::Late response, but that’s what I thought. Suspecting Takara Shuzo being a folk etymology.
::Late response, but that’s what I thought. Suspecting Takara Shuzo being a folk etymology.
::Something’s very strange [[User:Chuterix|Chuterix]] ([[User talk:Chuterix|talk]]) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
::Something’s very strange [[User:Chuterix|Chuterix]] ([[User talk:Chuterix|talk]]) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I thought that both options sound like folk etymology.
::: See the items in the original character of [[宝]] spell ''Ta-Ka'' in bronze, that would be too early: [[File:寶-bronze.svg|right]]
:::The phonetic component {{och-l|缶}} was not jade, which appears later and culminates in [[宝]]. Its kun reading {{m|ja|kama}} can be explained. The symbol look like [[寶]], if you are being generous (eg. the [[pot]] in poker, at the end of the rainbow). If {{och-l|浩}} is indeed cognate, nanori [[ひろし]], {{m|jpx-pro|*pirə}} is comparable, while {{m|ja|kuma}} speculates about an early wanderword related to {{och-l|熊}} and, as a matter of probable folk etymolog, has been compared to [[神]]. See the character! If that's possibly correct and yet falling on deaf ears, any traditional account is necessarily biased in the wrong direction.
:::Color words - in particular {{m|ja|金}} and {{m|ja|玉}} as items of trade - and their derivations are compelling - especially the top / bottom semantics of bright and dark skies and earth, and everything between. See {{m|ko|け}}, {{m|ja|庭園}}; {{m|zh|天空}}, [[diem]], [[Jupiter]], [[brown bear]], escetera.
:::As for [[田]], the words that translate "field" end in ''-ra''.
:::The origin of {{m|ja|田|ta}} remains to be explained. It would be much appreciated if you could rule out that {{m|ja|monogatari}} had anything to with this or even [[गाथ]], {{m|ta|பாட்டு}} (from {{m|ta|பாடு}}!?!) or [[कोट]]. As they say, this is going to be a long story. [[User:FUND126|FUND126]] ([[User talk:FUND126|talk]]) 14:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The spontaneous retroflex and lack of cognates outside Indo-Aryan makes it seem likely that this is a loanword from a non-Indo-European (Dravidian?) source. —Mahāgaja · talk20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Pali koṭṭha(“abdomen; stomach; closet; monk's cell; storeroom”)? Can't speak to the phonetic development, but the sense development to "fort" is implausible. Vahag (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no serious discussion in that deletion debate. The best sources on Indian languages — Burrow and Mayrhofer — derive from Dravidian. Vahag (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, almost certainly, given the specific link to the Desert Fathers, cf. Hans Lietzmann, The Era of the Church Fathers p. 163: "Accordingly all heads of cloisters of both sexes were addressed with the Syriac titles of 'Abba,' father, and 'Amma,' mother and not with Egyptian names". The precise place of origin of monasticism is debated—Lietzmann supposes importation from the Levant—but etymologically it's at any rate going to be the same route as abba. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See talk:lowboy. I've traced the claim of the French etymology to Bill Bryson's Made in America, and he may be getting it from an earlier researcher named Rosalie Maggio whose work has not been digitized. The etymology is plausible, and it follows the pattern of the earlier word hautbois (which I'd never heard of until now), but I'm looking to see if anyone can give more insight on this, especially if the etymology is listed in a dictionary such as the OED. If not, would it at least merit a mention such as Possibly from low + bois or should we leave it out altogether? —Soap—14:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Bill Bryson nor Rosalie Maggio was a linguist, and when I read one of Bill Bryson's books I was pretty upset at how ignorant about language he is, so I'd take this claim with a grain of salt. If there was a plausible semantic chain, I'd say the most likely phonological explanation was French l’hautbois → English lowboy by folk etymology and then from there tallboy and highboy being created by analogy. But the shift in meaning from "oboe" to "chest of drawers" is so unexpected that I don't actually believe this. —Mahāgaja · talk08:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have attestation for hautboy as a separate English word for