Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2023/December

homonism[edit]

— 104.152.222.40 00:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greek homo- as in "we are all the same", I'd suppose. Wakuran (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another ghost word. The first authors cited name the coiner (Wilhelm) Windelband, who used Hominismus at multiple places. Hence hominism is also found, much more, though also coined separately in other meanings, but then again from German, F. C. S. Schiller it is said, who ostensibly loaned it from the same circles, if we regard the term anthropomonism, which is as in Ernst Haeckel’s Monistenbund. Fay Freak (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

צימרינג[edit]

I heard *Zimtringe in a DW video about Kaiserschmarrn (around the 3:33 mark), and so that's my best guess. I'm more intrigued actually about צימבריק (tsimbrik). What the hell is that?! Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it, but he does say it in the video. So I think you're right that it's from "Zimtrinde". The development nd > ng is widespread in Central German, but I wasn't aware of it in Bavarian, and it's certainly not regular in Yiddish. Perhaps it's really due in this case to association with "Ring" (cinnamon sticks are curled after all). The second form looks like an ordinary phonetic variant to me (b by assimilation, loss of n by dissimilation and/or adaptation to the suffix -ik). Could be more to it, of course, but needn't be. 88.64.225.53 07:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By connection to the presumed *Zimtringe/ *Zimtrinde, I got the idea that it could be a metathesis of a similar *Zimtborke, but it might be less likely, particularly since the Yiddish word for 'bark' is the Slavic-derived קאָרע (kore). Wakuran (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We might be overthinking this. Middle High German has zinemīn, zinment, which with a bit of metathesis and dissimilation could wind up as tsim(e)ring without the need for it to have been a compound of anything. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But Zimtrinde was formerly quite usual in German (see Deutsches Wörterbuch). So it would be an odd coincidence if the Yiddish (and apparently Austrian German) had nothing to do with it at all. 88.64.225.53 19:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the alternative form צימרינד (tsimrind) that I found in a Belarusian Yiddish dictionary. If that's not related to German Zimtrinde, I don't know what is. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French marre and marrant[edit]

The semantic journey from esmarrir, "to be afflicted" to marre, "fed up with" and marrant, "humorous" is convoluted and should be attempted. In a certain sense, being afflicted in an exaggerated way could, I suppose, be considered funny. The Frankish verb *marrjan, "to stop?" is the cognate of English to mar, and also the source of Italian smarrire, which Dante famously used in the first lines of the Divine Comedy--Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la diritta via era smarrita. This word is so entrenched in Italian that I am not certain it is a borrowing from French and not a borrowing directly from Frankish. Alessio and Battista derive it directly from Frankish. Old Provencal has marrir so if the Italian word came from France, it more likely arrived in Italy by way of Old Provencal. 107.209.53.155 19:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To hail[edit]

In this article stated that both verb and noun hail have comen from Proto-Germanic *haglaz,
but this article shows that verb hail has comen from Proto-Germanic haglōną.
Shouldn't in English and Scots be two separate etymologies?
146.158.110.140 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted Etym 1 verb to its own Etym. Please check. Leasnam (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

φῠσῐκή[edit]

No etymology. Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the feminine singular of φυσικός (phusikós); the etymology is there. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Duchuyfootball (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

solvo[edit]

From se- (“away”) + luō (“to untie, set free, separate”).

Where did the "v" come from? Why was the such a big phonetic change? Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The v comes from the u (solvō = soluō), where the v was initially pronounced like a w. Later, the pronunciation of w became /v/. Leasnam (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a pretty minor phonetic change to me, regardless. Wakuran (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

observe[edit]

from ob (“before”) + servare (“to keep”)

I'm baffled by the fact that "to keep before" came to mean "to watch". Duchuyfootball (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me. Keeping something before (in front of) oneself, or to keep "facing" something is a way of keeping a continual eye on it. Leasnam (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for your explanation! Duchuyfootball (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ᱥᱮᱞᱮᱫ (selet’)[edit]

Does this term originate from Proto-Austroasiatic? HeliosX (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

chaw and jaw[edit]

We derive chaw from Middle English chawe "jaw" but other dictionaries consider it a mere variant of chew. I was going to ask if we had a source for our etymology, but then I noticed that we also derive jaw from "Middle English jawe, jowe, geowe, alteration of *chawe", from Proto-West-Germanic *kauā, but
(a) our entry on jaw does not mention any Old English term in between the Proto-Germanic and Middle English terms, and Etymonline suggests that jaw displaced the Old English terms that existed, rather than being a continuation of any of them, and
(b) the MED does not seem to have chawe; it has jou(e) with alt forms goue, jovwe, jowwe, jaue, jeaue, geoue; pl. joues, etc. & ǧawes, ǧeawis, ǧeowes, ǧewes, ǧieais, and it derives those from Old French jöe, joue, jewe, giue instead of (directly) from Germanic.
Etymonline does say the OED says the word is "of difficult etymology", so perhaps both theories are mentioned in sources and should be mentioned in our entries...? - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more data: looking at Middle English, there's Middle English chavel which is between Old English ċeafl (“jaw”) and English jowl; chop, source of chop Etymology 3 (best known in expressions like bust chops); chaft, which seems to be from Old Norse and is continued by chaft in northern English; and jou(e), which you already mentioned. This seems like a typical Middle English train wreck between various Old English, Old Norse and Old French forms.

The Old English and the Old Norse look to be cognate to German Kiefer, so at first glance it would seem that the proposition that the Old French forms displaced the others would be the most plausible. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, we derive chow (“to eat”) only from Chinese, but Etymonline says concerning chaw that the "OED notes that the variant form [of chaw] chow was 'very common in 16-17th c.'" as if to suggest chow is sometimes a variant of chaw and hence of chew (or, following the Germanic theory, of jaw). - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked chaw. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Also, perhaps chaw should be split into 2 etymologies: 1 derived from chew, and the second from EME chawe meaning "jaw" which perhaps goes back to Middle English jawe and/or chawl, chavyl and is today obsolete. Leasnam (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that ME chavel splits at some point around late ME and EME, where one route leads to the apparent loss of final l (cf. much, wench, wonky, etc.) and ends at EME chawe, chaw (“jaw”). The other route retains the l and turns ch- into j- and ends as jowl. What perplexes me is the late ME jawe bone. Is this jawe a form of ME chavel or the OFr joue ? Leasnam (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked more closely at the ME usages of chavel, and the change of ch- to j- (as well as loss of -l) took place already in ME, and we find forms jawle and jawe (attested as plural jawes: << (c1410) York MGame (Vsp B.12)62 : A greihounde shuld haue..good sesours..so þat þe neþer jawes passe not hem aboue. >>) in the ME chavel entry [here]. I suppose this helps to answer my question above regarding jawe bone. Leasnam (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the Etymology at jaw. I didn't go back too far, only to Old English and Old French. In merger-type etymologies, it tends to get messy when you go back too far. Please take a look. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: Regarding your mention of EME chow, it's interesting to note that Chaucer rhymed ME jowe (“jaw”) with clowe (“claw”) (cf. as does Modern jaw with claw), so jowe would have been pronounced ~~/ˈd͡ʒɔːwə/~~ /ˈd͡ʒɔ(w)ə/ and not /ˈd͡ʒuːə/(?) as one might expect had the term come from Old French. This would seem to eliminate any possibility that Old French joue could be the parent of ME jowe and some presume that jowe was preceded by ME *chowe, from OE *ċēowe, related to ċēowan (“to chew”), which shows up later as chow. Leasnam (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining issue I have, and it's a small one, has to do the Old French forms we show in our etymology, namely joë. From what I see in the DEAF, this was an early spelling used between the early 1100's till the early 1300's, and was no longer current by the time the word was borrowed by English (late 1300's). By that time the usual spelling was joue, jouve [actually spelt jouue], jo(u)we, jewe, etc. Even though joë is a true OFr form, it's probably not one that impacted Middle English jowe, and should probably be left out, along with other byforms like joye and jode, etc. Can we replace joë in the etymology with jouwe or jouve ? Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche, I modified the etymology slightly at chaw to point back to Middle English, a form with chaw- has at least one attestation from that period (see below):

c1450 Lydg.SSecr.Ctn.(Sln 2464)1713 : Mastyk Wel Chawyd.

I'm starting to seriously wonder if there is indeed a connection between Middle English chawen/chowen, Middle Dutch kouwen/cauwen, Middle Low German kouwen/kauwen, all three being weak verbs. Since Proto-West Germanic *keuwan was strong, it had the potential (as all strong verbs have) to spawn other ancillary verbs (weak verbs) from various stems according to a set paradigm: like Proto-West Germanic *kiuwijan, *kauwijan, *kauwōn, *kuwōn, and *kowōn. In relation to chaw, the verb I think most likely could produce the ME, DUM, and GML verbs mentioned above is *kauwōn: > Old English *ċēawian, > Old Dutch *kouwon, > Old Saxon *kōwōn. Shall we continue to state that it is an unexplained variation of Middle English chewen, or we can offer the possibility of the theory above (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche, @Chuck Entz, @Leasnam:

Per the FEW, the Old French form joe (/ˈd͡ʒɔə/) is attested from the Song of Roland (ca. 1100) to the fifteenth century, with the form joue appearing from the thirteenth century onward. That makes both forms contemporary with the Middle English. Forms with orthographic and presumably also phonetic w appear in Anglo-Norman; note the jouwe mentioned by the FEW as having been used by Bibbesworth (mid-13th century). The AND cite that form as well, along with a similar jowe (att. ca. 1275 and into the fourteenth century). The AND also mention that the word, apart from its primary sense of 'cheek, side of the face', had a secondary sense of 'jaw, jawbone'; this is corroborated by the DEAF. Per the MED, the Middle English word had both senses as well.

Compare the Old French poe (/ˈpɔə/), later poue, also found in Anglo-Norman with w (powe~pouwe), from which came the modern English paw, rhyming exactly with jaw.

