Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/November

< Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium

gesprek edit

Could someone verify the etymology starting from the Middle Dutch? I have brought it somewhat more in line with the resources at the Etymologiebank, but I'm not completely sure that I have accurately represented whatever the EWN tries to say about Middle Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

r rotunda edit

How old is this term? The earliest English mentions I can find are from the 1880s and 1890s; is it older than that, in English? The oldest (and only) instance I can find in Latin is from 1423. (See Citations:r rotunda.) It's hard to search for because there are lots of scannos and hits for taxonomic names abbreviated "R. rotunda". - -sche (discuss) 19:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Latin quotation is actually from the treatise Quedam regule de modo titulandi seu apificandi pro novellius scriptoribus copulate, which in some editions of De laude scriptorum (e.g. here) is appended to it. There are also standalone editions, like this 19th-century (!) manuscript. (Google Books' search does not work here, but the term is found split over lines 10 and 11 of the third page counting from the end.)  --Lambiam 20:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego#Spanish edit

The etymology section gives one derivation, and a secondary erroneous one, and then the definition claims a third - needs rearranging at least. John Womble (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Galician section claims the Didacus etymology based on this source.
As for the Spanish section: the edit history shows a rather peculiar combination of origins for the different parts. The original version had no etymology, but had the definition: "a male given name, thought to be diminutive of Santiago". The etymology in the definition was added in this 2017 edit by User:Gnobrixs, who has made a couple dozen edits at the Portuguese and English Wikipedias on Galician and Portuguese subjects, but nothing else here. The part of the Spanish etymology about Didacus was moved from the English entry at San Diego, where it was originally added in this 2008 edit by User:Rsvk, who then created the entry for Didacus, with an etymology claiming that Didacus was a "Latinization of vulgar Diago", sourced from behindthename.com. I have no idea where they got that from. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian ალი (ali) edit

Ok, the word means blaze. It's even attested in Old Georgian in Martyrdom of Saint Habo (written late 8th century), so I don't know how to conclude an etymology. There seem to be either cognates or borrowings: Mingrelian and Laz ალი and Svan ჰელ. ე in Svan maybe developed from the ა umlaut, but I do not know any further. Word of same phonology can be found in Ottoman Turkish as آل (al, “crimson”), but the meaning is... close but not so, however, I can also say that the derived Georgian word ალ-ის-ფერი (Color of Blaze) is crimson indeed, so the similarity may be a coincidence or may not. What do you all think about this? Are there other such words, which are not ultimately borrowed from Ottoman Turkish? Does Crimson -> Blaze or Blaze -> Crimson actually make sense if it were borrowed? Klimov doesn't reconstruct any GZ or CK ancestors. Thank you! -Solarkoid (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solarkoid: Ottoman Turkish آلو (alev) / Azerbaijani alov mean fire. Also Old English āl. Fay Freak (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proto-Turkic *yal- makes sense o.o; Thank you! Wonder if its actually a borrowing or just a coincidence... I swear if it's the latter.. -Solarkoid (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is also attested in Luke 16:24 (...ვიარები ალსა მას შინა). Such early borrowings from Turkic are not possible. --Vahag (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahagn Petrosyan So you're saying it couldn't be a Turkic borrowing (so Turkic languages weren't close to Georgia around 5th to 8th centuries?). So huh... Is Proto Kartvelian reconstructable then? -Solarkoid (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turkic borrowings start appearing in our region only after Seljuk invasions in the 11th century. I don't know if Proto-Kartvelian is reconstructible. In any case, the similarity can be accidental. --Vahag (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why however, if your Northern neighbours were the Khazars. Turkic borrowings at that time must have been similarly likely to the occasional Northeast Caucasian borrowing. Besides I am not convinced that Middle Iranian didn’t have Turkic borrowings; while many people are interested in portraying it like this, on the other hand Iranian borrowings are assumed in Proto-Turkic and for Proto-Slavic claims of Iranian words – to which ватра “fire” supposedly belongs – are not even rare, though the connection is much remoter. We even have even demonstrated Mongolic loanwords in Old French and Old English with valerian and quiver. On the Chinese side there must also be candidates for so early Turkic words, given the constant threat from the Northwest, or “para-Turkic” languages or similar, “Altaic” languages sharing wanderwörter with Turkic. Fay Freak (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making a brief search, the only work I spotted offhand which discussed Turkic alev together with anything like ali or al was this, which is not about Georgian but rather Dravidian, and which seems questionably reliable (it says this, seeming to compare clearly unrelated languages and words, like Latin adoleō, which it also appears to misdefine). However, it does make one suggestion which might interest us, which is that similar-ish words in Dravidian and/or Sanskrit might ultimately stem from Persian الو (which in turn [according to our entry] borrowed it from Turkic), if it's worth considering whether Georgian could have borrowed from Persian rather than directly from Turkic. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{R:TMN|pages=357–358|vol=III}} discusses the relationship of Persian and Turkic. It is not at all certain that the Persian is borrowed from Turkic; the opposite can be true. --Vahag (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per {{R:ira:Novak:2013|201}} there is also Sogdian ʾʾrʾβ (/⁠ālā̆β⁠/, “flame”). --Vahag (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

abut edit

This entry is currently split into two etymology sections, like this:

ety section 1 ety section 2
(definition) "touch by means of a mutual border; border on" "lean against on one end"
(claimed immediate etymon) Medieval Latin abuttare Middle English abutten
(claimed next etymon) Middle French abuter ("to touch at one end") Old French aboter ("to touch at one end"),
abouter ("to join end to end"),
abuter ("to buttress, to put an end to")
(claimed ultimate etymon) Old French but ("end"), related to a Germanic word Old French bout ("end")