a type of strawberry, and the French Wiktionary also lists hautbois with another definition that's a type of elderberry. That shows that there was sizable semantic range at a fairly early time. It's even possible that these two berry words are distinct coinages from each other, and that there was at some point a productive affix -bois ~ -boy in use for items related to or made of wood. In this case, the common sense for the two berries would be fruit that grows high up. As for l'hautbois ---> lowboy, I like that idea, and it hadn't occurred to me, but I think haut is one of those French words where the definite article does not contract, so I would still keep open the possibility that it's a mixed-language compound parseable as low + -bois ~ -boy, and that perhaps the half-translated form highboy is slightly older than lowboy. —Soap—13:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also somewhat strange that the first part haut- would be calqued/ translated and the second part -bois loaned/ folk etymologized, where both parts would be pretty straightforward for someone knowing French. Wakuran (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if 'bois' meaning 'berry' could be connected to Frankish, and related to Dutch bes. Long 'e:' becoming diphtongized 'oi' seems a regular phonetic shift in French, anyway. Wakuran (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all of the Scandinavian wods likely have the same or similar origins. Runeberg's Svensk Etymologisk Ordbok [1] states that the Old Swedish and Old Danish word might derive from a metathesis of an Old English, Old Irish or Old French word as a borrowing/ derivation from Latin crux. Svenska Akademins Ordbok [2] states ultimately from Latin crux. Bokmålsordboka [3] states Old Norse kross, through Old English from Latin crux, whereas Nynorskordboka states of Latin crux, through Danish. Det Norske Akademis Ordbok [4] states from Old Danish, possibly through Old English or Old Irish from Latin crux. Den Danske Ordbog [5] just states from Latin crux. I guess the route of the exact origin is lost in history, and must be considered inconclusive... Wakuran (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Old Danish can be considered a dialect of Old Norse, so these different etymologies may be more like the descriptions of an elephant by a bunch of blind men. --Lambiam15:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How Latin 'crux' turned into Swedish/ Scandinavian 'kors' seems to be a matter up to debate, although at least Runeberg seems to state pretty much what it's currently claimed. Wakuran (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Batton
The initial k cannot be from Germanic and cognate, one would think, although the root has reduplication, *(s)ker- (Pokorny): cp. *(s)kr̥-kr̥-, PIt. *karkros; *(s)ker-k-, κίρκος, κρίκος, beside *(s)kre-u-k-, crux. Repduplication does wonderful things to assonance.
1. The similarity to *ḱers- (carrus, horse-cart) is unmistakable but unrelated so far. NB: John T. Koch thinks *wagnaz ~ *wegnos (wagon) is an isogloss and mentions couinnus, "used for Caledonian war chariots in Tacitus, Agricola" that is "probably from *ko(m)-wegno-". In fact, the semantics of Tocharian B kwarsär(“league, path, course”) and yakne(“way, manner”) match this very well, and indeed we see that reduplication maintains the velar at least in *hurskaz, *ḱr̥s-kó-s (criss cross).
2. To demonstrate imitative qualities, ring of it may be illustrated by the Marsiglian ace of clubs with its trimmed prickles, corresponding to the German card of Kreuz (as discussed, previously). It is a shame that the assonance with Christ (a kind of magi) must have had influenced the connotation of cross, grosso modo. 141.20.6.6713:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
/dekember/ > /deˈsɛˀmbɐ/ seems to be a fairly regular change, that must have been active to some degree in many languages.
Latvian krusts corroborates "perhaps no borrowing". Yet, synonym Latvian rist (risti) shows the loss expected from High German. Cp. Rost(“grill”), grate; wind rose.
Our etymology sections state that both are borrowed from Italian radicchio. There appears to be more to this story however as ραδίκι /ɾaˈðici/ differs, in its phonological shape, from the Italian /raˈdikkjo/ in important ways. Perhaps it was 'nativized' via the removal of its final vowel and substitution of /-d-/ with the more usual Greek sound /ð/?
