Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/kъžьde

Relationship to *kažьde, *kožьde?

@Sławobóg, I can't tell with certainty what's the deal with *kъžьde, but it looks like that it formed a full-fletched paradigm with the other terms. One probably should treat them as different genders of the same lemma. The same holds for *tъžьde／*tаžьde／*tоžьde. I suppose Modern Polish doesn't have such a construction nowadays, but Bulgarian and Macedonian (as well as OCS) do:

• Bulgarian който m (kojto), която f (kojato), което n (koeto) < *kъ +‎ *jь +‎ *to (where -то is fixed);
• Macedonian којшто m (kojšto), којашто f (kojašto), коешто n (koešto) < *kъ +‎ *jь +‎ *čьto (where -што is fixed);
• + Old Church Slavonic иже m (iže), ꙗже f (jaže), ѥже n (ježe) < *jь +‎ *že (where -же is fixed).

These are treated as inflectional forms of the same lemma, not as synonyms. If Proto-Slavic *kъžьde belongs to the same family of relative determiners as them, then it's better to merge *kъžьde／*kažьde／*kožьde into one entry. Безименен (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bezimenen I was thinking the same thing, but since original function is lost, we probably should keep these as seperate lemmas and maybe add some comment about that. We should have these split especially because of mixed descendants. Sławobóg (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I just skimmed across some papers on the topic and it seems nobody has a clear idea. I'll add a reference to the main results which Google returns under Further reading. Безименен (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)