The source for a split appears to be Webster's Third (and/or the Shorter OED?). However, there are a number of problems here. The Middle English Dictionary has abutten only in sense 1, the opposite of what our entry is claiming. It's also far from obvious that abuter ("to touch at one end") and aboter ("to touch at one end") are etymologically separate words as opposed to two spellings of the same word, and similarly far from obvious that but ("end"), said to be related to Germanic, and bout ("end"), which we and fr.Wikt say is also from Germanic, are separate words. Indeed, fr.Wikt says OF but is but a variant of bout. And pace the 1976 / 1909 Webster's, the modern Merriam-Webster treats both "border on" and "lean on for support" as having one etymology, Middle English abutten from Anglo-French abuter from bout, but. Would anyone like to argue a split is correct, and clean up some of the details (such as, ety 1 coming from Middle English), or should we consider these to have just one etymology? - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the TLFi entries for abuter, abouter and aboter, the words / senses were overlapping / sometimes interchangable already in (Middle) French. Straightening this out will require care. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vison edit

RFV of the etymology. – Jberkel 10:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster says "perhaps of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German wisula weasel", which seems more plausible than wisunt (“bison”), although the latter is claimed as the etymology of the French word and its Spanish cognate in Edward A. Roberts' Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Spanish. This page on taxonomic names and Joseph F. Merritt, Ruth Anne Matinko, Guide to the Mammals of Pennsylvania (1987), page 283, say the origin is unclear but possibly from a Swedish or Icelandic word for 'weasel' (although the book thinks vison is an Icelandic or Swedish word for weasel, which is wrong); the book suggests Latin visor 'scout' as another possibility. TLFi says "perhaps from Vulgar Latin *viso, -onis, variant of [...] visio 'fart', vissio 'stench'". Apparently the etymology is quite uncertain. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though American minks are said to emit a skunk-like aroma (not a fart-like aroma), French vison was applied to a European marten c. 1520 and not attestably to the American mink until 1765. Articles about the European mink do not mention its aroma. I haven't checked to find whether the aroma of any European mustelid is said to be fart-like. Though Robert has the vissire, viso derivation, the attestation dates it reports and the olfactory facts don't favor that derivation IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the etymology to suggest the "weasel" and "viso" theories. Apparently European minks and martens do have scent glands near the anus, so a scent-based etymology even for the European critters is still plausible. - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many mammals, even humans, have scent glands, but relatively few have scents that are notable and fewer still scents that resemble farts. If viso really means "fart", it doesn't seem a plausible etymon. If it means "bad smell", it is much more plausible. DCDuring (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the minks' scent glands are by the anus, so I can easily imagine premodern people thinking that the smell comes from the animal's farts, even if it doesn't smell like human farts. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And how would they connect the non-fart smell with the anus? DCDuring (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the disagreement is merely over how to gloss the Latin word (or if there is a semantic difference between visio and vissio), it would help if someone brought some Latin resources to bear in creating the relevant Latin entries, with definitions; TLFi's glosses (in French, translated above) could be a little off. - -sche (discuss) 11:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From FEW 14 p. 540:
vĭssio gestank.
1. Iltis. a. Versanne, HLoire vezu “putois”, stéph. vezon V, for. “id.; méchante femme” b. Alütt. wixhat m. “putois” (15.–16. jh.) […]
Lt. vĭssio “gestank” (zu vissere “furzen”) besteht auch in der Form visio (in glossen). Es ist im gallor. zur bezeichnung des iltis geworden, vgl. fr. putois, d. stinktier, s. oben 15). a geht auf visio, b auf vissio zurück.
It doesn't mention anywhere that visio means “fart”, but “stench”. – Jberkel 13:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should at least include "stench" in the etymologies involved. But aren't there some authoritative sources that connect the vis terms with fart? Or was I just misled by the pipe for vesse above. DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
vesse is how TLFi glosses visio. Perhaps they picked it as the etymologically-related word rather than the most semantically correct one. - -sche (discuss) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

戻る edit

もとる and もどる, somehow related? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Huhu9001: See also this recent post at the Japanese Stack Exchange.
Summary points:
  • Modern 戻る (modoru) was also found in older texts without voicing as もとる (motoru).
  • Both 戻る (modoru) and 悖る (motoru) have the same pitch accent 2, [mòdóꜜrù] and [mòtóꜜrù].
  • Semantically, I can't think how they'd be related: 戻る (modoru) with its intransitive sense of "to return to an initial state or place", and its transitive counterpart 戻す (modosu, “to return something to an initial state or place”), both seem very likely to derive from noun 元 (moto, “origin”). Meanwhile, 悖る (motoru) with its transitive sense of "to bend or warp something" doesn't seem at all related, and almost seems instead like it might be も (mo, here, of uncertain meaning) + 取る (toru, “to take something”).
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr: On the contrary I do see a semantic relation here: "to go back" - "to go against", if "to go against" was an earlier meaning of 悖る, as suggested by the Chinese character 悖 (bèi, “to go against”). -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Huhu9001: Digging more, I was finally able to dig up the KDJ entry here, indicating that yes, they are cognate as you divined from the spelling. (Due to a site redesign, Kotobank's usability got much worse -- previously, I had only found this entry, which doesn't give any detail regarding the relationship with 悖る.) Thank you for this thread! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

φαῦλος edit

The entry for φαῦλος has an Etymology section giving it as a Greek reflex of Proto-Indo-European *peh₂w-, but no source is given. The standard reference work on Greek etymology, Beekes & van Beek's "Etymological Dictionary of Greek" does not list this etymology (but instead lists the word as "Pre-Greek"), and the form doesn't seem to follow standard rules of historical linguistics. Particularly I don't see how PIE *p would become Greek /φ/. Does anyone know of any other authoritative source that has this etymology? Or should we perhaps delete it? —Pinnerup (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinnerup: the source is Meillet. I added it with an explanation of φ-. --Vahag (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Thanks! :) — This unsigned comment was added by Pinnerup (talk • contribs) at 10:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

turf war edit

RFV of the etymology. Seemingly unfounded?

