Talk:koberec

Etymology of koberec

Note: see also User talk:Bogorm/archive4#Etymology_of_koberec.

Greetings, in the appreciated etymology of Czech "koberec" you write "The Slavic word derives from Old Norse kögurr (“‘quilt’”)". Which Slavic word do you mean? --Dan Polansky 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Proto-Slavic which I could not find as reconstructed. Its descendants include, as noted, the Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian and Russian words. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

When you write "The source for the Slavic words is ...", do you mean "The Slavic words "koberec", "ковёр" and "губер" are derived from ..."? --Dan Polansky 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I have rewritten the etymology in koberec into the following format: "From <etymon>, according to <scholar>; cognates include <cognates>", as is usual with English etymologies. Hope it is okay with you. The formatting rests on the assumption that the main information in the etymology section is the etymology, while the cognates are of second importance; and also that statements about the subject matter come first and scholarly sources backing those statements come second. --Dan Polansky 08:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I made the etymology of the Slovak entry consistent with the Czech one. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. On another note, I have removed Slovak interwiki from "koberec", as the Slovak Wiktionary does not have the entry yet. --Dan Polansky 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for apprising me of the interwiki, I would have failed to descry it. It should have been a Serbo-Croatian interwiki, but I must have been distracted when adding it or thinking about the Slovak entry there. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, so let me do the word lookup for the words that I do not know by heart: "apprise" - to notify; "descry" - * to see * to notice carefully; to detect.

I think you'd better leave interwikis alone, avoiding their manual entry; they are added by a bot automatically.

I have now found a link to your source[1], and am beginning to wonder.

Can you please translate for me the following sentence from the source?:

• Невероятно фонетически заимствование из др.-исл. ko<gurr "ковер, одеяло" (Миккола, Мém. Sос. Néopħilol. 1, 389 и сл.), происхождение которого в свою очередь неясно (Хольтхаузен, Awn. Wb. 171).

Why, when the source (Vasmer) seems to mention several possible etymologies, you mention only one in Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the source is at ковёр#References. I did not quote it under the Slovak and Czech entries, because I do not expect most people learning those two languages to be able to read sources in Russian, therefore in the Russian entry. I suppose you found it out there. However, if you insist, I can henceforth provide the sk and cs entries with the source from Vasmer as well. The source præsents two theories - the one from Mikkola which is critically mentioned by Vasmer (your quote is from the Russian translation, the original is das von Mikkola als Quelle angesehene kögurr genügt lautlich nicht=k. which Mikkola considers to be the source does not suffice phonetically) and the Turkic origin, which he favours. I mentioned both of them, not just the one of them, which I cherish. What exactly is your objection? I did not pick up just one of them, as you imply. However, I am not capable of formatting entries in Turkic languages, because I do not have any knowledge (soever, skip this word, if you will) in any of them, therefore I just mentioned the theorised Turkic origin. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the bot, it not only does not add interwiki links to sh wiktionary, but erases them. I already complained about that here, where the diffs from the removals are visible, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Therefore interwiki links to Serbo-Croatian wiktionary can not be handled for the moment by this bot. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) If I understand correctly, you are using Vasmer as your source, yet Vasmer thinks that "kögurr" is implausible, preceding his note on "kögurr" with the following sentence:

• "Источником было, возм., дунайско-болг., волжско-болг. (др.-чув.) *kavǝ̂r--из *kebir; ср. ср.-тюрк. kiviz, küwuz, чагат., вост.-тюрк. kigiz "войлочное одеяло", тат., казах. kīz, монг. kebis "ковер", калм. kews̨; см. Рясянен, FUF 29, 196; ZfslPh 20, 448; Рамстедт, KWb. 230."

This sentence explicitly mentions Turkish "kiviz" and "küwuz" and some hypothetical roots: "*kavǝ̂r", from "*kebir". So your source seems to mention the Turkish etymology as the main one, while mentioning the Old Norse "kögurr" only as a hypothesis that he finds implausible. By contrast, what you posted to "koberec" reads exactly the other way around: "kögurr" is positively asserted, while Turkic origins are merely claimed to be "theorised", which reads like "hypothesized", without the specific Turkish words being mentioned. This makes the etymology entered into "koberec" look untrustworthy or misleading, to me anyway. But there is also the possibility that I have misunderstood something, as I have rather little knowledge of Russian.

