Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← July 2022 · August 2022 · September 2022 → · (current)

---

luntian

Tagalog word luntian. Dictionaries say it's of Chinese origin. Vocabulario de la lengua Tagala, lists green as "halong tiang" in 1860. Halong tiang can be interpreted as halong tiyan which can mean bile (yellow green color maybe). However, I am open to the possibility that bile may not be the case but this may actually be Chinese, or Hokkien to be exact. I am guessing this is . Any thoughts? It's also possible that "halongtiang" itself is supposed to be Chinese. — This unsigned comment was added by Ysrael214 (talk • contribs).

slave

Yet another edit of questionable veracity on this contentious page that should be looked at. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverted. The reference does not support the claim. Quite the opposite, Kluge admitted "kriegsgefangener Slave" and an Italian trajectory.

I do agree with the spirit of the change and with diff, which meant to cut it off at Latin but kept the offending bit. I'd cut it off at the first mention of ME. and sweep the ugly bits under that node. Alas, my own opinions on the matter won't matter much, so I'm done here. 109.43.49.26 05:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

After Fuzzy Barsik reverted back, I first re-reverted and then after reading the sources added a brief mention of what we may call the "skuleuo hypothesis". Fuzzy reverted once again and asked me to explain myself on the talk page. I'm bringing it here to get more eyes on the issue. Basically, both Kluge and Köbler are vastly overstating the case for derivation from Ancient Greek σκῡλεύω (skūleúō). No Latin form *scylāvus is attested, only sclāvus is. In addition, there's no realistic way to derive a noun *scylāvus from σκῡλεύω – how did the e become an ā? That doesn't just happen spontaneously. And nouns derived from verbs almost always take some sort of suffix, they don't just replace the 1st person singular -ō with the nominative singular -us. The semantics of the supposed change are pretty wobbly too: getting from a verb meaning 'to strip a slain enemy' to a noun presumably first meaning 'living prisoner of war' isn't obvious at all. And is sclāvus ever actually attested in the meaning 'prisoner of war'? Or does it mean 'slave' right from its first attestation? The hypothesis fails on phonology, morphology and semantics, and frankly smacks of an attempt on the part of the later editors of Kluge's dictionary (copied by Köbler, who is a lawyer by trade and only a hobby linguist) to avoid hurting Slavic people's feelings rather than performing rigorous historical linguistics. We can mention the idea briefly, since it is in Kluge's well respected dictionary, but we must not imply in any way that it's anything more than a fringe notion. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Fuzzy Barsik added the same hypothesis to w:Slavery#Terminology and w:Slavs (ethnonym)#Etymology. It might be worth editing those articles at least to clarify that this is not the mainstream theory. 98.170.164.88 08:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello all.

Let me clarify my point of view.

First and foremost, I do not assess what view is prevailing at all. If anyone possesses hard data of any sort of a poll among linguists better yet slavists, please share.

Second, I do my best to present known facts on evolving etymologists views regard to the word 'slave' origin. Does 6th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1899) say that the word 'slave' cannot derive from 'Slav'? Yes, it does. Does it constitute a dispute to the 'mainstream view'? Yes, it does. Does 22th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1989) clearly state that the word 'slave' derives from skyleúo, skyláō, and phonetical similarity with the name of Slavs in middle greek resulted in erroneous etymological assumptions on the word 'slave' origin? Yes, it does as well. Does 22th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1989) makes just a tentative assumptions on the influence of skyleúo, skyláō to sclāvus. No, it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, what is the reason for removing the statement that the version of the 'slave' derivation from 'Slav' is disputed since XIX? What is the reason for insisting on 'influence', whereas the Dictionary does provide definitely clear point of view?

