Talk:Dodola and Perperuna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I deleted almost the entire original article. It was just too incomprehensible. I replaced it with a scrap of info found on the web. --LeeHunter 00:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians who understand Slavic languages and are knowledgeable in Slavic mythology are invited to sort out the following text (that was replaced by a nice little stub by User:LeeHunter):
Perperuna - originally probably divine partner (wife) of Perun; probably the name formed by reduplication core “per-“, however it could be also personalization (result) of activity of Perun - „flinging rock" (per-perun-a?) = rain - analog. Ind. Parjanya „(secondarily) cloud, rain" - surname of Indra. Perperuna is the name behaved as designation of participant of ceremony (noted in SouthSlav. folklore) of summoning of rain, called also dodola, dudula (compare to: Lith. Perkunas - Dundúlis, Latt. Dundusélis and Gr. Dodona); if we identify perperuna-dodola with beregynja(*perkynja), we deal with team of names - teonyms embracing with significative range occurrence of worship of fecundity: Mokoš (Mather Earth) - Perkynia / Pergynja(„Holy Forest - Oak wood" / „Mountain" - on the ground of analogy Ind. also: „Cloud, Rain") - Perperuna (Perun's partner, on the ground of analogy Hett. also: „Rock") compactly related with „masculine" worship Thunderlord - Perun. Hipostasy of goddess was probably a viper (snake) guardian of house - žmija cuvakuca, žmija kucarica (SouthSlav.).
Have fun with it.  :-)
-- PFHLai 01:28, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
P.S. I think "Mokoš" is Mokosh.

Old talk[edit]

Text from webpage owned by the contributor

How do we KNOW that the contributor owns the webpage? And where has he/she released the material to GFDL? RickK 05:57, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

He/she released it by copying. How do we KNOW anything? He/she told us so. Must he go to notary public first? What is the policy about contributing owned materials? Has he (acting as wikipedian) to send a letter to himself (acting as a webmaster) with request for confirmation? Mikkalai 06:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I've already met this situation (related to the bio of some Rumanian professor), asked at pump, and got no answer (and safely forgot about the issue until now). IMO here is a hole in wikipolicies. Mikkalai 06:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This was done in past. Email of site owner, as given on [1] is and anyone interested can contact him and ask is he really Wikipedia user Ogneslav and then copy/paste the email here (I'd do it but it seems that he dislikes me). Perhaps he'd even permit others to use material from his site. Nikola 09:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You also didn't understand my question: wikipedia's policies don't say how he himself, from thr very beginning could confirm that he is the author, without me or you. Mikkalai 14:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, he himself could not from the very beginning confirm that he is the author. Period.
That's what I am saying: wikipedia's policy has a hole. And there are ways to fix it.Mikkalai 14:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have in past created a few pages where I'd just copy/paste text from a web site with nothing more than saying "Text from http://website used with permission. ~~~~" at the talk page. I was able to do this because, before that, I have contributed to Wikipedia for a long time, and none of my contributions are found to be copyright violations, and so everyone who reviewed the article knew that I understand and respect Wikipedia's copyright policy, and it is very unlikely that I would begin breaking it all of a sudden. On the other hand, this is a new user, who started to contribute copyrighted material, and there is possibility that he could be, as likely website owner, as someone who simply wants to use copyrighted material from the website and make false claims to get away with it.
This is all empty talk, however; wouldn't it be far easier and faster to simply e-mail the guy than to talk about what could have happened if something had happened? Nikola 07:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't care much about this topic and about the author. Do you think I cannot use e-mail? I am talking about the policy. I am going to summarize the talk at the corresponding pages. This disussion greatly helped me to understand what exactly I have to say. Thanks, guys. Mikkalai 14:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Read the copyvio boilerplate language. It says "To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this page's talk page.". RickK 19:26, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
This was what was actually said in a frustrated way in the Talk:Slavic mythology#So guys, according to which I entered the above note: "Text from webpage owned by the contributor". Your reaction was: "how do we KNOW...". Please notice that your reaction would be equally valid, if the notice were: "Text from webpage owned by me.<signature>". You seem to miss the legal difference between an e-mail confirmation from an account associated with the webpage in question and a simple notice on the wikipedia talk page. Mikkalai 19:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to point to the page where the original author of the page said it was his/her copyright and he/she has released it to GFDL in accordance with the line I quoted above. RickK 23:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • You seem to again miss the legal difference between an e-mail confirmation from an account associated with the webpage in question and a simple notice on the wikipedia talk page. The advice in the copyvio notice is laughable from legal POV: if you are the copyright holder... please indicate so on this page's talk page. How one may verify that the page editor is the owner? I may "indicate" I own Madonna's bare ass. And you're supposed to believe me until Madonna sues wikipedia? In this particular case I don't care about this nervous guy. I am pointing at a hole in the policy. The issue is credentials. In the case of an explicit request by another wikieditor, the credentials are the e-mail address of the respondent that matches the webpage info (weak, but triable). The advice you (and I) cited doesn't explain how to provide credentials. Mikkalai 01:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. I've already pointed the page: Talk:Slavic mythology#So guys. It has: The last drop was that somebody, called "administrator", deleted a number of my pages 'cause they were COPYRIGHT. He even adviced me in private to write in "my own words" - BUT THESE WERE MY OWN WORDS. He didn't even make the effort to look at the bottom of the source-site to see I am the copyright holder. This remark is just as good as any other. Notice also, contrary to your request, he has no duty to explicitely release to GFDL: in wikipedia GFDL is an opt-out; mere editing means release. Mikkalai 01:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great. That's what I was looking for. Now, was that so hard? RickK 19:26, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