Given that you speak Russian and I do not, I think it would be best if you give all the etymologies considered by Vasmer equal standing in Wiktionary, indicating in the etymology sections of Wiktionary as candidate etymons all the terms that are considered by Vasmer, your source. --Dan Polansky 13:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about Turkish etymology, the theory as favoured by Vasmer speaks about Turkic theory and the distinction is crucial (at the time of the borrowing the ethnogenesis of the Turkish people had not begun). The source is not mine, it is the one which I consulted at that moment for this word. And it also mentions the explanation of the venerable Jooseppi Julius Mikkola who is a classical scholar in linguistics. When tha classics are not consistent in unifying around one theory, it is our duty to præsent all possibilities as stated by them. what I posted in koberec read the following way "kögurr" is positively asserted by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola, while ..., this distinction is crucial as well. Had I mentioned only the ON origin without a single word about the Turkic theory, then it would have been misinterpretation of the source. I have not acted this way, instead I added both theories and even explained which prominent scholar embraces the ON theory and what other theories apart from his there are. I explicitly mentioned by whom it is asserted in order to fend off similar objections, when the classical scholars dissent in their theories, which is always my wont, my habit, whenever I stumble upon such dissensions (confer the etymolgy of кайгана where the Greek origin is also asserted by one of our classical scholars in linguistics, academician Stefan Mladenov, whilst another linguists embrace the Turkish theory - this time the Turkish/Persian word of the concurrent theory is not reconstructed, is attested, even has its entry here, so Ilinked them, which is by far not the case with unattested Turkic (supposedly Turkic, as is the case with Proto-Bulgarian) languages). And yes, the Turkic theory is theorised, because the Proto-Bulgarian root is unattested unlike the Old Norse word. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the scholar himself, see the Polish article about Jooseppi Julius Mikkola - he has written Die Chronologie der türkischen Donaubulgaren, has specialised with Proto-Bulgarians, and even though he considered them Turkic, if he could not link the Slavic words with the Proto-Bulgarian reconstructed word, then this is what makes to me personally embracing the Turkic theory misleading. But notwithstanding, both theories should have their place at the etymology section regardless of mine or your personal præference for the Old Norse or Turkic origin, since both stem from classical scholars in this realm. This is what I struggled to accomplish. However, if you wish, you may add the supposed Turkic reconstructed root. I am not conversant with Proto-Turkic roots. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I figured out why you mentioned Turkish - ср.-тюрк means Middle Turkic. тюркский (Vasmer: тюр.) in Russian means Turkic, whereas турецкий (Vasmer: тур.) means Turkish. In the second half of the first millenium anno Domini speaking about Tukish does not have much sense. If you are interested in other Russian abbreviations in Vasmer's dictionary and/or you intend to use it, I can always answer your quæestions about the abbreviations, as can Vahagn Petrosyan as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is another problem which I noticed now, when I observed more carefully the Russian translation. In this case, it is too bold, because Источником было means the source was... (no probably, no perhaps... alas), whereas the German original is die Quelle ist wohl and wohl means probably, arguably and was omitted by the Russian translation. This wohl means that Vasmer asserted with a temperate and not absolute certainty the Turkic origin, as the Russian translation implies. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in Vasmer, I recommend you the German edition, since your German is at intermediate level according to the Babel box. Consulting it can spare us of such lengthy discussions in the future. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) My mistake in confounding Turkish with Turkic; the term that I have misread was "ср.-тюрк. kiviz, küwuz".

What is your source of the etymology? Is it Vasmer or do you have a work by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola? That Jooseppi Julius Mikkola is (a) classic and (b) venerable does not speak in his favor, in my eyes anyway; scholarly sources should be as modern and reliable as possible, not classic and venerable. Aristotle is classic and venerable, yet I rely on him neither for physics, nor for philosophy.

What do you need "præference" and "quæstions" for? Are these spellings recognized as a valid ones by your favorite spell checker? In contemporary English, these are spelling errors.

As regards what is theorized and what not, while the existence of the Old Norse term is attested, its being an etymological root is no more theorized than the other options that Vasmer considers.