Thanks in advance. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Does 6th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1899) say that the word 'slave' cannot derive from 'Slav'?" No, it does not. It says (rather confusingly) that it can't come from the Slavic East, because no West Slavic ethnic group ever called itself Slavs. (die Bezeichnung Sklaven kann nicht vom slav. Osten ausgegangen sein, weil keine westliche slav. Völkerschaft sich je Sklave genannt hat). (I'm not sure why he says it can't come from the East because no West Slavic group uses the name; maybe it's a typo, or maybe by "slav. Osten" he means the eastern part of the German Sprachraum, which was formerly West Slavic-speaking.) But South Slavic does use that designation, as Kluge shows by pointing to "aslov. Slověninŭ" (in our terms, Old Church Slavonic словѣнинъ (slověninŭ)). He never disputes that 'slave' comes from 'Slav', he merely disputes that it's a West Slavic (or maybe East Slavic?) term. I say Köbler is tentative about the association because his entry has no fewer than three question marks in it. Finally, just because another dictionary has published an implausible etymology doesn't mean we're required to repeat it here. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no rule against thinking for ourselves. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on F. Kluge 6th edition. I found and corrected a typo in the word 'Osten', which resulted in unfortunate translation error.
Regard to Köbler, it's a secondary / supplementary source, while primary source is F. Kluge. But thanks on Wiktionary policy clarification as well. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think slav. Osten means “the Slavic-speaking region to the East [of the German Sprachraum]”.  --Lambiam 15:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record: G. Korth, Zur Etymologie des Wortes 'Slavus' (Sklave), Glotta 48 (1970), 145-153, referenced by F. Kluge 22 th ed, is available at Jstor.org. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For the subject matter. G. Korth derives reconstructed *scylāvus from συλάω. He assumes the contraction from *scylāvus to sclavus being possible based on Laurentius Dieffenbach Supplement to Du Canges Glossarium: Scolauus as a secondary form of Sclauus. Another one German linguist, Daniel Scholten (well, at least Wiki passes him off for a linguist), who also shares F. Kluge's current version, points out that 'Slave' is defined as a "prisoner of war" ("eigentl. kriegsgefangener Slave") in Lexer's Mittel­hoch­deutsche Wörter­buch, whereas Slavs are not associated with slaves in Grimms Wörterbuch. Being definitely a dabbler at Greek, I personally can't see any stressing on an enemy slaining in συλάω, σκυλεύω definition in ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ ΛΕΞΙΚΟ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΓΛΩΣΣΑΣ. But I'm in no way insist on closing gaps mentioned by you. What I actually suggest is to present Korth-Kluge's version as is without any "tentatively assume" and "may have been influenced by" and then say that their hypothesis has also been criticised. I hope you could provide appropriate references for that. What I stambled over in Byzantinoslavica, Vol. 33 doesn't sound impressive that much. This way it won't look Orwell like "it doesn't exist, it has never been existed", CRIMESTOP etc. Thanks. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Small side note, anywhere these additions are kept, someone may want to wordsmith the verbiage like "since XVIII and widespread up to date" (still present on Wikipedia as of this writing) into more usual English. (I don't have time to look [back] into the meat of the matter right now.) - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Why don't propose a proper wording in the 'Talk' section? Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Since when the "spoils of war" etymology has current is looking less than clear. Stopping this gap may require further research. By the way, the entry rather used to implicate Old High German which is closer than Classical Latin to the Medieval Latin, which there is now as a catch-all category. Does it require a labeled entry in #Latin? Glossing the etyma is difficult, anyway, because it may be unclear to the reader how "slave" and "Slav" respectively are to be interpreted in the context of the time. That makes it rather encyclopedic material and leaves nothing much to be done with our etymology, save for notable folk etymology to show that an ethnonym was subsumed among metonymy, so that mere semantic drift alone will look less ad-hoc. 81.92.17.129 10:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Check this one, please: "From Middle English sclave, from Old French esclave, from Late Middle High German sklave, from Medieval Latin sclāvus, from Late Latin Sclāvus, from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβοζ [Sklábos], 'Εσκλαβήνοζ.

According to the widespread view, which is known since 18th century, Byzantine Σκλάβινοι, 'Εσκλαβηνοί, borrowd from Slav gen self-name *Slověninŭ turned into Σκλάβοζ, 'Εσκλαβήνοζ (Late Latin Sclāvus) in the meaning 'prisoner of war Slave', 'slave' in 8th/9th century, because they often became captured and enslaved. However this version is disputed since 19th century.

