Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:17, 30 March 2013

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Etymology scriptorium

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

Wiktionary discussion rooms (edit) see also: requests
Information desk start a new discussion \| this month \| archives Newcomers’ questions, minor problems, specific requests for information or assistance.	Tea room start a new discussion \| this month \| archives Questions and discussions about specific words.	Etymology scriptorium start a new discussion \| this month \| archives Questions and discussions about etymology—the historical development of words.	Beer parlour start a new discussion \| this month \| archives General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Grease pit start a new discussion \| this month \| archives Technical questions, requests and discussions.

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 – All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

Shortcut:
WT:ES

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

July 2012

vinum

I was under the impression that this was a very early borrowing from an unknown source shared with Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) οἶνος (oînos), Hebrew (deprecated template usage) יין, etc rather than inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Beekes says under (deprecated template usage) οἶνος (oînos):

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "With (deprecated template usage) (Ϝ)οῖνος ((W)oînos) agree, except for the gender and auslaut, Lat. (deprecated template usage) vīnum (if from *u̯oinom; Umbr. etc. vinu then Lat. LW [loanword]), Arm. (deprecated template usage) gini (< *u̯oinii̯o-), Alb. (deprecated template usage) vênë (< *u̯oinā); an IE word for `wine', reconstructed from this, may together with the related Lat. (deprecated template usage) vītis and many others (s. on (deprecated template usage) ἴτυς (ítus)) belong to the group Template:recons. As the wild vine a.o. was at home in southern Russia and certain parts of middle Europe, this assumption is acceptable also from the aspect of historical facts. As however the cultivation of the vine has started in the Mediterranean lands or in the Pontus area and in the south of the Caucasus, most scholars incline, to look for the origin of the word in these countries, what would point to non-IE origin. But if we put the homeland of viticulture in the Pontus and the northern Balkan, the word for `wine' might come from there. From this IE source would then come not only the words mentioned from Greek, Lat., Arm. and Albania, but also Hitt. u̯ii̯an(a)-, Hier. Hitt. wa(i)ana-, and also the relevant Semit. words, e.g. Arab. (deprecated template usage) وين (wain), Hebr. (deprecated template usage) יין (jajin) (common *wainu-?). Thus Beekes, MSS 48(1987)21-6, who points out that the Hitt. form requires *u̯ih₁on-. From Lat. vīnum further the Celt. a. Germ., from Germ. or Latin again the Slav. and (indir.) Balt. wine words; from Arm. gini e.g. Georg. (deprecated template usage) γvino. -- Lit. with further details in WP. 1, 226 (IE, resp. PArm.), Pok. 1121, W.-Hofmann s. vīnum , Schrader-Nehring Reallex. 2, 642 ff., Vasmer s. vinó. Cf also Kronasser Vorgeschichte und Indogermanistik (Symposion 1959) 122 f.. Page in Frisk: 2,364-366" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

--Vahag (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian "substratum" word etmyologies and Albanian cognates

A user has been recently editing all the Romanian words which have Albanian cognates, usually presumed to be from a substratum (i.e. Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian, etc) source, and indicating that they're all "borrowings" from Albanian instead. Of course I don't mind suggesting this as a possibility in the etymologies; that's one thing, but actually completely deleting the old ones and stating that they're all without a doubt from Albanian seems a bit too much, and sounds like some nationalist bias is being introduced. As far as I know there isn't any definitive proof that they are later borrowings from Albanian rather than having an older relationship; the alternatives should at least be mentioned, because it sounds like there are no substratum terms anymore now and can all be explained as Albanian. In some cases, they have even edited words that are probably of Latin origin and twisting them to make them derived from some hypothetical and speculative "Proto-Albanian" source that doesn't even correspond that clearly with any modern Albanian terms, so there seems to be some agenda here.

I will admit in certain cases there are a few words I believe are more likely to be later borrowings, and some of the new etymologies may well be correct, but how this happened is uncertain. Maybe during the Ottoman era, perhaps, though I find that highly unlikely as the majority of these are very common basic words deeply ingrained in the language that don't seem to be relatively recent introductions. If referring to very ancient times then for all we know they could be of common origin as there's no way to prove they came from one or another with the limited information we have now, and how can the language even be rightfully called Albanian at the time if it wasn't around as we know it back then, or at least documented? Unless they are advocating the "medieval migration from Albania" theory for Romanians, which is a whole different story, I don't see how these people would have been in close enough contact historically for this borrowing to happen, and why they didn't impact any other Balkan people between them like South Slavic speakers who are geographically closer to Albania.

There are other theories also, in some cases some linguists and etymologists have suggested the other way around even: that some were borrowed into Albanian from early proto-Romanian from the local Vlach people, though I'm not personally suggesting this is the case. The origins of the words are as of yet still mostly shrouded in mystery anyway, and I wasn't aware there was now an academic consensus that they were loan words. And since the Paleo-Balkan languages of Dacian, Thracian, and Illyrian and the relationships between them are so poorly attested, I am certainly aware it's hard to compare them to these modern languages and definitively say they were derived from any of them, so I'm not saying they necessarily did come from that source, just that they are most likely very old words which have been in both languages for a long time. I have a feeling this is going to turn into a back and forth edit war eventually.

Word dewd544 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which user has been adding them? Have you talked to them about it? —CodeCa t 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I just wanted to check first if anyone had any news about these, in case there was some new research that I missed recently before I started jumping to conclusions. It's not that big of a deal to me but I guess I should ask about it. They're named Torvalu4, I believe. I'll see what I can find out. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/yellow yolk

set

(I hope I'm not adding this in the wrong place, i.e. on the main WT:ES page if it should be a subpage or vice versa.) Should the poker sense of [[set]], "Three of a kind in poker", be under etymology 2 rather than etymology 1? - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. I'd split it into two etymologies, but ran out of well-functioning brain time before finishing. I was BOLD based solely on my own intuition, but would be surprised if the OED disagreed. MWOnline doesn't put much stock in the connection of Ety 2 to Latin BTW, not showing any etymology for the noun before Middle English and not splitting the noun by etymology at all. DCDuring TALK 10:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maski

Can anybody tell me about the alleged German idiom in this word's etymology? Meaning? Idiomatic? Definitely related to (deprecated template usage) maski? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macht nichts or es macht nichts is a real German idiom which means "it doesn't matter" or "don't worry about it". It was also borrowed into English as the now rather old-fashioned slang mox nix, which we don't have but Urban Dictionary does. I can't say whether (deprecated template usage) maski actually comes from it, though. —An gr 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I checked a reference book which confirms it's from German. Anyone up to adding these terms, then? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see we do already have das macht nichts, and I've just created macht nichts from it. —An gr 18:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll do (deprecated template usage) mox nix. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/cane

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/bed

August 2012

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/sugar cane

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/contubernal

inquam

I've been looking around for etymologies of this word but I don't have anything beside Google so it's not easy. The few sources I have found mention that it is from the Indo-European root Template:termx, and is an "aorist-present verb" (a verb that is historically aorist but present meaning). That second part is at least plausible because of the ending -am, and one characteristic of the aorist in PIE was that it was unspecific for tense, which the Latin verb also seems to be. But if that is true, it is only half the story because where did the s- go? Why not *insquam? —CodeCa t 11:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to de Vaan. --Vahag (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/matahari

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/zoysia

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/אצטדיון

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/urus

September 2012

object for cognates

Hello hello,

I would like to know if there is already a template for an object that could show cognates (pan-lingually), e.g. in the article for chary there would be a "cognates" box somewhere, perhaps near the "translations" box, and in that box there would be links to cognates of chary, such as care or karg.

thanks--Dixfranke (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cognates are usually listed in the etymology section of an entry. See chary#Etymology for example. —An gr 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

own#Etymology 3

We are the only modern dictionary that has own#Etymology 3. Bogorm took it from Webster 1913. But MW3 and MWOnline don't follow MW1913. Does anyone? DCDuring TALK 20:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic (deprecated template usage) 𐌷𐌰𐌻𐌻𐌿𐍃 (hallus)

My Latvian Etymological Dictionary cites this word as meaning "cliff, rock"; a quick search in the Gothic dictionaries at Lexikologs confirms that. However, the romanized form hallus is apparently not attested (hallu is attested, but the entry doesn't say what it means) -- it is not here at Wiktionary, and someone told me all Gothic forms from Ulfilas' bible (the only source for Gothic, right?) are listed here. How come this one isn't then? Is it an inflected form (in which case the LEV forgot to mention this fact)? Should an entry for the romanization be created (and perhaps a main entry for the Gothic script version)? --Pereru (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all we know of Gothic is from the bible, there's also the Skeireins which I think is some commentaries about the bible. All romanizations on Wiktionary come from [3], but those are literal romanizations of the words found in that text. So if a word only occurs in a certain inflected form then we will not have a romanization for its lemma form yet. I looked in Gerhard Köbler's Gothic dictionary, which lists all attestations for each word form, and it says that only the accusative hallu is attested, which is the form you found. So hallus is just the nominative form that goes with it but it's not found in any texts. —CodeCa t 13:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chop-chop

Is this really derived from Mandarin? This blog post suggests it comes from Cantonese gāp (急), which sounds more plausible. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the current derivation from Mandarin kuai-kuai or even Cantonese faai-faai seems very implausible. Merriam-Webster and AHD agree that the "chop" of "chop-chop" is the same as the "chop" of chopstick, and the Online Etymology Dictionary derives that from Cantonese kap "urgent", which I assume is the same thing as 急 gāp. —An gr 15:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the entry to reflect this — revert me if you know better. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

saltchuck

Our entry says this is from Chinook Jargon; the only support I can find for that is the website of a company called Saltchuk. Dictionary.com derives it from entirely English roots. - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OED: "Chinook jargon, < salt adj.1 + chuck n.6". "Chuck" meaning a body of water. DTLHS (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not saying that's correct, but that was my source. DTLHS (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for checking! I'll add the OED as a reference for the Chinook etymology~~, and add the English etymology with its references as another possibility.~~ - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems I was just misreading (mis-cross-referencing) Dictionary.com's cornucopia of English dictionaries, the sense of "chuck" I now see they're actually referring to is given as a derivative of this word meaning "any body of water". - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu etymology template

Can someone help me in preparing the etymology template for Telugu wiktionary, which will work in Sanskrit, and English in the beginning. Later on we can expand it to other languages. Thanking you.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nein

Does anyone know how the word (deprecated template usage) nein came about? How closely related is it to (deprecated template usage) no?

German Wiktionary claims it was originally a contraction of (deprecated template usage) nicht + (deprecated template usage) ein "not one". -- Liliana • 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be from OHG (deprecated template usage) ni + (deprecated template usage) ein? Or else how would the 'cht' disappear? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duden agrees it's (deprecated template usage) ni + (deprecated template usage) ein. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is closely related to, in fact, cognate with, (deprecated template usage) no (=not any, none), as in I have no money, being analogous to it in construct (both from the Ur-Germanic *ne ainą). Otherwise, where (deprecated template usage) no (=opposite of yes), it is only marginally related. Leasnam (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no go

Seems extremely ungrammatical in English... the similarity to (deprecated template usage) long time no see made me think that it might be from Chinese Pidgin English, as a calque of 不去. But could it be imitation CPE, or unrelated? I'd like it if someone could shed light on this. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess it originated as the opposite of go. Ex: "It's a go." "It's a no-go". --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, the rhyme is probably responsible for it not being "non-go" Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calque? No way. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/naked

Proto-Slavic *rьtǫtь

One of the etymology dictionaries says that Proto-Slavic *rьtǫtь (and Polish [[rtęć]]) could be of Turkic or Arabic origin. Do you know any similar Turkish, Ottoman Turkish, Arabic or Persian word that could be an ancestor for this? Related to mercury or Mercury. Maro 12:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please also see Russian "ртуть (rtutʹ)". I imported the etymology from a Wikipedia article, which mentioned "*rьtǫtь". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes what? :) I'm looking for a Turkic ancestor for these. Maro 12:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant I was also interested in this :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words are a participle of Proto-Slavic *rьtǫtь 'to roll, to rotate', inherited from Proto-Indo-European. Vasmer mentions the theory of derivation from Turkish (deprecated template usage) Utarit, Arabic (deprecated template usage) عطارد (ˁuṭārid), but dismisses it on phonetic grounds. --Vahag (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vahag, so Turkic or Arabic origin was just a theory? What could I use as a reference? Do you have a link or is it in a book? The etymology of "ртуть (rtutʹ)" must be correct then. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link in ртуть. --Vahag (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

jinx

Does anyone know of the origin of this word? etymonline.com says it comes from Latin (deprecated template usage) iynx, which in turn is from Ancient Greek. But etymonline.com isn't always so reliable so does anyone else have anything about this? —CodeCa t 12:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found etymonline to be unreliable, and it does only say "perhaps ultimately". He doesn't just make shit up; he uses an array of reliable sources for his etymologies. At any rate, both iynx and ἴυγξ are real words, and both Merriam-Webster and American Heritage agree with the possibility/probability of this etymology. —An gr 12:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my experience is that the Germanic etymologies are somewhat outdated at least concerning the reconstructed forms of Proto-Germanic words, not taking account sound laws that are considered well-established in modern linguistics. So maybe not unreliable, but certainly a bit outdated at times. In any case thank you for helping. —CodeCa t 13:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he just goes by what the established dictionaries say rather than keeping up with the bleeding edge of historical linguistics. (That's our job!) —An gr 13:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED vaguely thinks it comes from the Greek for "the wryneck, a bird made use of in witchcraft; hence, a charm, a spell", via modern Latin and jynx (a much older version), but the OED is not always best for modern American words (only a hundred years old). What is the alternative theory of "the bleeding edge of historical linguistics"? Dbfirs 09:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish (deprecated template usage) jing (variants (deprecated template usage) jings, (deprecated template usage) jeengs), used as an expletive (like damn, shit, fuck), or the Scottish (deprecated template usage) jink (to avoid, dodge, cheat, trick; > (deprecated template usage) high jinks), might also be candidates we are overlooking. We just do not know. I am rather leery about an ancient Greek and Latin origin for a word which shows up as American baseball slang...Is there any historical or mediaeval use of (deprecated template usage) iynx used in a similar way? The wryneck allusion to charm, spell is akin to calling a jinx a "newt" :\ , it's sorta weak. Leasnam (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it could have a connection with the much older Scottish and northern English "jinked" (crooked), but "jynx" or "iynx" or "iyngs" has been used for a charm or spell since 1693 according to the OED. Has anyone found a usage of "jinx" before 1911? Dbfirs 22:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does jinx really mean "spell" per se? I am not even sure about that as a definition, especially as the first sense. Does it not rather first mean "bad luck", with the verb to jinx being an extension of this to mean "to put bad luck on"? Leasnam (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard it used with the implied meaning of a spell or hex or some such dark purpose behind the bad luck. How do you put bad luck on someone without some supernatural powers? Dbfirs 17:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this might come down to a matter of which came first--the noun or the verb. If ti's the noun, then when one calls someone a jinx (eg. That man's a jinx.), does it really mean that that man is a spell/hex? Leasnam (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the noun usage came first as a wryneck, but there seems to be an unexplained gap in usage before the word suddenly reappeared (probably first as a noun) just over a hundred years ago. Are you able to research the baseball usage before 1911? There's a Mr Jinx in Ballou's monthly magazine - Volume 6 - Page 276 in 1857, and a poem: "Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines" in 1868. I wonder if these are the source of the re-introduction of the word. Jinx was also a name for Linaria vulgaris (Common Toadflax) in the mid-1800s, but that's not a likely source. Dbfirs 20:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

holy cow

I highly doubt it comes from Hinduism, as it says on the page. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't come from Hinduism. but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a dismissive reference to the reputed worship of cows in Hinduism. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

grossus

See Talk:grossus. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

discard

See Talk:discard.

amongst, whilst, amidst, etc

I've always been curious as to whether there was ever any actual distinction between these terms and the ones without -st. The relevant entries say that the -s indicates genetivity. The pages don't assign any semantic meaning to the -t, so I'm assuming that it is the result of some sort of sound change or analogy?
Anyway, why did Old/Middle English put these words into the genetive? Was it once invariable that they were genetive, or were their specific circumstances where they were supposed to be genetive and others where they weren't? (I may be looking for more material for annoying pedantry around my office :P).
Hope that I'm not using the scriptorium incorrectly
Furius (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The -t is excresent and adds nothing but a style in pronunciation (perhaps to keep the s from sounding like a z, which might get confused with a plural [?]). It probably resulted due to a following th-, as in amonges the => amongest the. The Middle English ending was -es, which was used to create adverbs, a trait inherited from Old Enlgish. I wouldn't say that the -s is genitive though; rather adverbial derived from the adverbial use of the oblique genitive. Today, it is a dialectal, or stylistic variation--I often use both forms with and without -st in different settings. Leasnam (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a#Neapolitan

Are we sure this is from de#Latin, rather than (like à#French) from ad#Latin? - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of de, but ab is plausible. Semantically, ad doesn't fit the "from" sense (I'm not positive about the "by" sense). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "by" sense is also more plausibly from Latin (deprecated template usage) ā, (deprecated template usage) ab, which is also used to indicate the agent of a passive verb. —An gr 21:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various etymological questions about Lithuanian

From now on, I will try to ask my questions here rather than on talk pages.