82.43.61.94 23:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was originally just a sentence added to the entry back in 2004 when it was still a Wikipedia article, and later converted into an etymology. Like everything else in the Wikipedia article, it was unsourced- which was a major reason for the article being deleted there.
According to etymonline, the sense of turf referring to a territory was attested almost a decade before the first known use of turf war. That makes sense, because it's not a big stretch from land to ground to something on the surface of the ground. Also, there are expressions like "the old sod", which was used by US immigrants from the British Isles in the 19th century to refer to their former homelands, for example here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't prove anything but I thought you guys might find this interesting: Ngram viewer comparison of turf war,over turf. The more popular "turf war" became, presumably the less popular fighting "over turf" became? It seems "turf war" grew in popularity as the so-called War on Drugs ramped up. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 12:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The war on drugs began on 18 June, 1971 under Nixon. No surprise that "turf war" use trended upwards from that point onwards. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a use of the noun phrase turf war in an 1834 issue of the journal American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine,[1] and another one in a 1902 issue of Turf, Field and Farm,[2] where turf means “horse racing”. Given the meaning of the component turf in the term turf war, this is a coincidence. Should there be any early uses of turf war as meaning a (metaphorical) war played out in American football on a field of turf, surely these then are equally coincidental combinations, and not the source of the current term. The etymology is unquestionably simply turf +‎ war, with turf in the sense of a claimed territory, and war in the sense of a conflict, originally applied to conflicts between gangs over drug-dealing territories.  --Lambiam 16:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least edit

How should the entry of, for example, at the very least show its discontinuous relation to the idiom at least? Maybe at the very least ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scivolare edit

RFV of the etymology, the Latin word apparently means to hiss. {{R:it:Treccani}} says it's probably onomatopoeic. Kritixilithos (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nefandous and nefarious edit

Both seem to come from the same Latin root, can they be marked as doublets or at least reference each other? 2804:7F0:3985:4580:52:7454:9040:E61B 10:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what counts as a doublet and what does not, but they don't come from the same Latin root. Nefandous ultimately comes from Latin for, whereas nefarious is from Latin fas, which is a different word. They do both share a common Indo-European root though (*bʰeh₂-). If it was up to me I wouldn't mind having them reference one another, though I'm not sure what Wiktionary's rules are. 2601:49:C301:D810:35EA:BEC3:5D39:CCBD 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czech/Slovak pštros edit

Where does the /p/ come from? @Mahagaja? PUC – 19:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Off the top of my head, all I can think of is contamination with pták. Does anyone have a Czech etymological dictionary? —Mahāgaja · talk 20:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Metaknowledge does. PUC – 22:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of Rejzek, and you can too; it's pretty easy to find a PDF. He says: "p- přidáno ve střední době asi lid. etym. k pstrý, pestrý". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch steunen edit

I find it unlikely that the three senses have the same origin. Aren't the first two related to French soutenir? @Rua, Lingo Bingo Dingo? PUC – 21:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC According to dictionaties at the Etymologiebank, [3] [4] there are two etymologies, but both are Germanic. They don't reconstruct the meaning "to groan" for our current Proto-Germanic verb. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of local edit

We say local is borrowed from Old French (and etymonline.com concurs) but I have seen no quotations from before 1340, the arbitrary beginning year of Middle French on Wiktionary. Perhaps authorities have determined that it circulated orally before being recorded in documents that survive to modern times. Middle English Compendium[5] says it comes directly from Latin locālis rather than through French. Anybody have more to add? Absent some comment I will add a Middle English definition with Middle French as the source. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be a borrowing from an inherited Old French word since it would had underwent several sound changes, particularly /k/ > /g/ V_V (compare Spanish lugar) and an alteration of /o/. It's either a borrowing from Late Latin or from an Old French word, itself recently borrowed directly from the Latin word (as no sound change would have occurred from the borrowing from Latin until the English loan), thus it ensures the Latin etymology given that, even if through Old French, the word would have been in it for so few time to be neglected. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales says that the adjective existed in French as early as 1200 but as you say above it doesn't actually show an example until later. I've also checked a couple of Old French dictionaries, and found it in one here [[6]], showing the dates are 1314, 1324; which match the CNRTL, but not sure if the actual spelling is local, locales, or locaus. In any event, I've updated the etymology to show the ME word borrowed from Latin and possibly through Old French as well. Leasnam (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian ჟოლო (žolo) and Armenian ժոխ (žox), ժուղ (žuġ) edit

Apparently, Georgian ჟოლო (žolo, “raspberry”) is a bit of a mystery. It has no known cognates in any Kartvelian language, but is attested since Middle Georgian period. There are also dialectal variants of this term: ჟოლი (žoli), მჟვალი (mžvali) and ჟვალო (žvalo), among others.

Then, I came across Armenian ժոխ (žox), ժուղ (žuġ) (a variant?), which refer to the exact same plant (Rubus idaeus). Now, I haven't managed to find this word(s) in Old or Middle Armenian dictionaries, but they are registered in Alishan's (1895: 203-4, #842) botanical dictionary. J̌ahukyan (2010: 282a) himself says the origin of this word is unknown. In Ačaṙyan (1926: 232a-b) lists several variants of this entry or etymologically related terms, like ժօխ (žōx), ժոխուռ (žoxuṙ) and ժողուենի (žoġueni). The latter form is transparently analyzable as *ժող- (*žoġ-) +‎ -ենի (-eni, tree and shrub suffix).