In sum, the Old French and Middle English words in question correspond well on the phonological*, orthographic, and semantic levels.

*Assuming Leasnam's /ˈd͡ʒɔːwə/ for Middle English is correct.

Nicodene (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicodene, Thank you for that excellent information and analysis ! Paw is a near perfect parallel to this term. Perhaps the correct pronunciation for ME jowe should be /ˈd͡ʒɔ(w)ə/ instead (?). One question, in the verbiage found in the link you've provided here (/ˈd͡ʒɔə/), under Influence of Position, does it mean that /ˈd͡ʒɔə/ became /ʒuə/ during the course of the 13th c. ? Would that then suggest that by the late 14th c. that joë was no longer pronounced /ˈd͡ʒɔə/ but /ʒuə/, even if it might still be written "joë" in some instances, as changes in spelling often lag behind changes in pronunciation ? Leasnam (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leasnam It was my pleasure. The source for that screenshot is Pope's From Latin to French (p. 210), which focuses on the evolution of Standard French; note that the sound-changes it lists, after a certain point, are not universal to the French dialects.

For joe~joue, some glimmer of the Anglo-Norman pronunciation may be caught in the modern Norman descendants of the word. Many regional forms are listed in the FEW entry linked above, but for a complete picture it is best to consult ALF map 724 (searchable on this site). I will provide a brief overview.

The Channel Islands show [ʒow], [ʒɔw], and [d͡ʒɔw]. Western mainland Normandy is dominated by [ʒo], with a few places to the east having instead [ʒu]. In the rest of Normandy we have [ʒo], [ʒow], and [ʒu] in roughly equal proportion, the last of which occurs in the east and southeast towards Paris. More or less the same distribution of vowels can be seen on map 154, which shows the descendants of Old French boe~boue 'mud, filth'.

The overall picture is that, for the words in question, the frequency of [u] in Norman decreases as one moves away from Paris, reaching the level of zero in the Channel Islands, no doubt because they have historically been shielded from Standard French by English rule.

——————

You are right to wonder what the late Anglo-Norman orthography really indicates. In principle any of the spellings ⟨jowe jouwe gowe⟩ could represent any of the pronunciations [ˈ(d)ʒɔwə, -ˈowə, -ˈuwə], while ⟨joue goue⟩ could be any of those or [-ˈuə].

Judging by the modern Norman evidence, I would assume [-ˈɔwə] or [-ˈowə] for the 14th-century spellings, unless already adapted somehow into the phonology of Middle English. Possibly also [-ˈuə] among recent arrivals from (specific areas of) France or Englishmen posh enough to know and mimick the accent of Paris.

——————

Words ending in early Old French /ˈɔ(w)ə/ can also end up with /əʊ/ in English:

escrow < escroe~escroue < *skrôda (FEW/DEAF/AN/MED)
hoe < hoe~houe < *hauwa (FEW/DEAF/AN/MED)
mow < moe~moue < *mauwa (FEW/DEAF/AN/MED)

For convenience, the /ɔː/ words again:

paw < poe~poue < *pauta (FEW/DEAF/AND/MED)
jaw < joe~joue < *gauta << *gaba (FEW/DEAF/AND/MED)

Perhaps you or someone else knowledgeable about Middle English phonology (@Hazarasp comes to mind) could comment on the implications of this.

One thing I will note is that, per the MED, Middle English spellings with ⟨au⟩ or ⟨aw⟩ appear to be attested for all but the second word. Nicodene (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illness has made me mostly unable to contribute to Wiktionary, but I'm up to commenting on this matter.

In the absence of detailed research, my working hypothesis is that ModE paw and jaw replaced expected *pow and *jow (*/pɔʊ̯~pəʊ̯/, */d͡ʒɔʊ̯~d͡ʒəʊ̯/ invalid IPA characters (/*/)) due to influence from dialectal Middle English or Old French. A ME explanation is possible, as /ɔu̯/ apparently merges with /au̯/ in some ME dialects (e.g. Middle English stawe (“to stow”) < Old English stōw); since ME /au̯/ yields ModE /ɔː/ in this position, these dialects' reflexes of ME powe and jowe would regularly yield paw and jaw if borrowed into the emerging standard. On the other hand, I'm unaware of any OF dialectal developments that would yield the attested ModE forms. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the vocalism of paw and jaw could've been altered due to the influence of English chawl (variant of chavel) and claw respectively. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazarasp I'm sorry to hear that. Thank you very much for clarifying all this. I likewise do not see any obvious explanation from the Romance side.

Am I right in thinking that none of these words show a vowel outcome implying an original [ˈu] in English? If so that contradicts the OED's argument reported above by @Leasnam.

For comparison, here are the English outcomes of French words with early [ɔw]:

clove < clou < clāvum (FEW/DEAF/AND/MED)
soldier < soud- < sŏl(ĭ)d- (FEW/AND/DEAF/MED) - cf. also English solder

These appear to support your expectation of /əʊ/ as the normal English outcome. Both appear to be attested in ME variant spellings with ⟨au⟩ or ⟨aw⟩ as well, I suppose reflecting the dialectal merger that you mention. Nicodene (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be correct; though both those words happened to develop irregularly (one would expect *clow */ˈklɔʊ̯~ˈkləʊ̯/, *soudier */ˈsɔʊ̯d͡ʒɚ~ˈsəʊ̯d͡ʒə/). In the case of soldier, the irregularity is pretty clearly a spelling pronunciation (forms without /l/ are widespread in traditional dialects), but in clove its source is less clear (compare regular Scots clow). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Associated with the native clover, perhaps? Nicodene (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my facts are not straight, but on a side note, I have concern with the late date of borrowing of jowe as a dialectal Norman term. The vast majority of Norman terms seem to have come into English immediately after the Norman Conquest between the 11th - 13th c., and 1387 looks suspiciously late for a term to have been borrowed from Norman, especially one so mundane as to denote a "cheek, jaw, jowl". Late 14th c. began the phase of intense borrowing from Central French dialects, especially the standard dialect of Paris, since Normandy had for a while now been firmly in the hands of France. This is the period when we see doublets in g(u)- for words previously borrowed with w- and tutorial materials in England teaching people how to speak French properly. This makes it more likely that late 14th c. Middle English and certainly 15 c. M.E. would borrow Central French joue (/d͡ʒuə/ ~ /ʒuə/) over a dialectal pronunciation used in Normandy and the Channel Islands, which is no longer viewed as the seat of power and influence. I think the Norman dialectal hypothesis would work well had the term been borrowed a hundred years earlier (mid-13th c.), but a first time appearance in 1387 makes it more likely a standard French borrowing. Perhaps this is the reasoning behind why the OED rejects joue as a possible parent of jaw and is willing instead to presume a Middle English *chowe from Old English *ċēowe (?). I don't know. Leasnam (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leasnam On the contrary we have a plethora of loanwords from Old French first attested in English around the same time as jaw, or even later, which have an archaic shape relative to contemporary Central French. For the list that follows I cite Pope 1934 for sound-changes and the OED for dates of attestation.

Central French underwent [ẽn] > [ãn] 'in the course of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries', yet English has all of the following with /ɛn/: avenge (c1375), cent (c1436), denizen (1474), several en- words such as entail (1380), fent (c1430), pentice (1400), render (c1380), scent (a1398), slender (a1400), trench (c1400), trental (c1386), tench (1390).
Central French underwent /t͡ʃ/ > /ʃ/ 'in the course of the thirteenth century', yet English has all of the following with /t͡ʃ/: blanch (1398), chafe (a1382), chandler (1389), chant (c1405), charnel (1377), chariot (c1374), chive (a1400), duchy (a1382), encroach (?a1400), impeach (c1380), match n.² (a1398), paunch (a1393), peach (a1400), punch (c1384), trench (c1400), spinach (a1400), tench (1390).

The /t͡ʃ/ in chive, paunch, punch is a Normano-Picard outcome corresponding to Central French /t͡s/ > /s/: cive, panse, poinçon.

Central French lost /s/ before /C/ 'in the course of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries', yet English has all of the following with /s/: arrest (c1374), baste (a1425), joist (1379), mastiff (a1387), oust (1420), repast (1382), sconce (1392), screw (1404), scullery (c1440), slender (a1400), slice (a1400), spawn (c1400), spay (a1425), spinach (a1400), staple n.² (1423), test (1381), testy (c1374).

I have checked all of these words in the MED as well and found no earlier attestation in English there.

This is by no means anything close to an exhaustive list, mind, and I have not even touched on other sound-changes; e.g. camlet (c1400), waif (1377) as opposed to chamelot, gaif. Nicodene (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epiprocta[edit]

The suborder Epiprocta seems to have been named in "Das Phylogenetische System der Anisoptera (Odonata)" by H. Lohmann in 1996 (in German). I cannot find this source anywhere online, which may contain the etymology. Does anyone have access to this source or know the meaning of this name? Thanks, Pithon314 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the source, but it definitely looks like ἐπι- (epi-, “on top of”) + πρωκτός (prōktós, “anus, rectum”). Maybe someone with access to the source can figure out why dragonflies and their allies are called "on top of the asshole". Maybe someone misinterpreted Anisoptera as anus-optera? —Mahāgaja · talk 08:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can access the volume that contains the treatise offline today, but I totally do not guarantee to try to find the biology library for this, which I have never visited before, as I am up to only one thing for the day, and act upon the full-body split. After finishing my studies, I hate books and relish the idea of not entering a library in the near future. Why don’t you consider the source offline, man with three edits? Do we only have internet addicts? Fay Freak (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books allows one a snippet view, using which I could extract this fragment:

Es ist bestenfalls möglich, den Namen als (systematisch irrelevante) Umschreibung einer Stadiengruppe innerhalb der Pan-Epiprocta (siehe unten) zu verwenden. Die Monophylie der Zygoptera kann als gesichert gelten, so daß diese Einheit den Einheit den Epiophlebiiden plus Anisopteren als Schwestergruppe gegenüberzustellen ist. Hierdurch wird es notwendig, neben den Zygoptera eine neue, umfassende Unterordnung zu designieren, die ich mit dem Namen Epiprocta belege und deren Monophylie unbestreitbar ist. Die beiden subordinierten Teiltaxa erhalten als ranghöchste Schwestergruppen der Epiprocta die Namen Epiophlebioptera und Anisoptera.^[1]

This is less than illuminating --Lambiam 17:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one-step etymology of Epiprocta is epiproct + -a

A WP glossary of entomological terminology has the following for epiproct:

(Anatomical feature) a plate or projection dorsal to the anus in certain insects, generally on abdominal segment X or XI. For example in Archaeognatha, Zygentoma and Ephemeroptera, it takes the form of a long, rearwardly directed caudal filament resembling the two cerci that flank it. In the Odonata [order including Epiprocta] epiprocts have various functions, both in larvae, in which they may have respiratory roles, and in adults, in which they may have reproductive roles. Not all epiprocts in all insect species are homologous. Note that the term is used in other groups than insects as well, for instance Myriapoda.

