Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Etymology scriptorium

WT:ES redirects here. For help with edit summaries, see Help:Edit summary. For information about Spanish entries on Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:About Spanish.
Etymology scriptorium

Welcome to the Etymology scriptorium. This is the place to cogitate on etymological aspects of the Wiktionary entries.

Etymology scriptorium archives edit

December 2016


Anyone know the Greek etymon? (See also Talk:drahoma.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's Greek τράχωμα(tráchoma, dowry in cash), which is different from homonymous τράχωμα(tráchoma, trachoma). According to Greek sources, the ultimate origin is τραχύς(trakhús, rough, coarse). The sense development is unclear to me. --Vahag (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Based on some sources I've found (247 for example), it seems that a dowry would be officially Church sanctioned and the trachoma would not. I could imagine that the semantic shift went something like “roughness, coarseness” > “some coarse deal” (“coarse” being figurative for secular actions similar to the meaning of “vulgar” as it relates to the Church) > “a secular dowry”. This, however, is idle speculation on my part. —JohnC5
@JohnC5: According to modern Greek dictionaries, the intermediate step is Byzantine Greek τραχύ(trakhú, silver coin, literally rough, uneven). According to The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, "The word means basically “rough” or “uneven” and was apparently applied to the concave coins in the sense of “not flat.”" See also Trachy (currency). Still, your explanation may have influenced the sense development. --Vahag (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Dang, I wasn't very close. :(JohnC5 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

linx in PIE appendixEdit

I asked CodeCat, but I rather hear everyone's opinion before desisting. Are we interested in transforming this into something like this (the beginning, and saving errors)? Or at least include the links without the display in columns, and also order the descendant languages always in the same whatever way (typological, code or English name). Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Really the huge lists of descendants, however formatted, seem like the least appealing part of either layout to me. They can already be found thru the PIE entries themselves anyway (where these exist…), and I feel like those should be the primary location of PIE data; appendices should IMO be limited to
Whoops, forgot to finish a paragraph here. What I was going to say is: appendices for reconstructed languages should IMO be limited to displaying generalizations that can't be seen from the individual entries. For plain indexing, things like Category:Proto-Indo-European roots and its subcategories already do the job. Things like Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots are a legacy feature of sorts, based on the model of paper dictionaries that cannot include a full treatment of the PIE lexicon for space reasons. As our coverage of PIE entries grows, they're becoming increasingly superfluous. (I have added e.g. a list of Proto-Uralic roots myself, but it's in userspace and not very rounded out because I think of it as a to-do list, not an index in itself.) --Tropylium (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Some other options would be:
  • prune this to just a few representative descendants (for example: English, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Hittite). The exact selection is going to be contentious though, and liable to slippery-sloping back towards the current state.
  • give major proto-branch terms for further clicking-thru options (so essentially: PCelt, PGmc, PBS, Latin or PIt., Greek or PGk, PII, maybe PAnat.)
  • give just the distribution & instruct readers to click thru to the proto-terms
Here's an example of the last; the check marks etc. could be linked to the branch-specific descendants. What this would also enable is comparison between different lexemes: given two rows for similar concepts, such as the various competing 'fire' or 'water' roots, it would be easy to compare which languages retain which. This is pretty much impossible with sprawling lists. --Tropylium (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Tropylium. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tropylium Which is PII? Tocharian? Armenian? Albanian? Indo-Arian? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Proto-Indo-Iranian. --WikiTiki89 21:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The same question prompts/pops when dealing with this. (I realised later while sleeping, I didn't know there is a explicit theory for a common root of Avestic and Sanskrit. What about the other 3 Arm/SQ/Toc I mentioned?) Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Armenian, Albanian and Tocharian are usually considered their own branches, and the first two are usually considered not very significant for PIE reconstruction (so probably not particularly illustrative in lists like these). There's some support for a Greek-Phrygian-Armenian grouping, or a wider one with also Indo-Iranian ("Indo-Greek"), but I've never seen anyone propose reconstructions for that specifically — and it would probably end up being very close to PIE anyway. --Tropylium (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We should also mention the very popular w:Italo-Celtic family, though it has not gained full acceptance. Also, in Armenian's defense, it is one of the few languages (along with AG and Hittite) where *HC- produces a vowel. —JohnC5 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

hercisco, herctumEdit

Does anybody have an etymology for these Latin words? De Vaan doesn't mention them. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:2D60:EA59:36A3:DDA3 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the "Elementary Latin Dictionary", they would come from a verb hercio which is not attested in Latin, and ultimately derive from the same root as in "heredity" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Albanian etymologies checkEdit

The user Gerald992 (talkcontribs) has been making a bunch of changes (~50) concerning Albanian etymology which I do not have the information to evaluate. Could someone take a stroll through them an make sure they are legit? I'm not really sure whom to ping about this (@Embryomystic?) —JohnC5 16:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Hello John,I am familiar with Albanian etymology and am going to check it up
@JohnC5: Well,they all look legit to me,except "lirë" etymology


As is well-known, the synchronically irregular plural mice directly continues the Old English consonant-stem plural mȳs, which itself directly continues Proto-Germanic *mūsiz. But I thought inflectional forms besides the citation form do not usually receive their own etymology sections. Are there exceptions for highly irregular forms? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of a rule that stated that they cannot have an etym section. Am I mistaken ?. I oftentimes do add them, and mice would be a perfect candidate in my book Leasnam (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I added an etymology there Leasnam (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If the term is simply a form resulting from the regular application of transparent inflectional morphology, there shouldn't be an etymology. When there's something interesting going on, as there is here, it may be worth the risk of inconsistency between the lemma and the form entries (note, for instance, the disagreement between the etymologies at was and are on the origin of are). That's especially true for suppletive paradigms made up of a number of completely unrelated roots and fossilized sound changes/morphology (e.g. be/been, is/am, are, was/were). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, good to know. That certainly makes sense. By the way, add art and wesan to the inconsistency-fest. At the very least we should acknowledge both possibilities equally, because both have their advocates, and there doesn't seem anything even close to a consensus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I prefer the etymologies of inflected forms, when necessary, to be placed on the lemma. That is why I introduced the {{nonlemma}} template, to be used as a substitute etymology for nonlemmas. —CodeCat 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with CodeCat that it would be better to have the etymology of both the singular and plural at the lemma entry mouse. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think so too. Kolmiel (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe that's something best decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case I agree. When there are suppletive stems, however, it might be sensible to have separate entries at non-lemma forms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


There's not only very surprisingly complete chaos in the opinions on the etymology of moitié and moiety in all English dictionaries i've checked, including those on onelook.com, but even more surprisingly none agree with http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/moitié, which is no doubt the most reliable and most carefully edited. --Espoo (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

bordello / brothelEdit

Is it really true that these both come from the same PIE etymon? This is currently claimed in these lemmas' articles but neither the other word nor the common origin is mentioned in either article. --Espoo (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It does appear to be true. As such, what a striking coincidence ! Leasnam (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I am actually very surprised that the nearest common ancestor of words of such a similarity has to go all the way to the PIE--Dixtosa (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason intervocalic /þ/ remains voiceless here? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh, I'm extremely sceptical regarding these root-anatomical speculations. FWIW, Kroonen gives PG *burzda- < PIE *bʰr̥zdʰo- for the "board" word *burdą and connects it with PG *barzda- (his reconstruction for *bardaz) < PIE *bʰorzdʰo- (I don't want to go into the details of his reasoning here, but this connection makes me wonder, keeping in mind that he does not give a PIE verbal root, if PG *burstiz is related, which would suggest that all the formations in question are derived from a root *bʰers- combined with a dental suffix that might possibly be ultimately identified with the root *dʰeh₁-, or with *-tis in the case of *burstiz). As for *breuþaną, this verb does not have any precise comparanda outside of Germanic. *bʰrews- fits semantically but not formally, but LIV lists a root *bʰrewH-(aufbrechen) from which it derives *breutaną, and I wonder if *breuþaną and *bʰrews- perhaps too might go back to the same root (though *bʰrews- is only compatible with that root if it does not contain a laryngeal after all). But even if that is all correct, what we get is a root *bʰers- "to prick" (?) at the origin of bordello and a completely different root *bʰrew(H)- at the root of brothel. So, unfortunately, this does not seem to work out when we avoid Pokorny-era style root anatomies (LIV does list a root *bʰerH-(mit scharfem Werkzeug bearbeiten), but I doubt it helps). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology:

From herb Paris, from French herbe paris, from Latin par(“equal”), in reference to the regularity of its leaves, petals, etc.

