Cicognac

Hello Cicognac! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

*pirmas

Proto-Baltic *pirmas cannot come from *pírˀwas. Proto-Baltic form *pirmas traces back to PIE *pṛmos (source: Zinkevičius, Zigmas (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija: lietuvių kalbos kilmė. Vol. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. p. 216.). Bernard Comrie writes:"Baltic forms are particularly close to Germanic forms, because they are made with the suffix *-mo; Slavic languages ​​here have a different suffix (*-v). Baltic forms come from *pr̥̄'mo- <...>" (in Lithuanian: "Bl. formos artimos ypač germ. formoms, nes padarytos su priesaga *-mo; sl. kalbos čia turi kitokią priesagą (*-v). Bl. formos kilę iš *pr̥̄'mo- "; source: Database of the etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language). Wiktionary is not as reliable a source as the arguments of recognized linguists. Proto-Slavic *pьrvъ and Proto-Baltic *pirmas is a case where these two forms cannot be reduced to one proto-form (different suffixes). In this article it would be better to abandon the Proto-Balto-Slavic examples. Ed1974LT (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You can add the PIE intermediate form both in the article and in Wiktionary and put the source (I couldn't find this form anywhere, I noticed an unexplained -m-). Otherwise, you can erase PBS form of numbers if they are problematic and work on them later. As a third solution, you can give me a good source that reconstructs basic numbers in PBS (1-10 is enough) so that I can handle the matter immediately (now I'm free). By the way, nice to meet you! Cicognac (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. I made a compromise change, check it out. I have a question about the Proto-Balto-Slavic forms *šeśtas and *aśmas. The first one starts with š, and the second one is without t. V. Mažiulis reduces two Baltic roots *seš- and *uš- to one form *su̯eš-.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any good literature on the Proto-Balto-Slavic.--Ed1974LT (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the two version of number 6 in Proto-Baltic, probably it depends by the fact that scholars argue about the PIE version of number 6: most of them posit an inizial *s-, some don't. Perhaps the scholar you quote followed only the PIE version of number 6 with initial *s-. This is the most common reconstruction, by the way, so I decided to erase the one without initial *s-.

As for the number 8 (remodelled after number 7), I found the PB reconstruction without -t-, which leads to PB forms already without -t- which in turn becomes e.g. 'asmas' in Lithuanian. I did another check (this time deeper and longer), after a lot of research I was finally able to find a synonym in Lithuanian, 'astuntas'. Nobody pointed out this synonym, maybe it's rarer and could lead to a conservative PB form with medial -t-. Thus, medial -t- can be put between round brackets. Cicognac (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, I added medial -t- and added both versions of ordinal "eighth" in Lithuanian, now the question should be settled. Medial -t- is correct if 'asmas' is a contracted version of 'astuntas' (I think so, see also ordinal number "seventh" in Lithuanian. 'Sekmas' from 'Septintas' sounds like a contraction, hence a later version, but a reserach can definitely confirm this). As for number one, by reviewing again PS, I can confirm that PBS probably had a synonym with medial -m-, preserved in PB. Hence, I put each derivation both in PS and PB. Cicognac (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the number 6, the problem is that in PBS it should start with an s, not an š.

Vladimir Toporov writes: "Celtic forms with -t-, as in other languages, allow us to reconstruct the Balto-Slavic source - *ok̑tmo- > aš(t)ma-".[1]

Lithuanian septintas, aštuntas were created from cardinal numbers aštuon-i, septyn-i on the model of šeš-tas, devin-tas with the suffix -tas.

All the PB cardinal numbers you can find here 216--Ed1974LT (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So, the current version is quite correct :) --Ed1974LT (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll disambiguate the derivation both here and in the Wikitionary, many of the things we discussed together were missing. If you noticed, I'm already editing. How I wish I could understand Lithuanian :)

If you have nice materials on PB, you can give them to me, especially articles and etymological dictionaries with reconstructions. There is almost nothing about PB in the Wiktionary. By contrast, there are tons and tons of reconstruction in PS, which is shameful and frustrating. Cicognac (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

PBS 6 remains in question... Unfortunately, all my materials on PB are in Lithuanian.--Ed1974LT (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Can they be translated into English? If I can copy and paste them, I can try to understand something. If it's something mechanical, eg. adding etymologies and reconstructions, this is an easy task.