I wonder if these Georgian and Armenian words share the same origin. Maybe one language borrowed from the other or the two borrowed from a common source. After all, Armenian ժ (ž) is the regular reflex of PIE *g(ʷ)ʰ only in the middle of words before *i or *e, but when found in initial position it is generally diagnostic of foreign origin. Also, given that խ (x) ~ ղ (ġ) sometimes alternate diatopically, and that ղ (ġ) < *l (either before consonant or by analogy), one can see that Georgian ჟოლო (žolo) (and its variants) and Armenian ժոխ (žox), ժուղ (žuġ) are indeed quite similar, both phonetically and semantically.

So, does anyone have any info about it, or would like to share some thoughts? Thank you. --Sorjam (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess: This is the same word as Persian زغال (zoğâl) which is used for the cornel. Fay Freak (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorjam: it looks like you made a new discovery. I will look into this over the weekend. --Vahag (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorjam: for Georgian perspective/insight: ვა <-> ო is a common change for dialects, however inbetween words, the change isn't common in standard literature and eastern dialects.. მ-C <-> 0-C where C is a certain set of consonants is also a common change, mostly the direction goes towards 0 in Georgian literature and goes back and forth in dialects, so I think it's safe to say if a form existed, it would be something like მჟოლი/ჟოლი. As for final -ო, it could be counted as a suffix kind of. So Georgian terms are easily explained. I'd personally think this was borrowed from a tertiary source. Have you checked North Caucasian languages? Between Zan and Svan there is a CK or GZ term (here at pg. 219 reconstructs *imaɣa-) with Svan Zanism, but the term isn't identified in Georgian. There IS a word in Old Georgian: ჟოლა (žola) "და კედრი ვითარცა ჟოლა რომელი იშვების ველთა ზედა (da ḳedri vitarca žola romeli išvebis velta zeda)" -> "and cedars [to be as common as] sycamores which grow in the plains". Then in turn Sulkhan Saba writes that they meant Sycamore Figs. so it could be connected to that. In Georgian dialects, we have word (ბ)ჟოლი ((b)žoli) where () means optional, but that word means mulberry, though are they far off? Also @Vahagn Petrosyan when did ղ sound change to /gh/? That could help determine things. -Solarkoid (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solarkoid: thank you for the response. I actually knew about the Zan and Svan forms (i.e. Mingrelian იმღვა (imɣva), ინღვა (inɣva) and Svan ინღა (inɣa), all meaning “raspberry”); maybe these are the real indigenous words for this fruit, while Georgian ჟოლო (žolo) is a loan. As for Old Georgian ჟოლა (žola), I admit that it escaped me ;-), so thank you for bringing that up! At this point, I would wait for Vahagn Petrosyan and see if he can find any info. If you ask me, I also think it's more plausible that both Georgian and Armenian have borrowed this word from a third source, as you do, mainly because of the initial segment ž- which is quite rare in Georgian too (isn't it?). Maybe the other word you provided, (ბ)ჟოლი ((b)žoli), is also related to ჟოლო (žolo), personally I wouldn't find it strange. I'm still checking for similar words in North Caucasian, but until now I couldn't find anything interesting. I'll keep trying. Maybe (and this is a wild guess of mine) this word is ultimately of Turkic origin (possibly Oghuric): compare Chuvash çырла (çyrla, “berry”, here: ru. “ягода”) and the Hungarian borrowing szőlő (“grape”). However, I don't know how a Lir-Turkic word would make its way into the Caucasus (Khazars?). --Sorjam (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created ժոխ (žox) and ժողվենի (žoġveni). I do not doubt the connection of the Armenian and Georgian, but the ultimate origin is uncertain. Armenian խ (x) may come from earlier ղ (ġ) as in բոխ (box) and դոխն (doxn). The process of ղ (ł) becoming ġ started in the 9th century and was over everywhere in the 11th century. Usually, when an isolated word is found only in Armenian and Georgian, it is an Iranian borrowing, but I didn't find anything in Iranian. Fay Freak's proposal above does not fit phonetically. --Vahag (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahagn Petrosyan Thanks for the edit! I added some more alternative forms I found. the svan term I added is probably borrowed from Zan, but it looks like it could still well be a Proto-Georgian-Zan word like b/m-žol-. I asked if people knew any language which had mulberry and raspberry terms mixed up. If there are we could add that as a comparison.This is actually really interesting if the word actually reconstructs to PGZ. -Solarkoid (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solarkoid: If it does, then the Armenian is a Zan borrowing. That would agree with the dialectal distribution of the word only in the northwestern corner of our homeland. There is also Laz dzuh "the fruit of Prunus laurocerasus", which according to Bläsing is an Armenian borrowing. --Vahag (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vahagn Petrosyan, @Solarkoid: Thank you guys for your help! --Sorjam (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move Yagnobi to Yaghnobi edit

The language Yagnobi [yai] is usually spelled as Yaghnobi. Unless someone objects, could someone run a bot to replace all headers and and move all categories to this spelling? --{{victar|talk}} 06:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The form Yagnobi is mediated by Russian and does not reflect the -γ- of the original. --Vahag (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

εύκολος edit

RFV of the etymology.

The source cited on the English article does not provide an etymology for εύκολος but instead refers the reader to the entry for δύσκολος. The entry for δύσκολος says that the etymology is unknown.

