Latvian [[divi]]
Given the lack of a reference for the Proto-Balto-Slavic word you referenced, I reverted this back to Proto-Baltic. I'll be OK with it if you place a reference in the Proto-Balto-Slavic page (Appendix:Proto-Balto-Slavic/duwō). I also suggest following the format in Template:l/lv or Template:l/lv for citations in Latvian (and perhaps other) etymology sections. Thanks! --Pereru (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What I disagree with is removing links to the PBS pages. If they exist, why not link to them?
Because, if these pages exist but without references, they are to me as pages on words that we have no quotations for: doubtful (unless the words are commonly known). That is, to me, a reconstruction must have been proposed somewhere in order to exist and have a right to be here. (Out of curiosity, what is the official policy for creating pages for reconstructed protoforms? This has certainly been discussed already, right?)
Because you believe they exist? So can I create a word like crazify and link to it somewhere else? How can you tell the difference between a word without quotes and a non-existing one created by a vandal? (For normal English words the difference is unimportant, since we all know these words exist anyway; but for lesser known languages, and especially for reconstructions, how can you tell real contributions from vandalism without quotations?)
Well, the reconstruction you gave for Proto-Baltic is valid for Proto-Balto-Slavic as well because the Proto-Slavic form can be derived directly from it through the normal sound changes: w vs. v is just a notational difference, as is u vs ъ. And the change of ō to ā is completely regular in Slavic and is well documented. So yes I am very confident that it's correct.
So I will accept it if I can refer to you as the source of this belief in a footnote -- say, if you publish your conclusions in a subpage to your title page (with the same text you wrote above, or preferably a longer, more detailed version), so I can add your name as the reference.
See, the occasoinal reader might not know for sure that all sound correspondences are OK and that anyone reconstructing PBS would come up with *duwō just as in PB. In order to ascertain that we did do the research and do know that this is true, a quote is needed. Or else, again -- how can the ordinary reader tell this from vandalism? How can we deserve the trust of readers if we don't go the extra step of documenting reconstructed forms, especially in areas with a notoriously controversial history as PBS?
This would go best into the etymology section of *duwō, but how would it be written? Could you add something to the page to explain what you had in mind?
I'd imagine the best way would be to state the facts somewhere (say, in a subpage to your userpage, or perhaps in an Appendix page, with a title like "Proto-Balto-Slavic correspondences and examples" or something more to your liking), -- i.e., what you mentioned above about the correspondences, perahps a little more elaborated and with examples, or with a table of correspondences for PS, Lithuanian, and perhaps Latvian, if you prefer, showing which correspondences are the same, which aren't, etc. Then you refer back to this page in footnotes. So you would add a footnote to the *duwō page, just as you did with R. Kim's reference in, e.g., *leipā, except in this case the reference would be to CodeCat.
Alternatively, you could place the facts in the page for *duwō itself, say in the etymology section. But this strikes me as inefficient, since the facts would be the same for other PBS words that had the same phonemes. In fact, one would have to add a discussion PBS and PB phonemes to all PBS reconstructed protoforms. Why not put everything in one place, and then simply refer back to it in the footnotes?
Because I believe that referring anything to one reconstruction, and allowing no deviation from it, to go against the spirit of a wiki. A wiki is supposed to be editable by anyone, and new content should be able to be inserted by anyone. In the past you've reverted edits by me to Latvian etymologies because they don't appear in/agree with the given source. The same thing would happen with your suggestion and I don't want that. I do not "own" the content or "own" the responsibility for the reconstruction any more than anyone else, and people should be free to change things when they can. It is public knowledge, and what matters is that people can understand what is happening and why it's there. People can't change my user space so that effectively prevents some of the public content on Wiktionary from being edited by the public.
If your edits are correct and sourced, why should I (or anyone) revert them? I don't see why you think that I (or anyone) would correctly revert edits done in the way I suggest.
You don't "own" the reconstruction, but you "own" the idea, since it's your belief that this form is as good as PBS as it is as PB. Or have you read this stuff about *duwō somewhere else? And if so, why not cite it?
A wiki can be edited by anyone, but it should not contain false or misleading information -- or else, there would be no point in combatting vandalism. Vandals are also people who can and do edit; they are part of this "anyone can edit" that you mentioned; yet their edits are reverted, and rightfully so.
And that, because the main reason for a wiki (or, at least, I think, for this wiki) to exist is that it provides correct, accurate information. So, if I create a new page Appendix:Proto-Balto-Slavic/dūwo(n) and link it to the etymology section of Template:l/lv, that would -- rightfully -- be reverted and undone, because there is no such reconstruction nor is there evidence to support it.
And the only way to differenciate this non-existing *dūwo(n) from a truly existing *duwō is... references.
If a source is incorrectly quoted, the change should be reverted. It is either vandalism or an incorrect addition, albeit well-meant. And that is why I do revert Latvian etymologies without sources. How does this go against the spirit of wiki communal work? Wiki does not mean "anything goes" -- it means "anyone can contribute" (as long as it is accurate, correct, etc.).
What it's beginning to look like to me is that these issues have never been addressed in a policy discussion. Perhaps this should be done?
