Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/June

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← May 2020 · June 2020 · July 2020 → · (current)

---

kindergartner

What's kindergartner's etymology in relation to kindergarten? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

kindergarten + -er, with spelling influenced by German Kindergärtner; but probably not derived directly from the German because of the difference in meaning. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is the second sense with that meaning, with a quote dating from the 19th century... Leasnam (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a split in etymology is needed (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

wiktionary : etymology of entry "kyarn"

kyarn is an Appalachian/southern word used by natives of the area. Kyarn is simply a derivative of the word "carrion".

I used it as a child. An example of a use of the word in a sentence could be, "That dog rolled in kyarn!"

ผล

The word in question is ผล (pǒn). I've changed the section title, because the link from the article wasn't working. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I found an unlinked challenge to the etymology of this Thai word by @Jaspet; the etymology section then derived the word from Sanskrit. I've added a reference to the 1999 Thai Royal Institute Dictionary, which says it derives from Pali and/or Sanskrit. (I think it's unlikely we can ever resolve beyond 'and/or'.) I've added Pali as an alternative source. I propose we close this challenge. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The official dictionary has proven itself. Pali and Sanskrit influenced Thai very much (via Buddhism propagation); we cannot absolutely decide which one derived since both are same spelling. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a formal process for closing etymology RfV's down? Removing the RfV link seems a bit hasty? Should we have waited until 120 hours had passed from my initial, ungainsaid post? --RichardW57 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

fuck 12

The entry says this may come from 1312, but other sources say it comes from the drug enforcement unit or code of Atlanta's police department, or some other origin. Can anyone figure out which etymology is right? See Talk:fuck 12 for more discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

keelyvine pen

RFV of the etymology.

This looks like an attempt to update a vague etymology in an outdated work by just reformatting it with templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

An entry can be found in Century 1911 (Search 'full-text'. Some problem with their indexing prevents one-click access.). The etymology there is not particularly convincing. DCDuring (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

All dictionaries that have the entry (also Webster’s 1913) agree that keelivine is a noun. Yet another spelling is keelavine. An abundance of etymologies (killow vein, cueill de vigne!) are suggested here.  --Lambiam 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Lat. cunīculus << cunnus

Ok so, the vulgar (= commonly found) opinion holds this to be of Iberian origin, whether proto-Basque (for no reason as far as I can see) or Celtiberian (*kū, looks probable). However here's an article: Hernández (2013), "El origen de cuniculus (> conejo) y su difícil, pero legítima, relación con cunnus (> coño)" that I've quickly skimmed through (my Spanish comprehension isn't stellar), and it makes too much sense to be left unnoticed. The semantic relationship mirrors the one in madriguera. The single consonant is a perfect instance of the mamilla-rule (p.87). There's one important point that the article doesn't address, but to which I think I've found a solution, or even several: the long ī, which would be unexplained if we take the word to be an o-stem diminutive. However it corresponds perfectly to the likewise-unexpected canīcula - the analogy is plain. There are other -īcula words formed with -ul- on the -īc-s suffix, as in cornīcula as well as -ēcula to -ēs, like nūbēcula. This -iculus/-īculus might be the same variation as seen in *-ica. I also wonder if the ī wasn't provided by a (folk-etymological or otherwise) connection to cū̆nīre, so "defecate~give birth".

Does anyone know how Celtiberian diminutives looked like? Is it possible that the word combines the Celtiberian word for "dog" with the suffix of Latin canīcula as a sort of half-loan half-translation? This would explain the connection with Spain in ancient sources. By the way, the orthoraphic variation in Greek κόνικλος/κύνικλος/κούνικλος betrays a borrowing from a language with an open /ŭ/, the most obvious candidate being Latin, the reverse of what's currently stated. The initial accent would be regular for Plautus, reflecting a loan before ~200 BC, but only if the i was short. A long one would need to reflect the Archaic Latin initial accent (the first instance seems to be in Polybius). A clear possibility is that both short- and long-vowel forms coexisted - and Romance in fact reflects just this sort of variation.

Or is this accentuation simply regular (or analogical) for Greek? And if so, does it mean a short vowel? Brutal Russian (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brutal Russian: I don't have answers to any of your questions, but in most ancient Indo-European languages diminutives are formed from the stem, not (necessarily) the nominative singular, so I would expect any Celtiberian diminutive of the word for “dog” to be built on *kʷon-, not directly on *kū. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, I took this as self-evident Brutal Russian (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

nyonya

RFV of the etymology. The Hokkien word is particularly suspicious. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

