Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Etymology scriptorium

WT:ES redirects here. For help with edit summaries, see Help:Edit summary. For information about Spanish entries on Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:About Spanish.
Etymology scriptorium

Welcome to the Etymology scriptorium. This is the place to cogitate on etymological aspects of the Wiktionary entries.

Etymology scriptorium archives edit
2024

2023
Earlier years

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013
2012
2011
2010
2009


February 2024

To shake the lulav / wave the lulav[edit]

Is it a SOP or is it worth to have an own entry? Tollef Salemann (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it preferable to simultaneously perform pseudo-Finnish scatting? Wakuran (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some Swedish and Norwegian miljö, sure, but I guess it will count as some kind of Viking syncretism. I also wonder if this expression is used as some sort of euphemism, because I've heard it before a couple of times used in this way, but can't find no good examples on the Internet. Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the context, but could it be a Jewish equivalent of shake the tailfeather? Wakuran (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green's Dictionary of Slang relates cooter "vagina" to cooter "freshwater turtle". Wiktionary lists these as separate etymologies. On the third hand is coochie, from hootchy-kootchy, ultimately of unknown origin. I'm not sure whether "vagina" comes from "turtle", but compare for example clam or beaver, or for "penis" anaconda or python. Maybe the best thing would be to leave them as separate etymologies but note that etymology 2 is possibly the same as 1 or possibly from coochie? Cnilep (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this word, but if you mean this as a more general question: Yes, you can either make one etymology where you add a second paragraph saying something like "The sense '...' might alternatively be from XY". Or you make two etymologies where you say: "Possibly identical to etymology 1" and then explain the rest. Depends mainly on (a) how likely you think it that they're identical and (b) how messy and lengthy the first etymology already is. 88.64.225.53 03:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation of Latin glaciēs[edit]

Any ideas, especially about the /k/? Nicodene (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De Vaan states that “glaciēs cannot be derived from a root *ǵl- ‘to be cold’ in any meaningful way”.  --Lambiam 13:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always just assumed it was related to gelu, gelo, etc. I'm not sure about the 'c' though. Just speculating here (I am not a linguist or a Latin scholar) but could it maybe be a backformation from the verb glacio which in turn (still speculating) might be a contraction of gelu facio? Obviously this contradicts the etymology listed on the glacio page though. 2601:49:8400:26B:D1A2:319B:A05F:5919 15:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lemma forms facio and glacio may look similar, but note that they are of different verb classes: facere, glaciare. Compounds of facere remain within its class (as tepefacere). There does exist an -ifico, which is etymologically linked to facere and differs in verb class (as sanctificare). However neither family of verbs contains a member ending in -i-are the way that glaciare does. To the best of my knowledge that is only found in verbs made by suffixing -are to a noun/adj. with stem-final /i/ (anxiare < anxi[us] + -are) or made with the causative -iare.
Also I don't think there are any compounds of facio or -fico without the original /f/. Nicodene (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicodene: There is credo as a counterexample.
As for the /k/, *dʰh₁-k-yé-ti > facit is a mechanical reconstruction. Obrador-Cursach 2020 refers to Berenguer and Luján. De Vaan doesn't mention any problems with it. Since we know the fhefhaked lost the initial syllable, I don't see why this would not also work for *(ǵi-)ǵl- and I do wonder if it was replaced with conglacio, similar to cogito, cognito, cognosco, gigno, γιγνώσκω (gignṓskō) (the only counter example to the expected loss I could find). Weiss 2020 merely notes the comparison to *gel(u) but does not explain the derivation. I will admit that there are more problems with this than I can count. Kortlandt rekonstructs a PIE k-aorist (FS Lubotsky) but the review is not favourable (in Kratylos 2019). Note that De Vaan does have facies under facio and is uncertain if facetus s.v. fax is related or note but there he bluntly states that *-kʷ / -k cannot be a root extension and that *Dʰ-T would be an atypical root structure. So, nobody knows.
You might believe in Latin ci /k:i/ and no early proto-Romance. So I have to remark that Ugaritic snow (/⁠glṯ⁠/) < *ṯalg- would show a similar sound change just to explain what I mean, though upon closer inspection it is not a straight forward change. Most relevant, assibillation is attested early in epigraphy in Oscan 𐌚𐌀𐌊𐌖𐌌 (fakum), 𐌚𐌀𐌜𐌉𐌀 (façia), 𐌚𐌄𐌉𐌀 (feia), and Umbrian 𐌃𐌄𐌔𐌄𐌌 (desem), 𐌕𐌉𐌜𐌉𐌕 (tiçit), Lepontic ᛞ śan which was likely borrowed as Runic dagaz (doubtful). And suadeo, dulcis, glyco- are just, how can I say, the icing on the cake. That goes as far as *-dʰh₁- is concerned. Doesn't really explain the *k though. Hurtmeplenty (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, @ApisAzuli.
Nicodene (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds smart, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology. Unsourced and unlikely, with no basis provided for reconstruction of a *h₃ewp- root. -saph 🍏 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkel, George E. (2014), “Lexikon [Lexicon]”, in Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme [Lexicon of Indo-European Particles and Pronominal Stems] (Indogermanische Bibliothek. 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher) (in German), volume 2, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH Heidelberg, →ISBN, pages 746-51: “*súp, *súpo”
The entry would need to be thoroughly reordered. The problem is that the PIE words *úp "above" and *súp "below" are difficult to disentangle (§C). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions trace back to PIE *h₂weh₁-. 24.108.18.81 07:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin. All that's listed for etymology is "extended form of -ia." Possibly *-ih₁-t-i-eh₂, but regularly that would yield *-ītiā. -saph 🍏 04:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this hypothesis about it, but I don't know how reliable it is: "The -itiēs/-itia type seems to be a combinatory variant of the -ia used in derivation of adjectives with a monosyllabic stem (laet-itia “happiness”, iust-itia “justice”, cf. Mikkola 1964: 17, Weiss 2009: 301). However, as noted by Weiss (2009: ibidem) also disyllabic and non-adjective bases are extended with this suffix. Sometimes the reason for a creation of -itiēs lies in metrical issues (cf. Daude 2002: 232). In other forms, where the -itiēs/-itia is not a poetic creation, the -it suffix functions as enlargement of the -iēs/-ia. The origin of this enlargement is the reanalysis of the formations of the type diuit-ia as diu-itia “wealth” (cf. Daude 2002: ibidem)." ("The origin of the Latin -iēs/-ia inflection", Dariusz Piwowarczyk, page 109)--Urszag (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out how to enter this on the page stuppa as a descendant of Old French estoper. -- Espoo (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stuppa is a noun and estoper and estop are verbs. The verbs are listed as descendants of the verb stuppo. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have figured it to be a Germanic borrowing into Romance, at first, but it seems tht it might be a parallel semantic evolution. Wakuran (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English estop formally looks like Middle English estoppen (to prevent (conception), c.1425, hapax legomenon), but it also looks like the earlier and far more commonly attested Middle English istoppen (to block, obstruct), which derives from i- (perfective prefix) + stoppen, with a slight spelling modification of initial i- to e- (compare inough > enough). Leasnam (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also talk:sacatos Arlo Barnes (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English "hunt" and Slavic words like the Polish "chęć" or Russian "охота/хотеть"[edit]

could they all be cognates? wanted to check it here after pondering about the Toki Pona "alasa", but was unable to reliably trace them down to a common PIE root. although found a few hints to that in a few entries. 42.116.56.210 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Germanic *x- (*h-) and Proto-Slavic *x- don't appear to be related, from what I can see, unless Proto-Slavic borrowed a Germanic word early on, or both of the proto-languages borrowd a word from a nearby substrate languages. The Toki Pona word only seems to muddle things. Wakuran (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology.

Both the English and Danish had {{bor|nl|frm|duel}}, probably because someone copied it there from the Dutch entry. Did these two languages get the term from Middle French, like Dutch did, or did they get it directly from Medieval Latin (or by some other route)? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suppose that in the Scandinavian languages, more words have come via French or Italian than directly from Latin. Wakuran (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology for the Sanskrit. The syllabic nasal doesn't look right for the 3s, and while it might match the 1s now added, it doesn't match the 2p.--RichardW57 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually give etymologies of nonlemma forms anyway, unless they're suppletive. I'm going to just delete it. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a coincidence, but why is it that they are so similar? Shoshin000 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at խաթուն. Shoshin000 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Armenian is a borrowing from a Turkic language, so it's not much evidence of anything. If the Proto-Turkic entry is correct that it's a NW Iranian borrowing, it's not inconceivable that the same root was borrowed into Hebrew from Persian (I'm not sure which historical stage, off the top of my head), but there's Hebrew חָתָן (bridegroom, son-in-law), which mentions an Arabic term Arabic خَتَن (ḵatan, son-in-law or brother-in-law). I'm not knowledgable enough about the historical linguistics of the languages in question to do more than guess. Pinging @Fay Freak, Victar, Mahagaja, who may have something more useful to add. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It dates back to Proto-Semitic *ḫatan- (son-in-law, groom), whence also Akkadian [script needed] (ḫatannu, bridegroom, son-in-law) and Aramaic חַתְנָא (hatnā, son-in-law, bridegroom), perhaps related to Akkadian [script needed] (ḫatanu, to protect), so most likely a coincidence. --{{victar|talk}} 00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, חתונה was already around in the days of Shir HaShirim. Shoshin000 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These both refer to the same thing: grasses in the genus Lolium, also known as darnel (and mistranslated from Biblical Greek ζιζάνιον (zizánion) by the King James Version of the Bible as tares). These are botanically related to grain crops such as wheat, barley and rye, but tend to be infected with neurotoxic fungi to the point of being unsafe to eat.

