Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/kotorъ

*kotorъ/*kotorъjь

Maybe this page should be renamed to kotorъ since kotorъ — is indefinite declension, and kotorъjь — definite. —Useigor (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Useigor How do we know the indefinite existed? From what is given on this page, it seems that even South Slavic have only the definite. --WikiTiki89 02:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 Why you think that indefinite didn't exist if other adjectives have indefinite declension? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic#Adjectives and http://essja.narod.ru/pg/11/f202-203.htm. —Useigor (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Useigor Because this is a determiner, not a plain adjective. It doesn't make logical sense for it to be indefinite. Of course evidence from Semitic languages shows that determiners can be marked as either definite or indefinite and still preserve their definite meaning, but lacking any attestation in Slavic languages, I would hesitate to reconstruct an indefinite form for Proto-Slavic. --WikiTiki89 14:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 I gave you link to ЭССЯ where you can find indefinite in Slavic languages. Just look at Old Church Slavonic. And could you explain me why the book does use *koterъ/*kotorъ in article "*kotorъjь/*koterъjь". —Useigor (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Useigor I did not write this book, so I cannot explain why they do anything. The only relevant example I see there is the OCS ѥтєръ (jeterŭ) (< *jeterъ), but this is a different word, a pronoun meaning "какой-то, некий", not a determiner. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 i meant OCS которъ (kotorŭ), you can find it on 201 page. —Useigor (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Useigor Well forgive me for only looking at the pages you linked to. I guess you're right, OCS did have которъ (kotorŭ). I still think that by itself that's not enough for a reconstruction (it could have been a back-formation), but I'm willing to ask for other people's opinions. @Atitarev, CodeCat, Ivan Štambuk, Vahagn Petrosyan What do you guys think? --WikiTiki89 19:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with syntax - interrogative vs. relative clause usage. OCS attestations need to be inspected. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've googled this paper which claims (footnote 2): In nearly all Sl. dialects the word got extended with -jь at an early time and is ths declined as a 'long' adjective". There is no problem then in lemmatizing as *kotorъ with a note explaining which form derives from what. According to that paper, anyway, most of the reflexes are not from either lol. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems that nobody is against so after 1 day i will rename this page. I think we have enough reasons. By the way, Derksen used *koterъ; *kotorъ in his dictionary (240 page). Anyway anybody can turn back the changes. —Useigor (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with the relocation. We also need to expand the scholarly commentary as well, per the abovelinked paper and the discussion in ESSJa. That it much more important content than the plain reconstructions themselves (which don't really tell anything), and is sorely missing in many articles. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ivan that we need to include more commentary in our reconstructed entries. --WikiTiki89 17:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• One more thing - since the form *koterъ is etymologically the more "correct" one I think that it should be the default one. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaming back to *kotorъjь:

• Form Old Church Slavonic которъ (kotorŭ) (mentioned in ESSJa) is absent in SS and SJS. Therefore form Proto-Slavic *kotorъ lacks direct descendants.
• Per SS entry, synonymous Old Church Slavonic кꙑи (kyi) / коѥ (koje) / каꙗ (kaja) has no indefinite form as well. And i think, its indefinitive form is dubious, it be reconstructed in 2 ways:
  1. remove -и (column кꙑи in the table)
  2. conform to тъ:
     1. Inflection of къто = къжьдо (kŭžĭdo)/къжде (kŭžde) [attested 84 times, per SS], кꙑи = кꙑижьдо (kyižĭdo)/кꙑижьде (kyižĭde) [12 Supr + 1 Ryl].
     2. *tъjь can be reconstructed and possibly its inflection ≠ *tъ - *jь: 1) It is present in *tъjьdьnь, at least in Nominative. 2) SJS (entry тъ) mentions that it exists in Nominative and Accusative, and it matches inflection of кꙑи (masculine: +Nsg, +Asg, +Npl, +Apl; feminine: +Nsg, ?, +Npl, +Apl; neuter: ?, ?, +Npl, +Apl).

Case	тъ	къто	кꙑи		и-же
N	тъ/то	къ-то	къ/ко-	-и/-ѥ	и/ѥ
A	тъ/то	кого	къ/ко-	-и/-ѥ	и/ѥ
G	того	кого	ко-	-ѥго	ѥго
L	томь	комь	ко-	-ѥмь	ѥмь
D	томоу	комоу	ко-	-ѥмоу	ѥмоу
I	тѣмь	цѣмь	къ-	-имь	имь

—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)