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
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016


May 2016

YukonEdit

On Wikipedia, the third paragraph gives some interesting story of the etymology:

The name Yukon, or ųųg han, is a blend of the words in the Gwich'in phrase chųų gąįį han, which means white water river and refers to the visual effect of glacial silt in the Yukon River.[6][7] The blend omits the consonant “ch” and the vowels “ąįį.”[8] In 1843, the Holikachuks had told the Russians that their name for the river was Yukkhana and that this name meant big river.[9] Although it did serve as the name, Yukkhana does not correspond to a Holikachuk phrase that means big river.[10][11] The Holikachuks had borrowed the upriver language name and conflated its meaning with the meaning of Kuigpak, the Yup’ik name for the same river.[12] Two years later, the Gwich’ins told the Hudson’s Bay Company that their name for the river was Yukon and that the name meant white water river.[6] White water river in fact corresponds to Gwich’in words that can be blended to form Yukon.[7]

Does it check out? The footnotes of the WP article extensively discuss this.

Should we replace the current WT etymology if it does? Hillcrest98 (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know about the details such as dates, but I recognize the words chųų gąįį hän from their similarity to Navajo ( łigai). —Stephen (Talk) 16:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The ambiguous Proto-Semitic cardinal *waḥad-Edit

Recently I added *waḥad- to the Reconstruction namespace, based on the article I added as a reference for the entry. This article - in my view, convincingly - disproves the idea that it was used as a cardinal number in Proto-Semitic, and argues for an original adjectival sense which was later largely lost as it supplanted an earlier Proto-Semitic cardinal in most Semitic languages. However, as the author points out, the idea of it being a numeral does still exist among some etymologists. So I was unsure whether or not I should include both senses and add a NB to the bottom, as I have done, or whether one of the senses should be omitted, or maybe some other solution to clear up this ambiguity. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a big difference between "adjective" and "numeral" in this case? Arabic wāḥid, at least, is grammatically an adjective that can be translated with "a single" just as well as "one". I mean, it's possible that this root has displaced some other Proto-Semitic numeral, but I don't think its own grammatical function has really changed. -- But anyway: The Arabic واحِد ‎(wāḥid) doesn't even seem to be a descendent of this etymon, just from the same root. Maybe أحد ‎(aḥad) is the right one? Kolmiel (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Wilson-Wright lists both واحِد ‎(wāḥid) and أحد ‎(aḥad) as reflexes of *waḥad. Anyhow, his point, which I am not sure what to do with here on Wiktionary, was really that in Proto-Semitic *waḥad was not at all (contrary to what he presents as the common view - I am no Semitist so I cannot verify that that is indeed the common view, but I'll take his word and credentials for it) used as a numeral, but rather exclusively as an adjective meaning lone. Which brings me to the issue of how to convey that in the lemma. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 18:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Kolmiel, and he is right about أَحَد ‎(ʾaḥad) being the Arabic descendant, not وَاحِد ‎(wāḥid); the latter is most likely related, but it is a different form. In fact I think we should reconstruct it as *ʾaḥad-, since none of the descendants have initial w- (except for the parenthesized w- in Akkadian, which I would like to know more about). --WikiTiki89 18:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I went based off the article, but again, I have no further sources. You can read it here: http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/1 - I think it isn't behind a paywall. Anyhow, I don't know enough about the history of Semitic languages to add much more beyond this, so I'll leave it to you. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 18:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rathersilly: Can you provide the quote that says that وَاحِد ‎(wāḥid) is reflex of *waḥad-? The article you link to is behind a paywall for me at least (although the abstract is free). --WikiTiki89 18:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@WikiTiki89 - http://i.imgur.com/YKNPBu0.png Here is the page off which I based its descendants. I can hook you up with the full thing via PM if you like? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 18:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait, are messages even a thing on this website. I am so bad at this. It says messages in my top right though, so sending them must be possible. Sigh. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 19:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
PMing is done through email (Special:EmailUser). I sent you an email, all you have to do is reply. The messages in the top right are just when someone posts on your talk page (which is not private). --WikiTiki89 19:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, gotcha. תהנה. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 19:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So that does not exactly say that وَاحِد ‎(wāḥid) is a direct reflex of *waḥad-, but rather a derivative, fit to the pattern of the active participle. So we should treat it as a derivative rather than a descendant. I also strongly believe that we should use the reconstruction *ʾaḥad- as the lemma, since the w- > ʾ- change must have happened in Proto-Semitic or earlier. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't table 2 list وَاحِد ‎(wāḥid) as a reflex, or am I misreading? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It does, but it cannot phonologically be a direct descendant and later on it says (on page 10): "Only Arabic attests wāḥid, which is vocalized like a participle. Here the principle of parsimony comes into play. It would be easier for Arabic to develop a bi-form by analogy with the participle than for the majority of the West Semitic languages to independently innovate a new, unmotivated form." --WikiTiki89 17:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Touché. I had missed that. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 19:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

malarkeyEdit

Greek etymology added in diff needs Greek script if OK. - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be pure speculation, but not implausible. I've stripped it down and added the Greek script. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Second element in Gothic compound 𐌱𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌲𐍃𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃?Edit

Was wondering if anyone knows what the second part of this compound is? It obviously means something along the lines of 'wall', as Streitberg has the translation of the compound as 'Stadtmauer', but I can't think of a cognate - 'waddjus' is quite far off any Germanic variation of 'wall' I've seen. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 17:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We have an entry 𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(waddjus). Winfred Philipp Lehmann's Gothic Etymological Dictionary defines -waddjus as "wall", naming several compounds in appears in. He mentions, presumably as a list of cognates and non-cognates, "OI veggr stm wall. Not here OE wāg, OFris wāch, OS wēgos pl stm wall, but rather to root of *waihsta". (Compare our entries Veggr and væg and vägg.) He traces it to a Proto-Germanic root "wayyu [...] 'woven wall, wattle'". - -sche (discuss) 17:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. But should we keep 𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(waddjus), which doesn't appear to be attested outside of compounds, in the mainspace, or should it be a Reconstruction? As was done with *ᚾᚨᚢᛞᛁᛉ ‎(*naudiz). 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hard to say. The argument for naudiz not to be in mainspace is partly that it's only attested as a medial element of a compound, so in theory the paradigm is reconstructed based on PGmc; if waddjus is attested as the final element of a compound and its meaning within the compound is clear, it doesn't seem inappropriate to keep it in mainspace. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
waddjus is attested AFAICT only in 𐌱𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌲𐍃𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(baurgswaddjus), 𐌲𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(grunduwaddjus), and 𐌼𐌹𐌳𐌲𐌰𐍂𐌳𐌹𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(midgardiwaddjus). I'd be in favor of moving 𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(waddjus) to *𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(*waddjus) since it's unattested by itself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I also think so, honestly. Also, quick question - 𐌼𐌹𐌳𐌲𐌰𐍂𐌳𐌹𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿𐍃 ‎(midgardiwaddjus) is only attested in acc. sing., should I create the entry for a nom. sing form or only for the acc. sing 𐌼𐌹𐌳𐌲𐌰𐍂𐌳𐌹𐍅𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌿 ‎(midgardiwaddju)? 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For Gothic we've always created the lemma form, even when the word is actually attested only in an inflected form—at least in cases where the lemma form is obvious. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I see, and have created the lemma form. Is there an easy way for people to find the lemma forms from looking for the non-lemma forms though? I know that some people managed to automate the creation of Latin inflected form entries for example which makes this very easy, but nothing of the sort seems to exist for Gothic. (P.S. sorry for bombarding you and others with questions, I'm still learning how to most efficiently edit here) 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 19:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For Gothic, the only inflected forms I would bother creating are the attested ones, unlike Latin where we create all inflected forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, I don't know if the nominative plural of -waddjus is ever attested, but I'm willing to bet €10 it wasn't *-waddjjus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It isn't attested in a plural, we just have some singulars (nom., and acc.). Honestly not too sure how the plural would be formed, all considered. It definitely is a feminine u-stem, but jj does sound very strange indeed! Maybe -eis? Either way, I'm not sure how I'd make this clear in the template. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 20:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The question extends to Proto-Germanic too. The hypothetical ancestor would be *wajjiwiz which is equally suspicious, as the combination -ji- didn't normally occur in Germanic, it was simplified to -i-, but then you'd still have *wajiwiz? Would it be simplified a second time? There simply aren't enough cases of -jj- to tell us what happens in this case, it's quite a rare phoneme. —CodeCat 20:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Not that I know anything, but it could be that the gemination of -jji- resisted simplification. --WikiTiki89 20:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If I were designing Gothic, I would make the plural waddijus or waddjus (identical to the singular), but in fact there are very few nouns in -jus and none of them appear to be attested in the nominative plural. @CodeCat: why is the PGmc nominative plural ending *-iwiz anyway? Doesn't it come from PIE *-ewes? Why wasn't it *-ewez? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Unstressed e becomes i in Germanic. You can see this in the -os/-es- nouns, which appear in Germanic with -az/-iz-. —CodeCat 19:33, 5 May 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)

ProtaspisEdit

The word protaspis is scheduled to be Word of the Day on 22 May. I took a stab at adding an etymology, and would be glad if someone would check it. You may also want to add etymologies for the related words holaspis and meraspis. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

PrummEdit

I'm not familiar with Central Franconian, but in Prumm, the etymology says "From Central Franconian *prūma", with *prūma pointing to Old High German. Should it be "From Old High German *prūma"? It's getting categorized to CAT:English terms derived from Central Franconian, so this needs to be fixed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about Central Franconian either, but it was obvious that the "goh" was merely omitted from the etyl template. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for spotting that. Kolmiel (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ChajnantorEdit

I can't think of what this would be from. Is it an eponym? DTLHS (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Related to Sanskrit चन्द्र ‎(candra)? DTLHS (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
According to various sources on the web, it's from a w:Kunza language name meaning something like "place of" "departure"/"liftoff"/"taking flight"/"ascension" (Spanish "lugar de inicio"/“lugar de despegue”/“el lugar de partida”/"plataforma de despegue"). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any linguistically-rigorous sources but this PDF (p. 10) goes into the most detail of the sources I've looked at. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

eng:elite hel:ηλίθιος ?Edit

I was wondering if these are related and if so why the common meaning is almost opposite. Greek ηλίθιος [elithios] translates pretty much into 'stupid', 'lack of intelligence' including 'Idiot' in German. I'm not sure how this could end up in the context of 'social elite', 'political elite'. Wiktionary refers to old French and Latin, but totally omits Greek.

