Talk:Dybo's law

Resulting tone?

The article says that the accent shifts rightwards, but it doesn't say what type of tone that newly-accented syllable receives. Is it acute or circumflex? CodeCat (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Celtic?

I have seen references to Dybo's law in the context of Italic and Celtic languages, which seems to be unrelated to the one formulated for Proto-Slavic. The article about the Proto-Celtic language mentions it (though referring to it as Dybo's rule). Shouldn't we at least mention the Celtic sound law on this page?EstendorLin (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

@Rua: Thank you for bringing this to the WikiProject page! "Incomprehensible" seems to be an understatement. While the question of Balto-Slavic accentology is notorious complex, this page creates even higher barriers for comprehensibility than the instrinsic complexity of the topic itself does.

Far from being knowledgeable about the details, I noticed at least three problems: 1) The dicussion completely lacks context, which should at least be minimally outlined; 2) The presentation of examples is unfortunate, since it starts with cases where Dybo's law is blocked, only then to proceed to show what the law is actually about; and 3) There are too many example of cases where subsequent changes conceal the original output of the law: why on earth is there Serbo-Croatian víno when Russian vinó much better serves the job (etc.).

I hope Gnosandes—who has done much to expand the information on this page and appears to be well versed in the topic—can help us to make this page more accessible to readers with an average linguistic background, if not for the common reader. –Austronesier (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: The problem I have with Gnosandes is that he promotes a view of Indo-European and Balto-Slavic accentology (named "morphophonological theory" in the article currently) that is supported by Dybo himself and other Russian linguists, but that is a minority in the linguistic community as a whole. See Proto-Indo-European accent#Modern theories. So there are WP:NPOV concerns here as well. A lot of what Gnosandes has added here is incomprehensible even to someone who does understand PIE accent studies well, because it relies on all kinds of concepts that are foreign to the typical Indo-Europeanist. Rua (mew) 15:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, SC víno perfectly reflects the law, since it has a rising accent that can only come from a former final accent. True, you need to know this to be able to evaluate the evidence, but isn't that true for a lot of language change? Recognising evidence for an older sound change often requires sifting through the layers of subsequent changes. Rua (mew) 16:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, my point was just that as long as direct effects of the sound shift are available, they should be used as much as possible in the primary set of illustrative examples. It is certainly "handier" to illustrate Grimm's law by English three and Iclandic þrír, rather than Dutch drie or German drei. It's a different case with let's say Tai tone-splits, which are conditioned by a feature (voicing) that has been lost in all daughter languages, so there's no choice between "illustrative" and "less illustrative" languages.

In any case, the POV-issue should definitely handled as well, since the acceptance of the validity of Dybo's law does not depend on buying Dybo's model in toto. I agree that in its current shape, the page gives WP:UNDUE weight to the latter. –Austronesier (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I have a poor command of English and hope for your help. I am trying to write the most basic in an accessible language. I ask you to note, that Vladimir Dybo abandoned his law in 1993. I think, you know that. So your edit caters to the Leiden and Traditional theories, but not to the Valence theory. I think that your edit should be deleted. And, I hope for your suggestions in improving the article. @Rua: No need to hold a grudge against me, I respect you very much, it is a pleasure to work with you, but you are as stubborn a person as I am. But I also ask for your help, since you are the only person who understands accentology. Note, that this theory is also supported by a large number of linguists from different countries, not just Russian linguists. This theory also works in Caucasian сomparative studies. I hasten to destroy the myth, that you yourself have come up with. -- Gnosandes (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: It is not a matter of "poor command of English", you're English is fine. But your additions completely lack WP standard's of WP:verifiability, as you have added much text without a single inline citation. Pasting a reference work to the bibliography is not enough. The tag "needs additional citations for verification" was there before your additions, so you must have been aware of this pre-existing grave issue.

As for the fact that "Vladimir Dybo abandoned his law in 1993", well this page is about his law, as it is called and accepted by many scholars of different schools, and not about his later general views about IE, Balto-Slavic and Slavic accentology. Conflating these two things does neither do justice to Dybo's (and Illič-Svityč's) seminal contribubtion in the 60s, nor to Dybo's work as a whole. So if the initial formulation of Dybo's law only can be applied in the framework of the "Leiden and Traditional theories", well then it is a logical consequence that the law is thusly described. Anything else may well be integrated in an additional section "Alternative views"—if WP:DUE, and not just driven by a mission to "destroy [a] myth". –Austronesier (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Okay, I'll put the links in the article.

Dybo's law in its original form is a global shift of orthotonic accent to the right. Another view of the law is that law takes the form of a multi-step accent shift, with reflexes, very well differentiated by dialects. If this is a multi-step process, that is present in some dialects, but not in others dialects, then this cannot be considered a law, i.e. if there is no global phenomenon, there is no law. But there is a so-called "anonymous law", it worked globally, most likely even in the Balto-Slavic time. That is, it is the shift to the right of stress from the dominant circumflex to the dominant aсutе, it show all dialects.

In Leiden theory and Traditional (I think), this is all a single global process.

I also do not think that this is necessary for ordinary readers, because they are not familiar with the basics of linguistics, which means they will not understand anything or it will just be unnecessary for them. They should not read such complex things without learning the basics. However, I can quote Kapović: :

In any case, while the valence theory and the new approach to Proto-Indo-European accentuation is definitely worth at least a serious consideration, it is not difficult to see why such a theory cannot easily become an Indo-Europeanist mainstream. Balto-Slavic is traditionally held as unimportant for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accent and the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accentuation on the basis of Vedic and Greek (with a touch of Germanic via Grimm’s and Verner’s law) is well established and extremely simple. Making Balto-Slavic accentuation perhaps the main cornerstone of reconstructing Proto-Indo-European accentuation is not practical because of its complexity, which is such that even many Balto-Slavic specialists are not too comfortable with it. It will be interesting to see what the future brings concerning the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accentuation. — Kapović (2019:126)

How can this be described in the article if this original law is divided into a multi-step process and another (anonymous) law? I also wrote here. Gnosandes (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: Not links, citations. Attribution of content to a reliable source, by means of inline citations, cf. WP:CITE, and especially section WP:SAYWHERE. I'd prefer to see these first before proceeding. We should not put the burden on the readers to find out for themselves where our information comes from. That includes the incomplete Kapović citation—though I took the burden to look for it on this occasion ;) –Austronesier (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Changed edits and added links, I think that's enough. Any comments? c: -- Gnosandes (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: Terrific, many thanks! Only needs some minor copy-editing, I can take care of that. I just hope the rest of the article will also be improved towards WP-standards by editors who are better versed in the subject than I am. Maybe I can do it myself after reading a bit more from Kortlandt, Olander and Kapović... –Austronesier (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:, @Rua: I'm very grateful, thank you. :v – Gnosandes (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)