Reconstruction talk:Proto-Balto-Slavic/álu

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/alú

@Rua, Madam, do you think, is it worth putting accent? Gnosandes (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that this was originally a consonant stem, do we know how it inflected in PBS? Was it still a consonant stem, or did it become a u-stem? —Rua (mew) 19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rua, If this form was originally a consonant stem, you can make an inflation-table template based on Kim 2002 - ine-bsl-decl-noun-cons-n

Compare please: Proto-Balto-Slavic: *medús > Old Prussian: meddo and Proto-Balto-Slavic: *alú / *alús > Old Prussian: alu ----- Gnosandes (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos Gnosandes pointed out that Old Prussian preserves the original neuter form here. Why did you move it? —Rua (mew) 18:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The declension tables have final *-s in the nom.sg., seems like a mistake. I will revert the change. Kwékwlos (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos, @Rua: I'm not sure if you did the right thing by removing the u-stem. At the same time, the Wiktionary gives a fairly late reconstruction of the Proto-Balto-Slavic language, which means that postulating a consonant stem on *-t is probably a mistake. For Kim's work is untenable in connection with dialect data and accentology for 2020. This is why we are not able to make high-quality templates. For we get quite significant discrepancies in the chronology. Gnosandes (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)