I guess what got me suspicious was that you entered a particular Old Norse term into etymology, while omitting all other particular terms mentioned by Vasmer. As regards the omitted "wohl" meaning "likely" or "probably", that does not change the fact that Vasmer proposed a Turkic origin as the probable one, and the Old Norse as an improbable one. --Dan Polansky 14:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not change his præference, but it does not change the fact either that Jooseppi Julius Mikkola favours the Old Norse origin and that both Mikkola and Vasmer are authorities (if the word classic is undesirable for you) in linguistics. I understand you suspicion about not adding the supposed Turkic root - for two reasons: 1) it is unattested, but this is not a problem per se, since I add reconstructed Gothic words, when I can consult more sources, i. e. when I have sources for checking the spelling before adding it (which is not the case with Turkic languages - the second reason), because reconstructions may vary in time (unlike attested words) and above you just expressed your desire for the newest reliable source.

præference and quæstion are established dated (archaic, if you præfere) English spellings. If you do not believe me, ask Doremítzwr, he is a native speaker and cherishes them as much as I do. I am fond of the ſharp ſ as well, but for the moment I refrain from uſing it.

Neither theory is more or less theorised. The Turkic one by Vasmer, the Old Norse by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola. A reader of wiktionary is likely to expect a comprehensive review of the theories about the origin of koberec and I did my best in trying to provide one with the help of Vasmer. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay. But that means we have two authorities disagreeing, one authority being more modern - Vasmer, another more dated - Mikkola. Thus the etymology about which the two authorities disagree is contentious.

I have tried to make the uncertainty clearer by adding "possibly " to the etymology of "koberec", to weaken the claim. --Dan Polansky 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Returning back to the issue, I have removed the Old Norse etymology from koberec, the one that Vasmer deems implausible. The reasoning behind the move is that the source that is cited does not support Old Norse etymology, and that you have a track record of pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies. If you can cite the Old Norse etymology in a modern source, it can be put back.

On another note, the reader of Wiktionary does not not expect to find a comprehensive overview of what was in the past deemed knowledge. The etymology sections of Wiktionary should not document the revision history of the allegoric wiki tracking the development and changes of human knowledge, as it were. The etymology sections should not list hypotheses that have been superseded or rejected by a modern research. That is why the term "classical" or "classic" as applied to etymologies is rather pejorative than anything else. --Dan Polansky 09:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This etymology seems to be deemed plausible at least by Karl Brugmann (apart from Jooseppi Julius Mikkola) who is an uncontested and prominent authority in the realm of linguistics as well as by the Jahresbericht über die Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der germanischen Philologie. Your blatant præference exclusively for the brand-new editions over the ones issued a certain amount of time ago, concomitant with the absence of source from your side, id est with your criticism of extant sources without quoting refuting sources, if any, is about to deprive the etymology of this entry of a well-founded theory supported by Brugman, Mikkola and the Jahresbericht über die Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der germanischen Philologie (all are quoted under koberec#References). I am eager to remind you that this is about linguistics, not physics or genetics, where only the brand-new sources are revered, in this realm classical sources must be taken into account. Hardly anyone would quote Newton in a dissertation in physics (not least because he wrote in Latin and the knowledge of this magnificent language among contemporary physicists is anything but common), but in etymological works cites date even to the 18th century and in order to show you how a breakthrough in linguistics could not be superseded for more than a century, I need only to refer you to the Monier-Williams dictionary of Sanskrit, which Ivan frequently cites, which has not been superseded neither in volume nor in quality and which was published in 1899. Dvoretsky's Latin dictionary published in the 1940s has not been superseded in volume and exhaustiveness either. Now I am too tired to draw edificatory conclusions, I would liefer leave that for you.

you have a track record of pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies - as for this argumentum ad hominem, exactly this sort of accusations has compelled me to quote almost everytime the source for the descendence from Old Norse of words in English and other non-North Germanic languages, leading to a needless waste of time and resources. Obviously I need to keep referencing etymology sections, whenever Old Norse or Gothic are mentioned (outside da, no, sv and is entries for Old Norse of course), as was and is still my wont here, because of your suspicious attitude. Now, I would be truly reconnaissant, if you commit yourself to finding a refuting source, modern or not, regardless for me (why regardless, I already explained with the help of Monier-Williams' and Dvoretsky's dictionaries), because erasing quoted sources without finding due refutation seems too distrustful. And I would require a proof that I have been pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies (except from the inception of my activity here, when I was unoriented), because with no such proof this is to be considered a breach of civility. And I assure you that all the Old Norse etymologies which I have been adding for more than a year are all based on linguistic sources and no one is botched up by me. These, which I myself suspect, are to be found only on my user page and in no other place. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As for your discontentment from my writing style, I converse much more often with Ivan, who is no native speaker of English either, and he has not complained hitherto thereabout. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on your last comment and removal of a significant part of the etymology I am already convinced that your appraisal of the initial shape of the etymology section as appreciated etymology (your comment from 13:45, 27 November 2009) was meant to be ironic, was it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Re: "And I would require a proof that I have been pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies (except from the inception of my activity here, when I was unoriented), because with no such proof this is to be considered a breach of civility." -- heh, what you have put into parentheses as if it were marginal is exactly what is at stake. I was indeed referring to your beginnings at Wiktionary. Hence my suspicion when I see Old Norse etymology added inspite of the modern source--Vasmer--deeming it dubious. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with civility and incivility; a personal attack has to do with civility. I am not calling you any names; I am mery stating a fact about some of your past contributions. In any case, the track record is there in the oldest archive of your talk page.

