Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/skovorda

@Fay Freak, How true is this form to be considered borrowing? What does the accentology show? Gnosandes (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: The ending -ak, -aq, -ag, also with ـَة (-a), is a telling mark for Iranian borrowings in Semitic, the same in Armenian. And in general vessel names are more often wanderworts. That there is an ur-relation up to Proto-Indo-European is implausible. That would be way before the Iron Age! It is constantly underestimated how primitive the Proto-Indo-Europeans were. Fay Freak (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, I apologize, but I don't quite understand how this relates to the etymology of this form. The accentual paradigm c clearly gives the right to judge that this form is native, not borrowed. This form has no phonological stress.^{(Jakobson 1963)} I do not understand how the Proto-Indo-Europeans relate to the period of the Proto-Slavs. That the Proto-Indo-Europeans were primitive is known from Nostratic linguistics; just look at this reduced system of consonantism and vocalism. :) Gnosandes (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know about a rule that “all Slavic words of accentual paradigm c are native”. Fay Freak (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan, Why did you cancel the edit? Gnosandes (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: because you removed a sourced and plausible etymology without explanation. --Vahag (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to intrude, but there was no source, just some references at the bottom with no indication that the etymology came from any of them. —Rua (mew) 14:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan, It doesn't look like a plausible etymology, or rather it doesn't look like an etymology at all. This is most likely some guesswork without comparison. All (Vasmer, Krylov, Shanskiy, ESSJa) etymological dictionaries are clearly in great doubt before this form. I think we should refrain and write honestly that the etymology is unknown, without any stretch. I think that the comments of the @Rua are also important. Gnosandes (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How is it “guesswork without comparison” as the comparisons are given? The Iranian and Armenian forms are comparisons, which others failed to note. Gnosandes, you might also not be aware of the phonological state of Middle Persian as distinguished from New Persian. If it now starts suk- then it before was sk-. While the borrowing process is not well documented, especially as this word probably dates to the first millenium BCE already, it is insolent to claim the etymology, that is the comparison (because whether we qualify it by a perhaps does not alter the amount of information; it is known for etymologies posited for words in old times that knowledge to make claims is limited), “doesn’t look plausible”. Fay Freak (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not guesswork. The comparisons are very compelling. The exact chain of derivation is uncertain, but that is usual with the poorly attested Iranian languages. Compare կաղապար (kałapar), certainly from Greek but with an unknown Iranian intermediary. --Vahag (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan, @Fay Freak, Judging by this reasoning, I can understand, that you are comparing the Iranian and Armenian forms, but not the Slavic form. Some discrepancies need to be explained: Why in Proto-Slavic is this form of feminine gender? Why should the Iranian suffix be discarded in this form if it is an Iranian borrowing? Why does the Proto-Slavic form have an accent paradigm (c), and not (a or b)? Borrowing in Old East Slavic сковрада́ (skovradá) gives an accent paradigm (b). While the device of the accent systems is pretty much the same. Why is this not borrowing from Proto-Slavic to ...? This superficial comparison of forms is inconclusive. It is more like pulling an owl on a globe. Gnosandes (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: Which Slavic would you expect instead, in place of a feminine? (You can also ask why the Arabic is of feminine gender, it more often does not happen with that Iranian ending.) The stress in Slavic is like the end stress in Iranian. You lay exaggerated emphasis on accent paradigms otherwise. Borrowings from Proto-Slavic into Iran would be hard. The Scythians and related people might have acquired Slavic words, while some of them spoke Iranian languages, but Slavic words hardly reached the Persians; even less so the Arabs, and assuming this is from Slavic would imply there were Slavic loanwords in Arabic in the 8th century. This gets close to the theories of Goths in Hyrcania. Fay Freak (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, Such an expectation will be more like divination. That is why I cannot expect anything. The Slavic stress, especially the one that Jacobson discovered, is not at all like Iranian. And the problem of the suffix remains. In favor of your hypothesis, I think, I can assume borrowing from an oblique stem. But this is unlikely to change anything. On hardly you can so safely say about this or that Iranian source, as you do it. It turns out a very dubious etymology. If it can be considered an etymology. Never loved like that. Gnosandes (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)