Meanwhile, ραντίτσιο /ɾaˈdit͡sio/ keeps both the /o/ and /d/ but appears to, strangely enough, substitute Italian /kj/ with /ts/. One would expect /kj/ to have simply been adapted to the nearest Greek sound, which is /c/, spelled ⟨κι⟩. And indeed that is what we find for φινόκιο < finocchio; ρομπαμπέκια < robavecchia; and κιάλι < occhiali.
What Italian sounds are actually rendered in Greek as /ts/ ⟨τσ⟩? Apparently /ts/, /dʒ/, and /tʃ/ to judge by borrowings such as αβαντσάρω, βαλίτσα, and κοντσέρτο (among other examples here).
Is there a language of Italy where the equivalent of radicchio contains one of the above sounds instead of /kj/? Yes: Venetian has radìcio (1, 2), where ⟨ci⟩ stands for /tʃ/. Venetian is, needless to say, a likely contributor to the Greek lexicon due to its centuries-long occupation of various Ionian and Aegean islands.
ραδίκι(radíki) is first attested as ραδίκιον(radíkion) in the 17th century, which is a diminutive formation with -ιον(-ion), very common in later Greek. It would develop naturally to ραδίκιν(radíkin) (attested in the dialects), then to ραδίκι(radíki). Some explain ραδίκι(radíki) as a borrowing from plural Italian radicchi, but I think the addition of -ιον(-ion) to the singular and the described development is better. As for ραντίτσιο(rantítsio), I can't find it in any serious source. Could be a modern illiterate transcription. Vahag (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see- thank you for checking. That seems a satisfactory explanation for ραδίκι.
The /ts/ spelling makes perfect sense to me. Theyre not substituting /kkj/ with /ts/, theyre substituting /kkj/ with /tsj/. This has a near parallel in pastitsio, the only difference being that the initial Italian sound was /tš/ instead. —Soap—22:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to παστίτσιο < Italian pasticcio. That is simply another example of Italian /tʃ/ > Greek /ts/, as I mentioned above. I don't see how that can explain ραντίτσιο < radicchio, unless someone visually confused the Italian endings -ccio and -cchio. If so, that's just the 'illiterate transcription' theory mentioned above. Nicodene (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Greeks read -ch- as [t͡ʃ] according to English orthography and rendered it with -τσ-(-ts-). In Armenia, where the only Latin-script language known is English, everybody pronounces the Italian toy store Chicco as Չիկո(Čʻiko). Vahag (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that in particular is a relevant example, as the expected misreading of Italian would have /tʃ/ rather than /ʃ/. Perhaps the English word was influenced by French pistache, which was also borrowed into English. Nicodene (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second Nicodene's doubtfulness. Greeks know Italian better than Armenians or French-confused Anglophones. The Venetian hypothesis convinced me more. Can we actually find good attestation of this word? And since when? Catonif (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're overthinking this. Russian радичио(radičio), Armenian ռադիչիո(ṙadičʻio), Georgian რადიჩიო(radičio), German Raditschio are all attestable on the Internet. It's like expresso or choritzo. Vahag (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. You are correct. That's kind of sad, going from “Venetian rule on the Ionian and Aegean islands” to “ignorant internet word.” :( Catonif (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Unless there turns up, say, an eighteenth-century citation for ραντίτσιο, I'm also going with the 'didn't know how to read Italian' theory. It was still an interesting exercise in loanword adaptation I suppose. Nicodene (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicodene, Vahagn Petrosyan, Catonif, I have updated the etymologies +ref at ραδίκι(radíki) and i marked as self-made etymology, with no ref, the ραντίτσιο(rantítsio), a recent word (I never improvise etymologies, sorry for the exception and please correct it as you think). The question asked here is How does Greek render the Italian endings -ccio, -cchio, -zio, -tio, ...