This generic name was published by Linnaeus in 1753, but can be found as herba Paris in Latin herbals by not just English and French authors, but Italian and German as well, going back to at least the mid-1500s. Given that Linnaeus was Swedish and wrote in Latin, and that the works he cited were in Latin, as well, I find it odd that it would derive from English. The fact that the whole etymology aside from the link to the English term is identical down to the language codes with the etymology of that English term doesn't exactly inspire confidence, either. It would be nice if we could confirm the other steps in the etymology, too- the English could have come from the Latin, and the Latin source would seem to be the genitive singular form of an adjective, though folk etymology was no doubt involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


No-account newbie here. I was about to post this in the discussion page of the entry for feminism, but it suggested I try the Information desk and Tea Room. I found the Etymology scriptorium and it seems like the right place to post this.

The Etymology section of feminism currently states that it comes from French féminisme, which comes from Latin fēminīnus, which comes from Latin fēmina.

However, the entry for féminisme contains an external link to a source with an etymology, “féminisme” in le Trésor de la langue française informatisé (The Digitized Treasury of the French Language), and that source says that féminisme comes directly from Latin fēmina, and does _not_ pass through fēminīnus ("Dér. du rad. du lat. femina (femme*)").

This seems to make a difference to me, as fēmina is the noun, 'woman', and fēminīnus is the adjective, 'womanly' or 'feminine', thus making the idea something more like 'woman-ism' rather than 'feminine-ism'. Actually, I used to assume feminism came directly from modern French femme, which also would have made it 'woman-ism'.

I realize it's only one source, and maybe you all know whether it's highly reputed or not. Maybe more sources should be gathered before a change is made to the Etymology section?

Also maybe I misunderstand what the Etymology section of feminism is actually saying or should say. Or maybe the community does not view this as a significant matter. I leave it to you more experienced Wiktionary editors to decide, as I figured that were I to make an edit myself, it might be rejected for not going through discussion first, or else I might click the wrong button and break the internet.

Peace! —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 03:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

First of all, having no account doesn't make you no-account.
As to your question: the TLFI is a good source, and in this case it looks like it's correct. I notice that the Online Etymology Dictionary's entry says " from French féminisme (1837); see feminine + -ism", meaning that those entries would have more information. It would be very easy to mistake that for saying that French féminisme was literally the result of combining some form of feminine with some form of -ism. It's always easier to explain direct derivation than it is to explain why it would have come from a form with an extra "-in", and how the "-in" then disappeared.
As for the procedure to make corrections: you're as welcome as anyone to edit the entry, but if your edit is wrong, or it seriously messes up the formatting, it may be corrected, undone, or rolled back. That doesn't mean you're in trouble, it just means you made a mistake- like we all did when we got started. Of course, if you make a whole lot of mistakes and keep on making those mistakes after having them explained to you, that might be a problem- but you don't seem the type to do that. I'll leave a welcome template on your talk page (User talk:, so you'll have the information you need to edit here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that it doesn't make historical sense either to derive feminism from feminine. Feminism grew out of the women's rights movement, and was initially concerned only with people assigned female at birth (to use the contemporary term), or perceived as female by society's elites and ruling classes, regardless of their self-conception or feminine expression. It was not concerned with feminine or effeminate men (whether gay/queer or not), nor (initially, at least) with transgender people assigned male at birth, or perceived as male (in intersex people birth-assigned and perceived gender – by anatomical criteria – are not necessarily the same, that's why I'm differentiating here). Many feminists, especially in the second wave, were butch lesbian women – feminae – and had a dim view of what society defines as feminine, not only because they were themselves disinclined to it, but also because what society defines as feminine is considered inferior by very many people – a prejudice they replicated. It is only now that feminists, especially trans women like Julia Serano, want to "put the feminine back into feminism", as she puts it (given that anti-femininity prejudice and anti-women prejudice cannot really be separated: for example, there's nothing inherently "weak", "shallow" or "silly" in the colour pink; it is deemed so because it is associated with women, and that's a quite recent cultural development), but etymologically speaking that's not really accurate. Feminism is straight derived from femina, so a thoroughly unfeminine woman is still etymologically in the domain of feminism (leading to complaints that the term is supposedly "sexist" and "anti-men"). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Florian Blaschke: Did you forget about definition #2 at feminine? --WikiTiki89 21:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Be that as it may, my basic argument stands: feminism has long been primarily concerned with women's rights (intersectional feminism being a recent development), so for that semantic reason (apart from the formal argument) it's most straightforward to derive feminism from femina. It's not about the rights of the abstract quality of womanhood, but concrete women. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Modern Greek in Module:etymology languages/dataEdit

Why is this necessary? Someone just used the code at cindynics for what appears to be the first time. DTLHS (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't necessary, and I'm removing it. cindynics is certainly from the Ancient Greek word anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

etymology of earlyEdit

Someone competent cud add the following info, alternative forms, and educated guesses from https://www.dwds.de/wb/eher to early and Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂eyeri: ie. *ā̌ier-, *ā̌ien- ‘Tag, Morgen’. Zur Wurzel ie. *ā̌i- ‘brennen, leuchten’ --Espoo (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are the same reconstruction, just written differently. —CodeCat 22:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, very confusing as far as the alternative forms are concerned.
But *ā̌i- ‘burn, shine’ is missing from both the lemma "early" (ere) and the lemma "h₂eyeri". --Espoo (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Currently it says "From Old English grasian(to feed on grass), from græs(grass)." Isn't it more likely that there was already a verb in Proto-Germanic? German has grasen and Dutch has grazen. --WikiTiki89 15:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The German is from Old High German grasōn. Do the stems match? At first, I thought the Old English would have to be a different stem, but macian corresponds to mahhōn, so I don't know. (I don't know very much about Old English.) Kolmiel (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The Deutsches Wörterbuch calls it an "Old High German formation", though this need not be intended to rule out that it's even older. Kolmiel (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
OE -ian should correspond to OHG -ōn. Do we have an Old Saxon/Old Norse cognate? Crom daba (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Old Norse has grasa(to collect moss) and grasaðr(prepared with herbs) whose attested forms (grasaði, grǫsud, grosudum) are in line with *grasōną. —JohnC5 05:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we can reconstruct a PGmc *grasōną(to feed on grass). A lot of older entries stop at OE because we didnt really reconstruct Proto-languages at that time, and many need to be reviewed Leasnam (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

architectonic etymology wiki requestEdit

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/architectonic See further https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%AD%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD#Ancient_Greek


  1. REDIRECT [[1]]

link to correct etymology not explainedEdit

Please fix forebear. --Espoo (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Questionable derivation phonetically... Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 02:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think that's problematic look at bilis. Crom daba (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Mongolian мэлхий(melhij, frog, toad) meaning cancerEdit

So Mongolian dictionaries define мэлхий сар(melhij sar, toad month) as "July in the western zodiac", I couldn't find any uses of this on the Internet, but I did find that many horoscope sites do indeed use мэлхий to denote cancer (some use the more expected хавч(havč, crab)), does anyone know any parallels to this in the oriental languages? Crom daba (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