Our entry for ray grass echoes Webster 1913, its source, in saying the etymology is uncertain. There is, however, a MED entry for rai/ray, which mentions Old French ivraie. Our entry for ivraie only has a modern French entry, which says it comes from Late Latin ēbriāca (drunken).

Our entry for ryegrass says it comes from rye + grass, with rye coming from "Middle English rie, reighe, from Old English ryġe, from Proto-West Germanic *rugi, from Proto-Germanic *rugiz, from Proto-Indo-European *Hrugʰís ".

I would like to propose that ray grass and ryegrass both came from the Middle English word for darnel, since the Great Vowel Shift would presumably have brought the pronunciations of this and the Middle English word for rye close enough to be mistaken for variants of the same word. After that, folk etymology would substitute the name of the better known grain for the more obscure weed name. It would be nice if we could have an Old French entry for ivraie, but I'm not sure if there's enough evidence (see ebriacus in the FEW, for instance). A Middle English entry for "rai" or "ray" would be much easier.

Thoughts? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This matches my experienced intuition. If the plant is ignored due to being unsafe then its name is also heard with a peculiarly limited frequency, which explains the changes in the Semitic forms. Though compound rye + grass is not a wrong claim either if folk etymology in fact substituted; we will be explicit about the substitution. Fay Freak (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cone of Silence[edit]

Originally area directly above radar station. Which lack signal. Borrowed into military slang, to mean quiet place, safe from eavesdropping. Popularized, on Get Smart TV show in the 1960s. 2001:558:6033:E0:69B5:E0E3:641E:455D 05:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://letterboxd.com/film/cone-of-silence/ 24.108.18.81 02:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there is no etymological description. Gambeta could come from the Italian word for leg, "gamba," given that the language has had historically a profound influence on Rioplatense Spanish, where the word comes from. Gambeta means to dribble in football (or soccer), and since that is an action that requires the use of the leg, it could make sense. Thoughts? MrPeely (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish even has the word gamba, at least locally. And RAE basically seems to agree. Wakuran (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian gambetta per Treccani has a dated sense of "sgambetto", the deverbal of sgambettare "(in sports, especially football) to trip an opponent; (figuratively) to evade". The RAE mention that the Spanish gambeta in Argentina and environs can mean "evasion" and also broadly in Latin America means "regate", which seems to be referring to sense 2 of that word, namely "(in football and other games) a feint made to get past one or more opponents without having one's ball taken". Searching hacer una gambeta on YouTube brings up various videos in Spanish showing precisely that action. The English translation that our entry gives, namely "dribble", appears to be inaccurate. Nicodene (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish drible is mentioned as a synonym in the RAE, but the explanation 'finta' seems to indicate but both word mainly are used for feints. (Or possibly that Spanish doesn't make the same explicit distinction as English.) Wakuran (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-West Germanic *wīk and Proto-Germanic *wīkō[edit]

There must be some kind of confusion here. My understanding is that the West Germanic masculine for "village" is from Latin vicus, whereas the (also) North Germanic feminine for "inlet" is from *wīkwaną (to recede). But even if this were not so, there is definitely something wrong here, because there is conflicting information in both entries and the descendants are mixed up. Finally, I wonder if the form *wīkō isn't wrong to begin with. The Auslautgesetze may be correct for English and Norse (are they?), but at least in Middle Dutch/Low German such a form should yield *wīke, not wīk. 92.218.236.121 14:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The early Middle Dutch wijc was feminine, which later became masculine (still Middle Dutch). In Middle Low German it's a little more complex. There the word wîk is neuter or feminine. However, there is a similar word Middle Low German wī̂ke, wike f that means "inlet, bight" which is of uncertain origin, possibly (if the above is correct (?)) derived from *wīkwaną. The Dutch and Low German terms that ultimately come from vicus appear to have undergone a gender shift at Proto-West Germanic *wīk, from a possible original *wīku (feminine) to *wīk (masculine/neuter). Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I know what OP means. *wīkō is the term that means "bight, inlet" and is the ancestor of the Old Norse, Middle Low German term mentioned above, and Old English wīc f (inlet). Which leaves the Proto-West Germanic *wīk as a separate term. Is this correct ? Our etymology at *wīkō states otherwise. Leasnam (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I thought I was quite clear, but no problem. There are two things:
1.) The two terms are likely not of the same origin. Several dictionaries say so. For example, De Vries in Nederlands Etym. Woordenboek: "te vergelijken met mnd. wīk, oe. wīc, on. vīk ‘bocht’, een afl[eiding] van wijken."
2.) The form *wīkō should yield *wīke in both Middle Dutch and Middle Low German, but in both languages only e-less forms seem attested. That's a bit problematic, but admittedly less important than point 1. Could it perhaps be **wīkwiz? [Edit: Sorry. I do now see that MLG has "wîke" also. Okay, that minimizes the problem, although MLG also likes to add -e to feminines. So I'm still not 100% convinced.] 92.218.236.121 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They now show different origins (*weyḱ- "village" vs. *weyk- "to bend, curve"). I considered a reconstruction in **wīkwiz also, and wondered why there was no -w- on Proto-Germanic *wīkō, but the downside is that there aren't sufficient early attestations in West Germanic, except for Old English wīc. The only other one we have is Old Norse vík which suggests *wīkō. Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To complicate things further, there is also Middle Dutch wike, wijc and Middle Low German wîke, wîk meaning "fleeing, flight" derived from Proto-West Germanic *wīkwan which may have absorbed some of the aforementioned's senses of "shelter, hiding place" (< sense of "harbour, haven" ? - I'm not sure) Leasnam (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leasnam This question is super confusing because wick, wike, vīc, etc. have so many meanings, spelling variations, and back-and-forth borrowing. I am therefore not certain but am still enclined to think that you are mistaken about Proto-West Germanic *wīku: it is not plausible that Old English vīc (bay) would have a Middle English descendant wike (corner of mouth), which would have a Modern English and Scots descendants wick (bay). The Middle English is clearly from Old Norse vik[1] in munnvik (corner of mouth) and augnavik (corner of eye) and there is no Middle English *wike (bay) or similar in the OED. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've moved the descendants meaning "corner, cleft" to *wīkwaną under the descendants of Old Norse *vik (bend, angle). Leasnam (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems better!
Tangential question: I don't think there is a policy for glossing words in desc-trees and der-trees. The natural assumption for a reader then is that all words mean the same. Wouldn't it be sensible to say terms need to be glossed if the meanings have changed in any way? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. Yet I will most often omit glosses even if there is a change in meaning so long as it's clear that the term evolved from the earlier. I think too many glosses can make a page look too busy yet what you've done at *wīkwaną looks good. Leasnam (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful if there are homonyms from different roots, though. Wakuran (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some papers of Norwegian researchers about this stuff, but i'm afraid to touch them. It seems as a big discussion in linguist society, related to origins of the word 'viking'. The Latin origin is very doubtful, but i don't get the rest of what they're talking about. Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

алчный (alčnyj)[edit]

In September 2023 an anonymous user added an unsourced etymology for this term as supposedly descending from Old East Slavic "алъчьныи", which in turn goes back to Proto-Slavic *olčьnъ. Isn't it much more likely to be a loan from Old Church Slavonic? There's a lack of liquid metathesis, which according to the page for *olčьnъ didn't happen in OCS and Bulgarian, it seems unlikely for this change to coincidentally also be missing in Russian as well. Moreover, the verb from which this adjective derives, *olkati, is mentioned to reflect in Russian as лакать (lakatʹ), whereas the counterpart without liquid metathesis алкать (alkatʹ) has written in its etymology that it's a loan from OCS. Presumably the same holds for алчный. Kasper486 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is OCS for sure. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it may be an OCS borrowing into OES. Maybe mister Zaliznyak has any idea? Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-West-Germanic *welkēn: definition and descendants[edit]

The PWG definition for *welkēn (sense 1) is "to welt, whither." Usage notes on wither and whither explicitly warn that the two words should not be confused with each other. Am I being rash, or is it an error that this word is defined as "whither?" Descendants include Dutch welken and German welken which both mean "wither." Additionally, the etymology for "whither" is completely different, citing *hwadrê as its earliest origin.

I'm ultimately trying to find the correct etymology for German welken and I think the line to *welkēn is correct. Just wanted someone else to check this too. Ethanspradberry (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely just a spelling error; I've fixed it. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philandering philanderers[edit]

I'm wondering when how the word philander and its closest relatives underwent a gender swap. Ancient Greek φίλανδρος (phílandros, adjective) and φιλανδρία (philandría, noun) are generally applied to women, either in a positive sense meaning "(having) love for one's husband" or in a negative sense meaning "(exhibiting) excessive attraction to males, sluttiness, boy craziness". But in modern English, a philanderer is a man who seduces a lot of women. How and when did that rather startling semantic shift happen? —Mahāgaja · talk 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Etymonline, Philander was used as a name for flirtatious characters in 18th Century stories, perhaps misinterpreted as 'A man of love'. Wakuran (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Φίλανδρος was also the name of the mythological son of of the nymph Acacallis and the god Apollo. The name Philander has been given as a masculine name. Johann Michael Moscherosch used Philander von Sittewald as a pseudonym.  --Lambiam 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've update the etymology accordingly. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persian "صدا" sound[edit]

Hi, What is the etymology of this word?
-1.In الألفاظ الفارسية المعربة by Addai Scher it says "(الصدی) تعریب سدا"
-2.In Borhan- e. Ghate and Dehkhoda say the same for سدا .
-3.Steingass says "سدا sadā (probably for Ar. صدا, not vice versâ, as the Burhāni qāt̤īʻ says in the text), Echo."
So what is the ultimate etymology for this word? Is it Persian or Arabic? Kamran.nef (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamran.nef: Arabic. See now how we etymologize the root ص د و (ṣ-d-w). Fay Freak (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak Thanks, but what about "الألفاظ الفارسية المعربة" by Addai Scher? Is it reliable in general? Kamran.nef (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamran.nef: I have not used or read it yet, though the author should be knowledgeable. Normally no book listing lots of Persian words in Arabic is reliable, particularly before our generation, because these books are compiled by gathering terms through chains of mentions, which does not allow respect to frequency and context in which a word appears, to say nothing about the required specialist nature of Iranian studies, which few libraries adequately provide. Long into the 20th century philologist works are in a medieval state and end up stating “Persian” words in Arabic when the Arabic words are more likely from Middle Iranian forms behind the Persian. But since they started under the title “Arabicized Persian words” they sweep together as many as they can get, bending the facts to the favour of the premise! See also User talk:Agamemenon#Armenian etymologies Fay Freak (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We automatically transliterate Arabic صَدًى, which ends on an alif maqṣūrah, as “ṣadan”. Where does the final ⟨n⟩ come from?  --Lambiam 21:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: From nunation, as the ى or ا is part of the stem and not significative of feminine. a(y/w)u, a(y/w)a a(y/w)i are illegal sequences. The nunated contraction is also more likely pronounced presently and hence less likely omitted than other nunations, which we do not show in headwords. Fay Freak (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of すけべ[edit]

In Japanese version, the etymology of the word is given as:

「好(す)き」を擬人化した「好兵衛(すきべえ)」の変化。江戸時代の上方で使われたのが最初とされる[1]。

山口佳紀編著『暮らしのことば 新 語源辞典』 講談社、2008年、473頁

I’m no translator, but I believe the text says something like:

A variant of 好兵衛(すきべえ), from the personification of 好き. First attested in the early Edo period.

However, the corresponding section in English version is currently blank. Should we fill it in? 49.229.253.187 15:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kojien says "という", i.e. it is said that that's the etymology, but is not 100% confirmed, but most others agree, so I agree we should port it over with the caveat of "very likely" or something of that sort. Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Κανηϸκι[edit]

Not a language expert and just curious why the etymology sub heading was empty. Any ideas? 112.134.170.134 16:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because no one who's edited the page knows what the etymology is. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Nicolas Sims-Williams (in his Bactrian Personal Names, 2010, pp.76), -(η)ϸκο is a hypocoristic suffix, the first part of that name is unclear, but he does gave a possibility of connection of element Καν(η)- with Sanskrit कनिष्ठ (kaniṣṭha). And he states that:
  • The translation "Kaniṣka- 'The Brilliant'" (MORGENSTIERNE 1927, 107) is unexplained.
Ydcok (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish sankki[edit]

sankki (flash pan) is a confusing word, which almost certainly (on semantic grounds) has to be a relatively recent borrowing from a Germanic language like Swedish or German, but I haven't been able to find a convincing source. Compounds of the word are also used to refer to the touch hole or the gunpowder placed in the flash pan. It shows up in dictionaries, including the main printed monolingual Finnish dictionary (Nykysuomen sanakirja), but no work appears to discuss its etymology.

The Swedish word for the flash pan appears to be fängpanna, and I have been able to find vänkkipannu in some sources, which is clearly from the Swedish term. However, this cannot regularly result in sankki (unless someone somehow really badly misread fänkkipannu or faͤnkkipannu typed in Fraktur?). To muddy the waters further, Estonian seems to have had a word like singiauk (sink? + auk (hole)) that shows up in Wiedemann's dictionary; the former part is clearly quite similar to sankki, and the only thing preventing these words from being related directly is the vowel. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web-search gives three results for "singi-auk", one in German, namely Dr. W. Schlüter's Vortrag gehalten zur Feier des Jahrestages am 18. Januar 1909 in Sitzungsberichte der Gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft, file hosted by University of Tartu. He argues that German sch reflects initially in Estonian k, s and eventually sch, for example kiṅkima, schenken (compare Polish szynk), siṅk, Schinken. He also notes tang, Zange (tongs) as Low German; sigar, Zigarre (cigar) as High German influenced. Next he addresses less stable medials and finals. It is in this view understandable that he likens singi-auk to Zündloch, compare Zünder.
I hope this helps though I have reserved doubts. HerpesDerp (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, it gives the phonetic comparisons why the Estonian is from German Zündloch with phono-semantic matching and the Finnish from German Zündpfanne, borrowed separately, so the vowel indeed does not relate “directly”. I mean these are the first words I would identify those words with when learning Finnish or Estonian so as to memorize the technical vocabulary, and to someone back then it probably seemed too obvious to be worth mention. @Surjection. Fay Freak (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it very likely. There is nothing "semantic" to match, and a direct borrowing would not give anything like sankki- in Finnish nor even something like sink-/singi- in Estonian, although I'm less sure about the latter than the former. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sankki is maybe from sänka? @Hekaheka @Alla tajders @Gabbe @Christoffre @Wakuran @Mårtensås @Thadh Do you have any idea? Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, see the following entries in SAOB: [2], [3]. Possible semantic development: "metal ornament". > "flash pan" ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 19:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Finnish has both [e] and [æ], the vowel shift to [ɑ] seems unexplained, though. Wakuran (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same Problem with sänky (bed), then? SAOB has "figurative" use in Swedish, "Patronhylsan utdrages och lägges på matarelådans öfra säng" (säng in Svenska Akademiens ordbok (SAOB)). Its etymology is uncertain beyond Old Norse.
I believe Swedish slang sagga (to sag; to seed(?)) is probable evidence of the vowel change in either case. But the semantics are neither here nor there. Hurtmeplenty (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(かりて > かて)[edit]

The 精選版 日本国語大辞典 entry at kotobank.jp has this to say about the origin of this term:

  • [語誌]上代では「かりて」といい、もともとは旅行などの際に仮に携行する臨時の食糧の意であった。中古初期に「かりて」から「かて」への変化が起こったものと思われる。

It's unclear to me whether this is explicitly saying the かり (kari) in this term comes from (かり) (kari, temporary, provisional) or not. This would mirror the english term provisions, but I don't want to make any assumptions. It's also unclear what the (te) in this term means, but I suspect it may be () (te), either in the sense of (なか)() (nakate, mid-season crops) and (おく)() (okute, late-season crops), or in a different sense having to do with holding things. Horse Battery (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

日本国語大辞典 is a bad source for Japanese etymologies, etymologies in that dictionary was filled with flolk etymologies and pseudo-linguistic gibberish.
According to Martin (1987), かて(かりて) is related to (かれい) (karei), which, as determined by 広辞苑 and 学研国語大辞典, may be:
  • 「かれいひ(乾飯)」の約
That is, related to (から) (kara), () (kare), etc. But I could not understand the second part of that word. Martin tried to say, that kate was from:
  • ka[ri]te < kar[efy]i (<...) [a]te[y] (<...)
And I don't know what [a]te[y] was. Ydcok (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources claim it is from French or German, but to me it sounds Dutch, because of the uncommon -ея suffix reminiscent of -ij. In the Petrovian era many Dutch words entered Russian.

In Ukrainian, the word is pronounced almost exactly like in West Flemish. Shoshin000 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English dry: from PIE *dʰerǵʰ- to PG *drūgiz?[edit]

I wanted to know the etymology of dry, but what I saw looks problematic to my non-expert eyes: "from Proto-Germanic *drūgiz, *draugiz (“dry, hard”), from Proto-Indo-European *dʰerǵʰ- (to strengthen; become hard), from *dʰer- (“to hold, support”)".

I don't understand how it is possible to get from *dʰerǵʰ- to *drūgiz/*draugiz: where does the u come from? How does the r get before it? It seems like *dʰerǵʰ- should give instead derg- or durg: contrast werǵ- > *wurkijaną (via wr̥ǵ) and *werką (via *wérǵom).

The entry for *draugiz in turn refers to an entirely different extension of the root: "From Proto-Indo-European *dʰrewgʰ- (to strengthen; become hard or solid), from *dʰer- (to hold, hold fast, support). However, the page *dʰrewgʰ- shows no cognates outside for Germanic for this, only descendants for unrelated senses "to deceive, to mislead" and a sense "to serve one's tribe; loyal".

At first glance, I coudn't see references that clearly support these etymologies. Mallory and Adams 2006:381 is cited on the page for *dʰerǵʰ-, but that page of that reference seems to only mention the Sanskrit descendant of this form. Urszag (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can get *drūgiz/*draugiz from *dʰerǵʰ-, even with some kind of secondary full grade. Old Norse draugr (dry tree trunk) seems like a safe cognate. The only possible extra-Germanic support for Proto-Indo-European *dʰrewgʰ- (dry) I can find is Sanskrit द्रुहिल (druhila, rough) (Kroonen, Mayrhofer, Lubotsky). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Unless someone else has an explanation, I plan to edit the relevant entries. I looked at what Kroonen 2013 says. Kroonen reconstructs -ja-stem adjectives rather than -i-stem adjectives. Per Appendix:Proto-Germanic adjectives, these mostly inflect the same: Is there some reason our entries have the latter? The forms Kroonen gives are *drūgja- > OE drȳge, *drūga- > OFri. drūch, *draugja- > MDu. droge, *drukkna- > OS drocno, OHG trockan.--Urszag (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chernorizets Does BER volume 8 have something to say about this word? Is it just тъждество (tǎždestvo) +‎ -ен (-en), or is there e.g. an OCS equivalent? I see there's тождьство (toždĭstvo) for тъждество́ (tǎždestvó), but I can't find one for тъжде́ствен (tǎždéstven). Thanks, Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 02:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril kovachev according to BER, both тъждество (tǎždestvo) and тъждествен (tǎždestven) are Russian borrowings, from тождество (toždestvo) and тождественный (toždestvennyj), respectively. Page 491, Vol 8. Chernorizets (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is no OCS word тождьство (toždĭstvo) - I've posted on #balto-slavic about it. The Russian entry's etymology is incorrect. Chernorizets (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chernorizets Interesting, I recall looking that OCS up in STBR but I can't remember what I found besides тъжде (tŭžde) or similar. I'll remove the etymology on [[тъждество] for starters — should we post the Russian derivation instead? Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev yes, please. We should indicate that both BG words are loans from Russian. Chernorizets (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chernorizets Great, I've done it. Please just check whether the references show the correct headword, since I don't know how they've entered it in BER. Good news is, I'll be going home in a few weeks so I'll have my own copy to reference from soon :) Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
++ Just for clarificaiton: Old Church Slavonic тъ-жде, та-жде, то-жде (tŭ-žde, ta-žde, to-žde) are compound pronouns (from earlier *tъ + *žьde) analogous to *kъžьde. Probably they meant “such that” or something of this sort. (Bezimenen)

As an English word isn't this more likely from Yiddish than German? 23.159.136.8 02:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it's from official Nazi terminology, I'd guess not. Wakuran (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

guinzaglio (it), wintseil, Treccani[edit]

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/guinzaglio

Says this:

Etymologyedit According to Treccani it probably derives from the earlier form guinzale, itself from Middle High German wintseil (literally “wind-sail”), equivalent to modern German Wind + Segel. See wint and seil for more

This is obviously wrong. It must be the germanic word for rope, line, cord Standard German Seil, that is cognate to guinzaglio.

The word for sail : « Segel » which reduces to seil or similar in many germanic languages has no semantic link to the Italian word. Treccani does not make any link to Segel. Middle High German Maybe had two homonymes, coming from different roots ?


Entry on Seil (german):

Language Watch Edit See also: seil, Séil, and Séïl Germanedit Etymologyedit From Middle High German seil, from Old High German seil, from Proto-West Germanic *sail, from Proto-Germanic *sailą. Pronunciationedit IPA(key): /zaɪ̯l/ (prescriptive standard) IPA(key): /saɛ̯l/ (Austria) Audio

(file) Rhymes: -aɪ̯l Nounedit Seil n (strong, genitive Seiles or Seils, plural Seile) rope, line, cord Usage notesedit A Seil is thicker than a Schnur (“string”), but thinner than a Tau. 2A04:CEC0:1051:6027:614A:3ACF:69A9:552F 08:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right or wrong, it doesn't match the Treccani entry's etymology, which says something about wintseil being a rope for tying a greyhound, if Google Translate is to be trusted. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Koebler says MHG wintseil denotes "“Wind rope”, tension rope, rope with which the tent is securely tensioned against the wind". Leasnam (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German Seil has a separate entry, by the way. Wakuran (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the etymology of guinzaglio to reflect that the second element of the MHG word is the "rope" word, not the "sail" word. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's a coincidence, but I just wanted to point out this similarity between Lithuanian (Baltic) and Komi (Finnic), for those who know more about these languages. Shoshin000 (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first element is Danish, but the term does not occur in Wiktionary entry elle. But I have no knowledge of Danish, - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There might possibly be a relation to/ derivation from Norwegian elf / Swedish älva (female elf/ elven/ fairy), with the -lv-cluster simplified, I guess. I also found two Danish examples of ellefolk considering it a simplification of elverfolk, though; [4], [5], so the shift of -lv- to -ll- might have originated in Scandinavia. Anyway, there's a likely connection to elf. Wakuran (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Erlkönig for the Danish element eller-, elves, though the Danish etymon is still a redlink. --Hiztegilari (talk) 12:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions. Smoczynski cautions of phonetic difficulties in the derivation from the arktic root, but doesn't explain. What are the problems? From PIE *h₂ŕ̥tḱos descendants: PBS *irśtwā́ˀ (< *h₂r̥tḱ-wéh₂) based only on one word. Perhaps the suffix is why Smozcynski doubted the morpho-phonology. Metathesis as alternative is looking not much better and the semantic extension of šìrtas (lair, nest, gathering) from šérti (to feed) is difficult to translate. Eugen Hill claims that crēscō (pace Smoczynski) and *kъrmъ and սեր (ser) (...) are not cognate, that no certain cognates are known, though the futur and aorist of κορέννυμι are admitted (“šérti” in Hock et al., Altlitauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 2.0 (online, 2020–).). This is suggesting to me that it is difficult. Isn't it? Hurtmeplenty (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology section for English term logline currently says that it is attested since the 17th century, and a compound of log and line. Presumably, this concerns the word in its nautical sense. What about the sense "brief summary of a script"? Is that really from the same etymology? If not, what is the origin of the word in that sense? Gabbe (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(@Maas555, @Surjection) Since neither element is otherwise attested in Finnic, and both are from Germanic, is there any reason against reconstructing a Proto-Germanic compound *marhaminþlą and deriving the Finnic term thence? ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, although LÄGLOS says such a compound "is not attested in Germanic". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but this type of compound formation was extremely productive in Germanic, and this word was borrowed centuries before the well-attested languages were written. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usconophrys[edit]

The ciliate protist Usconophrys is the type genus of Usconophryidae family. But I don't understand what the prefix uscon- means, -ophrys, meaning "eyebrow ⇒ eyelash ⇒ ciliate". Can you help me please ? Gerardgiraud (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LSJ has an entry οὔσκη (oúskē),[6] apparently a hapax legomenon in a text by Zosimos of Panopolis, glossed in the margin by πῶμα (pôma) κακκάβου (kakkábou), in which κακκάβου (kakkábou) is apparently the genitive of κάκκαβος (kákkabos), an alternative form of κακκάβη (kakkábē).[7] In the (somewhat unlikely) case that this is the etymon of the first component, its meaning would be “cover of a three-legged pot”.  --Lambiam 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if it could be οὐ (ou, not) + something starting σκον- or σκων-, but I can't find anything likely looking. There's also nothing promising beginning with ὑσκ- (husk-) (which ought to be romanized hysc-, not usc- anyway, but you never know). —Mahāgaja · talk 20:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Wikispecies has entries for ~20 genera of chromists that end in (o?)phrys. Most of these were named in the 19th century, meaning they were identified principally by optical microscopy. Images, were they available might have helped.
Usconophrys was apparently erected by Jankowski in 1985 (in Russian) based on Lagenophrys aperta, described in 1889. It may be that the first part of the name is from οὐ (ou, not) and relates to some distinction from the 1889 description, quite possibly also in microscopy. J. C. Clamp 1991 "Revision of the family Lagenohryidae [] " might have more, in English. This makes οὐ (ou, not) a more plausible element of the name, but it still leaves the middle portion mysterious. I could not find the fragment "s(k|c|ch)on" anywhere in the 358 pages of Catalogue of the Generic Names of Ciliates, except in direct connection with Usconophrys. DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possibility might be οὖς (oûs, ear) + cono- (cone, conical), κῶνος (kônos, cone). DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone familiar with the practice of baking Ancient-Greek-based learned neologisms would have used the stem ὠτ- (ōt-) of οὖς, giving us the genus Otoconophrys. Compare e.g. otolith and otopathy.  --Lambiam 23:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Bulgarian адсорбция (adsorbcija)[edit]

The Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language says that the origin of this word is Latin adsorbtio. I have a few questions about this:

  1. Should the vowel length be 'adsorbtiō'?
  2. Should it be 'adsorptio' instead of 'adsorbtio'? We see this in absorptio, and I am vaguely familiar with some kind of /b/ → /p/ invalid IPA characters (/→/) change in Latin, but I don't know it well enough to weigh in.
  3. Does this etymology make sense? Is this a real Latin word, or is it a back-formation from Latin roots, where the actual etymology is from modern languages that made use of those roots?

Thanks, Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 16:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril kovachev 1) Dictionaries often skip Latin vowel length 2) this word was likely formed after Latin using Latin morphemes, compare adsorpcja. Vininn126 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vininn126 So adsorbtiō is correct? And, what should be the treatment of the etymology then? Just write out the roots with {{affix}}? Should the Latin word be kept? Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 16:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev Yes, and I'm not sure. This is an internationalisms, so it was likely formed in one language and spread. That honestly might be a better etymology, i.e. {{intnat|bg}}, compare {{cog|en|adsorption}}, ultimately from {{der|bg|la|[[ad-]] + [[sorbeō]] + [[-tiō]]}}. Or something along those lines. Vininn126 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if adsorptiō is even attested in Latin. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word was coined in German in 1882, so for the Bulgarian etymology I'd say it's borrowed from German Adsorption. Then you can add a {{surf|bg|адсорбирам|-ция}} if you like. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I said it's an internationalism formed after Latin using Latin roots. Vininn126 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, I have now updated the etymology, hopefully it's in a decent place now. Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 16:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev I'm not sure about the New-Latin, but if it's any Latin it's that. Vininn126 (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vininn126 I dunno, I'm just citing what the source says. I'm not sure of the value of that either. But, for people looking at the sources (which are supposed to be reliable in general), it might be confusing if we don't mention that the dictionary is probably wrong in this case. Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 16:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev I've been distrustful of the BEI in general; they've put out some odd etymologies, but it's not only them. Part of sourcing is knowing how to take that material and map it to the concepts confined within our project. Vininn126 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vininn126, Indeed, so am I, increasingly after seeing many such etymologies, and it hurts to think how many words may already have wrong etymologies entered from there. But virtually the only source of etymology we have for Bulgarian are those works by the IBL. I have a paper dictionary next to me that does mention the languages of origin, but nothing about specific terms, so it's not anywhere near as complete.
Anyway, in this case, are you saying it would be best to ignore what it says and remove the "New Latin" part? Should the reference still be kept? Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 16:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev Personally I think whether the term is New Latin needs to be checked. If it's real, we could include it in other etymologies, but until that time I'd only mention the morphemes. Vininn126 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if it does exist in New Latin, but even then, we'd say the Latin word is derived from German. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a Latin verb newly formed from ad- +‎ sorbeō get adssimilated to assorbeō? This would then carry over to derived forms. Compare associō < ad- +‎ sociō and so on.  --Lambiam 20:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Learned words in modern languages usually use assimilated spellings of Latin prepositional prefixes (although not all of these were consistently used in historical Latin texts; the spelling ass- in particular seems to have been less common than the spelling ads- in Republican Latin), but not all new coinages use the assimilated variant. Compare adposition.--Urszag (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'll remove it anyway for now then. Unfortunately it doesn't seem Google Books can search in Latin, so finding anything will be hard, at least for me... Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To search for Latin I add uniquely Latin words that are common as search terms, such as etiam and quoniam. This did not find any GBS results, also not for any of the oblique case forms of *adsorbtio or *adsorptio.  --Lambiam 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is reduplicated in Bakhmut. The name was discussed last in January 2023. IP posted a reference, Luchyk, V. V. (2014), “Ба́хмут”, in Етимологічний словник топонімів України [Etymological Dictionary of Toponyms of Ukraine] (in Ukrainian), Kyiv: Academy, →ISBN, page 35. I do not read Ukrainian but I am pretty sure that Luchyk says something about water and not so much about horses. Sources we have in footnotes mention horses mainly because they talk about a different word that actually means horse (бахма́т (baxmát)). Rudnyc'kyj does list Бахмут in the same entry but does not motivate the place name as derived from the river. Hurtmeplenty (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albus[edit]

I was studying the endonyms and exonyms of countries (as one does) and I specifically was looking at the etymologies for countries whose meaning is related to the color white. Two prime examples are the exonym of Albania and Alba in Scots Gaelic. While looking for others I discovered that the etymology of Lebanon comes from *laban- or the root l-b-n which also means white or in some dialects milk. I think the similarities are pretty clear but I haven't found any definite pieces of information discussing whether these are linked so consequently; I am here. If anyone could verify the possibility of Alban and Laban being connected I would greatly appreciate your insight! I would also be interested if someone has some more examples. (First time posting) KermitBretkosa (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albion is a good example of a place name deriving from a word meaning white. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tok Pisin paul[edit]

The Tok Pisin word "paul" is currently listed as "probably from English Paul." It's almost certainly not; the word's primary meanings are "bird/chicken" and "confused/tangled," neither of which makes any sense coming from the name "Paul." The Jacaranda Dictionary lists the former as coming from English "fowl," and I'd hazard a guess that the latter comes from English "foul," based on what I've seen in older sources on Tok Pisin. "paul" [paʊl] and "Paul" [pɔl] also aren't pronounced the same way; "Paul" is borrowed into Tok Pisin as "Pol" [pol]. I'm new to editing and don't know what the protocols for removing a spurious etymology are; do I need to cite sources to justify the removal or can I just delete the etymology from the entry? Laralei (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laralei: The current etymology has no source and is just a guess, so I think you're safe replacing it with a more reasonable one, especially since "bird/chicken" < "fowl" can be sourced to a published dictionary. We don't require sources for etymologies, especially not ones that seem obvious, but adding sources, especially for more arcane etymologies, is always welcome. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, “probably not from Paul ”. But given Tok Pisin foa < English four and Tok Pisin ful < English fool, how plausible is paul < fowl ?  --Lambiam 21:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states "[p] and [f] are not distinguished in Tok Pisin (they are in free variation)", apparently despite the existence of F and P as separate alphabet letters. Compare pis, although it has a less-than-three-attested-examples warning.--Urszag (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spine? Spindle? Spinach? 64.233.225.66 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymology Dictionary says "either a derivative of spin in the sense of "go rapidly" or based on a corrupt pronunciation of Sphinx, which was the name of the first yacht known to carry this type of racing sail." —Mahāgaja · talk 06:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Initially, it looks like something Low German and Dutch, but it is believed to be a Native English coinage? Wakuran (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macanese verb-forming suffixes[edit]

More specifically, and . I'm not sure the extent to which these really count as independent suffixes, and whether I should possibly delete those pages.

I think is quite convincingly a workable suffix, as it is often added to words of various different endings regardless of the final vowel or original stress of the word; but for and (and even to a degree), it's not really adding to anything. Most often they're found on Malay-derived words, which are final-stressed anyway. Plus some of those Malay words (colek for cholê, cucuk for chuchú) end in -k, which becomes a glottal stop in Malay and silent in Macanese. The Glossário which I've used many times as a reference re-analyzes those as -er, -ir and -ur endings but where the -r is silent, but that doesn't feel right either since in modern Macanese final /ɾ/ is very much a thing.

