Talk:мужчина

@Useigor: Hi. Re diff, are you sure about the etymology мужчина (mužčina) and what is мущина (muščina) in brackets? What source did you use? I can also see Old Church Slavonic мѫжьщина (mǫžĭština). Should the source be OCS instead? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev I don't see reason why it should be OCS. Now i have added the source. I also have checked (СлРЯ XI-XVII ВВ. 9, 306) and there only мущина (muščina) is mentioned in examples so i guess мужчина (mužčina) is just expected form, and probably it should belong to Middle Russian because it's attested since 16th century. I could not check (Дм., 75. XVI в. и др.). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Useigor: Thanks. We should probably only use мущина (muščina), since this is the actual form used. Is мѫжьщина (mǫžĭščina) an earlier form мущина (muščina)? I don't know if we use "Old Russian" as a language (for etymological purposes) between "Old East Slavic" and (modern) "Russian" even after the 16th century. That must be just (older) "Russian". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see in Vasmer мущи́на (muščína) is Russian (modern) but now an obsolete and non-standard spelling and мѫжьщина (mǫžĭščina) is Old East Slavic, from which Belarusian мужчы́на (mužčýna) has also inherited. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev I don't mind. Yes but it's not attested.—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)