In Indonesian this is a respectful term, also used as a term of address, for a married woman – just like formerly French madame. I’d be rather surprised if the meaning in Malayan Malay is not basically the same. In fact, that is the meaning given for the Malay term by the Chinese Wiktionary. Obviously, Hokkien cannot be both the etymon and a descendant, but I don’t see what is suspect about this being the etymon; in fact, it looks quite plausible (to me), far more so than the other two suggestions (Italian for lack of contact, Portuguese for the phonemic distance).  --Lambiam 17:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lambian: The problem is that the pronunciation given for 娘娘 is not attested AFAIK. Unless we have proof that the pronunciation niô͘-niâ existed at some point, this etymology is problematic. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mlgc1998, do you have a source for this? Also pinging @KevinUp, who has provided some evidence over at Discord. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the Min Nan pronunciation /nɔ²¹ nia²³/ we give at 娘娘 also unattested? Also note this statement in the Wikipedia article on the Peranakan: “Members of this community in Malaysia address themselves as Baba Nyonya. Nyonya is the term for the women and Baba for the men.” On the Chinese Wikipedia, the Peranakan are named 峇峇娘惹, which I surmise originally reflects a pronunciation spelling.  --Lambiam 08:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lambian: I think you mean the pronunciation at 娘惹. That should be reliable; it's the pronunciation in Penang Hokkien. This pronunciation doesn't necessarily match the pronunciation of the two characters individually though. 娘娘 pronounced as niô͘-niâ looks like it's a corroborated pronunciation based on niô͘ and niâ, two possible readings in (Zhangzhou) Hokkien. It's unclear whether niô͘-niâ actually exists and what it means in Hokkien. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian сака

Moved from Wiktionary:Tea_room/2020/June#Bulgarian_etymology:_искам_(iskam)

Bulgarian etymology: искам (iskam)

The Bulgarian entry for искам (iskam) mentions Macedonian сака (saka) as a cognate, but despite the phonetic resemblance and semantic overlap between the words, there is no way to account for the different ordering of the /s/ in the two languages. Furthermore, Bulgarian also has "сакам" as a separate word, listed in the etymological dictionary available at [1], and the etymology given is completely different from the one proposed for "искам". I am not sufficiently well versed in Slavic etymologies to feel comfortable changing the Bulgarian entry myself and I am not able to evaluate the accuracy of the Bulgarian etymological dictionary, but I am satisfied that connecting искам (iskam) mentions Macedonian сака (saka) in the Bulgarian entry as cognates without comment is altogether inadequate. Perhaps someone more familiar with Slavic etymologies could effect the necessary modifications. Martin123xyz (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarian искам (iskam) is the easy one to etymologize; it comes straightforwardly from Proto-Slavic *jьskati (which mentions a dialectal Macedonian иска (iska) as well. I agree that Macedonian сака (saka) can't come from the same root, but I don't know enough about Slavic historical linguistics to figure out where it does come from. My heart wants to connect it to Proto-Indo-European *seh₂g-, but I can't account for the change from g to k. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz, Mahagaja: I have moved it here. I agree that Macedonian сака (saka) is of the same origin with the Bulgarian dialectal са́кам (sákam), probably unrelated to *jьskati. Does Mladenov mention *sek? @Bezimenen: Hi. Do you think you can help here? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz: User:Bezimenen has provided referenced etymologies at both Macedonian and Bulgarian, which seems good. Thank you very much! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Proper etymology of -n't

While -n't usually is a contraction of not in the middle of a phrase ("I [do not/don't] want any ice cream, thanks"), sometimes, it's used to form a contraction in a place where "[x] not" would be ungrammatical ("Don't you want ice cream?" versus "Do not you want ice cream?"). I'm not sure 1.) how to include this at relevant places but I'm leaning toward just a usage note at -n't and 2.) how that morphed into being used in places where "[x] not" would never occur today. Was "Do not you want ice cream?" formerly correct English but it fell out of favor? Did -n't go from being strictly "do not" to "do [you] not"? Can anyone help me understand this phenomenon? Also, does this skipping-"you" form of the contraction have a name? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Koavf: This thread at Stack Exchange may be of interest to you: Was “Do not you want to know…” correct 200 years ago, and is now incorrect? Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You are correct. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Contraction" is not a very specific word, but what you're describing sounds like a clitic. Linguistically I think -n't is actually a suffix, so it can't be expected to always correspond to the full word not. This was argued by Zwicky and Pullum in 1983, against the view that it's a clitic. That is, auxiliary verbs have a negative form that's formed with -n't. Among the arguments are the fact that some verbs change pronunciation unexpectedly when -n't is attached (do /du/ + -n't = don't /dont/, will /wɪl/ + -n't = won't /wont/), and that -n't can only be attached to auxiliary verbs, whereas clitics cause predictable changes in pronunciation and can be attached to any type of word. However, I guess this view is not taken by everyone. (I heard of the suffix analysis from User:TAKASUGI Shinji, who mentioned it in a previous discussion here.)

The Stack Exchange answerer says that auxiliary plus not plus subject is grammatical, but I would say only for particular types of English. I certainly wouldn't normally ever use it. It would sound unnatural. I wonder if writers back in the 18th century when the answerer says that this word order was common ever spelled not when they actually said -n't (or something in-between the two, somewhat reduced but not quite like -n't yet). — Eru·tuon 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't really help here, but want to note that the etymology of 'not' itself is suspect, not only because it's pretty much the same as for the however unrelated German 'nicht'. I thought once of an idea to derive a clitic *-nt, that I do alas not remember well, because it had to do with init, aint, etc. which are not attested as historical forms to begin with. 109.41.0.10 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Wade-Giles etymologies

Hey all. During the last two weeks, I have made probably fifty articles for English language proper nouns derived from Wade-Giles. I usually try to add at least two example usages and a map. Do my etymologies conform with standard practice used in other etymologies for English? Does what I'm doing make sense from the overall perspective? This is my first post on this part of the site, and I look forward to critical comments. Thanks!! Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: perhaps it would help if you gave some examples of the entries you have worked on. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

These were easy to find in the contribution log the day this was posted, see e.g. Tun-huang.