No. But an easy way is no fun. Mikkalai 19:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


See Talk:Perperuna. `'mikka (t) 01:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section on ritual[edit]

The "Ritual" section makes four or five claims but has no sources for any of them. I'm not going to try to dig up sources on this subject, since I'm 100% unfamiliar with it, but it would improve the article if sources could be provided. Poihths (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New revision[edit]

The article was in dire need of new revision because the old revision had many serious issues for many years. For e.g. most of the text was directly copied from sources but without proper attribution and sometimes from sources which weren't even cited; gave false weight to a dubious fringe theory by non-folklorists/mythologists about Thracian origin which is ignored in all other sources; some explanations, connections were erroneous and couldn't be confirmed in literature; the primary mythological and etymological focus is on Perperuna while Dodola as substitution not other way around; Dodola isn't known as Perperuna nor Perperuna is known as Dodola, these are two separate but very similar pagan customs with common origin; hence the article title will be changed to "Perperuna and Dodola". Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before moving the article, discuss it here, please. I restored it to the name "Dodola" as it seems the most common one. The article title "Perperuna and Dodola" also appears to refer to a tradition that consists of both those figures, which is not the case. – Βατο (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) As was already explained and as it is explained in the scientific literature, these are two separate but similar pagan customs which are often related by folklorists. We cannot have in the article title only one custom because they are not synonyms and SCOPE of the article much more focused, as shown by literature, to Perperuna and it's Slavic origin as well as connection to Slavic deity Perun.
2) In your first edit you ignorantly and disruptively, as shown in the talk page discussion at Talk:Perëndi#Slavic loan, made an anti-Slavic edit against the consensus in scientific literature about the connection with Slavic deity Perun, all of which was cited in the article, and replaced it in the LEAD with two irrelevant sources promoting or fringe theories making WP:FALSEBALANCE (Ḱulavkova's about Thracian origin which is ignored in almost all other cited literature besides three which were by linguists and historians i.e. also non-experts on the field violating WP:WEIGHT) or non-expert minor viewpoint by Andrew Wachtel instead of many other reliable sources which claim exactly the opposite.
3) In anoted edit removed the part that the fringe theory argues Thracian origin of Perun, claiming to be "original research" on my part although noted the pages in which is clearly stated by Kulavkova at pg. 20 ("According to other beliefs, Perun, Perin, or Pirin was the supreme deity of the Thracians.") and by Dragnea at pg. 19, citing Paliga's fringe theory.
4) ignoring and removing sourced viewpoint from reliable and reputable scholars, bringing false balance with a controversial source.
5) removing sourced information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, thanks for improving the article, I would not have been able to collect these songs and history myself. I can't support "origin" part tho. There is literally 0 evidence for Perperuna being goddess and there is 0 evidence for direct connection to Perun. Pereplut is also unrelated name. Perun, Perkunas and Fjoryn are false cognates and PIE perkwunos didn't exist (this article is not best place for this topic tho). Connecting Dodola with Dzidzilela (forged goddess) is folk etymology, the latter word comes from PS *did- "big, great" and it can't be different. Lada is also forged goddess. Connecting Perperuna with Pripegala is also folk etymology. "Perun's battle against Veles becuase of Perperuna/Dodola's kidnapping" - where is this story attested? "sometimes even hosts would drink wine in Perun's honor." - are you telling me that people still worshipped Perun in 19/20th century? This is not only nonneutral, but also just false. Etymology is more like speculation now, we should add modern, scientific views (Snoj maybe?) on this name (might be of onomatopeic orign and I don't think there is evidence that the Slavs created names by reduplication of the root). Sławobóg (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't get me wrong, but nobody cares about your personal opinion. I became tired months ago of reading these paragraphs of opinion. The vast majority of sources by relevant scholars claim there's a connection. Everything what you wrote is written in reliable and modern sources. Editing or removing that would be "nonneutral". If there are any other modern, reliable sources by experts please list them here to check on them.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Miki Filigranski there is no consensus, the rainmaking custom is a shared tradition among Balkan peoples, your preferred origin theory is just one of the proposed hypotheses. As for the name Perperuna, I think it is likely from Perun, but Sławobóg maybe has a point here, and more recent academic sources should be analysed. The name Dodola is of uncertain origin. – Βατο (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't have a basic clue of what you're saying, don't know anything about the topic, neither read all the sources, neither understand WP:WEIGHT policy as showed before. No, as showed and claimed on other article talk page, you're the one who has a preffered theory (and fringe one at best!), wants to WP:OWN the article by making false balance! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the false balance is the WP:POV and WP:OR wording of the lead section: are Slavic rainmaking pagan customs which were mainly preserved among South Slavs and neighboring people until 20th century. Albanians, Greeks, Romanians, Aromanians/Vlachs, Hungarians are not Slavs, and the custom described in this article is a shared Balkan tradition. – Βατο (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop! You don't have basic understanding of the topic neither read the sources neither even bother to read what's written in the article. That's majority viewpoint, it was sourced and totally not original research. You are making a total mess of it ([2]) as Dodola isn't alternatively known as Perperuna because these are separate customs (they even had separate articles until 2015 when were merged but due to same wrong reasoning). They are not synonyms. Neither the customs were confirmed to be found among Bosnians, and Montenegrins in general (Bay of Kotor was inhabited by a mixture of ethnic groups and it was found there only sporadically). I had enough of this. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, two points of view collide here. It is wise to strike a balance between them, although this is not easy. Regarding the title, the proposed new combined title reflects both views and is more neutral. I agree here with Miki Filigranski. Jingiby (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Miki Filigranski, so what's your proposal? Saying in the lead section that it is exclusively a Slavic practice is non neutral. I added, according to the sources, the population groups that are attested to have practiced the custom of rainmaking, whether it was called Dodola or Perperuna. If you have enough reliable sources that claim a clear distinction between the practices referred to as Dodola and Perperuna, then you can create two separate articles. I read that some communities refer to the same practice with the name Dodola (and variants), and other communities with the name Perperuna (and variants). I can agree to include both variants of the names in the article title, but "Perperuna and Dodola" appears to indicate that the custom is called as such, which is not the case. – Βατο (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a practice of Slavic origin, related to Slavic deity Perun. That is the majority viewpoint in the RS. Removing that from the LEAD is non neutral. You even added ethnic groups among whom wasn't attested citing a bad source. The sources making clear distinction are already cited and there's no point in making separate article when these two customs are scholarly related. "Perperuna and Dodola" don't indicate anyhow that the custom is called with a single name "Perperuna and Dodola". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I found the book. Urbańczyk debunked Jakobson's etymology. perperuda, pepeluga etc. are related to Proto-Slavic *perpera, *perperъka "Common quail" and these are related to *pъrpati (onomatopoeic), cf. Polish dial. perpotać, perpac, Old East Slavic poropriti. So mystery has been solved. Meanwhile author himself reacts with aggression because someone tells him that the article is extremely one-sided. Having information about alleged relation between Perun and Perperuna is ok, since it actually is popular view, but it is not only view and it was criticised by other linguists. Btw Grimm is bad source. Sławobóg (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Sławobóg, the etymology you provided is interesting. @Miki Filigranski your statement It is a practice of Slavic origi is not supported by many scholars: there is not certainty about the origins of the practice. but there seems to be agreement among scholars that the name for the Balkan rainmaden Perperuna (and variants) is most likely of Slavic origin. The rainmaking custom is a Pan-Balkan practice, attested in the region at least since Classical Antiquity. I've just found a recent source: Burns, Richard (2008). "Rain and Dust". Studia Mythologica Slavica. XI: 217–236. doi:10.3986/sms.v11i0.1696. ISSN 1581-128X. which provides further information about the usage of the names, and analysis on some scholars' views, also: "The paper opens conjectures that relate the Balkan practice to two ancient Mediterranean mythological motifs: first, to Minoan and Mycenaean rainmaking invocations, and, secondly, to the goddess Persephone, via the theories of V. V. Ivanov and V. I. Toporov."Βατο (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sławobóg, thanks, that's just an opinion though (please provide details of the source), but indeed doesn't change the fact it is of Slavic origin (and related to Perun per majority viewpoint). @Βατο, in the article are already cited more than 12 reliable sources by many different scholars. I mostly agree with other things you said, but didn't mention anything not already cited in the article. To be noted, Burns source is reliable to cite on scholars' views, but unreliable source for Burns viewpoint. He is a poet, not a scientist. