could (or should) do about it. As far as the instrumental singular -ъmь vs -omь, I think it depends on the type of stem. User:CodeCat should know more. --WikiTiki89 15:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not sure about the distinction between -ъmь and -omь, but it reminds me of a similar distinction found in the 1st plural ending of verbs. Perhaps they both existed in parallel, and we should show both forms. —CodeCat 16:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
@JohnC5 On the Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/melko page, the declension table looks a bit weird because the header spills over to two lines. Can you maybe set a minimum width so this doesn't happen? (Or alternatively, shorten the words in the header, as is done in Russian noun declension tables. In that case it might make sense to use <span> to mark the abbreviations as such so that tooltips appear that explain them (and/or put a link to an appendix page that explains things, as the Russian noun declension tables do). Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- The "declension of (term)" part of the header is completely superfluous, so you can remove that and get some space back. —CodeCat 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- @JohnC5 Now the default three-number tables look too wide, can you make only the singular-only tables wider? Benwing2 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I'm hesitant to do that. At the moment it's currently set such that the columns align across numbers so the following all line up correctly:
* -ъmь in North Slavic, -omь in South Slavic.
* -ъmь in North Slavic, -omь in South Slavic.
* -ъmь in North Slavic, -omь in South Slavic.
- Let me try something else. —JohnC5 19:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Would it help to see how it's done for the PIE noun template? —CodeCat 19:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- I like the PIE noun templates. Do they scale to the size of the title when closed? I think the current solution should work for the moment, vut if you would like to implement the PIE solution, that would be nice. —JohnC5 20:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
(rescued from Template talk:sla-decl-noun-n-m)
This template needs to be amended to cater for two subtypes of the n-stem. The first includes those words ending in -y (kamy, plamy), and the second includes those words ending in -nь (dьnь, jelenь, korenь, remenь). They only differ in the nom. sg. --124.149.72.155 05:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
- It already supports both. —CodeCat 11:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 On *dъrva, I get an error from the template. I specified the stem type and gender, but it's still not able to figure it out apparently. Am I doing something wrong? —Rua (mew) 13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
- @Rua No, I think the problem is that it doesn't yet know how to handle plurale tantum nouns. I'll try to get this fixed by this evening. Benwing2 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
*bъči is v-stem but unlike other v-stems it ends with -i (I don't know if there are any other nouns like that), which means first yer in ending should be soft, genitive should be *bъčьve, instead of *bъčъve.
Nouns suffixed with *-ěninъ/*-janinъ in singular and dual are declined like hard o-stem, but in plural -inъ is removed and word is declined like masculine n-stem (see *slověninъ, *kamy). Can you add that @Benwing2? Sławobóg (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Sławobóg: Open a simple textbook on proto-Slavic phonetics and educate yourself! For someone with such a haughty and authoritative character, your knowledge on historical linguistics is quite mediocre. ju-stems in general are rendered on the surface level as -ji. Similar phonetic development happens with Early Slavic *jo > *je and *jъ > *jь. Those are some of the very first changes one learns in regard to Slavic phonology. 2A02:C7C:3848:1700:5DD3:A415:E0C:7E0D 09:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- What are you talking about again? Sławobóg (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Sławobóg: I am talking about your unfamiliarity with basic Proto-Slavic phonetics. You have a tendency to act as an expert on various topics and numerous times you've tried to enforce your opinion on controversial topics, but in the same time you don't even know that soft v-stems are supposed to end in *-i. Proto-Slavic *j not only palatalizes preceding consonants, but also i-umlauts (tautosyllabic) postcedent back vowels. The majority of those i-umlauted back vowels eventually had merged with their frontal counterparts, e.g. *jū > *jÿ > *ji (an exception is *-jaN > jöN > *-jǫ). For this reason, Early Proto-Slavic *buk-jūˀ (nom.) ~ *buk-juwes (gen.) become Late Proto-Slavic *bъči ~ *bъčьve. 2A02:C7C:3848:1700:C6F:7B0E:1843:2FB2 12:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- WTF are you talking about? I literally said genitive should be bъčьve, but module doesn't support that now. You imagined something again. Also stop saying "bla bla you know nothing" every time you respond to me, you waste space and time. Sławobóg (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, soft v-stem works. Sławobóg (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply