User talk:Flibjib8

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


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including, there is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!


Cite your reasons for undoing this edit which looks perfectly okay to me. Undoing is usually used for vandalism and patent mistakes, and this is neither. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The "edit" that was undone was in fact a reversion that eliminated my edits just some several moments before. My additions, which are now shown, are correct and can be vouched for by citing a number of etymological resources. In any case, I'll simply say that phonetically speaking, batallia must FOLLOW battUallia (not precede it), and that the additional Gaulish information adds more to the etymology. You might instead ask the other person why they reverted my edits. Flibjib8 16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no harm in adding correct etymological information as long as it is properly formatted, which it wasn't. You actually undid some of my work to tidy up etymologies by deleting the desired templates. Caladon 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Then why don't you mesh the two, rather than reverting? You should be a little less "trigger-happy" and not so easily rely on the "undo" function in Wiktionary. And while your code might be formatted the way you like, your etymology had a number of errors. In other words, you might want to attend to more substantial rather than cosmetic problems. Flibjib8 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you are referring to the error of battalia and battualia, then that has been rectified; are there any others? Caladon 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


I assume that you are the IP (talk), correct? If so, you are hereby advised not to copy/paste etymological information from other dictionaries, as it is a violation of copyright (all Wiktionary content is released under a copyright-free license). There are a number of etymological dictionaries out-of-copyright that you can use, and which still contain valid information. Or, you can at least try to compile your own version from different sources, in your own wording, since the etymological data itself cannot really be copyrighted. But you must not simply plainly copy/paste, or otherwise obviously duplicate copyrighted sources, as by that act you're putting this whole project in legal risk. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you are unfamiliar with some of our standard templates such as {{term}} and {{etyl}}, which play a pivotal role in etymologies. Please get to know them (the documentation is on their respective talkpage), use them, and don't remove them. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 18:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? I specifically didn't use copyrighted sources; I even incorporated pre-existing information in most of my corrections. Without knowing which entry or entries you're talking about, you have to keep in mind that there are some etymologies that can't really be re-worded. I don't use the templates mainly because they don't seem to serve any particular purpose. I also prefer my style, which is the style typically found in dictionaries. Please don't tell me you edited before discussing. Flibjib8 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
E.g. this one. You wrote:
From Old Norse Valhöll, 'hall of the battle-slain', from valr, 'those slain in battle', and höll, 'hall'.
and the etymonline gives:
from O.N. Valhöll "hall of the battle-slain;" first element from valr "those slain in battle," [..], second element is from höll "hall"
that's really way too similar to be coincidental, wouldn't you say? :)
As for the templates: you don't have to you use them, of course, but you must not remove them if they are already present. They have their own specific purpose: {{etyl}} generates a wikilink to Wikipedia on the respective language name, and categorizes the article into the appropriate category on the basis of the passed ISO code. {{term}} provides standardized display of mentioned terms, that is user-customizable, and does behind-the-scene magic such as enabling browsers to load the appropriate fonts to display (obscure) non-Latin scripts. Their usage is fairly standard and highly recommended. Please read our WT:ETY guideline page. --Ivan Štambuk 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Also for scripts - we write all the entries in their native scripts, and not in transliterations/transcriptions. Thus Akkadian and Old Persian in cuneiform, Greek in Greek, Arabic in Arabic, Sanskrit in Devanagari... You should use {{rfscript}} to tag the entries which need the native script, and someone knowledgeable will sooner or later come along and provide it. --Ivan Štambuk 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, Valhalla was identical. Maybe I got it from Etymonline years ago. In any case, I'm extremely dismayed that my other additions have all been undone. Unebelievable. Either because I de-studded the code by wiping out the templated material or because I'm suspect as a plagiarizer of etymologies. I'm not sure which is more ludicrous. Flibjib8 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I assure you that nobody finds notices such as "© November 2001 Douglas Harper" ludicrous. As I said, you are free to add etymologies (they cannot be copyrighted per se, being a result of free academic research), but you must not plainly copy/paste them, or otherwise obviously duplicate from copyrighted sources. Reword, resynthesize, reformat, but please no more instances of like the one I cited above.
PS: I hope you don't get discouraged by this harsh "welcome" ^_^ When/if you get accustomed to our template system, I'm sure you'll turn into a very productive contributor. --Ivan Štambuk 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