It is odd that Old Persian 𐎱𐎠𐎼𐎿(Pārsa, Persia) yielded Ancient Greek Περσίς(Persís) (from which Persia), with the long ā changed to e. I would expect a more faithful transliteration: *Πᾱρσίς(*Pārsís). I wonder if there is a missing link in the etymology (a language in which for some reason the name of Persia had the vowel e), or if there's a Greek sound change, or quality of the Old Persian phonological system, that I'm unaware of? The OED doesn't offer any explanation. — Eru·tuon 23:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ionic raising + Osthoff's shortening? Although I don't get why it wasn't shortened before raising. Crom daba (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
All the ancient languages had a there, see here, pages 16–17, so I would look for an explanation inside Greek. --Vahag (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. I guess I considered the possibility that the sound change went thus: Pārs- > (non-Attic–Ionic) *Πᾱρσ(*Pārs) > *Πηρσ-(*Pērs-) (Ionic raising) > Περσ-(Pers-) (some kind of shortening). @Crom daba, I wouldn't have thought Osthoff's shortening would be operative so late in the history of Greek, but interestingly, I searched for the sequence ηρσ(ērs) in LSJ entry names, and there were only two results, both of them augmented aorist verb forms. (I imagine there are more examples that don't have their own entries.) So perhaps there was another later rule prohibiting certain types of over-long syllables like */pɛːr.sis/, except in verb forms where the long vowel was necessary to mark the past indicative. — Eru·tuon 19:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that, despite the attempts to extend the law to other Indo-European languages, Osthoff's shortening is primarily a Greek phenomenon, and might possibly be a more recent development check N. E. Collinge's "The laws of Indo-European" for details (a surprisingly witty abounding in stuff you don't normally find browsing the Internet) Crom daba (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


I'm going to guess the etymology here, but I do not have a proficient knowledge of German, so please correct me if I am wrong:

ab- + geschmackt, from ?schmacken? related to Geschmack and schmecken, cognate with English smatch ("taste, flavour") and smack ("to taste").

I can't help but feel that that etymology is faulty somehow, but I don't know where. Can someone with a better knowledge of German help here? Tharthan (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You're close. I would say that it is from ab- +‎ Geschmack +‎ -t, as it has an older variant form in abgeschmack. Leasnam (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • After edit conflict...
The etymology in the Duden entry derives abgeschmackt from older abgeschmack of the same meaning, and suggests a comparison to noun Geschmack and verb schmecken.
Geschmack means flavor and taste, as in good taste and bad taste (currently covered by sense #2 at taste). The prefix ab- can mean off. So abgeschmackt would literally mean off-taste, and idiomatically mean tasteless, in bad taste, off-color, vulgar.
(My German comprehension isn't the best, but the sense details in our entry at abgeschmackt seem somewhat deficient compared to what's at Duden.)
@Tharthan, does that answer your question? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Mostly, but where does the -t come from? It makes sense with schmecken (geschmeckt) because it is the past participle, but Geschmack is a noun. We don't seem to have a German entry for -t, nor does the German Wiktionary. The French Wiktionary has an entry for it, but even after reading it, I still don't see how it applies in this usage. Is it an excrescent? Please forgive my ignorance here. Tharthan (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that -t was added as an analogy with the past participle, presumably because that is the context in which ab-ge- occurs most commonly. Crom daba (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
DWDS agrees. Crom daba (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Duden's etymology seems to be correct, which is not always case. (We should always rely on Pfeiffer and Kluge.) Just note not that the verb schmacken(to smack) does exist. It's regional, but a generally known derivative is Schmackes(power, vigour). Kolmiel (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Stems of tenses of Catalan poderEdit

I'm puzzled by the forms of Catalan poder that have a stem containing in g (or c from final devoicing), including puc and pogut. The Latin forms (from *potere) have t, and d would be expected due to lenition. Many forms have d (as do all the forms in the Spanish inflection table), but some have g. Where on earth did this consonant come from? It would make sense if there were another related verb *pocere, but there isn't. Or maybe it's some odd sound change: I was considering the possibility of dissimilation, but there's no clear motivation.

It's also odd that it only occurs in certain TAM forms: first singular present indicative, preterite, subjunctive, imperative, past participle. The rest are more law-abiding, as far as their stem is concerned.

Anyway, I would appreciate an explanation if there is one, and the etymology section would also appreciate it. — Eru·tuon 09:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

German Leberkäse and w:Leberkäse#HistoryEdit

Does anyone know what "Slavic quas" is referred to here? Also "an obsolete usage of Käse to denote any pasty food formed in a mold (cf. English "case")" on wikipedia sounds suspect, could someone provide a citation (and add this sense to our Käse) or dispute it? Crom daba (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"Slavic quas" is presumably Proto-Slavic *kvȃsъ, but it doesn't mean "feast". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The true meaning of Käse has always been that of a dairy product. But since it was a very common and affordable food, other things (food and non-food) that were somehow similar to cheese were compared to it. I don't think this is surprising and I don't think it's obsolete either. Now, I don't know the exact etymology of Leberkäse, but our own entry simply says that the word Käse was used because Leberkäse "resembles cheese" (i.e. it comes in loaves, is cut in slices, has a smooth, light-coloured surface). This would seem obvious. Of course, obvious things are sometimes wrong. Kolmiel (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes but the insinuation of there being a second sense meaning specifically things made in a mold cognate with English case and thus presumably cognate with Latin capsa is nonsense right?
I've also thought of kvȃsъ, but it didn't make any sense. Crom daba (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd think so, yes. Kolmiel (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Directly from Classical Nahuatl? Wouldn't there need to be a Spanish intermediate? DTLHS (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carl Francis added it, but it seems very unlikely to me. Words for "father" of this form have arisen independently many times, and you could just as easily point fingers at Sanskrit तात(tāta) or Yiddish טאַטע(tate) — but none of those are the origin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the etymology back in October but left out the one from Kaiser's Tagalog entry. The claims of a Nahuatl origin have been recurring in print though. Carl Francis (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
On what basis? When did Tagalog speakers come into contact with Nahuatl speakers? DTLHS (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention Spanish tata, said to be from Latin tata. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
turismo and kwentador, for example, sound and look Spanish but they aren't. As for the Spanish route, Spanish readily gets cited for the etymology when it was the poor Catalans who got sent to the Philippines. The Cebuano pinya could either be Spanish piña if not Catalan pinya. Same goes with Cebuano yaya, it is either from Spanish yaya or Catalan iaia. Carl Francis (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


French piler ("to crush") is said to come from Latin pīlō, "to fix firmly", itself derived from pīla, "column, pillar" (etymology 2). But wouldn't it make more sense to derive it from another pīlō (I don't know if it's attested), derived from pīla meaning "mortar" (etymology 1)? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:D1C0:A14B:34FF:8038 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


How much of this can still be trusted? --Espoo (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Can someone explain how Middle High German raben becomes Luxembourgish Ramm?