(deprecated template usage) juoktis, "to laugh", seems related to (deprecated template usage) joke. Is it ?
(deprecated template usage) bučiuoti, "to kiss", seems related to Latin (deprecated template usage) basium, English (deprecated template usage) buss. Is it ?

Thank you, --Fsojic (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/99.68.148.226

Modified several etymologies to claim that a certain group of words came to Arabic from Persian, rather than the other way around; can anyone confirm or refute that? (If the claims are correct, then the etymologies also need cleanup, but it seems pointless to do that cleanup before confirming their basic accuracy.)

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this edit simply because it was ill-formed ("from From"). - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I undid an edit someone made to Template:recons. Could it be the same person? —CodeCa t 22:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lapereau, lapin

lapereau claims that it derives from lapin + suffix. lapin claims to be a variation of lapereau. Er... - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, (deprecated template usage) lapin came from (deprecated template usage) lapereau, but in Modern French (deprecated template usage) lapereau is indeed Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 130: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead.. (Our etymology for (deprecated template usage) lapereau needs work, but I think we'd be remiss if we completely removed mention of (deprecated template usage) lapin, because I think the existence of (deprecated template usage) lapin is the main reason that (deprecated template usage) lapereau still exists.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in

According to D. Ringe this goes back to PIE Template:recons. However, other sources seem to include a laryngeal, Template:recons. Ringe says there is no evidence for a laryngeal, but he doesn't say what evidence there is against one either. I don't know what evidence there could possibly be for a laryngeal in this case. Note that there are also related forms, Template:recons (Latin (deprecated template usage) interior) and zero-grade Template:recons for which an entry already exists. Which of these two forms has better support, and which arguments are there for each form? Does anyone know more? —CodeCa t 16:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Ringe simply means that if there's no positive evidence in favor of a laryngeal, we shouldn't reconstruct one. I don't think he means to suggest there definitely wasn't a laryngeal there. I think that's a valid argument for function words, but it does seem that lexical words couldn't be vowel-initial, so that (pace Ringe), *alyos, *eḱwos, etc. should really be *h₂elyos, *h₁eḱwos, etc. —An gr 20:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I got an idea: let's record a native speaker pronouncing the word and see whether the laryngeal is there or not. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! Please do so ASAP. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But when is something a functional word and when is it a lexical word? *ályos is considered a determiner in PIE and has a distinct inflection to reflect that (pronomial inflection, with masc. n.pl. in -oy and neut nom/acc.sg. in -od). To me, reconstructing a laryngeal based on "all other words have an initial consonant" when there is no evidence for one, seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse, if not plain circular reasoning. —CodeCa t 21:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since a reconstruction is a hypothesis, anyway, it would seem reasonable to me to incorporate hypothesized phonotactic constraints. I'm not sure how to formulate it, but there seems to be a difference of type based on the degree of words' independence from other words in use. It certainly affects accentuation and vowel quality, so a difference in which initial sounds are allowed might be plausible. Difficulty in pinning down the membership of some marginal cases wouldn't necessarily invalidate the categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly guys, I think the best option is to create both entries, have one be an alternative form of the other or something, and explain the whole situation in a usage note. --Wiki Tiki 89 23:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then which should be the main entry? :) Personally I would prefer naming the entry (h₁)én. On the other hand, that solution works here, but it doesn't work for initial a- or o-. So we'd need a different approach for that. —CodeCa t 23:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem rather esoteric, but a proto-language reconstruction is a tool of historical linguistics created using rules derived from that discipline. It's inherently a theoretical and hypothetical abstraction, so theoretical and abstract considerations are important to getting it right. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no evidence for the laryngeal, I would say just make the main entry without one and explain that there could have been one in a usage note. --Wiki Tiki 89 09:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-self

According to [4] and [5], the dative/accusative case was the original form, but this was apparently reinterpreted as the possessive because of sound changes in the word. This might have then given rise to (deprecated template usage) yourself and (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 56: Parameter "lag" is not used by this template. analogically. Having (deprecated template usage) herself, which could be either, would certainly have helped with that. I wonder if we can find any citations for (deprecated template usage) meself, (deprecated template usage) youself, (deprecated template usage) youselves, (deprecated template usage) theeself and (deprecated template usage) usselves? —CodeCa t 12:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, meself conflicts with a dialectal pronunciation of myself (where my is frequently shortened to me), youself happens to be a common misspelling of yourself, theeself conflicts with the incorrect modern archaic-sounding usage of thee for all forms of thou (get's hits like "thee is but a dog theeself"), and usselves seems to be used in AAVE but is unlikely to be a remnant of the original. So real remnants of the original form are going to be hard to find. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Middle English we find pairings like: ȝe self ("ye self"), þu seolf ("thou self"), he self ("he self"), heo seolf ("she self"), þi self, þe seolfe and þe selve ("thee self"), mi selven and me seolven ("me self"); where the word for "self" follows either a subject or object noun or pronoun [I have listed only pronomial examples here], and appears to be translated as "xxx-self" (i.e. ȝe self = ye yourselves; þu seolf = thou thyself; etc). Leasnam (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the Dutch situation. In Dutch you can still combine (deprecated template usage) zelf with any kind of pronoun, subject or object. Does modern English have any traces of this, perhaps in dialects? —CodeCa t 01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but this is a really interesting question; commenting to remind myself to look into it later. Ƿidsiþ 08:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting enough, but a gbSearch for "heself", "weselves" and "theyselves" returned a good number of hits. Whether or not these are recent creations or carry-overs from previous times I do not know... Leasnam (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gero

The Latin verb. Does anyone know where it comes from? It looks like it should be from an Indo-European root *ges- or something similar (to explain the participle gestus), but does anyone have better information? —CodeCa t 00:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline provides the less than satisfactory "of unknown origin"(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gest&allowed_in_frame=0). I can't find anything on JSTOR, except for an 1860 article claiming that it has cognates in Chinese! Furius (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, p. 171, says "of obscure etym[ology] but transparently ges-", so internal reconstruction gets us as far as *gesō but beyond that, no one knows. I'd be disinclined to accept the hypothesis of cognates in Chinese. —An gr 20:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, the fact that it has formed a perfect and perfect participle with an original PIE formation does suggest that it is probably quite old, of Pre-Italic date. —CodeCa t 20:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. Both the perfect in -sī and the past participle in -tus are quite productive in Italic; they could have been formed at any time before rhotacization. —An gr 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhotacization happened within Old Latin, so it wasn't really that long before the classical period, maybe a few hundred years. I wonder how productive they really could have been, though, considering that the 3rd conjugation as a whole was unproductive since it consisted of PIE primary verbs (compare the Germanic strong verbs, which are historically identical). As far as I know, newly formed verbs always ended up in the other three conjugational classes. —CodeCa t 21:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say "productive in Italic", not "productive in Latin". The fact that it has these forms doesn't mean it has to have been PIE, since both forms spread beyond their original verbs. Now if the perfect were reduplicated (gegerī?) or if the present had a nasal infix (gēnsō?) or something like that, I'd say it must be IE somehow. But not just on the basis of having an s-perfect and an athematic past participle. —An gr 22:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to say that it had to have been IE, just that it was probably already a part of the language before the split-up of the Italic languages. —CodeCa t 22:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that two very semantically-similar words like (deprecated template usage) gero and (deprecated template usage) fero would also be as morphologically-similar as they are. I wonder if either one influenced the other... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's doubtful. They only came to be similar because of rhotacization, so before that they were more different in form. —CodeCa t 12:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And because fero is irregular, they're not even that similar post-rhotacization. In the present, they don't rhyme in the 2nd person singular and plural or in the 3rd person singular, nor do any forms based on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th principal parts rhyme. —An gr 21:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hummock

A blend between hump and hillock? I'm not so sure. After all, -ock is a diminutive suffix inherited from Old English, so this could easily be simply a diminutive of hump or a similar word (perhaps holm). That's what other dictionaries say, too, by the way. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 2 of hammock (really US only?) might be the same or a similarly formed word. It's certainly etymologically unrelated to hamaca, considering the divergent meaning; see also Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not the blend, since the earliest spelling was hammok (1589). The "u" appeared with hummocke in 1608, and the word hump not for another hundred years. Hillock is much older, appearing in Wycliffe's bible of 1382. It's possible that the origin is Low German humpel (via Dutch?), but the derivation is unclear. We do need to change our entry. Dbfirs 21:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the wrong etymology, but I can't convince myself of a correct one. Dbfirs 21:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Dipper

November 2012

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/taugen

Russian бульба cognate with Greek βολβός ?

Good night,

do you think these terms are cognates ?

Thank you. Regards, --Fsojic (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, a little lesson in English: good night is what you say when someone is leaving. Good evening is probably what you wanted to say (a completely understandable error).

Thank you, I am never sure when I can use good night, good evening and so on ! --Fsojic (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know remember enough about Slavic sound correspondences to rule out common inheritance, but it's the kind of word that gets borrowed a lot between languages, and its connection with a plant introduced from elsewhere within the past few centuries (the potato), makes me suspect even more that it may be a borrowing. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say most likely Russian (and then Belarusian and Ukrainian) borrowed it from French (deprecated template usage) bulbe, which ultimately comes from the Greek. --Wiki Tiki 89 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

flag

Our current etymology seems to have been first added by an anon in this diff and it contradicts Online Etymology Dictionary. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch etymology dictionary says that the word is not attested until early modern Dutch, but there is a late Middle English attestation as well. It suggests that the Dutch word is possibly borrowed from English, rather than the other way around, but that the Scandinavian terms probably come via Dutch or Low German. —CodeCa t 14:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what the Online Etymology Dictionary (I really want to abbreviate that, but "OED" is very misleading) says. I just wonder where this anon got his information. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OEtD? —CodeCa t 14:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That anon was me (before I created an account). I got the etymology more or less from Century Dict. Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The experts seem to be baffled by the origins of various versions of this word. The big OED (Oxford English Dictionary) thinks that it might go back to "Old English flacg ‘cataplasma’ (Wright-Wülcker 386) and flage, recorded in 1139 as an English name for a baby's garment", but also offers other possibilities. Dbfirs 21:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-aticum

This seems like it is probably the 2nd conjugation participle -atus + -icum. If that is so, are there also varieties from the other conjugations? —CodeCa t 19:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

amarsir

This seems like it ought to be a pun of some kind... why else would they coin a word such as this? I came across (deprecated template usage) atterrir as a likely source, but I don't know if it is true. Does anyone know? —CodeCa t 00:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it could also be some kind of punning reference to avenir and Vénus- even though the meanings aren't even remotely analogous. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

avenir isn't even a verb though, at least not according to our entry. —CodeCa t 01:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking about the w:George Carlin suggestion that there should be something called "cheese fon-don't" for people who don't like cheese fondue- puns don't have to make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but (deprecated template usage) atterrir seems much more likely as a source than (deprecated template usage) avenir. —CodeCa t 02:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably on the analogy of alunir (see etymology there), which was itself from the idea of atterrir (literally, to "earth"). This, that and the other (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remember a huge discussion about the term (deprecated template usage) amarsissage on fr.wikipedia see here. And a verb (deprecated template usage) avenir exists, but only at the past participle, avenu (and has actually been replaced by (deprecated template usage) advenir). amarsir definitely doesn't come from it. --Fsojic (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dodo

I see the marks of several competing etymologies at dodo#Etymology and w:Dodo that point to various words in European languages, native terms, onomatopoeia, and other sources. Should we list every one of these etymologies, or are there some that can be eliminated? Etymonline unambiguously claims that it's from Portuguese (deprecated template usage) doudo, but are they necessarily correct? What does the OED say? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says "Portuguese doudo simpleton, fool, as adj. silly." and cites a letter written on June 18th, 1628, from Emmanuel Altham (1600 – 1635) to Sir Edward Altham (published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society in 1874 page 448) "A strange fowle: which I had at the Iland mauritius called by ye portingalls a DoDo.". This origin is later confirmed by w:Sir Thomas Herbert, 1st Baronet in the 1638 edition of A relation of some yeares travaile into Afrique, Asia, Indies (page 347): "DoDo ... a Portuguize name it is, and has reference to her simplenes". The other suggestions in Wikipedia seem to be etymologies of "Dodar". Dbfirs 12:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

קרויט

Yiddish for "cabbage" - I can't find anything, not even a single cognate, in any language. Anyone have a lead? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I image it's from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Old High German (deprecated template usage) krūt, cognate to (deprecated template usage) [etyl] German (deprecated template usage) Kraut. Is there reason to think otherwise? - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny — I saw Kohl and thought that was it for German (royt kroyt sounds a lot better than Rotkohl...). Thank you for rescuing me from my epic fail. While you're at it, what is the difference between Kohl and Kraut? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kraut literally applies to greens or herbs of any kind, but also can mean cabbage. Kohl refers specifically to cabbage (I'm not sure if it also refers to cole crops such as broccoli, cauliflower, kale, etc.). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's what WT:ES is for. And yes, a Kraut is a "useful plant", in contrast to an Unkraut = "useless plant, weed". In the south of the German Sprachraum, the preeminent useful plant is Kohl, hence Kraut can also mean "cabbage" there. Other members of the genus Brassica are also kinds of Kohl: broccoli rabé is Stängelkohl, there's w:Kohlrabi, etc. (Incidentally, I was wondering just yesterday what the "cole" in "cole slaw" was. Now I know.) In the northwest, "Kraut" can refer to a sort of fruit syrup, which I'll have to see about adding to our entry. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The kraut in sauerkraut is specifically cabbage, but in the plural, Kräuter means herbs as a group. —An gr 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?

It is not really a question, but I would just say I find funny the similarity between (deprecated template usage) again and (deprecated template usage) against compared with German (deprecated template usage) wieder and (deprecated template usage) wider. --Fsojic (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

buckle

Etymonline.com gives a very different etymology for etymology 1, and derives it from (Older) French (deprecated template usage) boucler, itself from Latin. Obviously these two etymologies can't both be right, but it's possible that the Germanic verb (listed in the current etymology) interfered with the French loanword and caused conflation of the two meanings somehow. Does anyone know more? —CodeCa t 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The verb etymology in Etymology 2 is basically the same as Etymonline's etymology for Etymology 2. When Leasnam (talk • contribs) added Etymology 1 in this edit, they moved it to Etymology 2, where it didn't belong.

The derivation of {term|bocler|lang=fro}} in the sense of "bulge, curl" in the etymologies looks a little suspicious. Is it possible that it was really a Germanic borrowing? Or is it possible that there was borrowing the other way? The presence of both voiced and unvoiced forms in buck Etymology 2 (Verner's Law?), and both etymologies for bow muddle things up even further. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verner's law causes alternation between h and g, not between k and g. There are some cases of alternation between a single voiced consonant and a geminated voiceless plosive; they are not fully understood but are thought to be the result of a still-controversial sound law called w:Kluge's law. On the other hand, etymonline.nl for (deprecated template usage) bok notes that the gemination is also present in the Celtic forms and even a Sanskrit cognate, which have no such law. —CodeCa t 19:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(deprecated template usage) семя (semja) and (deprecated template usage) семья (semʹja)

Good evening. It seems that these terms come from two completely different roots. Is it correct ?

Thank you, --Fsojic (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. For the former, refer to PIE Template:recons; for the latter, Template:recons. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rakne

Can anyone work out the etymology of this word? Neither we nor the Norwegian Wiktionarians have an entry for rak, the first thing it refers to, and the Norse word it refers to (rakr) does not derive from Low German or Dutch. The Norse verb reikna (which has the variant spelling rakna) does derive from Middle (not modern!) Low German, but the etymology doesn't mention it. - -sche (discuss) 06:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted it to assume that the Norwegian verb came from the Norse verb, rather than from a noun. - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi, Urdu, and other modern Indo-Aryan Indian languages and Sanskrit

This may have been brought up before, and I'm not sure if it goes here best or in the policy section, but what's the official policy for handling Etymologies and Descendants when it comes to languages like Hindi and Sanskrit? Some believe that Hindi and such should count as essentially being descended from Sanskrit, but technically it seems they are descended from other vernacular Middle Indo-Aryan "Prakrit" languages, and whether these came from what is regarded as actual Sanskrit or from other earlier vernacular languages closely related to it spoken around the same time is still debated somewhat from what I've read. I suppose it has some similarities to the situation with Latin; the Romance languages are descended from vernacular, popular Vulgar Latin as spoken by the people as opposed to the literary Classical Latin, and Sanskrit seems to hold a similar place as a special language like that. But of course Romance language words are still listed as descending from Latin, and it's not exactly the same situation. So should Hindi words (unless in the many cases where they are explicitly borrowed from Sanskrit) be listed alongside Sanskrit as opposed to actually descended from it? Thanks Word dewd544 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romance languages technically descend from Old Latin, and the equivalent for Sanskrit is Vedic Sanskrit. But I don't know if it really makes a difference. Are there any modern words that descended, without a doubt, not from classical Sanskrit but from a stage before it? —CodeCa t 19:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be almost universal practice among dictionaries to use Sanskrit as a stand-in for Old Indic, with maybe a paragraph or a footnote somewhere to inform readers of that fact, just as classical Latin is used as a stand-in for whatever combination of vernaculars gave rise to the Romance languages and the Wessex dialect is used as a stand-in for the dialects that gave rise to Middle English and Modern English.

With the extreme unevenness of attestation of ancient dialects, I don't see much choice: the alternative would start to resemble all the fine-print legal disclaimers that you see in some print advertising: your mileage may vary, this may be a different dialect than the actual one that it really came from, void where prohibited by law, etc. It should say something about it in WT:ASA and other relevant places, but it would seem a bit much to have it everywhere.

Any time you have an artificially preserved standard language like Sanskrit or Latin, there's bound to be some confusion, since the "parent" language and its "descendants" may coexist for centuries, and a term may even go back further in the vernacular than in the standard (I believe Latin aurantius is such a case). I just don't think we even know enough about the history of most terms to be sufficiently accurate with our disclaimers to make it worth the clutter most of the time. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, you could even argue that English is not really one language. Yet it would be hard, if not impossible in some circumstances, to say which specific kind of English a word in a language came from. Even if you could narrow it down to, say, a small village in East Anglia, there would still be several registers within the language there, one of which would be "standard formal written English". No doubt Sanskrit was the Old Indic equivalent of that. —CodeCa t 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closest thing we have in English is biblical/King-James-Version speech. It's full of fossilized Early Modern English archaicisms that no one would use except in prayers and religious discussions or sermons: a very specific register that's kept unchanged because of its religious associations. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with what's been said. I guess there's not much that can really be done about it, because putting a little note or disclaimer on each etymology or page would be going overboard and clutter things too much I think, and deriving them directly from Vedic Sanskrit isn't the best solution either. I suppose the same could go for the Romani language? It may seem somewhat strange to some to have it it listed as being descended from Sanskrit, but it's the closest thing there is, since there isn't Old Indic as a language here. By the way, I've noticed a few etymologies just skip the Sanskrit "stage" and go straight to Proto-Indo-Iranian, but is this a good idea?

Word dewd544 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But anyway I agree with putting a note either in the about Sanskrit page or for Hindi about the technical fact regarding these "descendant" languages. Otherwise it would seem to contradict what is said in the sister project, Wikipedia in statements like "Along with other Eastern Indo-Aryan languages, Bengali evolved circa 1000–1200 AD from the Magadhi Prakrit, which developed from a dialect or group of dialects that were close to, but different from, Vedic and Classical Sanskrit." on the Bengali language page, and "The Indo-Aryan languages are commonly assigned to three major groups - Old, Middle and New Indo-Aryan. And a number of their morphophonological and lexical features betray the fact that they are not direct continuations of Ṛgvedic Sanskrit, the main base of 'Classical' Sanskrit; rather they descend from dialects which, despite many similarities, were different from Ṛgvedic and in some regards even more archaic. MIA languages, though individually distinct, share features of phonology and morphology which characterize them as parallel descendants of Old Indo-Aryan. Various sound changes are typical of the MIA phonology" on the Magadhi Prakrit page, both of which are cited with reputable sources. So at least some seem to think that it doesn't even apply that Vedic Sanskrit was truly an ancestor to these languages, let alone classical Sanskrit Word dewd544 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

rugelach

Etymology section says it came from Hebrew (deprecated template usage) רוגלית (roglìt). Wikipedia etymology section says it came from Yiddish. Anyone know which is correct? --Yair rand (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely came from Yiddish, although it is plausible that the Yiddish word itself came from Hebrew. I don't really know, but the Wikipedia etymology sounds pretty believable. --Wiki Tiki 89 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

micto-

I have just added the terms (deprecated template usage) mictomagnetic and (deprecated template usage) mictomagnetism. I can't find any other English words beginning with this prefix. Any ideas? (I assume it has something to do with "mixing") SemperBlotto (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so - the Greek adjective μικτός means "mixed/blended" Furius (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More common as a suffix ((deprecated template usage) -mictic). See (deprecated template usage) oligomictic, et al. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

γη

"From Ancient Greek γῆ (gē) / γαῖα (gaia), other details uncertain."

Could γῆ's root be Template:recons, along with χθών's? Lysdexia (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite improbable, as far as I know. --Fsojic (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frisk 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch refers one to γαῖα, of which he says "Unklar. Vielleicht Kontamination von αἶα, μαῖα, γῆ"

αἶα is an epic form of γῆ / γαῖα, which he derives from μαῖα
μαῖα is "old mother", which he considers "Grammatische Erweiterung eines Lallworts durch das ia-Suffix wie in γραῖα." (old women)

Both of these are presumably responsible for creating γαῖα as an alternative form of γῆ - the derivation of γῆ would remain unclear. Furius (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, LSJ doesn't mention an accentless variant of γῆ - should this be an entry at all? Furius (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not as Ancient Greek, but Modern Greek has different rules as far as accents go. The entry should be rfved Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one could explain the loss of aspiration using W:Grassman's Law, that still doesn't explain what happened to all the other consonants and vowels (η in the main Attic-based dialect usually comes from a long α) Chuck Entz (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of (deprecated template usage) γῆ (gê) is very obscure, but the accusative plural is attested in Arcado-Cypriot as ζᾶς, so this is a case of Attic-Ionic η coming from ᾱ. Some have speculated the first syllable of (deprecated template usage) Δημήτηρ (Dēmḗtēr) (Doric etc. Δαμάτηρ) may be the same word. A connection with *dʰéǵʰōm is very unlikely; it's much more likely γῆ/γαῖα is a non-Indo-European word that was borrowed as a proper name for the Earth goddess, or just as the common noun for earth. —An gr 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say "The etymology of γῆ is very obscure" is to say that that etymology is very unsure, I assume. Then, we may better begin simply with 地 (ji, "earth," in Korean reading), whether well or ill. --KYPark (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely. For that matter, since the Greek is attested so much earlier, one could just as easily say that the Korean came from the Greek (or from the Flying Spaghetti Monster...). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

attaboy

Can anyone confirm this is an alteration of "that's a boy!" or "that's the boy!". I always thought it was from "at it boy". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was from that a boy (or is it thataboy or that-a-boy?), which for some reason we don't have. I've never heard of "at it boy". I've also never heard of "that's a boy". --Wiki Tiki 89 11:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too have always thought it was from that-a-boy, which is a childlike pronunciation/immitation of that's a boy. Leasnam (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED - "Said to represent careless pronunciation of that's the boy! - as an expression of encouragement or admiration". SemperBlotto (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

human resources

Using the word resource for people is rather shocking. But I guess that the use of this word is related to the use of resource in project planning softwares, where resource applies to anything required to perform a task, including people. Am I right? Do you know more about this etymology? Lmaltier (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

root of "stroppy"

Do you consider that there is chance that the word "stroppy" can come from the greek word "http://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/στρυφνός";

Evangelia Pliakou

Nah! Abbreviation of (deprecated template usage) obstreperous. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-stachion

Hi there. Does anyone have a clue about the origin/meaning of this "suffix" in terms such as (deprecated template usage) distachion and (deprecated template usage) polystachion - used in the taxonomic names of some grasses/cereals. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although Perseus has Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) στάχι (stakhi), it looks very much like a misspelling of distachyon and polystachyon, both from Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) στάχυς (stakhus). For instance, Google searches bring up both Bromus distachion and Bromus distachyon" in reference to the same plant (see w:Bromus distachyon). Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll let somebody else add the Ancient Greek word. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Browbeat - possible etymology

Discussion moved from WT:GP.

No one seems to know the origin of the word browbeat, but I think it may be from the nautical terms "brow," meaning gangplank, and "beat," meaning to tack back and forth (usually in order to sail upwind). To browbeat, meaning to intimidate, bully, may have originally referred to a practice of intimidating and punishing someone by making them walk to the end of the gangplank and then tacking the ship back and forth, causing the gangplank to swing violently while the person being intimidated or punished is forced to hang on in order to avoid falling into the sea. Is there a place to post this idea on the entry to this word? If so, how do I do that? Thanks. — This unsigned comment was added by Caroline1981 (talk • contribs) at 03:43, 19 December 2012‎.

This doesn't belong in the Grease pit. You should post this in the Etymology scriptorium. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has not found any evidence for this origin. They suggest that the brow is on the forehead of the beater. Your suggestion should not be inserted in the entry unless you have evidence, but you could post it on the talk page (talk:browbeat) and ask there for evidence. Dbfirs 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/likely cognate with cognate

koomkie

Tagged but not listed. Is the term indeed from Bengali? Yule+Burnell's 1903 Hobson-Jobson: a glossary of colloquial Anglo-Indian words does say "Koomkee, in Bengal, is the technical name of the female elephant used as a decoy in capturing a male." Anyone have a more recent reference? - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

puer

Tagged (with the wrong template) but not listed. The whole entry is doubtful, and I've RFVed it, but the etymology is especially confused. - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the etymology from the dubious and contradictory "alternative spelling of pure, from Latin puteo" to "from French". - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kahdeksan

yhdeksän

Tagged (with the wrong template) but not listed. See the talk pages. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there isn't actually any suffix -deksan. The -de is just part of the stem of the numerals yksi and kaksi (genitive yhde-n and kahde-n). So these are probably really yksi+ksan and kaksi+ksan. —CodeCa t 19:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the entries accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

вокзал

The etymology, tagged in this edit, seems plausible, but Wikipedia devotes several paragraphs to saying it's uncertain. Anyone have any references supporting or opposing the current etymology? - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vauxhall etymology belongs to Vasmer. I don't know the source of the Volk + Saal theory. --Vahag (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

δεύτερος

The part of this entry which claims it derives from a word meaning "lack" or "come here", rather than "two", was tagged {{fact}} but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 00:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

giraffe

I highly doubt that Syriac is the ultimate origin of this word (giraffes tend to be rare in northern Mesopotamia ;)) or that the Somali word derives directly from Syriac. The Syriac transliteration also does not match the Syriac spelling, it should be something like zārīfā rather than zarāfa. The variant (deprecated template usage) ܙܪܢܦܐ (zarnāfā) comes from Persian, so zārīfā is most likely foreign as well. --334a (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED doesn't trace the history any further back than Arabic. Etymonline suggests they got it "from an African language", but possibly no-one knows definitely which? Presumably, the word zarāfa goes back to Ancient North Arabian, but I suspect that the true origins are lost in the mists of time. Have we any experts on ancient languages of Arabia and North Africa? If not, then perhaps we should be careful about making claims about where Arabic got the word from. Dbfirs 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This etymology still remains a great mystery. Once upon a time there was quite a long talk on this agenda, as follows, whether useful or not now. It's up to you to waste your time upon the following:

--KYPark (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are on a completely irrelevant side issue. We're talking here about where the term originally came from, not about the relationship of later descendants/borrowings to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, the Somali part was erroneously inserted later in the middle of the Syriac-to-Arabic etymology. The idea of a Syriac origin for the term would indeed be ludicrous, if the term always meant the same thing. If, however, it had some other meaning that was applied by the Arabs to a new referent (along the lines of mockingbird coming from mock, for instance), then it's at least plausible. While Arabic does have quite a few borrowings that ultimately came from Aramaic, I have no idea whether it borrowed this term from it, let alone whether it was from Syriac as opposed to some other Aramaic lect. We still need some source to support and/or elaborate on the etymology- particularly with time periods addressed. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current Etymology as descending "from Arabic زرافة (zarāfah), from Somali Geri, from Classical Syriac ܙܵܪܝܼܦܵܐ (zarāfa)," ridicilously sandwiches Somali Geri (instead of geri the proper) only to result in unreasonable and indecent editorship hanging beyond corrective adminship. There was also an edit war between the Persian and Semitic supporters. This state of the art looks ugly and poor.

Compare 기린 of my initiative, where I explicitly took (deprecated template usage) geri as the most likely origin. In this process, I was toughly, unjustly "censored" as shown by Talk:기린. Using this talk page in addition, I was answering Dbfirs who elsewhere would boil me down by saying "There is no campaign for personal attacks on you."