Perhaps one or more diagrams showing where an epiproct sits on the body of typical members of Epiprocta would be more illuminating. One would have to know more about insect anatomy than I do to know why the Epiprocta deserve the name more than members of the three other insect orders that have epiprocts. DCDuring (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you all so much for your help! I did not expect the etymology to be so hilarious Mahāgaja, that's frustrating that Lohmann did not bother to explain where he created the name from User:Lambiam, and I completely missed that the etymology could trace back to the epiproct page User:DCDuring. Thanks again, --Pithon314 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a description related to the suborder Epiprocta,^[2] Lohmann writes:

– ♂ mit Cerci und Epiproct als Greifzange. Der Epiproct ist im Grundmuster bifurkat.^[3]

--Lambiam 08:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turaniella / Turania[edit]

Hello all. Turaniella Corliss, 1960, is the type genus of the protist family Turaniellidae, probably derived from the genus Turania Brodsky, 1925 (Turaniella ie "little Turania"). But where does this name come from? Is this a tribute to an autor named Turan? Gerardgiraud (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An author or a funder or a teacher or a spouse/friend or a protist researcher or an assistant, etc. or the place w:Turan. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a genus of moths named Turania and a moth species Ancylosis turaniella. Both are found in the Turan region. --Lambiam 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

дрэва[edit]

Wiktionary originally said that дрэва is a borrowing from Old Church Slavonic, but doesn't seem to show sources on this. This looks OK phonetically, but doubtful because Belarusian doesn't have that many Old Church Slavonic borrowings.

Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы says it's a borrowing from Polish with replacement of -rz- with local -р-, but notes that it's unusual that this Polonism is not reflected in Old Belarusian («Дзіўна, што ў ст.-бел. мове (гл. Булыка, Запазыч.) не адлюстраваны гэты паланізм»).

For now I've edited the page to show both etymologies, but could someone add source for the Old Church Slavonic etymology? Thanks! Хтосьці (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Хтосьці Personally, I would only show the etymology (or etymologies) for which sources are provided. In this case, the only provided reference (ESBM) points to Polish. The OCS etymology was added by this edit back in 2018 (the editor is still around) - until then, the etymology given was direct inheritance from Proto-Slavic. That doesn't seem correct either, since Derksen only lists Russian дерево (derevo) as an Eastern Slavic descendant. Chernorizets (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's really OK phonetically. I see that OCS прѣстолъ was borrowed into прастол, giving ѣ > а rather than э. Bogdan (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogdan They have different stress: the vowel is stressed in дрэ́ва, but unstressed in прасто́л. This is standard vowel reduction (compare рэ́заць ← рѣзати, but раза́к ← рѣзакъ), still active nowadays (e.g. the 2008 spelling reform changed the spelling of 'computer' from камп'ю́тэр to камп'ю́тар). Хтосьці (talk)

Considering that Belarusian has w:polnoglasie it definitely would have to be a borrowing, to say the least, but I don't think that's what's up for debate. Vininn126 (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is forgetting that OCS borrowings were already present in the 11th century. Cf. the much too empty CAT:Old East Slavic terms borrowed from Old Church Slavonic. OES ѣ always gives Belarusian э, which makes sense, because it was a close-mid vowel. I'm positive this is also a word already borrowed in OES, and thus completely regularly derived into Belarusian. Thadh (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks OK phonetically. Do you think it's OK to add that without a source? (I don't know what's Wiktionary's policy in such cases, I'm new here)

Also, Belarusian does have much less borrowings from OCS and much more from Polish, so Polish version also doesn't look implausible, either. Ukrainian Етимологічний словник української мови has kind of middle ground between Polish and OCS for Ukrainian древо: «фонетичний варіант повноголосної форми де́рево, що поширився під впливом старослов'янської та західнослов'янських мов». Хтосьці (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine without a source as long as it works, and has parallels. Both are the case here. Thadh (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Old Ruthenian древо (drevo) which is attested for Old/Middle Belarusian. There are many Ruthianian terms derived from OCS. Sławobóg (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is there a link with dreef in Dutch, dreeve in Middle Dutch? Synotia (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems far-fetched at best. Vininn126 (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But grens for instance comes from Slavic granica, so it's not 100% impossible... Synotia (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. That's almost certainly from drijven, related to English drive. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the "lane with trees" sense. Synotia (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, so am I. One of the senses reconstructed for Proto-Germanic *draibō is 'a roadway', so it's no big semantic leap from there to "lane with trees". —Mahāgaja · talk 10:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leasnam, RfE Proto-Germanic *draibō: It is not supported by sources, lacking evidence, no PIE cognates. The Middle High German word has no such sense neither in Lexer nor BMZ. No Gothic. Norse is not my strong shoot. Phillippa states that the Dutch verb is likely substrate. PIE *dʰreybʰ- is a mechanical hallucination with weak support from the Leiden school. Near homophone roots exist (-drome). Ringe supports a North-West European episode of contact with Slavic, actually. More generally an oblique plural *-m- versus *-bʰ- elsewhere is an often noted, yet uncertain isogloss. The semantic leap is relative to the starting point and your take needs to be disqualified because you overstepped the dorpel, drempel (“threshold”). On a different note, earlier works claim a well known tree-suffix from PIE *-tra(z) as can be seen in *holantr. 62.155.149.208 18:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The MHG treibe m means "violent act, robbery", which isn't too dissimilar in the way English/Scottish raid devloped from a term originally meaning "a ride, journey, road". MHG has the derived term vihetreibe f which means "cattle drive, cattle pasture". Early Middle Dutch has dreve f meaning "an approach, entry or access road, gateway", later Middle Dutch dreef m meaning "drove, corridor, track". How is there no evidence to reconstruct *draibō, or at least a Proto-West Germanic *draibu ? Leasnam (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from too dis-similar being a weird case of reduplication, I am asking for direct evidence to "road" in Proto-Germanic, specially "entry" because that's how the meaning in English street names is explained. The meaning of MHG vihetreibe is similar to those compounds meaning track (trace of an animal, footsteps, Fährte). "A ride, journey, road" to a "robbery" is equally well explained like trip and trap from a common sense (imprint, drive in, on which see finis. What reason do you see to date it to Proto-Germanic – the morphology, of a masculine (b)o-stem? As far as I can tell, -e is a reflex of older adverb formation (thus Stromschnelle for example). 62.155.153.13 16:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "not too dissimilar", and this is not reduplication, nor is it "weird". Not any weirder than "Norse is not my strong shoot". One must consider when *draibō was created. It was created before we had a system for dealing with Proto-West Germanic so give me a break. At that time, Proto-Germanic served both as 'Proto-Germanic' and 'Proto-West Germanic'. I would agree that the Proto-Germanic sense should probably be one that's merely "a drive, push", and "a driving, impulse, herd, track, road" in PWGmc. The reasoning behind the "roadway" sense is due to Old and Middle English meaning "road" and Middle Dutch where it means "access road" (toegangsweg).

<<specially "entry" because that's how the meaning in English street names is explained>> - I don't know what you mean by this. Are you referring to English drive for "street" ? Of course there can never be direct evidence to a reconstructed word. As stated above, it was made Proto-Germanic because that's what we had available at the time in our paradigm. Not sure if Old Norse dreif f (“scattering”) is a direct descendant, but it seems possible (?) Leasnam (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "roadway" and replaced it with "way, lane, track" labelling it West Germanic until I can create Proto-West Germanic *draibu. Leasnam (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yakut өҥүргэс (öñürges)[edit]

Claimed to be a borrowing from Russian хрящ (xrjašč). Now, there is at least an /r/ and a sibilant. The <ñ> might somehow substitute the /x/ and the <g> the palatalisation. I don't know. On the whole, however, it looks pretty unbelievable, so I just want to put it here for you to check. If correct, either a source or a phonetic explanation would be good. Thank you. 88.64.225.53 20:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the etymology with references. --Vahag (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahagn Petrosyan Thank you very much. 88.64.225.53 23:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amphiesmenoptera[edit]