For reference, I found a PDF of the book here: https://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/Rechnici/Etymolog_Greek.pdf — This unsigned comment was added by Hb2007 (talk • contribs) at 21:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Sobreira — Beekes refers the reader to δύσκολος for (I think) the simple reason that this saves space in this 1850-page opus, and as the term δύσκολος comes before εὔκολος in the alphabetical order of the entries, this backwards reference is the more conventional one. But -κολος (-kolos) meaning “keeper, tender, watcher”? The link following “Allegedly” in the etymology section for Ancient Greek δύσκολος (dúskolos) alleges nothing of the sort. Are there other instances of this being used as a suffix? Even if there are, it is hard to see how “[being a] good keeper” would develop into the sense “easy”. The only meaning I can find for κόλος (kólos) on its own is as an adjective meaning “docked”. [Aside: we define the verb dock as meaning “to cut off a section of an animal's tail”, but I think this is too anatomy-specific. Merriam–Webster has “to cut (part of an animal, such as the ears or a tail) short”. Here are some uses in which the parts that are docked (or not) are horns: [7], [8], [9].] FWIW, the Greek Wiktionary analyzes the etymology of Ancient Greek εὔκολος as “< εὖ + Proto-Indo-European *kʷel- (“to turn”)”. If correct, it means that in this context PIE kʷ somehow escaped the regular phonetic development to π or τ.  --Lambiam 22:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's βουκόλος (with dissimilation of gw-kw- to gw-k already in PIE), but that's clearly not the same element as in δύσκολος. So I'd say that (except for the prefixing with δυσ-/εὐ-) the etymology is unknown. --Akletos (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bucolic sense of “herder” is semantically not very distant from “keeper, tender, watcher”, so that is probably the origin of this claim. But I agree, this has nothing to do with the mystery element in εὔ-/δύσκολος.  --Lambiam 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

go to hell edit

Ety tagged as needing sourcing, presently reads:

"The expression dates back to Old English, where it literally meant to go to Hēl, who was the Goddess of Hell (also called Hēl). It was not an insult."

This sounds like tosh to me, but I suppose you never know. Mihia (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like nonsense to me as well. My guess is that some neopagan wants to 'reclaim' the phrase or something. I can understand why such individuals seize on Old Norse a lot, but I'm not sure why so many of them cease on Old English, given its actual history. Seems a bit arbitrary. Tharthan (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our friendly incompetent and since-banned UtherPendrogn (talk • contribs) added that on 2016-09-18. Given their questionable editing history and other issues, I'm inclined to suggest that we nuke this go to hell etymology and get back to our usual business. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Etymonline (and miscellaneous Google Books) says the phrase goes back at least to Shakespeare ("let Fortune go to hell for it, not I"). It's conceivable that the phrase also existed in Old English, but we'd need a source, and I suspect all the stuff about the goddess Hel can just be dropped as unimportant. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about heck -- I read a while back that this word came about due to Mount Hekla's reputation as the gateway to Hell. See also w:Hekla#Reputation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new thread for "heck" immediately below. Mihia (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's attested in sense 1 (the {{&lit}} sense) since at least Wycliffe's early Bible c. 1384(?), Mark 9.42, and a c. 1475 line "the pore went to heyuyn, þe rych to hel" (examples from the MED). It wouldn't surprise me if such literal use went all the way back to Old English. I can find "Hí sculon gán libbende on helle" in Old English, but not yet any examples of "to". The connection between hell and Hel still seems like something to discuss at hell, not here. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus mentions a female figure referred to as seo hell. The article "Hel our Queen": An Old Norse analogue to an Old English female Hell in The Harvard Theological Review 76:2 (April 1983), pp. 263–268, speculates (as expressed in the subtitle) that the hell of the Nicodemus gospel, an apparently female chthonic figure, may be identified with the Old Norse Hel, the female keeper of Helheim, the Underworld. The name is etymologically related to conceal. The theory of an Old English saying is IMO UtherPigwashn. Even in the unlikely case that some phrase meaning “go to Hel” can be attested in Old English, there is no reason to assume it is a progenitor of the modern malediction.  --Lambiam 12:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

heck edit

Ety presently reads:

"Alteration of hell, possibly under influence of fuck."

After a quick search I can find no informed support for the suggestion that "fuck" is in any way involved (other than as armchair retro-etymology). Even the theory that the word originated as an alteration of "hell" is questioned, with one or two people suggesting that it may originally derive from Scottish hech, which was then co-opted to serve as a euphemism for "hell". Mihia (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, updated. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 01:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any relation at all to Hekla? Also, our entry indicates a first appearance in English only in the 1800s -- anything earlier? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other dictionaries are all over the map: Dictionary.com says "first recorded in 1850-55", Merriam-Webster says the first known use was 1887, and Etymonline says it's "by 1865". (The EDD has a cite from 1899.) The polysemy (existence of ety 2) makes it hard to search for. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the descendants of the PIE suffix "-n̥kʷos" in the Czech language if there are any? edit

Me and my friend would like to know whether there is any PIE suffix "-n̥kʷos" descendats in the czech language, we feel like "-uha" in "ostruha" could be it, in other slavic languages it is something like "Ostroga", we are not 100% sure though, so we would like to know more, so if you could confirm it, or tell us if anything else could be it, if it is not our example. — This unsigned comment was added by EpikbearCZ (talk • contribs) at 14:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Off the top of my head, I would expect a Proto-Indo-European *-n̥kʷos to become Proto-Slavic *-ękъ, which in turn would presumably become Czech -ík (or -ék after l). But it would be best to find one or more actual words ending in this suffix and see how they developed in Slavic in general and Czech in particular. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

widower edit

I was under the impression that the etymology of widower was widow + wer (Middle English word for a male person), that is, the masculine equivalent of a widow, instead of widow + -er (suffix used to form an agent noun). A widower isn't a person who creates (or performs actions on) widows, in the similar sense that a murderer is a person who creates (or actions) murders. Can this etymology perhaps be double-checked? Thanks. --benlisquareT•C 00:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EtymOnline says "extended from widow (n.). The Old English masc. form was widewa." If it were really widow + wer, you'd expect that to have been the case in Old English, but it isn't. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theory : Nanos(grk) is cognate to Nanha (hindi) edit

In nanos page it was suggested to be onomatopaiec and nanha is seen as possibly derived from shlakshna. what if both are wrong and nanos and nanha are cognates (just wondering) LolPacino (talk) — This unsigned comment was added at 16:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