Alternative contemporary hypothesis states that Medieval Latin sclāvus via *scylāvus derives from Byzantine σκυλάω [skyláō], σκυλεύω [skyleúō] - "to strip the enemy (killed in a battle)", "to make booty / extract spoils of war". This version is criticised as well." Does is sound clear enough / correct? Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would keep the first paragraph as it currently is. We could change the second paragraph to "An alternative hypothesis derives sclāvus from Ancient Greek σκῡλεύω (skūleúō), σκῡλάω (skūláō, “to strip or despoil a slain enemy”)." —Mahāgaja · talk 15:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. If you don't mind, I'll present in Wikipedia the "expanded edition" above. On a side note, why do you transcribe σκῡλεύω, σκῡλάω as [skūleúō], [skūláō] and not as [skyleúō], [skyláō]? Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Our transliterations of Ancient Greek are generated automatically by Module:grc-translit, which uses u for upsilon partly because it reflects the oldest pronunciation, and partly because it allows the e-grade/o-grade/zero-grade triplet of ευ, ου, υ to be transliterated eu, ou, u rather than the less transparent eu, ou, y (and nobody wants to transliterate αυ, ευ, ου as ay, ey, oy, which would be truly perverse). Incidentally, in your text above you've used zeta (ζ) instead of final sigma (ς). —Mahāgaja · talk 18:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I undid a good-faith addition of a version of this to Sklave, on the grounds that we should try to centralize the info and the dispute in one place, either the English entry (this being the English Wiktionary) or the last uncontentious etymon (i.e., cut every other entry's etymology off at Greek or Latin and hash out the theories there), because if we restate the dispute on each descendant's page, they will fall out of sync and into inconsistency whenever someone edits slave and doesn't even realize the info is also in Sklave, etc. Anyone want to create an entry for scolauus and mention it as part of the evidence for the skūleúō hypothesis? - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I would, but it's beyond my current skills in Wiktionary. Need to learn how to do it well. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's start from the very beginning. Which entries are worth creating: scolavus, *scylavus, σκῡλάω (skūláō), σκῡλεύω (skūleúō)? Neither G. Korth, nor E. Seebold in F. Kluge's 22th mention scolavus, they talk about *scylavus. scolavus is mentioned by Hans Ditten in his critique of G. Korth hypothesis. σκῡλάω (skūláō) and σκῡλεύω (skūleúō) are forms of the same verb and goes in ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ ΛΕΞΙΚΟ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΓΛΩΣΣΑΣ in single entry. The entry on Σκλᾰ́βος (Sklábos) does exist and requires consorted correction. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

*Süü, *sää and си

@Surjection, Thadh There seems to be something funky going on with a few words related to . Our entry claims the word to be a cognate of Komi-Zyrian си (śi, “hair”). That entry, however, claims a relation to , though the sense given in the etymology is "thread". Additionally, the Komi-Zyrian entry claims both words to descend from Proto-Uralic *säŋä, which we unfortunately lack. On the contrary, the entry for *süü claims the word to descend from another – perhaps, though not obviously, related – Proto-Uralic word (*süxe or *süje), which we also lack.

Is there another sense for *sää that we lack, and is the cognate listed on *süü wrong? Are *sää and *süü related? Is the etymology and cognate listed on *си incorrect? Is something else going on? brittletheories (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely another sense of *sää we lack (see Finnish sää, which also mentions the Udmurt cognate which definitely derives from the same Proto-Permic term as Komi). I don't know anything about this *süü relation to Permic, I'll try looking into it. Thadh (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured this out: Komi-Zyrian си (śi, “hair”) < *säŋä, whereas Komi-Zyrian сі (si, “fibre”) < *süje. Those are two different words Thadh (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Dutch kip > American languages

The Dutch word kip (“chicken; cop”) has a list of descendants under it. It starts with Petjo, which I'd never heard of, but it's a Dutch creole in Indonesia, so fair enough. It then has arrows indicating borrowings into various American languages such as Mohawk and Munsee. All the Amerind words are considerably longer than the monosyllable. None of the descendants has an entry here. So I don't know what actually happened, but probably not this as its stands. --92.41.177.221 19:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

These are mentioned in the book Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages, pages 293–294. (Except the Munsee term looks different from what we give. Not sure where our spelling came from, it has zero web hits independent of Wiktionary.) As for the number of syllables, another book dealing with Dutch loanwords in Amerindian languages states that "Reduplication was a frequently applied morphological procedure". Also note that all of the Amerindian languages in question are found in the northeastern or Mid-Atlantic US, consistent with the location of New Netherland. 98.170.164.88 19:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't find the Mahican term outside Nicoline van der Sijs's works, either (etymologiebank.nl, which also mentions them, also cites them to her), which makes it harder to answer questions about them. Sijs does say the languages borrowed the reduplicated Dutch "call-name kipkip", which would explain the reduplication. The "-(V)s"/"-(V)sh" endings may be the Algonquian diminutive suffix, as Sijs says about the Munsee word. (And the spelling of Munsee words in various records is quite variable, which might explain the discrepancy in spelling, although we should try to use an attested / reference-supported spelling.) - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've not found Van der Sijs's books about borrowings from Dutch to be particularly reliable sources. I mean it's a very wide field, so I'm not saying she does bad work, but one should double-check. 88.64.225.117 20:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Shanghai

Check out Citations:Shanghai, Citations:Shang-hai, Citations:Shanghae, Citations:Shang-hae, Citations:Chang-hai, etc. Where and when does the English language loan word 'Shanghai' (the proper noun for the city itself) come from? Yeah, Mandarin. But why spell it that way? For instance, 'Beijing' was generated from the romanization scheme called Pinyin (Hanyu Pinyin) in 1958. Any insights on how 'Shanghai' was created? It predates Wade-Giles- it exists in 1840: see Citations:Shanghai. This is an exciting question to me, because no modern dictionaries I have seen tell us when 'Shanghai' became an English language word. This is a word with an artificial origin probably within the 19th century or maybe 18th. Is no one alive today intellectually interested to know when or how it was created? That's disturbing. There are specifics for days about the verb form 'shanghai' and its origin, but when it comes to the proper noun itself? Crickets. It's a fascinating intellectual blind spot. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC) (modified)

