Talk:lolo

Cebuano etymology

@Carl Francis, Mar vin kaiser Why is Cebuano "lolo" not from a shortened form of Spanish abuelo? I don't want to get into another edit war regarding etymology, but it may be correct that it derived from Spanish (the Tagalog word is cited to be from that Spanish word).--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a common misconception. Compare Italian nono and nona. If we follow that lolo is from abuelo, lola should have been lala. It developed on its own just like how mama is not from Spanish mama.— This unsigned comment was added by Carl Francis (talk • contribs).

It is correct that "lolo" came from shortening "abuelo" (which the ACD points for the Tagalog, but the "said to be" looks like an indicator of a folk etymology). "Lola", per Blust, comes from "abuela, but is rather a folk etymology, and a more plausible theory that it may have formed out of a feminine form of "lolo", taking the use of "-o" and "-a" (that is, abuelo/abuela) to indicate gender. Having "lala" from "abuela" is likely, but implausible, because "abuela" is a feminine gender form of "abuelo", so, "lola" may have arisen as a feminine form of "lolo", taking the gender in Spanish nouns in mind. Also, I see you are not adding signatures to your latest posts, so, please, don't forget to add those after you reply.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes sense for "lola" to be from "lolo" which ultimately came from "abuelo", patterning it from "tita" and "tito", and "iha" and "iho". --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)