* a) in learned orthographic borrowings; how are they transliterated? (e.g. the latin letter c)
* b) in direct acoustic speaker-to-speaker borrowings
The main greek etymological dictionaries discuss the above in their introductions and rarely comment in each lemma (sometimes with a "cf" or in the pattern of). For the transliterations, the style changed over time. For the direct borrowings, some normalisations may happen according to Greek phonetic restrictions e.g. there are no postalveolars ʃ ʒ etc. The addition of greek endings for both a) and b) is a normal procedure, needed for inflection. They never omit to mark a Venetian borrowing (a standard Italian pronunciation would have produced a slightly different result in Greek). For -cio, interesting example, Hellenistic βενεφίκιον@ΛΟΓΕΙΟΝ also medieval μπενεφίτσιο@Kriaras, not used in modern anymore. And, no, i would not know that Italian -cchio is pronounced kio. I would immediately transliterate to -tsio. But acoustically, I will repeat Πινόκιο(Pinókio) for Pinocchio. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek♫I02:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Martin's JLTT, some words with emphatic nominalizing particles in them that have been reconstructed include "*-Ci" in them. For example Proto-Japonic*kamuy(“god”) is spelled in JLTT as *kamu-Ci. So is it safe to say the "*-Ci" nominalizing suffix can be spelled here as "*-y"? Chuterix (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the index of JLTT, labeled *-Ci as a a noun suffix/marker and a verb infinitive suffix so this seems related to emphatic nominal particle い(i) and also explains the 連用形(ren'yōkei, “continuative form”) of 五段活用(godan katsuyō, “quintigrade conjugation”) verbs, so I have more likeliness. Chuterix (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Samuel Martin's "The Japanese Language Through Time", the noun 宝(takara, “treasure”) seems to be an Old Japanese compound of 高(taka, “high”) + 等(-ra, “pluralizer”).
The etymology of "TAKARA (treasure)" is "TA KARA (from rice fields)"
Can't comprehend the rest of the information on the page.
But I'm not sure if this is correct because たから had existed since Old Japanese. And I'm not sure how rice paddies have anything to do with treasure (aside from treasure being rare to find). If kara was 柄(kara, “origin, source”) then it would make no sense of saying "origin of rice field/rice field origin" for a sense of treasure.
To clarify, here's some rough translations of 宝は田から～私たちの原点～ (currently wip). Not everything will get translated though.
宝(takara, “treasure”) is derived as a compound of 田(ta, “rice field”) + から(kara, “from”), literally “from rice fields”.
According to Japanese Dictionary Daigenkai, "It's from the rice fields, from the way grains are the source of such".
A reading from the Todai-ji says: "In harvest season, for a whole day peasants plant crops, then one day they get the values"
Back in the day, the Japanese people valued the fields raised by nature, such as fertile land, rainfall, the sun and the rain, as irreplaceable treasure.
End of translation.
They then begin to talk about the origin of the Kanji spelling and their company's name and goal.
Indicates the start of an action. Appears in mid-antiquity [more specifically, the Heian period], continues through to modern use. In antiquity [i.e. Old Japanese], this sense was expressed exclusively using the term より(yori).
The semantics are also strange -- 田(ta, “paddy”) + から(kara, “from”) or "from the paddy" is a phrase, not a noun, and there is no common pattern of nominalizing such phrases in Japanese. It might just be my memory, but I cannot think of any other case where から(kara) appears at the end of a noun and is derived from the particle usage.
FWIW, I'm not entirely sold on Martin's theory either: on the one hand, ら(ra) as a suffix operates more as a pluralizer or genericizer (c.f. 我ら(warera, “we, us”), ここら(kokora, “around here”), for which the corresponding entry appears to be missing), and on the other, a ら(ra) nominalization of 高(taka) would mean something like "the heights", implying a location. I do not see how this would mean "treasure; precious thing". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late response, but that’s what I thought. Suspecting Takara Shuzo being a folk etymology.
I thought that both options sound like folk etymology.