Diatom genus Eupodiscus

Hello all. The meaning of the genus name of the diatom Eupodiscus Bailey, 1851 (family Eupodiscaceae) escapes me. Is this name derived from:
1/ Greek ευπο / eupos and Latin discus, or
2/ Greek ευ, true, and discus, disk, but in this case what does "po" mean? Gerardgiraud (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

εὐ- (eu-) + πούς (poús) + -ίσκος (-ískos). In Ancient Greek, *ds > s, with lengthening of the previous vowel, so πούς is really *ποδς (pods). It might also be eu- + Podiscus, in which case all the parts would ultimately be the same, but the latter two would have been combined into an earlier name (here is a good candidate, which would no doubt have later been found invalid- you can't just change a published name in light of later information). Chuck Entz (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Chuck Entz. This reference will be very useful to me. Gerardgiraud (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

cosar

Romanian for "spoonbill (bird)". Looks cognate to Ukrainian косар (kosar, “spoonbill”) [1], which we don't have but Ukrainian Wikipedia does: Косар (птах). 63.92.3.194 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

So who would have borrowed from whom? I guess an -ar-ending isn't improbable no matter if it would be a Romance or a Slavic word to begin with. Wakuran (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Cosar could have been created in both Romanian and Ukrainian, as both the word scythe (coasă, коса) and the ending -ar exist in both languages. In Romanian, particularly, this suffix is very productive for creating bird names: alunar, cânepar, iepurar, lăcustar, mărăcinar, mugurar, scoicar, etc. Bogdan (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

adsorbieren

Is there any proof German borrowed this from English? One of my Polish sources seems to think so. (en -> de -> pl) Vininn126 (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, the word "adsorption" was at least coined in a German text. Wakuran (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article doesn't give a source, but only an attestation. Here's two sources which clearly attribute the term to Kayser: a biographical sketch in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, quote: "He then turned to the phenomena of condensation of gases on solids now known as adsorption. It was Kayser who introduced this designation at the suggestion of Dubois-Reymond". And a volume on adsorption: "In that year, Kayser introduced the term adsorption..."

To phrase a learned Latin-based coinage as "Borrowed from a theoretical Latin *adsorbēre" (as it currently reads in adsorbieren#Etymology) is pretty odd. –Austronesier (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If we know who coined it, we should probably update all the relevant language etymologies and figure out more or less the source language. Vininn126 (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Heinrich Kayser was German and wrote his studies in German, so it seems the circumstantial evidence points in that direction. Wakuran (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

But what term exactly did he coin? Adsorption? Adsorbierung? Adsorbieren? —Mahāgaja · talk 07:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It could have been both the noun and the verb, and other languages modelled it. What is a good German etymological dictionary? Vininn126 (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Adsorption, apparently. Not sure about adsorbieren, I can't find it in the source given on Wikipedia. Wakuran (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If it was only the noun, we can probably assume other languages borrowed it from German, making the verbs perhaps a back-formation in English modelled on German? Vininn126 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The full text is available here[2]. Kayser uses both the noun Adsorption and the verb in various inflected forms (adsorbirt, adsorbirenden [sic]). –Austronesier (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess an inflected form would count as a citation for the implied infinitive. (?...) Wakuran (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess so, yes. If the forms are predictable, you will usually not cite every conjugation before creating an entry with inflection table. 141.20.6.61 15:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Xansi

RFV of the etymology.
"Most of the spelling in Europe is that of the Portuguese, and for this reason it is given in the following Table of syllables."-Morrison's A Dictionary of the Chinese Language, 1815, page 3
"The pronunciation is thrice given ; first the English, and second the Portuguese of the Mandarine Tongue, and third the Canton dialect." page 4
"Shan Xan Shan 訕／讪 (shàn) To detract."page 14
"Portug. French Engliſh X Ch Sh […] xan chan ſhân" An Alphabetical Table of all the Words which compose the Chinese Language according to the Portugese, French, and English Pronunciation, translator of Jean-Baptiste Du Halde, 1738, at page viii --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Chang-hai

RFV of the etymology.
"Portug. French Engliſh X Ch Sh […] xam chang ſhâng" An Alphabetical Table of all the Words which compose the Chinese Language according to the Portugese, French, and English Pronunciation, translator of Jean-Baptiste Du Halde, 1738, at page viii
"Portug. French Engliſh X Ch Sh […] Hai Hai Hay" at page vi
Also, Changhaï. I also saw a lot of French stuff when looking for cites.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)