Talk:кънига
@Mladifilozof: Hello. As far as I know, кънигꙑ (kŭnigy) is a plurale tantum with a singular sense "book" and кънига (kŭniga) is a reconstruction, and probably wrong. The reference linked in the entry uses the plural only form. @Bezimenen: FYI, is that right?
BTW, I meant to ask you, in Wiktionary:About_Old_East_Slavic, there is a line "Favour у over оу or ꙋ". Does it apply to OCS as well (including ѹ)? @Erutuon, Benwing2: chime in if you know. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Atitarev If you look at Category:Old Church Slavonic lemmas, it appears to оу (two characters) is used consistently. This suggests that у should not be used by itself, likewise for the single-character ѹ form or the ꙋ form. Benwing2 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Benwing2: Thanks, does it mean for OCS, the rule should be "favour оу over ѹ, у and ꙋ"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Atitarev I think so, yes. Benwing2 (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev: You are probably right. I saw Кънига ищислѥниꙗ on cu wiki, but it is probably a reconstruction. --Mladifilozof (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Atitarev: In principle, it is right that OCS manuscripts only use the pl. form of (hypothetical) *кънига (*kŭniga), but I am not sure if that was because the lemma was pl. tantum or because the original Greek text used plural in the first place. Typically, Old Church Slavonic кънигꙑ f (kŭnigy) translates Byzantine Greek βιβλία pl (biblía, “books”) (e.g. in the titles of Bible books) or Byzantine Greek γράμματα pl (grámmata, “manuscripts, documents”) (within narrative) which were plural to start with. The same also holds for the diminutive Old Church Slavonic кън҄ижицѧ pl (kŭnʹižicę, “letters, scripts”), so the usage of plural may be a translation practice rather than a grammatical feature. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the library right now, so I cannot add more insights. A quick Google search pointed me towards Origin of word 'книга' however this article does not discuss when the singular was first attested/coined. Безименен (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bezimenen: Thanks. In any case, if the singular can't be attested, all the info should move to the plural form with only verified senses and this entry turned into a reconstruction entry *кънига (*kŭniga). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Old Church Slavonic. This OCS word is only attested in the plural. We have it lemmatized twice, once at the (unattested) reconstructed singular кънига (kŭniga) / ⰽⱏⱀⰻⰳⰰ (kŭniga) and once at the plural кънигꙑ (kŭnigy). Presumably either the plural should be made into a form-of definition, or the singular should be deleted as unattested; what is the standard policy? —Vorziblix (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is it a plurale tantum, like Lower Sorbian knigły? Or is it only attested with a plural meaning as well? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- The former; it’s quite copiously attested with singular and plural meanings, and occasionally translates Greek singulars as well as plurals (βιβλίον (biblíon) and τὰ βιβλίᾰ (tà biblía) both become кънигꙑ (kŭnigy)). —Vorziblix (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think there are some inflected singular forms, which need to be looked into (care should be taken in distinguishing Old Russian from OCS), such as dative "кънигу".--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- The SJS claims that the one-time attested кънигоу is an error for къниги; the expected dative singular would be *кънигѣ in any case, since it’s an a-stem. All of the other attestations given in SJS and SS, which cover almost all of the OCS canon, are plural forms. Do you know of sources that attest the singular? —Vorziblix (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant accusative, not dative. I couldn't find anything, not in the normalised spelling, anyway. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- The SJS claims that the one-time attested кънигоу is an error for къниги; the expected dative singular would be *кънигѣ in any case, since it’s an a-stem. All of the other attestations given in SJS and SS, which cover almost all of the OCS canon, are plural forms. Do you know of sources that attest the singular? —Vorziblix (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think there are some inflected singular forms, which need to be looked into (care should be taken in distinguishing Old Russian from OCS), such as dative "кънигу".--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- The former; it’s quite copiously attested with singular and plural meanings, and occasionally translates Greek singulars as well as plurals (βιβλίον (biblíon) and τὰ βιβλίᾰ (tà biblía) both become кънигꙑ (kŭnigy)). —Vorziblix (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Finally moved to the plural. If the Old East Slavic word also needs to be moved, please just move it (or file a new RFC or RFV). - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)