Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňa. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňa, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňa in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňa you have here. The definition of the word Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňa will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofReconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňa, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Nostratic
Latest comment: 3 years ago37 comments3 people in discussion
@Gnosandes: Because what a typological comparison is: It shows you that if one thing happens across languages in general often, then in the case you argue the same thing happened. These language groups are not compared because they are related, but because they are language. One does not need to go full Chomsky to get use of this. History repeats itself. Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: You forget that you are comparing reconstructed languages, not live ones. Comparing the semantics of unrelated languages, and drawing far-reaching conclusions from this, has always seemed strange and unconvincing to me. Can you refer to the source? Gnosandes (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, this is just indifferent once man has the reconstruction. Will you go around and complain at every entry comparing unrelated languages? “Muh, why does ձրիակեր(jriaker) compare Russian and Persian if they are unrelated formations?”?
“Comparing the semantics of unrelated languages”, also comparing identical semantics of unrelated words, works very well, because the semantics can have worked the same even if the forms are different and unrelated.
Moreover, parallel developments, of identical meaning constellations, are also useful to argue that terms are not related, as on Talk:մարդակեր (which we could write explicitly in the mainspace).
It’s only strange because you are not good at it, and many reconstructionists are not good at it and thus don’t do it so you do not use to see it—though it would be useful—, because one only knows such comparisons if one is polyglot and has dealed with etymologies of unrelated languages, language groups and reconstructed languages. Fay Freak (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: No, I will not do this, because I do not deal with these languages. In addition, the Proto-Slavs obviously carried out slash-and-burn agriculture, so it is not entirely clear. It is also completely incomprehensible why you "dropping" the suffix. And the semantics of unrelated languages is different. In my opinion, this is speculation. This is more like the arguments of the Nostratists. “You don't understand Nostratic because you don't understand it.”. Gnosandes (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: It is very comprehensible. If you are referring to the parenthesis with *-ьňa, the compared language groups have not “dropped” it but never used it, but I note that the derivation of a word for “village” from a word for “field” by this suffix is even easier than a meaning shift of a word for “field” to “village”. Due to this suffix there is a small difference between the Semitic example and the assumed Slavic one which provides an argumentum a minore ad maius. Fay Freak (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: I don't understand anything... then why do you ignore the material of the Ukrainian language? Nothing of the kind, we even have a primary semantics difference: Ge'ez low grounds, pasture → Arabic pasture; village, hamlet... This is generally a borrowing and an essence, therefore, it is completely different. In Proto-Turkic there is also a difference in pen, fold for cattle > aul. In Proto-Slavic it is completely different. The strangest construction possible. Gnosandes (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: Ukrainian: Like some boors plant wheat or oats, others plant trees. E.g. a pine farm. Agriculture and forestry are very related. Semitic: The meaning change was not due to borrowing though, but within Arabic. The Iberian Romance are just to show that the meaning “village” prevailed in the end. Similarly to agriculture and forestry being related, pastures are also a kind of field. 16:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Okay, I don't quite understand why plant trees, because they are unrealistic to eat. And what does tree planting have to do with it? In Ukrainian, it is clearly distinguished that the forest was already ready and it is used for construction. Besides, I find a contradiction in the suffix, because we again have two meanings. But you say that the suffix, on the contrary, makes this explanation easier? If this change happened in the Arabic language, then why are you writing about the Ge'ez language? Pasture is not a ploughed field. The primary semantics are different, but you keep comparing it. It's not that the end result is a village. The fact that different peoples had different employments is obvious, but this cannot be accurate for comparing pasture and ploughed field, etc. It’s just, first of all, it’s inaccurate. And, secondly, it misleads people. Gnosandes (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: I understand completely. For I would not point out inconsistencies. But I pointed out to you that the primary meanings of the words differ. You are now making comparisons between completely different families. You never answered. Gnosandes (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: Despite differences, there is also a common ground. And you are constantly committing the fallacy of equivocation. There are comparisons and there are comparisons. Some are made to show a relation, others not. I.e. usually A is compared to B2 to show that it is related to a lost B1, but sometimes one compares the relation of C5 to D6, or even C6 to D7, to show how the relation of A5 to