Wiktionary

User:KYPark/withy

< User:KYPark

withy edit

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wiþjōn
27-28 March 2013 Leasnam

Etymology edit

From Proto-Indo-European *wīt-, *weyt- (“that which twines or bends, branch, rod, switch, whip”), from Proto-Indo-European *wey- (“to turn, bend, twist”). Cognate with Latin vītis (“vine”), Lithuanian vytinė (“withe, rod, switch”), Russian ветвь (vetvʹ, “branch, bough, limb”), Polish witka (“rod, switch”), Old Irish féith (“sinew, fibre, vine”).

Noun edit

wiþjǭ ?

  1. cord, rope, thong

Declension edit

(erased)

Related terms edit

Descendants edit

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wiþiz
28 March 2013 Leasnam, CodeCat

Etymology edit

From Proto-Indo-European *wéytis (“that which twines or bends, branch, rod, switch, whip”), from Proto-Indo-European *wey- (“to turn, bend, twist”). Cognate with Latin vītis (“vine”), Lithuanian vytinė (“withe, rod, switch”), Russian ветвь (vetvʹ, “branch, bough, limb”), Polish witka (“rod, switch”), Old Irish féith (“sinew, fibre, vine”).

Noun edit

wiþiz ?

  1. cord, rope, thong

Declension edit

(erased)

Related terms edit

Descendants edit

  1. How are both related at all?
  2. Whether or not related, which is earlier at all?
  3. Which better relates to withy in question at all?

--KYPark (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

They probably both come from the same root, PIE *wey-. *wéytis is a productive formation within PIE, so that is probably the older of the two. *wiþjōn may have been derived from it, although I'm not sure about the extra details (like why the -þ- was kept when it was clearly part of a derivational suffix). —CodeCat 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Whose "probably, probably"? Yours or the third party's? And, is either the origin of withy at issue after all? --KYPark (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

See also: User:KYPark/withe to which User:CodeCat moved Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium#withe for the simple reason "Not appropriate" in his or her opinion?

--KYPark (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

wiþig
From wiþ ("?") + -ig ("-like"). Cognates may include:

I wish the latter part of likelihood would not excite hotheads too much but help coolheads, as it were, break through the deadlock, if any.

--KYPark (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read up on w:Grimm's law and the w:High German consonant shift before posting lists like this. The languages in your area (aside from the Sinitic languages) are isolates, so you don't have much exposure to sound correspondences between related languages. This is obvious enough that it's been pretty much universally accepted for at least the past century and a half, with the disputes centering on some of the details and finer points, but not on the basics. The Italian example comes from Latin pecten, which is even less plausible as a cognate. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No phonetic dispute seems to arise from those Germanic examples. Otherwise, if any, please kindly show us such wise views of yours. Latin videre of (deprecated template usage) dividere cf. (deprecated template usage) discern ("sift, separate") also looks safe. Most unlikely and ignorable is Italian pettine I'd use because of its senses "comb and reed esp. of a loom" of parallelity and similarity that seem to shed light on the weeping willow looking like raining! But this last should not be the weakest link of a chain but the tail of a lizard.
--KYPark (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as sound correspondences (ignoring the vowels):
To sum it all up, what looked at first glance like a case of problems with sound correspondences weren't, really. Instead, you were just matching up words within languages that don't belong: with and wide are as different as apples and oranges. The th and the d are enough to invalidate the comparison, but the semantics are wrong, too. The Old English preposition wiþ had more of a connotation of towards or against: the idea of things being together came from the idea of them being up against each other/close to each other. Wide has more of an outward than inward direction- they just don't go together. Wood and withe don't go together, either. The Proto-Indo-European from which withe and withy came has more to do with flexibility and twisting than with anything associated with wood. I should also mention that the Weeping Willow is an East Asian plant that was unknown in most of Europe until after the Middle Ages. It got the name from biblical translations of a Hebrew word for a riparian tree that probably wasn't a willow. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me move leftmost...

Template:examples-right

Refer to "English: (deprecated template usage) withy; ((deprecated template usage) withe, (deprecated template usage) with)" under Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wiþjōn at left on top. Note (deprecated template usage) with.