As regards you writing style consisting of using archaic spellings and rare archaic words, I merely indicated that I don't like it and that it makes reading what you write more difficult - how else would you know if I did not let you know? Apart from not liking the archaic spellings, I have also mentioned words that I had to look up, which I do not need to with the words used by other contributors. You are intentionally making it more difficult to understand what you write. That Ivan did not complain may be caused by his better acquaintance with archaic English than I have. I am not particularly interested in archaic English; I am interested in building a dictionary and communicating with its editors in modern English. Which, again, "liefer" is not, and I had to look it up. --Dan Polansky 11:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am relieved now, if you are referring only to this first week of my activity here in August 2008. Yes, I admit that I was unoriented then, but I also atoned that and have never since added an Old Norse descendence claim without looking for confirmation. The archaic language from my last post was as caustic as was ironic your appreciated etymology at the beginning of this section. Ok then, I shall restrict the use of those favourite words of mine when conversing with non-native speakers of English. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please translate the following: Snad bude východisko přece jen románské (bud' stfr. carpite nebo sloveso fr. couvrir); b jest hledati asi v severní Itálii. - I understand that some connection to couvrir is supposed, by I am eager to know whether it is mentioned critically or with a high probability. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I did not mean "appreciated etymology" ironically or sarcastically; at first I was glad that you have added etymology to a Czech entry.

Re translation: I estimate that term "východisko" is used to mean "origin"; "přece jen" could be rendered as German "doch". An imperfect translation could read: "The origin would perhaps be Romance (either Middle French carpite or the French verb couvrir); b is likely to be sought in the northern Italy." The following terms in the source text weaken certainty of statement: "snad .. přece jen", "asi". Overall, to render it as "highly likely" would be a mistranslation; even "likely" seems to be too strong. My impression is that the author indicates his best estimate in which he is far from sure. Hope that helps a bit. --Dan Polansky 13:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does help. It would be advisable at least for the Romance theory to be mentioned, since its proponent issued it in 1957, whereas the work of Mikkola is half a century older than that. Machek also mentions the possibility of German origin: Mor. a slc. k. možno míti též za přejaté z něm. Kober nůše, ale významy jsou ponekad rozdílné - Moravian and Slovak k. may be conceived as loaned from German Kober (nůše ?), but the meanings sometimes differ - do I understand it aright? Kober is an archaic German word for some sort of basket according to Grimm. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Moravian a synonym for Czech? I thought Moravia is only a geographical term, not a linguistic one... I also noticed that most verbs from Category:Czech verbs end in -t, whereas in Machek they end in -ti. Is -ti a dated ending? Was there a spelling reform in Czech between 1957 and 2000? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with only the Turkic theory left in the etymology section, when Vasmer describes 4 and Machek another two. Please, try to understand my concern. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry for the belated reply. There are some dialects of Czech spoken in Moravia, but it is unknown to me that one of them or all of them collectively would be called "Moravian". "-ti" is an obsolete ending of Czech verbs; the modern ending is "-t", plentifully present in Wiktionary; so "dělati" is obsolete and "dělat" is modern.