--KYPark (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:recons

The etymology section claims this is a compound, from *dr̥ḱ-h₂eḱru- "eye bitter" (actually "bitter eye", I suppose). Presumably, h₂eḱ-ru- is the part that means "eye", but Proto-Indo-European for "eye" is listed here in Wiktionary as Template:recons, with a different laryngeal and a labial, not a palatalized, k. What gives? Is the difference the result of compounding, or the effect of some (not mentioned) extra morphology? Or maybe it is a different root? Or is it just transcription inconsistency? I don't have any PIE dictionaries with me, so I can't judge; but maybe you guys know what is going on there? --Pereru (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be just a case of linguists wanting to explain terms so badly that they come up with rather dodgy ideas. That does happen occasionally. —CodeCa t 13:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to endorse the etymology (which strikes me as unmitigated bullshit), but h₂eḱru- would be the part that means "bitter" (cf. Latin (deprecated template usage) acer), while dr̥ḱ- would be the part that means "eye" (cf. Greek (deprecated template usage) δράκος (drákos)). —An gr 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

I imagine this may have originally come from a Chinese proverb, but I may be wrong. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Variously attributed to Confucius, Laozi, Marx, and several other people. It seems that none of these is true, because I can't find an older or more authoratative version of the quote in Mandarin or German. It appears to have been coined in English and put in someone else's mouth, AFAICT. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lua error: Module:languages/errorGetBy:16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "I've said it once, and I'll say it again. KYPark is a troll. It would be best simply not to engage with him. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) So true, so true. At least he's just discussing it. If he continues to make disruptive edits based on his spurious theories, a block will be in order. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Not really. A troll is someone whose goal is disruption. KYPark's seems to be self-aggrandizement. The former is solely destructive, but the latter can be beneficial at times. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

--KYPark (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give him a fish and you do him good daylife. Give him how to fish and you do him good lifetime. (my wording, whether good or bad)

--KYPark (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

whelp

Are senses 3 and 4 in fact from the same source as 1 and 2? What is the connection here? Is there a separate etymology? DTLHS (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so. I cross-referenced with various sources. Leasnam (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gargantuan

How could a sixteenth century French author derive a word from (then undeciphered) ancient Egyptian? Moreover, Gargantesi is not an Egyptian word, but a demotic transliteration of the Greek κολοκύνθη (Gourd). Furius (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymonline says “supposedly from Spanish/Portuguese garganta "gullet, throat,"”. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bit about Egyptian. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nike

While nḫt is an Egyptian word, with the meaning attributed, I also find this unlikely (Unless someone has a source). Furius (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

snake, thnegël

As pointed out on the talk page, these entries conflict regarding the derivation of the Albanian word. - -sche (discuss) 01:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

तक्षति, τέχνη and texō

What’s the PIE thorn supposed to be? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a special kind of sound that developed from the metathesis of -tk- into -kþ-, which is called a "thorn cluster": w:Thorn cluster. I don't think thorn clusters ever appeared in bare roots though, and *tetḱ- (the pre-form of *teḱþ-) is not a valid root because roots can't end in two stop consonants. On the other hand it looks like some kind of reduplication from *teḱ-... —CodeCa t 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watkins' American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots reconstructs this as teks-. The Sanskrit and Latin can come straight from *teks-e/o- and the Greek can come from *teks-neh₂. There's no reason to assume a thorn cluster in this root. —An gr 22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever may be concerned

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "14:14, 11 January 2013 CodeCat (Talk | contribs) moved page Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/Toward deep etymology to User:KYPark/Toward deep etymology without leaving a redirect (Doesn't seem relevant to Wiktionary, mostly monologuing and original research, not a discussion.)" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

This way of doing looks too hypersensitive, childish, far from the global standard, esp. in doing with this great global collaboration. This looks like doing evil to pagans, hence greatly endangering such globalism on an egalitarian basis.

The deletion of this very thick thread is such an extreme exception as to require a wide consensus in advance, not to mention the participants' agreements, or otherwise as to acquire a high hand in essence. Wiktionary should avoid shameful and shameless high-handedness or arbitrariness as far as possible.

Absolutely untrue about this deleted thread as a whole is CodeCat's arbitrary, high-handed reason ("Doesn't seem relevant to Wiktionary, mostly monologuing and original research, not a discussion.")

The last, so-called "monologuing" part of this thread may or may not need discussion as it is simply more of hard, objective evidence to be added up to the previous, concerning the likelihood of deeper, synthetic etymology than the analytic Proto-Germanic level at Wiktionary at present that looks like grouping the graphic and phonetic variations of a Germanic word, quite overlapping with "Translations."

In the beginning, all disbelieved in deep etymology out there, but I showed it up indeed, from case to case, perhaps to their dismay, esp. of CodeCat, who might fear it might undermine his/her Proto-Germanic base. Personally, CodeCat could disbelieve in it, and get a research done, peer-reviewed and published to upset it, but should not formally oppose to it until then, imposing an original research ironically.

For a while, I would sit back and watch what steps Wiktionary will take on this queer occasion of sheer injustice.

--KYPark (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As much as my interiour intellect would, simply put, adore the permission of pioneering etymologistic inquiry on the entries of this online experiment on volunteer lexicography (which not only bypasses linguistic limitations, but also completely and utterly extirpates the walls posited by the borders of countries, states and other geopolitical subdivisions), so that those who peruse our grandiose lexicon may marvel at the innumerable possibilities and theories for the derivation and evolution of vocables, we, as a community, must confront the issue of any contributor, experienced of not, being able to concoct their own etymologies which agree only with their own expectations, regardless and irrespective of to what degree they are familiarised with the concept of phonetic, phonemic and phonological development of sounds within the words of a lect. This, I’m afraid, is your case, and therefore I must stand by CodeCat’s side in this necessary, though controversial, move. In the opinion of my humble self, the best way of circumnavigating this problematic situation is to have a complete prohibition of original etymological research. But lo! Not all is lost! There is such a website which allows anyone, regardless of their beliefs concerning etymology, to create wikis, and this website is http://wikia.com. All I can do, without jeopardising the high standard of quality we have committed ourselves to, is recommend that you create a wiki at wikia.com, where not only you will be allowed to add whatever etymology as you desire to its entries, unimpeded, but also be able to recruit those share your views on deep etymology and wish to spread its word to the greater public to aid you in the compilation of a “Deep etymology wiki” (or whatever its name be). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "we ... must confront the issue of any contributor ... being able to concoct their own etymologies which agree only with their own expectations, ... irrespective of to what degree they are familiarised with the concept of ... phonological development of sounds within the words of a lect. This ... is your case ..." is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

This is not my case at all indeed. Thus I wonder if you had really carefully read through the very thread and the one-year long prelude, before you wrote the above.

Notoriously, I used to be so suspected and blamed when I was comparing European with Korean words. The above excerpt from you matches with that case so exactly that I fear you made such a wrong step on this occasion. The very thread was not such a case at all. I was not one of those who "concoct their own etymologies" but one of those out there who in fact connect (deprecated template usage) wiegen and (deprecated template usage) wiegen with PIE root *wegh-, whether in deliberation or in effect.

This objective connection has been simply ignored or unnoticed here, hence a shame anyway, until this thread showed it up. Doubly shameful and shameless is still to disbelieve in the hard evidence of deeper etymology than "Etymology" at WT at present.

CodeCat and perhaps some others do not end with such disbelief but go on to delete and keep the thread itself from the global readership, hence a triply shameful and shameless injustice at least the world including you need to know.

--KYPark (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Marginally modified --KYPark (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia

The etymology here doesn't seem very plausible, and if it is true then it is very incomplete. Why, if Danish (deprecated template usage) Estland is the origin, was it not borrowed directly as "Estland" in English? —CodeCa t 14:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bosworth-Toller, the Estonians were known by Ēste in Old English, so modern Danish is out as the source. According to w:Estonia, the Aesti were mentioned by w:Tacitus in his Germania in 98 CE. I don't know where the modern form Estonia came from, but it seems to be widely used in various modern languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the modern form of specifically the country that I am referring to. It seems very unlikely that Estonia came from Danish Estland rather than from some other language that already had Estonia as the name. New Latin seems like a possible source, or some Romance language. fr:Estonia says it is from Latin. —CodeCa t 17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we do have an entry at Estonia#Latin. Also, Estonia did used to be part of the Russian Empire and the Russian name is also (deprecated template usage) Эстония (Estónija) (spelled (deprecated template usage) Эстонія (Estonija) back then). --Wiki Tiki 89 17:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All these are aimed namely Toward deep etymology (removed here), aren't they?

--KYPark (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frequentatives by language

This generic category may well be needed for etymology in parallel with Category:Reduplications by language, which are related but different. The following red links, if clicked, will be found to contain some examples already:

Cheers! --KYPark (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduplication is a process of word formation, so it is etymological. But frequentative is a semantic category; it relates to the meaning of the word rather than to the way it was formed. —CodeCa t 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why not. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be called "frequentative verbs" though. —CodeCa t 03:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Korean, I think it is better to simply have two separate categories corresponding to 의태어 and 의성어, in addition to Category:Korean adverbs. 129.78.32.21 03:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

I keep supposing that CodeCat may keep opposing me mainly for the opposition's sake. The quotation on the right may be enough to show or back it up.

Etymology should have it that the frequentative verb, say, (deprecated template usage) piddle descends and inherits from its root or origin, say, (deprecated template usage) piss.

English (deprecated template usage) wag, rooted in PIE root *wegh-, in turn gives birth not only to such frequentatives as (deprecated template usage) wiggle and (deprecated template usage) waggle, if not (deprecated template usage) swag, (deprecated template usage) sway and (deprecated template usage) swing, but also to such a reduplication as (deprecated template usage) wigwag.

The table at w: Frequentative #English contains a horde of English frequentatives along with their respective etymological roots, longing or waiting for the proper category.

In a loose or common (rather than technical) sense, the (deprecated template usage) wag itself, together with (deprecated template usage) rock, (deprecated template usage) wave, (deprecated template usage) undulate, (deprecated template usage) vibrate, etc., is a frequentative in itself, making sense of "repeated action," as focally noted by all dictionaries!

Wiktionary defines (deprecated template usage) frequentative so radically, otherwise than most other dictionaries that bear on "repeated action." Hence less neutrality.

My point is that we may have no reason whatsoever for denying the titular category, whether etymologically or not. Should it be not etymological at all, I am to blame for asking for it in the wrong place. But isn't this just a matter of strict formality?

--KYPark (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask any expert concerned what a frequentative form of a word, say, (deprecated template usage) wag which indicates frequentative action or "repeated action" in itself should be called, in comparison with "a frequentative form ... of a word is one which indicates repeated action" as quoted (q.v.)?

--KYPark (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in frequentatives in principle, see also Appendix:Korean frequentatives in practice.

--KYPark (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "Reduplication is a process of word formation, so it is etymological. But frequentative is a semantic category; it relates to the meaning of the word rather than to the way it was formed. —CodeCat 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

Template:examples-right

From the Wikipedian perspective on the right, CodeCat's above reason sounds a mere point of view, even if not false, so that s/he is wanted to get it undone and the categorizing job done as requested, whether etymologically or otherwise. May I take this opportunity to ask who is the admin responsible for quality control and quality assurance of Korean entries? I may have something fatal or vital to report to her, whether etymological or not.

--KYPark (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that frequentative is to know-what while reduplication is to know-how. --KYPark (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduplication is not always but mostly a frequentative of interest. The former is narrow, while the latter is broad. The former always takes the explicitly repetitive form, while the latter does not. It is frequentative to wiggle and waggle without any obvious sign of reduplication. Frequentness may be implicit, while reduplicateness is explicit by definition. --KYPark (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could or would you convince me that Wiktionary would surely get better and better anyway regardless of new entries? --KYPark (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

llenar, rellenar, etc.

People have been posting etymologies deriving these directly from Latin verbs like (deprecated template usage) repleō or (deprecated template usage) plenare (the latter seems to be a bad guess). Judging by the etymology at (deprecated template usage) replenish, it looks more likely to be from re- + a more recent verb formed from (deprecated template usage) plenus or a descendant. Is there any evidence for a Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance development of this verb, or did it emerge independently in more than one of the daughter languages? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the initial ll- shows that it can't be a reborrowing, at least. So either it was inherited, or it was formed from another word that itself was inherited. —CodeCa t 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Romance for “to fill” seems to descend from impleo. Llenar could be lleno + -ar. — Ungoliant ^(Falai)

Appendix:Korean frequentatives

See also: #Category:Frequentatives by language (just ahead of the last agenda #llenar, rellenar, etc.)

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "01:30, 22 January 2013 Metaknowledge (Talk | contribs) moved page Appendix:Korean frequentatives to User:KYPark/Korean frequentatives without leaving a redirect (Not Appendix material, more appropriate as userpage.) (revert)" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

May I cordially ask the community members, especially concerned with etymological frequentatives and reduplications, to vote here if they agree or disagree with the above quoted deletion from the Appendix namespace? Thanks a lot in advance.

--KYPark (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

Well, I would sure welcome information about Korean frequentatives in the appendix (though probably as a subsection Appendix:Korean verbs), but your page was written more like a personal essay or analysis thanks to sentences like “Should every of the above, say, 35 differenes be worth an entity at all?” and the use of Wiktionary terminology like “Related terms” and “Derived terms”. The appendix should explain to the user how Korean frequentatives work, not question whether it’s worth an entity or talk about how they should be regarded in entries (this WT:AKO’s job). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 06:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your generally welcoming stance. While that page is evolving anywhere anyway, we could discuss anything in the Talk page, including yours as said above! --KYPark (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a reason as "Not Appendix material" is presupposed implicitly for deletion from the Appendix, hence needless to say explicitly. It is not really informative but maybe deceptive, I fear, not to leave it blank, not to be suspected of no reasonable reason. It should be suspected, convinced, and formally accused of doing perhaps such evil injustice as quoted on the right. --KYPark (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

One question: Why does the ablaut column have ablaut+nonablaut forms rather than ablaut+ablaut forms? 129.78.32.24 03:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this column may look somewhat tricky between two aims:
1. One is to show the well-established, ablauted or, more precisely, high-low voweled reduplication such as 싱숭생숭 (singsung-saengsung) remindful of English sing & sang.
2. The other is to show the high voweled form (in front in black color) of the low voweled entry stem. Both may fail to make up an idiom, but are closely related.
3. Just ignore the same as the (high-voweled) entry stem, which is technically needed for sorting and grouping of related words.
I wish such things could be discussed in the Talk page when the removed page at issue gets back to the Appendix namespace. --KYPark (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC) -- marginally modified --KYPark (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experiment with the following (to know if I'm really joking here, as strongly suggested here by some maybe unfair people):
- 싱글
- 싱긋
- 싱숭
- 술렁.
--KYPark (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A definitely mischievous one, the very one who deleted that Appendix, cut in and broke the right links. So experiment with the following links instead:
- 싱글 instead of 싱글 degraded
- 싱긋 instead of 싱긋 degraded
- 싱숭 instead of 싱숭 degraded
- 술렁 instead of 술렁 degraded.
Very sorry for all this unexpected inconvenience. --KYPark (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC) instead added --KYPark (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long live Wiktionary with such mischievous adminship! --KYPark (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping this in the appendix, but I'd like to suggest some revamping to be done. The list should be sorted by the hypothetical *roots (etymons) on which the ablaut, tense/lax forms are based, eg. 까닥 (작은말) ~ 끄덕 (큰말) ~ 까딱 (센말), 꾸물 ~ 구물 ~ 고물(?) ~ 꼬물, each variant having its own (-ida, -hada, -georida, -daeda, reduplicated) derivatives. The roots like 싱글 (cf. zh:싱글) should instead be non-redirects, categorised into a separate category (probably interwiki-links to ko:분류:어근). 129.78.32.21 05:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anonymous 129.78.32.21 for your support. But I'm not sure, so advise me, which is the root(etymon), 구물 or 고물 of 꾸물 and 꼬물. Meanwhile, you may be happy, I hope, to have 구물 and 고물, and 고물 and 꼬물 nearby by clicking on the Ablauted and Tensed columns, respectively. --KYPark (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) --KYPark (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place for talking about Korean entries in the main namespace, but for voting for or against formally having a list of Korean frequentative stems and their etymological derivatives in the Appendix namespace instead of an informal userpage. To show their formal usefulness, I just offered some REDIRECT's to the listed items, just as a shift, just in case the main entry is yet unavailable. Such should be better than nothing!

