Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/vьśь

Dative plural, instrumental singular masculine and neuter, instrumental plural, genitive and locative plural should be vьśěmъ, vьśěmь, vьśěmi and vьśěxъ respectively, as in the older languages. Vasmer says these forms are vestiges of the former o-stem declension. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

*vьxъ vs *vьśь

@Sławobóg You moved this from *vьśь, arguing that “there was no such thing as *ś”, but there are IMO a few problems with the entry now:

1. Declension table here lists such forms as *vьśi, *vьśěmi, *vьśěmь showing that very *ś (although from 2nd regressive palatalization, not progressive – still we acknowledge it as a dia-phoneme).
2. Is the form *вьхъ (which you list as ON) attested anywhere? Sources you give have въхо (nom. neut.?) and въхъ (acc. masc.) (both clearly using hard yers).

   AFAIK *вьхъ is unexpected as the base form (but I’m not an ON expert by any means). I know there are other inflected forms like вхоу out there, I also see the nom. masc. is attested as вохь – likely a spelling for *въхе due to confusion of strong yers with full vowels, as -е would be the expected nom. masc. o-stem ending (cf. хлѣбе (xlěbe)) and not -ъ as in other Slavic. See this article – it lists (all?) attested ON forms (and argues that *vъxe was an early ON innovation and that it’s due to this hard yer there is no progressive palatalization there, and that spellings with ь are secondary after weak yers were lost; I’m not sure how sound the conclusions are).

3. We have entries like *otьcь (and not *otьkъ), despite listing *отьке (without the progressive palatalization, -е as nom. edning) as the Novgorodian reflex (from which in turn another attested Russian form descends).

So even if we want to have vьxъ we should at least list *vьśь in/near the header as an alternative reconstruction (but I’d prefer to move it back to *vьśь and note that ON form descends from earlier *vǐxas without progressive palatalization instead) and sort out the Old Novgorodian evidence.

Some other pings to people I think might have some input: @ZomBear, Useigor, Vorziblix, Fay Freak, Thadh // Silmeth ^@talk 14:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Silmethule: I actually agree with you, this seems like a baseless move: Third palatalisation is only absent in Old Novgorodian and we do note it everywhere else, so why not here? For some reason I missed the original discussion... Thadh (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: the original discussion for context. // Silmeth ^@talk 14:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You can move these back, I'm not gonna fight on that one, but that makes it problematic for West Slavic as far as I know. Sławobóg (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sławobóg: What’s problematic for West Slavic in *vьśь? // Silmeth ^@talk 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I read that it didn't exist in West Slavic, so making it Proto-Slavic makes it problematic. Derksen introduced that letter to distinguish word for "village" from "all" (?). This letter is not used by ESSJa or SP, so dating is weird, because we base our lemmas on these dictionaries. Sławobóg (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sławobóg: How “it did not exist in West Slavic”? What do you mean? *ś is just a notation we use (as does Derksen) for a phoneme (whatever its actual realization in early Slavic dialects) that in West Slavic merged with /š/ while in East and South Slavic with /s ~ sʲ/ (hence Pl. wszystko, o musze, Cz. vše, o mouše, etc. vs Ukr. все, о мусі). Hence also Polish wieś from *vьsь with *s versus wsz- from *vьś-. // Silmeth ^@talk 19:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)