You already got your answer. Our etymology for elite doesn't mention the Greek because it's not related. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand that proving a non-relationship is a bit more difficult that a existing relationship, but your answer is a bit like 'the fox reporting that the hen house is safe'. Why would the Greek version have not leaked into Latin (as many words did)? Tknorr4711 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
One would have to have something like *elitus in Latin, but the expected outcome of ηλίθιος ‎(ēlíthios) would be *elithius or *elitius. There doesn't seem to be evidence for any of those. The most plausible derivation is via some Vulgar Latin form derived from ēlēctus ‎(chosen, elected), the perfect participle of ēligō ‎(choose, elect), which is itself from ex ‎(out of, from) + legō ‎(choose, select, appoint). A superficial resemblance isn't enough to make an etymology out of- they happen all the time, and they usually mean nothing. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic "welcome"Edit

Trying to puzzle out the precise proto-form(s) (if any) of this. It's listed on English welcome as *weljakwumô (normalized *wiljakumô).

I just updated this at welcome. It should be *wiljakwumô/*wiljakumô Leasnam (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we might be looking at two proto-forms:

  1. *wiljakumô from the stems of *wiljaną + *kwemaną with n-stem adjective endings, yielding German willkommen, West Frisian wolkom (showing contamination with the causative like German wollen)
  2. *welakumô or *welkumô from *wela + stem of *kwemaną, yielding Danish velkommen, Icelandic velkomin, Swedish välkommen, English "welcome" (from North Germanic according to this source), and the source of various calques including a presumed Vulgar Latin *bene venito, *bene venuto, which yielded French bienvenue, Spanish bienvenido, Italian benvenuto, etc. Other possible calques include Finnish tervetuloa, Greek καλώς ορίσατε ‎(kalós orísate) (probably from a Romance language), Albanian mirë se vjen.

I'm also having a hard time finding any sources on the subject (too much contamination from the English word). KarikaSlayer (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Frisian example might point to either; *wela is recorded as wol continuously from early on along the coast. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The Old English form was wilcuma, Middle Dutch has welcome, wellecome, willecome (of which welkom survives today). —CodeCat 16:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Old High German has willikwemo, williquemo, willikomo (the first 2 with asteriks--not sure if these are non-nominative attestations) Leasnam (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Middle and Modern English Corpus Linguistics: A Multi-dimensional Approach lists the form with *wilja- (spelled as *welja-) as the original, with later assimilation to *wel- (at least in English). It also says that *kumô or *kwumô (which may have actually been *kwemô assuming the OHG forms with -que- are original and not by analogy with the verb) was a deverbal noun meaning "guest". KarikaSlayer (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe OHG forms in -que- are the result of analogy with the verb. They are relatively late appearing. Leasnam (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

spitfireEdit

We have: A compound of spit +‎ fire as a euphemistic rendition of shitfire, from Spanish cacafuego ("braggart") with the literal translation of "fireshitter".

Online Ety. Dict. has "1610s, "a cannon," from spit (v.) + fire (n.); c. 1600 as an adjective. Meaning "irascible, passionate person" is from 1670s. Replaced earlier shitfire (similar formation in Florentine cacafuoco)."

Is our etymology credible? The "euphemism" stuff looks like a misinterpretation of the OnlineEtyD version. Does the OED have something on this? DCDuring TALK 23:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope. OED just says it's from the verb spit, i.e., literally something that spits out fire. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reality check: User:ManoochEdit

This morning (Pacific time) I noticed a series of additions to etymologies by this user which were unformatted, and which mostly consisted of mentioning Persian terms that sort of resembled the terms in question but were usually not actually related, along with a motley assortment of other terms in various languages.

For instance, at Old Portuguese marido, the etymology:

was "expanded" to include:

  • MAN (a male person) :
Persian : mard , old Persian : martya (, Armenian : mard = husband , Italian : marito = husband , Spanish : marido= husband ,in Persian too mard means husband or man of the house

Given that the edits were all in good faith, and that they didn't take it very well when I asked them not to "add any more stuff to etymologies" (I was running late, so my wording wasn't particularly diplomatic), I though I would get a second opinion just to be safe: was I justified in reverting all their additions to etymologies (see Special:Contributions/Manooch), and was there a better way to handle this (see User talk:Manooch)? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He's just bullshitting, so some of the cognates are in fact related and many are not. It doesn't improve the entry any and he shows a long history of completely ignoring reality & formatting, so you're completely justified in removing all his edits. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

TamazightEdit

Is w:Central Atlas Tamazight the standard language for common Berber words? Berber languages like Kabyle, Tashelhit and Tarifit all use the same word. I changed it to 'Borrowing from Berber' instead since the word goes further back to this parent language, but it was reverted. -- Ajellid-n-arif (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Berber is too broad a group. In fact, Berber isn't a language, it is a group of very many languages. It's only the Northern Berber languages that use this term with this pronunciation. Anyway, the English word ultimately can only come from one of them. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Arabic بلد (balad)Edit

Our entry for بَلَد ‎(balad, country) currently says it is from Greek παλάτιον ‎(palátion), in turn from Latin palatium. This seemed convincing enough for me until I encountered the Ugaritic entry 𐎁𐎍𐎄 ‎(bld, homeland). Could this mean that the Arabic word is native Semitic after all? --WikiTiki89 19:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

According to my sources, the reflex of palatium in Arabic is بلاط ‎(balāṭ, palace). --Vahag (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ferhengvan: It seems you were the one who added this etymology (diff). Do you remember where you found it? --WikiTiki89 18:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Ferhengvan is notoriously unreliable. I have removed the etymology until he provides a serious source. --Vahag (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

HoudiniEdit

From WP:

"When Weiss became a professional magician he began calling himself "Harry Houdini", after the French magician Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin, after reading Robert-Houdin's autobiography in 1890. Weiss incorrectly believed that an i at the end of a name meant "like" in French."

Where would Houdini get the incorrect intuition from... The only suffix popping into my head is the Latin genitive ending. Or it could be he just pulled the idea out of his butt. We might never know. Hillcrest98 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I think Weiss's family background was Hungarian -- he was born in Budapest, at any rate. -i is a common adjectivizing suffix in Hungarian; perhaps that's where it came from? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Given the semantics and Houdini's origin, quite plausible! Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. At any rate, the outcome Houdini sounds and looks markedly Arabic to me. I always thought he was Lebanese or something, until recently... Kolmiel (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

crazyEdit

The etymology sections looks repetitive at first glance, particularly because no actual "candidates" are mentioned: Both etymologies lead to a Old Norse word that is also the origin of "to craze". Kolmiel (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think WikiAnswers is itself a reliable source. Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem with copypasting text from sources (aside from the obvious copyright issues) is that you're stuck with the format of the source. The WikiAnswers quote seems to be mostly copied from Etymonline, including some parts that aren't quoted in our etymology because they're under craze instead of crazy. If it weren't for the rearranging, it would probably be too useless to quote.
We should remove both quotes, not least because they clutter the etymology with things like information on w:Crazy Horse, but leave out important information like the Middle English verb crāsen, and the Old French verb crasir that it apparently came from (as mentioned in this Middle English Dictionary entry), and that it could be ultimately from some other Germanic source (it just happens that the Old Norse term seems to be the only one that left any trace). It's also of interest that crash is probably related, likely as a blend of the Middle English verb with one of at least couple other verbs. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Old Saxon thiusEdit

Listed as descending from Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/þus, but then why does it have /iy/? I remember someone writing that it was the instrumental form of these#Old Saxon, which we also seem to say at thus#English. At the same time we list the instrumental as thîs. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This might just be a typo?! The Old Saxon cognate is "thus" according to this: [1]. I'm also not sure that the word was an instrumental at all. Several of these Dutch sources say it has the "adverb-forming ending -s". And then we say that "thius" is the Nom. sg. f. form. Kolmiel (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
PS: Note that the letters i and u are next to each other on the keyboard. Kolmiel (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
PPS: Now I see that in OHG der the masculine sg. instrumental is also the same as the feminine sg. nominative... So maybe "thius" is indeed an instrumental? But that doesn't make it a descendant of Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/þus. Kolmiel (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Danish "pant"Edit

In the Translations section of the English noun "mortgage", the Danish equivalent is given as "pant", but the entry for "pant" has no Danish part.

I have added it to Wiktionary:Requested entries (Danish) for you. Someone with knowledge of Danish could add the relevant part in the future, I myself don't know the first thing about Danish grammar or I would add it myself. The Danish word definitely exists, though, you can find it in many sources. — Kleio (t · c) 17:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