This lists 29,015 candidates for Korean frequentative or imitative entry. Wiktionary must go a long way to make 1% of it, I bet, regardless of relatedness among them. Meanwhile, my sortable relational database, simply table, could be built up very easily and used very usefully, I hope. I cannot help but wonder why this job should belong to my personal page at all. --KYPark (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

layer

"From (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Middle English (deprecated template usage) leyer, (deprecated template usage) leyare, from (deprecated template usage) lay + (deprecated template usage) -er". How is Middle English leyar or leyare from lay + -er? I suspect something needs fixing here.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usual phrase is that the term is "equivalent to" a combination of such-and-such modern English terms. - -sche (discuss) 09:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

aleppe

A nonce term, used by Dante in the Inferno. Both my translated copies do not translate this word, and one of them explicity says in a side note that it is absolute rubbish, but the form makes me suspect rather that it is an Arabic derivation fused with the definite article al. Can anyone find a reference or a candidate? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't already aware, this is discussed in w:Papé Satàn, papé Satàn aleppe Chuck Entz (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cool beans

Tagged but not listed? - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yeah

The Middle English portion of this entry's etymology was tagged {{fact}}. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we should delete the whole etymology which I believe to be false (unless someone can find cites to change my opinion). The first recorded usage seems to have been around 1905, when Middle English was rarely used. Dbfirs 09:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah's origin is as a variant of either (deprecated template usage) yea or (deprecated template usage) yes. The Middle English portion of the etymology traces this back through (deprecated template usage) yea. Perhaps what's needed is the intermediary stage showing (deprecated template usage) yea. I have added it. Leasnam (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big improvement. Have you any evidence that (deprecated template usage) yea was involved in the development of yeah? I would think your alternative is much more likely, given the lack of early usage. Dbfirs 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some dictionaries say that it can be from either yea or yes. Granted, I do not think that yea has been used very much recently enough to substantiate that assumption, but ya/yah (regional America [Midwestern]) has. I would be more inclined to believe an informal development from (deprecated template usage) ya a little more than from yes. Do you know where the 1905 cite is from (US, Scotland, England, Ireland)? Leasnam (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1905 date was from "Dialect Notes" which the OED mentions, but refuses to tell me any details about. It doesn't even tell me what region the dialect came from, but I'm guessing that it refers to the American Dialect Society's publication. The use of "yeah" seems to date back to the nineteenth century, but Google Books turns up only mis-spellings and eye-dialect for "year" in that century (with one strange Irish exception). The earliest definite usage I can find is from 1903 in "Cunnie Rabbit, Mr. Spider, and the other beef: West African folk tales" by Florence M. Cronise, & Henry W. Ward. The best quote seems to be: "Dis girl yeah, w'en he go cook de beef ... " (the "yeah" is obviously a parenthetical "yes", not eye-dialect for "year"). You might be able to find something earlier. Dbfirs 13:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dis girl yeah is almost certainly "this girl here". —An gr 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for the correction. I'd filtered out the the "yeah = year" usage, but, not being familiar with the idiolect, I missed that possibility. Back to the drawing board. Dbfirs 08:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

urinate

Etymology of this entry is empty at present.

Danish:  urinere
Dutch:   urineren (nl)
English: urinate (en)
German:  urinieren (de)
Swedish: urinera (sv)
Greek:   ουρώ (el) (ouró)

Catalan: orinar (ca)
French:  uriner (fr)
Italian: urinare
Portug.: urinar (pt)
Romani.: urina (ro)
Spanish: orinar (es)

--KYPark (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

Added. —An gr 15:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improved. --KYPark (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more wanted. --KYPark (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"More at (deprecated template usage) urea" added. Yet I wonder if it is akin to (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) Οὐρανός (Ouranós) from (deprecated template usage) οὐρανός (ouranós). --KYPark (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to sky and heaven, οὐρανός also meant roof of the mouth or palate, but I still can't see a connection with urine other than the first three letters. The French Wiktionary traces the urine, urea root back to Indo-European "ūr, au̯er". Dbfirs 09:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

buck naked

Tagged but not listed: anyone have a solid lead regarding the origin of this term? - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melungeon

Tagged but not listed. Anyone have references? - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bead tree

Please either improve or criticize anything of this entry from the etymological perspective. Cheers. --KYPark (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cf. "Archived revision by KYPark (Talk | contribs) as of 12:19, 12 February 2013." [6]

I've never been informed, not to mention not convinced, why all this goal-seeking elaboration should be reverted, nullified, discouragaed, .... Please advise me what's wrong with me seeking truth this way. --KYPark (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Atkins

Did Kipling invent this name for his poem "Tommy", or was it already in use? JulieKahan (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was already in use. Ƿidsiþ 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ard

An anon added the etymology "from Norwegian ard 'plough'", but there is no Norwegian section for ard, and plough says the Norwegian word for plough is plog, so can anyone confirm that this is true? —An gr 14:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Alf Torp Nynorsk Etymologisk Ordbok from 1919. There seems to be a word ard ("wooden plough"), from Old Norse arðr, cognate to Latin aratrum. So at least the Norwegian part looks OK. --MaEr (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems a bit strange to me, that the word should be borrowed from modern Norwegian instead of from Old Norse. Even if the Norwegian part of this theory looks OK: the English part still is strange. --MaEr (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED confirms it's from Norwegian. It was not used in English until the 1930s, in discussions of Scandinavian archaeology, so it's not that surprising that it would come from a modern language. Ƿidsiþ 12:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming this, guys. When the anon added it I thought, "There's a 90% chance this is true, and a 10% chance it's bullshit added by a vandal that will stick around for years if no one questions it." I'm glad to hear that the better chance won out. —An gr 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thigh

thigh (n.): Old English þeoh, þeh, from Proto-Germanic *theukhom (cf. Old Frisian thiach, Old Dutch thio, Dutch dij, Old Norse þjo, Old High German dioh), from PIE *teuk- from root *teu- "to swell" (cf. Lithuanian taukas, Old Church Slavonic tuku, Russian tuku "fat of animals;" Lithuanian tukti "to become fat;" Greek tylos "callus, lump," tymbos "burial mound, grave, tomb;" Old Irish ton "rump;" Latin tumere "to swell," tumulus "raised heap of earth," tumor "a swelling;" Middle Irish tomm "a small hill," Welsh tom "mound"). Thus thigh is literally "the thick or fat part of the leg."

I find this or the like unbearably dictative, don't you? I am most upset by the last passage. The (deprecated template usage) thigh may be simply akin to (deprecated template usage) thick, hence literally "the thick ... of the leg," rather than because of the above etymonline quote that may explain it away. --KYPark (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by dictative? I'm not sure if I understand why it is upsetting. —CodeCa t 15:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I say is what I mean. --KYPark (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is if (deprecated template usage) thigh is akin to (deprecated template usage) thick. --KYPark (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is (deprecated template usage) thigh is akin to (deprecated template usage) thick, if no objection. --KYPark (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, but only very distantly. "No original research" is more a Wikipedia maxim than a Wiktionary one, but when it comes to reconstructed roots in proto-languages it's better to stick to what we can find in published sources, so that we avoid including wild speculations. —An gr 17:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Etymonline:

PIE *tum-: "to swell" whence tumere !!

thumb (see thigh)
tumid (see thigh)
tuber (see thigh)
tumult (see thigh)
tumulus (see thigh)
tumor (see thigh)
tumescent (see thigh)
contumely (see thigh)

Template:mid2

PIE *teu-: "to swell" whence tumere ??

thigh
tomb

PIE *teuk-: maybe "thigh," from PIE *teu-, as per Wiktionary

thigh

As such, Etymonline and Wiktionary equate PIE *tum- with *teu-, which sounds confusing, improbable or implausible.
Most improbable or "dictative" is that thigh is akin to tumere from PIE *tum-.
The (deprecated template usage) thigh is simply (deprecated template usage) thick (more primordially) rather than sophisticatedly swollen or thickened! Compare the (deprecated template usage) thumb from tumere.
Instead of the (deprecated template usage) thigh, the more basic term (deprecated template usage) thick may if not must be in the thick of things in large numbers.

--KYPark (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that thick seems to come from *tegu-, which is difficult to reconcile with the *teuh₂- of thigh, thumb, tumor, etc. —An gr 11:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, in my view, thick from *tegu- may be less difficult to reconcile with thigh from *teuk- than the latter exceptionally to do with thumb and tumor from *tum-! --KYPark (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

鮟

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#.E9.AE.9F_--_character_etymology.

Requesting verification of the character etymology. Nils Barth made some changes back in 2011, revolving around his apparent understanding that this character is Japanese-only. Since this character is present in Mandarin and apparently Korean too (see the 汉语 (cmn) and 朝鲜语 (ko) entries at zh:鮟), I restored his deletion of these entries. He also added a note that this character was a Japanese coinage in this edit from April 2011, but the only source I can find that makes this claim is the JA WT entry ja:鮟, and that's only in the categories and is not mentioned at all in the body of the page. Can anyone say for sure either way, and perhaps point to sources? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong page, I assume you know this already. Anyway, carry on. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming existence in Mandarin (rare). Sources: 黄鮟鱇 in NCIKU dictionary, 鮟 at MDBG dictionary. The etymology seems plausible but I can't confirm it's kokuji. Japanese coinages do occasionally penetrate other CJKV or just CJK (minus Vietnamese) languages. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this etymology is quite likely to be correct. I can't find any uses of "鮟鱇, 鮟 (except as a variant of 鰋), 鱇" in Classical Chinese. ankou appears to be native Japanese, cf. Korean 아귀 (agwi, "anglerfish"). Wyang (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mglovesfun, this isn’t the right page for etymological discussions. Shall we move over to the Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium, where I’ve opened a discussion (and replied) at: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium: 鮟 ?

Indeed, shall I move the above discussion to that page?

(Thanks all for comments!)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this Eiríkr!

To first address the question narrowly:

From some investigating I conclude that:

Strictly speaking, it is not kokuji, but this is subtle.
It is used in Chinese, as a borrowing from the modern Japanese.
It’s not clear whether it’s used in Korean, but presumably has some use as borrowing from Japanese, as 20th century Korean hanja usage largely follows Japanese kanji.

In detail (from アンコウ: 語源 at Japanese Wikipedia, translated and summarized for English-reading editors):

The character 鮟 in the sense of “monkfish, anglerfish”, was created in Edo period Japan (attested 1709), in the word (deprecated template usage) 鮟鱇 (ankō) from ateji 安康 an-kō by adding 魚 to both characters. However, 鮟 is not considered a kokuji while 鱇 is, because 鮟 is found in earlier Chinese texts, while 鱇 is not. The ancient Chinese use of 鮟 is unrelated to the Japanese use – it is a corruption of 鰋 (a kind of catfish), changing 匽 to 安. In formal Japanese usage, “kokuji” is reserved for characters whose earliest appearance is as a Japanese coinage, and it is not applied to characters that are coined in Japan that happen to also be found in Chinese earlier, even if unrelated.

This subtlety is presumably the cause of the confusion, with casual Japanese usage sometimes classifying 鮟 as a kokuji – e.g., 国字 at 漢字辞典ネット lists both 鮟 and 鱇 as kokuji, but stars 鮟 and stating that dictionaries do not consider it to be a kokuji. On the other hand, 搾 is generally considered a kokuji, but apparently also occurs as a corruption of Chinese 榨. AFAICT the rule of thumb appears to be that if a character is in Kangxi, it’s not considered kokuji (e.g., 鰯 is a kokuji that date to the 8th century and had been around for almost 1000 years by the compilation of the Kangxi, but isn’t included in the dict).

Given our goals of following references and being helpful to readers, best is probably to count 鮟 as not a kokuji (since Japanese dictionaries don’t generally consider it such), but to have a sufficient discussion in the etymology section of the character; I’ve done so as of this edit; how does it look?

Regarding the use in Chinese: per Japanese Wikipedia, it is used in Chinese, as an import from Japan; it’s also listed in modern dictionaries – thanks Anatoli and Wyang for research!

References:

アンコウ: 語源, Japanese Wikipedia
黄鮟鱇, NCIKU dictionary
鮟, MDBG dictionary

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you Nils, and Anatoli and Wyang! Much clearer now. I appreciate y'all's work! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

脈輪

RFV of the etymology.

Added by anon IP. CMN term looks like it might be cromulent, with zh:w:脈輪 redirecting to zh:w:查克拉, which uses 脈輪／脉轮 (màilún) in the body of the article. However, the etym given is a dog's breakfast -- it says it's from SA into JA, not CMN for one, and there's no explanation of how we get CMN "màilún" from SA "ćakra". Anyone care to take a stab at this? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

輪／轮 (lún) / 輪／轮 (lún) is just a "wheel", so the word can't mean specifically "chakra", so 脈／脉 (mài) / 脉 (mài, “arteries and veins”) is added at the front to form a new word with a new meaning. This is a common way to make borrowings, since just phonetic borrowings are not very popular for 1) phonetic reasons - hard to match foreign sounds close enough, 2) characters chosen to transcribe a foreign words should be either close to the original meaning (at least remind somehow) or be meaningless (a few characters are used in modern Mandarin to transcribe words only). To me, the etymology section seems OK. The pure phonetic transcription is 查克拉 (chákèlā) as in the Chinese Wikipedia article, 脈輪／脉轮 (màilún) / 脉轮 (màilún) and 氣卦／气卦 / 气卦 (qìguà) are listed there as synonyms. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr, I'll share my little "secret". I'm using Perapera-kun Chinese (plug-in on Mozilla Firefox), the Chinese equivalent of Perapera-kun Japanese (I know Haplology uses Perapera-kun Japanese, do you?). It uses CEDIC dictionary (a totally free Chinese dictionary, equivalent of EDICT (Japanese)). In many cases I don't have to do a long research, this dictionary is my constant companion.