So what do we think? Do I keep the and entries or no? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Macanese suffixes, should I also change -do to fit the Portuguese entries, and make -ado and -ido instead? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persian "لاخ"[edit]

It is a suffix for place names like "سنگلاخ" meaning stony place. What is its possible etymology? Is it from Turkic *-lik? Kamran.nef (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While -lik is used for placenames (see e.g. Kayalık, Kovancılar), kayalık has a more general meaning of stoniness, rockiness; for example, the Turkish term for rocky shore is kayalık sahil. Does the Persian suffix also have this more general meaning?
I think there are very few examples of a language borrowing a productive suffix from another language – which in this case would be totally unrelated. My initial hypothesis would be it is one of those coincidences that one can expect to occur every now and then.  --Lambiam 20:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is only used for places. Dehkhoda says it means place and mine and he mentions the similarity between Persian and Turkish. I found لاخ in "An Etymological Dictionary of Persian, English and other Indo-European Languages", by Dr. Ali Nourai. He Drives it from PIE *lêsos meaning place, space, area, and he cites "An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary by Stuart E Mann", for the root. Although Nourai's book has some questionable etymologies, It is the only place I could find for the word. This word might be in "The etymological dictionary of Persian" by Mohammad Hassandust, but I don't have access to that book. There is a Turkic borrowing in Persian "قشلاق" meaning wintering house which has the ending -laq. I don't know whether it is qış+laq or qışla+k. Kamran.nef (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamran.nef: It is a morpheme meaning “comminuted”, identical to لخت (laxt, piece, portion) and idem “club“ we have, and in the soup لخشک (laxšak) Irman has lemmatized at the random form لاکشه (lākiša); whence Slavic lokša, лапша́ (lapšá). Monchi-Zadeh, Davoud (1990) Wörter aus Xurāsān und ihre Herkunft (Acta Iranica; 29)‎[8] (in German), Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 115 Nr. 336. Fay Freak (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and thanks to Lambiam. Kamran.nef (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, at the Russian лапша I almost wrote “Ultimately an Iranian word also found with different suffix in the dish лагма́н (lagmán, laghman)” until I saw its Chinese connections. Isn’t Chinese 拉麵拉面 (lāmiàn), and hence ramen, in reality some phono-semantic matching of a Turkic term loaned from Iranian learnt by the Chinese in Xinjiang? I mean I do know that noodles have quite long an history at the eastern brink of Asia, and superficially the compound makes sense by itself, yet some attestation data, that is missing, might show something. Who’s doing Chinese these days? @Fish bowl. KevinUp who helped at Talk:八角 is gone. Fay Freak (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Chinese, we have 掛麵挂面 (guàmiàn), 切麵切面 (qiēmiàn), 抻麵抻面 (chēnmiàn), 削麵削面 (xiāomiàn), Chinese 索麵索面 (suǒmiàn), 撈麵捞面 (lāomiàn), 冷麵冷面 (lěngmiàn), 拌麵拌面 (bànmiàn), 涼麵凉面 (liángmiàn), etc. Why would you think that 拉麵拉面 (lāmiàn) is special from all these words? I can not find any necessity to put a brand new hypothesis without any attestation.At least we need an academic source to confirm it. Ydcok (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ydcok: Well thanks, it was only a hypothesis we have to leave open, as long as neither on the Turkic nor Chinese anything is written about age and distribution, or culinary history. For now we have only the word لخشک (laxšak) with its variants and the postformative as on درمان (darmān) and فرمان (farmān) on one hand and many words with (miàn) on the other hand. If ever such a formation were borrowed, it is sure the Chinese would have rendered it with (miàn), unless this is old enough that its older pronunciations fit less and the Turkic match the Mandarin. I find surprisingly little about the laghman noodle dish in academic databases, in European languages. Fay Freak (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the Middle Chinese pronunciation we should look at? In this case, it is *Lopmenh or something. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology.

Austronesian Comparative Dictionary cau

Wiktionary etymology for this word mentions "From Spanish funche, original from Cuba, or even from Kikongo." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/funchi This is a difficult path to trace, however. Ascribing Spanish origins to Papiamentu words with obvious African cultural content is problematic. There are no sources that show that Cuban "funche" precedes Papiamentu "funchi". The Diccionario de la Real Academia Española mentions Cuba and Puerto Rico as places of usage but the word is also known in other Caribbean Spanish speaking countries of Dominican Republic and Venezuela. The Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage mentions the word in different spellings for seven English speaking islands and offers four possible African influences: Twi fugyee (adj.) soft, mealy (of boiled yam), Kimbundu funzi cassava mush, Congo fundi flour, porridge, and Yoruba funjẹ given to eat. ObaTango (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology.

The Nakijin Dictionary cites ゑめて 'to demand' from an Omoro Soshi dictionary. — This unsigned comment was added by Chuterix (talkcontribs) at 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Would that be いみゆん? Why the katakana? Wakuran (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakuran: Chuterix had moved the entry to the katakana spelling at the time this was posted, but the move was reverted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the Japanese term いびる (ibiru, to bully, to bother). This seems a better phonetic match, albeit the Kotobank version of the NKD only cites this from the 1770s. Meanwhile, Japanese せびる (sebiru, to pester, to insistently ask for something) is from older seburu, only attested from the late 1500s, and I don't see Japanese seburu and Ryukyuan imiyun fitting together very well.
JLect's listing of imiyun at https://www.jlect.com/search.php?r=%E3%81%84%E3%81%BF%E3%82%86%E3%82%93&l=ryukyu&group=words glosses this as Japanese 催促する (saisoku suru, to rush or hasten someone or something). Are we sure that modern Ryukyuan imiyun is actually from the wemete listed in the Omoro Soshi dictionary? These don't seem to fit together either. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ゑめて means "(催促して 'demand and')。 The initial w- is probably due to the instability to え and ゑ. I do not have access to the Okinawa Kogo Daijiten to prove the putative emeru, however, I have requested an ILL loan for the dictionary.
Since the Omoro Soshi's date is at earliest 1531, I don't know if the Japanese terms you mentioned are cognates, since I don't think Old Okinawan would borrow a newly coined Japanese term, unless one hypothesizes that it must have existed earlier (unlikely scenario). Thus, I have removed the Japanese correspondances in that entry for the time being. Chuterix (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second, this make the assumption that ibiru < *ebiru/*eberu. Chuterix (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a kind of a mess.

Liczba defined as "mathematical concept used for describing amounts with the help of digits or symbols" does not seem right, because that would be the colloquial or proscribed meaning - amount translates to "ilość", which is not the same as "liczba" (the former is for measuring uncountable nouns, the latter for countable). The entry on ilość correctly states that the meaning "liczba" is proscribed in ilość.

I don't really understand what "1. (obsolete) number (digit itself)" is supposed to mean in the entry for liczba. When was liczba ever used to mean "(sama[?]) cyfra"? Or is digit here referring to "figure", which is a proscribed meaning of cyfra? The entry on cyfra equates this proscribed meaning with the prescribed one, being "digit (a distinct symbol representing a natural number in a positional number system)" - this is definitely wrong. They should be separate definitions. Figure is translatable to "cyfra" only in the colloquial or proscribed sense, meaning either "result of counting (liczba)" or "result of measuring (ilość)". This is somewhat defined in the definition of liczba stating "2. number (result of counting) Synonyms: (proscribed) ilość, liczebność, liczność", but then this is missing the proscribed synonym cyfra, the main culprit, so to speak.

I've probably missed something, but hopefully this makes it easier to understand what edits need to be made. I'd like somebody's input, and to help mainly or solely with the semantic side of this, as I'm not proficient with the technical aspect (context labels and such) of editing yet.

I also apologize if this is the wrong place to bring this up. It's basically my first contribution. Is this room the right place to discuss the definitions in this sense, or is it just for etymology side of things? Polorzanca (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polorzanca The main difference is of course if the thing is countable or not - ilość is used with uncountable nouns which you cannot use numbers directly with. "5 waters" only makes sense as an elision of "five glasses of water", therefor you cannot use digits to directly mention the numbers, whereas with countable nouns you can "five people". We are indeed missing the proscribed synonym ilość on liczba, which I have added with a qualifier.
Liczba was once synonymous with cyfra. I.e. liczba 5, as opposed to cyfra 5, as evinced in SJP1900.
I have not had time to clean up the entry cyfra yet and it is missing many explanations and definitions.
I would say that the WT:Tea Room would have been the ideal forum for this. Vininn126 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link between gulbia and geule?[edit]

I'm looking for the etymology of modern Irish gulba, meaning snout or beak.

This information is on the page for Latin gulbia.

This page says it's probably not Indo-European, but it has striking similarity to:

  1. gullet, snout, face (of an animal)

Are these words linked? —2001:861:5700:4370:3596:608:F785:5550 20:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Celtic words can't come from Proto-Indo-European *gʷel-, because * became *b in Proto-Celtic. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology:

Possibly from Proto-Indo-European *ḱr̥h₃-m- (porridge, soup) or *ḱh₁erh₂- (to mix).