Geographyinitiative's talk page indicated that there was a disagreement about how to work with Wade-Giles. I haven't read the full discussion, but observed since then that a certain template comes with a 'wg=' option. Why not use that? Not editing Chinese I have to ask anyway: which template? 109.41.2.49 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative see the template used at kung fu for example. 109.41.0.96 20:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

狒狒 (Chinese, baboon)

The 狒狒 was originally attested in the Erya as a monster

狒狒，如人，被髮迅走，食人。 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
狒狒，如人，被发迅走，食人。 [Classical Chinese, simp.]

From: Erya, 5^th – 2^nd century BCE

Fèifèi, rú rén, pīfà xùnzǒu, shírén. [Pinyin]

The 狒狒 resembles a human, wears its hair long and draped all over, runs fast, and eats humans.

When was the word begin to be used for the animal baboon? Was it influenced by a foreign language (likely, because the baboon is not native to China)? --Frigoris (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Polish kreda - immediately from Middle High German?

A Ukrainian dictionary says that кре́йда (kréjda) was derived from Polish kreda, which is in turn from German Kreide or more likely (I think) from Middle High German krīde. This may not be perfect, since the Ukrainian has a /j/ but this was possibly influenced by German.

Should the etymology of kreda be revisited for a more immediate origin (German or Middle High German), as it was done for Czech křída? Currently, the entry says from Latin or Ancient Greek.

At creta#Italian, it says that kreda was from Italian.

Inviting @Tweenk, Shumkichi, BigDom or anyone interested or knowledgeable. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Doroszewski just says the Polish word is from Latin and doesn't mention any intermediaries: [2]. Bruckner's Słownik Etymologiczny języka polskiego does however mention German Kreide: [3]. No mention of MHG in either. BigDom 11:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Polish also had krejda, that simple. It likes to simplify the German diphthongs, like blejwas for blejwajs, which is strictly an inner-Polish development and not owing to the German source. Lithuanian kreida and Latvian kreida are also from Polish. Fay Freak (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: OK, thanks. I'm now convinced about the Polish etymology but not so much about the Ukrainian. I'll leave it with Polish "or" German. The Latvian word I can find is krīts. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

One has to wonder by the way whether the word had anything to do with writing per se. Has anything of note in this regard been observed? 109.41.2.49 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Book, Buch, buok etc.

Hi, at Talk:book I have noted that the etymology of "book" in its most common English meaning has been reassessed, and the most recent dictionaries I have differ from earlier ones. But here we have the older view. This affects a good many articles, including German Buch, Elfdalian buok, and Proto-Germanic *bōks. It would be good if some Germanic specialists would look at what I put on that talk page, decide what to do about it, and then go round all these pages making sure the information given in the entries on the various cognates is consistent. Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I can provide scans of the relevant pages of the dictionaries I have if required. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we should probably mention both theories. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

While also mentioning the objections raised against the older theory. Kluge is a good secondary source.  --Lambiam 17:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

be gathered to one's fathers, sleep with one's fathers

In the entries be gathered to one's fathers and sleep with one's fathers, can a Hebrew speaker kindly provide the original Hebrew phrases from which the English is translated (Judges 2:10 and various verses in the books of Kings and Chronicles)? The OED transliterates them as "ne'ĕspū 'el-'ăḇōṯāw" ("they were gathered to their fathers") and "yiškaḇ ʿim-'ăḇōṯāw" ("he slept with his fathers"). Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw:  Done —Mahāgaja · talk 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

箜篌

The Etymology section on the page 箜篌 originally didn't mention the early attestation as 空侯 (OC *kʰoːŋ ɡoː) in the Shiji referring to a 2nd-century BCE event. This I've added.

The part in question is the following theory which was in the section before:

The name might have originated as transcription of a foreign term from the west. Compare Sogdian [script needed] (cngryʾ /⁠čangaryā⁠/), [script needed] (cyngryʾ /⁠čingaryā⁠/), both names of this instrument in the Sogdian language, as well as Persian چنگ (čang) and the Turkic harp of çeng.

Can we find some reference for this theory? --Frigoris (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I know neither music nor Chinese but if the meaning of the Sogdian word is the same the “theory” seems great; though one might doubt the identifications of words for instruments in old texts it is at least harp to harp. And given the descendants of the Middle Persian and Persian word the word seems to have spread circularly via Iranian already at that time. Didn’t you actually confirm the etymology by finding another arbitrary spelling which points to it being a “transcription of a foreign term”? Fay Freak (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: The problem is that the context surrounding the 空侯 attestation was way too sparse to deduce any etymological information besides a) dating and b) attestation as attestation per se. From the Chinese lineage the initial *kʰ- has been quite stable in Old 空 (OC *kʰoːŋ) > Middle 空 (MC khuwng) > Mandarin 空 (kōng) Chineses, but the Sogdian forms given there (and the Middle Persian given on the page چنگ) have all shifted forward to č (= /tʃ/?). So it's not clear to me (who cannot read Iranian languages or Sogdian etc.) from which point the Chinese and Western forms may be shown to be close enough as loanable. It would be the best if we could find some references that show some plausible derivations. --Frigoris (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