Here are the definitions of two out of three term I used above from CEDIC dictionary:

Template:Hani / Template:Hani (màilún): Chakra (Sanskrit: disc, circle, wheel), one of seven symbolic nodes of the body in spiritual Yoga
Template:Hani (Chákèlā): Chakra (name), Chakra system of yogic meditation, Chakra (Sanskrit: disc), one of seven symbolic nodes of the body in spiritual Yoga

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anatoli, that looks like something I'll have fun learning how to use! And it looks like Wyang has updated the etym at (deprecated template usage) 脈輪／脉轮 (màilún) to clarify. Saying màilún comes from ćakra, as the entry originally did, suggests some kind of direct inheritance or borrowing, which makes a lot less sense etymologically than saying that màilún was derived as a translation of ćakra. I was really scratching my head trying to imagine what possible sound shifts could turn ćakra into màilún. :) Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

earthworm

Is the following dual consilience flatly accidental? Template:examples-right

earthworm
aardworm
Erdwurm
地龍／地龙 (dìlóng) 
(dìlóng)

rainworm
regenworm
Regenwurm
雨龍／雨龙
(yulóng)

--KYPark (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

Template:Hani is "the dragon responsible for producing rains", not worms. Template:Hani meant "a dragon on the ground" in Middle Chinese, and the sense of "earthworm" appeared only in Ming Dynasty. Both were unattested in Old Chinese literature. Wyang (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also the second excerpt on the right. --KYPark (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Dilong: "Dilong first means 'earthworm' in the Qixiu Leigao written by the Ming Dynasty scholar Lang Ying (1487-1566 CE)." There would have to be at least some previous attestations of this sense if it existed earlier (and if the consilience is not flatly coincidental), considering the abundance of Classical Chinese texts. Wyang (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also take it into account that the worm originally meant a dragon! --KYPark (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/wr̥mis? Wyang (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search "earthworm" at http://www.etymonline.com/ and you see "1590s" later than Lang Ying. And find "worm" at bottom of that page. --KYPark (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you think "earthworm" is possibly a calque of "地龍"? Wyang (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is not terribly vital. I just wish people to see something curious in unusual consilience, open-mindedly. --KYPark (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also measuring worm, geometrid, inchworm, 蚇, etc., in terms of queerly, whether sheerly or not, coincidental consilience. --KYPark (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

طبل

Possible distant relation to EN (deprecated template usage) tap < (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Old English (deprecated template usage) tæppa < (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Proto-Germanic Template:recons, from the way a tap or stopcock must be first knocked into a barrel? Or EN (deprecated template usage) tamp, FR (deprecated template usage) tamponner, (deprecated template usage) tampon < nasalized variant of (deprecated template usage) tapon < (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language code; the value "frk" is not valid. See WT:LOL. Template:recons, cognate with Dutch (deprecated template usage) tappe, German (deprecated template usage) Zapfen?

Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cf. HE (deprecated template usage) תוף (tof) (וַתִּקַּח מִרְיָם הַנְּבִיאָה אֲחוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַתֹּף בְּיָדָהּ וַתֵּצֶאןָ כָל הַנָּשִׁים אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹת Exodus 15:20) JulieKahan (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The root of tambour is Arabic (deprecated template usage) تنبور (tumbūr) < Persian (deprecated template usage) (tambūr) < Middle Persian (deprecated template usage) tnbwl (tambūr). Cf. MP (deprecated template usage) twmbk' (tumbag) (< τύμπανον?). The HE (deprecated template usage) תוף (tof) looks related to Arabic (deprecated template usage) دف (duff) < Persian (deprecated template usage) (daf) < Middle Persian. --Z 16:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

пассатижи

The term пассатижи (passatíži) is derived from French "pinces à tige" (?) but not sure if this term still exists in French, what exactly it means/meant and the spelling (hyphens and diacritics). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being French, I didn't know what was a "pince à tige" until now. I have done quite an extensive search and, although the term actually exists, Google returns very few results (and even fewer images, as you guessed it). For what I have seen, "pince à tige" or "pince à tiges" (no definite spelling, as often in that case, but you can assume there is no hyphen, like in "pince à linge") may refer to several tools, depending on the context:

pliers or tongs ("pince") that are composed of one or two shafts ("tiges"). See an example here
pliers or tongs that are dedicated to the manipulation of rods ("tiges"). See an example here.

Both kind of tools can be seen in old books (mainly in a medical context for the former, and in a chemical context for the latter) and thus may have been borrowed by Russians. Can't say more. — Xavier, 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your trouble! Bien merci, je suis très reconnaissant. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

horse-leech

The Engish w: horse-leech (Haemopis sanguisuga) links to the following 8 foreign titles, all literally meaning "horse-leech". Then which is the origin of these academic calques?

Wikipedia
cs:w: Pijavka koňská
de:w: Pferdeegel
et:w: Hobukaan
fi:w: Hevosjuotikas
hu:w: Lópióca
no:w: Hesteigle
pl:w: Pijawka końska
sv:w: Hästigel

Wiktionary
pijavka koňská
Pferdeegel
hobukaan
hevosjuotikas
lópióca
hesteigle
pijawka końska
hästigel
Compare:
馬 + 蛭 (zhì)
ウマ + ヒル
말 + 거머리 (geomeori)

--KYPark (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given their habitat: http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/H/Haemopis_sanguisuga/ I would think that the source is German, Dutch and/or English. 07:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with you strictly within the European habitat. But I already suggested that the question be global. Did you answer from the global perspective? --KYPark (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The animal only lives in Europe. Non-Europeans have no reason to have developed their own name for an animal which does not exist in their part of the world. Therefore the name of the animal in their will be calqued from the European languages. Furius (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sound radically Eurocentric. Do you suggest neither horse nor leech exists outside Europe? If any similar, say, 馬 or 蛭, it must be a calque of the European origin, say, "horse" or "leech"? --KYPark (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that "horse-leeches" do not exist outside Europe. Therefore, when Chinese Korean and Japanese speakers were introduced to the animal, they translated the name into their own languages, word-by-word. 10:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Korean 말거머리 for horse-leech is older than 物譜 (1802), maybe written without any European influence. How old is the horse-leech? --KYPark (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right Template:examples-right

Pinning down the taxonomic identity is trickier than it looks- as is much about leeches in European culture. As far as I can tell, Haemopis sanguisuga is a non-parasitic species that is predatory on smaller invertebrates. Its size and similarity to blood-sucking species apparently led to a widespread folk-belief that it was a voracious feeder upon animals. The biblical horseleech is apparently the aquatic leech, Limnatis nilotica, which enters the noses and mouths of animals that drink in infested water and attaches itself. That species is found throughout the Mediterranean region (I don't know the extent of its entire range). The German Wikipedia article linked to above suggests that the name Pferdeegel may have been modified from Rossegel, which it gives as the name for Limnatis nilotica (Ross is another German word for horse).

My best guess is that horse-leeches got their name in English from the use of horse that we see in horselaugh, horseplay, and horseradish, meaning large and/or coarse. The use of the term to translate a Hebrew word for another species muddied things up quite a bit: you can find biblical commentaries that confidently describe the biblical species as Haemopis sanguisuga, which they claim is a blood-sucker. A major problem with taxonomic names is that people tend to assume that there is only one taxonomic name per common name, and apply the taxonomic name they find in references about the common name to cases where it's really a different species. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Template:Hani first occurred at a time when any European influence would not be possible. Template:Hani in the word didn't mean "horse", it was a prefix meaning "big (animal)", as in Template:Hani ("wasp"), Template:Hani ("ant"), Template:Hani ("locust"), Template:Hani ("leech"), which I suspect may be a colloquial reflex (in the iambic form) of Old Chinese (and Proto-Sino-Tibetan) *m- prefix, with the function of deriving the names of small insects (usually harmful ones). It's the same case for Korean Template:Kore, which doesn't mean "horse" here, but rather a prefix meaning "things larger than normal" (보통의 것보다 큰), eg. 말박,말벌,말거미,말매미. This Korean word might be a calque of Chinese. Wyang (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly. Practically as the biggest or tallest animal in the Far East, the horse is worth a metaphor for bigness. Meanwhile, I wonder whether Korean 말 for horse is akin to 말 (斗) or 머리 "head, top" or 마루 "col, saddle" as of the mountain. No doubt, anyway, the prefix 말 literally means "horse" no more, whether 馬 or 斗 or whatever else. But who knows for sure which prefix is older, Chinese 馬 or Korean 말? --KYPark (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chinese Template:Hani meant "large" already in Erya (circa 3rd century BC): Template:Hani was "the large cicada". Don't think one could find even earlier Korean sources showing mal meaning "big".. Anyhow, Sagart (1999) also considers this use of Template:Hani as an Old Chinese relic, though it is quite likely later uses of this were influenced by the relative bigness of the horse itself (English horse also means "a large person"). As for etymology of mal, it is definitely related to Template:Hani (/*mraːʔ/ in Old Chinese), but unlikely to the others above. It is an areal word; please cf. Appendix:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/mraŋ. Wyang (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of Korean 말 itself is a mere side effect to this agenda, which I or we would better avoid and focus on the main east-west issue, while nonetheless I appreciate your wide etymological concern. --KYPark (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horse as a metaphoric element meaning large and/or coarse in many words and phrases seems to be a parallel development in English, at least. Even if many of the terms derive from the tendency of aquatic leeches to attach to horses that drink in infested water, it's not necessary to assume borrowing when terms consist of names of things combined with traits or other things widely known to be associated with them. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have learnt some things about leeches, horses, 馬, and 蜩. Thanks for that. Furius (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question "which is the origin of [those 1+8 European] academic calques?" cf. CJK counterparts, may well be answered from both European and global perspectives.

Furius tried to narrow down the origin within Europe, yet blurringly, and then claimed its global impact. I appreciate the trial as the closest so far, however implausible it may sound.

The origin is presupposed. It entails that all the rest must be its calques. Otherwise, they make too accidental, coincidental consilience to be likely to happen, especially globally! Let's be openly surprised at the wider consilience and likely the deeper origin.

--KYPark (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Sz-iwbot deleted the interwiki link [[en:Haemopis sanguisuga]] in 2010 from http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/马蛭 that has ever begun with 马蛭（学名：Haemopis sanguisuga）....

A few days ago, 1 + 8 (shown on top) interwiki links were duly added to that. Today I added [[zh:马蛭]] to w:Haemopis sanguisuga, while strongly fearing that this case may be nothing but obscurantism such as I've feared again and again. Why should I stop so doing and view it otherwise?

BTW, I added two "Examples" boxes in relation to Chuck Entz's Limnatis nilotica the northern Europeans must be unfamiliar with, though it may well be called "horse-leech" which is getting more and more problematic or enigmatic (to me at least) esp. from the global perspective, to be frank. Korean sources note that 말거머리 is not really blood-sucking, while European equivalents are, say, w:Haemopis sanguisuga "blood-thirsty blood-sucker"!

--KYPark (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it would be fair enough to know and say that few argue for the origin of (deprecated template usage) horse-leech and the like, hence the unknown, uncertain, or perhaps oriental origin, as tentatively as usual in science.

--KYPark (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

measuring worm

In contrast to the previous (deprecated template usage) earthworm and (deprecated template usage) horse-leech, a range of English measuring worm, inchworm, spanworm, looper, geometer, etc., sound a calque altogether roughly meaning around measurement one way or another. Roughly such is the case not only in other European but also CJV languages, as follows. Are all these ideas of wording a queer consilience but sheer coincidence, East and West?

Wikipedia
ca:w: Arna geomètrida
   w: Geometer moth
es:w: Geometridae
fr:w: Geometridae
it:w: Geometridae
pt:w: Geometridae

Wiktionary
arna geomètrida
geometer moth
geometridae
geometridae
geometridae
geometridae

da:w: Målere
de:w: Spanner (Schmetterling)
   w: Measuring worm  
fi:w: Mittarit
nl:w: Spanners
no:w: Målere
sv:w: Mätare

målere
Spanner
measuring worm
mittarit
spanner
målere
mätare

尺蠖 (chǐhuò) 
 (chǐhuò, 尺+蠖)
シャクトリムシ 
 (shakutorimushi, 尺+取+虫)
자벌레 (jabeolle) 
 (ja-beolre, 자+벌레)

--KYPark (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely coincidence. In Chinese, oldest attestation of the word Template:Hani was in I Ching (2nd millennium BC). Wyang (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How great the oldest attest of Template:Hani in I Ching is! How likely the coincidence is globally! How unlikely it is in the East and the West, respectively! --KYPark (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it may be well noted that both Engish (deprecated template usage) caterpillar, as (deprecated template usage) measuring worm in a way, and its hanzi translations 蚝, 毛蟲, and 毛毛蟲, though more or less rough or hairy, share a semantic element for hair. What a queer consilience if a sheer coincidence it is!

--KYPark (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

syllabus

This etymology seems exceptionally complicated - why must it derive from two different words in Cicero (sittybis in Ad Atticum 4 and sillybis in Ad Atticum 8)? Can't it just be from some variation on the aorist of συλλαμβάνω? Furius (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

grasshopper

In series

#earthworm
#horse-leech
#measuring worm, caterpillar
#grasshopper

Translations

grass + hopper
græshoppe
grasshopper
Grashüpfer
gresshoppe
gräshoppa

eingispretta
engispretta
메뚜기 (mettugi)
cf.
메토끼 (metokki)
mountain hare

Template:mid3

hopper +
saltamatxino
saltamartí
sauterelle
saltón
saltamontes

Template:mid3

pony +
конік (kónik)
koník
konik polny
koník
kobilica
коник (kónyk)

cavalletta

Semantically, the above Germanic and Korean translations exceptionally exactly hop together, as it were, hence quite a queer consilience! Etymologically or anyway, however, should such a self-manifest fact be definitely ignored or obscured? Why?

--KYPark (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the fact that grasshoppers keep jumping around is their defining characteristic. It’s no wonder that unrelated languages would name them after this characteristic. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 14:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's indeed "no wonder" that languages try to name a thing characteristically, but maybe "no accident" that only Germanic and Korean languages on earth name the grasshopper exactly the same way. --KYPark (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Spanish ((deprecated template usage) saltamontes) and Catalan ((deprecated template usage) saltamartí) also name it the same way, the only difference being that the "grass (underbrush)" and "hop" parts are reversed to match different tendencies in verb + object handling in compound words. Meanwhile, the Italian and Slavic references to small horses no doubt allude to the way small horses hop about and are often found in fields.

I'm with Ungoliant here. These cross-lingual semantic overlaps are not surprising, nor even all that terribly interesting, frankly. Same as for your mention of (deprecated template usage) caterpillar earlier -- many caterpillars are indeed hairy, so the fact that many languages use their word for (deprecated template usage) hair as part of the term for (deprecated template usage) caterpillar is again neither surprising nor terribly interesting.

I recall pointing you towards the Zompist website, particularly the linguistics articles listed at http://www.zompist.com/#lang, and even more specifically the article How likely are chance resemblances between languages? This is directly relevant to many of the threads you have started about how different languages seem to be related. You may wish to read this article.

If your musings are intended to show commonalities in how humans think in very different cultures and environments, then I might lend you an ear. Is this what you are investigating?

However, it seems instead that you might be exploring an argument that far-removed languages are somehow direct relatives, despite the absence of any linguistic evidence supporting such a position, and despite the presence of linguistic evidence to the contrary. That line of reasoning is not likely to attract much favorable attention, until and unless you can find any such supporting linguistic evidence.

But do carry on, if this scratches an itch of yours. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous agenda #measuring worm at once led Wyang to create 尺蠖 along with a highly impressive (at least to me) historical quotation. Wyang suggested that its Eurasian trade was unlikely, but I thanked a lot in silence. Anyway, that agenda works!

So does this agenda #grasshopper that made myself enhance Etymology of 메뚜기. It may also make some readers more or less interested one way or another, e.g., whether those Germanic translations led to the Latinic and Slavonic, or otherwise or noway, regardless of Korean part. Who should hesitate or hate that?

It also made Eiríkr Útlendi speak a lot of objection to my favoring the likely Eurasian trade in many ways as a matter of fact rather than written history I equate almost with positivism that would ignore the implicit, tacit majority.

History has it that just four trivial Hunnic words survived, as enumerated by one Roman historian who once visited their camp. Without his visit, not a single word would have survived. Such is history in silence!

In this worm series, I've never argued in such a way that "far-removed [Eurasian] languages are somehow direct relatives," which is hence a mere unfair strawman argument I greatly regret.