adventoEdit

Is this actually from adveniō, or was it formed by prefixing ventō? —CodeCat 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Also a similar question for adversō, advectō. —CodeCat 18:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A short answer:
I think all three are very likely frequentatives of prefixed verbs, not prefixed frequentatives. A general reason may or may not be found, but vento is too rare to have formed advento. Advecto is used in a sense that is specialised and interchangeable with adveho, to which vecto is not relevant, whereas adverso is used in a formulated phrase (animum adverso) which is normally formulated with adverto. Both of these latter words are rare enough that these usages are a little studied, in different ways. The latter two words do not seem to me to have independent lexical force in the limited existing corpus.
A longer answer with slightly more justification:
Advento is almost certainly the frequentative of advenio, as venio is less a word in its own right than perhaps an extremely rare form of ventito, which is widely used. The print editions of Lewis and Short mark it with an asterisk, which unfortunately does not appear in the referenced on-line version. As the prefatory materials write: `a star before a word denotes that it is found but once.' Unfortunately, I have had trouble quickly deciphering the single citation, I think to Varro, albeit I am not sure to which text. While the sense given of vento is literally frequentative, advento is only loosely frequentative in sense, as it can be used intensively or nearly inchoatively. Advento does not annex a sense of `ad-' to vento or ventito, but the loosely frequentative or intensive sense is quite consistent with how advenio is used. The Wiktionary entry could be ideally augmented to reflect this wider usage of advenio than currently implied.
One would make an opposite argument for advecto. It is itself marked as an hapax legomenon in the printed editions of Lewis and Short. The citation is to Tacitus, who writes that Tiberius addiditque quibus ex provinciis quanto maiorem quam Augustus rei frumentariae copiam advectaret, that is, Tiberius observed in how much greater measure than Augustus he imported the supply of grain from the provinces. Veho, vecto, and adveho, unlike advecto and vento, are common words. But Tacitus is obviously using advectaret as an intensive form of adveho, not as a neologism involving ad- prefaced to vecto, for adveho is regularly used to speak of the import of grain (see Livy 2.52: Urbi cum pace laxior etiam annona rediit, et advecto ex Campania frumento, or, To the city, with peace, came easier food prices, and with grain imported from Campania...). Vecto and veho do not have this sense. But whether this is a common silver-age intensification or a studied usage of Tacitus is speculative to conjecture. The sense of the sentence in Tacitus is transparent, as are many of the amusing likely coinages in Catullus, along the lines of cuniculosus, semirasus, semilautus, ecfututus, or reglutino.
Adverso is also likely a simple use of the frequentative. The only L&S citation is to Plautus, although the word is not marked as an hapax legomenon. The Plautus reference is simply, animum advorsavi, which is obviously an intensification of animum advertavi, or simply, to use the verb which contracted the non-frequentative form of this expression, animadverti. Verso also has a sense of thinking, but to combine it with animum seems at once redundant and unpleasantly transitive.
One might make an argument that frequentatives, inchoatives, mediatives, and desideratives in general are more generative than the directional prefixes, ad-, in-, ex-, sub-, super-, etc. for verbs, because the directionally prefixed verbs are very often not of transparent meaning: eicio is to wreck a ship; subsido is to run one aground; adicio is to outbid someone in an auction. In Catullus, for example, the verbs which are hapax legomena are all pre-, con-, re- or per- prefixed, all prefixes of intensity rather than direction, with the exception of ex- in ecfutatus, which is used intensively. It seems, only to reflect informally on the poetic force one may feel in novel words, that the intensive prefixes are more generative still than the aspectual suffixes, perhaps because their meanings are still more transparent, and so can give more to a sentence than a new word would perforce borrow. But I am not sure, if looking for a rule, these reminiscences will form one. Perhaps there are grammarians who have discussed this or studied it with some energy. One regrets this is perhaps a desultory fraction of an answer one might seek.
Isomorphyc (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Isomorphyc Thank you for your elaborate explanation! It is very useful. I wonder if you could have a look at concursō too? —CodeCat 16:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. For these four words, all four are well attested, and concurso is generally used as an intensification of curso, not a frequentative of concurro, as can clearly be seen in any example. But if you look at substantives, concursus can be either a crowd or a fight, and since it derives from concurso it implies both constructions were in some sense admissible, even if the verb is normally reserved for fighting, and flocking is saved for concurro, whose substantive is different-- concursio. I think one can open to some ambiguity, but as you've found, it quite often pays to ask this question.
Isomorphyc (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added/fixed up the etymologies of the four verbs based on your advice. Thank you! —CodeCat 19:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've edited curso a bit, I hope you don't mind! I know -to is the usual form and -so is a change for sound, but it looked a bit odd. If my edit is inconsistent with how these etymologies should look please feel free to revert or edit as appropriate. I admit I am afraid I've abused the templates trying to give unnecessary information. Thanks. Isomorphyc (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The suffix is just -tō, not -sō. The latter is just an automatic allomorph of the former, just like au- is not a separate prefix from ab-. And there's no such thing as "cur-". —CodeCat 21:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it's not an improvement. And I love your new revision of -to. It resolves the concern I had. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Lv laiva, Lt laivasEdit

"However, since this etymology within Finnic is controversial, (…)"

This is somewhat unclear: what exactly is supposed to be controversial here (per LEV I presume)? Finnic *laiva seems like a perfect source for these Baltic words, and its Germanic loan origin is considered well established. --Tropylium (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the LEV is always universally trustworthy, but it doesn't seem to be a perfectly clear case. For more scholarly opinions, see here (assuming you can read Lithuanian). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not read Lithuanian, but the source you've linked seems to refer to a different, long outdated Germanic etymology (from *hlaiwą ‎(tomb)), which indeed would not trump anything.
My point is precisely that this does in fact strike me as perfectly clear; the alleged IE etymology for the Baltic words seems to require multiple layers of ad hoc derivative processes and offers nothing especially attractive (except, perhaps, the ability to deny Uralic loanwords in Lithuanian). --Tropylium (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Maybe they really are all biased; is there some etymological dictionary that's more recent? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

δηλέομαι and deleoEdit

Are these words cognates? --Espoo (talk

I've looked in several sources and can't find any anterior etymology of either of these words. Maybe the Latin is a loanword from the Greek? Otherwise, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have materials in front of me at the moment (I had meant to update the entries but forgot), so this is just what I recall at the moment, but De Vaan reconstructs dēleō from *h₃elh₁- ‎(to destroy) as a prefixed causative PIE *h₃olh₁-éye-ti (whence also Ancient Greek ὄλλυμι ‎(óllumi, to wreck, to destroy), Hittite [script needed] ‎(hu-ul-la-a-i, he defeated, destroyed)) > PI *dē + *ol-eō > dēleō. He also rejects several other hypotheses which I do not recall, but δηλέομαι was not among them. Beekes discusses several theories for δηλέομαι but claims that the matter is unresolved, pointing to the ablaut being very strange, and thus declares it un-Indo-European and perhaps Pre-Greek. Again, he makes no mention of dēleō. I'll try to update these later. —JohnC5 15:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

cancerEdit

@kc kennylau apparently inserted his own etymology to cancer. Can anyone verify (or Kenny explain), because many people think it's from καρκίνος and it's still καρκίνος in the English section. Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That etymology is from De Vaan, Kenny just didn't source it. —CodeCat 01:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, should I align the English entry with De Vaan's? Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. I personally find De Vaan's etymology a bit weird in this case. That doesn't mean the one we have in the English entry is better, though. But I've yet to see an etymology that really makes sense to me. That's just me though. —CodeCat 01:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
καρκίνος fits semantically but gives phonological trouble to derive straight from it. While De Vaan claims disassimilation and weird semantics, associating crab arms with circles and enclosures (???). Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

-ēscō in LatinEdit

Would the -ēscō suffix serve better as -scō? The vowel is inherited from the verb, when it exists, and the equivalent Greek ending does not impose a vowel. One finds calēscō, but labascō and dormīscō. -īscō is hyperlinked as a variant stem, but -ascō is not. I believe all of the deponents are -īscor with the sole exception of īrāscor, which does not derive directly from a verb (I am excluding nāscor which might have been originally inchoative but predates Latin). Apologies if this discussion has already taken place; I was not able to find it. Isomorphyc (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not all verbs with -ēscō are derived from existing -eō stative verbs. Some are derived directly from adjectives. So this suffix is productive, at least. Etymologically of course, the suffix is a combination of -eō and -scō. Not sure if there are any cases of -īscō and -āscō not suffixed to verbs of the corresponding conjugation. —CodeCat 17:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I've cleared out all the verbs from the -ēscō and -īscō categories that were derived from 2nd and 4th conjugation verbs. As expected, there's a fair number of words that are derived from -ēscō with no intermediate stative verb. But there's also a single -īscō verb that I can't figure out. —CodeCat 19:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You are extremely fast. Are you certain about the quantity in -āscō? I reverted my change on labascō because Wiktionary omits the macron on purpurasco and inveterasco (but not veterāsco), and I thought there might have been a reason. There is no macron in L&S (on-line or print), but I had originally assumed that was because it would be obvious. I'll add the macrons to the other two verbs if you agree they are simply missing.
Derivation from adjectives and nouns is a separate issue from productivity, though -sco is the most productive of the suffixes. According to A&G, all of the verb suffixes were originally denominative in origin, and the derivations from verbs came later; though I understand there might be newer information available. This is why I am uncomfortable with the suffix entry texts which imply derivation can only be from verbs, given cavillor < cavilla, focila < focus. Unless you are implying this verb > verb is the only still productive use of the suffix? For irasco < iro, I have had trouble convincing myself that the verb iro exists, which is why I preferred the noun derivation, also in A&G. I don't want to edit your edit, but are you quite comfortable with this?
Isomorphyc (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2016 (UT)
It's the opposite; derivation from verb roots is the most original use. See *-sḱéti. If the vowel in the -ascō verbs is short, then it needs to be explained why the vowel shortened, because it's derived from a verb with a final long ā (i.e. 1st conjugation), purpurō, inveterō. —CodeCat 20:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
For purpurasco and inveterasco, do you know of an explanation, however, for the short vowel? So far as I can tell you are agreeing with me, and I can't think of a reason for it to shorten.
For arcessō, lacessō, and the cēdō family, you are arguing against derivation from the present stem. I know A&G is a century old; is the current view that -essō never forms against the supine stem?
Isomorphyc (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Only suffixes beginning with -t- form against the supine stem, which itself has a suffix beginning with -t-. All others use the present stem generally. I have no explanation for the short a, I think it should be long, but I wonder why it's labelled short by some sources. —CodeCat 20:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
De Vaan has it as long... —JohnC5 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to make pressō use the affix template for -iō given the derivation is through the supine? Anything I can think of doing looks strange, but it would be nice to have it in the appropriate etymological lists. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Where is the -iō in pressō? —CodeCat 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, typo. I meant -tō. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I added the etymology, and clarified the participle since -mt- > -ss- is not exactly a regular change in the participle. —CodeCat 21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

mellarEdit

The RAE derives this from Latin *gemellāre ‎(to make equal), from gemellus ‎(twin). How did "to make equal" shift in meaning to become "to nick, to dent"? DTLHS (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty unusual too that the initial syllable should be lost. Circeus (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Any other candidates / cognates? DTLHS (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
True. I thought I could be the definitions what was wrong, but I checked and it said "Hacer mellas", and in thus in mella 'indentation, hole', as in the fallen tooth in the gum. I have never used mellar in that sense, but in the first of 'flattening, like onto the saw edge by a hit or while cutting', and thus onto a 'knife's edge'. Maybe one sense comes from the other by extension. Sobreira (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

saunaEdit

The claimed IE origin is so surprising, even shocking, and in contradiction of everything to be found in common sources that this sort of info should not be added without providing a reference. Otherwise almost anyone who knows Finnish and definitely almost any Finn who sees it will simply delete it because they will assume it's vandalism. --Espoo (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a reference, listed at Proto-Finnic *sakna, which can be read here. I have no idea whether it is at all trustworthy; it certainly raises some red flags that I can see. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Tropylium added the etymology and references there. I would consider him a trustworthy authority on Uralic. —CodeCat 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The etymology presented here is fairly new (2008), so a lack of recognition in earlier sources is natural. I suppose it also depends on a number of new results in Germanic linguistics, e.g. the resurfacing of w:Kluge's law. I am not sure offhand what red flags @Metaknowledge is seeing — it's a mainstream peer-reviewed source from an established loanword researcher, at minimum.
There might well be a question of referencing though. Should we place references relating to partly-inherited words on our mainspace entries for each individual descendant, or keep them on the proto-language entry? If the latter, should we keep details on such etymologies to minimum on the mainspace entries, and should we have notes along the lines of "see *sakna for more"? The former in turn would probably run into too much duplicate work to be doable in every case, but perhaps some cases could call for clearer measures. --Tropylium (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The writing felt very strange to me for academia, but I'll trust you on this. I'm simply more used to the more formal linguistic literature, rather than philology. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