B6 is. Unlike you claim, no “conclusions” are reached with this juxtaposition. It is just to illustrate the likelihood of the assumed semantic change. The semantic differences may support the illustration—for this purpose, the meanings don’t have to be the same, only the structure of the constellation. You need some abstraction to grasp it. Fay Freak (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: I do not make such a mistake, I know how macrocomparativistics works, comparing what is not even proven that you also do. The typology includes various sections for studying. I don’t understand at all what relationship A, A5, B1, B2, B6, C5, C6, D6 and D7 have to the fact that the primary semantics are different? That is, “pasture” > “village” ⇔ “ploughed field” > “village”(?). You also write there about just a “field”. How is this so? You are comparing different families and shows that in one family it can be the same as in another family. What is actually wrong. What other likelihood can exist here if the primary semantics are different. Completely different families, with a difference in semantics. Abstraction is not needed here at all, I work with facts. Gnosandes (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: Have you looked at the great glosses of English field? The word is used for both ploughed fields and pastures. There is superordinate concept for both, while one can denote different kinds of fields with specific words. What were Proto-Slavic terms for “pasture” though? The current Slavic languages use artificial words for it (found at the translations section of pasture). It may be that the Proto-Slavs haven’t even usually distinguished ploughed fields and pastures, all being *poľà. Fay Freak (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: No, I didn't look at it. I know that perfectly well, but what do you mean by that? If you write this way, then I understand correctly that here you are already questioning the Proto-Slavic semantics? If this is the case, then how can different primary semantics be compared if one is unknown? If this is not the case, then how? I don't know what they called it, but if this is so, then why does it say that this is a “ploughed field”? That is, in my opinion, you have collected everything in a heap. If the “low grounds” shifts to the “village”, then this is so. If the “pasture” shifts to the “village”, then this is so. If the “pen” shifts to the “village”, etc. These are different shifts. Gnosandes (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: I don't understand why you reverted me. I simply brought up an example of the semantic shift mentioned in the previous sentence: "The reverse shift, the designation of a village from enclosed space instead of from a wide space". What I added has no place in *selo, where there has been no similar semantic shift. And I don't see what the fact that *dьrvьňa possibly is no older than the Old East Slavic stage has to do with anything; again, we're simply discussing semantics.
Also, I'm having trouble understanding you in the above discussion; maybe you could switch to Russian, in which you'll be better able to express yourself? PUC – 18:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@PUC: Do I understand correctly that this entry is not a collector of all sorts of shifts? There is no “enclosed space” semantics here. In addition, the primary semantics are different, as well as the secondary. The semantics of unrelated families are completely different. I write about this above. Gnosandes (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: Again you fail to understand what was actually told in the etymology. The “enclosed space” semantics developing the sense of a “settlement” are the mirror image of “field” or “pasture” semantics developing “settlement” senses. “Completely different” but still there is a similarity you fail to notice. There are usually things in common in very different things.
@PUC: Why did you decide that I do not notice the similarities? I write above that this is inaccurate. Therefore, this cannot be considered here. If the semantics were identical, I would agree, but I would not agree with the comparison of the semantics of unrelated families. Especially for reconstructed words, I emphasize! This is a feet of clay. There's a lot we don't know, and you've piled it all up to make it even harder to figure it out. I want to separate these things, and you, on the contrary, apparently, combine all these things without adhering to strictness. There are similarities, but why don't you pay attention to the differences? It's like making accent paradigms. So I don't think it should be compared. For there are clear differences. Gnosandes (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@PUC: You are right that nothing of his commit message makes sense. It is apparent that applying Marxist dialectics to the study of word developments clearly has made @Gnosandes a case for the loony bin, so that your additional comparison made him collapse in his cognitive dissonance with reality to the point that he had to suppress its depiction, expecting that always the opponents have to retreat and not his party. Fay Freak (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: I can probably answer if you mentioned me. I will not get personal, because I respect you. But it seems to me that Marxist dialectics and semantics are slightly different things. Here you can probably consider discrimination based on political views. Gnosandes (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Why did you undo the edit? The discussion is not over yet. We don't even know the Old East Slavic form to assume anything. We have a record of only the 16th century. And there are no more descendants. Gnosandes (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
In addition, I will add, we have a direct difference in the accent paradigm. Obscurantism and chaos.