č corresponds to /tʃ/ in transliterations of Middle Persian and Sogdian. --Z 10:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: MP [script needed] (cng /⁠čang⁠/, “harp, lyre”) is said to be borrowed form Chinese 箏／筝 (zhēng, “zither”), but I'm not sure how the pronunciation and timeline works out for that. @justinrleung, KevinUp

Gharib theorizes that Sogdian 𐫝𐫏𐫗𐫃𐫡𐫏𐫀 (cyngryʾ /⁠čingaryā, čangaryā⁠/) is borrowed from Turkic *čingar, but there's no evidence for this word that I can find. There is however Neo-Assyrian [script needed] (ki-in-na-ru /⁠kinnāru⁠/, “zither, lyre”), also evidently borrowed into Late Sanskrit as किंनर (kiṃnara) and likely Khotanese [script needed] (tcaṃgidai) is related somehow. Itself is said to be borrowed from Hurrian *kinari-. --{{victar|talk}} 18:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

פּאַרעוו

The etymology given here is totally different from the one given at pareve. Derivation from Middle High German bar seems unlikely as b > p is not a known sound change between MHG and Yiddish, there is no explanation of the -ev, and the semantics are questionable. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shad Veyosiv, where'd you get the etymology from?​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

From a book of a Yiddish linguist, I don't currently remember which book it was. There are a number of folk-etymologies, but the one I put in is from a linguist and also makes the most sense. -- Shad Veyosiv (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we should follow the Hebrew Wikipedia in stating straightforwardly that the origin is unknown. They also mention a possible Slavic origin, which IMO is utterly unconvincing, while I find the Middle High German theory even harder to swallow.  --Lambiam 17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam, why do you find it unconvincing? Do you speak Yiddish? Pareve literally means "bare", just mostly in the sense "unaffiliated". It is very common for a Yiddish word to shift MHG "b" to "p" (for example, German Boer vs Yiddish פּויער (poyer)), and the "eve" suffix is also very common in Yiddish (for example, ראָזעווע (rozeve)).

Anyhow @Mahagaja, I found my original source. It's from Nochum Stutchkof's "Mame Loshn" page 320. Here's the link, I don't know how sourcing is done. --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My issue is with the semantic gap between “bare, naked” and “neither fleischig nor milchig”. It is a pity that the author does not reveal the origin of the MHG theory he presents, but without further evidence to help bridge the semantic gap it has much the feel of a folk etymology.  --Lambiam 20:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually the word is also used commonly as "unaffiliated". To me, "bare/naked" is much closer to the meaning of parev than any of the other etymologies suggested. -- Shad Veyosiv (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

staumaz

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/staumaz says (omitting some steps) "from Proto-Indo-European *dʰew- (“to whirl, waft, stink, shake; steam, haze, smoke”). but Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰew-, to which it links, has two etymologies, neither of them matching the list mentioned there. (I'd wondered if steam might be a -mn̥-suffixed derivative of the same root as steigen.) --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The link is possibly meant to go to RC:Proto-Indo-European/dʰewh₂- --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

How did cook end up with a long vowel?

English cook (the verb) has a reflex of an old/middle English long vowel, but as can be seen on *kukōną, every other Germanic language has a short vowel. How did the vowel in English arise? —Rua (mew) 17:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that the English verb derives from the noun; Onions' dictionary has it arising in Middle English. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@RichardW57: Any idea why the noun has a long vowel then? That doesn't appear in any other language either. —Rua (mew) 12:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: Onions claims it is a separate borrowing from Latin. He claims 'Popular Latin' had a long vowel, but I don't see any evidence for that. Perhaps the English back vowels were different to continental Germanic vowels. PGerm *u lowered less extensively in English than continental WGerm languages, but I'm just throwing out ideas. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Both L&S and Gaffiot explicitly write cŏcus.  --Lambiam 17:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cp. OHG kohho "cocus", kohhon "coquere", kuhhina "cuquina, coquina", and kuohho "cake" without Latin etymon. Notably, cookie is thought not to be from "cook-" but primarily from Dutch koekje, koekie that is a diminutive of koek "cake"; a middle low German cognate kook traveled as far as Estonia. The Ger. diminutive to be derived from Kuchen however would be Küchlein, which, like Küche "kitchen" is long, as a matter of perception. More likely, openness of the vowel plays into that, which follows Middle German Umlautung that might be caused by '-i-' in either case. The geminate environment might be interesting in this regard (similar to long vowels before voiced sonorants, cf. Stackexchange), although today the phonology simply does not admit a long/short contrast in that place, as much as /x c,/ show a complementary distribution in most dialects. Further, there's a verb köcheln that looks itterative (cp. e.g. wackeln "to wiggle") though Grimm described it as Bavarian, diminutive (noun, but I mean the verb, "to simmer"). There's a similar kokeln "to singe, tinder" without reasonable etymology, DWDS/Pfeifer compare gypsy patoise gaukeln, Gaugler [PS: Gaukler] "trickster" (?). I suppose angekokelt "singed", apparently the past participle from an-kokeln, might as well be from *Hngw- (cf. ignite; note an- "to start, turn on" as well as "ad-"; PS: also "in-", cp. incinerate, note Ger entfachen almost fits *pekw-, whence coquus). Further more, suppose "koek" were backformed from "koekje", leaving the root to be explained other than from cocus, as it were, if -i- can have a different source than "diminutive" (cp. Swiss Kuchikästle). That's weird. A relation of Kugel "bullet, ball" to *gog > *koka had been inquired here before. That's even weirder. 109.41.0.224 05:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Also compare Proto-Germanic *skukkōną, it has everything, "itterative", analogic vowel-grade, unexpected *k instead of *h. Alas, the reconstruction *(s)kek- violates PIE root constraints, as would *gog-. 109.41.3.98 02:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Further more, survey kek, not for the Albanian and Turkish "cake" and "cooky" that would be loans, but for the cognate to quick "lively", Ger. keck, Nl. kwiek, reconstructing PGem *kwikwaz. I find verquicken "to bind, mix" tangentially of interest with regards to baking and bonding. Although Adelung (apud DWDS) sees it chiefly in 17th century Alchemie, from Quecksilber, this one at least goes back to Old High German evidence (800) and would be a surprisingly formidable calque of the Latin analogue argentum vivum, while it's a bit too much of a coincidence that it's actually cognate to quick.

Keck "sassy" may have an analogue in coquette. I'm not sure if the TLF attributes it to coq, coccus "cock, rooster", but that's what we do for cocky (note ety3, farmer of cock(atoo)). Also cp. cheek+y.

Kuchikästle is (w:de:Chuchichäschtli.

Although it does not, after all, confirm a relation to caseus, it's notable that wikipedia denies any proper use of the word in situ. Schachtel is a surprisingly distant relative of Kasten and all the same, as de.wp has it, is chäschtli; thus "cupboard".

Quickly checking the first link for schweizerdeutsch+käsekuchen I want to note "guetzi = plätzchen". Cut to the chase, it's reminiscent of quatio "shake" (*kweh1t-, though 'a' implies *h2), possibly related to pastry, comparable to quetschen, kwetsen "squeeze, mash, jam", and this also reminds of *kwh2e-t- > caseus, kvas (milkshake anyone?).

German Plätzchen "cooky" is reminiscent of placenta (Ger. Mutterkuchen; AGr. "flat cake"), even if Plauze "belly, paunch" might invite a different connotation, but I'll leave it at that. Cp. btw Quetsch (Zwetschke) and plum.

109.41.0.96 23:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A similar vowel lengthening can be seen in Old English prōfian from Late Latin probō, Old English rōse from Latin rosa, Old English nōt from Latin nota. Leasnam (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

กรรม

Does กรรม (gam) primarily derive from Sanskrit as claimed, or is the primary source Pali kamma? If derived from Sanskrit, I would expect the form to be as in poetic synonym กรรม์ (gan). Note that Thai spelling underwent a change in the spelling of the short vowel /a/ in closed syllables. In words of Pali origin, instead of writing it by doubling the final consonant, it was shown by ro han as though it came from Sanskrit. If the development is as in other cluster, -arCa from Sanskrit would have just the <r> sounded; final <r> is soundes as /n/. By contrast, cognate -aCCa from Pali would have the final C sounded. A well-known example of pure Sanskrit origin is สวรรค์ (sà-wǎn, “heaven”). --RichardW57 (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The Khmer dictionary [Headley77] (available online at Sealang.net) says កម្ម (kam) is from Pali. Some dictionaries are not very specific as to "derived" (via other language) or (directly) borrowed. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Having found an Old Khmer dictionary, I'm beginning to wonder if the modern Khmer word was borrowed into Khmer after the Old Khmer period. I've 'left' Old Khmer -kamma as a probable ancestor, but I'm not confident. The authors of the dictionary think it existed, but they offer no evidence that it did. It's quite conceivable that it was Sanskritised on sight. --RichardW57 (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Any spelling with double 'm' (as in this one) is going to be assigned to Pali. Actually, the Sanskrit v. Pali distinction is quite clear in Khmer when Sanskrit has -arC-. In Thai, the waters are muddied by the use of ro han, and I wouldn't be surprised if the spellings (but not the pronunciations) actually merged for a while. If Sanskrit and Pali have cognate words, the RID ducks the issue and gives derivation from both sources. In some cases, Thai words of Pali origin have been Sanskritised, as in จักรวาฬ (jàk-grà-waan, “universe”), where the ร says Sanskrit but the ฬ says Pali. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you sort of answering your own question. Thai pronunciation may be influenced by its own phonology, Pali, Old Khmer or all together but the spelling suggests it's from Sanskrit or, at least, Sanskritised. If I see "Sanskrit or Pali" in Sealang dictionaries (be it Khmer, Thai or Burmese), I don't rack by brain and write both. I would suggest you do the same. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the interest is the etymology of Thai อุตสาหกรรม (ùt-sǎa-hà-gam). I think the compound was formed, or reformed, in Thai. It can't (purely) go back to Sanskrit if the second element is from Pali. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll​​ shift​ the main source to Pali, with Sanskrit as a possible contributor. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)​

pun

Are we just dismissing the notion that it is a shortening of pundigrion, alteration of punctilio? That seems far more likely that the etymology that we propose. Tharthan (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Or is pundigrion perhaps a fanciful embellishment of pun, like braggadocio < brag and bootylicious < booty, similar to jocular coinages such as scrumptious and discombobulate? The semantic jump from punctilio (some say Italian puntiglio (“obstinacy”)) to pun is hard to explain.  --Lambiam 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Fachidiot

Did this originate in Marxist circles? I can find a few results from the late 19th century for "Fachidioten". Moreover, Fachidiotismus is said to have been coined by Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein, translating Marx's idiotisme du métier, a phrase used in Misère de la philosophie/Das Elend der Philosophie (sometimes presented as a coinage by Marx). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Old Prussian us- "six"

Is this a scribal error? It doesn't even resemble an Indo-European numeral. RubixLang (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No. There are reported to be three forms of the word for 'sixth': usts, uschts and uschtai. There's no known attestation of the cardinal number. Staring from *swek̂s, we ɡet Balto-Slavonic *sveś or similar. The assumption goes that *sveś > *veś, and then the ordinal is based on the zero grade. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There's another theory, which is mentioned at Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/swéḱs#Etymology, according to which the oldest form of the PIE word for "six" was actually *wéḱs with no initial s at all. The Old Prussian forms (reflecting the zero grade *uḱs) are one piece of evidence for this; Old Armenian վեց (vecʻ) is another piece of evidence, and even Ancient Greek ἕξ (héx) is consistent with it, since initial w- sometimes becomes h- in Greek (e.g. *wek(ʷ)speros > ἕσπερος (hésperos)). Under this theory, the s- of the more common forms *swéḱs and *séḱs was "imported" from *septḿ̥ (“seven”), as it is not uncommon for numerals to acquire initial consonants from their neighbors (Proto-Germanic *fedwōr (“four”) probably got its f- from *fimf (“five”); Eastern Baltic *dewin and Proto-Slavic *devętь (“nine”) certainly got their d- from Proto-Balto-Slavic *deśimt (“ten”)). In some languages (Celtic, Iranian, possibly Greek) the imported s- was added to the w-, giving *swéḱs, while in others (Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Eastern Baltic, Tocharian) the s- replaced the w-, giving *séḱs. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The *d- was possibly a prefix (cp. dexter?), in that case any derivation from the same source would not count as a phonologic analogy. The same goes if *septmo was thought to be a superlative, not to mention that s- frequently appears like a prefix, notwithstanding putative afro-asiatic origin of *sept-. There's a link between *dwo, *dwi- (cf. dis-) and a prospective *wi (cf. wieder), though I somewhat doubt the later; Anyway, /w/ > /v/ was a Latin development actually, not Germanic, and *kwetwores is markedly unlikely as our entry says.

For numerals I prefer Blazek, who sums up neatly that no single reconstruction explains all the evidence. Therein are 3 (three) pages summing up attempts at internal reconstruction, "their value is only historical", which is a perplexing statement because d) derives the author's own conclusion that modifies and combines two prior results, mostly to resolve Indo-Iranian and some Balto-Slavic evidence that required *Kswek's (cf. e.g. Avestan), but ultimately doesn't explain the absence of *K in the other branches; that is *ǵʰes- > e.g. Hittite "hand" and *weḱ(s)- > Lithuanian "grow vigorously, thrive; prosper, flourish" (which we don't have as such; easily confused with *weǵ- "lively, awake; strong", or [not to be confused with] *h₂weg- "to increase, enlarge"), assuming palatal dissimilation to *ks- because of root constraints (no two palatals in one root / stem). Incidently, *g(h)e- is known as an intensive prefix in various functions, so the semantic interpretation is perhaps besides the point, as much as originality based on one outlier is not robust (subsuming Balto-Slavic under Iranian; also cp. Finnish kuusi). 109.41.1.147 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase “go ham”?

Does anyone have a source that can explain where this phrase actually comes from? I remember hearing it as early as the 80s or 90s.

Do you disbelieve the etymology provided at go ham#Etymology? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This article sows some doubts about that etymology, and in fact many etymologies explaining a term as an acronym (bica; boma; fod; gobo; posh; swag; wowser) are based on backronyms.  --Lambiam 09:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The 1970s use example is almost certianly literal so we would need to explain how the sense evolved from dscribing an amateur radio operator to describing a fit of rage. On the other hand, the acronym etymology isnt convincing either since it was in use prior to Kanye's song. —Soap— 14:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

jizdan apparently not of Semitic origin

the Arabic word for purse, wallet جِزْدَان (jizdān) or جُزْدَان (juzdān) is apparently not of Semitic origin, the Turkish cognate cüzdan is borrowed from Arabic LinguisticMystic (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

According to Nişanyan, the Turkish word is borrowed from Persian جزدان, in which it is a compound of the Arabic noun جزء (juzʾ, “piece, division”) with the Persian suffix دان (-dân, “container”). The word is not listed in the Persian Wiktionary, but it is listed in the Pashto Wiktionary as a Pashto word, which makes it likely it is also a Persian word. If Nişanyan has this right, the Arabic term was most likely also borrowed (half of it being borrowed back) from Persian.  --Lambiam 11:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I made Persian جزدان (jozdân). --Vahag (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

There's a whole bunch of coinage templates here that shouldn't be, but that does beg the question: do we know what language this was coined "in"/"for"? French (the colonial language of the region)? — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as Thomas Sankara was concerned, he doubtless coined the name to be Translingual, though I assume the decree renaming the country was written in French. As for the coinage templates, if you don't like the way the term gets categorized, the best solution IMO is probably just to add |nocat=1 to them. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dryocopus, genus name of the pileated woodpecker

The pileated woodpecker appears to have served as the basis for an animated cartoon character many us have known as "Woody". So, I would say, for that reason alone, is a significant figure in many of our lives. And yet, its generic name "Dryocopus" does not readily appear in Wiktionary even though it is mentioned in Wikipedia accompanied by this footnote:

Jobling, James A. (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. p. 140. →ISBN.

Perhaps someone learned will add it. — This unsigned comment was added by Gystdoc (talk • contribs) at 16:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

Added to the Translingual entry at Dryocopus. I don't know what you meant by "its generic name 'Dryocopus' does not readily appear in Wiktionary", since we already had the entry- just not the etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not mentioned at woodpecker, so instead of adding it themselves they come here to complain about the roundtrip to wikipedia. It's not a generic name, whether we need it at woodpecker is doubtable, and so this issue would belong in the wiktionary:Tea Room next door. 109.41.1.201 18:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The footnote they mentioned is from the Wikipedia Dryocopus page. I think they were expecting a link there to a Wiktionary page, and just assumed that no link meant no Wiktionary article. By the way, when you say it's not a generic name, don't forget that generic name is a taxonomic term for the name of a genus, so in that sense it really is a "generic name". Chuck Entz (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

paucus > po(u)co?

Usually in the West Iberian languages, Latin c becomes g (pronounced /ɣ/ in many of them) between vowels, e.g. amīcus > amigo and focus > fuego/fogo. So why did the c of paucus remain c (/k/) in poco/pouco? —Mahāgaja · talk 21:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In Vulgar Latin, a /k/ preceded by a semivowel and followed by a mid or back vowel does not get voiced. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge:. Thanks; do you have other examples? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/auca. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Given French peu and feu, it seems there was a merger in French. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

at all costs

I've always interpreted this phrase as using cost#Etymology 2 'amount of money spent for a purpose; negative consequence or loss'. However, it's listed as a derived term of cost#Etymology 3 'manner, means; quality, condition'. Can it be determined which meaning of cost is the original one in this expression? —Mahāgaja · talk 08:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Century has it here [[4]] at cost¹. In Middle English it was alre coste ("in any way, at all", literally "of all costs [=by all costs]", genitive plural) and by no cost ("by no means, not at all"). Online Etymology Dictionary says that it's cost "price" influenced by the Old English "means" sense, but I think that's incorrect: I believe it's the other way around. Leasnam (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Japanese passive suffix

Here we have 3 types of this:

1. From the regular passive form, -are-

   上(あ)げる (ageru) → 上(あ)げられる (agerareru)

   age- + -are- = age(r)are-

   挟(はさ)む (hasamu) → 挟(はさ)まれる (hasamareru)

   hasam- + -are- = hasamare-

2. From the transitivity verb pair, probably *-ar-

   上(あ)げる (ageru) → 上(あ)がる (agaru)

   age- + *-ar- = agar- (?)

   挟(はさ)む (hasamu) → 挟(はさ)まる (hasamaru)

   hasam- + *-ar- = hasamar- (?)

3. てある, -(te) ar-

   上(あ)げる (ageru) → 上(あ)げてある (agete aru)

   挟(はさ)む (hasamu) → 挟(はさ)んである (hasande aru)

Are they possibly cognate? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The last one is not a passive, so much as a resultative: someone unspecified has done the action, and now the result "is", as expressed by ある (aru) here in something closer to its older copular sense.

That aside, yes, broadly speaking, they may be cognate.

Looking back, the passive / intransitive / spontaneous / potential was originally ゆ (yu) in Old Japanese, shifting later to just る (ru). This る (ru) attached nominally to the 未然形 (mizenkei, “irrealis”) verb stem ending in -a. This could be analyzed instead as the verb root ending in a consonant + copular aru. (Notably, copular aru was only aru in the attributive, while the terminal and continuative forms were ari.) Thus, we could interpret 上がる (agaru, “to rise, to go up”) as root ag- + aru, or 挟まる (hasamaru, “to be caught between two things”) as root hasam- + aru.

These forms are generally regarded in the modern language as spontaneous or intransitive, rather than passive, and the passive forms are built from the active or transitive forms of the verbs instead -- albeit using this same る (ru), itself in a conjugated form as れる (reru), a regular kind of 下一段 (shimo ichidan) shift from older る (ru). Verbs where the 未然形 (mizenkei) stem doesn't end in -a get られる (rareru), which includes an additional ら (ra) as a linking mora. (This ら (ra) was apparently already in evidence in Old Japanese, where it was used to link the earlier ゆ (yu) ending to the 未然形 (mizenkei) stem of 下二段 (shimo nidan) verb 寝 (nu, inu, “to sleep”).)

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: So can we write a Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/-ar- or something based on this? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001, I'm not sure if the above is settled in the academic world. There may be other interpretations that might impact any Proto-Japonic reconstruction.