As for number 6, I checked again the PBS sounds inventory together with Ruki sound law, by which *š- can be derived in PBS. Yes, it must start with *s- since PIE *s becomes *š- only after *w, NOT before *w. I'll correct the initial consonant now. Cicognac (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The main literature on PB is posted in the Lithuanian version of the article, you can try to copy and translate it. The Database of the Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and the Database of the Prussian Language may also be useful.--Ed1974LT (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look. The book you gave can be copied and pasted. I can try to take some PB reconstructions from them. I have a Latvian friend who could try to find something in internet about PB reconstructions, why not asking her later?

By the way, while investigating more about cardinal number 6 (to decide whether or not to amend it), I found out that it probably has 2 versions in PBS: one with *š-, due to --Ed1974LT (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)assimilation to final -š (leading to Proto-Slavic *š-), and another with *s- which leads to the Proto-Baltic regular version with *s- due to ruki sound law. I can put this second version with a question mark in the end and, again, disambiguate the two different reflexes in order to avoid confusion. Cicognac (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Z. Zinkevičius reconstructs the PB *dešimts '10', which was declined as a root noun (and not *dešimt-i-s). The relicts of the root declension were yet preserved in Old Lithuanian: dešimtes 'lots of ten' (nominative pl.), dešimtų (genitive pl.), cf. i-stem declention dešimtys, dešimčių.[2]

For PB, two forms are reconstructed: *uštas and *seštas, which both can be reduced to one *sueštas.--Ed1974LT (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"*uštas" is based on a speculation on a possible PIE original form and its reflex in Old Prussian through Late PB *uštas (< Early PB *sueštas). I can repost it, but a question mark is DEFINITELY needed here since the original PIE form is not widely accepted, as I stated before. I have already disambiguated this theory by Deversen in Wiktionary on purpose... Cicognac (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 6, everything is clear, for PB it should be reconstructed *sueštas. And what about 10? Z. Zinkevičius reconstructs dešimt-s, not dešimt-i-s, as I stated before.--Ed1974LT (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that PBS is already reconstructed without the semivowel *-w-: I find *seśtas, not *sweśtas. This could be solved by the fact that PIE already had a variant of ordinal six without initial *s-, which leads to a PB variant eventually preserved by Old Prussian. As for cardinal ten, I think the version in the article is already the correct, it's *dešimts. After editing number six, I can check again Cicognac (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant cardinal number 'ten' (not 'tenth').--Ed1974LT (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't come up with this myself. Vytautas Mažiulis: "usts / uschts „šeštas" (uschtai „šešta", dėl -ai plg. swintai „šešta", žr. § 152), turintis -š- (= -sch-) iš num. card. „šeši, šešios" (su *-š- < *-sj-), suponuoja pr. *ustas „šeštas" - priesagos vedinį iš lyties (priebalsinio linksniavimo) num. vak. balt. *ves- / *us- „šeši, šešios" (su dviem apofoniniais variantais), o ši galėtų būti iš nelinksniuojamos balt. (-sl.) *sveš „t. p." (< ide. *suek's „t. p."), iš kurios išriedėjo lie. *seši (> šeši) ir kt. Plg. Endzelīns SV 74, Stang Vergi. Gr. 279, PEŽ IV 211;" pp. 57-58.

("usts / uschts "sixth" (uschtai "sixth (fem.)", for -ai cf. swintai, see § 152), having -š- (= -sch-) from num. card "six" (with *-š- < *-sj-), presupposes Prus. *ustas "sixth" - suffix derivative from form (root inflection) West. Balt. *ves- / *us- "six" (with two apophonic variants), and this could be from uninflected Balt. (-Sl.) *sveš "six" (< PIE. *suek's ), from which Lith. *seši (> šeši), etc.). --Ed1974LT (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation is taken from Dereven. At this point, I can put Maziulis' interpretation too, which implies a second PBS reconstruction. Given that we are working with reconstructed languages, I'll limit myself to reporting all hypothesis together with some disambiguations (I work in this way almost every time; then, scholars will be free to debate until they reach wide consensus, maybe Maziulis is right).