Refer also to EtymOnLine at right relating (deprecated template usage) divide to ((deprecated template usage) widow and (deprecated template usage) with. Note (deprecated template usage) with again.

Both references are related by (deprecated template usage) with that replaced OE (deprecated template usage) mid mysteriously.

Now you have (deprecated template usage) wide, (deprecated template usage) wood, (deprecated template usage) Weid ("pasture"), hence three out of ten, left yet unrelated, while reduced to ablaut only!

At first you asked me to "read up on w:Grimm's law," suggesting (as if) the consonants of my examples had fatally violated that. At last you explain them away (from it) as above.

So I ask you again to do them clearly in his wise terms. Otherwise, you must have aimed to accuse or expose my phonologic ignorance for the sake of false accusation or exposition! Did you mean it ill and evil?

Soon after you (09:00), whether or not influenced, Dan Polansky (09:30) blamed me for User talk:KYPark #More etymological speculation as (if) "inventing crackpot theories" again. He should say why reasonably; otherwise nothing but something like witch hunt. I advise him to stop it and behave himself.

First of all, you would've civilly thanked me for bringing OE (deprecated template usage) wiþig first to your attention as a likely clue whence to infer or review the anomalous etymology. Your critique would sound more reasonable and civil after that. You and Dan are just no-men keeping saying no! Saying yes, instead, you'd better review the etymology of (deprecated template usage) wiþig in mystery(hence "?" above) from many angles, even "speculative."

I never insist that my view for your review includes neither speculation nor error at all. Contrary to God's eye view, every human view is more or less speculative in itself. So we should not too easily hate and avoid but review it again and again very carefully.

Refer to PGM at right

  • *wīdaz ("wide") from PIE for "apart, asunder, in two",
  • *widuz ("wood") from PIE for "divide, separate", as compared with OE :
  • (deprecated template usage) wiþ ("against, opposite; along, towards; with").

Thus the PIE for "divide, separate" (parallel twigs, at first) looks like competing with that for "bend, twist" (flexible twigs, at last), aiming at the most likely origin. You are welcome and free to review them in this regard, as far as you like or dislike.

--KYPark (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:KYPark #More etymological speculation

I see you have not ceased posting implausible etymological speculation to Etymology scriptorium. Recently, you have posted the following, in diff:

withy

From wiþ ("?") + -ig ("-like"). Cognates may include:

This is what I meant when I spoke of your inventing crackpot theories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You have now posted this: "Contrary to God's eye view, every human view is more or less speculative in itself." in diff. This is what I referred to as relativistic and anything-goes-istic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:examples-right

Relativism goes so far as neither one thing (absolutist, monist) nor "anything goes" but our karma or culture goes. Then, your favorite phrase "relativistic and anything-goes-istic" is quite an oxymoron. Should you be unconvinced, you might be a helpless hence hopeless crackpot yourself, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste --KYPark (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Chuck Entz #WT:ES #withy
== [[WT:ES #withy]] ==

Do you agree CodeCat moved that aggenda to User:KYPark/withy? --KYPark (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it came to that, but, yes. Four screenfuls of text, including wholesale duplication of large parts of entries, lists of "possible cognates" that have little in common but superficially similar consonants, and long discussions about why you think everyone else is biased, wrongheaded, and out to get you. Maybe a couple of sentences out of all that has any relevance to Wiktionary, making it about 90% wasted space. It's bad enough that you bring up irrelevant topics, but then you add voluminous and elaborately formatted supporting material (most of it just for show), and no matter how anyone responds, you just keep going on and on about a given subject until your attention shifts to something else. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
By that unfair move, CodeCat in effect freed you from answering in the blind alley. Otherwise, why don't you respond to my last, most critical, conclusive talk at User:KYPark/withy? Simply I win if you give it up. --KYPark (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that Chuck failed to respond because even on April fool's day he had more productive things to do. Please step back and evaluate the function and mission of Wt (and don't bother to tell us your evaluation; some of us have already done that and are doing very nicely thank you) then if you find your evaluation incompatible with what all the other idiots opposing you seem to think, then favour a more deserving enterprise with your talents. You will win and they will have learnt a lesson, and serve them right. Have a nice day. JonRichfield (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice advice indeed. --KYPark (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste --KYPark (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User:KYPark/withy&oldid=70644177"