See the items in the original character of 宝 spell Ta-Ka in bronze, that would be too early:
The phonetic component 缶 (OC *puʔ) was not jade, which appears later and culminates in 宝. Its kun reading kama(kama) can be explained. The symbol look like 寶, if you are being generous (eg. the pot in poker, at the end of the rainbow). If 浩 (OC *ɡuːʔ, *kuːb) is indeed cognate, nanori ひろし, *pirə is comparable, while kuma(kuma) speculates about an early wanderword related to 熊 (OC *ɢʷlɯm) and, as a matter of probable folk etymolog, has been compared to 神. See the character! If that's possibly correct and yet falling on deaf ears, any traditional account is necessarily biased in the wrong direction.
Color words - in particular 金 and 玉 as items of trade - and their derivations are compelling - especially the top / bottom semantics of bright and dark skies and earth, and everything between. See け, 庭園; 天空(tiānkōng), diem, Jupiter, brown bear, escetera.
As for 田, the words that translate "field" end in -ra.
I wanted to add the German descendants but apparently this didn't enter Old High German where the word instead was unbartohti but then there's Middle High German bartlôs again. Seems to me to be more reasonable to assume Old High German *bartlōs existed. Does perhaps somebody have a source that includes this? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that doesn't mean it was inherited as a unit. Reconstructions should be for things that have presumably been passed down as a whole, not reassembled each time from inherited parts. There's no way to tell if the whole existed in the parent language- there might have been a synonym that was lost. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But just because the component parts remained productive in the daughter languages cannot be a justification for ruling out the possibility that the term existed in PGmc. Likelihood has to be evaluated on a term by term basis. Perhaps "beard"+"-less" was regarded as a slang word, or a term of low register that didn't emerge till later times when writings became more lax. But I seriously doubt a PGmc speaker would not know what bardalausaz meant if he/she were encountered with it. We don't have reconstructions for concepts like earless, hairless, legless, tailless, thumbless, but these are not lofty ideals...they're basic to human existence regardless of era. Leasnam (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My justification is this: If it's a basic concept that one would use to "explain" a more obscure term in the most simplest of ways; and there is at least one Old-stage language that evinces the construction, I am prone to re-create it. For example, solely based on GOH ougalōs(“eyeless”) I feel compelled to create at least Proto-West Germanic *augālaus, even though the English and Dutch words didn't appear till Middle-stage. I mean, what, did they have no word for "eyeless" ? Of course they did. And yes, it may have been a completely different word unrelated to *augô, but what is it ? Right. No one knows. But we have some evidence in OHG that it may have been *augô+*lausaz, which is backed up by cognates in Dutch and English. Same is true for *bardalausaz. So until someone can prove to me that it didn't exist, then it probably did. Leasnam (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no strong reason to believe that the roots had been productive for long. The etymology of beard is bizarro. The error is systematic, because PIE *bʰardʰéh is not reconstructable with *a for PIE and technicly shouldn't exist. Somebody added *bʰh₂erdʰeh to the English entry like a fake mustache to establish legitimicy. Pronk doesn't mention it. The question is all the more interesting for it.
I'll get out of your hair in a bit, but I don't recognize unbartohti and would intuitively argue that it means simply not having an emblemic beard in the trimmed, waxed, braided, curled, spun in a bun sense of status symbols that speaks for itself. This goes if and pretty much only if *-ohti could be read as -haft, eventually, which is as reasonable as the beard substrate is unknown. Ironically, if I can trust that glosses support the notion of facial barenness, comparison to Proto-Germanic *bazaz(“bare”) oughta follow, since shaving would be the lowest common denominator to form a polar opposite to `bad hair-doʼ, evidently in a non-barbaric, barber'ized civilization context! Albeit, PIE *bʰosós isn't well supported either, and -less would need explained away, fundamentally, by shift of semantics from bare stem to arbitrary suffix (-ulus, -ilaz, whatevas), @Leasnam. The change of bazaar should be instructive, cp. sunday dress, wash day (Sunday in Swedish]]). I'd go as far as comparing barley, as for hay markets.
