Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/pľuťe
*pl- or *plj-?[edit]
The Balto-Slavic origin given in the etymology would result in *pl-, without any palatalisation. A palatal *plju- would require either Balto-Slavic *pjau- (< *pyew-) or *pljau- (< *plew-). —CodeCat 23:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping out with this. Derksen gave BSL *pl(j)outjo. I think we should go with BSL *pljautja from PIE *plew-t-yom, and move it under the main *plew- entry. —JohnC5 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Or perhaps we should split them into *pljuťe < *pljautja < *plew-t-yom and *pluťe < *plautja < *plow-t-yom? —JohnC5 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Completely splitting may be too much, as they are clearly just minor variants of the same word. I would suggest making *pluťe an alternative form and keeping this as the main entry. Only Serbo-Croatian and Polish appear to have descendants from that form. The distinction appears to be old, though, as Latvian has descendants of both forms too (the l-ļ distinction). I believe Lithuanian only has the ow version. —CodeCat 23:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- How do we feel about *pl(j)-? Regardless, your solution sounds reasonable; though I'm not sure I know exactly how you'd like it implemented. —JohnC5 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- How is this? —CodeCat 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I guess it makes sense. I was misreading a bit of you said. Should I also split up the Čakavian forms? —JohnC5 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I already did that with my edit. —CodeCat 00:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Should we not list the *pluťe descendants and declension in the variant entry? I love any opportunity to use a declension template. :P —JohnC5 00:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I already did that with my edit. —CodeCat 00:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I guess it makes sense. I was misreading a bit of you said. Should I also split up the Čakavian forms? —JohnC5 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- How is this? —CodeCat 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- How do we feel about *pl(j)-? Regardless, your solution sounds reasonable; though I'm not sure I know exactly how you'd like it implemented. —JohnC5 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Completely splitting may be too much, as they are clearly just minor variants of the same word. I would suggest making *pluťe an alternative form and keeping this as the main entry. Only Serbo-Croatian and Polish appear to have descendants from that form. The distinction appears to be old, though, as Latvian has descendants of both forms too (the l-ļ distinction). I believe Lithuanian only has the ow version. —CodeCat 23:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Relatedly, could we add accent stripping for Latvian? I would, but I can't find sources discussing the accent rules. —JohnC5 00:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Latvian, but I'm surprised it hasn't been added anywhere. —CodeCat 01:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm wondering whether this might be an ad hoc system used by linguists, but not normally applied to Latvian. Who are our Latvian editors? —JohnC5 01:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Descendants here[edit]
Regardless of the above, let us not duplicate them there. What for?
Also, what do you think of the relation to Slavic pluć, see its talk page? Zezen (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- They are not reduplicated. The differing Latvian forms are the clearest evidence of the separate PIE derivations. We give multiple forms all the time, especially when those forms provide etymological insight. CodeCat, thoughts? —JohnC5 21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Dersen slightly wrong[edit]
One more thing: the -ťe suffix, with the Polish -co derivative, is parallel to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/-tós, rendered into the Slavic -ty passive participle etc., so Dersen seems to be wrong in
Proto-Indo-European *plewt-, an extension of *plew-
Zezen (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the parallel? -ťe is from Balto-Slavic *-tja-, PIE *-tyo-. Not the same suffix. —CodeCat 22:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)