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jakobson's idea that Perperuna comes from Perun is also "just an opinion", what is wrong with you? Additionally, Urbańczyk's etymology is more scientifically correct, because it explains the doubling of the root per-, because there is no evidence for duplication of the root for feminine names and I have other book about that (which also supports Urbańczyk's idea). He says that ritual is known to Greeks and Albanians and it should be established actual origin first. He later say Perperuna might be related to words I mentioned before (also Polish przepierzyca), not only because of etymology, also because quail (in Polish folklore) is associated with the harvest rites and is the name of the bride in the wedding dance. So I guess Slavic origin is very possible (from the bird). Urbańczyk, Stanisław (1991). Dawni Słowianie. Wiara i kult (in Polish). Wrocław: Ossolineum. | Sławobóg (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the text and it can be hardly called a debunking as you described it in your comment. Urbańczyk only said that Jakobson's opinion needs caution, he didn't refute it. We also have reliable sources which support Jakobson (and Slavic origin, relation to Mokosh etc.), including lately Patrice Lajoye (2015, pg. 107–115 etc.). Do you have other sources which mention or support Urbańczyk's derivation from the bird?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Łuczyński (2020) Bogowie dawnych Słowian. Studium onomastyczne. Additionally, the article does not mention at all that peperuda means "butterfly" in Bulgarian (mentioned in Russian and Bulgarian wiki)!!! Български етимологичен речник (vol 5, p. 162) has 2 pages of etymology of this word, also mentioning *perperica and other ideas, but image quality makes it too hard to read for me. There is also Proto-Kartvelian root *ṗerṗer- / *perpel- "butterfly" connected with PS *perperъka. It is clear from the Bulgarian dictionary that the subject is complicated and the etymologies are many, and that the article is not neutral and tries by force to push through Jakobson's etymology repeated uncritically by later authors. In the case of Slavic mythology/folklore, Western scholars often mindlessly (I'm not exaggerating) repeat various stupidities and rarely have a clue what they are writing about, cf. Mathieu-Colas. I'm not comparing Lajoye or Evans to that, but we should be sceptic about Western optimism. Natko Nodilo is also pretty bad source (see Svetovit#In_Serbia). Sławobóg (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The part about butterfly is quoted in 4th reference, forgot to expand more on it citing other sources. The association is mythological, doesn't make sense such a widespread pagan custom derives from a Bulgarian word for butterfly and shows that the Bulgarian word for butterfly derives instead from the mythological background to which is related the custom. If not, as in the case of cited Proto-Karvelian, occurred secondary associations of unrelated words. Will expand more regarding the etymology in general. Sorry, but you're using hard words and claims here. The article is properly and reliably edited according to WEIGHT, and tried to be careful with using them.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sławobóg I have not a preference about the article title, could you suggest something about this issue? It seems that Dodola is the most common name, and in some communities both names (and variants) are found, even in the same song. – Βατο (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is Dodola really more popular than Perperuna? I think modern, scientific or popular, usage also counts? I think "Dodola and Perperuna" would be good, but I'm not 100% sure. Sławobóg (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen it by a first check on Google search and Google books, and in general Dodola seems to be more common. But I am not sure which is more common in recent sources and popular usage. Perhaps Burns' (2008) information could be useful: "The various names have been el-egantly mapped by Plotnikova (1999) to reveal regional variations. Names of the dodola type, which I designate as the 'central' group, are more common in Serbia, Bosnia, and names of the peperuga or perperuda type, designated as the 'eastern and southern group', tend to be more frequent in Bulgaria, Rumania, Moldovia, Albania, Thessaly and Epirus (Burns 2006a: 35, 37-38 & 42). In the border-area of dialect-continua between Bulgaria and Serbia, as in Macedonia, both verbal variants appear in the same song."Βατο (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, "Dodola and Perperuna" is ok then. If the name depends on the region, then we should not discriminate against any of them. It may be clunky, but it will be fair. Sławobóg (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name depends on the custom, songs and name of central character. These are two separate types. There can be made correlations based on regions, but not causations on which depends the name. Regarding the distribution, it strangely omits Croatia and mentions Bosnia, check the map from Čulinović-Konstantinović "Dodole and prporuše: folk customs for invoking the rain" (note how's titled the source). I am okay with the title "Dodola and Perperuna".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, @Miki Filigranski feel free to make the page move. – Βατο (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other sources[edit]