Are we sure that the Luxembourgish word wasn't influenced by one of its Old Norse cognates, hramn? Tharthan (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Assimilation of root final obstruents to following -en is a very common German dialectal feature, see for example w:de:Bairische_Dialekte#Verben_mit_Auslautwechsel Crom daba (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
In Standard German, the plural Raben is commonly pronounced /ˈʁɑːbm̩/; it's not very far from there to the Luxembourgish form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's that simple. First of all, such a phonetic development would be typical of many German dialects, but very untypical of West Central German, in which there are no syllabic nasals whatsoever. Then, the underlying form according to the dialectal variants given by the Rheinisches Wörterbuch is MHG *ramb(e). The word is also a feminine. Most importantly, the Luxembourgish cognate of Rabe is Rof, which is phonetically regular (except for a minor problem concerning the vowel). -- So if the two forms are related, it would seem most likely that Lux. Ramm continues an ancient contraction OHG hram, whose -m is directly from the PG -bn- in *hrabnaz. Kolmiel (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
PS: I now see that this contraction is also attested in Old Dutch, which makes it likely that this is indeed the origin. Kolmiel (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
PPS: I've adapted the etymology accordingly. Kolmiel (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Middle High German also has ram m, which I have added to the etymology line, despite the apparent difference in gender Leasnam (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


I find the etymology very dubious. Isn't it from cushion instead? --Barytonesis (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary and American Heritage agree with us, but dictionary.com agrees with you. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology. Multiple things look iffy. Leasnam (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Gothic **ganan is spurious, but Holthausen in his Gotisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1934) tentatively reconstructs a Gothic *ganōn "gähnen" as possible source of ganar ("vielleicht in span. ganar 'gewinnen'"). However, even if the word were really attested, the semantic development would be completely obscure (at least I can't make sense of it) and unparalleled (as far as I can tell). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


This is my first submission to Wiktionary, and would be glad of advice/comment.

The entry for kaylied is this:

Adjective[edit] kaylied ‎(comparative more kaylied, superlative most kaylied) (Britain, slang) Extremely drunk. He got completely kaylied last night.

I would like to propose an etymology along these lines:

Possibly from the sweet once sold in northern England as "Kali". Cf "on the pop" as another euphemism for drunk. Kali was confected from coarse sugar crystals flavoured with citrus, and may in turn derive its name from a resemblance to the ashes of Glasswort [[2]] which, as used in glass manufacture, was also referred to simply as "alkali". To find a resemblance between alkali and alcohol may be stretching the point too far.

This book also suggests it comes from the fizzy drink called Kali. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Etymology needing citation. ばかFumikotalk 12:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

stuurkunde a calque of English?Edit

A calque is a word that is formed by translating the parts of a word. But the parts of cybernetics do not mean anything in English, their meaning is in Ancient Greek. So the calque is from Ancient Greek, isn't it? Except that the word didn't exist in Ancient Greek, so it couldn't be calqued from. How do we solve this? —CodeCat 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Good call, that's quite thorny. How about calling the word or its meaning derived from cybernetics and its components a calque of the Ancient Greek elements?
Judging from Google Books and DBNL stuurkunde was first mentioned in 1951 and first used in 1953 while the Dutch cybernetica was first used in 1952, so we can't really say stuurkunde derives from cybernetica. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a calque of anything, because neither cybernetics nor its French and Ancient Greek ancestors has anything corresponding to -kunde(-ology). It's just a Dutch combination of sturen and -kunde, with sturen being a translation (or single-part calque, if there is such a thing) of κυβερνάω(kubernáō). We could say it's formed on the model of the English, perhaps, but I wouldn't call it a calque. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Well put. Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
-kunde is more than just "-ology" but can also correspond to "-ics", like in natuurkunde(physics) and wiskunde(mathematics), or "-ry" in scheikunde(chemistry), and so on. —CodeCat 21:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean it always corresponds to -ology in the English translations of the Dutch words, but its semantics are those of -ology. Physics, mathematics, and chemistry are all ologies even though the words themselves don't end in -ology. But the fact that the words don't end in -ology does mean that natuurkunde isn't a calque of physics, and wiskunde isn't a calque of mathematics, and scheikunde isn't a calque of chemistry, and stuurkunde isn't a calque of cybernetics. But aardkunde could be a calque of geology or, more likely, geologia. (Incidentally, I never realized before that Dutch aardkunde and German Erdkunde are false friends, but they are: the German word means geography, not geology.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology. ばかFumikotalk 10:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Shogakukan gives this:


Daijirin gives:


That said, I cannot find any Chinese term 土圭. @Wyang, any chance you can find this term? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 13:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It is a valid Chinese term, attested plentifully in the Old Chinese period: [3], referring to a kind of sundial. Wyang (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

puree, puréeEdit

These entries should be merged, but they have different etymologies- which is preferred? DTLHS (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like it was the noun that was borrowed, not the verb, so I think French purée would make more sense. If the noun was just nominal use of a participle, I suppose we could link to the infinitive, but it goes way, way back as a noun, and etymonline even expresses doubt as to whether it really came from the verb at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Turkish bayram and its cognatesEdit

Could someone versed in Iranistics help out with this? Clauson gives Persian baḏrām and Nişanyan derives it from Middle Persian paδrām or Sogdian patrām with an Indo-Aryan etymology which I'm unable to judge.

However there are some problems. For one, Gharib glosses the Sogdian word (ptrʾm) as "calm, peace" which doesn't correspond that well semantically with "feast, celebration" of Turkic cognates and connects it with "MP padrām". The second problem is that I'm unable to find the Middle Persian word in dictionaries, neither Durkin-Meisterernst nor Mackenzie seem to have it.

Interestingly there is another Iranic root that is similar phonologically and has a closer semantic, "*badra" with a cognate in Sanskrit भद्र(bhadra, blessed, happy), but other than Avestan, all languages have changed -dr- to -hr- and diverged in semantics to "share, portion".

There is an alternative etymology more popular in Russia, that relates the word with Mongolian баяр(bajar) and its cognates. this would require the ð of Karakhanid بَذْرَمْ(baḏram) to be secondary, which I found doubtful at first, but considering that Khakas material suggests *y instead of *ð and that Karakhanid form could have easily been corrupted by the Persian word I'm starting to see some of its merit. Crom daba (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See this page from Eren, Hasan (1999), “bayram”, in Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlüğü [Etymological Dictionary of the Turkish Language] (in Turkish), 2nd edition, Ankara: Bizim Büro Basım Evi.
I don't speak Turkish, but judging from a Google translation, the origin is disputed. --Vahag (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Might you have it typed out (so I can google translate it), I don't have a Turkish keyboard and pasting that together would last forever. Crom daba (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Here you go. OCR mistakes are possible.
bayram ‘dinî veya ulusal bakımdan kutlanan gün veya günler’ ~ Tkm bayram. - TatK bayram. Tatarlar beyrem biçimini de kullanırlar. - Nog bayram. - KKlp bayram. - Kzk meyram. - Krg mayram. - Özb bayram. - Şart mayram. - Alt, Tel, Kuğ, Şor, Sag, Koy, Kaça, Küer payram. - Bar, Küer peyrem. Eski Türkçeden başlayarak kullanılır. Orta Türkçede baöram olarak geçer. Kâşgarlı Mahmud’a göre, Oğuzlar bayram biçimini kullanırlar. Bu örnekte Oğuzlar -δ- sesini kurala uyarak -y- ’ye çevirmişlerdir. Kâşgarlı Mahmut, bu anlamda öz Türkçe bir söz olduğunu seslendirmiştir. Kökeni karışıktır. Doerfer’e göre (TMEN 823), Kâşgarlı Mahmud’a borçlu olduğumuz baöram biçimi bayram’ın Türklüğüne tanıktır. Buna karşılık Clauson (ED 308 a), İran kökenli bir alıntı olduğunu kesin olarak dile getirmiş, Farsça badrâm ‘a delightsome place’ biçimini vermiştir. Onun Farsça bayram ‘a Muhammadan solemn festival’ biçimini göz ardı ettiği anlaşılıyor. Sevortyan’a göre (ESTJa 1978, 35-36), Orta Türkçe baöram biçimi, Farsçadan geldiği yolundaki görüşü çürütmüştür. Türkçeden belli başlı komşu dillere de geçmiştir. Doerfer (TMEN 823) bu dillerdeki alıntıları saymıştır. Onun topladığı verilere Arapça (Suriye) beyrâm ‘fete’ biçimi de eklenebilir. Tacikçe bayram, mayram biçimi Özbekçeden geçmiştir (Doerfer : TLT 34). Tuvalar bayır biçimini ‘bayram, tören’ olarak kullanırlar. İlk bakışta bu biçim ile Türkçe bayram arasında açık bir benzerlik olduğu göz ardı edilemez. Ancak bayram ile bayır arasında etimolojik bir bağdan söz edilemez. Räsänen’e göre (V 57 a), Sevortyan’ın bayram'ı ‘şölen’ anlamına gelen bay biçiminden yola çıkarak *bayır ’dan getirmesi ve bayrak ile bayram arasında olası bir bağdan söz etmesi yanlıştır. Tuvaca bayır büyük bir olasılıkla Moğolca bir alıntıdır : Moğ bayar ‘Freude, Fröhlichkeit’ Bk. Rassadin : FLTJa 158. Ancak Rassadin (Zaimstvovanija) Tuvaca bayır’ı vermemiştir. Räsänen : LTS 230 ; V 54 b; Clauson : ED 308 a ; Sevortyan : ESTJa 1978, 35-36; Bazin : Lazard Arm 31.
Sevortyan in ESTJa denies the Iranian etymology and argues for a native origin.
The Middle Persian word that you couldn't find is Manichaean Middle Persian pdrʾm(padrām, in peace). See Boyce, Mary (1977), “pdrʾm”, in A word-list of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Acta Iranica 9a, Série 3 – “Textes et mémoires”, vol. 2-supplément), with a reverse index by Ronald Zwanziger, Leiden, Tehran-Liège: E.J. Brill, Biliothèque Pahlavi, page 68. --Vahag (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