I again reverted your etymology (which you previously added as IP) because it's wrong and obsoleted by modern theories. See Name of Croatia for an overview of some of them. Etymologies of ethnonyms are in 99% cases nationalism-induced fairy-tales, and require proper research of the latest scholarship, a bit more than "this website says so". --Ivan Štambuk 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


[1] - {{term}} is supposed to handle glosses at one of the unnamed parameters. Please don't move it outside the template into the subsequent ''s. --Ivan Štambuk 14:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The style that seems to be favored with - ("GLOSS") - is ghastly. In no dictionary anywhere or in linguistic litterature would you ever find this convention. It's also redundant, considering both ponctuation conventions are meant to explicitate the meaning of a lexeme. I will at no time in the forseeable future be changing my entry style. Flibjib8 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, we voted on every default formatting details of {{term}} before it got implemented, and if you don't like the double quotes you can customize it to single quotes. Please don't remove the properly formatted usages of {term}, otherwise some angry nitpicking admin (which are in quite abundance here) will probably get you blocked. --Ivan Štambuk 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • One other minor stylistic point, but we tend to prefer "cognate with" to "akin to". The latter sounds a bit 19th century, and makes me at least more likely to suspect a user has copy-'n'-pasted from some copyright-expired online source. Ƿidsiþ 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's nice, but you'll find that in dictionaries "akin to" remains still very much in vogue. Also, "cognate with" is slightly more specific, and in some instances, would refer to a different relationship altogether. I'll make adaptions when and where I can. Despite how I may sound, I'm all for clarity. Flibjib8 16:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Well the Trésor says "prob. celt."; the OED says "Prob. of Celtic origin"; so what source are you going by that makes you so keen to take out the "probably"? Ƿidsiþ 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtually every specialist source including the Onions Etymological Dictionary, Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, Webster's Third International, and a number of French works (Lambert, Delamarre, Savignac). As with most things, the OED seems to be plodding behind, and the Trésor, like most standardized French resources, is not regularly updated. Flibjib8 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


this word does not come from Old Irish as your edit claimed. I have reverted; please learn to use Wiktionary templates before proceeding. --EncycloPetey 00:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A little late, but I think by now you must have realized that the problem here was I simply didn't know to format the term code - with a dash, which someone else was kind enough to explain to me later. Flibjib8 19:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Introducing cognates to etymology sections is great, but then use, e.g., {{etyl|goh|-}} rather than {{etyl|goh}}, as the latter catgeorizes the entry as derived from Old High German. (See, e.g., recent history of [[evil]].) Thanks.​—msh210 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Great tip! I'll correcct that right away. Flibjib8 19:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind that many of the languages you are adding are not written in Latin script, and so should not be the main entry in a {{term}} template. See this edit to learn how to use the transcription and gloss aspects of the {{term}} template. --EncycloPetey 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you have completely ignored what User:msh210 told you about abusing the etymology template. You keep adding it to numerous entries, thus creating a huge mess. Please consider cleaning up your latest edits. --Omnipaedista 14:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you reread User:msh210's comment. I've been trying to add the terminal dash as often as possible, but I may have forgotten in places. What exactly am I doing wrong? I can't really clean up anything until I know what I've done wrong. Flibjib8 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for being needlessly arduous and exaggerating the predicament. All I was trying to say is that you have forgotten the dash in some (admittedly few) of the cognates (see entries such as horn and hart). But this way, one is obliged to check all your edits in order to make sure all the templates are correct. I just wanted to let you know. --Omnipaedista 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

exemplia too gratia[edit]