For anyone interested in pursuing this, the words in question are νᾶνος (nânos, “dwarf”) and नन्हा (nanhā, “little, small”). —Mahāgaja · talk 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis for calling νᾶνος (nânos) an onomatopoeia? DTLHS (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably its reoccurring in words like nanny, ня́ня (njánja), etc., and maybe also because of it not having the first vowel as η (ē). Although I doubt that while this sound sequence is used by children for adults that care for them it could likewise be used by adults for children (“dwarfs”) or by children for smaller children. Besides Beekes’ statement that it is “an onomatopoeic word of unknown origin” is illogical (as many things in his etymological dictionary). Either it is regarded onomotopoeic or it is regarded of unknown origin. Fay Freak (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Beekes' work is regarded as borderline silly, should we be including it in our references without any comment? Our entry at Ancient Greek νᾶνος (nânos) presents Beekes' etymology as the unquestioned truth, but the comment above makes me think our entry needs reworking. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theory :There survive cognates of he in (some)Indo Iranian Languages edit

He is derived from PIE *kis. .*kis's Indo Iranian descendents are not seen by me on the *kis page. In Eastern Indo Aryan language Bengali exists সে/she meaning "he". Cognate of সে also exists in another Eastern IA lang Assamese as সি = xi (x as in ch of German) ,meaning the same thing. Could these be cognates of English he? They kinda follow the satemization rule of k->sh(and further sh->x in Assamese). — This unsigned comment was added by LolPacino (talk • contribs) at 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It feels more plausible that it's a reshaping of Old Indic [i]sa[/i] on the analogy of the proximal pronoun ই (i). The meaning argues against derivation from PIE *ḱis. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

out edit

(mostly copied from -sche's talk page, where I initially raised this question)

Re: the etymolog(y/ies) of senses 2 and 3 of the verb—

The most common explanation that I have seen presented claims that sense 3 originated as an extension of sense 2.

But mightn't we have another etymological situation similar to jerk on our hands (I reference how it appears that: 1. it could be from jerkwater, 2. it could be from a verbal phrase for self-gratification, 3. it could be from jerkwater but then influenced by a verbal phrase for self-gratification, or 4. it could be from a verbal phrase for self-gratification and then later influenced by jerkwater)?

Phrasing such as truth will out and out in the open is long-established. Moreover, the way that a (word that originates as a) colloquialism develops can sometimes be quite surprising. Case in point: throw down the gauntlet all of a sudden yielded throw down in contemporary slang after existing as a phrase in English (and the former phrase was not an especially "go-to phrase" for children/teenagers in the late 20th century, unless I have forgotten something) for hundreds of years.

So couldn't senses 2 and 3 just as easily have come about independently, and then one perhaps influenced the other later on? Is there any reason why that isn't about as likely as the commonly presented explanation? Tharthan (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen the suggestion that (indeed, the motivation for an earlier RFD of sense 2 was the belief that) sense 2 is just a specialized narrowing of sense 3, but Mahagaja (Angr) said in the RFD that sense 2 is older, which if true would disprove that theory. Dbfirs says the OED's examples of the two senses are mere months apart which hardly seems conclusive (as far is which one is really earlier, since one could easily have existed for a few months in speech prior to being recorded somewhere), but which might suggest that both could have originated 'independently', as you say, from some abrupt move by speakers to use out as a verb for ~"reveal, bring out". Although, there is a certain parsimony to thinking that once speakers used one of the two senses, the other is extended (or narrowed) from it. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, "to out the truth (about)", a transitive counterpart to "truth will out" using "out" as a transitive verb for ~"reveal", appears to be old (older than the LGBT+ sense), but upon closer inspection all the non-recent examples Google Books turned up are scannos (conflating columns, etc) where the actual book has "find out the truth about" or something. Surprising (in spite of the fact that that's also apparently what the OED found). - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

responsibility edit

I note that neither we nor the OED have an etymology for this word. Is it really response + ability or can we trace it to a specific word in a European language? Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original OED (vol VIII, part 1, p. 542) said "See next [responsible] and -ity. So French responsabilité, Italian -ita, Spanish -idad." For French, TLFi says it was formed as responsable +‎ -ité in 1783 and points out the similar English responsibility from 1766 without giving it as a source. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But treccani.it does call out the sequence of coinage: responsabilità s. f. [der. di responsabile, sull’esempio del fr. responsabilité, che a sua volta è dall’ingl. responsibility]. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That's very helpful. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aksai Chin edit

RFV of the etymology. RcAlex36 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks like the second word should be from चीन. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindi entry अक्साई चिन (aksāī cin) created by @AryamanA suggests it is of Turkic origin. Is it ultimately from Turkic (e.g. Uyghur) or Sanskrit? RcAlex36 (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
w:Aksai_Chin#Name mentions several theories, with references. - -sche (discuss) 10:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theory : Hindi (etc) Lota / लोटा and English lather are cognates both derive from PIE lówh₃trom edit

Lówh₃trom is from *lewh₃- (“to rinse, wash, bathe”) + *-trom Lota means pot,it is connected to the meaning of *lewh₃. Lather is known to be derived from lówh₃trom. I definitely feel it is the same case for hindi lota too It could have been something like Lotra/Lotram in Sanskrit ,which wouldve descend from PIE lówh₃trom — This unsigned comment was added by LolPacino (talk • contribs) at 18:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Chuck, Meta or other editors: what do you think, is this the same user who used to spam this page with theories about every incidental similarity, in which case we might just go back to deleting the posts, or is this a new user doing a merely similar thing? - -sche (discuss) 10:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

street edit

Doesn't this word derive from Anglian strēt rather than West Saxon strǣt? --RichardW57 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It probably derives from a mixture of both Anglian and West Saxon forms; note that Early Modern English has streat/streate besides street/streete. --Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the etymology at street to include both spellings, and have removed the tag. Leasnam (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ささめゆき edit

@Suzukaze-c conjectures: “sasa (≒ 細やか) + me (< 目?) + yuki (雪) ?”

