Talk:Hirt's law

> "by oxytonesis" in the Balto-Slavic accent system.

@Rua: Do you have any references to such manipulations? That is: Pre-Balto-Slavic *-áHsu > (by oxytonesis) *-aHsú; Pre-Balto-Slavic *-óyšu > (by oxytonesis) *-oyšú – Gnosandes (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Balto-Slavic language#Accentual mobility under Kortlandt. Rua (mew) 12:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Gnosandes (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua: Explain why it is inappropriate is the opposite of the title? Thus, if you remove this name, it is definitely not from a "Neutral point of view". -- Gnosandes (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC) @Rua: I also disagree with your editing of the offer: In the valence theory of Indo-European accentuation, which is not widely accepted, the. What methods did you use to measure "wide of accept"? Do you have a literatures? In my opinion, people who will read such articles should fully analyze the theories and sub-theories in them. And then to choose a particular theory that explains more facts. Therefore, the article should not contain accentological ignorance. -- Gnosandes (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: What is your thought on this? Rua (mew) 20:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rua and Gnosandes: I agree with Rua on this. Gnosandes: while I highly appreciate your efforts to add valuable insights here with helpful citations for better verifiability, you should consider to do the same for theories that you personally disagree with. That would be the next level of fine editing. Not bragging, but I have edited many pages in my research area, and this included purging/reducing references to an old and not widely accepted hypothesis of mine which was given undue weight here on WP, and giving more focus to current mainstream hypotheses (which I personally reject), because doing otherwise would give a biased view of the state of the art in Austronesian subgrouping.

The phrasing "which is not widely accepted" needs to be qualified and ideally propped up by a citation from RS, but from what I have gleaned in my initial readings, the valence theory is certainly not the majority view. –Austronesier (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: (Without citation) I don't agree. Q: Why should I edit other theories? It is not clear why you are talking about Austronesian subgrouping? If this wording is not phrased in references then it should be deleted. Again, what do you consider the majority opinion and how did you calculate this?

To the question about the additional name was never received. Gnosandes (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: Why should I edit other theories? Duh, to build an encyclopedia, maybe? –Austronesier (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Exactly, but I'm asking you to let me finish one case and move on to another. -- Gnosandes (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will be happy to see how you will present e.g. Kortlandt's views with the same depth as part of the case about IE and BS accent. I know you can, and wish you were willing to do that. –Austronesier (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: What if I'm not interested? Except for some edits: add a link to the source, or to put a comma in the right place (although, I do not known English). -- Gnosandes (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]