  • If you are unable to provide the necessary script for Old Church Slavonic, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit (Cyrillic/Glagolitic, Polytonic and Devanagari, respectively) as in this edit, then do not link the transliterations, but add them unlinked with a {{rfscript|Devanagari}} or {{rfscript|Cyrillic}}. A knowledgeable editor will provide the script.The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
transcriptions vary from source to source and allow slight inaccuracies (sort of like xeroxing) so that a person must be familiar with or have in front of them a given lemma in its original script to accurately write it out. therefore, i am not comfortable transcribing a roman-transcription into native script. i await the editors' intervention.
Then the Roman transcription is expected to stay unlinked with the due template next to it until said editors intervene. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I take it you're not a native speaker of English, so you won't be surprised when I tell you I didn't quite understand this. I'll assume you meant, "don't code transcriptions with the TERM template anymore; otherwise, do nothing." Flibjib8 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No. Otherwise insert the transcription and the rfscript template with the correct parameter (Cyrillic, Devanagari, Armenian and so on). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Removing sourced etymology, as you did in this edit, is undesirable. If you stumble upon some concurrent theories, then please source them without erasing the extant ones, if they are sourced as well. Why did you remove the Danish cognate in whelp, but retain the Swedish one? This looks weird... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
If by sourced you mean sc=unicode, then that was an editing mistake, but otherwise, if you mean sourced as in "backed up or quoted from source material", then I don't know to what you're referring.
I mean using the "<ref></ref>" tags and putting inbetween your source from which you read about this etymology (the language of origin, the cognates etc.), exempli gratia an etymological dictionary. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, and I guess you were referring to 'fir'? You linked to 'ewe' instead of 'fir' in your comment. Anyway, I understand you now. I'll add the reference. Oh, and a small tip: e.g. and i.e. are NEVER written out in full in English. Flibjib8 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It serves no purpose whatsoever to exhaustively list every and all cognates past and present. Especially for the Germanic group, they serve as a reference for comparison. It's an overkill to list parent language lemma (i.e. ON, MDu, OHG) with modern stage lemma (Scand. langs, Du, G). Likewise, Swedish and Danish, being so close and from the same family, don't need to be listed side by side: it's excessive, so I just chose one. Doesn't seem weird to me.
Choosing one of two does not seem weird, when there had been none prior to that, but when there had been two, we are talking about removing one of them, not choosing. I see no reason soever for Swedish taking præcedence over Danish. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove Old Norse from the etymology of whelp? Lest the etymology section be encumbered? If so, then dismiss such considerations for Germanic cognates in sections of words of Germanic languages, since they are always welcome. Restrictions may be applied for words from non-Germanic languages in those sections.The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you Danish? I don't think you follow me. I removed a number of cognates that were superfluous and retained one modern one, which I chose at random. I've put the Danish cognate up instead, if you prefer. Otherwise, I don't understand your problem. Listing two very similar forms from two very similar languages, where one could easily substitute for the other, doesn't make any sense, except to be obsessive. I edited for brevity; you act as if I'm censuring information. I don't share your view about listing any and all Gmc cognates; the etymology section is not a forum for obsessive list-making. Flibjib8 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not Danish, but I do not like seeing Germanic cognates being removed from the etymology sections of fellow Germanic languages. Some Swedish speaker may oppose the removal of the Swedish cognate, so retaining both is the most convenient approach. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, writing "cognate with" next to a reconstruction, when you really mean to say the OE form is cognate with the modern Germanic langs. forms, is an editing mistake which implies the wrong relationship between etymological elements. "cf." cannot be mechanically replaced with "cognate with". Flibjib8 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I meant to say that the English form is cognate with those in modern Germanic languages, not the Old English form. Besides, you did not explain why you replaced the sourced etymology confirming the Old Norse origin of fir with unsourced one claiming OE origin. The latter is expected to be sourced as well in order to stay as a concurrent etymology. This is feasable by using "<ref></ref>" tags and putting your source inbetween. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize what you "meant" to say, but you would have to recast the sentence and rephrase everything for that to work. If you reread, you'll realize that, semantically, "[...] hwelpaz (cf. Dutch [...]" is not the same thing as "[...] hwelpaz (cognate with Dutch [...]", where the first implies the listed lemmae COME FROM 'helpaz', while the second implies the lemmae ARE RELATED TO BUT DO NOT NECESSARILY COME FROM 'helpaz'. Flibjib8 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's krókon, but my sources are (1) J.P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams, eds., Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, s.v. 'crow' (Dearborn-Fritz, 1999), 428-9; and (2) Vladimir Orel, The Handbook of Germanic Etymology, s.v. 'rook', (Leiden, Netherland: Brill, 2003). Are you Bulgarian? Flibjib8 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi. With reconstructed words, please keep them within the {{proto}} template. In other words {{proto|{{subst:langrev|Proto-Germanic}}|lambaz}} is better than {{proto|Germanic}} *''lambaz'', basically because it forces it into a font which can properly display characters like ƀ, ʰ and other such things. Ƿidsiþ 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Hello again. Are you deliberately ignoring this advice for some reason? It just means someone else has to re-format what you add. Ƿidsiþ 12:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Another reason is that, if an appendix page has been created for the proto-word, it will be automatically linkified. See wulf for an example. Ƿidsiþ 13:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another comment, from formatting your edit to bee: please add glosses within the templates and not outside them. If (like me) you prefer to have these glosses in single quotes and not in brackets, then you can set those display options at WT:PREFS. Ƿidsiþ 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Look, I've explained our policy as carefully as I can (to no reply). You've already been reverted 2 or 3 times on bee now and if you keep going you'll just get blocked. Ƿidsiþ 12:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That's all well and good, but the single quotes are not important. What is important are the absurd parentheses around the glosses, which I cannot hide despite editing my preferences, and your reverts continue to undo the italization of the reconstructed forms. I'm not sure why you are so insistant on this format which is, after all, only recommended and not mandatory. I will continue to re-italicize the reconstructed lemma. Flibjib8 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You can italicise those to your heart's content (at least as far as I'm concerned -- perhaps there is some reason for not doing it by default that I'm not aware of). But you need to keep glosses within the templates. In WT:PREFS there is an option called "Show English glosses for mentioned terms in single quotes" and another called "Hide parentheses around glosses". Ƿidsiþ 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