That said, we already have Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/ari, of which *ar would be the root form. I confess I don't think it's altogether appropriate to reconstruct conjugated forms at the level currently given there, especially as the Ryukyuan branch's verbs ending in ん (n) seem to correspond more to final -ru in Japanese rather than -ri, but then again we're still figuring out how best to represent these Proto-Japonic reconstructions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

See also notes about tomo here. It seems to me that aru may have been the earlier 終止形 (shūshikei) form of ar-. Arfrever (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Bjarke Frellesvig in A History of the Japanese Language (2010), page 103, explained ari / aru in this way:

r-irr verbs can be said to be syntactically rather than morphologically irregular: they use the infinitive as conclusive form. In other respects they are like the QD verbs. Note that the verb extensions be-, rasi-, and ram-, which regularly attach to the conclusive, attach to the adnominal of r-irr verbs: aru be-, aru rasi-, aru ram-. Another way of describing this would be to say that r-irr verbs have two conclusive forms: regularly formed aru (<= ar+u) used only with verb extensions, and ari (=infinitive) used elsewhere.

(92)             ar-
     Infinitive  ari <= ar + i
     Imperative  are <= ar + ye
     Conclusive  ari <= ar + i
     Adnominal   aru <= ar + ru
     Exclamatory are <= ar + re

Arfrever (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding passive etc., in Bjarke Frellesvig's A History of the Japanese Language (2010), some excerpts from pages 63-64 (in OJ chapter):

3.1.4.4 Voice; causative and passive
(...)
The OJ passive functioned as a pure passive, a medium voice, and as a potential. OJ had two competing passive markers of which -(a)ye- was used rather more frequently than -(a)re- (their roles are reversed in EMJ into which -(a)ye- only survived in a number of lexicalized forms (kikoye-, miye-, omopoye-) and in reading glosses to Chinese texts, see 9.1.6). -(a)ye- was used with QD, n-irr, r-irr and UM verbs; -(a)re- with QD, n-irr, and r-irr verbs. Passives were not formed on verbs from other conjugation classes. -(a)ye- thus had a wider use than -(a)re-, both in terms of distribution and in terms of frequency. The straightforward interpretation of these facts is that -(a)ye- was the earlier passive marker and was replaced by innovative -(a)re-. There are a few lexicalized passive forms with a slightly irregular formation: kikoye- <= kik- 'hear'; omopoye- <= omop- 'think' (found alongside omopaye-, but was much more frequent).
  The passive auxiliary variant -rare-, attaching to vowel base verbs, does not appear in the language until EMJ (see 8.4.1) and forms no part of OJ, although it is included in some grammars. Furthermore, an OJ passive auxiliary *-raye- is traditionally posited, said to attach to UB and LB and sometimes also to s-irr and k-irr verbs. This is based solely on four occurrences of the set phrase i no nerayenu (i 'sleep', no genitive) in MYS 15 (3665, 3678, 3680, 3684), whose nerayenu is traditionally analysed as ne-raye-nu sleep-PASS-NEG 'not be able to sleep'. However, the non-formation of passives on bigrade verbs is entirely systematic (see 3.5.1). The singular form neraye- must be explained otherwise, e.g. as the passive of a verb ner-,⁴ or as an idiosyncratic analogical formation; it cannot alone form the basis for positing a general variant *-raye- as part of the grammar of OJ.

And some excerpts from pages 236-238 (in EMJ chapter):

8.4.1 Passives and causatives

During the EMJ period, the OJ passive -(a)ye- and causative -(a)sime- went out of use and were replaced by the alternative OJ passive -(a)re- and the causative -(a)se- which is only incipiently and partially attested in OJ (3.1.4.4). Passive -(a)ye- was lost from early on in EMJ, but is reflected in lexicalized forms such as cNJ mie- 'be visible' (< OJ mi-ye- 'see-PASS') and in fossilized forms such as arayuru 'all' (< ara-yuru 'exist-PASS; can exist') (cf. 9.1.7); it was also used a little in kanbun-kundoku. Causative -(a)sime- gradually declined through EMJ, but was retained archaically in kanbun-kundoku and in kanji-kana majiribun writings which were heavily influenced by kanbun-kundoku. (...)
  In OJ, passives were only formed on consonant base and UM verbs, but not on LB, UB, s-irr and k-irr verbs, and that pattern holds also for the few examples of OJ -(a)se- (cf. 3.1.4.4). However, since EMJ, both causatives and passives are freely formed on verbs from all verb classes. The shape of the passive and causative auxiliaries which came to be used with LB, LM, UB, s-irr and k-irr verbs was new: -rare- and -sase-, and must have arisen by some sort of analogy. They were also extended to use with UM verbs, such that -rare- and -sase- were used with all vowel base verbs; the incipient OJ causatives attested on a few UM verbs: kise- 'make wear; dress' and mise- 'make see; show' were lexicalized with the meanings 'dress' and 'show', and productive EMJ causatives were formed on these verbs as kisase-, misase-. The traditional analysis of the formation is that each auxiliary has two basic variants, -sase- ~ -(a)se- and -rare- ~ -(a)re-, with the long forms attaching to the base of vowel base verbs (ake + sase; ake +rare) and the short forms attaching to the a-stem of consonant base verbs (e.g. kaka + se, sina + se; kaka-re, sina-re), but the analysis usually assumed for NJ is equally possible for EMJ, positing for each auxiliary a uniform shape, -sase- and -rare-, whose initial consonant is deleted after a base final consonant (e.g. kak + sase => kakase-, sin + sase => sinase; kak + rare => kakare-, sin + rare => sinare).
(...) The EMJ causatives and passives seem to reflect a further morphologization of the derivational suffixes -(a)s- 'transitive' and -(a)r- 'intransitive'. (...)

Arfrever (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)