An IP tried to fix this by manually replacing the palatal "*ḱ" with non-palatal "*k", but it seems to me like that's just papering over the fact that this was probably copied from an entry on the other side of the satem/centum line, possibly Latin cremor. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The connection with Latin cremor was Charpentier's idea and is rejected by Mayrhofer on formal grounds. I have updated our entry. Vahag (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that has one meaning the same with "trồng". The Proto-Vietic phonic of "trồng" is *m-loːŋ, and 種 has 2 ancient ones : *k.toŋʔ and *(mə-)toŋʔ-s However I am not sure if the latter phonic of 種 is relevant enough to *m-loːŋ

I am not an etymologist so this is just my perspective. Could you prove it please? Lưu Quang Trường (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the meaning "keep something for later use" stem from (to plan, to worry)? Lưu Quang Trường (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the last term still on Category:Requests for native script for Chinese terms - but there's no sourcing for it, and the only results for searches with this etymology for "carcass" from Chinese listed is the Wiktionary page itself. Kungming2 (talk)

According to Nocentini micio is linked to Catalan mixo and comes from an onomatopoeic word used in the Mediterrarean area as a call for the cat.-- Carnby (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be moix? Wiktionary has no Catalan listing for mixo. Wakuran (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakuran Sorry, I meant mix. Moix is Balearic Catalan, not sure whether related or not. Compare also Leonese mixu and Spanish micho, from the same onomatopoeia.-- Carnby (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology. Specifically: reconstruction at the PIE level. No cognates provided outside of Germanic. -saph 🍏 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAOB mentions "relatives in Slavic languages" without specifying. The relevant volume was published in 1922, so it could be an outdated hypothesis... Wakuran (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through EDPG, Kroonen says "no certain etymology" of the Proto-Germanic root but suggests the following connections:
  • Lithuanian tríedžiu (to have diarrhoea) < *tréydʰyeti
    • I believe the expected outcome of that would be *trìedži(?).
  • Lithuanian trìdė f (diarrhoea) < *tridʰyéh₂
    • I really do not see this one happening, especially given that Kroonen presumed *dʰy > dž for the above cognate and that ė is not a regular outcome of *eh₂.
  • Dialectal Russian дришта́ть (drištátʹ, to have diarrhoea), Serbo-Croatian drískati, dríćkati (id.) < *dʰridsḱéti (with lengthening of *i by Winter's law)
    • Firstly, these two terms don't even appear to use the same suffix, unless there's some regular sound change in Russian of *dsḱ > št I'm missing. The two also have accents in different places, which leads me to believe that these were formed at entirely different times.
At best the Balto-Slavic terms are simply from the same substratum etymon as the Germanic terms, I really doubt this can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European. -saph 🍏 01:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin ūniō (onion)[edit]

This is a hapax mentioned as the name that some rural folk used for a type of onion, and it survives as an inherited form only in northern and southwestern Gallo-Romance. In scenarios like this one is often dealing with a specialized word that was borrowed from another language into Latin but failed to spread beyond its original area. Here one might expect a Gaulish word, and as it happens the source that we cite for ūniō's etymology mentions there being a Middle Irish uinniun (> oinniún) and Welsh wynwyn, with the comment ‘as if from Celt. *usniūn- rather than a loan word from Latin [...] they demonstrate the initial short vowel *ŭ-’.

In fact the Romance forms under ūniō also reflect */ŭ-/, and there isn't any particular evidence for an /ū-/ in the Latin word, apart from the etymology that we currently give (inheritance from a Proto-Italic *uznjō would indeed imply /ū-/).

If we accept the ultimate Indo-European etymology as it is, I would rather think that unio was borrowed from Celtic with /ŭ-/. On the other hand, our entry for Irish oinniún gives it as a borrowing from Old French oignon (< Latin unio), and our entry for Welsh wynwyn gives it as a borrowing from Middle English (< Old French oignon, again).

Meanwhile under unio we have a Proto-West Germanic *unnjā, given with a short */ŭ-/, but the reconstruction is cited as *ūniju, *unnjā in the etymology for Old English ȳn.

What do people knowledgeable about Celtic and Germanic make of the overall picture? Paging @Mahagaja, @Sokkjo/@Victar, @Leasnam, @Caoimhin ceallach. (@Hazarasp as well, if you don't mind.) Nicodene (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis to say that the "onion" word was borrowed from Celtic into Latin rather than the other way around. Still, neither the Irish nor the Welsh can come directly from a thematic *usniyūnos/-ā or an n-stem Proto-Celtic *usniyū without interference from something else, so maybe a native Celtic word was altered under the influence of the Latin word? —Mahāgaja · talk 15:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walde-Hofmann (vol. 2, p. 820) give uniō with a short u as the form. According to them the Germanic terms are from Latin and the Celtic terms from English (ultimately from Old French or Norman I guess, which seems probably to me if the pronunciation of oignon /uˈɲun/ is correct). They don't give an etymology. A borrowing vice-versa seems unlikely to me too. I'd wonder how the ending would have arisen. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up to commenting here much, but I agree with the notion that Welsh wynwyn is a Middle English borrowing (as stated by the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru); it would seem to be an alteration of earlier *wyniwn or winiwn, even though such forms are only attested later.
As for the Germanic forms, Old High German unna and its descendants (e.g. Luxembourgish Ënn) would seem to require Proto-West Germanic *unnjā. However, the existence of a collateral *ūnijā is needed to explain Old English ȳn/ȳne (though compare ynnelẽac) and the OHG compound ūnilouh (Central Franconian Öllich can come from either ūnilouh or *unnilouh). There seems to be no obvious intra-Germanic source for this variation, so it must somehow be explained in terms of the Romance source. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possibility: reconstruct a quasi-ablauting n-stem ūnjō ~ unnjaz, similar to strūtō ~ struttaz "throat". It's not inconceivable that a Latin loanword got roped into this pattern if it was common enough (see Kroonen 2011 pp. 267-95 for other examples). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how plausible that is, given that Kroonen lists no examples of /n/:/nn/ apophony; additionally, given that the consonantal alternations he posits aren't productive even in the oldest WGmc languages, it's unclear whether they would've been productive at the time of borrowing. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Mahagaja said, deriving Welsh wynwyn from *wósH-r̥ ~ *usH-én-s isn't possible without some shenanigans, and it looks pretty clearly from Middle English (or directly from Old French). Perhaps the word survived in Gallo-Romance thanks to reinforcement from Frankish? --{{victar|talk}} 04:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Thank you all for your input. It sounds as though a Celtic or German origin isn't likely, at least not without Latin involvement on some level.
The case for a Latin origin might be reinforced by unio (pearl), which is well-attested and shares the masculine gender of unio (onion) - more specifically the masculine gender implied by the latter's descendants. This sets the two apart from unio f (unity), as does the fact that they are attested some three centuries earlier.
If we accept the ones meaning ‘onion’ and ‘pearl’ as one word, and the semantics don't seem unimaginable at least, then we are no longer dealing with a hapax. On the other hand we are left with a somewhat odd timeline if we take the etymology as-is. Inherited from a Proto-Indo-European word for ‘onion’, recorded several times as ‘pearl’ but only once in passing as ‘onion’, then handed off to Romance and Germanic as ‘onion’. Stranger things have happened though.
Vowel length is also an issue, but it sounds as though a Latin /ū-/ is corroborated by some of the Germanic reflexes. That leaves the question of why a short variant would have developed, for which I have no answer. Nicodene (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish "toplu" and Persian تپل[edit]

Is the Persian word from Turkish(ic)? Kamran.nef (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamran.nef: Probably. Also, please add an e-mail address to your account. Fay Freak (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak Thanks. Done. Kamran.nef (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pashto "kalay" and Punjabi "kullī کلی[edit]

So کلی means 'village' in Pashto and 'small hut' in Punjabi. Any possibility that these two are linked? Punjabi Kullī is the feminine of kullā which means 'a modest home'. نعم البدل (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology.--62.73.69.121 13:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there appear to be two senses to the Latin proper noun Moneta: (1) the name of a goddess equated to the Greek goddess Mnemosyne; (2) an epithet of the goddess Juno (Iuno Moneta), a goddess equated to the Greek goddess Hera. Only the latter sense is claimed to have a connection to Ancient Greek μονήρης.
Disregarding sources that may have copied the claim from the Wikipedia article Moneta, to which it was added in Latin script already in in 2008 and using Greek letters in in 2009, the closest I found to a source relating Moneta to Ancient Greek μονήρης is in an article, or rather a monograph, written in Classical Greek, that appeared in 1909 in volume 5 of the Journal international d'archéologie numismatique:[9]
Κύριον χαρακτηριστικὸν τῆς παραδόσεως περὶ τῆς διὰ τοῦ ἐπιθέτου Moneta ἢ Μονήτα ἐπικλήσεως τῆς Ἥρας εἶναι ἡ ἐν ἀπορίᾳ χρημάτων, κατόπιν σεισμοῦ (Cicero) ἢ πολέμον (Σουΐδας), ἐπανόρθωσις τῇ συμβουλῇ χρησμοῦ τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Ἥρας διὰ συὸς ἐγκύμογος (sue plena procuratio). Λοιπὸν γνωρίζομεν ὅτι ὁ σῦς, δηλαδὴ ὁ ἄγριος ὕς, ἐκαλεῖτο ἑλληνιστὶ μονιὸς ὡς ζῶν μονήρης καὶ ἐν ἰδίᾳ μονῇ μονιτεύων (πβλ. καὶ τὰς λέξεις μονηΐς, μονία, μονίας).
It uses the word μονιὸς (moniòs) (“wild swine”) as a stepping stone: the oracle of the Hera temple gave the Romans advice on a situation of financial distress; the advice was communicated through a pregnant sow, a wild one; and wild swine prefer a solitary life.
Notwithstanding the admirable creativity for the sense development, it remains to be explained why the ancient Romans chose to use a word of Greek provenance to bestow an epithet on their divine protectress. Furthermore, the transformation from something like /moˈne.res/ to /moˈneː.ta/ is also a nontrivial step.  --Lambiam 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology.