You derive this from Hebrew, but my Latin sources trace the word only back as for as Ancient Greek. What source are you using? --EncycloPetey 03:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea was put forward in 1959 by the Hebrew scholar Edward Yechezkel Kutscher and has since been adopted. It would be more accurate to say the word came from Phoenician, with characteristic a > o (anemOne), and a Hebrew form a bit closer was found in the Nippur inscription - naxman, though this word's meaning is not certain. This was picked up in Webster's Third International Dictionary and Onion's Etymological Dictionary (now the Oxford Etym. Dic.). If you're using sources that are over 30 years old, you should really rethink where you get your information from.

{term} glosses[edit]

[2] - Please don't extract them outside the template. They're supposed to be well-placed so that their appearance can be customized via CSS, as well as to facilitate machine-based processing of Wiktionary data. --Ivan Štambuk 13:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fell (Etymology 4)[edit]

Hi. Thanks for all the great work you're doing with Etymologies! I feel like I finally have someone on my side :) Just a question regarding fell--where on earth did you find this source? Seems like it's confounding a couple of different words in Goth usfilma (< usfilmei)/ON felmfullr (< falma "to grope") which are related to "feel" with senses meaning "cruel, savage". Leasnam 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I got this from Webster's Third Internatioal or Onion's. I've already removed both mentions. And I have to say, it's nice to get a vote of confidence and constructive criticism for a change. Flibjib8 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"soyl" in hollow[edit]

