the page mentions the slang form of bad. it should also mention "baddest", as in "i'm the baddest mutha***** out here". just a sugestion--Jaysscholar 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Done Someone added this at some point under etymology 2. Equinox 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The colloquial adverb use of "bad" as in "I want it bad" is missing in this page. Since I do not know under which etymology it goes, I'd rather let an expert do it. 18.104.22.168 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done Your sentence is using bad as slang for badly, which we have a note about. I've added another sense for the adjective ("severe", "urgent") to go with this. Equinox 12:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Earlier etymology is logical (except for the dubious Proto-Indo-European origin), compared with the alternative unconnected in meaning. There is no evidence of a connection between the initially presented meaning and that of these Norse alternatives, that may be from pre-Indo-European √ ĀBhADh. Was in the Guiness Book of Records, as the oldest written attestation in English; but whether it is simply related to Old High German PAD that was probably borrowed from Celtic (as that lexeme also means 'bath'); or Iberian, with its ancient Spanish remote connections, I am not convinced by that statement. Not to be linked with Welsh BUDR, from root of Latin PUTER; nor is it connected with German BÖSE, from another root altogether. Per the December 2014 request, the Oxford Dictionary and Professor Skeat's bear out the BǢDAN, (to defile) although phonologically incorrect, as the oldest attested meaning.
 means 'Absolutely not;  means 'Exceedingly unlikely';  means 'Very dubious';  means 'Questionable';  means 'Possible';  means 'Probable';  means 'Likely';  means 'Most Likely' or *Unattested;  means 'Attested';  means 'Obvious' - only used for close matches within the same language or dialect, at linkable periods. √ means original or earliest root.
- The Guinness Book of Records' assertion does not make sense since there cannot be "oldest English word(s)" (only "oldest written attestation" could make sense in such a case). 22.214.171.124 17:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Copying an answer from my Talk page (Thanks!):
- @Zezen (talk) Regarding the Lithuanian lexeme for "hunger", the connection there with English BAD is quite dubious; nor is there any connection with the Sanskrit form that links much more semantically with the Norse forms; although ultimately from the stock root ABhAdh (mentioned in the Talk Page of bad). Not every SINGLE word present in English is of Proto-Indo-European origin. Andrew H. Gray 14:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Andrew
- Several problems (assuming our etymologies are correct):
- That's Etymology 1 at bædan, which is unrelated to the etymology under consideration, Etymology 1 of this entry- which is possibly related to Etymology 2 at bædan. Etymology 1 at baedan is distantly related to Etymology 3 of this entry, but that's an archaic inflected form of a relatively uncommon verb, not the very common adjective.
- bads is Latvian, not Lithuanian
- bads is from PIE *bʰodʰ-/*bʰedʰ-, while Etymology 1 at bædan is from *bʰeydʰ-- two completely different roots.
- The same is true of बाधा (bādhā)
- In other words: that's the wrong etymology, it doesn't link to the non-Lithuanian bads, nor to the Sanskrit बाधा (bādhā)- every part of your question is wrong. The fact that you didn't notice any of these fatal errors when you posted that question shows why you shouldn't be editing etymologies until you learn to pay attention to details. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, Chuck Entz.
Re "4": Questions are right (they may be inane or inept, granted), while the answers may be wrong.
As for my future tinkering with etymologies, I have just created Appendix:Proto-Slavic/buditi - do you like it? Edit at will. I plan to continue to do so, for Wiktionary's sake, to join the PIE dots, and I welcome your input and collaboration there, too.Zezen (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not qualified to critique Proto-Slavic etymologies- I know my limits. The problem with your plan is that you've repeatedly shown yourself to be quite capable of getting things massively, horribly wrong. Even if you're %90 right, the potential for damage by that other %10 means that the people who are knowledgeable enough to spot your mistakes have to spend time checking your work that they could have spent on much more reliable work of their own. As for your question re 3: I said "assuming our etymologies are correct". Off the top of my head, the consonants look like they could be compatible with that assumption, if w:Grassman's law has removed the aspiration from the first consonant, but I don't know where the long vowels come from- I haven't done much with Sanskrit in a long, long time. Re your observation on 4: no, as I demonstrated above, your questions are fatally flawed, which makes the likelihood of wrong answers very high. Given your lack of caution, I hope no one gives you the opportunity to perform brain surgery or nuclear-reactor design any time soon. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)