Hello! I have another insect group question, this time for Amphiesmenoptera. I understand that -optera means wings like many insect orders (e.g. Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, Diptera, Mecoptera). Does anyone understand the origin or meaning of "Amphiesmeno"? Thanks for your help, Pithon314 (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems plausible it could have something to do with ἀμφιεσμός "clothing", but I don't know how the -en- would get in there.--Urszag (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This says it's from amphiesma (basically a variant of the above), although this still doesn't explain the -en-: the stem of the word is amphiesmat-, which should give amphiesmatoptera. Maybe it was improperly influenced by Hymenoptera.--Urszag (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The related verb ἀμφιέννυμι (amphiénnumi, “to put on (clothing)”) could have a perfect mediopassive participle ἀμφιεσμένος (amphiesménos, “clothed in, wearing”), which might be the source of the -en-, but the actually attested form is ἠμφιεσμένος (ēmphiesménos) with an unexpected η at the beginning. Maybe whoever coined this word didn't know about that irregularity. But I'm tempted to think Urszag is right that it's from either ἀμφίεσμα (amphíesma) or ἀμφιεσμός (amphiesmós) with an unetymological -en- imported from some other word like Hymenoptera. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Urszag, too. I don't expect much adherence to strict etymology rules in taxonomic names, especially relatively recent ones from non-Western-European authors. DCDuring (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You all solved that one very fast! I have added the amphiesma ("garment") etymology to the page. Thank you all again! --Pithon314 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

prannet/pranny[edit]

I heard prannet on British television, but I can't think of where these words would come from. TDHoward (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bichir[edit]

Anyone able to add the (Egyptian) Arabic etymon? - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche:: أَبُو بَشِير (ʔabū bašīr) is correct, and simply بَشِير (bašīr). Fay Freak (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

u-stem adjectives in West Germanic[edit]

Regarding Proto-West Germanic *swōtī, I don't understand why Ringe reconstructs the PWG ancestor of OE swēte, swōt as *swōtī. The existence of a variant without ending and umlaut is a clear indication that u-stem adjectives still existed in PWG and that this adjective was one of them in PWG, so I'd reconstruct PWG *swōtu. As another example, Proto-West Germanic *smanþī is only attested in West Germanic, but there are umlaut-less (and partly endingless) variants in both English and Frisian. This implies a reconstruction PWG *smanþu. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. I think the same could be said of *kōl(ī). Leasnam (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oars in the Caucasus[edit]

ხოპი (xoṗi) in Georgian and κώπη (kṓpē) in Ancient Greek. Is there a link or is it a coincidence? Synotia (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence, I'd assume. Wakuran (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The meanings do not seem particularly close, but Vahagn Petrosyan (given the related Armenian word) might know more, or who do we have who knows Georgian — Nicodene, Reordcraeft? - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese ようこそ[edit]

This thought crossed my mind. Maybe it's from 良く ("well") + Old Japanese 來 ("come!") + そ (emphatic particle). So it would quite literally mean "welcome!" (the same as in the Romance languages, bienvenido for example). 2601:49:8400:26B:6853:D1CF:AED1:2FA4 15:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology appears to already be listed as よく +‎ こそ, i.e. "well it is that (you came)" (followed by 来た or whatever). Makes sense to me, but sure, yours makes sense also. But I don't know if it's widely accepted — any source? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The shorter imperative verb forms are never used in polite contexts. This appears to hold true across linguistic boundaries: imperatives are direct, whereas politeness is indirect.

Since ようこそ (yōkoso) is a word used in polite contexts, we can be reasonably sure on semantic grounds that Old Japanese 來 (ko, imperative for 來 (ku, “to come”)) is not the source of the こ (ko) in ようこそ (yōkoso). As a further piece of evidence, Old Japanese そ (so) on the end was used to express prohibition or the negative imperative — don't do — and in that case, it grammatically only attached to a verb in the continuative / gerundive stem conjugation, which for Old Japanese 來 (ku) would have been 來 (ki). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr So, this そ is not the prohibitive you mentioned, but just the second syllable of こそ, right? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 00:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril kovachev, sorry for any confusion — yes, the そ (so) in ようこそ (yōkoso) cannot be an emphatic particle as the anon suggests. The emphatic particle only manifests as unvoiced そ (so) in the Old Japanese stage; by the time ようこそ (yōkoso) is attested in the late 1500s, so far as I know, this only ever appears as the voiced ぞ (zo).

For that matter, the prohibitionary そ (so) is also only attested in the Old Japanese stage. By the time of the Muromachi period when ようこそ (yōkoso) appears, prohibitionary そ (so) has been long forgotten; adverbial よく (yoku) does appear with /k/ elision as よう (yō); and the imperative conjugation of 来る (kuru) settles on 来い (koi).

The derivation as adverbial よう (yō) + emphatic specifier こそ (koso) fits the grammar, and is further bolstered by historical cites such as ようこそいらっしゃいました (yōkoso irasshaimashita, “it is well indeed that you have come”) and 能(よ)うこそ誘(さそ)ふて被下(くだされ)て忝(かたじけないで)御座(ござ)る (yōkoso sasofute kudasarete katajikenaide gozaru, “it is well indeed that you have invited me, and I am grateful”). The grammar in these would not work if the こそ (koso) were from imperative 來 (ko) + emphatic そ (so). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 05:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr No issue, any confusion is entirely on my part! And thanks kindly for your yet more detailed explanation, which has made it much clearer now. Thanks, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 03:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot for completting etymology and descendants[edit]

Sometimes a word in a specific descendant language has etymology but it doesn't show in the old language in the "descendants" section. A bot might be needed to automatically complete it.

For example, gennaio shows the origin from Latin ianuarius but there is no gennaio in its descendants. -- 汩汩银泉 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very reluctant to do this by bot, as there can be nuances both in etymological detail and in formatting that need a human touch. In this case, Italian gennaio is listed among the descendants of Vulgar Latin ienuārius, which is listed among the the descendants of Latin iānuārius with the note "(see there for further descendants)". —Mahāgaja · talk 20:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

때문[edit]

Is this or is it not related to Japanese ため? Saranamd (under another username) inserted an {{rfe}} asking if it might be; User:Eirikr suggested it seemed unlikely; Dubukimchi removed the {{rfe}} in November (the word has a referenced, two-paragraph long Korean etymology already); Saranamd reinserted the {{rfe}} today, saying "<st-> was already [t-] in this period". I'm not sure I follow; st- may be t- by this period, but if the earliest attestations are of st-, whereas the Japanese form has t-, wouldn't that speak against a connection? Other aspects also seem hard to reconcile, as Eirikr pointed out. Can anyone else bring any sources to bear on this? - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche In this period, <st-> is solely an orthographic way to write the tense [t-]. /st-/ is not attested.--Saranamd (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that initial tense consonants in modern Korean are developments from earlier consonant clusters. Thus, while ⟨st⟩ may indeed have been the standard orthography for writing a tense [t͈] in late-1800s hangul, it seems reasonable to me to surmise that this tense [t͈] pronunciation and ⟨st⟩ spelling are the diachronic results of an earlier [st] pronunciation.

We also know that a medial /s/ served in earlier stages of Korean as a genitive marker, not unlike English 's, serving to link a preceding noun or nominal to a following noun or nominal.
In addition, the /-n/ ending is a verb suffix. Our verb charts as at 하다#Conjugation call this a "determiner", but sadly this conflicts with the terminology in use at w:Korean_grammar, which instead describes "determiners" as a separate word coming before a verb.

If I understand the grammar correctly, if 때문 (ttaemun) is syntactically a noun, then an /s/ prefix might point to the medial genitive marker that appeared in older stages of the language.

If instead the final /-n/ indicates a "determiner" conjugation of a verb, then I don't think any /s/ prefix would fit here, given the syntax.

The couple comments at the top of the Talk:때문 page bring up a dialect version of the word as 땜시 (ttaemsi). I note that the /-si/ ending is described at w:Korean_verbs#Finite_verb_endings as a subjunctive ending, so this dialectal form might further suggest a verbal origin. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Ido be a descendant of Esperanto?[edit]

E.g., see:

Wikipedia: "It is the most successful of the many Esperanto derivatives, called Esperantidoj ["An Esperantido (plural Esperantidoj) is a constructed language derived from Esperanto."]. […] The name comes from the Esperanto word ido, meaning "offspring", since the language is a "descendant" of Esperanto."
A Short History of the International Language Movement (1921): “Ido inherited from Esperanto [ĉerpi] the word CHERPAR, to draw, which is Russian: […]”.

Currently, an Ido term cannot be set as inherited from Esperanto, showing the error “Esperanto (eo) is not set as an ancestor of Ido (io)”. J3133 (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to argue that Ido is a descendant of Esperanto in the strictest sense, as much as it is a "re-constructed language". There are a few native speakers of Esperanto, but it's not as if their speech variants naturally evolved into Ido. Wakuran (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakuran: I think it is better than calling them “borrowings” when the language itself is an Esperanto derivative. J3133 (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J3133:There's still a distinction between being a descendant and a derivative, I guess. Wakuran (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laban[edit]

Was there an intermediary (e.g. Latin) between the Hebrew and the English which would explain why the English pronunciation is so different from the Hebrew? Or is the English derived more from Tiberian Hebrew Lāḇān than from the variety of Hebrew our entry covers? - -sche (discuss) 15:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all Biblical names arrived in English from Latin, which got them from Greek, which got them from Hebrew. In this case, it would be Biblical Hebrew לָבָן (Lāḇān) → Koine Greek Λάβαν (Lában) → Latin Laban → Middle English Laban (in Wycliffe) → modern English Laban. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That's why Abraham isn't Avraham, or why Eve isn't Hevah or Kewah, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish, at least, there also exists a rare female form, Labolina, possibly made up for a Swedish children's book series about a friendly family of ghosts; Lilla spöket Laban, somewhat equivalent to Casper, the Friendly Ghost. (Some earlier British translations seem to have used the name Little Ghost Godfrey.) Wakuran (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all English forms of Biblical names go back to Latin. There are some based on learned transliterations from Ancient Hebrew made in modern times. For example, Reuben replaced Ruben from Latin Rūbēn. We now have Noah rather than Noe. Also, the digraph "sh" (as in Sheba) doesn't go back to Latin. But we can say generally that modern Hebrew pronunciation is not usually used as a source for Biblical names.--Urszag (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the English forms do not go back to the Latin as used in the Vulgate, they may go back to Tiberian Hebrew, but in scholarly works one is more likely to find transcriptions based on the reconstructed Biblical Hebrew phonology. --Lambiam 11:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should "cargas" be replaced with "cohetes" in lanzacohetes?[edit]

Thanks. 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Apokrif (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does lanzacohetes mean "rocket launcher"? If not, adjust the etymology in the entry. DCDuring (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophonisba[edit]

When I first created this I was not sure of the name’s origins, but the etymology that was added seems imperfect. It looks like a theophoric name of Baal (like Hannibal, Hasdrubal, etc), and that’s what is widely alleged online, and it seems that 𐤑𐤐𐤍 refers to hiding or protection. (So Sophonisba would be a Dorothy-Theodore of Baal-Zephon). But is there actual evidence of the written name 𐤑𐤐𐤍𐤁𐤏𐤋 in Punic (or Phoenician)? I could not find any sources that mentioned 𐤑𐤐𐤍𐤁𐤏𐤋 outside of simply listing it as the original form. Wikipedia (I know) says that she was recorded by Greek and seemingly then Latin writers, and apparently her first mention left her unnamed. So does that mean that there is no source, and her name was an invention (even one which resembles Carthaginian onomastics)? Regardless, I would also say that it’s seems like *S/Šapanba’l, if genuine, was influenced by σοφός (or similar words) in Ancient Greek Σοφονίβη, but I can’t really rationalize the intrusive Latin -s-. CanadianRosbif (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Traianus[edit]

Is there a published etymology for this Roman emperor's name? Chernorizets (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

музыка[edit]

RFV of the etymology.