Where did you get Armenian "soyl" meaning "hole" as a cognate to hollow? "Soyl" means "the act of whistling" not "hole". --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I got it from the Kluge dictionary of German etymology, though they must have made an error. I'll remove it. Flibjib8 15:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
They must have misspelled սոր (sor, hole). Anyway, it would be nice if you could add {{rfscript|Armenian}} to etymologies with Armenian cognates. I can then add the script and check them. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello again! The PIE root of hail listed: k̑ok̑ló, I am unfamiliar with in this same sense. I have a root k(')ag(')hlo- 'gravel', which links it to Ancient Greek κάχληξ (kákhlēx) 'pebble'. Also, I think Latin calculus (< calx) is a borrowing from Ancient Greek χάλιξ (khálix) and possibly not part of this list? Leasnam 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The *k(')ag(')hlo- root appears in the Encyc. of I-E culture and doesn't seem very well worked out (only for Gk and Gmc with no real explanation). The *k̑ok̑ló form appears in the Hndbk of Gmc Etym and seems to match all the cognates best including Gmc. As for calculus, I find mixed references. There seems to be some debate as to whether it's really derived from calx. Flibjib8 20:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Just wanted to bring to your attention. Also, I find it's best to use etyl|grc|- (surrounded by braces) for the language headers, instead of Entry Name (surrounded by brackets) because it will categorise with other words of shared origin (shows at page bottom). Granted, in this case it really doesn't matter, because the Ancient Greek term is for reference only, but it will help when the word is a derived term. You can find most language codes in Wikipedia under that language's article. Unfortunately, I know it's not always conducive to getting the wording to look the way you want, but it does serve a very practical purpose :) Leasnam 21:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Hey, I was just going to save this, but you're still editing.

Middle English yenen, yanen, from Old English ġinian and gānian 'to yawn, gape', both ultimately from Proto-Germanic *ʒinōjanan, ʒīnanan (to yawn, gape) from Proto-Indo-European [[Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/g̑hih1-neha|*g̑hih1-neha]] 'to gape, yawn' (cf. Russian zínutĭ 'to yawn, gape', Ancient Greek χαίνειν (khaínein)), from Proto-Indo-European [[Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/g̑hehau-, , g'hēy(w)-, g'hyāw-|*g̑hehau-, , g'hēy(w)-, g'hyāw-]] 'to yawn, gape' (cf. Old High German gīēn, Latin hiāre, Tocharian A śew, B kāyā, Lithuanian žióju, Russian zijátĭ). Merged in some senses with words descending from Proto-Germanic *ganan (a shout, yawn) from Proto-Indo-European *g(')han- (pharynx; to yawn). Akin to Old English ġīnan 'to yawn, drive back', German gähnen 'to gape, glare', Old Norse gana 'to rush, glare').

The ablaut of ʒīnanan would be ʒain-, not ʒān- according to rule. Seems there are two words being merged (ʒīnanan and gan-) Leasnam 22:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

you're right of course about the ablaut, and i realized that i don't really have any resource that adequately explains the word. i'm still working through this and hope to have it settled soon. Flibjib8 10:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


You should break dock out into separate Etymologies (e.g. Etymology 1, Etymology 2, and so forth), matching each definition to each Etymology rather than placing a Pan-Etymology over all. Leasnam 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Within each Etym. header, it is preferred that Noun entries preceed Verb entries, as detailed in the Entry Layout. Leasnam 23:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You made such a mess of it that I just reverted. Especially since you think that Middle English developed into Modern Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


I see you have already been spoken to on these matters, however, I must impress upon you the importance of following proper formatting procedures. Etyma must be linked, and really should be placed inside {{term}}. Also, when included, glosses and transliterations should be formatted within {{term}} as well. Words must be in the correct script, or be accompanied by {{rfscript}}. Finally, and this is a more subjective point, commonly known languages like Latin, Ancient Greek, and Welsh really don't need linking at all, and if you feel the need to link them, it is better done with simple brackets than {{etyl|xx|-}}. While you clearly have some knowledge of etymologies, you will find that most editors here have rather little patience for people who are clearly capable of correct formatting, and willfully neglect to do so. Often times, such people will find themselves blocked. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've received conflicting advice. See above for details. Basicially, I've been told not to link material I'm unable to compose in the language's native script; therefore, I haven't. Second, I've already gone on about how the parentheses-quotation mark citation style is ludicrous and how it doesn't display like I want it to no matter how I change my preferences, so I've generally disregarded this and will continue to do so. As for the rest, I've made these changes. Flibjib8 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I have heard rumours of additional laryngeals, current consensus only supports three, and if you could confine yourself to them (which are all coded in the "Indo-European" section of the scripts at the bottom of the edit window) that would be appreciated. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