/n/ in Indo-European infinitivesEdit

Germanic, Greek, and Persian/Kurdish have the consonant /n/ in infinitives. (Maybe other languages, too, but I'm only aware of these.) Just for my information: Is there cognacy between (some of) these endings, or is it coincidental? Thanks a lot. Kolmiel (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Accroding to Ringe, Germanic infinitives come from a remodeling of the verbal adjectives in *-nós as pre-PG *-o-nom > PG -aną which is affixed to the present stem. This does not seem to be a formal match for Greek's infinitives in -ειν(-ein), -σαι(-sai), or -ναι(-nai), but I don't know their origin of the top of my head without consulting Sihler. —JohnC5 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Sihler says the -en element of the Greek infinitive is "an endingless n-stem loc.", see page 608 for details. Crom daba (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If that is true, then those two are unrelated. Aren't Persian infinitives something like -dan / -tan? —JohnC5 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Although this -d-/-t- is present in all forms of the perfect stem, from which the infinitive is formed by adding -an. Kolmiel (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Historical grammar of the ancient Persian language by Edwin Lee Johnson derives the Persian infinitive from "the datives of n-stems" Crom daba (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That would mean a certain relation between the Greek and Persian infinitives? Kolmiel (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
They would be related inasmuch as they are the same nominal ending, but they represent unrelated innovations since each are separately affixed to dissimilar, post-PIE verbal stems. —JohnC5 17:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, okay. Thanks again. Kolmiel (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


The etymology says that this, the Russian word for “genitive”, is a calque of Ancient Greek γενική(genikḗ), but the Greek word is an adjective derived from the word for “kind”, while the Russian word is an adjective from the word for “parent”, роди́тель(rodítelʹ). (It could also come from the verb “to beget”, роди́ть(rodítʹ), using a slightly different morphological analysis.) The Greek noun from which the adjective comes is related to the verb “to be born”, γίγνομαι(gígnomai), so there is a semantic relationship, but it is somewhat distant. It would be nice to have verification of the Russian etymology. I suppose it is likely that the word was intended as a calque, but it isn't a precise one. If it comes from the verb, it would be an exact calque of the Latin word genetīvus. — Eru·tuon 06:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a translation but not a calque. Also compare Latin genetivus. Crom daba (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It seems more likely that Russian case names were translated from Latin or a West European language. -- Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh, I thought the definition of a calque was that it's a translation. How can something be a translation and not a calque? — Eru·tuon 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
A calque is a translation of individual parts. I think this is a calque, but from Latin rather than Greek. Compare Slovene rodilnik, based on the same verbal base. Slovene would not be expected to have significant Greek influence. —CodeCat 00:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I thought that a single-morpheme word could be a calque, such as words for “mouse” in various languages being used for the cursor-controlling computer tool due to the influence of English. Wikipedia indicates that this type of situation is called semantic calque. A new word is not created, but an additional meaning for an already existing word is imported from another language. Fortunately this definition is unnecessary in this case. I think you, @CodeCat and @Atitarev, are probably correct, and I changed the etymology. — Eru·tuon 01:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology. ばかFumikotalk 17:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have updated and expanded the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology. ばかFumikotalk 18:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

RFV of etymology of Nordic smáEdit

The articles on English small and Old Norse smár (> Modern Scandinavian små) claim that they are cognates, both being derived from Proto-Germanic *smalaz. However, both Kroonen and Orel reconstruct different PG proto-forms - *smala- and *smēha-, and none of the other reference works accessible to me assert common origin for both. Also, Old Norse smalr, Scandinavian smal ('thin, narrow') exist separately from Old Norse smár / Scandinavian små, and I'm not aware of any North Germanic sound change that would have elided the *l in *smalaz. I suspect the editor just went on intuition here.-- 18:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Leasnam (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fried Liver AttackEdit

Could someone with knowledge of Italian verify this etymology? Does the Italian name really exit? Does it antedate the English terms (presumably so as Google books has no cites prior 20thC).

Partial translation of Italian Giuoco Fegatello(fried liver game).

Also, does the metaphor mean anything other than the opening "makes it hot" for Black?Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fegatello AttackEdit

Could someone with knowledge of Italian verify this etymology, likewise?Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


Could this word be related to the following Dutch words: zwatsen(to move forth and back) (http://www.vlaamswoordenboek.be/definities/term/zwatsen), compare related zwachtel(bandage) (http://www.woorden.org/woord/zwachtel)? And English swathe(bandage). --Eliot (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


The etymology for Latin cattus says it is Afro-Asiatic and gives Berber, Nubian, and Egyptian as evidence. This is all well and good but Wikipedia says that Nubian is Eastern Sudanic and not Afro-Asiatic. I know nothing about the Nubian languages, so wanted to bring this up for anyone competent to resolve this contradiction. Jan sewi (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV of the glyph origin/etymology. Sounds like a folk etymology. —suzukaze (tc) 22:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote the glyph origin. The original explanation is unlikely although I found a similar explanation in 汉字源流字典 (maybe unreliable). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV of the glyph origin/etymology. Sounds contrived. —suzukaze (tc) 00:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's from Shuowen: 安也。人有不便,更之。从人、更。(unless I misinterpreted it) Wyang (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm, OK. —suzukaze (tc) 03:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang, Suzukaze-c: It may not be as simple. This suggests that 便 may be the original character for . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I added this in. Wyang (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I've corrected it to match the explanation in the book, but I'm not sure what they mean by "以初文冕为声". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finding 𠓥! I think the top may be a person, and the bottom from . I'm not sure about 以初文冕为声 either. Wyang (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Proto-Italic verb-inflection table templatesEdit

