Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/bazovъ

RFD discussion: January 2015–March 2022

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bazovъ

This page was created on the basis of an entry in the Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Languages, which in turn was created to be the etymology of Lower Sorbian bazowy (“pertaining to elder trees”). Perhaps the authors of that dictionary are unaware that Proto-Slavic ъ can sometimes surface as a in Lower Sorbian, but it can, and the etymon of the word is actually *bъzovъ, which also has an entry in the same dictionary. Alternatively, bazowy may simply have been coined in Lower Sorbian as baz + -owy, but either way, it isn't from *bazovъ. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In *bazъ and *bъzъ you can find Lower Sorbian baz. *bazъ: Lower Sorbian baz (“бузина Sambucus nigra”); *bъzъ: Lower Sorbian dial. bez, baz. First entry also gives Russian dial. бас (bas, “бузина”), Ukrainian dial. базни́к (baznýk, “сирень”), базни́к (baznýk, “собачья бузина Sambucus ebulus L, сирень Syringa vulgaris”). —Игорь Телкачь 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• @JohnC5, Angr: I'm not exactly sure what changes to make; you can resolve this as you like. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel I would be more useful in interpreting this source if I could actually read any Slavic language. CodeCat? —JohnC5 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess my preferred resolution would be to move this to Appendix:Proto-Slavic/bъzovъ, but I don't know whether Useigor would agree to that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I guess you mean this: Proto-Slavic *bъzъ > Lower Sorbian bez / baz so etymology is *bъzovъ or baz + -owy but no *bazovъ(, *bazъ?).
• In the dictionary i see this: Proto-Slavic *bazъ or *bъzъ > Lower Sorbian baz and *bazovъ > bazowy but no *bъzovъ > bazowy (at least i didn't find it there).

I don't know Lower Sorbian but judging by Slavic cognates there could be *bezowy or *bzowy from *bъzovъ. The dictionary points to *bʰeh₂ǵos > *bazъ and *bʰu₂ǵos > *bъzъ. So *bazovъ could be an alternative etymology of Lower Sorbian bazowy. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Kept by default, as after nearly 5 years we don't know what to do with it Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Kilo Lima Mike: Wrong. I moved for deletion of the noun (and merge of its descendants into *bъzъ) too because it was only created in that form to support a faulty Indo-European reconstruction, logically then this adjective gets deleted. Fay Freak (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  We need you to be an admin and delete this, FF! Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Kept by default again, after 7 years of non-caring-ness Notusbutthem (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)