-essoEdit

What is the etymology of this suffix? I'm inclined to think that it's in origin a desiderative of some sort (PIE *-(h₁)seti), but I have no idea otherwise. —CodeCat 21:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

UzbekEdit

Wikipedia has an interesting etymology on it. Can someone add it? -Xbony2 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just some creative proposals, hardly anything definite. —CodeCat 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

haitzEdit

On Wikipedia, the stone family is split into three: haitz, aizkora, and the others. It attributes Larry Trask as support. Add this to the Basque entries? Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Trask is much more likely to be right than casual proponents of ancient origins. In his History of Basque he is dismissive. He says aizkora is straightforwardly from Latin asciola (which we lack an entry for) < ascia. It was possibly contaminated by the other tool names, which also include haizter ‎(shears) and haiztur ‎(tongs). As he remarks: Stone tongs? The tool names, but not their supposed basis haitz ‎(stone), contain an /n/ in some dialects. --Hiztegilari (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
asciola (which I'm not sure is attested, so it could be *asciola) has another reflex in Spanish azuela. KarikaSlayer (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Created a page at Reconstruction:Latin/asciola, correct any errors if you find any; or if the premise is wrong, vent it back at me. Hillcrest98 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

PIE for Atmen vs Sanskrit atman Pokorny's ēt-mén- 526Edit

While in आत्मन्#Etymology, from *ētmen- says it is a cognate of Atmen, but this Atmen states that comes from *h₁eh₁tmén-, what's the real PIE or one comes from another? utexas Sobreira (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Pokorny doesn't use laryngeals or stress marks in his transcriptions, so his *ētmen- is equivalent to *h₁eh₁tmén-. Which looks very odd; it must be some sort of reduplicated noun (rare but not nonexistent) from a root *h₁et-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
So the Sanskrit आत्मन् ‎(ātmán) and Germanic *ēþmaz look like a collective *h₁éh₁tmō ~ *h₁h₁tm̥nés of an unattested neuter in *h₁éh₁tmn̥ ~ *h₁h₁tméns. As to the root *h₁eh₁t- being reduplicated, I have no notion. —JohnC5 14:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It's just that usually PIE roots don't repeat the same consonant except by reduplication (one exception may be s, but even then evidence is scanty). There aren't roots like ×pept- or ×nent- or ×lelt-, so ×h₁eh₁t- would also be unexpected. The only other reduplicated noun I can think of off the top of my head is *kʷékʷlos from *kʷel-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think some (Beekes?) have analyzed *mḗms ‎(meat) as reduplicated as well. I'm also not near my PIE materials, so I have not idea why *h₂/₃eh₁t- isn't also an option. —JohnC5 15:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Those would have given Germanic *ō instead of *ē₁, wouldn't they? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Does the onset laryngeal take precedence? I dunno. Actually I guess that makes sense, because one would cause coloration eventually. —JohnC5 15:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Something else to consider: German Atem indicates a Proto-Germanic *ēdmaz with a voiced consonant. Are the other Germanic forms compatible with such a form? —CodeCat 18:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There's Dutch adem and the Low German loan Odem, but they're not really of any use to my knowledge since they both merged their reflexes of *þ and *d. KarikaSlayer (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
But Old Saxon had āthom and Old English had ǣþm, both of which can only be from *ēþmaz, not *ēdmaz. Perhaps there was a Verner's alternation going on that got leveled out differently in different languages. Is the word attested in Gothic or Norse? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
If we take the collective *h₁éh₁tmō ~ *h₁h₁tméns to be correct, that would create a an environment for Verner's alternation, correct? —JohnC5 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess, yeah. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Unless this is a unique sound change, something like þm > tm in OHG? Are there counterexamples? —CodeCat 20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Kroonen has *ēþman- ~ *ēdman- (giving OE ǣþm, OFri ēthma, OS āthum, Du adem, asem, OHG ātum, MHG ātem, G Atem) and lists only Sanskrit as a cognate. He says specifically:
“The Sanskrit paradigm nom. ātmā́, loc. ātmáni ~ tmán(i) points to an ablauting paradigm *h₁éh₁t-mōn, loc.*h₁h₁t-mén-(i). Apparently, the accentual mobility was preserved in Germanic, cf. OE ǣþm < *ēþma vs. OHG ātum < *ēdma-. With the same root, cf. *ēþrō- ~ *ēdrō- ‘vein, etc.’.”
He seems to think *h₁eh₁t- is a normal root appearing in ἦτορ ‎(êtor) and ǣdre. —JohnC5 20:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Jeez, what have I done? Only one day and look how many contributions. Thanks a lot User:Angr, User:JohnC5, User:CodeCat, User:KarikaSlayer but I am already lost after the first answer. I'm just slowly introducing myself in PIE, I cannot tell so much one thing from another. I didn't even remember about the lack of laryngeals in Pokorny. But anyway, as we say in my mother language "I rise my hat": I am honoured of being with you guys. When I grow up, I wanna be and know like you... Sobreira (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

ㄍㄧㄥEdit

Currently, the entry says that this word comes from Min Nan . However, it doesn't seem likely, since 硬 is rarely read as gēng, but as ngē. There are two words that are more likely to be the etymon:

  1. (kēng) - to support; to prop up
  2. (keng)

Which one is more likely to be the etymon? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

bergEdit

We claim this derives from Middle English bergh, from Old English. However, the only citation under the first sense is a recent one in a German context, where it could easily be borrowing the German word. (The second sense is obviously a shortening of iceberg, from Dutch or German, as noted by Dictionary.com; Century even explicitly says the iceberg sense is "Not from AS. beorg, a hill, which gives E. barrow, a mound (but cf. bergh).") Is there evidence to confirm our claim that berg is a native continuation of Middle English bergh? Incidentally, Century says that a homograph berg, from Norse berg = Danish bjerg (etc), meant "a rock" in Shetland. I don't know if that's attestable. - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I'd say the citation given isn't even referring to mountains per se, but to towns whose names end in -berg. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

incorruptioEdit

I'm having trouble figuring out how this word is formed. The most obvious derivation is in- + corruptiō, but the meaning doesn't seem to fit. It rather seems to belong with incorruptus, but there is no -iō suffix that would derive an abstract noun from an adjective. —CodeCat 22:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not suggest reading this as Latin; the word is not precisely classical. I can't guarantee it cannot be found prior to the St Jerome Vulgate, but I don't think it will be found easily. But it appears in the Vulgate and again repeatedly in Augustine in the same context, so that it has been used in Church Latin that way ever since. For example, 1 Corinthians 15.45 has: σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ· This appears in the Vulgate this way: Seminatur in corruptione, surget in incorruptione. St Jerome forced the pairing φθορᾷ/ἀφθαρσίᾳ into the pairing of corruptione/incorruptione, which has some difficulty making literal sense. To my mind, the juxtaposition proves the etymology is from corruptio, but with meaning glossed by ἀφθαρσίᾳ. My inclination would be to mark the etymology as from corruptio, but to give the sole definition an Ecclesiastical label. This sort Koine/Latin tennis happens continually reading patristic or similar Latin. I've edited this a few times because I can't seem to express myself very well about what is odd about this translation. It seems as though St Jerome is willfully twisting out of shape the Latin antinomy using much more parallel structure than the Greek, when he could easily say what he means with a simple pairing such as mors/immortalitas. It's very puzzling, but I don't think the sense is meant to be an abstract noun derived from incorruptus, because that has a passive meaning and would be ἄφθαρτος, not ἀφθαρσίᾳ the latter being a much stronger word. Isomorphyc (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
How about incorruptus + -tiō? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
That would result in *incorrupsiō instead. t+t gives s(s) in derivations. —CodeCat 12:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps etymologically, but if that would be feasible in terms of synchronic analysis is a different question. --Tropylium (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The previous existence of corruptio would do a lot to allow incorruptus + -tio to surface as incorruptio. It's sort of like English unemployment: semantically it's unemployed + -ment, but it appears as unemployment rather than *unemployedment because the word employment already exists. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Since *incorrumpo does not exist, one can ask how common are orphan nouns in -tio, and who are their nearest relatives. I have put a few examples on a user page. I could find about a dozen examples, a fifth New Latin, half of the rest Classical and half Late Latin. The Classical examples mostly derive through implied verbs from other nouns; the Late Latin examples mostly derive from prefixing an existing substantive in -tio. If incorruptio derives from incorruptus, it will likely be the only example of a noun in -tio deriving from a perfect participle. Moreover, it seems to me that the core meaning of -tio is closer in aspect to the core meaning of -ibilitas (-ability) because -us is perfective while -tio is imperfective, and -ibilitas concerns `perfectibility,' and `im-' is a negation. This note was originally very long, and I hope my making of an appendix is an improvement in form. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-tiō has nothing to do with the participle suffix -tus though, other than that they both derive from the same stem of a verb. -tiō is an extension of the PIE action noun suffix *-tis and is therefore very close in function/meaning to the action noun suffix -tus, the 4th declension one. —CodeCat 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

My ignoranceEdit

In copper#Etymology 1, "brass of Cyprus" shouldn't be aes Cyprii and not aes Cyprium?