I believe @CodeCat is managing these? I've noticed that they give the ending of the 2nd person plural passive – the ancestor of Latin -minī (by the way, this sense is not mentioned there) – as *-m(e?)n(ai?). However, there's a proposal (mentioned, for example, in Meiser 1998: 219) to derive this ending from the passive participle from which fēmina and possibly alumnus and columna are also thought to descend. If this suggestion is accepted as plausible, the ending could be given as -manoi?. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Really inflection tables for Proto-Italic seem like an iffy idea altogether, given that the only branch we know well is Latin and its descendants. It's going to end up as "Latin, but with some earlier traits reconstructed whenever we have Sabellic or Faliscan evidence on what happened exactly". This will work decently for general phonology (there's no reason to oppose Proto-Italic reconstructions per se), but whenever Latin has innovated with respect to PIE, & other Italic evidence is missing, there will be little chances for figuring out if a thing happened in Proto-Italic or only in early Latin.
Wider-reaching morphological reconstruction is probably still doable to an extent, by examining parallels and whatnot — but how much of what we have is actually backed up by literature, and how much has been just eyeballed together? I notice that even with phono, we e.g. do not have *xʷ (*formos pro *xʷormos), *θ (*faznom pro *θaznom), even though they're likely reconstructible for Proto-Italic proper. (*θ > f is pan-Italic but postdates *ts > θ in Sabellic, *θ > *ð > d in Latin; *xʷ > f in Sabellic is similarly probably simultaneous with *kʷ > p, and in Latin it's again later than medial voicing to g). So if CodeCat or someone else wants to put together a summary about how much morphology exactly we can reconstruct for PIt., perhaps either Wikipedia or WT:About Proto-Italic would be a better location.
(Similar issues might come up with other less-studied intermediate proto-languages as well — Proto-Celtic, Proto-Hellenic, Proto-Indo-Iranian, etc.)
— And as long as we're at Proto-Italic: we also seems to be missing *əm and *ən (from PIE *m̥, *n̥; to Latin em, en ~ Sabellic 1st syllable am, an), as in *kentom pro *kəntom; maybe also e.g. *nowem pro *nowəm (though in non-initial syllables Sabellic too shows eN). --Tropylium (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


I gather that गविष्टि(gaviṣṭi) is the Sanskrit word mentioned by the linguist in the movie Arrival. She says it means “desire for more cows”, and this page says something similar. Can someone with Sanskrit knowledge provide an etymology? — Eru·tuon 00:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: I've updated the entry. To the best of my understanding, the analysis presented in the movie is not really true, viz. the semantics are “eagerness for cows” → “eagerness, desire” → “eagerness for battle” → “battle.” That's not to say that the original meaning would not be obvious to speakers, but it's hard to say whether the intention (“eagerness for cows” = “battle”) existed synchronically. —JohnC5 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


The OECD's etymology is more specific than ours, claiming, "mid 17th century (as a noun): from French, based on Greek kritikē tekhnē ‘critical art’." Should we include this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What source says hai is tōon for 海?Edit

@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr What source says hai is tōon for as noted in the kanji entry? ばかFumikotalk 01:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Kanjigen or similar specialist kanji dictionaries; perhaps one of those would list that reading? It is definitely used, albeit only in limited contexts, as in the Japanese reading for 上海(Shanhai), which even the Microsoft IME recognizes (I type shanhai in the Latin alphabet, the IME generates しゃんはい as the kana rendering, and offers to convert that to 上海). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Kanjigen doesn't appear to list any toon reading of 海. Shanhai can be considered as just another direct borrowing from Mandarin, like paozu, Gonbao (see Category:Japanese terms borrowed from Mandarin for more), hence its logical irregularity rather than its supposed, unattested rarity as an actual on reading. You can just type テレビ, press space, and てれび will appear in the prompted list, so the fact that IME renders input as hiragana shouldn't be a factor. ばかFumikotalk 02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies for any confusion -- I was instead offering evidence that the hai reading is accepted. Whether it is tōon or otherwise, I have no data. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
唐音 on Chinese Wikipedia has 海 ハイ. I don’t know whether it is a reliable article or not. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology. ばかFumikotalk 14:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia has a reference. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV of the etymology. ばかFumikotalk 14:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Middle English open syllable lengthening and /ʃ/Edit

Middle English experienced Open syllable lengthening, where vowels in stressed syllables were lengthened when the syllable ended in a vowel. I'm curious what the effect was when the next syllable began with /ʃ/. Did open syllable lengthening apply here, or was it blocked? The latter would indicate that it was actually a geminate, /ʃː/. —CodeCat 01:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot think of any examples where a vowel lengthened. However, I can think of several that remained short (asche, waschen, flusshen) and a few that were originally long and became short (adweschen, maschen, ruschen, wischen) Leasnam (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. That would suggest that it was still long in Middle English, and thus that we should treat it as long for Old English too. I wonder what can be said about length of word-initial sc- in Old English. —CodeCat 15:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the same would apply to Middle High German -sch-, which also hinders open-syllable lengthening. The shift from /sk/ to /ʃ(ʃ)/ is considered to have taken place in late Old High German. How do we know that it was earlier in English? Kolmiel (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if compound words could provide evidence for initial sc-. — Eru·tuon 19:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it would give much evidence for anything. It could be allophonically short initially, long medially, so that compounding would just trigger the long allophone. —CodeCat 19:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, -- this may be a stupid question -- how do we know that scip was already pronouned /ʃip/ at all, rather than /ʃtʃip/ or /ʃcip/? Kolmiel (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's a very interesting question. I'm not aware of any direct evidence for the pronunciation of palatalized sc, or of palatalized c in the Old English era. Old English didn't have contact with languages such as Persian that had sh or ch sounds that might provide evidence if English had adopted loanwords that contained those sounds. All we know is that palatalized sc at some point became a palato-alveolar fricative, and c a palato-alveolar affricate, at the very latest by the Middle English era. Presumably they transitioned from velar to palatalized (front-) velar and then somehow to palato-alveolar, but at what point the sounds reached each stage is uncertain. Perhaps there is evidence I'm not aware of, though. — Eru·tuon 02:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There is evidence at least for g, since it is used in words with original /j/. Of course, palatalization of c and sc did not necessarily happen at the same time as g. But I'm sure there is more internal evidence if you search hard enough. --WikiTiki89 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


The etymology at topolect says, "Coined by sinologist Victor Mair", and refers to a 1991 paper by Mair. That paper says in relevant part, "[John DeFrancis] ingeniously proposes 'regionalect'. As an alternative, I would suggest 'topolect', which aside from being fully Greek in its derivation has the added advantage of being neutral with regard to the size of the place". There is no suggestion that the word is a fresh coinage, though it's possible that Mair derived it from Greek roots.

There is scattered attestation of topolect since the 1960s (e.g. this calque of örtliche Sprachform). The word becomes somewhat more common after 1991. It seems to appear mainly in studies of Jewish "lects" in the 1970s and 1980s, and Chinese topolects since the 1990s, but were talking about very small numbers.

Is Mair's calque of 方言 really a coinage? Seems more like a refinement of usage. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese acontecerEdit

User:ProudPrimate has added many bogus etymologies over the years. I'm trying to clean some of them up. He/she claims that acontecer comes from Latin contingere, which seems doubtful to me. Any ideas for its actual source? Looks like a- + -cont- from somewhere, + -ecer < Latin -escere. Benwing2 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That must be from the RAE: for acontecer they say "De contecer", and for contecer, "Del lat. contingĕre, en lat. vulg. contingescĕre." DTLHS (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The etymology is correct, but it would benefit from more information, like that the words derive from the inchoative form contingescere (attested?) and have a prothetic a- (very common in Iberian Romance verbs). — Ungoliant (falai) 11:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
La lengua de Cervantes mentions a word contir with variants acuntir and cuntir and derives them from computō (through *computēscō?). It further says that accontingēscō gave aconteñecer. KarikaSlayer (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was my concern. The loss of expected -eñ- is irregular and I can't think of any other words where it occurs. Benwing2 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
According to my etymological dictionary (Dicionário etimológico da língua portuguesa, Nascentes) there was an intermediate form *contigescere in VL. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That would imply an expected aconteecer in Old Portuguese and maybe Old Spanish (I think at least; possibly the two intertonic vowels would compress early). Do either occur? Benwing2 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Does this really come from Mandarin? Both Wiktionary and the OED claim this, but "gin" is very different from "ren". Perhaps it's from Min Nan? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The first use seems to be in 1654, when Gin-ſem appeared in Martino Martini (1614 – 1661)'s DE BELLO TARTARICO HISTORIA (English version: Bellum Tartaricum, or the conquest of the great and most renowned Empire of China by the invasion of the Tartars [i.e. Manchus]). The Latin passage was:

Hi ergo quotannis per vicinas Leaotung terras, Sinas, ingrediebantur, ad commercia tanquam subditi vel amici admissi, bellum autem non cogitabant, serè ad egestatem redacti. Adserebant autem Ginsem, radicem, illam à Sinis adeo aestimatam, ...