What sort of cultural evidence is needed to trade and share such things as tea, silk and china? What sort of "linguistic evidence" is needed to trade and share such ideas as 地龍, 馬蛭, 尺蠖 and 메뚜기?

Right here, we are not in the right position to think and talk about Eurasian languages in themselves but just some of their words or memes, if you like, in flux or trade like things and ideas in bits and pieces.

To infer any vital linguistic kinship from some lexical trade and sharing would be as crazy as to make a mountain out of a molehill! While enjoying china, silk, tea, etc. from Chinese culture, Europe in itself yet must remain very different from it.

Korean adopts or adapts some English words not because it is (becoming) akin to English in itself, but simply because they are useful. Vice versa; so does English with Korean gimchi, bulgogi, malchum, etc., without needing to adapt itself to Korean in itself.

My notion "only Germanic and Korean languages on earth name the grasshopper exactly the same way" is a matter of degree and viewpoint. I cannot help but note that Germanic translations look much closer to Korean than Latinic and Slavonic, while anyone may disagree with me anyway.

Right or wrong, you may positively infer from such closeness, if "no accident" instead of "no wonder," that (deprecated template usage) 메뚜기 may have been directly introduced to Germanic, and indirectly to Latinic and Slavonic. Who should keep people from such reasoning?

I always find myself struggling against too simple black and white (BW) rhetorics and arguments. Contrary to our common sense and rhetoric, esp. in BW terms, no two things on earth are "exactly the same." Likeness, surprise, interest, evidence, and whatever degrees vary from thing to thing, from species to species.

Perhaps most responsible for our helpless and hopeless simplism may be our speech or rhetoric that should be both precise and concise contradictorily, vitally and fatally.

As such, BW speeches would be both good and bad, so often doing even evil, whether intentionally or not. Science and relegion that essentially seek the truth and only the truth through speech may be no exception.

As "my personal view is not terribly vital," as I noted elsewhere a week ago, so is any personal uninterest, indifference, ignorance, or the like.

In spite of that, to say that my agendas in series are again and "again neither surprising nor terribly interesting" is to say that such a personal BW view is authoritative enough for anyone to believe. Perhaps this is the easiest way people dictate, deceive, brainwash, misguide, and so on.

--KYPark (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/March 2013

dung beetle

Template:examples-right

dung dealer?

escarabat piloter
mestkever (nl)
dung beetle (en) ^[1]
bousier (fr)
Mistkäfer
scarabeo stercorario
навозный жук (navoznyj žuk)
 (navóznyj žuk)
escarabajo pelotero

Template:mid2

dung roller!

hovnivál
govnovalj
rola-bosta
糞転がし
 (fun-korogashi)
말똥구리 (malttongguri) ^[2]
 (mal-ttong-guri)
쇠똥구리 (soettongguri)
 (soe-ttong-guri)

^ Dung beetle attested by 1630s. [1]
^ ＜묘법연화경언해|법화경언해(1463)＞ [2]

The above maps some Eurasian calques for (deprecated template usage) dung beetle. Korean 말똥구리 (mal-ttong-guri, roughly but strikingly, "mar-dung-gyre"!), since 1463 at latest, is probably the oldest. Note how close the transliteration mal-ttong-guri and my translation "mar-dung-gyre" are in sounding and meaning in triple consilience! So no accident is it?

--KYPark (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC). Modified --KYPark (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that scarabs roll balls of dung is by far its most unique and defining characteristic (much more so than the grasshoppers’ jumping around is theirs). I find it surprising when its name in a given language doesn’t refer to that.

But seriously, you’re going too far here. While I do find these discussions interesting, they are just cluttering the Etymology Scriptorium, which should be used for discussions which affect Wiktionary entries. I ask that you start posting them in your talk page (or a subpage or whatever you like). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So fair is your first passage.

Not so fair is your second arguing as if I were cluttering anything, while I may be arguing that the etymology of all the above items may be better reconsidered. Such was exactly the case with the previous agenda #beetle; this is an extension thereof, you see.

--KYPark (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I take this opportunity to take rola-bosta for granted to mean "dung-gyre" generic to "mar-dung-gyre" I put? --KYPark (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“rolls-shit” — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway though a little unclear. --KYPark (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

The redness of the links above may be a measure of modern Eurasian regardlessness of dung beetles, which "are currently the only animal, other than humans, known to navigate and orient themselves using the Milky Way."

--KYPark (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Words are deeply rooted in culture in history proper. Therefore, etymology matters likely ahead of semiology and phonology. Sadly, however, it may have been badly obscured by obscurantism, pseudoscience, etc.

You are certainly free to obscure yourself but for others. So shall we "look back in anger" if we do them at all, especially in disguise of "neutral point of view," in attack on "original research," in favor of "peer-reviewed publication"? To me, "peer-review" is nothing but conservatism of invested interests, either better or worse than nothing!

I'd like to call this forum a global pure review, in sharp contrast to limited peer review in practice, that is, poor review in fact or effect, though not evil at all. How sorry I am that a number of users keep asking me to leave this!

--KYPark (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We’re not asking you to stop because of some obsession with peer review, but because the purpose of this page is the construction and correction of the etymology-related content of Wiktionary pages. Your recent series of topics are just general etymology discussion. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never complain that you prefer "peer review," but that you unfairly ask me to leave this globally open place for "pure review" I prefer to that which is too limited by definition. BTW you sound like your friends conspiring to stop my "general etymology discussion" as totally useless, which is simply untrue.

Etymological "construction and correction" have mattered indeed throughout the series, however neglected so far, though it may take time. For example, Etymology of (deprecated template usage) earthworm and (deprecated template usage) rainworm need note frankly that the pair is exactly parallel to that of 地龍 and 雨龍 as its probable origin. This academic affair is no doubt an honor system.

Meanwhile, I expect the day will come sooner or later when WMF hesitates no more to acknowledge the publicity and authority of its own forums as well as peer-reviewed publications out there.

--KYPark (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is useless if over a long period of time it is continuing without improvement of Wiktionary etymologies, as it has been — and to note that the pair is "exactly parallel" is a misuse of the etymology section and may be considered to be disruptive editing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should we build up here and elsewhere? A body of truth for global enlightenment rather than academic invested interests, shouldn't we? We just use them as a likely means to that end, and give it up, if not as such.

The right of silence must sound a sheer ridicule to R. L. Stevenson who noted "the cruelest lies are often told in silence." Such must be the case here as well as in general academia. Worst may be disruptive sabotage as an academic misconduct to keep people from telling and getting the truth.

In this perspective, it is seriously debatable if at all to note that the pair is "exactly parallel" is a misuse of the etymology section and may be considered to be disruptive editing, granted such is simply the fact and truth.

--KYPark (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really shouldn't engage, but ...

KYPark, sometimes the word or phrase for something has the same structure or makes the same metaphor in several remote and unrelated languages because it's an obvious metaphor to make, or else it is simply a coincidence.

It doesn't help when the historical etymology is being stretched or ignored, depending on what point you're trying to make. "'Beetle' kinda sounds like 'boat' is a curiousity, and may even be interesting, but is not an etymological argument.

If you want to make the case that there was heavy borrowing between English and Korean in the 16C, then please provide the evidence that there was sufficient contact between the two cultures at the time. Otherwise you just sound like the people who thought that the Old Irish name "Eber" sounds like Hebrew "Heber", therefore the Irish language is a dialect of Hebrew.

As far as "the cruelest lies are often told in silence" goes, you can keep something hidden by preventing it being spoken of, and you can keep something hidden by shouting it down. Please consider The Library of Babel, which contains all things which are true... and all things which are false, and no way to tell one from the other. It is possible to say too much on a topic, especially when you are using an ostensibly public space to do so... you are not convincing anyone who is not already convinced, but are instead drowning out and forcing away anyone and everyone else who might want to be heard. This is not scholarship, this is greediness and arrogance. (Greediness in monopolising a commons, and arrogance in assuming that your contributions are so much more important than anyone and everyone else's.)

You are providing lots of coincidences, but no actual evidence that there is a connection, and no demonstrable mechanism by which the connection can have been made.

--Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 04:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "...please provide the evidence.... Otherwise you just sound like the people who thought that the Old Irish name "Eber" sounds like Hebrew "Heber", therefore the Irish language is a dialect of Hebrew." is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

This must show how vitally and fatally you reduce the following complexities to be equated to that single simpletonic phonetic coincidence, not to mention the mad inference whence. Such may be a way of telling a lie in eloquence in contrast to silence, I fear.

The consilience of all coherence rather than mere coincidence of earth worm/rain worm with 地龍/雨龍 (the first in series) is quadruple, that is, four times of your helpless, hopeless example!

The transliteration mal-ttong-guri of 말똥구리 and my translation mar-dung-gyre (the last in series), practically coinciding in sounding and meaning, is no less than six times!

--KYPark (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That proves nothing whatsoever. What is the mechanism whereby Korean could have calqued this (contrived and frankly unconvincing) phrase from gibberish made up of English words? It's not evidence, it's not etymology, and it's barely a Just So Story. -- Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 06:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, etymology is not a mere retrieval from recorded history, but a science that follows the scientific method, say, including the very stastical "consilience" in reasoning, esp. in humanized science. Too rigid requests for hard evidence may be a symptom of poor science such as positivism I personally despise so much. As to evidence, I wonder if you've read my response to Eiríkr Útlendi at the end of #grasshopper, the 4th in series.

--KYPark (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of Wunderkammer, not a lot of Scientific Method.

No-one is saying that you should stop doing it, just that we'd prefer that you stop the equivalent of standing on the street corner and continually yelling at whoever passes. -- Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 09:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strikingly indeed, I may be exactly "standing on the street corner and continually yelling at whoever passes." Advise me if it is immoral at all. --KYPark (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad you "see a lot of Wunderkammer", though "not a lot of Scientific Method."

"No-one is saying that you should stop doing it" is not really real, as Dan Polansky says at User talk:KYPark#Etymology scriptorium: "[my] pseudoetymological musings should no longer be posted."

--KYPark (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have skipped the next part of his statement: "Posting them to your talk page would be much preferable."

Don't stop doing it. It would be a shame if you were to stop doing it, not least because it obviously gives you such joy. But it would be far more polite to make these extensive speculations in your own user space, leaving this public space for concrete points of specific etymology. -- Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 03:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just skipped it as you and I should say as concisely as possible.

Many users come to my agendas mostly to blame me as if I were a self-satisfying wizard at worst or embodiment of pseudoetymology, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, or the like speculation, at best, which in fact is a mere strawman they have invented again and again.

They may be quite happy with (deprecated template usage) beetle as "biter" while I am happy to say why it may be wrong or why they may better review it. As boatlet, as it were, the (deprecated template usage) beetle sounds as coherent in culture as both (deprecated template usage) scarab and (deprecated template usage) caravel are jointly. Why am I speculative and impolite at all to talk about that sort of things right here? Why should I better talk to myself in my private space unnoticed by others, to be polite?

BTW I take this opportunity to thank User:Wyang so much for creating 말똥구리 nice after this agenda.

--KYPark (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concision does not mean the elision of a statement so as to change its meaning. If so many people are getting annoyed or angry with you, please consider the possibility that the problem is not with them, maybe it's you. -- Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 05:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider if you are polite yourself if you try to make a mountain out of a molehill that is "concision" this time, which may be just nothing vital and fatal as the point is someone asking me to stop doing it right here, elsewhere than my space, contrary to your "No-one...." And I did link to the full text. Do you insist my concision was deceptive indeed? --KYPark (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Modified a little --KYPark (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "so many people are getting annoyed," yet not so many at all considering the global population. Sampling here may be too wrong, or as wild as voting here, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than getting annoyed, I've stopped reading this page except for the occasional glance. It's certainly getting cluttered with material not relevant to Wiktionary. As I suggested in January, perhaps you could publish your suggestions elsewhere? Dbfirs 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The global population is irrelevant; as far as I can tell, 100% of the other readers here are getting annoyed. If your audience is getting annoyed, it's time to change your tune or find a new audience.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:KYPark #Etymology scriptorium

Like some editors, I think your pseudoetymological musings should no longer be posted to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium. Posting them to your talk page would be much preferable. Alternatively, instead of inventing crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy, you may choose to expand English Wiktionary with high-quality Korean entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your harsh private talk opposing or denying my freedom of posting to the open forum would sound a threat far more than its public version. Do you mean it? By yourself, your view is your freedom. Otherwise, it should be morally or socially tested.

I think it silly to inform or post those facts to my talk page, as you ask me; I have to do them publicly just for popular reference. They are not speculative "crackpot theories" I invent at all, but just objective observations no one can deny. In this regard, you are simply one of those who have repeatedly invented strawman arguments to harass me. I wonder what the "crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy" are precisely.

--KYPark (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more that it's you who's making straw man arguments. This has nothing to do with freedom of posting, and Wiktionary is not an open forum (see WT:NOT). I agree with Dan Polanski that you shouldn't be posting things in ES unless there is something concrete you want to improve about Wiktionary's content. Etymology Scriptorium is not for discussing etymologies, it's for finding ways to improve the etymology sections of Wiktionary entries. In other words, don't insinuate or imply, don't just say "how amazing is it that these two words are so similar" because that isn't of any use to Wiktionary. Suggest a concrete improvement, suggest a change to a specific entry. Anything else has no place on ES and only clutters it up, it should go on your own user page. And don't complain that you're being censored. You ARE being censored, just like everyone else on Wiktionary is being censored. Instead of trying to act like a victim, why don't you actually listen to what people say to you and try to improve your behaviour? Trying to act like you're right and everyone else is suppressing you won't get you anywhere, it will just breed more resentment and people will have no more sympathy for you (they already seem to have lost a lot of it, judging by the reactions I've seen). And as you know, Wiktionary operates by consensus, so I hope for your sake that you don't get people so frustrated about you that there comes a consensus to get you banned. It's up to you. —CodeCa t 18:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a classic w: appeal to spite.

While referring me to WT:NOT as to the "open forum" unclearly, refer yourself to that as to the following clearly --KYPark (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) :[reply]

Lua error: Module:languages/errorGetBy:16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "; What Wiktionary is not

8. Wiktionary is not a battlefield. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly (1), calmly and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult (2), harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or edit entries just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wiktionary, Wiktionarians or the Wikimedia Foundation. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban (3). [my numbering to refer to the following explicitly]

civilly: Wiktionary:Civility

insult: Wiktionary:No personal attacks

ban: Wiktionary:BLOCK" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

--KYPark (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has threatened you with any kind of harm or legal action. Even if we did, we have no access to any information on your real identity. As far as we know, you're a very bright and precocious 10-year-old girl in Dubuque, Iowa who's really good at impersonating slightly-eccentric Asian gentlemen online.

Every one of us has lost patience with you at least once or twice, but I'm pretty sure none of us has the slightest intention to take that beyond normal online interactions. The only actual threats have centered around blocking you if you post inappropriate content in entries, which is consistent with our responsibility to protect the integrity of the site.

We've tolerated your posting of huge volumes of unnecessary charts, tables, images and irrelevant data in this space, explained the same things to you over and over again, carefully gone over your arguments point by point, and spent a great deal of effort trying to be fair with you. As I said, we've all fallen short of perfection in keeping the tone free of animosity on occasion, but on the whole I think we've been far more accommodating and reasonable than you could expect anywhere else. If you think we're being rude, try posting this kind of stuff on Usenet, and find out what real harassment and flame-wars are like. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I forgot to sign yesterday. I was in a hurry to get everything done so I could get ready for work.Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

Dear CodeCat, as per WT:NOT, I'll try to remain civil myself. The above reply must be yours without signing. How happy and thankful I would be if an Iowan girl or whoever had talked that way on my behalf, surely from sympathy to me! At least one global friend, isn't it? Meanwhile, how unhappy you would be then, as you may require, whether or not greedily, the world be for you and against me!

