Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/dǫbrava
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by Gnosandes
@Fay Freak, You have not answered my question. But you apparently answered your own question with your own answer. Which I didn't need yet. I repeat. How can this relate to Proto-Slavic reconstruction? -- Gnosandes (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: It doesn’t relate to the reconstruction. You are asking the wrong question. It is not about the form but only about the meaning development; a typological comparison. The Turkish has not influenced the Proto-Slavic obviously, if only because it is later. But it shows how the meaning development is possible, as an attested example from which we can imagine a fortiori the history of a reconstructed word. It can as well confirm that the Proto-Slavic actually meant both. When I created the entry I saw the meanings of the words in the descendants of the Proto-Slavic and pondered about the meaning of the Proto-Slavic, whether it meant an oakgrove or a forest in general or both, i. e. whether one of the meanings in the descendants is posterior in all of them: the Turkish comparison put me in mind of both being probably early. Fay Freak (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak, The question is quite correct, because you are reconstructing both. A completely incomprehensible typological comparison, and even, apparently, in the opposite way. Which means it doesn't show anything yet. At the same time, your comparison is clearly based on your personal research, which is not welcome (judging by the rules). Could you provide a link to a linguistic article? -- Gnosandes (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: What you say makes absolutely no sense and you confirm again that the practices of Wiktionary have stayed incomprehensible to you. Comparisons are based on similarity and not on research. No article is needed to notice a similarity. Fay Freak (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak, Your similarities are very similar to the similarities in the Proto-Borean hypothesis. Of course, they are not convincing, and even without authoritative sources for reconstruction data. I believe that you invented and wrote it yourself, and therefore mislead people without providing a sources. You confirm your actions above. You build a flimsy structure out of your boiled porridge. Apparently the Wiktionary practice is built from this boiled porridge? :D If this is true, then I do not welcome it. Because need a source from where you got it. Because Rua has always demanded the sources I have for the reconstruction of the stress. As an example of similarity. -- Gnosandes (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: To convince about what? It is not about convincing, it is just to show. Authorities do not make historical resemblances anywhat more similar than they were before. Authoritarianism is destructive. You are the prime example of it. For one does not need to have wit for two cents to understand that oakgrove → forest in Proto-Slavic and forest → oakgrove → oak in Turkish is similar. You should stop continuing the subversion agenda of the KGB. Fay Freak (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: The Turkish parallel is a very good typological comparison. If you do not see it, you do not understand what a typological comparison is. Proto-Borean has nothing to do with it. Also, original research is not discouraged here. If people keep asking for sources from you, it means your research is not convincing. --Vahag (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Vahagn Petrosyan, Their research I don 't use Wiktionary, in my opinion it is ugly. His edit with his own research is unconvincing, and the typological comparison with Turkish is rather strained. But I don't think you should accuse me of that I supposedly do not understand what is the typological comparison. That is why I demand a link to a linguistic article that confirms his own research. @Fay Freak, What are you going JUST to show? I understand what you are showing me, but it is again unconvincingly poorly shown и для ума на два рубля. Yes, and in the opposite direction. This is a matter of faith. Well, I won't answer other suggestions, but I can call for emergency medical services for your health and the police from the KGB. :DDD Gnosandes (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: The Turkish parallel is a very good typological comparison. If you do not see it, you do not understand what a typological comparison is. Proto-Borean has nothing to do with it. Also, original research is not discouraged here. If people keep asking for sources from you, it means your research is not convincing. --Vahag (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: To convince about what? It is not about convincing, it is just to show. Authorities do not make historical resemblances anywhat more similar than they were before. Authoritarianism is destructive. You are the prime example of it. For one does not need to have wit for two cents to understand that oakgrove → forest in Proto-Slavic and forest → oakgrove → oak in Turkish is similar. You should stop continuing the subversion agenda of the KGB. Fay Freak (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak, Your similarities are very similar to the similarities in the Proto-Borean hypothesis. Of course, they are not convincing, and even without authoritative sources for reconstruction data. I believe that you invented and wrote it yourself, and therefore mislead people without providing a sources. You confirm your actions above. You build a flimsy structure out of your boiled porridge. Apparently the Wiktionary practice is built from this boiled porridge? :D If this is true, then I do not welcome it. Because need a source from where you got it. Because Rua has always demanded the sources I have for the reconstruction of the stress. As an example of similarity. -- Gnosandes (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: What you say makes absolutely no sense and you confirm again that the practices of Wiktionary have stayed incomprehensible to you. Comparisons are based on similarity and not on research. No article is needed to notice a similarity. Fay Freak (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak, The question is quite correct, because you are reconstructing both. A completely incomprehensible typological comparison, and even, apparently, in the opposite way. Which means it doesn't show anything yet. At the same time, your comparison is clearly based on your personal research, which is not welcome (judging by the rules). Could you provide a link to a linguistic article? -- Gnosandes (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fay Freak, Indeed, thank you For giving this link. However, I have a caveat to this, that Wiktionary can be a great repository of fictitious forms that will be invented by certain users. And Wiktionary itself is similar to the authoritarian regime that you wrote about. But I still have to apologize to you. Please excuse me. с: -- Gnosandes (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)