And the corresponding English version was:

And those Tartars every year, either as Subjects or Friends, came into China by the Province of Leaotung to traffick with the Inhabitants; For, being brought to poverty and misery, they thought no more of making war against China. The Merchandise they brought were several, as the root cal'd Ginsem, so much esteemed amongst the Chinese, ...

Judging from the context in which ginsem was found, and the use of other transcriptions in the book, such as Leaotung (), Niuche () on the same pages as ginsem, and the map used in the book, my impression was that the transcriptions relatively consistently reflected the pronunciations in Middle Mandarin, or Mandarin (late imperial lingua franca) spoken at the end of the Ming Dynasty.
The transcription gin-sem () bears apparent similarity to the transcription system invented by Matteo Ricci (1552 – 1610), in the book Xizi Qiji (downloadable here); In Ricci's system, this word would be rendered as gîn-sēn, which, according to Coblin (A Diachronic Study of Míng Guānhuà Phonology, 2000), represented phonetically /ʐin sɛŋ/ (discussion on gîn), which is quite close to modern Beijing Mandarin /ʐən ʂən/. Wyang (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Gothic *𐌷𐌰𐌻𐌾𐍉𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌰 (*haljōrūna, "witch")Edit

This term is attested in Latinized form in Jordanes' Getica (c. 550) as haliurunnas (acc.pl), where it is described as a Gothic word for "witch" (magas mulieres). The word is clearly Germanic and has at least two cognates or near-cognates in OHG hellirūna f(necromancy, sorcery, a gloss of necromantia) and OE helrūna m(demon, Beowulf 163), and the constituent elements of the compound seem to be clear enough (𐌷𐌰𐌻𐌾𐌰(halja, netherworld, hell) + 𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌰(rūna, secret, mystery)).

What I don't understand is how there seemingly isn't any agent suffix; as shown above it's just a bare compound which one would expect (as it does in OHG) to mean something like necromancy or sorcery, not witch. The OE term isn't just hel + rūn either, it has some kind of suffix going on. Why would the reconstruction *𐌷𐌰𐌻𐌾𐍉𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌰(*haljōrūna) then, as Köbler assures me, mean witch? Am I mistaken in thinking that it would need to have some kind of suffix attached in order to have that meaning? — Kleio (t · c) 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In Old English, -a is a kind of agentive suffix, isn't it, as in dēma? But I guess that wouldn't be -a in Gothic too. Maybe the Gothic word is a bahuvrihi? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I figured the OE -a is probably an agent suffix but I wasn't entirely sure. I'd expect something like an ōn-stem as in 𐌰𐍂𐌱𐌾𐍉(arbjō, heiress), personally, if it were to have a suffix. (I think -𐌾𐍉(-jō) in that word may be the feminine equivalent of the masculine agent suffix -𐌾𐌰(-ja), though I'm not 100% on that.) Your suggestion may explain it, although I can't recall other Gothic compounds that behave like that, with a second element in the compound that refers to an abstract concept now suddenly referring to a person when compounded. — Kleio (t · c) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Gothic term is an ō-stem, the OHG term is an ōn-stem and the Old English term is an an-stem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not really the question here, though: it's the semantics of the Gothic word, which denotes a person (witch), which makes no sense to me. The problem is that the second element of the Gothic compound is just unmodified 𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌰(rūna, secret, mystery); one would at least expect a suffix changing the end of the word to denote an agent. As it is now reconstructed, the word would be expected to mean something like "sorcery" just like its OHG counterpart, which it matches in terms of the etymological derivation of its constituent elements. — Kleio (t · c) 22:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Since the word isn't attested except in a latinized form was altered to conform to Latin morphology, how do we know the form wasn't *𐌷𐌰𐌻𐌾𐍉𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌾𐍉(*haljōrunjō) anyway? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Curiously, though, Old English has hellrūn, helrūn(sorceress; woman with a spirit of divination), which is a strong feminine o-stem. This matches the form and meaning of the postulated Gothic word and is likewise puzzling as one would expect it to mean "sorcery" or "necromancy" Leasnam (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
And similarly, helrȳneġu, which should mean something like "sorcery" also means "sorceress" instead. Strange. Leasnam (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That's really interesting, I hadn't found those yet. That does seem to corroborate Angr's initial suggestion, and makes the Gothic reconstruction more likely to be correct, though it's still weird. @Angr: I personally would expect some remnant of the j to be reflected in a Latinization, something like *haliurun[n]ia or the like, if the Gothic term indeed had the suffix -jō. But it should be mentioned that the reconstruction I gave in my initial post is just what I found in Köbler and some very brief Google Books searches, perhaps others have different ideas. Definitely curious about this word now though, it's an interesting one and I'll look into it more when I get some spare time. I hadn't expected it to have so many apparent cognates. — Kleio (t · c) 15:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@KIeio: actually, the nn of the Latin made me wonder if this word came from some variety of Gothic that had undergone the gemination of consonants before /j/ followed by deletion of /j/ otherwise known only from the West Germanic languages (e.g. *sunjō > synn). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Angr, but would that not have also geminated the "l" in *haljō as well ( > *hallirunna, *hallurunna) as it does in Old English and Old High German ? Leasnam (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Leasnam: Good point. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Angr, Leasnam I've adjusted haliurunna's etymology section to reflect this discussion and some others I found after having a look around, notably an alternate view espoused by Scardigli (1973) and Lehmann (1986). Note also my addition of a reference to 𐍃𐍄𐌰𐌿𐌰(staua), which is a word that can mean both "trial, judgment" and "judge" -- though the declensions differ. Wonder what y'all think. — Kleio (t · c) 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The derivation rinnan (v.) -> runna (agent noun) doesn't seem irregular by the way; consider for example nuta ("catcher", masculine an-stem) from niutan ("to obtain, attain"). — Kleio (t · c) 13:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Nicely explained ! Leasnam (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


Similar to 紐約, I feel that perhaps this borrowing may have come through a southern dialect that retains the "k" sound in "shake". Any thoughts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's most likely through Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Justin. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

hauriō and *h₂ews-, and hauriantEdit

hauriō is stated as coming from *h₂ews-, with the comment "spurious h", that is presumably meaning hauriō < *auriō < *h₂ews-; but the PIE root has no mention of this, and there doesn't seem to me to be much semantic resemblance either. Can it be confirmed or discredited?