From 2019 until yesterday, this read that it was derived from Polish by way of Ukrainian. A Macedonian IP has now removed the Ukrainian part- which version is correct? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz: The etymology was referenced - see Max Vasmer. I have fixed it. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev looks like the same IP also made an edit to музика that should be reverted. Chernorizets (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chernorizets: Thanks, done. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev Thanks! My patroller instincts told me something was wrong, but I can't just revert on hunches when I know nothing on the subject. There are plenty of cases where IPs have discovered things that were wrong and fixed them. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz: Thanks for spotting! Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

βαίτυλος[edit]

I was creating a page for βαίτυλος, but could not find a specific etymology.The Wikipedia page for "Baetylus" states that it's from "Semitic" /bet el/, but as I do not have sufficient knowledge of the Semitic languages, I do not know what specific form could lead to Greek βαίτυλος. Can someone help? AntiquatedMan (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article says it's specifically "from Semitic bet el "house of god"; compare Bethel, Beit El", thus Hebrew בֵּית אֵל. I suppose it says Semitic rather than Hebrew just in case it's from a different Semitic language whose term for "house of God" would be similar to the Hebrew. For example, in Arabic it would be بَيْت‎ إِلّ (bayt ʔill), in Phoenician 𐤁𐤕 𐤀𐤋 (bt ʾl), in Ugaritic 𐎁𐎚 𐎛𐎍 (bt ỉl), and so on. It could be difficult to figure out exactly which Semitic language the Greek word comes from. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose a Hebrew origin is possible (though I would perhaps expect *bαίτηλ(ος)?). The Dutch version of the page assumes a Phoenician origin, and mentions the synonym abaddir. This form may represent either 𐤀𐤁𐤀𐤃𐤓 (ʾb-ʾdr) 'mighty father' or 𐤀𐤁𐤍𐤀𐤃𐤓 (ʾbn-ʾdr) 'mighty stone'. I suppose we'll have to wait until a credible source comes along to confirm its origin. AntiquatedMan (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Marathi loans in Tamil and Malayalam[edit]

Why is old Marathi specifically taken for them? the Prakrits also had similar words so isnt it more likely to have been borrowed from Pkts? Tamil and Mlym didnt even have much influence from Marathi either unlike Kannada AleksiB 1945 (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caravan “ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *ker- (“army”)"[edit]

The entry for caravan states the word's ultimate root as “Proto-Indo-European *ker- (“army”)”. In karros (wagon, from which Greek κάρρον, cart) we have “From Proto-Indo-European *ḱr̥sós, from *ḱers- (“to run”)”. I don't know what relationship *ker- and *kers- have, but if none, then *kers- seems like a more likely root. Are there any sources to this etymology? HermannusAlemannus (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's derived from an Old Persian word for "army", apparently. Wakuran (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With a fresher look I can see the relationship between all of these. A caravan is a group of riders, which an army (particularly on the Asian steppes), is, too. I'm not a linguist, but it doesn't seem like a coincidence. An army doesn't run in the sense of moving at a pace faster than walking (and neither do carts), but it does run in the sense of moving fast. Is it not the case that either *ḱers- derives from *ker- or the other way around? Making one of them the root of the other and thus the ultimate root for both karros and caravan? HermannusAlemannus (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that *ker- (“army”) and *ḱers- (“to run”) can't be related because the former has the pure velar k and the latter the palatal ḱ, but then I saw that our entry for *ḱers- lists no descendants in satem languages at all, meaning we can't be sure whether it was *ḱers- or *kers- (unless there are satem descendants we simply don't have listed yet). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lembadion[edit]

Lembadion is the type genus of the family Lembadionidae . I don't know at all its etymology. Thank you for your help Gerardgiraud (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My own hypothesis is the following: it may come from the prefix lemb‑, from the Greek λεμβοσ, lembos, "boat", and, from the suffix ‑dion, which could be an allusion to Dionea (one of the names of the Roman goddess Venus). Thus Lembadion could literally mean "boat of Dionea". Gerardgiraud (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't be a combination of the Greek suffixes -ad (unit) and -on (fundamental unit)? Or would that make little sense? Wakuran (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) There are problems with that: Ancient Greek λέμβος (lémbos) is second declension, so the combining form would be λέμβο-, not *λέμβa-. Ancient Greek Διώνη (Diṓnē) is the mother of Aphrodite, so the epithet of Aphrodite would be Ancient Greek Διωναῖος (Diōnaîos, “of Dione”) or Ancient Greek Διωναίη (Diōnaíē). The generic name of the Venus flytrap uses the Latin transliteration Dionaea. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And so ?

Lembadion would be, quite simply, a diminutive of the Greek λεμβοσ, lembos, “small boat propelled by oars” as this book says read here. Contrary to my first hypothesis Dionea is not mentioned in this book. Do you agree with that? Gerardgiraud (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

λεμβάδιον (lembádion) appears to be a Byzantine Greek word. It's not in {{R:LSJ}} or other dictionaries of Classical Greek, but it is in {{R:LBG}} [4]. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our list of Gk diminutive suffixes isnt really filled out but -άριον, -ίδιον, and -ιον are all diminutives in Greek. It doesnt seem too farfetched to assume that the as-yet unlisted -άδιον might have a similar meaning, particularly given our guess at the etymology of -ίδιον. —Soap— 21:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is conceivable that the form was influenced by λαμπάδιον (lampádion), although the latter is regularly formed as λαμπάδ- (lampád-) +‎ -ιον (-ion).^[5] --Lambiam 19:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

coincidir[edit]

Is Portuguese coincidir really borrowed from French coïncider? The cognate Spanish, Catalan and Galician verbs coincidir and Italian coincidere all seem to have been borrowed or derived directly from Latin. Why would Portuguese be different? OweOwnAwe (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. Words may have been derived directly from Latin formally, but their use may nevertheless have been based on another living language. This still happens today with Latin-derived words in European languages that are actually Anglicisms. So if one were to look into this more thoroughly, the first step would probably be to check the earliest attestations in various Romance languages. If French is the earliest, this may corroborate the hypothesis that it is a Gallicism in the other Romance languages (or some of them). 88.64.225.53 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reinen Tisch machen[edit]

@Jberkel, Fay Freak: Is this a calque of French faire table rase or another Romance language, with a misunderstanding of the meaning of table? P U C – 13:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too old, and does not even have the exact same understanding without some steps of abstraction, originally apparently used literally in some regiolects, mensam detergere. Fay Freak (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Swedish has göra rent bord for wipe the slate clean, although it might be a variant of göra rent hus. Wakuran (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A wholesome folk etymology: “last but not least if we say ‘’’’’aufheben’’’’’ in the meaning of to ‘’cancel’’ it is the figurative use of ‘’to heave away.’’ So if we say ‘’eine Tafel aufheben’’ we not only say we heave away the cutlery but the people of the dinner party also move away to another place, after they had lifted themselves up of the chairs (‘’sich erheben’’).” (emphasis in the original) [6]

This idea is lifted from dictionaries (Grimm/DWB A 1 c[7], Adelung[8], …). Tisch as lexical replacement of obsolete Tafel is plausible, but the etymology of tabula is unreasonable to begin with. W. de Vreese (1899), ‘’Gallicismen in het Zuidnederlandsch’’, argues based on regional distribution: Het gebruik van het werkwoord ‘’heffen’’ is in dat geval een gallicisme: fr. ‘’lever la séance’’.[9] English pick up the tab (“short for table”[10]) fits the bill, since clean slate is a metaphor of settled debts, implying that a third party gives credit. Incidentally, bankruptcy is suggestive of total ‘’desk-struction’’, today implying that a third party gives credit or eats the losses if necessary. 2A02:8109:8991:900:4753:8B67:7C:BBF4 15:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tab in pick up the tab seems to be from tabulation, etymologically related, but not the same. Wakuran (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakuran: Isn't that our German friend Rhyminreason / ApisAzuli? P U C – 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC: The thought has struck me... Wakuran (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the material provided was not bad, only no conclusion was discernible, but there is not always immediately one compelling. Fay Freak (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, openthesaurus.de lists this as a synonym of Tabula rasa machen,^[11] which lends credence to the mistranslated calque theory. --Lambiam 20:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not quite synonymous and I don’t find it before the 19th century. I think it is a fanciful/humorous learned invention depending on renewed philosophy knowledge of that time. Fay Freak (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese 岬[edit]