@Sławobóg: Czesław Białczyński in his Mitologia słowiańska (1999), not a reliable and scientific source, mentions:

PERPERUNA (Peperuna, Perperuda, Prperousza, Pe-runica). Jej istyjskim odpowiednikiem jest Perkunija. Runa - od rdzenia run ma takie same znaczenia jak wyżej, ale także w obocznej postaci zachowanej u Bułgarów - Perperuda - kędzierzawa, bo ruda kosa - kędzierzawe włosy, kędziory, rudica - zbita wełna, rudina - niwa, rudy - czerwony, błotny, bagnisty (co wskazuje, podobnie jak u Peruna, na jej związek z wodą), pokryty rudą - czyli naleciałością żelazistą, barwy rdzawej. Z powyższego zestawienia wynika, że Perperuna musiała mieć kręcone, gęste, kędzierzawe włosy rudej barwy. Były cztery boginie o rudych włosach: Perperuna, Ruda-Ródź, Swara (o włosach płomiennych) i Krasatina (o włosach krasnych i krasnym licu).

O świętości rośliny paproci, której nazwa przechowała imię bogini Ródzi-Pap-rudy, świadczy jej związek nazewniczy z boskim rdzeniem per (Perun, Perperuna, Perepłut, Pripegala, Prowe, Porenut, Puruvit, Porewit, Spór). Przechowane przez Bułgarów i Macedończyków miano Perperuda nie jest powtórzeniem serbskiego i chorwackiego imienia żony Peruna - Perperuna, lecz imieniem bogini Rodzi, córki Roda, kochanki Perunica. Związek Perperudy z Peruni-cem znajduje także odbicie w nazwie świętego zioła pe-runiki.

