User:KYPark/withe

withe

This appears akin to Old English wiþþe, German (deprecated template usage) Weide, English withy, Latin (deprecated template usage) vitis, etc.

--KYPark (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Leasnam has added the etymology. Dbfirs 12:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears akin to the five pairs of English words on the right, all in context, in concert, in consilience, (as if) in coincidence!

--KYPark (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What if all these and other words should be akin indeed? Then there should be one oldest word, idea, or ancestor among them, ahead of their individual ancestors.

That would be wonderful if they were! However, no one has been able to reasonably demonstrate that they are. At this time, they remain distinct. Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

--KYPark (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Research (not mine) seems to indicate that the words in each column are indeed akin, but that the columns themselves are independent. I agree that they constitute an interesting coincidence, probably because of parallel language development. Anyone can say "what if?", but, to be taken seriously, they need to find some evidence. Dbfirs 12:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that there should be an ancestor of ancesors, or king of kings. --KYPark (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The first column for sure, all are related by ablaut in PIE/PGM. The second column not so sure, one word, (deprecated template usage) wond isn't Modern English (it is Middle English, Dutch, and perhaps a few others). The other, (deprecated template usage) wound, is thought to derive from a different PIE root that (deprecated template usage) wind. Otherwise, same ablaut process affected both roots similarly. blow/blown/blew/blowth look like grow/grown/grew/growth but that does not necessarily indicate relation. Leasnam (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)