Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Regarding the etymology, I agree that it is probably from a Germanic source, but is Old High German the best way to put it? Especially since in Wikipedia it describes it as starting around AD 500 or after. Can it be that a word entered Vulgar Latin this late and still became part of all of the Romance languages, including the Eastern ones like Romanian, which supposedly split off from the rest at a much earlier stage, and Sardinian and Sicilian as well? Maybe a common Germanic is better?

Word dewd544 05:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Germanic suggestion is quite ludicrous, really. It’s an utter anachronism. Grossus is attested before AD 200, at which time the Germanic word would have been nothing like grōz, but much closer to its earlier form, *grautaz. No way that would have been borrowed into Latin as grossus.
I’m also not sure where it’s “generally regarded” as being from Germanic … Most places list it as being related to various Celtic words (several different roots), but this Germanic theory appears to be found only on Wiktionary and sites that quote/copy from here. 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this a false cognate then? M. Philippa's Dutch etymological dictionary makes no mention of an OHG origin, but says that its etymology is not conclusively known. She then mentions several proposals, including relationship to crassus (itself of unknown origin) or Welsh bras < PIE *gʷretsos. —CodeCat 22:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought connection to crassus was totally debunkt/forsaken. Also, there may be two words here: a Vulgar Latin (which fed into Proto-Romance), and a second, later borrowing from OHG into Mediaeval Latin, where the word seems to align more closely with the OHG senses. Leasnam (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I have seen theories connecting to Celtic words; however, (please refresh my memory...) was it said to be inherited from PIE or borrowed. If I am not mistaken, the word is too late in Latin to have been inherited, which makes the relation to Celtic (through sound changes) implausible (?).... Leasnam (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have put the groß-theory into HTML comments. If someone finds a reliable linguistic source for it, we can put it back. --MaEr (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)