I wonder if it isn't more likely 私語(ささめ) (sasame, “murmur; whisper”) + 雪(ゆき) (yuki, “snow”). There is apparently, per KDJ, a (dialectal?) term 細目(ささめ) (sasame), which means “fine wood grain” (細かい木目). In either case, it seems to be attested from the 15th century, again per KDJ.

ささめ雪(ゆき)ふりしく宿(やど)の庭(にわ) ― sasameyuki furishiku yado no niwa ― fine snow scattered in the garden of my lodging (Kokin Uchigiki 1438)

Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My local copy of Daijirin lists this as ささめ-ゆき 【細雪】 on the headline, including a hyphen in the reading to indicate the morpheme boundary. Same for my dead-tree KDJ. My local copy of the SMK5 lists the word as ささめ ゆき 《細雪, using a space for the morpheme boundary and including the 《 marker to indicate a rare kanji + reading combination. None give any further information about etymology.
The DJR and SMK5 have no independent entries for ささめ (sasame). The KDJ does, in fact there are two two senses, but neither seems relevant -- one just refers to the 笹 (sasa) type of dwarf bamboo and similar wetland grasses; the second sense uses the word as an alternative for 波 (nami, “wave”), apparently by extension.
That said, I think the sasame "bamboo; grass plants" and sasame- in sasameyuki are probably both from 細 (sasa, “small, slight”) + 目 (me, literally “eye”), but also used as a suffix on adjectives to indicate amount or degree, vaguely similar to English -ness. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nao edit

RFV of the etymology. Are we certain that nao was borrowed from Chinese 孬 (nāo)? Or is nao a native Vietnamese word? RcAlex36 (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

produce edit

Why are the two English etymologies of produce separated? I think they are both the same etymology. AnotherNeko (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and am merging them. It would make sense IMO to separate them if the noun had been derived from the verb at some stage before Modern English, but it in fact it was already the modern era when the noun emerged. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

狼藉 edit

RFV of the etymology. 

传说狼群常在草地上卧息，离去时常将草地弄得一片凌乱以灭迹。后用此语形容凌乱不堪。

Is this a folk etymology? 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

狼藉 looks like some sort of reduplication to me. The reconstructed Old Chinese pronunciations of the two syllables have similar finals. Relating 狼藉 to wolves is probably folk etymology, just like relating 首鼠 to mice. RcAlex36 (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@恨国党非蠢即坏: You may be interested in 释“狼藉”, which supports the view that 狼藉 is a 連綿詞. RcAlex36 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

corwg, coracle vs curach, currach edit

The Welsh corwg and its apparent English descendant coracle differ from the Irish curach/currach. So, it's unfounded idle musing, but I wonder if an influence on the modification from "cur-" to "cor-" in the Welsh corwg, was partly that it seemed natural when "cor-" means "dwarfy" (so "corgi" = "cor-" + "ci", "dwarfy-dog")? Given cwch means boat, wouldn't it seem natural that a "corwch" was a "dwarfy boat"? --DewiMorgan (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Various words at Category:Cebuano terms derived from English edit

Looking back at the aftermath of a discussion on the etymology the Cebuano entry takilya, I think we need to verify and fix the etymology of hundreds of Cebuano loanwords at Category:Cebuano terms derived from English that are really borrowed from Spanish.

The etymologies of these entries below are somehow suspicious. Many are just tagged as from English just because they're made to "sound" Spanish from the English as the guy who added those etymologies insists (which is mostly not the case, especially if taking history and/or obvious clues in account):

A few have etymologies that are somewhat borderline, due to possible ancestors being very similar in pronunciation (plus a common ancestor or root in Latin and/or Greek). Main differences for possible candidates are spelling and stress:

A few words that sound Spanish can be safely said to be from English by making them sound Spanish, usually rooted to poor knowledge of proper Spanish among Filipinos since the decline of Spanish following WWII.