I don't think there has been anything about it globally, no. But when others add reconstructed terms that seem doubtful to me, I do discuss them and sometimes they are moved. This has happened a lot with Proto-Germanic so far. Some of those entries are less than certain, while others are very solid and leave little doubt.
Proto-Germanic reconstructions rely on having a good body of descendants. This works well for Germanic because it is a single point of departure for many different languages, so if a single point can be found that fits with all of them, that strongly verifies the reconstruction. For Balto-Slavic it does not work so well because there are less branches, often only three (Latvian, Lithanian and Slavic).
There are sometimes words for which a PIE origin, or a derivational formation of PIE origin, can be identified. This is the case with *dūmas for example, whose PIE ancestor is very solidly reconstructed by linguists and has many sources. In this case, even if there had only been a Slavic descendant, then I would still not doubt this reconstruction because it could hardly be anything else, given the regular sound changes involved. Said another way, we know the end point (Slavic) the start point (PIE) and the sound changes that happened in between, so we know that it must have existed in PBS as well. The body of known sound changes can then be used to reconstruct the middle point.
Indeed, and I have no problems agreeing with you on *dūmas. But you are the one who pointed out this fact; so I feel you should be in the references section of that page. If you don't want it to be under your User page, make it an appendix page: "Proto-Baltic as Proto-Balto-Slavic" or "Proto-Balto-Slavic correspondondences" and write a short paper on this topic. (R. Kim's paper is probably a good basis for it.) And then refer to it in the references section. (Since this is an independent contribution, I feel it should be in your name. If it were my work, my opinion, I would be honored to have it linked to my user page as the author. But if for some reason you don't want to be "the author", then let it be an anonymous Wiktionary Appendix page -- but one to which one can link in the references section.)
When this is done, I will have no problem linking to *dūmas from the etymology section of Latvian dūmi. (That's what I did in sniegs, for instance.) Because then anyone who is interested in this etymology will be able to know where it comes from. This increases accuracy and reliability/validity, and thereby trust.
See, for instance, what happened with bērzs. Ivan Štanbuk had added a PBS etymon. At first I thought it was unsourced, so I reverted it; then I realized he had sourced it, only he hadn't included the sources in the etymology section itself with the <ref> </ref> markers; rather, he added them under ===References=== as simple text. So I reverted my own edit, putting the PBS etymon back (and added Štanbuk's sources in the appropriate places with the <ref> </ref> markers).
I'm not anti-PBS; but since PBS reconstructions are new, I just want accuracy and consistency, in order to foster trust.
I had listed sound changes for Slavic on WT:ASLA, but Ivan removed those. WT:AGEM still has some. So we should either put them back or find some other place to put it. I am not comfortable with reconstructions being sourced to me personally. I would prefer it if there was a page, like the one above before Ivan removed the information, where a kind of consensus-based set of rules can be made. This is original research, but it's done collectively and peer reviewed by other Wiktionary editors knowledgeable in the field. I feel more comforable with that then just putting it all on my name, because everyone can be wrong, including me. And this also fits in better with the wiki spirit of collective knowledge and understanding.
I would be OK with that, though I'm not sure WK:ASLA is the best place for this kind of information. Still: why were the sound changes removed? Does this go against some Wiktionary policy I'm not aware of?
I think he felt that such information didn't belong on that page, because it was too encyclopedic.
Then maybe the idea of having an Appendix page about PS, PB and PBS where such things as correspondences and claims about how close PB and PBS are could be explicitly made? Something like that would contain the information necessary for being a citable reference (at least here within Wiktionary).
I do like the idea of setting up our own reference body in such a way. It would allow us to "contain" original research in a place where it's visible and accessible to anyone who may have doubts or insights. And perhaps more importantly, to make it able to be discussed if necessary. But I do think that we should limit the scope of what goes there. I don't think it's the place where sound laws on the level of Grimm's law should be developed, we should restrict it to small things and individual sound changes should probably be backed by research elsewhere.
I agree in principle with the limitations (to make things easier to handle), though I'm not in principle against 'grander', Grimm's-law stuff being first suggested here (why not? as long as the stuff is well done...). Should this become an official suggestion in one of the venues in the community portal?
Yes, if you want to. My main objection with really big stuff is that it is the kind of area where even professional linguists get things very wrong, so that makes it even more likely for amateurs to miss things. I don't have any professional schooling in linguistics, just a lot of curiosity that made me want to look for things and learn more. So I know a bit I think but what I know is not at a professional level and I don't think it is for anyone else here either. The limitations are mainly there to protect ourselves, Wiktionary and its users from our own incompetence. :P
I am a professional linguist, though not an Indo-Europeanist (I work on South American indigenous languages). But one of the things I've learned is to stick to logics and good arguments, because (a) big stars with famous diplomas often think their fame is all their need to justify something, and (b) non-big-stars, without any diplomas, surprisingly often contribute really intelligent, insightful ideas that deserve recognition. (The opposite can happen too, of course, but my field -- which is small -- has more than its share of big stars who want to be treated like kings... so I tend to be partial in favor of the underdog, as it were.)
I think I'll start a discussion about this at, say, the beer parlor. Since it's a bit late tonight and I still want to add a bunch of form-of pages, I'll do it tomorrow rather than today. Who knows? The idea might take root and bear fruit...