@Gnosandes: The attestation dates have nothing to do with the validity of those comparisons (once the Proto-Slavic is posited), and I have undone your edit because of your hatstand reasoning. The accent paradigm is also without relevance to any discussion here. The chaos is in your head. Fay Freak (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: But it is only fixed by the 16th and 17th centuries, for example. Then it is probably borrowed in Polish. There may also be a fluctuation of baritone and mobile accent paradigms. And also the shift of accent from the suffix. From the 16th century, you can learn that the meaning is only “field”. In Dal's dictionary, there is the meaning of “wooden house”. And in dialects it is already “ploughed field”. And, most likely, only then it is a “village”. In Ukrainian, this is generally a “forest used for construction” (for the construction of wooden houses?). This undermines your macrocomparativistics comparison. This looks quite like a new form. Your pseudoscientific comparison can only be placed to words with the semantics of “village”. But it will not be true because of the difference in the primary semantics. And the likely shift “wooden house” > “village”. Gnosandes (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: As you seemingly have not seen yet, both meanings of an arable field and a village are quoted early in Словарь русского языка XI–XVII, while “forest used for construction” isn’t, and may be extended from the sense of an arable field, from agriculture towards silviculture, or an unrelated derivation from де́рево(dérevo). While it is difficult to derive the sense of a “village” from the sense of a “forest”. Fay Freak (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Are you referring to Vasmer's reconstructed semantics? He even cites the reconstructed Old East Slavic forms there. I've seen it, so I don't use such semantics. Derksen also believes that in Domostroj it is precisely the semantics of “field”, and, apparently, Dybo. Your guess is interesting, but untenable. You seem to be writing about Ukrainian, but at the same time you ignore Dal's data. I did not derive the sense of a “village” from the sense of a "forest". Can I please ask you to compare normally, without jerking and your assessments of me? Gnosandes (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Thank you very much for the link. I mean, Ukrainian has the meaning “forest used for construction”. From the message of 16th century, it is clearly clear that what is meant is “field”, and not “arable land”. In the 17th century, this “a cleared place for plowing”. In the 16th century, there is already a meaning of “house”, which is confirmed by Dal's data. But since the 15th century as a “village”. From this it is obvious that the transition “field” > “village” is not possible directly. But sorry, extrapolating so much data to Proto-Slavic with only one branch is very adventurous. In the Old Novgorodian, we find only the words село and городъ dating from the 12th century. In the The Tale of Igor's Campaign there is only городъ dating from the 12th century. Therefore, this may well be a new form. Gnosandes (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: You are finical over the semantic details here. They are so small that they even get lost when one tries to translate from Russian to English.
“arable land” is a hyponym of “field”. Or perhaps not. This is all vague and was vague, that’s how language works.
The assumption here is of course that this was only retained dialectally in Proto-Slavic and early East Slavic (not including Old Novgorodian?), first surfaces not in attested sources and over time spread over Russia. And the 15th century is not very far from the usual dates when Slavic words are attested, for example considering East Slavic село and городъ being found only from the 12th century (?). This basic word even spread widely into Turkic, Kazakhдеревня(derevnä), Kyrgyzдеревня(derevnya), even Yakutдэриэбинэ(deriebine)—the same should have happened within Old Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: However, if you read the source and do not invent as many as three senses, it becomes more understandable. In the first case, this is a “field” (16th century). In the second case, this is a “cleaned place for plowing” for spring and rye, which will be planted in this place, but only after the past summer (17th century). In fact, it is important to distinguish between them. If you do not want people to swell with hunger, then you will plant as it is right. There is also the senses of a “house” (16th century) and a “village” (14th century/15th century). This is more like the influence of the Mongol invasion on the payment of tribute. We have many senses and do not have the opportunity to compare with other branches of the family. But you assume that this is possible in Proto-Slavic, it is completely unclear on what grounds. There is a huge amount of data for the words село and городъ. Despite the fact that you write about “a peasant's khutor with a plot of land; settlement”. Which is some nonsense for the Proto-Slavic. From archeology, even more ancient. Wasn't this “basic word” borrowed into those languages in the 20th century? Gnosandes (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Yes? It seems to me that you have just repeated my conclusions. And yes, there is exactly a “house”, and in Dal's dictionary a “wooden house”. But not the meaning of a “houses”. The meaning of a “village” is older than the meaning of a “field”. Judging by the monument. Well, obviously, this does not allow you to draw a conclusion about a semantic shift in one direction or another. And the example with the word a “enclosure” > a “town” is the same speculation, because no attention is paid to other meanings. Gnosandes (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: I did not draw any conclusion. I just illustrated possibilities. That which you call “speculation” is hard enough for many that we exercise it for them. Fay Freak (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Fay Freak: You remind me very much of Anna Dybo, she also likes to answer. What other possibilities? If you would give something identical, I would accept it, but not in this case (the Armenian and Russian examples seem to confirm this). I think anyone will see that the semantics are different, but you continue to deny it. Of course, I understand everything, but for whom can it be hard? Do I understand correctly that we should remove the semantics of “a peasant's khutor with a plot of land”? Gnosandes (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is quite possible, though I am against this page as a single-descendant reconstruction that gives us no convenience (not always I am against single-descendant reconstructions for Proto-Slavic, since the reconstructed state is not more than half a millenium before the first writings of the individual languages, it depends on the other relations or we can say justification grounds, e.g. the derived terms make *lopъ(“leaf”) bulletproof though it is only present in Bulgarian and Macedonian (which latter is arguably an Ausbausprache of Bulgarian) and we even have some cases of alternative forms or reconstructions in Proto-Germanic with one ancient descendant where the form reflected less is preferred by some author(s); but this is all not here). One can find this, but it is too uncertain, so delete. But who taught you to put reconstructed terms to RFV, @Metaknowledge? I think it is a bad habit of Gnosandes, who infected Rua with it and now you do it too. I hereby disclaim its guise of acceptability. If no thread fits denying reconstructed terms we should create another category of requests, though it be that Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium and the requests for deletion could suffice. Perhaps we need a page “requests for substantiation of reconstructed terms” (you name it) because people are unsure where to put it, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English because it is not non-English in so far as it is about imagined languages, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others because it is not other, and requests for verification is asking for occurrence evidence, whereas Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium is too wishy-washy, so understandably you want to suggest more aggressively deletion under the condition that no evidence is proferred, which is however not the condition normally stipulated under the verification requests, therefore all the oddity. Fay Freak (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I considered sending it to RFD, which is what I believe I used to do, but considered that as I was seeking evidence rather than opinion-based votes, RFV might be the right place after all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds00:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is either a trick, expecting that the page can be deleted if nothing is done, as opposed to a RFD which would require a majority or something like that, or it neither works here because this kind of pages keeps clogging up the request threads (for the same reason, I think, as for minor languages, the fact that nothing is expected to be done if there are only few editors dealing with these languages only rarely, and everyone is absent doing more important things than trying to attest such trifles 😐, but also because one would not know what is “enough” to fulfill the request, it is always the greyzone when such an inquiry appears: some varyingly credulous or lightheaded fellow deemed the material enough and skeptics harangue it). I would be for deleting such pages right away because of being of little discernable use and uncertain, but this hope crushed at the vote against Proto-Albanian already. Wiktionary is doomed (and that is, I think, probably because not enough people are devoted). Fay Freak (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I believe we originally took these to RFDO, but I think the Etymology scriptorium is a better venue. After all, the reconstructions are an extension of the etymologies, and the criteria being weighed are of an etymological nature. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
The ES is a terrible venue for this, because when discussions there grow old, nobody deals with them. I want a decisive outcome, and (in theory) everything that enters RFV or RFD leaves it having been dealt with one way or the other. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds01:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was able to find a Belarusian reflex дзярэ́ўня(dzjaréŭnja). It's hard to confirm a Ukrainian one (which would be spelled the same way as the Russian дере́вня(derévnja)), most likely displaced everywhere with село́(seló) and if used дере́вня(derévnja) were used, it would be considered a Russianism in Ukrainian or Surzhik. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Chuck Entz: A quick update: a Ukrainian reflex also found, on top of the Belarusian one. So we have two reflexes, which should be sufficient, right? Some proof of my findings:
So as the comparisons with Latviandìrva, Lithuaniandirvà(“arable land, field”) make sense, we can keep it? A word meaning “field, namely ploughed one” + *-ьňa to give a term for “village” is semantically plausible and it formally works, while I do not necessarily agree with the further Indo-European comparisons. I have encountered other clear cases where a term that must have existed in Proto-Balto-Slavic has only East Slavic reflexes (→ *mězgyrь(“tarantula, or a kind thereof”)).