I noticed that also Maziulis' book can be copied and pasted from PDF, wow! Do you have any other PDF book about PB and historical grammars of PB languages in particular? We/I could talk about Old Lithuanian, which is very conservative and close to PIE. Having a page about Old Lithuanian grammar (instead of a short section in another page) would be a great shot, just to name one. Cicognac (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you a book about Prussian accentuation [3], Baltic and Slavic accentuation [4]. There are good books "Lietuvių kalbos istorija" (7 volumes) about Old Lithuanian written by Z. Zinkevičius, you can find them here.--Ed1974LT (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I edited everything, basically many numbers in PBS have multiple versions that were missing everywhere. I put all reflexes possible, so that all the other users won't make a mess and/or will understand why there are multiple versions. If I find something interesting in PB, I must learn how to add them to the Wiktionary (PB almost doesn't exist there). Ačiū! Cicognac (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome, nėra už ką :) --Ed1974LT (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have "to abandon the Proto-Balto-Slavic examples" as long as we have adequate sources. PBS reconstructions can be very informative, even when then the Proto-Baltic stage must have been rather short (Pronk estimates that it "lasted for at least a few generations but probably no longer than a few centuries") and thus allowed little time for significant changes from Proto-Balto-Slavic to Proto-Baltic. Also, the Proto-Baltic page shouldn't become a POV-fork for Balto-Slavic rejectionism. As you may have noticed, individual editors (actually just one) are still stuck in cold war rhetoric and ideology, so even WP:BLUESKY knowledge gets contested in a pretty obtuse way; it was the very mention of one particular unconstructive individual in Wiktionary that triggered my rather curt reply there, I hope you didn't get it the wrong way :)

Anyway, do you have a copy of Derksen's Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon? It's available here:[5]. The reconstructions follow very much the Kortlandt model (which is also the case in Wiktionary), but at least you have a corpus of some size. Olander's Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility and Villanueva Svensson's The Rise of Acuteness in Balto-Slavic also have quite a few Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstructions. These might be sources you can tap on without having to lean on Wiktionary or original research (I have noticed that many PBS reconstructions are not from Mažiulis' book). –Austronesier (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I am very surprised to see your reply here, but I'll continue the discussion here anyway.

Yup, I was tempted to add the first PB reconstruction in the Wiktionary with some sources but I stopped and started the discussion. Everybody has either a positive or neutral stance toward PB except one user who told me that PB doesn't exist at all (did he intend to say this?).

The main issue is NOT Proto-Balto-Slavic. I was talking about PB all the time. I am not sure anymore whether or not to add PB etymologies (at least etymologies if I can't add new pages) since I was told that PB is somehow problematic, even if I quote sources.

I have multiple resources about both PBS, PS and PB found by myself and thanks to the help of Ed1974LT, my new Lithuanian friend on Wikipedia! Yes, I have Derksen's book (but it doesn't talk about PB) together with books by Maziulis and Zinkevicius plus some etymological dictionaries about Lithuanian and Prussian and Derksen's book about Slavic lexicon. To sum up, I should already have some stuff through which I can put and quote PB etymologies, potentially. I was going to read more about the theories around the existence of PB since the issue was raised in the discussion and quote them in Wikipedia to offer every point of view and maybe improve the discussion about whether or not to accept PB on Wiktionary.

In the end, what do you suggest me to do? Should I ignore PB reconstructions? Wiktionary barely has any PB reconstruction, which is frustrating. Cicognac (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits on Wu Chinese

Hi,

Thanks for your recent edits to the Wu Chinese page. I have incorporated your suggested apparent lack of Jiangdong Chinese and proto-Wu into the text, and left several citation needed's in the page regarding said edits, as is currently visible. Could you add sources to those points for me? As you personally added these points, I expect you to have sufficient sources to bolster those claims. I have did all that I could in around an hour. I'll remove all the claims if sources cannot be produced in two weeks' time.

Also, have you have read Ballard (1969) thoroughly? I've merely skimmed through the text in the past so I'm not 100% aware of everything he claims, especially regarding more scientifically intangible matters such as dating proto-systems. However, I did clearly remember him mentioning that his proto-system was not a real spoken language. I initially found some pages that suggested a Sui-Tang dating (as you have suggested), though a closer look yielded negative results. Did you assume that all post-QYS lects appeared during the Tang dynasty? If that is the case, I'm sure Coblin's Common Neo-Hakka paper (that I'm sure you're aware of given your very recent edits) could refute that belief.

Thanks! ND381 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I read most of his PhD thesis, he did a reconstruction using 13 living dialects (he didn't use historical sources such as book about vernacular pronunciation from Ming and Qing dynasties. That's the only reconstruction available. All Wu dialects come from a single language (they all share common features), hence proto-Wu can be reconstructed through comparative linguistics. A reconstructed language, as every reconstructed language, is not necessarily a spoken language but a set of data put together (e.g., Baxter-Sagart's reconstruction of Old Chinese). Usually, a proto-language is always dated and projected in time (proto-Wu as reconstructed by Ballard can be dated back to EMC period, 420-907 or slightly earlier, since the phonological system are almost the same).

