Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/pamętь

If a hypothetical *pōˀ-mintis existed and the *pōˀ- is not a Slavic inovation, the correct prefix should've been *pa- and not *pōˀ-. But then again, why the a in *pa-mętь was preserved, but isnt presesent in PSl *po- itself? Ентусиастъ (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Ентусиастъ: Pan-Slavic has a full-fledged prefix *pa-, that is parallel to *po-. I'm not familiar as to why or whence it developed, but it is surely not a sporadic innovation just in *pamętь. Compare Old Church Slavonic пагоуба (paguba), пажить (pažitĭ), Russian палуба (paluba), паскуда (paskuda), Bulgarian павлака (pavlaka), павит (pavit), + various kin terms where *pa- stands for in-law/adopted, etc. Безименен (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bezimenen: Аха, ясно, благодаря. Бях забравил за тия примери. :) Ентусиастъ (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)