While you've heard rumors, some major works, such as Orel's Albanian and Germanic works and Mallory/Adams' Encyc. of IE culture, all take the h4 into account, and considering these are highly specialized and comprehensive works, you can see why I'm inclined to take their word over yours. In any case, I have in general stopped adding h4. Flibjib8 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Since you've made no attempt to follow the advice given, nor to respond to it, and have even had the gall to undo my corrections, I have given you a one day block. Please, I strongly suggest you spend this time considering your position. We genuinely need people with understanding of PIE and other aspects of etymologies, and yet we won't hesitate to prevent your editing if you're not willing to work with our policies. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't respond to you initially because I was in the middle of adding etymologies and your first message carried a thinly veiled threat that I didn't appreciate. If you look at the time stamps, you'll see you didn't really leave me much time to answer. Flibjib8 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Still not heeding advice, so a longer block this time. The community does not exist to clean up after you. --EncycloPetey 20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that depends on whether the community only consists of administrators or editors. Editors are expected to clean up other people's messes. I take it you're an administrator. Flibjib8 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that, while I stand behind EncycloPetey's block, you are doing some good work here, and we would like to see you continue here. However, we've just had too many cases where people come in, won't respond to discussion, won't change their ways, and have created huge messes. Most of the admins here have spent hours cleaning up such messes, and have, as a result, developed a low tolerance for such things, subsequently resorting to blocks. The fact that you're prolific, while generally a good thing, makes us all the more nervous. Please note that we genuinely are not trying to bully you off the site, but we must demand a certain level of standards adherence. While you can't edit your talk page while blocked, you can certainly email any one of us, and we might even be willing to shorten the block, if you're willing to engage in discussion and follow standards. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but, in my opinion, one of the major problems here is that the coding style is too rigorous and cumbersome, so much so that it discourages contribution. Also, some editors offer suggestions, but others are rude and brusque, and this is understandably very off-putting. And despite your intentions, you have, in fact, bullied me off the site. I really find the atmosphere disagreeable. Flibjib8 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology style[edit]

Please do not remove the word "From" at the beginning of Etymology sections. That is house style. It is easier to revert such a change than to have to fix all of them by hand. If you persist in this, your changes will be reverted. The exception is when the Middle English is identical to the modern. In that case, "from" would often be omitted.

Also, please do not replace phrases like "compare" and "cognate with" with abbreviations like "cf."; such abbreviations are used in print dictionaries because of space limitations, but we have no such restriction. We prefer to spell out in readable English rather than abbreviate. --EncycloPetey 20:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, we need to be conscious of the fact that we'll often have entries for one or more of a word's etyma, with their own etymologies, and we don't want to have too much repetition. Generally, with a modern word, we want to focus more on recent history (i.e. with English entries, we want to focus more on the journey from Old English to English), and restrict ourselves to the more pertinent sister languages. So, for example, in the etymology for a modern English word, if its Old English etymon has an entry, we'd want to see a note of the Old English, the modern Germanic cognates, and maybe the PIE. The Old English entry's etymology would have the ancient/extinct Germanic cognates, the PIE, and perhaps some stuff from other branches. However, even here you want to limit yourself. A good rule of thumb would probably be three or four Germanics, and three or four from other branches. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Are we sure that the sense meaning "to sneak up on, be stealthy" is from PGmc *stalkaz "high, lofty"? I don't think it is. I think this sense is evident in Etymology 3: "to walk haughtily, stiffly". The confusion between the two words probably occurred in PGmc, as evidenced by dual meanings in the daughters (Dutch, English, Danish, etc.). I think we should probably revert? as the sense evolution points more logically to *stelanan Leasnam 14:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll add a section detailing an alternate etymology. Some words are still a mystery :) Leasnam 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Flibjib8,

Why are you moving glosses out of {{term}}? Please stop doing so.