I am finding right now more research paper about Jiangdong and the history of Wu, but I'm tired as hell. I am still trying to find more about the chronology of proto-Wu, his exact origins and his relationship with Min dialects (Wenzhounese shares some characteristics with Min dialects perhaps due to migrations during Wang Xi's rebellion). There is a lot of stuff which can be used to write an article about this topic, this dialect previously unknown to me (and you as well, I guess) seems complex but interesting!

As for the first source of a Wu dialect, https://ctext.org/datawiki.pl?if=gb&res=963990#wp_top. Dan Tong wrote his treatise within the end of Song dinasty using Wu dialects, including Wenzhounese. You can find the complete text there. Cicognac (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

More information about Wang Dao are available in the Book of Jin (晉書·王敦傳), used by Wik.zh as a source if you want to keep the year "308", which by the way is a detail. As for Jiangdong, I invite you to type 古江東方言 and try to find more about it! The traditional view is that most Chinese dialects come from Early Middle Chinese; at least for proto-Min and paleo-Hakka, this is untrue. I hope I'll find more about proto-Wu and Jiangdong (it looks like Jiangdong took shape after the conquest of Wu by Yue and Chu in 333 BC. There is a long history behind Wu). Cicognac (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the swift reply.

Thanks for the resources linked. I am aware of all of them, but thanks for pointing them out for me. I have a very large collection of texts pertaining to the region, and it is therefore quite difficult to find a source for a very specific claim. The citation after 308 was intended to cover the entire sentence; I do not frequent Wikipedia editing so I am not aware of a clearer way to demarcate that.

Regarding the point on Ballard, I'm glad you're aware of the limitations of proto-languages, especially on what they represent. A lot of proto-languages are nonetheless dated (PIE being the most notable example), but as far as I am aware, nobody has given a rough temporal estimate of proto-Wu. I will therefore be removing the sentence about proto-Wu from the history section, unless you can produce a source that does actually give a date. Note however that proto-Wu was actually attempted earlier by YR Chao, and can be seen in the appendix of the 1956 edition of his 現代吳語的研究. It, however, does have a lot of flaws (honestly as many as Ballard's one).

I'd advise to perhaps avoid excessive reference to the QYS. It's a tool that was once helpful, but is now a massive hinderance. QYS Early Middle Chinese (as you may have heard of) does not actually exist; the view that almost all Sinitic languages come from the Central Plains in or after the 4th century CE is, on the other hand, very hard to refute. Unclassified Sinitic (including the aforementioned Paleo-Hakka and lects such as Waxiang) and Min are the only exceptions that are widely agreed upon to this generalisation.

It's also perhaps advised to not be too fixated on medieval Jiangdong Sinitic. Its relationship with actual living varieties is a lot more opaque than you might assume: its relationship with modern Wu and Xiang is, in reality, quite unclear. Linguistic history this early on is very difficult, and it's not unwise to take medieval historians' views with a grain of salt. There is, however, a commonly-accepted belief that there may be a shared Sinitic stratum between some Yangtzean varieties, and the academic term is confusingly also Jiangdong Sinitic. Either way, have fun with your future endeavours ND381 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

As for Qieyun, I agree with you since the moment I read the reconstructions of Proto-Yue and Proto-Hakka by Karen Huang, Anne Yue, Georg Orlandi and Weldon Coblin: the articles about Proto-Yue and Proto-Hakka on Wiki.it are mine, as well as the one about Old Chinese, Later Han Chinese and Early Middle Chinese (which I want to rewrite and update), 我也会说一点中文，我在大学学了你的漂亮外语！

As for the history of Wu, I am trying to understand more. The only thing I still can't fully understand is the dating of proto-Wu, which works very well within the QY system; I am talking about the stage reconstructed by Ballard. I will only quote Chao; I decided to avoid putting his reconstruction since it's older than Ballard's one. I already pointed out potential flaws by Ballard (too few dialects, no historical version of the dialects and no reference to Jiangdong, scant research about dialects, he doesn't seem to talk in depth about tonal split and a Mandarine substrate in Wu, no existing research about the Kra-Dai substrate in ancient Wu).

I'll probably publish my article about proto-Wu (this protolanguage is missing on Wiki.en as well) and research more. Maybe other editors will improve my work and/or someboy somewhere in some point in time will take inspiration to make a full work about Jiangdong and the chronology of Wu, proto-Wu, what happened after Chu conquered Wu and Yue... Then we will quote it. I did my best.