I think Machek and his speculations can be left out from Wiktionary without much loss. This is not a moral criticism of Machek; he honestly indicates the uncertainty of his estimations, as he should. I have no problem with other options mentioned by Vasmer being mentioned in Wiktionary. I for one would not have a problem if you add the more speculative etymologies to the talk page, under a section "Czech - etymology", or of the sort. The talk page is just talk page, and can contain also hypotheses that are refused, as long as these are sourced and not wholly arbitrary. Other editors may differ, though. Other than that, I would leave a further discussion of etymology of "koberec" to you and Ivan, as you are both intensely interested in etymologies. --Dan Polansky 12:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Haven't read the whole discussion). Bogorm, it's highly unlikely that's it's from Old Norse. Even Vasmer explicitly says so ("Невероятно фонетически заимствование из др.-исл" :) The word is from Turkic (as Vasmer claims), if you don't believe see p. 710 of the 2003 Altaic Etymological Dictionary by Starostin, Dybo & Mudrak [online entry here] (which is much more recent source than either Vasmer and esp. Brugmann & Mikkola) which unambiguously states (on the topmost entry for Proto-Turkic word for "carpet"): "Chuv. (Bulg.) > ORuss. kovьrъ ‘carpet’." Old Norse theory is really not worth mentioning. I can understand your passion for finding ancient Germanic loanwords in the Slavic, but they are not that numerous as Brugmann & co originally thought :) --Ivan Štambuk 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, above I explained how distorted is the original German die Quelle ist wohl wolgabulg. ... (wohl expressing a temperate certainty like exemply gratia probably) as compared to the absolute certainty expressed in the Russian translation, where the word wohl has not been translated... I also stressed that many breakthroughs in the realm of linguistics such as Monier Williams Sanskrit dictionary (1899) or Dvoretsky's and Korolkov's Latin - Russian dictionary (1949) remain unsurpassable up to modern times and it is inacceptable to dismiss some linguistic source simply because of the edition year, this is neither physics nor genetics after all. I only wanted to prove that accepting only the brand new in linguistics is faux pas. Dan has not præsented refuting evidence, but you have come up with those two sources. I feel particularly suspicious that Jooseppi Julius Mikkola who has specialised in the field of Proto-Bulgarian history (according to the article about him) does not even mention the possibility of Proto-Bulgarian origin (in the 1900s), that Vasmer hæsitatingly indorses the Turkic origin (1950s), that Václav Machek mentions some connection to carpet and couvrir or to German Kober again with no discussion soever of the alleged Turkic origin (1957) and that finally at the beginning of the 21st century this Turkic version has been imposed... But well, I am not against it being mentioned, I even added it as a possibility to the article, but I would like to ask whether concurrent theories should be expurgated, what do you think? Mikkola and Karl Brugmann indorsed it, Vasmer mentions it, albeit critically, so why remove it, as Dan made? The principal opposition to well-established classical works is not an option in linguistics, is it? And what worries me about Starostin is that he supports the highly controversial appurtenance of the isolated Japanese language to the Altaic language family (according to the article about him), which would obviously strengthen the positions of Turkic/Altaic theories. Therefore I feel much more inclined to Jooseppi Julius Mikkola and Karl Brugmann and feel particularly aggrieved when their achievement is being removed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they're simply too old to be valid uncontroversial references. Linguistic science of IE etymology was very primitive back then (there were lots of ad-hoc explanations and "rules"). The topic of Germanic loanwords into Slavic is also very contested, and 90% of what used to proposed as some alleged prehistoric borrowings are simply nonsense by today's standards (also is valid for so-called "Iranian borrowings"). Find a work published in the last 30-40 years (and by that I don't mean work merely referencing Brugmmann or Mikkola's theory, but critically examining it at concluding that it's plausible) that supports Germanic origin and we can add it. Controversial theories must be well-sourced. I don't know what Machek is hallucinating about, this word was borrowed more than 1000 years ago and has nothing to do with modern-day German, English or French. Also, the disputed status of Altaic and of other Starostin's work in no way invalidates this particular Turkic etymon of Old Russian word mentioned in that book. --Ivan Štambuk 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan translated it above from Czech. Of course not modern French, but some Old French præcursor carpite and the præcursos of couvrir. Another possibility according to Machek is archaic German (well, the OHG prædecessor) Kober, which means basket - if přejaté means loaned, I asked Dan about that. I know you are particularly distrustful of the Germano-Slavic hypothesis which was supposed to stress the links between the languages at the beginning of the 20th centuries and which was subsequently dismissed, but... Well, I shall try to find out something. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is attested in Old Russian is a very strong case to dismiss any German/English/French origin (Vasmer also notes that). I'm not really distrustful of the Germano-Slavic hypothesis, it's just that I tend not to take sides with the preference of hypotheses on the basis of some ideological convictions. There are lots of ancient isoglosses (lexical, e.g. words for "thousand", and phonological, e.g. the reflexes of PIE syllabic sonorants..) that Slavic shares with Germanic, but this word has nothing to do with that: it is obviously some kind of a late borrowing in Slavic, and the only question is from which language. Turkic simply makes the strongest case here, given the widespread distribution of the term (in all 3 Slavic branches), and the history of interaction of Slavic speakers with Turkic people. --Ivan Štambuk 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)