Open main menu
This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← October 2013 · November 2013 · December 2013 → · (current)


This is sort of an etymology question, I think. Apologies if it isnt.

sousveillance was clearly created from surveillance (the latter links to a #French section that doesnt exist).

uberveillance says it is a blend of uber- and surveillance, and the meaning is strongly linked to surveillance

Is dataveillance also a blend?

I think superveillance means almost the same as surveillance, but can have a stronger sense of pervasiveness of the watching, and is not in common use any more.(google books)

How do we describe surveillant as being derived (with -ant) from surveil or surveillance?

My main question is whether it is appropriate to say that data- and uber- have spawned a new postfix -veillance, and/or word veillance which now has grown its own legs (google:veillance). e.g. Teaching ICT Ethics Using Wearable Computing: the Social Implications of the New 'Veillance'. Are there other derived words? (off topic: bienveillance is unrelated.) John Vandenberg (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's a suffix, then uber would have to be the "main word", but uber- is a prefix. Data is less clear-cut but I'd call it a blend. Suffixes are not usually that long! Equinox 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Latin restauro

Would you know something about the etymology of this word? --Fsojic (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at [1] for starters. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Heads-up to etymologically inclined users, the contributor who added this entry has been adding other Altaic theories, too. It's my understanding that we usually try to qualify any mention of Altaic theories, e.g. "Schmidt, a proponent of the [controversial] Altaic theory, connects this word to Japanese foo". - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

They also seem to be unaware of the fact that {{etyl}} categorizes, so their etymologies are putting things into all kinds of bogus categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Can an editor familiar with Mandarin Chinese check/format the etymology I added to yulan? I referenced several dictionaries but I have no way of knowing whether the characters or the transliteration I copied are actually correct. — E | talk 20:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It was correct, I just added the traditional Chinese form. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Appendix talk:Proto-Slavic/kǫpusъ

Can anyone shed light on these? Vasmer thinks that Russian капу́ста (kapústa) (and a few other languages) are also derivatives of composita. An IP user has added Latvian kāposti with a source. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are all derivations of composita, just not via Proto-Slavic but later borrowings from other languages. So delete. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Just some notes:
  1. I didn't add kāposti (User:Pereru did)
  2. as I read Pereru the word isn't just a derivation of composita, but a derivation from a merger of caputium (head of cabbage) and composita (though Pereru writes lang=lv, not lang=la). As far as I can tell Vasmer also says it's a merger (контаминация)
  3. I'm not so sure about languages, it can also be a Wanderwort which spread before it could become adopted by the alleged intermediary languages. -- 10:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, Old East Slavic капуста (kapusta) cannot reflect Proto-Slavic *kǫpusъ. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
That is a reason to delete капуста from *kǫpusъ, but by itself it's not a reason to delete Appendix:Proto-Slavic/kǫpusъ. As an example Dutch has loaned router (layer 3 device) pronounced as both /ˈɹuːtə(ɹ)/ and /ˈɹaʊtɚ/, both written as router, probably only one of the pronunciations will survive, but 20th century Dutch had both. -- 12:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Detail: "lang=lv" in the etymology section of kāposti for compositum and caputium was an oversight; I've already corrected them to "lang=la". --Pereru (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not RFD, there's nothing to delete. I only linked to the page, which has a discussion and seeking further etymology info for Old East Slavic, Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian капуста, Polish kapusta, Latvian kāposti, Lithuanian kopūstas. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
These are all independent borrowings and not cognate words, so there is no reason to have the appendix. Even Serbo-Croatian kupus cannot derive from it, because it's attested late and a result of conflating two different words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Orphaned and deleted. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    You were rather in a hurry, weren't you? -- 20:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    There was no evidence presented to keep the page, wouldn't you agree? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    Why would that be a reason to orphan the page during the discussion? -- 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    Or, asked another way, why couldn't you wait? -- 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    Page was orphaned due to the fact that better etymologies were provided for the supposed descendants. I don't understand your second question - wait for what exactly? If you can present evidence and sources for the reconstruction we can always restore it.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    Indeed, you don't understand [my] second question. Why couldn't you wait? Once you know why you couldn't wait, you'll understand my first question. -- 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    Well I did check several etymological dictionaries (for sh, ru, pl, cs, and two Proto-Slavic) and they didn't have *kǫpusъ in them, so I assumed that we're dealing with a really bad reconstruction. Even if we waited months from now I doubt that more evidence would surface in favor of *kǫpusъ. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    That still doesn't explain why you couldn't wait, say, a week. -- 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    Wait for WHAT? What would happen in a week? Or one month? If you have a source for *kǫpusъ, recreate it any time. --Vahag (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


I don't understand the doubt regarding the second element. As far as I understand, ME knowleche is the regular result of OE cnāwelǣċ; I can't see a difficulty there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, the difficulty is that OE ‘cnawelæc’ doesn't exist – the only recorded spelling of this unusual short form is ‘cnawlec’, and it's not at all clear that this -lec is supposed to be a variant of -læcan. The OED suggests that -lec in this case is “apparently an alteration of either -lāc -lock suffix or -laik suffix (or the early Scandinavian etymon of the latter; compare Old Icelandic -leikr), after Old English -lǣcan”, which seems a good explanation of the possibilities. Ƿidsiþ 17:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    Then why do we have an article on cnāwelǣċ? --WikiTiki89 17:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

vampire, dhampir

Hi, all. The input of anyone with references as to the etymologies of these words would be appreciated at Talk:vampire and User talk:-sche#Etymology_of_.27Vampire.27. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)