Cyprium is an adjective. A better literal translation would be "Cyprian brass". The genitive of Cyprus is Cypri with just one "i". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, -ium neuter nominative, my bad. Thanks User:Angr. I see you changed it already. Sobreira (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

politically correctEdit

RFV of the etymology. Proud User (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

herb GerardEdit

Supposedly after St Gerard (1726-1755), but I have added a citation from 1720. What's going on here? DTLHS (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong St. Gerard. The one invoked for gout is Gerard of Toul (935–994). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

izquierdo, esquerdoEdit

What's the -do suffix in these words? It's not from Basque ezker (unless it's from an inflected form). KarikaSlayer (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a wild guess, since I don't know any Basque, but I notice in the w:Basque grammar article that adjectives are often followed by the verb form da ‎(is). Although it's dangerous to speculate in too much detail without knowing how the language has changed since the borrowing would have occurred, perhaps the phrase ezker da might have been misinterpreted by Romance speakers to be a single (feminine) word. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't speak Spanish very well (I just try to triangulate between Latin and other Romance languages), but the third section of this seems to discuss the origin of the d. I'd love if someone gave a summary of the discussion. —JohnC5 01:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@User:JohnC5 and User:KarikaSlayer. Translation provided. As you will see, these are commentaries mostly from unspecified sources and quite speculative, and from a bunch of friends or visitors of the web. I don't rely on this web personally, not that has a bias but for me it's usually a mix of sourced and unsourced data. My comments in square brackets:
1
antonym of derecha ("right"). Comes from base, probably formed from esku ("hand") and keltik kerros ("twisted"). Thus it would be like "twisted or clumsy hand". Interestingly, there are a great amount of left-handed and ambidextrous persons among Basques [!!!!]
2
izquierda in inarguably pre-Roman and substituted the Spanish reflexes of Latin sinister. It could be taken from basque eskerra but its presence in Catalan esquerra (and Portuguese [and Galician]: esquerdo[/a] both endings is adjective; ending -a is noun) lead us to consider it an pre-Roman etym in Northern Spain, probably from the Pyrenean Mountains, and surely independent from Latin.
3
izquierda hides a mystery with no solution yet. A lot of theories, and no one satisfying enough; the issue lies in that the topic seems obvious, but so much that doesn't convince. Thus, while some Romance languages align with basque ezkerra, (CA & Gascon), other, the Westernmost, have an infix phoneme /d/ messing all up (GL-PT, ES/AST-LE, also Gascon from Gers, where feminine is esquèrda). Add to this the Spanish diphthong and /0-/ and dates for the phenomena.
The problem for GL-PT is that it lacks a Basque or Basque-Iberian substratum, only this borrow and a few more come from Basque [I disagree], and no one dared to propose "esquerda" as a very old Spanish-borrow [I agree that it could be politically incorrect], as it is attested from the 15th century. First cases in Castillian are from 12th c.: exquerdo (1117) and izquierdo (1142), base for so much debate.
The Basque word is ezker (<z> has cacuminal pronounciation [nowadays, I would add], like South American [Spanish] <s>, as the Basque <s> is even more palatal than Castillian) and with determiner (suffix -a) gives ezkerra (the left one, [masc. & fem.] adjs., and noun). "Left-handed" is ezkerti(-a) and could be a good candidate (even in some Gipuzkoan dialect, we can hear the form ezkerdo(-a), tempting, but very specific [?] and perhaps modern). It has been mentioned about a compound whose first part would be esku (hand) and the second oker ("twisted", possible celtism *kerros) by Corominas, or eles erdi ("middle, half") by Tovar. Other very recent hypothesis sets the origin in ertz oker ("twisted shore, edge, corner") by Armenian author Vahan Sarkisian.
But everything stays the same, Basque filiation remains unclear. A good idea is the one based in the "Hispanic-Pyrenean Pre-Roman language" [!? Never heard, but I'm not specialist in that], because Basque is its descendant, but even so it's not known which language, whether Iberian or other. Discussions have dealt a lot on the taboo of the left, demon-related, magical, etc. in a anthropological context mixed with etymological, but until reliable data are found...
Before that it is recommended to de-mystify Basques about so many attributes assigned by the aura ("ambience, atmosphere") of mystery sourced from such an ancient language. They are not more or less left-handed than their Western European neighbours, it seems statistically even less (highest percentages in East Europe and South and South East Asia). This seems to have been propagated by an unjustified assessment of the PNL creators. The same also happens with the negative 0 blood type, which seems to be more present in Northern Portugal [and Galicia]. Could a sinister left-hand be behind this?</right>Sobreira (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

RomanioteEdit

I don't see citations for this word until the 1950s. Is the supposed Ancient Greek source Ῥωμανιῶτες ‎(Rhōmaniôtes) attested, or did this come into English from modern Greek? The earliest citations are in French- is this the same meaning? DTLHS (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I was under the impression that the Greek etymon did not have the letter ν ‎(n), but now I cannot find whatever it was that led me to believe that. --WikiTiki89 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW WP says the Romaniotes "derived their name from the old name for the people of the Byzantine Empire, Romaioi" (i.e. Ῥωμαῖος). It gives no source for that claim.​—msh210 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89, @Msh210 Do you know what these people were called in English before the 1950s? DTLHS (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm finding a small amount of usage of the spelling "Romaniots" [2],[3]. Note that Cypriot and other English words suffixed with -iot are usually spelled without the final -e. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

BulgarEdit

Etymology section is confusing. It says the origin is disputed and lists the Turkic etymology on the word and Old Bulgarian Блугарину. But what is Blugarinu? Isn't it so similar to Bulgar? Are we talking about a disputation of where the word comes from or the ultimate etymology? And as far as I know Turkic *bulga- (check bula- for cognates) does not originally mean "to mix" in the sense of mixing or adding things together, it means "to stir up, produce disorder", but yeah meany languages have also developed "to mix, blend, confuse". --Anylai (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Djkcel made that edit, saying that it is from the OED. I have asked Djkcel to verify it. As I understand his edit, he is saying that the Old Bulgarian (that is, Old Church Slavonic) word for themselves, what they called themselves in Old Bulgarian, was Блугарину. That does not look right to me. The beginning of the word, Блу, does not look right, and the ending in looks like the accusative case. Let’s see what Djkcel says about it. —Stephen (Talk) 20:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
He mistranscribed ŭ as у instead of ъ. The OCS word should be блъгаринъ. —Vorziblix (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Yes, блъгаринъ ‎(blǎgarin) looks much better. —Stephen (Talk) 23:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there an etymology behind блъгаринъ ‎(blǎgarin)? Could it be a borrowing from the self-designation of Turkic Bulgars? Because the situation to me looks like Azerbaijan having a disputed etymology. The scenarario would be a) From Persian, b) From "Old Azeribaijani". Are we dealing with different words? Perhaps we must separate them? The third suggestion also looks unclear. --Anylai (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

āter: length in related termsEdit

Is it correct that some of these related terms have a short first vowel? Even if atrōx shortened for some reason, shouldn't this then apply to ātrōcitās?

--Hiztegilari (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to double-check to be 100% sure, but I suspect that the vowel is long in all these words, and that the words that don't show a long vowel were taken from dictionaries where vowel length isn't shown before consonant clusters. Some Latin lexicographers care only about vowel length with respect to poetry scansion, so they don't bother marking vowels before clusters since all vowels are "long by position" there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
An annoying habit for sure. —CodeCat 13:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Lewis & Short mark atrox, atrocitas, and atrociter with ā̆, suggesting that it sometimes scans long and sometimes short. That's only expected for inherently short vowels before "muta cum liquida" clusters, suggesting that these are actually ătrox etc., which in turn suggests either that atrox and āter are unrelated or that atrox comes from a different ablaut grade (e.g. āter could be from full grade *h₂eh₁tro- and atrox from zero grade *h₂h₁tro-). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
De Vaan says the vowel of atrōx is short, though he does try to connect it to āter by looking for an explanation for the short vowel. The hypothesis he gives (by Schrijver) he calls "somewhat cumbersome". —CodeCat 13:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

*meEdit

Is there anything more modern than Pokorny to confirm that all these terms do, in fact, come from this adverb? —CodeCat 13:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic *alīnō/alinōEdit

Was wondering about this when I was about to create a reconstructed entry for this, which would be the lemma - with a short or long i? Don't currently have access to my uni library so I cannot validate this with external sources. Given the diphthong in 𐌰𐌻𐌴𐌹𐌽𐌰 ‎(aleina) I would think that it ought to be *alīnō, but other editors seem to have favoured alinō in the past, so I added both as possibilities on the Gothic entry when I created it. And I am still figuring out how all these sound changes work so I cannot be entirely sure of which it ought to be from my own knowledge. Which is the right one? (Or perhaps there were two forms in P.Gmc.?) What do you think? — Kleio (t · c) 16:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

*alinō would certainly be the parent for North-west Germanic. Only Gothic seems to have the long vowel (doesn't ei = ī in Gothic ?). As far as I can tell, The Gothic is the unexplained radical Leasnam (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes; as far as I know, Gothic ei corresponds to iː and reflects P.Gmc. ī -- thence my confusion. — Kleio (t · c) 21:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Since it's reconstructed as both *alinō and *alīnō, you could create 2 separate entries, OR (--what I would do...) you could create the former and list the latter as an alternative form Leasnam (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
That seems like the best course and I added *alīnō as an alternative form of *alinō. — Kleio (t · c) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ringe's The Development of Old English has *alinō and says "the long vowel in Goth. aleina is puzzling".
  • Boutkan says the PGmc was "probably" *alīnō. Boutkan and Lehmann both reject the suggestion of some authors that aleina is a writing error for *alina, citing Feist.
  • George T. Rikov, Hittite haliya- 'to kneel, genuflect' [...] 'elbow'..., in Балканско езикознание, volume 45, page 335, says:
    OIcel. ǫln, aln, OE eln, OFris. elne and OHG elina point to PGmc. *alinō which can correspond to Lat. ulna, if it continues PIt. *olenā (cf. Krahe-Meid I: 65). Yet the alternative explanation as *h2olineh2 (cf. Pokorny 1959: 307-308, Lehmann 1986: 26) is also possible. However[,] the Gothic hapax aleina 'ell' (only acc. sg., M. 6.27) points to PGmc. *alīnō (cf. for instance Krahe-Meid III: 107) which might correspond to OIr. uilen and W., OCorn. elin, Bret. elin, ilin, if these Celtic forms reflect *h2olīneh2-.