Why don't you take this chance to "look back in anger" how unfair you may look to the eyes of an 10-year-old girl, regardless of the global readers in silence, when one of you, Prosfilaes, cries "100% of the other readers here are getting annoyed."

Every sane editor, other than vandals, is responsible for WT:QA (Quality Assurance), as it were, not to mention the admins. Professionally, you may vitally supspect me of the quality and relevance of my edits and talks, and fatally make mistakes and do harm to nothing but WT more often than not. At right, I'd like to suggest some likelihood, just based on your words.

--KYPark (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The heading to this page does say "This is the place to cogitate on etymological aspects of the Wiktionary entries.", but please note that etymology is "the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time" (Wikipedia) or "the study of the historical development of languages, particularly as manifested in individual words" (Wiktionary), not the study of coincidental similarities between languages. Also, the discussion should be directed towards the improvement of Wiktionary entries, not the promulgation of an esoteric thesis. Why not put your efforts into writing a book on your theories, then it might reach a much wider audience than the few who still read this page? Dbfirs 10:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, try a blog website, that way you can write as much as you like. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

मिथ्या (mithyā)

An IP posted on the talk page complaining that the etymology wasn't correct. Their assertion seems to imply that a word can't be both from Sanskrit and from PIE, which of course is a bit silly. On the other hand, the current etymology does seem a bit doubtful. I don't know much about the Indic languages, but as far as I know, Sanskrit -i- can come from either PIE -i- or from a laryngeal between consonants. So it seems rather strange that the diphthong -ēw- that is given in the etymology somehow became -i- in Sanskrit, since that diphthong normally becomes -au-. I am also not sure about the consonant, Sanskrit -th- from PIE -dh-, but I don't know enough about the conditions that brought on voiceless aspirates in Sanskrit so that may be valid after all. Still, I do think this should be looked at more closely by someone who knows more. —CodeCa t 21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oxymoron

RFV of the etymology. Article says "from 5th century Latin, oxymoron." I did not search exhaustively, but every source I found (save for the circular wiki-sourced ones) says it's from the 17th century (1657 to be exact) – and that the Latin word is oxymorum. Grolltech (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perseus has ὀξύμωρον as the neuter (and masc.acc.) form in Liddell & Scott, but the lemma is ὀξύμωρος. Similarly, the lemma in Lewis and Short is oxymōrus, with oxymōrum being the neuter or the masc.acc. case. They don't have sources though.

Aha: found it on Perseus. Commentary on the Aeniad of Virgil, Serv. A. 7.295 by M. Servius Honoratius, fl.c400

"capti potvere capi cum felle dictum est: nam si hoc removeas, erit oxymorum."

I'd say it was used by Servius as a borrowing from Greek, and when it was brought into English the Greek origins were obvious, so it was "restored" to that form, rather than to English !"oxymorum". It may well have been a term of art in Greek throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, but I don't read Greek well enough to find out. Maybe an expert in Byzantine studies in rhetoric might be able to answer that.

-- Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology is right. It wasn't used in English until the 17th century, but the post-classical Latin word is fifth-century (as above). Oxymorum was a variant form. Ƿidsiþ 09:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:examples-right

What the global readers may miss

English (deprecated template usage) oxymoron may have originally meant the famous Aesop Fable's sour grapes standing for "disdain about something that one desires but cannot have." --KYPark (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... or "tasty blackberry"? Dbfirs 09:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not at all. --KYPark (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that oxymoron comes from (deprecated template usage) ὀξύμωρος (oxúmōros), based on (deprecated template usage) μωρός (mōrós). The omega and the omicron are quite distinct. I also have my doubts as to whether Aesop used the words in question, but I haven't had time to track down the text. Besides, there's absolutely nothing oxymoronic about "sour" and "grape", but "sharp" and "slow" fit the profile perfectly. Your explanation would require a considerable change in the semantics to arrive at the same place already covered by the obvious derivation. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down a text may not be possible, since it seems that the fables are only attested second-hand in other authors. After looking up (deprecated template usage) μόρον (móron), I have another question: where are you getting the definition of μόρον as grape? It was used interchangeably for blackberry and mulberry, which are very similar in the appearance of the fruit, but grapes are completely different from either of those. Liddell & Scott's lexicon has no mention of the use of the term for grapes. Given that grapes are a very basic part of Greek (and Roman) culture, with widely-used terms for every part of the plant, it seems odd that anyone would use a more obscure term for another fruit to refer to them. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "grape" I'd make archaic, rather than corrupt, sense, hence "cluster or bunch" of either or whether grapes or berries, or the biblical "uvae et mori" you referred me to a year ago. Don't deny grapes are ~~not~~ berries which are quite inclusive and may be best represented by blackberries or moron. Currently and literally, I am wrong. But may I ask you to make best sense of my word? --KYPark (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following oxymoronic?

No-one is saying that you should stop doing it, just that we'd prefer that you stop [it]. -- Catsidhe ... 09:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't stop doing it. ... But it would be far more polite to make [it] in your own user space... -- Catsidhe ... 03:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

--KYPark (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is: no they aren't. Even if you hadn't misquoted me in an attempt to make yourself out as a martyr. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 21:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though you may not know the whole story of mine here, I've so often felt like a prey for witch hunting indeed, as was notorious in the West! --KYPark (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

carpale

From New Latin from English? A really weird-looking Webster etymology which probably needs to be rewritten, but I just don't know enough about this particular word to rewrite it. Anyone got an OED at hand? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OED does not consider the word to be English (at least that's how I interpret their lack of an entry). I can find it in medical texts, used as a Latin adjective in the same way as dorsale etc. The English equivalent is carpal, of course. There seems to be very limited use in English. Should we relegate the word to a Latin entry (though it's "new Latin", not "proper" Latin)? I've found one modern usage in Hyman's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy - Page 260 and it seems to be used in some palaeontology books, but if I was editing these, I'd remove the "e" to make it English. I suppose the Latin "os carpale" gets shortened by medical people to make an "English" word, but perhaps we could add a note similar to that at os? Dbfirs 09:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will RFV the English and add the Latin. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

glaive

I reverted this change to glaive. However, I'm a bit skeptical about the Latin etymology. Can -d- become -v- in Old French? I certainly can't name another example of this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is a bit unclear, I mean the Latin (deprecated template usage) gladius, can the bit glad- become glev- or glaiv- in Old French? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was influenced by (deprecated template usage) clava[7]. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oncet

Where the hell did the -t come from? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See -t#Etymology 2. —An gr 19:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wiþþe

RFV of the etymology.

It is claimed:

(deprecated template usage) [etyl] Proto-Germanic Template:recons, Template:recons, from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Proto-Indo-European Template:recons, Template:recons. Cognate with Old Frisian (deprecated template usage) withthe, Middle Dutch (deprecated template usage) wisse (Dutch (deprecated template usage) wis), Old High German (deprecated template usage) wit, (deprecated template usage) withi, Old Norse (deprecated template usage) við, (deprecated template usage) viðja (Swedish (deprecated template usage) vidja). Compare also Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) ἰτέα (itéa) (from Template:rfv-etymology*(deprecated template usage) ϝειτεϝα), Latin (deprecated template usage) vītis, Old Irish (deprecated template usage) féith.

There are a number of issues here.

For one thing, *ϝειτεϝα would not produce ἰτέα, because the *ει would remain as-is. Perhaps *ϝιτεϝα is meant?
Also, both *wiþjōn and *wiþijōn seem unlikely. By Sievers' Law, only the former should exist, unless what is actually meant by the latter is *wīþijōn, with a long ī in the root. That would also explain better the derivation from both PIE *wit- and *weit-.
The OHG forms don't fit with the others; you'd expect gemination, just as in the other West Germanic languages. Is the root vowel long in these forms? This would explain better the occurrence of the second reconstructed Proto-Germanic form, provided that *wīþijōn (with long ī) was meant.

Benwing (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find wit or withi in my OHG dictionary, but I do find (deprecated template usage) witta with an asterisk indicating that the nominative is unattested, which is the expected outcome of *wiþjōn or *wiþjō (I think OHG geminated consonants are usually devoiced, like modern (deprecated template usage) Brücke). I also found (deprecated template usage) wid, a feminine i-stem which probably comes from Template:recons and may or may not come from the same root. withi is likely an earlier form of that word, in which the change th > d had not yet occurred, and the analogical removal of the -i hadn't taken place yet. In Old Saxon I found (deprecated template usage) witha as well (< Template:recons probably, because there is no gemination and Old Saxon tends to preserve -j-). I'm not sure what the inflection class of Old Norse (deprecated template usage) við was, but the nominative could come from either Template:recons, Template:recons (or would the u-umlaut have given *vyð?) or Template:recons. My dictionary gives conflicting information about it... it suggests *wiþjō as the ancestor but says the word is an i-stem (with an ?). Old Norse (deprecated template usage) viðja can't come from anything but Template:recons so that is a direct cognate to the Old English word. —CodeCa t 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koebler has two diff origins for the OE and OHG words above: OE (deprecated template usage) wiþþe from PGM Template:termx, Template:termx, from PIE Template:termx, Template:termx, from PIE Template:termx; but the OHG (deprecated template usage) witta from PGM Template:termx, from PIE Template:termx, from PIE Template:termx, Template:termx. Leasnam (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

withy

Appendix:Proto-Germanic/wiþjōn: 27-28 March 2013 Leasnam

Etymology

From (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Proto-Indo-European Template:recons, Template:recons, from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Proto-Indo-European Template:recons. Cognate with Latin (deprecated template usage) vītis, Lithuanian (deprecated template usage) vytinė, Russian (deprecated template usage) ветвь (vetvʹ), Polish (deprecated template usage) witka, Old Irish (deprecated template usage) féith.

Noun

wiþjǭ ?

cord, rope, thong

Declension

(erased)

Related terms

Template:lr

Descendants

Old English: wiþþe
- Middle English: withthe, witthe, wythth
  - Scots: widdy, widdie, weddy, wethy
  - English: withy; (withe, with)
Old Frisian: withthe
Old Saxon: Template:lr
- Middle Low German: wedde
Old Norse: viðja
- Icelandic: viðja
- Norwegian: vidje
- Swedish: vidja
- Danish: vidje

Template:mid2

Appendix:Proto-Germanic/wiþiz: 28 March 2013 Leasnam, CodeCat

Etymology

From (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Proto-Indo-European Template:recons, from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Proto-Indo-European Template:recons. Cognate with Latin (deprecated template usage) vītis, Lithuanian (deprecated template usage) vytinė, Russian (deprecated template usage) ветвь (vetvʹ), Polish (deprecated template usage) witka, Old Irish (deprecated template usage) féith.

Noun

wiþiz ?

cord, rope, thong

Declension

(erased)

Related terms

Template:lr

Descendants

Old English: wiþe (in compounds)
- Middle English: withe, wythe, with
  - English: with, withe
Old Saxon: Template:lr, Template:lr
- Middle Low German: wede
Old High German: wid
- Middle High German: wid
  - German: Weid
Old Norse: við
- Icelandic: við

How are both related at all?
Whether or not related, which is earlier at all?
Which better relates to (deprecated template usage) withy in question at all?

--KYPark (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They probably both come from the same root, PIE *wey-. *wéytis is a productive formation within PIE, so that is probably the older of the two. *wiþjōn may have been derived from it, although I'm not sure about the extra details (like why the -þ- was kept when it was clearly part of a derivational suffix). —CodeCa t 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whose "probably, probably"? Yours or the third party's? And, is either the origin of (deprecated template usage) withy at issue after all? --KYPark (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also: User:KYPark/withe to which User:CodeCat moved Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium#withe for the simple reason "Not appropriate" in his or her opinion?

--KYPark (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wiþig: From wiþ ("?") + -ig ("-like"). Cognates may include:

(deprecated template usage) withe, German (deprecated template usage) Weide ("willow twig")
(deprecated template usage) with ("side by side"), Swedish (deprecated template usage) vid ("wide, beside"), and perhaps
(deprecated template usage) wide, German (deprecated template usage) weit ("wide"), (deprecated template usage) Weid ("pasture")
(deprecated template usage) wood, Old English (deprecated template usage) widu
(deprecated template usage) widow, Latin (deprecated template usage) dividere ("to divide, separate")
Italian (deprecated template usage) pettine ("comb, reed")

I wish the latter part of likelihood would not excite hotheads too much but help coolheads, as it were, break through the deadlock, if any.

--KYPark (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pentacle

I've copied this from Talk:pentacle. I've corrected the spelling of Dictionaire and Française without Fuzzypeg's permission, he/she can change it back if he/she desires. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Template:archive box Right, so the proposition is that Old French (deprecated template usage) pentacol gave Medieval Latin (deprecated template usage) pentaculum, which was linked back to (deprecated template usage) penta- because of the spelling, which is where the modern meaning of (deprecated template usage) pentacle of a five-pointed star comes from. As you can see, the older meaning of pentacle means 'a charm' which as far as I can tell, is the same one found in Middle French. FWIW I found a 1547 citation for Middle French (deprecated template usage) pentacle which actually predates the Trésor de langue française informatisé's 'before 1555' one. Depends how long before 1555 their one is, I suppose (link). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Dung beetle attested by 1630s. [1]

[2] ＜묘법연화경언해|법화경언해(1463)＞ [2]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1,532: / Line 1,532: @@
 --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
+; {{t|ang|wiþig}}
+: From {{t|ang|wiþ}} ("?") + {{t|ang|-ig}} ("-like"). Cognates may include:
+* {{term|withe}}, German {{term|Weide}} ("willow twig")
+* {{term|with}} ("side by side"), Swedish {{term|vid}} ("wide, beside"), and perhaps
+* {{term|wide}}, German {{term|weit}} ("wide"), {{term|Weid}} ("pasture")
+* {{term|wood}}, Old English {{term|widu}}
+* {{term|widow}}, Latin {{term|dividere}} ("to divide, separate")
+* Italian {{term|pettine}} ("comb, reed")
+I wish the latter part of likelihood would not excite [[hothead]]s too much but help coolheads, as it were, break through the deadlock, if any.
+--[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 04:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 == [[pentacle]] ==

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium: difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:17, 30 March 2013

July 2012

Romanian "substratum" word etmyologies and Albanian cognates

August 2012

September 2012

object for cognates

Gothic (deprecated template usage) 𐌷𐌰𐌻𐌻𐌿𐍃 (hallus)

Telugu etymology template

nein

Proto-Slavic *rьtǫtь

October 2012

amongst, whilst, amidst, etc

Various etymological questions about Lithuanian

lapereau, lapin

November 2012

Russian бульба cognate with Greek βολβός ?

?

(deprecated template usage) семя (semja) and (deprecated template usage) семья (semʹja)

Hindi, Urdu, and other modern Indo-Aryan Indian languages and Sanskrit

December 2012

root of "stroppy"

-stachion

Browbeat - possible etymology

January 2013

snake, thnegël

तक्षति, τέχνη and texō

To whoever may be concerned

llenar, rellenar, etc.

February 2013

मिथ्या (mithyā)

Etymology

Noun

Declension

Related terms

Descendants

Etymology

Noun

Declension

Related terms

Descendants

Navigation menu

Search