This is a different *h₂ews-, a verb root reconstructed as meaning 'to scoop'; LIV gives reflexes from Greek (αὔω(aúō, to carry (fire))), Old Norse (ausa(to scoop)) and Palaic. --Tropylium (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

While we're on this Latin word, can anyone justify it as the origin of the heraldic term hauriant, meaning (of fish) "rising vertically"? The OED s.v. haurient (which I've turned into an alternative form rather than the primary, as hauriant matches sejant, couchant etc., and is used by Fox-Davies), says it's because the fish is supposed to be raised above the surface to draw in air. How do they know? The heraldic term is likely to be proximately from French, not Latin (another reason for preferring -ant), so there could be an intermediate of some other meaning. The English term is first attested in 1572, as hariant, with no clue as to why it means that. The OED entry hasn't been revised since 1898. --Hiztegilari (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Etymology for prefixed Modern Greek wordsEdit

If we take a look at the word ανεργία (unemployment) the etymology says that it comes from the Ancient Greek word ἄνεργος. According to Wiktionary:Etymology#Affixation_and_compounds shouldn't the etymology show that it comes from αν- and έργο (i.e. without work)? If yes, there is also the word άνεργος (unemployed), should it have the same etymology as ανεργία or should one of the two words reference the other? That is, does άνεργος comes from ανεργία or the inverse? Thanks! Orgyn (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't answer for Greek specifically, but in general the derivation would seem most important in the language in which it happened, in this case Ancient Greek. As far as I know, we do think it good to have it in the derivative language as well, even though this means more work in editing and may lead to contradictions... What's important (to myself, anyway) is to distinguish between forms that are from X and forms that are just analyzable as X. So, for example, Sunday isn't "from" sun + day, but only "analyzable as" such, because the compound existed already in Old English and probably even late Proto-Germanic (cf. *sunnōniz dagaz). Kolmiel (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, we have lots of examples of this in English, e.g. unlike, which is diachronically from Old English unġelīċ and synchronically from un- + like. There's nothing wrong with listing both; indeed, it's preferable to do so in order to get the categorization right, since unlike ought to be in both CAT:English terms inherited from Old English and CAT:English words prefixed with un-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly why I asked my question! (categorization) Putting both etymologies would solve this. What would be the word to use to "connect" both etymologies? unlike, atrophy and astrology all show different ways of doing it. Concerning my second question, how is etymology handled between derived terms? Orgyn (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What I've often seen and used myself is "From Old English unġelīċ. Equivalent to un- +‎ like." --WikiTiki89 19:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The wording I usually use is "synchronically analyzable as un- +‎ like" or just "synchronically un- +‎ like". I don't think every single etymology like this has to have the exact same wording. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I use the "Equivalent to" wording. I dislike "synchronically", because that's not understood by the average user. Moreover, I don't think we should be showing synchronic etymologies to begin with. Etymology is diachronic by definition. I would only say "Equivalent to un- + like" if the word was formed from the ancestor of un- and the ancestor of like, not if the word is currently analysable as such but was not actually formed that way. In my view, the idea of giving equivalent etymology is that one is directed to the entries of these parts to look up their individual etymologies, so that they are not repeated. —CodeCat 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If a user doesn't know what a word means, he can look it up. We are a dictionary, after all. And I do think we should be including synchronic etymologies at least for transparent root + affix words, especially when the affix is still productive, because when a speaker uses a word like goodness, for example, we have no way of knowing if he's learned that word as a whole, the same way he learned good (in which case the etymology is only diachronic), or whether he's combining good and -ness himself "on the fly" (in which case the etymology is synchronic, as the speaker has coined the word afresh). So while goodness does go back to gōdnes and very probably *gōdanassuz, it is also being constantly re-coined in Modern English as good + -ness. It isn't simply equivalent to good + -ness, it is good + -ness. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys for your answers! Orgyn (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with CodeCat, that not only would "synchronically" be less likely to be understood, but it also is not the right concept. --WikiTiki89 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Then what is? "Equivalent to" isn't the right concept either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't it? --WikiTiki89 15:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Because unlike isn't merely "equivalent to" un- + like; it *is* un- + like. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
What it's supposed to mean is that it is equivalent to a derivation from un- + like, even though it is really inherited as a whole. --WikiTiki89 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I know what it's supposed to mean, but it isn't merely equivalent to a derivation from un- + like. It is simultaneously *both* an inheritance from Old English *and* a concatenation of two Modern English morphemes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well in this particular case you're sort of right, because the morphemes were kept separate, otherwise we might have ended up with unylike or something, but in other cases there is no reason to say that. --WikiTiki89 18:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I've seen "surface analysis" used, that seems to work. — Kleio (t · c) 16:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would work too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The surface analysis can contradict the true etymology. As I said, etymology is by definition diachronic, so merely analysing the contemporary surface form is not good enough. Apparent origins can be misleading. —CodeCat 17:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

PIE surface vs. morphophonologyEdit

I noticed that we seem to have around "PIE roots" used for one descendant only, e.g. *Hyekʷ-. I was about to protest this as silly, but then realized that this probably has benefits for our root shape categories.

But this also got me thinking that this may have other benefits yet as well. A common complaint fielded at PIE reconstructions is that they often inconsistently mix surface (lexical) and deep (morpho-) phonology. However, if we maintain roots as a fully different category from words, then we will have the option to actually claim the best of both worlds: we could transcribe roots morphophonologically, actual word-forms surface-phonologically.

We already have e.g.:

I would suggest indicating also at least the following:

Various newer laryngeal-deletion and schwa-insertion rules would likely be just as good to indicate, though these would take a bit more time to dig up. --Tropylium (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Beside the argument that we're simply writing things the way linguists do, there's also these points:
  • Szemerényi's law was morphologised and no longer purely phonological. We find analogical long vowels in words such as *dyḗws, *pṓds. There is also no trace of it in e.g. proterokinetic genitive singulars or athematic 2nd person singulars, where it might have originally occurred.
  • The same probably applies for Stang's law.
  • Unrounding is indicated because it results in phonemic change: the non-labial consonant is a phoneme.
  • Siebs' law, by contrast, does not change phonemes, it is allophonic.
  • Devoicing is post-PIE, and absent in IIr. Voicing assimilation of *s doesn't create a new phoneme, so again it's not indicated.
  • s-insertion may also be post-PIE, if IIr is an indication. Either way, it's allophonic.
  • ōn > ō occurs exclusively in Szemeryényi's law environments, so the same reasoning applies.
  • *ḱḗr is a unique example with no parallels.
CodeCat 20:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) We already do:
  • w:Pinault's law: *h₂éryeti and not *//*h₂érh₃yeti,//
  • I tend to do schwa-insertion as seen generally through out *tep-, though I'm still on the fence about it.
As for the others you've suggested:
  • As to voicing assimilation, Ringe points out that since these assimilations are so common, it's hard to know whether they occurred in PIE or in the daughters. We can't even tell if w:Bartholomae's law was in PIE.
  • s-insertion is fine with theoretically, but, if we also accept assimilation, we start getting into the hairy business of *bʰudʰtós > *bʰudʰstós > *bʰudʰzdós? > *bʰudzdʰós??. This is a bit too far for my taste.
  • I am deeply opposed to showing vowel coloration, as it muddies the morphology considerably. I'm aware that Stang's and Szemerényi's laws are not obvious either, but being able to distinguish between , *oh₃, and *eh₃ is crucial for our reconstructions.
I would also add that we do not use:
Overall, I'd say we should cleave to the linguistic standard, which we currently do, though you will always find counterexamples (Fortson does s-insertion, I believe). —JohnC5 20:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Allophones can probably get hairy, yes. I'm mostly interested in increasing the non-PIE-initiated accessibility of the reconstructions (= decreasing the amount of "gratuitous" features in the reconstruction), but leaving that level of transcription off is reasonable in general.
We aren't able to distinguish *eh₃(C), *oh₃(C) and even other *oH(C), though: they are reflected the same everywhere. I would not go as far as writing out the compensatory lengthening though, as it is often enough taken as post-PIE (e.g. by some formulations of Dybo's law and Balto-Slavic accentology). But there is still the intermediate option to use *ah₂ and *oh₃. Note also that, as rare as it may have otherwise been, we are already using *a anyway.
As for s-insertion: *s is a phoneme, so the change clearly isn't allophonic. AFAIK Indic *TT is normally considered a back-mutation, since Iranian shows *sT and since Sanskrit has also the sandhi rule *-s > ∅ / T_#, which would be expected to turn *-TsT- back to *-TT- in any case. --Tropylium (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Old Norse greiðaEdit

Would someone have more details on this word? Anything to do with *raidaz? --Barytonesis (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. greiða is from Pgmc *garaidijaną, from *garaidaz, a prefixed form of *raidaz(ready) Leasnam (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)