@Atitarev, DTLHS, Fay Freak, Mar vin kaiser, Metaknowledge With the exception of those that rather derived from English as pseudo-Hispanisms (or "siyokoy"), can you help resolve the cases above, plus others that can be ascertained to be from Spanish from the way they're spelled and pronounced? I'll also take a look on others that may fall under the category of "siyokoy" to add to the previous 5 examples. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev, DTLHS, Fay Freak, Mar vin kaiser, Metaknowledge This is going to be a week old, and inputs needed. Have looked up 19th-century Spanish dictionaries as indirect evidence, I think kapital (in the sense of investment), karakter, and kondisyon is certainly borrowed from Spanish.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TagaSanPedroAko: I mean, I agree with you. I want to see what other people think. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know the guy who added the etymologies of the words in question helped with increasing the coverage of the Philippines's second most widely spoken language (now, there are 13,000+ Cebuano/Bisaya entries), but it's all absurd to claim that many words that are logically and historically borrowings from Spanish are rather from English. @Mar vin kaiser: It baffles me why he would claim demokrasya is from English (ignoring the fact Filipino already knew of democracy before the revolution), so are edukasyon (considering formal education has been in the Philippines for long). Regarding words describing concepts that may have only been introduced to Bisaya-speaking areas during the American era, such as industrialization, electricity, technology, pop culture, etc., that can be debatable, but considering the Spanish language continued to exist in the Philippines after the revolution and is still a major source of borrowings to fill vocab gaps in PHL languages, industriya, poste, and teknolohiya being Spanish borrowings is more plausible than the claims of being derived from the similar-looking English via "hispanicization".-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TagaSanPedroAko: I am not confident enough to say for sure. We had discussions before about Tagalog and Cebuano etymologies where there is a mix of Spanish, English and Spanish-looking loanwords. You have added quite a big list and I don't think we have more experts on the matter. We know that Tagalog/Cebuano words borrowed from English may be made looking like Spanish, which makes them also more digestable by Tagalog/Cebuano.
One previous etymology discussion, if you haven't seen it yet: Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2016/December#tatay --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the example you've provided, I can agree tatay is unlikely to be a borrowing, but a word originating from babbling. Can also say that for tata, plus potential Austronesian ancestors. It's much like the case of "mama" and "papa".
Going back, the main issue here is whether certain Cebuano words marked as English derivatives are from English or Spanish. I agree there are Spanish-sounding Tagalog and Cebuano words like the five mentioned, which are rooted in poor education in the Spanish language, but I find it illogical (and/or unhistorical) to say "demokrasya", "edukasyon", "industriya", "poste" "teknolohiya" being English derivatives. The pronunciation themselves (plus history, if applicable) give evidence these are more likely to be Spanish borrowings. We don't fully know, but it looks like there had been revisionist POV involved in the creation of the etymologies. I think the guy added those questionable etymologies under the belief the Spanish language ceased to exist in 1898 in the Philippines, which is not the historical case (see w:Spanish language in the Philippines).--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev Have also found another more recent thread, questioning the etymologies of certain Cebuano terms, tackled by Ultimateria: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/September#Cebuano. I'm certain "teknolohiya" is a borrowing of the Spanish as Ultimateria expected. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support any cleanup effort to fix these etymologies. I acknowledge that this other editor has given them a lot of thought, but it's a dubious logic at times. Ultimateria (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ultimateria: I'm all sure "kapital", "karakter" and "kondisyon" being Spanish through indirect evidence, but for the likes of "galon" and "dipterya", I think we need further discussion. Possibilities are
  • "Dipterya" is either Spanish or English, and the ultimate source can be determined by historical context, if diphtheria has been reported in 19th-century Philippines.
  • It's possible "galon" (in the sense of gallon) is from Spanish from the pronunciation, but it's still possible it's from English with pronunciation altered to make it palatable to the Cebuano tongue, and galón in the same sense cold be just an English influence (Spanish galón generally means "braid").
It's possible the guy who added the etymologies is correct certain Spanish-sounding words derive from English, but the others are rather bad overgeneralizations (so those questionable etymologies for "demokrasya", "edukasyon", "industriya"). For poste (“utility pole”), it's more plausible it a Spanish borrowing, not from English "post" (that sounds like indirect Spanish influence in my experience, though as said, it's still correct to call a power pole a post). --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ultimateria: This is also suspect: trapiko (“traffic”). This has a doublet, trapik (“traffic jam”), that obviously derives from English, but the spelling and the pronunciation itself makes this one a derivative of tráfico in the sense of "traffic". Following an old rule on translating English words to Tagalog, Cebuano or other Philippine language by borrowing a Spanish equivalent respelled to native orthography that the guy behind the questionable etymologies is misimterpeting to justify this one (and the others) is a English derivative on his POV, this is certainly from Spanish. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I would agree that trapiko probably comes from Spanish. Ultimateria (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultimateria Certainly. Trapiko being just English traffic plus final o is very implausible (and looks like nonsense). Could say that as well for most of the cases here, except where the etymology is made clear by historical evidence or is just created out of ignorance of correct Spanish. Following the old rule on borrowings from Spanish to translate English (translate the English to Spanish, then borrow the Spanish and respell it):
  • anticipation -> anticipación -> antisipasyon
  • verification -> verificación -> beripikasyon
  • distribution -> distribución -> distribusyon
  • industry -> industría -> industriya
  • capitalism -> capitalismo -> kapitalismo
  • model -> modelo -> modelo (no change in spelling)
  • facility -> facilidad -> pasilidad
  • [utility] pole -> poste [de electricidad/teléfono] -> poste [sa kuryente/telepono]
  • suggestion -> sugestión -> suhestyon
  • technology -> tecnología -> teknolohiya
  • term -> término -> termino
  • traffic -> tráfico -> trapiko
--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ultimateria I'm able to find pre-1898 dictionaries for Cebuano, the Diccionario español-bisaya and Diccionario bisaya-español, though this is somewhat complicated by the use of Bisaya as a common name of all the major Visayan languages, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Aklanon, Capiznon, Karay-a, Masbatenyo and Waray.
From what I can find, these are certainly from Spanish: edukasyon, ilusyon, imbestigasyon, industriya, kapital, kondisyon, modelo, reporma, sitwasyon, suhestyon. Completely certain galon is English, just with the pronunciation changed to match the Spanish. Dipterya is certainly a English borrowing, as there's little knowledge of the disease until the 20th century, and Spanish difteria is a later classical borrowing. Demokrasya can still be from Spanish by the spelling and pronunciation, though it didn't appear in the aforementioned dictionaries of that time (due to censorship and the idea still fresh), and could have been borrowed to Cebuano from Spanish by the early 20th century. Poste is likely Spanish, first as another word for a column or post, and the sense of "utility pole" acquired later with the introduction of the telegraph, the telephone and electricity. Trapiko is still a Spanish borrowing, even where it gained the sense of "traffic" only by the mid-20th century (that time, Spanish is still much known by most educated Filipinos even it's losing its prestige status as later generations began to be educated in English). I'll also undoing my change in "yarda", as well as fixing the Hiligaynon and Tagalog (it can be correct it's from English, just with the -a to make it sound Spanish, and Spanish "yarda" can be just a borrowing as well by adding gender endings, considering Spanish-speaking countries have long used SI).--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2020/November&oldid=72711998"