I have a hard time reading the source, but does it cite any reference? Do you know of any Polish source which makes the same claim?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Białczyński is turboslavic, he promotes Great Lechia and believes that Proto-Indo-European = Proto-Slavic. In his books he forges new gods. Nothing to talk about tbh. See List of Slavic pseudo-deities. Sławobóg (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Had the same impression.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sławobóg: Łuczyński, Bogowie dawnych Słowian. Studium onomastyczne (2020), can you please make a full quote and provide page?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 141: Autor ten [Jakobson] wychodzi z założenia, że nazwa ta [Pereplut] stanowi jeden z wielu wariantów fonetycznych i morfologicznych teonimu Perun [...] powołując się przy tym na brzmieniowe podobieństwo z terminem obrzędowym serb. prporusa, bułg. pe(r)peruna, pe(r)peruda i in. [...] Wywód Jakobsona podważył jednak S. Urbańczyk, wzkazując na związek nazw typu peperuda, pepeluga i in. z psł. *perpere, *perperъka "przepiórka". Leksemy wskazane przez R. Jakobsona wywodzą się z psł. *pr̥pati vb. pochodzenia dźwiękonaśladowczego, por. np. (polish and OES words here) [...] Bałkański termin obrzędowy nie jest więc spokrewniony etymologicznie ze srus. teonimem, w jego wypadku można mówić o reduplikacji rdzenia onomatopeicznego i szeregu przekształceń fonetycznych (np. regularny rozwój -er- < ; wtórny konsonantym d < n), przez co hipoteza Jakobsona traci rację bytu. Pozwala to na odrzucenie interpretacji tego badaczu z powodu trudności formalnych.
Page 279: I wreszcie, nic nie przemawia za tym, by w słowiańskiej teonimii istniały pary nazewnicze: model na tworzeniu form feminatywnych od męskich imion osobowych nie był, w świetle wiarygodnych danych, w tej kategorii produktywny, w związku z czym można przyjąć, że brak był (często postulowanych) par typu *Perunъ - *Perynь (lub Perperuna), *Velesъ - *Vela, na wróz np. sind. Indra - Indrani, Agni - Agnani... Sławobóg (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Miki Filigranski, since you highlighted inaccuracies regarding the spread of the custom, could you propose a compromise wording between the information provided by Muraj (1987) and that provided by Ḱulavkova (2020)? – Βατο (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the article are cited several reliable sources, not only Muraj (1987), describing the spread of the custom. In the new sources the mistake is regarding the distribution on the territory of former Yugoslavia. I would say that the best source for the former Yugoslavian territory is still Čulinović-Konstantinović (1963). It was more prevalent among Croats than Serbs in Croatia, and don't know what's the reason for mentioning Bosnians. Natko Nodilo (1884) mentioned that West of river Vrbas, which would be Western part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dodola and Prporuša were known as Čaro(j)ice, but couldn't verify and confirm the association in other sources. Čaroice was a different custom mainly around December and rarely Poklade (May) in which boys were dressed as girls or animals - not greenery, it was found among both Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim people and each group visited houses of other religion, and the song lyrics were also different. I would stick to countries and regions rather than ethnic groups (for now would remove Bosnia and Herzegovina). Anyway, currently am preparing a new edit which will include and expand the POV from new sources provided by you and Sławobóg. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, feel free to make any wording reasonably in agreement with RS and with evidence from field research. – Βατο (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proto-Kartvelian *p̣erp̣er- "butterfly" - most likely ultimate source. That explains Balkan-only range of the word, custom and pseudogoddess. Sławobóg (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have a RS which connects it to Perperuna/Dodola customs? How a Proto-Kartvelian language of Caucasus is the most likely ultimate source? How it explains Balkan-only range of the word, custom etc.?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't done a good research yet, I found this partly by accident and am putting it here so as not to forget, and maybe someone else will find something more about it. It is possible that we are dealing here with a Wanderword. Borrowing is possible, compare κῶας. See also πεταλούδα (especially the suffix -da). Sławobóg (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]