An article about proto-Wu on Wiki.en would be fine: most proto-languages are present on Wikipedia EXCEPT proto-Wu... Cicognac (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I have found a first source that points out that Jiankang/Nanjing speech (Jiangdong period) is a local Wu language, thus confirming that the language spoken there in around 300 CE (decadence of Jin Dinasty) is actually a "Wu" language: https://books.google.it/books?id=h4NSEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=it&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (p.20). Hence, a proto-language stage must predate Jin Dinasty period (280-316). Between the fall of Wu and Yue by Chu (333 BC) and the fall of the Han dynasty (220 CE) there is a 500-years gap, which is enough to develop a proto-language from a variety of either Old Chinese or Later Han Chinese. It could be Old Chinese since Wu dialects surprisingly retains some features of Min Chinese, but it's just a theory which is not accepted by the majority of linguists.

I pointed out this piece of information in my article, so that chronology of Wu is finally a bit clearer. Again, I always hope that in the future someone better informed than us will improve the chronology and development of Wu. I could add more, but I'm starting to feel that further research into this topic by linguists is needed. Cicognac (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm a native Cantonese speaker and an L2 Shanghainese speaker with significantly worse Standard Mandarin capabilities, so we're on the same boat here

If you want a history of Wu, I'd honestly probably recommend Coblin's paper on the language history of the Lower Yangtze area. I have it in the dump™, feel free to take any sources or add to the list if you have the time. Feel free to use the links to reach out to other like-minded people; a lot of active members on both servers are actual academics (I'm applying for Cambridge this year, though I've been in touch with some professors regarding my research and reconstruction of proto-Northern Wu (yes I'm doing one)). His chronology up to the Southern Song dynasty is afaik the commonly accepted narrative. Note that despite mentioning the concept of medieval Jiangdong Sinitic, he has not named it by name: it's a very touchy subject and is very much not a clear-cut case. I know some people take issue with how he believes that Huai Chinese is dated to the Southern Song dynasty, though that's not really relevant to Wu so we can ignore that. If you need a current academic consensus on Wu history, that's in my opinion the source to refer to

Chao's and Ballard's reconstructions are flawed in different ways. Chao was earlier, yes, and was also not able to make full use of modern scientific processes: the most obvious oversight is the lack of a split eq rime based on QYS -pt/-k. Ballard, on the other hand, as you know, only had around a dozen localities, and so his proto-system lacks the sort of depth Chao had, and therefore does not clearly differentiate certain features, such as the 山咸 rimes as described in the Northern Wu phonology page very well.

I could try to work on a pWu page, though no guarantees as I am, as mentioned, applying for university. My research focus is also specifically in regards to Northern Wu, and so I'm unfortunately not that well-versed in Southern Wu linguistics (I have been called out for this in the past by Dan Jurafsky, who actually knows a surprising amount of stuff on Chinese linguistics). A proto-Northern Wu system has been made in VanNess Simmons's 1999 book (also in the dump™), so if you want a page for that, I can throw one together in like an afternoon, since I am 瞭如指掌 with regards to the topic area it's a lot less work for me

The dump: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-7r08S06ZYVtQFLRhWYQQZtB4zeX2ROPg5RUghhKLoU/edit?usp=sharing ND381 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that pNW reconstruction, writing an article for Wiki.it would be a great gain. When you'll publish your reconstruction in academia, I'll put that as well, I only need the source :)

I wrote about paleography as well, I reconstructed the origins off 3000 characters but I think I'll rewrite at least part of my articles.

As for "the dump", I had a look at that, there is a ton of stuff there, It will take me a bit to distinguish the left from the right there.

I strongly invite you to write your article about pNW quoting VanNess, but at least a tiny bit of the relationship between pNW, a hypotetical pSW and pWu as a common ancestor should be made clear. I hope some scholar tried to explain this controversial point. Then, somebody else will either write an article about how Ballard and Chao tried to reconstruct pWu and what kind of language was spoken in Wu territory (basically what I did, I just threw a handful of seeds on a fertile ground) or write an article of fully-reconstructed pWu 100 years later (?). Or you will reconstruct pWu as well, who knows :)

Good luck for your application at Cambridge University, I guess your IQ is skyrocket-like! Unluckily I can't talk too much in Standard Chinese with you :(

My next articles for Wiki.it will probably be "proto-Northern Wu", "proto-Min". I wonder if somebody reconstructed a proto-version of language dialects in the North (e.g., Gan, Jin) apart from literary Early Mandarin (Yuan dynasty).

Maybe in the future scholars will be able to reconstruct vernacular Old Chinese or some kind of vernacular Proto-Chinese using all proto-dialects, all substrates and give a chronology. The only reconstruction of Old Chinese we have is mostly based on the literary language written in bamboo strips, silk, stone and bones (Baxter-Sagart, 2014). Cicognac (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)