Relatedly, I'd like to know how a beard had to look at blodthing: cp. wie en Bär ume Eier ("like a bear perineum", of crazy hair), æ, maybe ambeht, but badly corrupted by Eier, which might in this case be related anyway as testis are to testament: uncertain. Not only would mein Teil (Rammstein) or Ding(“tool, knob, pecker”) support the notion, but the curses ein Ding zu laufen, Ei am wandern, Rad ab, Sockenschuzs haben must be minced oaths. Ding isn't even minced but ein Ding drehen "heist" is clearly corrupted. 2A00:20:6046:1E3C:89E2:CD11:3773:4F5F06:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can barely make heads nor tails of your posts, but I can correct the detail that Sunday in Swedish would be washing day, the Washing day in North Germanic, Finnish and Estonian is Saturday... Wakuran (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were most Romance words for hair derived from a *pelus rather than from pilus?
I've seen this reconstruction in relation to the Romanian word păr, but weren't the other Romance words derived (with the exception of Sardinian and Sicilian) from such a Late Latin word, too? Bogdan (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Latin short /ĭ/, as in pĭlus but also hundreds or thousands of other words, regularly developed to [e] in much of the later Latin-speaking world. Each of the Romance descendants of pĭlus shows its language's regular outcome of /ĭ/, so there is no need to explain any of them through some special reconstructed form.
Indeed, the Romance words are regular from pĭlus (or, theoretically, *pēlus), but not from *pĕlus, which would have given French *piel and Spanish *pielo. I wonder about Portuguese pelo, however: single intervocalic l normally disappears in Portuguese, so I would have expected *peu. Is the modern Portuguese word perhaps a learned borrowing, or a borrowing from Spanish, rather than an inheritance from Old Portuguese from Vulgar Latin? —Mahāgaja · talk17:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That caught my eye as well. I suspect it may have been influenced by cabelo 'hair' < capillum. (Perhaps pele 'skin' < Latin pellem as well, but the semantic relation is weak.)
Pelo seems unlikely to be a learned borrowing, considering that is a quite basic everyday term, the normal development of the stressed vowel, and the also-normal development of its various Romance cognates. An early borrowing from, say, Leonese or Castilian is conceivable but still a bit odd for such a basic word. Nicodene (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
banèlo
Occitan word for "alley, alleyway" (homograph for a word meaning "lapwing" (=Fr. vanneau). It looks like venelle, if I stretch it, but is Occitan ba- for French ve- a regular correspondence ? Leasnam (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
French venelle (Old Frenchvenele) is a derivative of veine...Spanish shows the Latin v- (vena), at least in its orthography but pronounced almost like a b; and to my knowledge doesn't have this special use of "little veins" > "small streets and alleyways". The Occitan word for "vein", sefena, is no help Leasnam (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leasnam Not a regular correspondence by any means, but the etymology appears secure per the close match with Fr. venelle and cognates in the regional languages between them, as shown in the FEW entry. The same source shows that medieval Occitan already had the form with /a/, whatever the reason for its appearance. Incidentally, the modern Occitan word is spelled vanèla in the standard, albeit pronounced /baˈnɛlo/ in the core Languedoc dialect due to its merger of older /b/ and /v/, much as in Spanish. Nicodene (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2nd and 3rd ones are likely from a Munda language but in Munda languages koṛi means 20 not a crore; 1st one too probably because of the double ड्ड. I remember seeing witzel proposing Mesopotamian ellum is from Para-Munda comparing it to Munda "jar-tila" AleksiB 1945 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At mum, in the section labelled as ‘Etymology 4’, we claim that a rare sense of the word (a type of beer) comes from the German word Mumme and that this, in turn, is derived from the surname of its German inventor (who is apparently called ‘Christian Mumme’). At the German entry for Mumme, however, we claim that the word is an onomatopoeia. Looking at the linked German Wikipedia article (using Google Translate), it seems to say that it’s a myth that the drink derives its name from the surname, as Mumme was made and drunk before the alleged date of invention, and the first claims that it was invented by Christian Mumme appeared many years later. In fact, he may not even exist at all. Should we remove this claim from the mum entry? Perhaps we could include it at Mumme instead, in a way which makes it clear that this etymology is less plausible than the alternative (ie. that the word is of imitative origin). Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entry for aupar points one at aúpa, the entry for which in turn points us to upa, the entry for which describes it as nothing more than an inflected form of upar. But the only thing that its entry has to offer about etymology is a recommendation that one check out—you guessed it—aupar.
