Talk:kulak

Turkic etymology

Vasmer seems to have thought so. —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 05:52 z

Вероятно, из тюрк. kulak (то же), которое восходит к тур. kоl "рука" (см. Корш, AfslPh 9, 513; Мi. ТЕl., Доп. 2, 153; Преобр. I, 409), но не из тюрк. kulaǯ "пригоршня" (вопреки Мi. ТЕl. 1, 336).[1]

I am not familiar with Vasmer and I don't agree with his assumption but I have restored your edit until there is a better explanation. We talked a lot about kulaks at school and linking to "fist" was always the obvious etymology. --Anatoli 06:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anatoli, Vasmer is the ultimate and most authoritative source on Russian etymologies. But here he meant that the sense “fist” of кулак is borrowed Turkic. The meaning “wealthy landowner” developed in Russian. I have moved the discussion of etymology to кулак. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, I did leave out the important step that R. кулак “kulak” comes from R. кулак “fist”.

But why shouldn't the English word's full etymology be given here? If we only put the immediate ancestor in each etymology, then for some words the reader wouldn't be able to see the whole picture without clicking through a half-dozen entries while taking notes. Omitting this information also leaves this entry out of categories like “Turkic derivations.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 18:33 z

Interesting question. I don't think we should put only the immediate ancestor in every etymology but should do so in case of kulak, because:

• An average user is not likely to be interested in the origin of kulak beyond the Russian etymon. Likewise, in case of English words derived from Greek I think we should bring the etymology down to the Greek source and treat the Proto-Indo-European derivation in the grc entry. More inquisitive minds can read ru or grc pages.
• It's more efficient from the point of view of harnessing the time and knowledge of our contributors to split the etymological chain between entries of different languages than to develop etymology sections parallel and often independently. English dictionaries have to mention the whole chain because they don't have an entry for кулак. We do, we are multilingual.
• Finally, not putting kulak in [[Category:Turkic derivations]] is a good thing, as the Turkic origin is disputable. Vasmer says “вероятно” and other sources derive this word from Slavic kuliti “сжимать в комок”. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:ETY has some guidelines on when to omit information from etymologies, mainly in compounds and abbreviations, and it doesn't say anything encouraging “splitting the etymological chain.” You're fooling yourself if you think you know what the “average” reader would rather not want to know about kulak. More information than this wouldn't bother Mr. Average, and, anyway, our definitive reference should include information that would satisfy most or all readers. A good reference fills in blanks that you didn't even know existed. And as a republishable, open-licence web page, the entry should be able to stand alone.

If there are possible alternative etymologies, they should be added. If believable sources disagree, then it would be valuable to cite the references. I'm happy with including this one, because the authoritative reference says “probably.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-17 19:56 z

petty bourgeoisie

I don't know, but I feel like there is some semantic overlap between kulak and petty bourgeoisie. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)