- -sche (discuss) 00:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Twice-borrowed term or term derived from an older stage of the same language?Edit

Modern Hebrew פסחא is "[l]ikely a reborrowing from Aramaic פַּסְחָא ‎(pasḥā) or Ancient Greek πάσχα ‎(páskha, Passover), ultimately from Biblical Hebrew פֶּסַח ‎(pésaḥ, Passover)." Normally when a term in language X is a loanword from language Y, which in turn borrowed from language X, we call it a "twice-borrowed term". But in this case, the word was borrowed from language Y, which in turn borrowed it from an older stage—an etymology-only language stage—of language X. So do we want to put this in Category:Hebrew twice-borrowed terms, or in Category:Hebrew terms derived from Biblical Hebrew? I would be prefer the former, but in order to achieve that we have to write "from Biblical {{der|he|he|פֶּסַח||Passover|tr=pésaḥ}}", rather than what we usually do in such cases, "from {{der|he|hbo|פֶּסַח||Passover|tr=pésaḥ}}". When I wrote the former, Wikitiki89 changed it to the latter, which also changed the category to Category:Hebrew terms derived from Biblical Hebrew. So how do we want to proceed? Ideally, it would be great if the modules recognized terms borrowed from an etymology-only language into the corresponding primary language as twice-borrowed terms, so that we could write {{der|he|hbo}} and still get the twice-borrowed term category. Is it possible to edit them to do that? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think etymology-only languages should be handled as if they were their parent language, and only in addition to that should they be added to a "derived from etymology-only language" category. --WikiTiki89 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. We treat Biblical Hebrew as a kind of Hebrew, so it's similar to having a term for "English terms derived from US English". They were already Hebrew/English before, so how can they be derived from anything? —CodeCat 14:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
So we agree that Category:Hebrew twice-borrowed terms is the appropriate category, rather than Category:Hebrew terms derived from Biblical Hebrew? How do we implement that? Currently, the only way is the cumbersome "from Biblical {{der|he|he}}". @CodeCat, can you edit the relevant modules so that "from {{der|he|hbo}}" will categorize in the desired way? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
How is this? —CodeCat 14:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, CodeCat, thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) What I mean is, {{der|en|hbo}} should place the entry in Category:English terms derived from Hebrew and secondarily also in Category:English terms derived from Biblical Hebrew. Similarly {{der|he|hbo}} should place the entry in Category:Hebrew twice-borrowed terms, but should probably make an exception and not place it in Category:Hebrew terms derived from Biblical Hebrew. --WikiTiki89 14:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:English terms derived from Biblical Hebrew is already a subcategory of Category:English terms derived from Hebrew. —CodeCat 14:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
So what? Category:English nouns is a subcategory of Category:English lemmas, but we still put entries in both. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
But we don't duplicate entries in Category:English terms derived from French into Category:English terms derived from Romance languages, which is more pertinent a comparison. —CodeCat 16:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe we should? --WikiTiki89 16:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Here are the category breadcrumbs from Category:English terms derived from French:
  • All languages » English language » Terms by etymology » Terms derived from other languages » Indo-European languages » Italic languages » Romance languages »
If we're going to include some of these in the entry, how many? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point, we don't need to include families. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Calques Taking Place In Other LanguagesEdit

Currently gogravius, Gaugraf, and добродушный are showing module errors because they're attempting to use a non-existent |nocat= parameter. These are etymologies where a term was calqued into another language before being borrowed or inherited into the current one. I wasn't sure about the best way to fix these, since I'm not sure how much information about the calque we want to show in the etymology and in the categorization. Currently, the template shows:

  1. Calque of <source language> <source term> or
  2. <target language term> + <target language term>, calque of <source language> <source term>

It also has parameters for translations, transliterations, glosses, parts of speech, etc. It categorizes into [[Category:<target language> calques]] and [[Category:<target language> terms borrowed from <source language> <]], and [[Category:<target language term> compounds]] for the second configuration

Do we want to show the usual display of the template and:

  1. suppress all categorization? That would mean implementing the missing |nocat= parameter
  2. add only the calques category?
  3. add [[Category:<target language> terms derived from <source language>? This would require a new parameter.
  4. as previous, but add the calques category?
  5. replace {{calque}} with some combination of {{etyl}} and {{m}} with various parameters?
  6. something else I haven't thought of?

Chuck Entz (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The {{calque}} template doesn't have much purpose besides categorization, so I would just say not to use it. Just like we don't use {{bor}} when a term was borrowed into another language. The {{calque}} template needs to be reworked anyway, it's really bad. --WikiTiki89 19:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I marked some of the parameters as deprecated in the documentation, and without them it's basically like {{bor}} plus the extra "calques" category (a calque is a borrowing after all). So we should presumably treat it similarly. {{bor}}, {{inh}} and {{der}} all lack a nocat= parameter because the category is the main purpose of the template (that and adding extra meaning into our wikicode). Without the categories, {{inh}} and {{der}} would basically become like {{cog}}. —CodeCat 19:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I've tidied up the three entries mentioned above and removed the {{calque}} template, since these words are not calques within Latin, German, and Russian respectively. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

screwEdit

I think this etymology is mistaken. We reconstruct a Proto-Germanic form, but the German and Dutch standard sources agree that their respective words are of Romance origin ([4][5]). The word is first attested in German in 1361 and in Dutch in 1477, that is significantly younger than the Old French (1270). Moreover, the widespread Upper German form Schrauf instead of Schraube (cf. Yiddish שרויף ‎(shroyf)) also hints at its being a borrowing. The Romance etymology makes good sense. And, finally, the word means only "screw" in all Germanic languages although the Germanics did not have screws. So, a Proto-Germanic form is very speculative at best and shouldn't be treated like a fact. But actually there seems to be little justification at all for such a reconstruction. Kolmiel (talk)

anachoretaEdit

From αναχωρώ(v.pre.)/αναχώρησα(v.ps.)/αναχώρηση(n.) or from ανα- + χωρώ? Sobreira (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

French future/conditional stem of être, ser-Edit

If *essere led to être, I wonder what the sound changes to result in the future stem ser- were. Hillcrest98 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The difference is probably due to stress placement: *éssere > être but *esserā́t > sera. The original final stress is shown by the modern forms in Italian sarà, Spanish será, Portuguese será, etc.; these also suggest that loss of the initial e happened already in VL. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that as well. Hillcrest98 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

dims derived in Latin or PIE, paxillus, vexillum, from palus, velumEdit

Can paxillus and vexillum be diminutives of palus and velum? As they do not conserve -l- of the root but -x- from Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/weǵʰ-, should they be from a suffixed diminutive form in PIE? (the only PIE diminutive suffix/infix I found is the one supposedly used for mægden). Then palus doesn't actually come from GRC... Sobreira (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This situation is actually somewhat well attested.
  • āla < *akslā < *h₂eḱs-leh₂ vs. axilla < *aksi- (whence axis) + secondary Italic diminutive *-lā < *h₂eḱs-is
  • māla < *maxlā < *méh₂ǵ-s-leh₂ vs. maxilla < *makso- + secondary Italic diminutive *-lā.
I think a similar situation is occurring in these words. —JohnC5 15:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

PIE for flanEdit

This are the origins in English Etymology 1:

Borrowing from French flan ‎(cheesecake, custard tart, flan),
from Old French flaon,
from Late Latin fladō ‎(flat cake),
from Frankish *flado, *flatho ‎(flat cake),
from Proto-Germanic *flaþô ‎(flat cake),
from Proto-Indo-European *pl̥h₂t- ‎(broad, flat),
from Proto-Indo-European *pelh₂- ‎(to spread out, be broad, be flat)....

and below in French:

From Old French flaon,
from Late Latin fladonem,
accusative of flado ‎(flat cake),
from Frankish *flado ‎(flat cake),
from Proto-Germanic *flaþô ‎(flat, broad),
from Proto-Indo-European *plat-, *pla- ‎(flat, broad),
from Proto-Indo-European *pele- ‎(to spread out, broad, flat)...

Apart from skipping the "fladonem, accusative of" and the Frankish "flatho", why are the PIE different? So different in fact. Exactly for this I don't care about the shape, but the same Proto-Germanic should come from exactly the same PIE.

And now the shape. I've been searching the etymologies of What links here of *pele-, *plat-, pla-, and others (even with and without hyphen) and most of them make sense (EN place, flatter, LA (a)placo ("please", "appease"), LA plaga ("beach"), GR pélagos, LA later ("brick")), but there is a messy lot of them and I don't know how to relate them (supposed derivatives like here? different grades? modified by H?).

Without hyphen:

I didn't check them all, but so far I found only "plat" as extension of "pelh2" in place and this plºh2t<pelh2 and plat<pele of flan. Any idea or suggestion of help? Sobreira (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Germanic *flaþô can only come from something like *plót-, a form like *pl̥h₂t- would become *fuld- in Germanic. Unlike languages like Greek or Latin, Germanic shows no distinction in the outcome of syllabic sonorants whether a laryngeal follows or not. —CodeCat 13:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Lots of editors seem to be in a bad habit of uncritically listing a zillion "competing" or morphologically related PIE forms in etymology sections, which often simply amount to transcription variants (perhaps outdated) and may not be warranted by the word being treated. For example, piac refer to "*plat-, *pla-", when a closer look at πλατύς ‎(platús) (listed as an intermediate) shows that the modern reconstruction for the ancestor of this form in particular is *plh₂tus. Even without taking any stance on the PIE reconstruction issue per se, it is clear that a Hungarian word deriving from a Greek word should not state a different proto-form from the Greek word itself.
Or, flatter in the first etymology referred to "*plewd-, *plew-, *plōw-" although the Germanic word is a descendant of the first stem specifically. Listing the other two in the entry does not seem to provide anything else but confusion (I've removed them). Similarly a variant "*plet-" seemed to make an appearence here for no purpose whatsoever.
This might be too obvious to mention, but in terms of establishing a "lemma" reconstruction, we should always refer to (modern) sources on PIE over tertiary sources like etymological dictionaries of individual (and possibly non-IE!) modern languages. --Tropylium (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, I understand it a bit better. Oh, a lot of topics arise boiling into my mind. First of all, my ignorance still about derivation within PIE, how and why they relate to each other, and yet from late PIE to proto-families. And about the validity/correspondence of variants. Second, the sources: I guess Pokorny is authoritative but outdated on laryngals and the variants can be outdated too. Also the recentness of the reconstruction, considering new data available. And the difficulty of finding references, at least for me, with scarce biblio (the web is not very plenty of PIE however, I found only ). My library has the IEED for Celtic, Baltic, Iranian and Frisian, but not Latin, which is outrageous absurd. And also, the absence of references stated by the editor. Third, what I don't know is whether the PIE studies are advanced enough for having consensus, as I read about different theories over and over again and on different topics (Urheimat, phon laws, exceptions, s-mobile....). Forth, some of the conflating proto-forms given when the intermediate derivative doesn't match the one given for the original (this would very simply be fixed with transclusions, like taxonavs in wikispecies!). Sobreira (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
To keep it simple and start somewhere: can that Á of Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/plÁt- be even right? Second, do we have a list of special characters for PIE? Sobreira (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's completely incompatible with our notation, so, in that sense, it's wrong. You would have to know what notation is being used in order to figure out what it actually represents, after which it can be restated in our notation. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
As to your second question, see WT:AINE. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
After looking through your list above, I would say most are consistent with *pleh₂- . First of all, w:Indo-European ablaut means that the same root can exist with *e, *o or without a vowel in a given slot, so *ple-, *plo- and *pl̥- are all what we would call *ple-. Secondly, almost all instances of alleged PIE *a can be easily explained as the result of a laryngeal or other syllabic consonant/semivowel, whether directly, or as the result of a vowel being colored by the neighboring sound (generally h₂). Third, when sounds are lost by phonological processes, neighboring sounds are often lengthened, and laryngeals were lost just about everywhere they didn't become a vowel. That means that a PIE long vowel is often just another way of indicating a PIE vowel + laryngeal combination. Finally, roots can have various consonants tacked onto them, so *plat- and *plak- are probably best analyzed as *pleh₂-t- and *pleh₂-k-. I'm not sure where that puts *pele-, which perhaps is treating the laryngeal as just another consonant to be tacked onto the root instead of part of the root, or perhaps is just pretending it isn't there. I wonder where etymonline got it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The problem starts from the fact that most of the information available on the web is from pre-1922 (read: ancient) sources and from general works like dictionaries. The latter are especially a problem because they use their own transliterations, and they use different forms than the dictionaries in those languages (e.g.infinitive rather than first-person singular for Ancient Greek).
The people using these sources don't understand them, so they just regurgitate what they think applies into the etymologies next to what others have regurgitated from other sources. As far as most editors are concerned, one source is as good as any, so they all should have equal space.
The real problem, though, is that not enough of those who edit etymologies have both the knowledge and the time to reconcile the conflicting systems represented and distill everything into a concise and internally-consistent statement that gets to the point and avoids padding. Data is easy to find, but understanding is rare. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Danke böth! Sobreira (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been thinking all day about this topics (9-10 forms and variants for one concept!) and I have ended up realising that due to 1) my lack of knowledge on PIE evolutions 2) the lack of consensus on PIE as I understand (I have just read about the Leiden vs. Beekes conjugation, not to mention the glottalic theory) and 3) the lack of material at my disposal (not to mention Pokorny is not legitimate any more); then I have to give up on doing anything systematic about Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots, and even less about nominals/verbs. Unless you all feel I could be entitled to protract all the conflicting variants and intermediate etyms to the ultimate root, I have to desist. I am quite unsure and picky on this topic, and meticulous, systematic and think very theorically in general, so if I don't do it that way then I don't feel comfortable. I will indeed try to state the etymologies for the GL words I meet following the simple pattern GL<LA<PIE (starting from PIE, not from GL), so I will probably go through all of them, or at least try a few of them. I will rely only on the few modern available materials I found or could find that I think worth it (if you know any other, please let me know):
  • GENERIC for LA>PIE on the net: dictionary.com, AmHeritage, utexas updating Pokorny, etymonline, wikipedia articles on PIE, roots at ielex and -maybe- the etimologiasdechile aforementioned when izquierda which I don't like and wouldn't trust so much;
  • GENERIC for LA>PIE on book: unless (until) I buy or get the Roberts-Pastor specific for ES or I make my library buy the IEED Leiden-Brill for Latin by de Vaan;
  • SPECIFIC for GL>LA on book: 4 Galician (Ir Indo/Estraviz/SéculoXXI/GDXeraisL) and 1 Portuguese Houaiss general dictionaries stating etymology) and try to source my edits.
Of course I will try to leave track of my search on User:Sobreira/*pele- and so on (including all of them in upcoming User:Sobreira/PIE), to save time and work in case anyone with knowledge enough engage in the task of uniformizing the chaos. In that case, I would appreciate the courtesy of being warned. Thanks all for the recommendations, knowledge shared, respectful and patient treatment and time.
  • And because all of this, I think we should consider seriously the proposal of transclusion I said above, or some other way of solving this problem. Sobreira (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I've digitized for my own research use a list of all roots in {{R:ine:LIV}} some time ago; I'd still need to verify it against Kümmel's online repository of Addenda und Corrigenda, but once that's done, it should make a fairly new and fairly consistent working list. (Individual entries, when we get around to writing them, may still need more detailed consideration though.) --Tropylium (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the link. If I can help anyhow, just tell me. Do you contrast them online? If I have time and it doesn't take me too long, maybe tomorrow I send you something that could ease your job.
By the way, about sourcing the etyms, I think we should specify what part is sourced (with ref superindex), as simply saying LSJ of AmH is too generic for some elaborated etyms given and there is no way of knowing which part is refererenced. Sobreira (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
For the current discussion (PIE transcription/reconstruction standardization), just digging thru the Addenda und Corrigenda for any new roots / disproven older roots would suffice; and I could similarly already dump the root list by itself. What will take more work is updating for the corrections about reflexes in the IE languages, if we wanted to do something similar to our current List of PIE roots.
(Also, what's "LSJ of AmH"?) --Tropylium (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
My guess is that of is a typo for or, LSJ refers to A Greek–English Lexicon, and "AmH" refers to either the American Heritage Dictionary as a whole or specifically to its Appendix of Indo-European Roots. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Good three guesses, Angr. Sorry, I am sometimes too cryptic by shortening and lack of time. Tropylium, do you mean a list of reflexes/derivs from one post-PIE to the next languages? I would have never thought of that if you didn't mention! Good idea. Ambitious and huge, but it would be wonderful. I'll see what I can do while working on GL, mainly in the ones heritage from Latin and French/Provençal, maybe also Old Greek. Sobreira (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

ZOMGEdit

Per WT:REF, the etymology for "ZOMG" requires sources. The listed etymology, that ZOMG is "presumably" a typo of OMG caused by a missed shift key, is unsourced. I've provided this sourced edit, whose sources verifiably date to 2003 and 1999 respectively. The sources support the etymology that the word is either an excited typo or a deliberate parody of chatspeak, or plausibly both, and the popular use of the word can be traced directly back to communities which Curbo, Milan and myself were members of in 2003. 86.150.79.240 22:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This Stack Exchange thread does some useful research into the word, although it comes to no agreement: What is the origin of ZOMG? 86.150.79.240 22:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that the references prove is that Curbo and Millan claimed in 2003 to have originated it. We quite often get posts here by people who say that they and/or acquaintances invented a term. Invariably someone comes up with examples of usage predating the alleged invention, which blows their claims out of the water. You're different only in introducing the prior quotes yourself so you can say they don't matter. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The edits and citations reflect information other than Curbo/Milan's relatively unimportant credit:
  • This word is a strong candidate to require citations, as per Wiktionary guidelines regarding words of uncertain etymology
  • An alternative etymology is that ZOMG is an intentional parody of late 1990s/early 2000s chatspeak; compare OMFG and OMGWTF for the addition of letters signifying swear words as intensifiers, OMGWTFBBQ for the addition of nonsensical letters as a joke (attested 2001, popularised at least as far back as 2003 as the username of Something Awful contributor Ryan Adams), and LOLZ for the use of Z in leetspeak or chatspeak (attested 1999). The highly mutable nature of leetspeak and hackerspeak of this period makes this at least an equally plausible etymology.
  • Milan's FAQ, as a contemporary source, documents that the word was at least used in 2003, and that he describes it arising from a conversation involving the use of leetspeak. The initial use appears to have been lowercase, "zomg", which is consistent with someone missing the shift key. The uppercase version "ZOMG" and later construction "zOMG" would require someone to hit both shift and Z, which is harder to do without noticing before you hit enter.
  • The word "ZOMG" has humour and is easily transmitted, explaining its viral propensity and popularity in large internet communities. The user expects each letter in an acronym to stand for a word, but is unexpectedly given the uncommon letter Z which is highly unlikely to stand for anything. This occasionally flummoxes users who ask what the Z stands for, as a result there are several folk etymologies which were derived independently by guesswork or what made sense (e.g. Zerg OMG, Zombies OMG, missed shift). However, the answer that the Z means nothing is unsatisfying and therefore unlikely to be put forward or supported; people want answers that make sense. Therefore, over time, the "intentional joke" etymology would have become less popular, and the missed shift etymology more popular, regardless of which is true.
  • The later spelling "zOMG", suggestive of a missed shift etymology, does not appear in the early sources, which supports the hypothesis that the missed shift etymology became more popular over time without necessarily being accurate. Later users (2006 onward) were no longer exposed to the 1990s hacker culture and would be increasingly unaware of the fad of inventing ridiculous acronyms (e.g. NIFOC) and would be less likely to accept it as an explanation.
Hence, while the missed-shift etymology is widely believed, it is not necessarily definitive. The idea that it was invented deliberately as a joke is plausible and equally worthy of inclusion. 86.150.79.240 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

List of PIE verb rootsEdit

As mentioned above, you can now find all headwords of {{R:ine:LIV}} (for now with German glosses only) listed at User:Tropylium/Proto-Indo-European/Verbs. New and adjusted and reconstructions are next in line to be also added. --Tropylium (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/kirikǭ?Edit

Is it just me or could *kirikǭ not possibly have existed in Proto-Germanic? As far as I know Proto-Germanic was not a thing anymore by the time the idea of a 'church' could have made its way to Germanic-speaking regions. Nor does Kroonen have it. Not sure if I'm missing something here. — Kleio (t · c) 19:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, Germanic speakers surely encountered churches and may have needed a word for them even before they themselves were christianized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
But surely Proto- Germanic speakers would not? The earliest I can realistically imagine Germanic speakers needing a word for a church would be after the Goths started raiding the Roman province of Dacia and across the Danube in the Balkans from roughly the mid-3th century AD. The entry itself even notes that it would've spread via the Goths, but again, that means the time is way off for it to be Proto-Germanic, no? Seeing as Gothic is a descendant of Proto-Germanic. — Kleio (t · c) 20:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
D.H. Green in Language and History in the Early Germanic World (1998, p. 297) claims kyriakon was first used in Greek during the third century, and was in use through the fourth century, dying out in favour of ekklesia in the fifth. So it is likely to have been borrowed via the Goths sometime between 250-400. Considering Christianity only became the official religion of the Empire in the early 4th century, I think we would have to place the borrowing sometime in the 4th century. (Curiously, Wulfila, translating in the second half of the 4th century, has aikklesjo (from ekklesia), and no equivalent of kyriakon even once) — Kleio (t · c) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I too agree that the timing is off--this word is too late to be considered even latest Proto-Germanic :( Shame too, it's a very informative entry. Can we not move it to West-Germanic or something ? Leasnam (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Idk, afaik there isn't a precedent for west-Germanic entries, but this could then be a first? Not sure honestly. Do agree it's a nice entry besides the chronological issues of calling it Pgmc. — Kleio (t · c) 21:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't have a code for Proto-West-Germanic, and many linguists believe there never was such a thing. It is labeled "West Germanic" as a kind of dialect of Proto-Germanic. At any rate, it seems unlikely to have been borrowed more than once, since there's such a small window in which κυριακόν ‎(kuriakón) rather than ἐκκλησία ‎(ekklēsía) (the only term used in the New Testament) was the usual word. BTW, why do we assume the word was borrowed via the Goths when the word isn't attested in Gothic? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
For lack of better candidates, I guess; the Goths after all were at the relevant border of the empire, where Greek was spoken. The source I cited above does not mention the Goths. Someone he appears to have debated does.Kleio (t · c) 21:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