Absolutely no sources; added by dead @荒巻モロゾフ. Do not close just because of claimed (but definitely not) harassment. Chuterix (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere not too long ago that this character form is a known scribal variant for . Can't find where I saw that just at the moment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=1000071&page=179 Xie1995 (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire entry is all wrong etymology-wise. Akizu appears to be the initial form while akitsu is a shift since the Heian period (per Kōjien and Daijirin, and the NKD just stating the historical spelling あきづ is the older form). The etymology of akitsu is also pretty odd, since I'm not even sure where the mushi element comes from (perhaps it's a misreading of the NKD entry which gives あきつ虫 as the definition). akitsumushi *is* an entry in the NKD but is only attested since the Edo period and is given as a compound with mushi, so I don't think it has much to do with this. lattermint (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update re akitsu mushi: the user who added that etymology gave their reasoning in this edit, but once again that seems quite spurious given it's a term of its own that postdates the original term and the mushi bit is still completely arbitrary. lattermint (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The revision history doesn't inspire confidence. Both of the editors who contributed to the etymology have been banned for high volumes of edits in languages they don't know. Fumiko is particularly arrogant and incompetent. That said, I don't know enough to comment on the etymology itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lattermint, looks like the dodgy etym was added in this edit from February 2019.
As you note, the akidu reading is the oldest attested form, making akitu or akitsu the later development (which the prior etym editor had gotten backwards).
I don't have time to dive into this one to fix it up fully, so for now, I've gone ahead and ripped out the incorrect info. Better to be incomplete than to be wrong. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source (De Vaan) is misrepresented in this entry. De Vaan doesn't say *ǵʰéslo- 'thousand' comes from the root *ǵʰés- for 'hand'; what he says is that *ǵʰéslo- may have meant 'heap' (which is, at least, obviously more plausible semantically for the meaning 'thousand' than 'a full hand'). The derivation from 'hand' is repeated in the entry for the Greek cognate and in the entry on *ǵʰéslom itself, but nowhere is it sourced, and in fact it contradicts the cited sources (Beekes, like De Vaan, assumes 'heap' and does not mention 'hand'). I can't even start to rewrite all of these entries to fix this, but false attributions of views to sources are as bad as it gets and should not be tolerated.--62.73.69.121 11:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look into de Vaan's dictionary there are references.
  • Ernout-Meillet refer to F. Sommer, "Handbuch der Laut- und Formenlehre" (1902), who glossed *smī-ǵzhlī "Tausendheit", *ǵzhlī=*ǵhslī- *ǵʰéslo- "1000", *sm̥-ǵʰéslo- "ein Tausend", and remark on a variety of different explanations which they call more ingenious than convincing because in their view no set term for "1000" existed in Indo-European.
  • Walde-Hofmann concure basically, rejecting a hypothesis by Grimm and followed by Brugmann.
De Vaan also cites Leumann, Coleman, Sihler and Meiser who offer different vowel changes to account for final -e.
  • Meiser in turn cites Rix for the semantics of a handfull of seed kernels "eine Hand(voll [von Samenkörnern])" from which a large quantity "eine große Anzahl" (Meiser 1998: 174), which may be translated as "a heap" (thus de Vaan), except that that is not exactly what Rix wrote.
TIL: *-lo- (viz. *-lós) marks Verbaladjektive like nomina agentis. So *ǵʰes- would have to be a verb root in origin, in zero-grade, for which no direct evidence exists, but fassen (grasp, to catch) is plausible in comparison with the noted nouns summed up under *ǵʰes- (Rix 1991: 228). It is not included in LIV² (Rix, Kümmel et al.) but there is *ǵʰer-, cf. हृ (hṛ, to take), notably without reliable comparison (NB: hortus is cited in both works). Note that the reference to kernels may be informed by either typology or poetry ("And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered," GEN 13:16). The reference to the hand is typologically likely at least for the lower numbers. For higher numberals, I 'd like to say I read a lot, but I can not.
  • Sihler, "[μυριάς (muriás) "10,000" etc.] also have the meaning of any immense number, and that is probably the original meaning." (1995: 425). This seems to be true of Indo-Iranian "1000" which can mean higher thousands as well. And I would argue that so many, some and German so manche (meaning "some, a lot" but built as "so many") are a useful tangent to this point even if they should not be cognate in the strict sense.
So, technically the quote is correct? Admittedly, Weiss Grammar says that "[...] the semantic development is questionable" (2005: 373), if you want to quote substantially. The root can still be found in NIL though (Wodtko-Irslinger-Schneider 2008: 170-172).
More research is needed. Any form of discussion should be handled in the reconstruction space, so I will delete the bit. Is that better? On the downside, this too is questionable if a unique word is not reconstructable as Rix seems to argue that different phrases existed which fossilized independently in Greek, Latin and Indo-Iranian, and are absent in the more peripheral branches. To lemmatize under *ǵʰéslom which is not immediately attested to mean "thousand" or anything is perhaps not the best idea.
See also Wiktionary:Etymology#References. DurdyWendy (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moenis[edit]

Has anyone ever suggested in print that Moenis, the Latin name for the River Main, is from Proto-Celtic *moinis (treasure, precious object)? Phonologically, the connection is beautiful, but I've never heard of Iron Age Europeans giving their rivers names with that sort of meaning. Usually river names mean things like "river" or "water" or "full of fish" or are named after river deities. They didn't usually go in for metaphors like "this river is a real treasure". —Mahāgaja · talk 13:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable suggestion! But *moinis derives from PIE *mey- (to change), so it may refer to a river with a tendency to change its course. 24.108.18.81 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Germanic cognate *mainiz means "common" and the Latin cognate mūnis means "ready to be of service, obliging", so maybe the Celtic word originally meant something like "belonging to everyone" or "useful", both which could conceivably be a way to describe a river. On the other hand, precious treasures most certainly do not belong to everyone and tend not to be particularly useful, either. Hmm... —Mahāgaja · talk 19:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good suggestions! But a river is more likely to be named for something like a tendency to change course. 24.108.18.81 23:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mahagaja, if you are interested in German river names, do you have any suggestions for Ems aka Amisia?
  • Ad fontes, I have no source, but you may be able to access Kuhn's article in Beiträge zur Namenforschung 4 (1969)? Ad Asterisk, I believe you are too critical in the end. Ritual spaces receive donations which need to be stored. As a profane example, the original Habsburg was a treasury and Hab maybe a hydronymic, compare Haff, but this is not documented. On a grander scale, reserve (fund) is cognate with reservation (land), you know, where *ser- (to protect) may be cognate to *srew- (to flow), formally speaking. Certainly there are more examples which fail less to convince than a game of bingo with fishy names instead of numbers. DurdyWendy (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khitan[edit]

Cathay comes from Khitan, that is well established. So what about Khitan? There is not much to go on, except that the original form was something like qid un. The Khitans had close dealings with Korea in both trade and warfare, especially with w:Balhae#Fall.

I'd like to suggest that Khitan might be an exonym derived from #크다 (keuda), Middle Korean khútá (great, big).

w:Alexander Vovin has written much on Korean-Khitan linguistic exchange' 24.108.18.81 19:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long section at the ZH Wikipedia article specifically about this very topic. Starting with the existing research would probably be a good idea. Kungming2 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, really helpful! I'll have to consult zh:wikipedia more often! 24.108.18.81 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this at Cathay, let's see if it gets accepted. 24.108.18.81 02:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We say "splutter" is merely sound-imitative, whereas we say "sputter" is a equivalent to "spout" + "-er" and derives from semantically meaningful (rather than merely onomatopoeic) roots, but the meanings are so interchangeable that it seems unlikely there is not a stronger connection. Is splutter perhaps a sound-motivated alteration of sputter? - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology (Etymology 2; nekoma).

Added by Aramaki Morozov, with absolutely zero sources as usual. "note that in compound words for species names, the pitch pattern may be simplised to <-HL> when the final element is a 2-mora noun..." Any examples? (Martin (1987:234-239) gives examples of a atonic two-mora noun + atonic two mora noun changing to atonic noun <LLLL>. He gives exceptions, but compounds that have <LLHL> often are compounds of <LL> + <HH>; his exceptions where he gives compounds of <LL> + <LL> are just plain <LLLH> or <LLHH> (see WT discord for pictures of the page) Chuterix (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%8C%AB&direction=next&oldid=69907402 The edit in question. Chuterix (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything in particular to say about the pitch patterns, but I am concerned that our current etymology for the neko reading doesn't mention the common view that this is onomatopoeic ne + diminutive / endearing suffix -ko. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China ~ Qin[edit]

The most accepted theory is that China derives from (Qin) - a family, a dynasty, and the state it founded. So whence comes 秦?

It seems to derive from 秦 valley in eastern Gansu, where the surname first appeared as retainers of the Zhou. The ideogram combines the images pestle and grain, so it was probably a word refering to fertile territory. Compare (can, to eat).

Any suggestions would be welcome. 24.108.18.81 01:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of the etymology. Would have expected origin from the same extension of PIE *lewh as for the verb *leusan-.--62.73.69.121 09:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]