Is this 水(み)+先? @Mellohi! @Chuterix According to Kōjien, "ミは接頭語", for which the most obvious and fitting is み ("water"), which is used in other words like「みぎわ」「みなもと」「たるみ」. Further, Daijirin says "「さき」は先", which just leaves to confirm whether み = 水, but I don't have an etymological dictionary and none of the ones I can see online are brave enough to say what the み "prefix" corresponds to. Would anyone happen to know? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr Sorry, I mistyped my previous ping. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of NKD (the entry available online at Sakura Paris here) simply says "「み」は接頭語", where mi- is an undefined . The same says for the NKD2. The Etymology Theory (語源説) section says the following, which 3 sources for 水 (mi-, “water”) and 3 sources for 御 (mi-, honorific prefix):

語源説
(1)ミヅサキ（水先）の義〔俚言集覧・名言通・国語の語根とその分類＝大島正健〕。
(2)ミは美称。サキは鋒前の義〔箋注和名抄〕。ミサキ（御先鋒）の義〔松屋筆記〕。ミサキ（大先）の義〔和訓栞〕。
(3)ウミサキ（海崎）の義〔日本語原学＝林甕臣〕。

Personally, the first two theories are plausible; mi- is a prefix meaning 'water', and capes and peninsulas stretch out to a body of water (ocean). However mi- (honorific prefix) is also plausible, as in "the great end/tip/edge". The honorific has been generalized to many words, such as 峰 (mi-ne, “(great) peak”), 道 (mi-chi, “road, path”, literally “(great) road”), 神酒 (mi-ki, “wine”, literally “(sacred) wine”), 帝 (mi-kado, “emperor”, literally “(honored) gate”), 宮 (mi-ya, “palace”, literally “(great) house/building”), 尊 (mi-koto, “Highness”, literally “(great) thing”), possibly even 港 (minato, “sluice; harbor”, literally “(honorable) water gate; if you trust Vovin”). The ONCOJ also derives this from the honorific marker (see here), and Omodaka 1967 p. 701 mentions 御 in that entry.

If you count JDB and ONCOJ that would be 5 sources. I'll leave this for further debate. Also pinging @荒巻モロゾフ despite he's literally in radio silence at the moment. Chuterix (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note too that the Kotobank version of the NKD includes a citation from the Nihon Shoki of 720 with the spelling 御碕, explicitly using the kanji spelling that indicates the honorific 御 (mi-) prefix.

FWIW, I don't think the "water" or "sea" senses fit the semantics very well -- it's the land that's sticking out into the water, in which case calling this a "water point" doesn't quite work. For "water point", I'd expect the opposite -- the water sticking out into the land, as an inlet. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuterix Sorry for my lateish reply, but what is the interpretation of (2)? What word or prefix actually is this? @Eirikr Both, I have now transferred these explanations here (up to the fact that I couldn't interpret (2)) with preference for the 御 interpretation: hopefully this is an acceptable way to summarise it. Also, I'm not sure how to reference the works you referred to here, so I leave this to you if you want. Thanks very much for these explanations, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few details and a bunch of references. HTH. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

khapra[edit]

Can anyone add the Hindi and/or Urdu script of the etymon? - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess would be खपड़ा, but Beginning Sanskrit three and a half decades ago and Google Translate can only go so far. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After plugging it into GBooks, it seems I guessed right: [12]

blue[edit]

RFV of the etymology.

Is NPR a good enough source? A 2014 report from All Things Considered supports the blue envelope etymology for the "adult, vulgar" meaning with some pretty specific details, below. Trey314159 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Kenrick, who teaches the history of musical theater at New York University, says the term began 100 years ago, with performers working for the Keith-Albee vaudeville chain. After their first gig in each new theater, they would get notes written on blue stationary.

"That blue envelope was the management informing you what material in your act might be offensive to local audiences, and therefore had to be removed from your act on pain of termination," says Kenrick. "Over the course of time, blue came to be identified for any kind of humor that was off-color, that was a little too adult, that was risqué or even downright dirty."

hot take[edit]

The definition listed now is only the one related to news media, but on the Internet and Social Media, the usage would arguably be more similar to "voicing an unpopular opinion deviating from general consensus", such as "Hot Take! Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is better than Temple of Doom!" Wakuran (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no pain, no gain[edit]

Claimed to have been popularized in the early 1980s. Google Ngram data suggests this is probably true for the singular form, but the plural form no pains, no gains (which is a hard redirect) is found regularly in the early 1900s according to Ngram. It is also given as a translation for equivalent foreign-language expressions in early 1900s dictionaries (such as Hayyim's 1942 Persian-English dictionary).--Saranamd (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satan entered[edit]

In Luke 22 3 it says Satan entered that means it himself entered or he Judas iscariot open the door for Satan throught the correct word of entered we can come to ist contradiction or not Samuel deepak Solomon (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The doubt is at the word entered Samuel deepak Solomon (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of the King James 21st version is "Then entered Satan into Judas, surnamed Iscariot, being one of the twelve.", so it is the figurative usage of Satan taking possession of Judas. (It's an English translation, and I can't read Amharic or Greek, though.) Wakuran (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original Koine Greek text uses the verb εἰσῆλθεν (eisêlthen), aorist of εἰσέρχομαι (eisérkhomai, “to go into, enter, invade”), so it literally says Satan entered Judas. Whether you want to take that literally (Satan literally entered Judas's body and mind) or figuratively (Judas succumbed to the temptation of a sinful thought) is a theological rather than linguistic question. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I guess the writing in the Bible might be somewhat abstract... Wakuran (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Vulgar) Latin **haeresia*[edit]

Heresy is suggested to come from Latin haeresis through French hérésie. But it seems that there is a missing link between haeresis and hérésie (among other Romantic cognates; like Italian eresia) through a Vulgar or maybe falsified Latin noun like *haeresia. Genesis comes from the same Greek suffix and was also taken directly into descendant languages, but didn’t gain that -ia, so it became French génèse, instead of *génésie, so what’s missing? CanadianRosbif (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Wikisource has two uses: in Augustine of Hippo’s De Baptismo contra Donatistas and in Paulinus of Nola’s Poemata. I think, though, that both are transcription errors. --Lambiam 19:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French chez [edit]

Does French chez not directly derive from Latin casae, the genitive form of casa? The etymology for chez theorizes that, but only alongside the dative form, and only in regards to the prononciation and final -e. With the meaning and usage of chez would it not only be logical to derive from a genitive, especially since it does not seem like it was ever used as a noun in French (or even Gallo-Romance). CanadianRosbif (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casae was both dative and genitive, and accordingly it says "dative-genitive form". I also don't see why it absolutely has to be the genitive. To my knowledge, the ablative was at some point merged into the dative. So at that stage you could have had *in case (in the house). But even if this were not so: the current wording is quite correct and includes the genitive. Finally, whether it is actually a case form or just a contraction is an open question. In fact, the Trésor takes the latter stance: "Le traitement irrégulier de la finale s'explique par la position prétonique du mot dans son emploi prépositionnel [...] plutôt que par une forme casus". 88.64.225.53 03:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: On reading your question again I somewhat suspect that you may misunderstand the meaning of a genitive here, perhaps thinking that it would mean "the house of", but it would actually mean "of the house". So that's why I don't quite understand your insistence on a genitive. I appologize in advance in case I wrongly attributed this misunderstanding to you. 88.64.225.53 05:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*peyh₂-w-[edit]

We need some third party intervention. User:Caoimhin ceallach and I are in a disagreement over the entries RC:Proto-Indo-European/péyh₂wr̥ and RC:Proto-Indo-European/peyh₂-, which can be found here: User_talk:Victar#póyh₂-w-eh₂. I assert that Proto-Indo-Iranian *píHwas from PIE *péyh₂u-s ~ *pih₂w-és, and Lithuanian pieva and Ancient Greek: πόᾱ (póā) from PIE *póyh₂w-eh₂, derive from *péyh₂wr̥, but he believes they derive directly from the root *peyh₂- (see revert), claiming a derivation from *péyh₂wr̥ is impossible. The sources seem to support my assertion, with PII *píHwas perhaps even being an internal derivative. PIE *póyh₂w-eh₂ is also clearly secondary, as *-ó-weh₂ isn't a known PIE suffix. --{{victar|talk}} 05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the debate on your talk page, and without being a PIE expert at all, I also don't understand how *póyh₂w-eh₂ can be derived from *péyh₂-wr̥ ~ *pih₂-wén-s. There's no r or n in *póyh₂w-eh₂? P U C – 12:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I believe you made a typo when referencing Frisk: the relevant pages are pp. 568-569, not 268-269. P U C – 12:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading those pages, the only definitive connection I see Frisk make is between AGr. πόα (póa) / ποίη (poíē) and Lithuanian pieva; "weitere Beziehungen ganz hypothetisch". Invoking him as a source to tie these words in with the root *peyh₂- (either through *péyh₂u-s ~ *pih₂w-és or *péyh₂-wr̥ ~ *pih₂-wén-s) seems rather problematic. P U C – 12:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Frisk doesn't make the link. Chantraine (1999: vol. 2, p. 922) similarly rejects it. However I do think the connection with *peyh₂- (one way or another) is safe, because 1) Derksen, Beekes make it and 2) semantically it fits well with other derivations meaning "rich, fertile" and by extension "rich, fertile place". Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC: These *pVyh₂-w- terms derive secondarily from *peyh₂- + any suffix with *-u-, whether it be *-u-s or *-w-r̥. We have no evidence of *péyh₂-u-s, making *péyh₂wr̥ the safer choice. Most secondary PIE reconstructions drop the case ending of the stem, so the lack of *-r- or *-n- is not surprising. See Ancient Greek secondary from πῖος (pîos) from πῖαρ (pîar). User:Caoimhin ceallach seems rather misguided as **pih₂-wes and **pοyh₂-weh₂ are invalid primary (root) derivations. --{{victar|talk}} 12:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few pings @Fay Freak, Mahagaja, Pulimaiyi. --{{victar|talk}} 11:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) -r/n- is not a case ending.