νύμφηEdit

Are nem- and νόμος the origin? See æ#Noun. Lysdexia (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That would require explaining the υ, which doesn't come from regular PIE vowels. If you're suggesting a compound with *h₂ékʷeh₂ (the source of the second etymology of ǣ), that might be able to explain the φ, but then you would have to explain what happened to the vowels both before and after the φ (η/ᾱ wouldn't cause the labiovelar to end up as φ, and one would expect a vowel from *h₂e regardless of the ablaut grade). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

murderEdit

Where did the "group of crows" sense come from? Should probably be noted in the etymology. —CodeCat 17:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's attested since at least the 1470s; William Caxton's 1477 edition of The horse the ghoos & the sheep has "an Herde of hertes a Murther of crowes" among its list of collective nouns, and a 1475 version supposedly has "a morther of crowys". But Grammarphobia quotes the OED as saying it is "one of many alleged group names found in late Middle English glossarial sources", i.e. it may have been made up by people writing lists of terms, rather than being in common use like flock; and the usage "apparently died out after the 1400s, [but] was revived in the 20th century". Most sources connect it to the traditional association of crows with death. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

EN derivates from PIE *h₂egʷnosEdit

The verbs to (y)ean, do they come from PGmc *aunōną or *gaaunōną? Because it's given in both. Sobreira (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

ean comes from *aunōną; yean comes from *gaaunōną, which itself comes from *aunōną Leasnam (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is *gaaunōną reconstructed for PGmc, if it only has descendants in Old English? Incomplete list of reflexes? --Tropylium (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't answer that question ; it probably doesn't need to exist, since it's apparent descendants (if this did exist in pgmc) are already at *aunōną Leasnam (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't we create reconstructs when there are descendants in only one language? Do we write it "yean (< *gaaunōną)" in descendants of *aunōną then ? And delete *gaaunōną?? Sobreira (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
We can create pages for words with only descendants in only one language, although entries with a multitude of descendants in multiple languages are often seen as more solid. PGmc for only Gothic or Old Norse, and PItal for only Latin are examples. Leasnam (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Considering the y- variant isn't even attested in Middle English or Old English, let alone outside the English branch of Germanic, it seems overly optimistic to reconstruct *gaaunōną for Proto-Germanic. "Yean" probably doesn't have the ge- prefix it all; it's probably just a sporadic variant of "ean", perhaps by hypercorrection in a dialect that says "east" for "yeast". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe the ga- form likely existed. Wycliffe has ȝene, ȝeene, yeene beside ene, eene ‎(sheep with lambs). There is also the Old English ġeēane ‎(yeaning), possibly an inflected form for *ġeēan, but in any event suggesting a prefixed form. The Saterland Frisian word bejääne also hints at one (be- + je- + ääne?), though I am not 100% sure. Is all this enough to warrant a page in my opinion ? No. Since most of the descendants are prefixless, I would use that, putting the other forms on the same page. Leasnam (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

from lamb to placentaEdit

From the PIE aforementioned gives GRC ἀμνός, which gives diminutive ἀμνίον. But how can it change its meaning into "bowl in which the blood of victims was caught" (in amnion/amnios and also mentioned as derivate by template:R:ine:RobertsPastor)? Was it made of lamb leather/skull or the lamb taken as a stereotypical sacrifice animal? Any source? Sorry for the disgusting topic. Sobreira (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably from the shape and bloodiness of the placenta. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Order of sections in PIE: place for synsEdit

Where do we want the synonyms section?:

  • At the beginning, before Derivs/Descend:
between Root+Usage notes and Derived terms: krewh₂-
between Root and Derived terms: leǵ-, les-, pelth₂-, perd-, pesd-, pleh₂-, h₁ésh₂r̥
between Inflection and Coordinate+Descendants: ph₂tḗr
between Root+Inflection/Declension and Descendants: átta, bʰardʰeh₂, dáḱru, ǵómbʰos, h₁éḱwos, h₁er- (why a noun with "-"?), h₁n̥gʷnis,h₂ébōl, h₂eḱru, h₂éngʷʰis, márkos, médʰu, mélit, péh₂wr̥
between Inflection and Usage notes+Descendants: h₁ógʷʰis Yes check.svg Done (FIXED)
  • Later or end, after Derivs:
between Derived terms and Descendants: dʰéǵʰōm Yes check.svg Done (MOVED)
between Derived terms and References: kʷer- Yes check.svg Done (MOVED)

Nothing at Wiktionary:About_Proto-Indo-European. Sobreira (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Per Wiktionary:Entry layout#Headings after the definitions, synonyms come after Inflection, before Coordinate terms, Derived terms, and Descendants. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

HoonEdit

Could someone conversant with Hindi and Sanskrit update hoon (etymology 4)? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Eirikr has already added the Sanskrit etymon; I assume the Hindi is written the same way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Isn't Hindi script slightly different from Sanskrit? — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The script is exactly the same; individual words may be spelled differently in Hindi and Sanskrit, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there is no Sanskrit script, just Devanagari as used for Sanskrit. There are some extra consonants in Hindi made by adding a diacritic or two, but they don't seem to be used as much in the inherited core vocabulary, and Sanskrit borrowings tend to be spelled as Sanskrit. More often than not the spelling is the same, but Hindi deletes some of the unwritten vowels in the pronunciation. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

բուն Armenian "tree trunk"Edit

RFV of the etymology: book gives Armenian as cognate from PIE *bʰeh₂ǵos ‎(tree). The meaning matches much better than PIE *bʰudʰmḗn ‎(bottom). Sobreira (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I added the standard references. The etymology from *bʰudʰmḗn ‎(bottom) through Iranian is universally accepted. And you are wrong that *bʰeh₂ǵos matches better. It means “beech”, not “tree”. The sense development “beech” → “tree trunk” is unimaginable, whereas “bottom, foundation” → “tree trunk” is easy, seen also in the Greek cognate πυθμήν ‎(puthmḗn, bottom; tree trunk). --Vahag (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's a quite sujective matter. I wouldn't assert so sure what matches more. For me, relating the part to the total is easier than the part to the generic part. Didn't PIE for "oak" (*dóru or *perkʷu-?) give tree in a bunch of PIE? I'm only certain that we have to follow the opinion of the primary sources (and data: that's why I RFV), but they are opinions too and can be wrong too. Sobreira (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

PIE for oakEdit

Is *eiḱ a noun form from the root *eiǵ-? Or should oak and aesculus point to Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/eiǵ-? Sobreira (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel that both *eiḱ and *eiǵ- should be changed to *h₂eyǵ-. That is incidentally the form it's given at Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots/h₂. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Which I guess it's sourced from Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots#References, innit? Sobreira (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably. Buck and Pokorny won't have written *h₂, but the others may have. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Pokorny 2.aig-, page 13. Russians have *h₂eiǵ-. Didn't find in AmH or EtymOnLine, UTexas follows Pokorny. The <y> for being diphthong? Sobreira (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, "ei" and "ey" are exactly the same thing, just two different transcription conventions. Wiktionary follows the "ey" convention. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that it seems to be another root h2ei´g with the meaning of "goat" (ožys, αἴξ, एड). Subs? I'll check abouit later. Sobreira (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Kroonen and de Vaan's etym. dictionaries seem to be hesitant to reconstruct this further back than the "Common IE" stage *aiǵ- (without *h₂); they suggest that this may be a substrate word. --Tropylium (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

mugger and mugEdit

Currently, the verb meanings of mug ‎(to strike, to rob) are listed under the same etymology as the noun mug ‎(cup). Mugger has its etymology listed as mug + -er, which looks reasonable enough until one notices the lack of explanation for the verb. I could certainly believe that the verb came from the "face" sense of mug, as Etymonline and the OED suggest, though the current entry mentions nothing of this.

w:Makara (Hindu mythology) suggests that mugger comes from मगर ‎(magar, crocodile), which implies that the verb mug is backformed from mugger. I find this etymology and sense development just as plausible as the other, but the Wikipedia article cites a blog post where the "mugger" connection is mentioned only as a side note with no listed sources, it doesn't look reliable.

Does anyone have any resources on this word? If not, can we at least split mug (verb) into its own etymology, with the note that it could be from mug (noun), but is uncertain? Listing the two under the same etymology with such distinct meanings doesn't seem right. Eishiya (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep: the source for the Wikipedia article appears to be only talking about the crocodilian sense of mugger, and the claim that "This animal's name is descriptive of it's behavior" seems to be original research, as well as implausible anyway (it would seem to require that "mugger" can be parsed as "one who mugs" also in Hindi, not just in English). I'm removing it. --Tropylium (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Is this a cursive caoshu, vulgar varient, etc? Johnny Shiz (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Latvian from Middle Dutch.Edit

Middle Dutch is often mentioned as a source for Germanic loans, e.g. sīpols. How likely is that, given the Low German settlements in the region? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

ポテトチップEdit

RFV of the etymology. ばかFumikotalk 09:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

堕天使Edit

RFV of the etymology. Needs specific reliable source that says it was "Coined in Japan from Sinitic elements". ばかFumikotalk 09:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a concept specific to Christianity, and since we know that Christianity came to Japan mainly via the Spanish and Portuguese, we can safely say that this did not come directly from Chinese, but instead from contact with the west.
If it's the specific format you object to, the template {{calque}} would probably be a better fit, strictly speaking.
You're welcome to do this research yourself, and edit the entry accordingly. It's quite easy to do when these online resources have entries for the term you're researching. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

work and wyrcanEdit

The Old English verb had palatalisation, so why do we not have "worch" today? Is it analogy with the noun? —CodeCat 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

ME seemed to use spellings implying both pronunciations interchangeably, even in the same edition of Chaucer. If it was after that, perhaps the OED will tell you how late the -ch pronunciation lasted. Edited: I deleted a conjecture which made no sense whatsoever, suggesting the de-palatalisation was to disambiguate a confusion which it in fact caused itself. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
From the OED: The normal representative of OE wyrcan would be *worch (for the vocalism cf. worm, worse, wort); the substitution of k for ch, producing the modern standard form... is shown in North Midland areas c 1200 and is due mainly to Work (sb.), though Scandinavian influence (see various forms above) is possible. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)