There is some stuff floating around suggesting that the etymon is Basque ("Según Zárate, del vasco aupa `arriba'" here, "un gran número de fuentes apuntan que el término ‘aúpa’ proviene de la palabra en euskera ‘aupatu’ cuyo significado es ‘levantar’" here), but I'm not familiar with the languages involved. The second one says there's also a separate word upa, which is from English. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the page pipio, piccioni in Sardinian is listed as a borrowing of Italian piccione, but in the LSC Sardinian dictionary, it seems like they favor Latin [pullus#Latin|pullus] as an etymon, from a preform *pullionem. It does seem like the latter makes more sense considering the variants puxone and piglione. There's no form 'picioni' in this dictionary at least, but it seems reasonable to assume these are variants of each other. Should we remove the Sardinian list entry?
@Qwed117 We are dealing with two different words here.
The Sardinian pigione~puzone (and other variants) is a general word for ‘bird’, as the above link explains, and it does in fact derive from a Vulgar Latin *pulliónem < pullus.
The Sardinian piccione~piccioni, which notably is not listed above as a variant of puzone, is another word that specifically means ‘pidgeon’. The perfect phonological and semantic match with Italian piccione make it clear that this is a borrowing. I am not aware, incidentally, of any Sardinian variety that shows [tʃ] as the outcome of Latin [lj] in native words.
Here are the two words’ entries in Wagner’s Dizionario Etimologico Sardo, the premier source for Sardinian etymologies: pudzòne, piččòne. The latter is specified as a sporadic borrowing from Italian, with the ‘true’ (native) Sardinian word for ‘pidgeon’ being columbu/columba. Nicodene (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Columbu/columba being cognate to several other Romace words, by the way. I'm not sure whether there's a direct (or indirect) relation between the words columbus/ columba and palumbus, or if the similar ending merely is a coincidence. Wakuran (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this is such an international word, I figured I should discuss the etymology here. I am checking two Polish dictionaries, Witold Doroszewski, editor (1958–1969), “amfolit”, in Słownik języka polskiego (in Polish), Warszawa: PWN claims it's from amphi--lyte, whereas Mirosław Bańko, Lidia Wiśniakowska (2021) “Etymology scriptorium/2022/November”, in Wielki słownik wyrazów obcych, →ISBN claims it's ultimately a blend of amphoteric and electrolyte (Polish really doesn't do blends so it'd probably ultimately be a borrowing but the source language would be a blend). While both elements contain the presented affixes, this is technically not presentable in the surface analysis. Does anyone have any other sources? Vininn126 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the term was coined by Brailsford Robertson (1906) in "On the Conditions of Equilibrium of an Associating Amphoteric Electrolyte in the Presence of any Number of Non- Amphoteric Electrolytes", The Journal of Physical Chemistry 10(7) at page 531, where he pretty much makes clear that it's a blend: "The term 'ampholyte' will be used as a synonym for 'amphoteric electrolyte.'" Earlier hits on GBooks are misdated. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rocks aside the blend seems secure for English ampholyte so I've added it to the entry, we may need a mineral entry for ampholite (not sure if it's a mistake or just a less common alternative). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are completely different things. One is a term for any member of class of watery solutions defined by the properties of conducting electricity and additionally having certain chemical characteristics. The other is a specific rock-solid mineral. --Lambiam12:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. That matches the olivine–amphibole definition I found above. There's still a loose end with @Vininn126's 1875 Polish hit, and I can find a lone (correctly dated) 1872 hit in English for "ampholite" [6], but it seems likely then that we're just dealing with sporadic variant forms in these two cases rather than something with a distinct definition. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently our entry states that πιτσούνι /piˈtsuni/ derives from Italian piccione /pitˈtʃone/. That, however, does not explain why the Greek form ended up with a stressed /u/ and final /i/. Could it have instead been borrowed from Sicilian picciuni /pitˈtʃuni/? Incidentally, the Italian piccione itself originated as a borrowing from southern Italy. Nicodene (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ending -ι is very common for Greek nouns, whereas the ending -ε is extremely rare. The few examples with this ending, such as ακουαφόρτε(akouafórte), are recent learned borrowings. So I think the final ⟨ι⟩ is not in need of an explanation. Our notion of Italian as a standard language, based on Italo-Dalmatian languages such as Tuscan and Florentine, is relatively recent; prior to the 19th century everyone spoke their own local vernacular. Unless πιτσούνι is a recent borrowing, interpreting “from Italian” as “from standard Italian” is anachronistic. It is unlikely we can be more specific unless it can be determined when and where the word was adopted into the Greek lexicon. For centuries, dominant Romance lects in the Aegean Sea were Venetian, difficult to position in the Romance language families, and Genoese, a Gallo-Italic language. Moreover, in the Mediterranean a lingua franca was spoken, sometimes called Sabir, that adopted terms from many sources and donated them all over the place. Based on the intensity of contact, these may be more likely immediate donors than Sicilian. --Lambiam17:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropylium, Surjection, Maas555 Currently Finnish läsiä and Ingrian lässiä (I'll use the latter as shorthand) are both given as borrowings from Russian лежать(ležatʹ). This poses three problems for me:
First of all, there is a -ä- in there, where you would normally expect a -e-.
Secondly, there is also the Ingrian lessiä, supposedly from the same source, that does show the expected vowel.
Moreover, considering the large number of languages having a cognate for the first etymon, I'd expect an earlier borrowing than "Russian".
I see two possible solutions:
First, both lässiä and lessiä are borrowed from (a historical variety of) Russian - probably OES - but at different stages, the -ä- variant being an earlier borrowing and the vowel change being an unexplained irregularity.
Second, which I actually prefer, that lässiä is actually from Russian лечь(lečʹ) (or, rather, its OES predecessor) - which shows the present stem ляг-, allowing for -ä- in the borrowing; lessiä would then still be from лежать with the regular outcome.
Option 1 seems readily better (and might be what sources already claim — many do not make a consistent distinction between Old Slavic vs. Russian loans, would have to be checked individually). Includes lessiä being possibly just a relatively modern newer loan from Russian (or a meld of inherited lässiä with later Russian). Probably also ž in Veps läžuda would need and explanation of this sort, native inheritance would predict **läzuda (*läsi- as in Fi/Krl/Ingrian would give **läži-, but such a form does not seem to be reported). Under option 2, how do you figure getting from Russian ч or г to Finnic reflexes as if from *s?
"Many-language" distribution does not seem to really make a difference either way, when the word has a very southeastern dialect distribution in Finnish and a northeastern one in Estonian, exactly what we'd expect also of newer Russian loans. --Tropylium (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropylium: The г-ж alteration in лечь still applies: ляжешь, ляжет, ляжем, ляжете, ляжут - quite possible the soft stem variant was taken as the model. And for the distribution I rather meant the semantic shift in all East Finnic varieties "lie" > "ail", which suggests common ancestry. I also quickly checked, and the birchbark letters do display the е-ѧ(=я) alteration for лечи (лечь), but again not for лежати (лежать), so there's also no problem in the geographical distribution on the Slavic side. Thadh (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ofc, should have checked the inflection in detail: ляжешь should probably indeed also give läsi- etc. just fine. In recent loans there is also some tendency towards long Finnic vowels for stressed Ru. vowels in open syllables (e.g. määlitsä, sääli), but this is not mandatory or anything. --Tropylium (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