2) πῖος is not from πῖαρ. It's back-formed from πιό-τερος/-τατος. See Beekes, Frisk.

3) I don't mean to claim that they're primary root derivations, but that they're from peyh₂- one way or another. The intermediary steps are unclear. (See Benveniste, 1935, chapter 2, pp. 23-39 for a discussion of the topic, but without firm conclusion.)

—Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. *-r is the nom.sg. case ending, whilst *-u- is its thematic vowel, same as *-s is to *-o- for thematic s-stems.

2. {{R:grc:Beekes:2010|1188}} just calls πῖος (pîos) a "new [secondary] positive", that doesn't mean it derives from πιότερος (pióteros), but regardless, both lack the original case ending. If you need a couple more examples: *pérwr̥ > πεῖραρ (peîrar) ⇒ πειραίνω (peiraínō); *gʷelh₁wr̥ > δέλεαρ (délear) ⇒ δελεάζω (deleázō).

3. **pih₂-wes and **pοyh₂-weh₂, *as you wrote them*, both claim to be primary (root) derivations, both also invalid PIE suffixes. If not from *péyh₂wr̥, how do you derive them, because sources, like {{R:ine:EIEC|head=*píhₓu̯r̥|page=194}}, support that derivation.

--{{victar|talk}} 09:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: Assuming it's correct that *-(o)-weh₂ is not a suffix (pace Derksen, Beekes, Wodtko), cf. adj.fem *-(Ø)-weh₂, and that *-(o)-eh₂ suffixed to an u-stem *poyHw- derived from *-(e)-wr̥, the o-grade and the -eh₂ suffix do not follow from *-wr̥ and could be formed analogically in any event, as long as ablaut was productive, e.g. from *piH-weh₂ (*piHwen/wer per Kölligan as cited). There seems to be some evidence of an r/n-stem, which may older. In the competing opinion, it's a separate derivation either way and the age is left open. 141.20.6.93 14:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging you, @Caoimhin ceallach, as I haven't head from you in several days. --{{victar|talk}} 21:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar, I was hoping to give some other voices a chance.

Few more pings @*Diwodh₃rós, Mellohi!, JohnC5, Erutuon, GabeMoore —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No point in adding your signature to old pings- they're not going to go through. To redo the pings, you have a choice of either adding a new paragraph with the pings, and this time signing it in the same edit, or putting plain wikilinks in an edit summary to the user page of each account you want to ping (templates don't work in edit summaries). Allow me to demonstrate: Chuck Entz (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caoimhin ceallach, I haven't gotten a reply on this yet. --{{victar|talk}} 05:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. *-r is not a case ending (Sihler 1995 §257.1.). *-u- is not a thematic vowel (Fortson 2010 §4.22.). In Indo-European linguistics that term is reserved for the ablauting *-e/o- that is used as (part of) a stem-forming suffix.^[1] There is no such thing as a "thematic s-stem".

I have observed that you never admit fault and prefer to dig in/lash out when you are contradicted. I therefore think it is necessary to remind you that admitting a mistake is not a weakness. You've shown a quite serious misconception of PIE and Greek morphology here and it is absolutely necessary to concede that if this conversation is to have any purpose. In fact, in think this misconception explains why you believe that *péyh₂w-r̥ > *póyh₂w-eh₂ is a valid derivation, because you are right that in order to add a derivational suffix the inflexional ending is first removed. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now back to personal attacks instead of addressing my examples that contradict you under #2. Nice. --{{victar|talk}} 08:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address them because they are the kind of examples I wish you'd brought a month ago. But first we need to agree that 1+1=2, so to speak. Can we do that please? I do not mean to attack you. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. These indeed come close to the kind of examples I've been asking for since 22 December. The only problem is that they're wrong.

For πειραίνω compare Sihler (1995 §465.5. p. 517). It was derived from the weak stem of πεῖραρ before it was extented with -τ-. It represents *pérwn̥-ye/o-.

For δελεάζω compare Debrunner (1917 §236 p. 118). It was derived later, after the extension of the weak stem with -τ-. It thus represents *deleát-ye/o-. The development *'-átye/o- > -άζω is irregular. What probably happened was that the expected -άσσω was replaced by the very productive -άζω because the futures and aorists of those classes coincide. A similar process is described by Sihler in §465.2.a.

Summary: suffixes generally don't get removed during derivation. You are mistaken if you say they do. It is imperative that you admit that.^[2] —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar Have you got anything to say? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caoimhin ceallach: Thanks for the, albeit passive aggressive, ping to an overtly aggressive reply.

The example given by Sihler, n-stem *h₃nomn̥-yéti > ὀνομαίνω (onomaínō) checks out, but wr/wn-stem *perwr̥ ~ *pr̥wen-yéti would have yielded **πειραίρω (**peiraírō) ~ **παυρείνω (**paureínō)/**παιρείνω (**paireínō). Compare *seǵʰur -yéti > Hittite 𒊭𒀝𒆪𒊑𒄿𒂊𒈪 (ša-ak-ku-ri-i-e-mi). Ancient Greek πειραίνω (peiraínō) appears in construction to be later, i.e. πεῖραρ (peîrar) +‎ -αίνω (-aínō).
The genitive of Proto-Hellenic *délewər, whence δέλεαρ (délear), would have been *délewəros, compare *yêkʷər, but even assuming *délewətos, as you mentioned, the expected outcome would have been *délewət-yō > *délewəťťō > **δελεάσσω (**deleássō). Trying to explain irregular δελεάζω (deleázō) using some rare exceptions cited by Sihler with no direct parallels seems more gymnastics than simple δέλεαρ (délear) +‎ -ᾰ́ζω (-ázō).

--{{victar|talk}} 05:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar Could you please address point 1? You have some very unorthodox views on Greek morphology that place this entire discussion on shaky footing. You seem to be attempting to mask old mistakes with new mistakes:^[3]

That root and suffix ablaut should both be preserved is vanishingly rare. The paradigm πεῖραρ, πείρατος bears this out, with generalised full grade of the root and zero grade of the suffix. πειραίνω is the expected outcome.
I don't know what you want to say with the Hittite, but in no way does it disprove this account of πειραίνω.
The genitive of δέλεαρ is δέλεατος. There is no reason to believe that its immediate predecessor inflected in a radically different way.
The paradigm at *yêkʷər is wrong. The word is an r/n-stem in both Ancient Greek and PIE. Why wouldn't it be in Proto-Hellenic?
Changes like (unproductive) -άσσω > (extremely productive) -άζω are not rare exceptions. Analogical changes like that are a dime a dozen. You yourself argued for such a change *péyh₂w-r̥ > *póyh₂w-eh₂ early on in this discussion.^[diff] The only difference was that it was unmotivated. It still is unmotivated to this day, despite my repeated pleas to you to remedy that. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caoimhin ceallach: I don't always address your points when I find them irrelevant to the larger issue, and/or they're just you baiting me.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by claiming a reconstruction is from PIE but not following PIE construction rules. The Hittite was an example of wr/wn-stem + denominal *-yéti, and how it operates. Where are your sources supporting that *yêkʷər ~ *yḗkʷəros is wrong? Sihler(1995):302 claims t-stem obliques spread later from Attic. Do you have some examples of -άσσω > -άζω?

@Erutuon is the real expert in Ancient Greek on the project. Perhaps he can give his thoughts. --{{victar|talk}} 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address it? I've explained why it goes to the heart of what we're talking about here. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar Have you got anything else to say on this topic?

It should be clear by now that I don't care much about being right or proving you wrong. What I care about is finding the most plausible etymologies of words. I would like to be able to work with you, not against you. Your expertise is invaluable. It would be nice if I could question or criticise minor points without it having to drag on for months. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caoimhin ceallach: I've asked you two questions in my last comment which you haven't addressed. --{{victar|talk}} 07:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar Aha, so if I respond to those—what did you call them earlier?—"pedantic minutiae", you'll finally get serious about addressing the central point in this discussion and not lob a few more excuses my way? I'm waiting with bated breath. Ok:

I don't know what you mean by me "not following PIE construction rules".
I don't understand what you think the Hittite says about the Greek.
Do I really have to answer this again?
You've misread Sihler. He's talking about the spread of t-stems to other stem classes.
From the references I gave you before: ὀνομάζω (onomázō), γουνάζομαι (gounázomai). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caoimhin ceallach:

Following PIE construction rules meaning creating valid PIE reconstructions, ex. proper denominative verbs, which is what the Hittite was illustrating, and not invalid reconstructions like **pih₂-wes and **pοyh₂-weh₂. What are your explanations for these two reconstructions?
What is ὀνομάζω (onomázō) an example of, -άσσω > -άζω? If so, how so, if not, what examples can you give?

--{{victar|talk}} 01:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar, Caoimhin ceallach: *yêkʷər ~ *yḗkʷəros doesn't look right, but stating that ἧπαρ, ἥπατος (hêpar, hḗpatos) is an r/n-stem doesn't sound straightforward either. α < n̥? Where does the τ come from? I vaguely remember reading something about this but that's all. Could you clarify?

And please play a bit nicer both! P U C – 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PUC You're right, it's not straightforward. Sihler (1995) gives two possibilities on p. 297, but it remains uncertain. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar Is there anything else you would like to add on this topic? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. --{{victar|talk}} 01:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered your first question on 3 January. Your second is explained perfectly lucidly in Debrunner. I don't know what I can add.

Could you address my point now? (Point 1 above, from 22 January.) —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caoimhin ceallach: If you have answered my two questions above, I ask that you do so again as it is not clear to me. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 20:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate what I said before: I'd like to discuss the history of this word with you. As I've said, I am not wedded to any particular derivation sequence leading to *póyh₂weh₂. I'm sure your knowledge and experience could help us forward, but I am currently not sensing a cooperative mood in you.

At any rate, any such discussion is premature if we can't agree on some fundamentals of PIE derivation. For that reason, again, I kindly ask you to consider the point I made above.

Your second question is, again, answered perfectly clearly in Debrunner, to which I've referred you several times now. I also paraphrased it above on 23 January. If there is a part you don't understand, it would be good if you pointed it out more precisely. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, this is painful to watch. Your first defense is selectively referencing dictionaries, which do not unanimously agree. Then follows "I don't know what you mean ..." (Feb 7th), "I am not wedded to any particular derivation sequence leading to *póyh₂weh₂" (Feb 15th); Sihler §257.1 says nothing -- cf. §282, "pre-PIE sound laws acting on nom.sg.m.f. forms of normal type , **maH₂ters “mother” [...]"?!? and §291.1 p. 300 explicitly states neuter *piHwr̥, "also NB π̑ι(ϝ)αρ indecl. ‘cream, fat’". The semantic difference between fat and land is huge and you are not showing any understanding of formal semantics either. Are you wedded to any particular derivation sequence leading to ποίη < *póyh₂weh₂ that makes you sure it can be reliably reconstructed for PIE or is your only argument that you can not? HerpesDerp (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what to make of this confused screed. You made an account just for this? For your information, it should be clear that Victar and I don't disagree that πόα (póa) ~ ποίη (poíē) derives from *peyh₂-. We disagree about how. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no, I'm sorry. See Smoczyński 2007: 1268f., 1272f., 1294 for semantics and derivations, píeva "Kontynuuje pb. *pāi̯u̯ā < *pai̯H.u̯aH. [...] metatezy spółgłoski laryngalnej w praformie *paHi.u̯aH' < pie. *po.h2i.u̯eh2.".

Victar said firmly and repeatedly, "we have no evidence of *péyh₂-u-s" (Jan 2nd) and "this cant not be derived directly from the root". I see no reason to believe that this argument of his does not extend to ποίη < *póyh₂weh₂. HerpesDerp (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I said firmly and repeatedly that I have no strong view about what the true derivation should be. Anyone is allowed to change it at any time if they have a better idea. The above discussion is about whether *péyh₂w-r̥ > *póyh₂w-eh₂ is possible.

As for your proposal, it seems good! These semantics are indeed better and the u-stem is attested. The only problem I have with it (apart from your tone) is that *póh₂iweh₂ shouldn't be a target for laryngeal metathesis as Smoczyński claims. The only possibility would be if we start with *ph₂iweh₂ > *pih₂weh₂ and the o-grade was inserted later. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which Smoczyński 2007 are you talking about? His etymological dictionary has only 797 pages. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SEJL is online with foreword dated 2016. I should have wondered why page numbers do not match citations.

As for metathesis, p. 1294 also deals with *pyéh2-/*pih2-u- (LIV² p. 481) > *piuh2-(C)-, e.g. Latvian pļaut (“to mow, to reap”). p. 1268 argues that Lithuanian píenas (“milk”) is ambiguous if from *piH-(C)- *peyH- or from *peh₃-. HerpesDerp (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the 2016 version but the page numbers still don't match up. I land at šáuditi, šeimýna, and širdìs for p. 1268, p. 1272, and p. 1294 respectively. píeva is on page 898 and the entry doesn't address the metathesis problem in more detail than the 2007 version. To the best of my knowledge something like *pih₂u-C shouldn't be a candidate for metathesis and *pi̯h₂u-C doesn't follow PIE syllabification rules. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ Admittedly the term "thematic vowel" is a bit confusing and correspondingly it can be used slightly differently in daughter languages, but that isn't relevant here.
^ Suffix substitution does exist. The most famous example is the Caland system. But in order to claim that you need to demonstrate such a system of interdependant suffixes exists, which is why I've asked you for examples of apparent *péyh₂w-r̥ > *póyh₂w-eh₂ so often. You haven't given a single one.
^ Again, there's nothing wrong with mistakes. Everyone makes them. But you have to be able to own them.

References[edit]

Smoczynski, Wojciech: Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary. Edited by Axel Holvoet and Steven Young with the assistance of Wayles Browne. Volume 3: O-S; ISBN: 978-3-631-76366-7. Berlin: Peter Lang. doi://10.3726/b14490

tass[edit]

RFV of the etymology. Tagged but not listed.
Current note at tass says perhaps from the verb tassa, but it was possibly tagged because the reverse seems move likely (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked it a bit. Honestly a derivation from Ancient Greek ταρσός (tarsós) isn't that far-fetched, I think the etyl just needed to consider the intermediary for the borrowing and the semantic shift. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 21:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The semantic shift, the absence of similar words in nearby languages, and the fact that Ancient Greek words almost never seep down to become everyday words in Swedish would make it unlikely, I think. Elof Hellqvist prefers to derive it from Tatze, ultimately a hypocorism. Svenska Akademiens Ordbok prefers to derive it from the onomatopoetic tassa, but briefly mentions the other possibilities. Wakuran (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, SAOB, the source given doesn't really support the hypothesis proposed. Wakuran (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on which Danish word "tasse" SAOB refers to, though. It seems to be completely obsolete, today. The only example I could find was the rare French borrowing en tasse (in a cup). Wakuran (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being derived from or at least cognate to German Tatze definitely feels much more plausible than derivation from Ancient Greek ταρσός (tarsós). —Mahāgaja · talk 15:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering its everyday usage, derivation from a modern European language like German, English or French would feel more likely than it seeping down from academical Ancient Greek. I guess none of the phonetic shifts from either -rs- or -tz- would be too unlikely, if we suppose a path through Danish or Southern Swedish, though. A dropped final -e in singular, indefinite, nominative form wouldn't be too strange, either, since words of common gender ending in consonant or or -e tend to have identical forms in all declensions except singular, indefinite, nominative, and "tass" is prone to be reinterpreted as a word mostly being used in the plural. Wakuran (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Svensk Ordbok (also from Svenska Akademien) favors the "tassa" derivation, but also mentions "Tatze". Wakuran (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German Kinkerlitzchen[edit]

Apparently this originates from French quincaille (rie) (“metal hardware”), and was originally used in reference to worthless jewellery (though the meaning has now widened).

The rest of the word is a bit more opaque:

I'm pretty certain -chen is diminutive, but the term is also a pluralia tantum (at least according to Duden). That being said, I can find uses of Kinkerlitzchens in the genitive, so should it be changed to "chiefly in the plural"?
-litz- is not obvious at all. I suppose it could be Litze (“strand (of wire)”), perhaps in reference to worthless necklaces/bracelets?

Theknightwho (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole phrasing sounds like an onomatopoetic folk etymology, to me. Wakuran (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid metathesis. The -rie went in front of the -ll-. Kinkerlitze f is well used. Fay Freak (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Kinkerlitze" is rare and could be a backformation, but even so this needn't trouble us. It's certainly not a plurale tantum and Duden is simply wrong about that (as so often). Singular use isn't recent either, but can be found on Google Books from at least 1900.

Regarding the etymology, Pfeifer considers all proposed etymologies unsatisfying. Besides the one mentioned above he cites:

1.) Kanker (obsolete for "spider") + Litze ("thread"), thus "cobweb". (A bit speculative, but fits in fairly well with the oldest attested sense "finery, ornament".)

2.) Lower Sorbian kuntorlica (“midge, gnat”). (Phonetically very close. Semantically close to the modern sense, but less so to the fashion one. Would be ruled out if the word came from some region far from Sorbs.) 88.64.225.53 04:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also newer editions of Kluge and Duden have removed or toned down the French reference without anything new to add. Kluge-Mitzka with one reference supposed a diminutive ending -litz. I suspect lützel (“little”), better known as Low German lütt. 2A00:20:6044:9700:4884:9DF7:4219:96D3 08:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, to sum it up, the -chen is pretty obvious, and the rest of the word's origins quite mysterious. Wakuran (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/rammaz[edit]

This page appears to skip a step in the chain of reconstruction (i.e. a Proto-West-Germanic, etc. intermediary), is this deliberate or merely an oversight? Helrasincke (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We created Proto-Germanic before Proto-West Germanic, so many entries are still lacking a PWGmc step. I've added it now to *rammaz. Leasnam (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pissed[edit]

Is there anything to be said about how the meaning went from "urinated" to "drunk" and "annoyed"?
"He's so drunk, he's [=has] pissed" → "he's so drunk, he's [=is] pissed"?
(And "pissed" = "annoyed" is a shortening of "pissed off", sure, but why does that mean "annoyed"?) - -sche (discuss) 06:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be annoying to have someone (or an animal) piss on you, or yourself have it: now you have to clean up or beat him up, and your day is ruined with any kind of piss, particularly after drinking alcohol, which never had overwhelmingly positive associations, possibly here is even a reference to increased aggression or vigour after inebriation. Fay Freak (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed it originally specifically meant ‘annoyed like someone with a bladder full of piss who has to hold it in is’ but you might be right that it refers to being pissed on instead. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the "drunk" sense derived independently from 'piss' resembling 'beer', hence "beered" Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply the normal physiological reaction to metabolizing large amounts of alcohol. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate the connection between "to piss" and "to be annoyed" is found more widely. Namely in Dutch zeiken (and as indicated there in Rhenish dialects). Of course also German angepisst, but here I wouldn't rule out an anglicism. 88.64.225.53 04:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Admittedly the term "thematic vowel" is a bit confusing and correspondingly it can be used slightly differently in daughter languages, but that isn't relevant here.

[2] Suffix substitution does exist. The most famous example is the Caland system. But in order to claim that you need to demonstrate such a system of interdependant suffixes exists, which is why I've asked you for examples of apparent *péyh₂w-r̥ > *póyh₂w-eh₂ so often. You haven't given a single one.

[3] Again, there's nothing wrong with mistakes. Everyone makes them. But you have to be able to own them.

[1]

[2]

[3]