RuakhTALK 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruakh, you may want to consult #edge where the same issue has recently been brought up. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I had read that section, but the mention of glosses in {{term}} there was very tangential. I figured it warranted a new section, rather than just an instant block. —RuakhTALK 17:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ruakh, I generally remove glosses when they've been moved into the term template for one or two lemma only. This leaves the etymology fractured into several different display styles which is, quite frankly, atrocious. If an editor is going to make this sort of change to one lemma, he/she has an obligation to make the same change to all. That's how editing works. Flibjib8 19:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Block 3[edit]

Since you have consistently refused to listen to our formatting procedures, and haven't deigned to even respond to our comments, you have received a third block. I am a bit hesitant in this, as you are adding some good material, but you are also deliberately formatting entries against what you know to be policy. This is your third block. We'd love to have you here, but if you continue on your current path, you will likely find yourself permanently banned from the project. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Drape is a bit of an enigma, yes, and I am familiar with both cited origins. However, it is more plausible that it is from a Gmc source than not for the following reasons: It is first used by Gmc speakers in a Gmc area, No record of the PIE word is ever found in Classical Latin, and there is no evidence of it coming from Gaulish. T to D is not uncommon when going from Gmc to Fr (cf. cridare < kritan). Also, the by-form trapus is a bit of a dead giveaway. Regardless of which is correct (what we need to remember here is that Etymology is not a science, but an art) if you have a different source add it as an Alternative etymology. Please do not undo the hard work of others who trying to work as studious as yourself. Even very reputable sources oftentimes disagree on word origins, and that must be reflected here too. Thanks :)Leasnam 19:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's first used by Romance speakers in a Romance-speaking area (Arles, Southern France) in the 6th century, where it is specifically named by the author as a Gaulish word; and, even though no cognate has survived in the Insular Celtic languages, the names Drappus and Drappes are recorded for the Late Roman period. Second, t to d is unheard of in Gmc > Fr transference in initial position, so much so that I know of no instance of it occurring; mid-word is another matter. Funny you should cite "cridare", because it is a Medieval Latin word that was borrowed from an un-attested proto-French/Italian form which eventually gave "crier" (which gave E "cry"); however, that word is not a Germanic borrowing at all (< Latin quiritare). The word "trapus" is an Iberian by-form which gave Sp trapo, Pg trapinho, which are both traced back to "drappus" and a Gaulish origin in etymological resources in Sp/Pg. The same is true for Italian drappello (where t > d is even less likely). Every French and foreign authority seems to agree. The fact that you don't leads me to believe that you are basing your argument on extremely out-of-date material. Finally, I would take issue with the idea that etymology is not a science; let's hope no historical linguist happens onto this page. Flibjib8 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
I need sources for the Gaulish attestation, as well as evidence that it is connected to the immediate source of drape and not a broken bough (dead end word). I also need conclusive evidence that Iberian trapus is *immediately* connected to ML trapus > Eng trappings. (I will likewise provide if you ask me :). Reason: The appearance of a word at one point in time does not prove *connection* to a similar word appearing at a different time and place. This is what I meant by Etymology not being a science (actually, it is partly science). The human factor skews everything about it, and I amusingly refer to it as art. This is also why the word is still in the 'uncertain' category.Leasnam 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Leasnam 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC) The Latin quiritare theory has flaws, both in the evolution of quiri- to cri-, and also semantically.
An Etymological Dictionary of the French Language [Crowned by the French Academy] by Kitchin cites the origin of Fr drap as Gmc.Leasnam 20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This was published in 1923 and is horribly out-of-date. A nearly 100-year old source is the last thing you want to quote. Flibjib8 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
Old doesn't always mean wrong. No new light is being shed on old manuscripts, unless a new manuscript is found. For Etymology, the books are really pretty much closed, and anything new is obtained by regurgitating what's already out there. Leasnam 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC).
Also, though this is not given in the reference above, Gmc t > Latin d can occur whenever there is deferred stress upon the t, as when the word is used in combination (eg. handtrapa, badtrapa, houbittrapa, etc), which when heard aloud would very likely sound like "handdrapa", "houbitdrapa", "baddrapa", etc. to non-Gmc ears, but this is my own personal reasoning. There is no evidence that the etymon supplying drappus was being used in combination. History is silent on this point. Leasnam 20:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to research Vita Caesaris Arelatis for the 'drappus/drapus/Drappes' etymon, yet I found nothing. It appears that the only one who may be attesting this is Savignac, with only one lone Google Books result which didn't yield any info (book is not viewable). I would hardly call that unanimous. I do not doubt that there may have been a word 'drappo' in Celtic--this IE root is near ubiquitous in all IE languages, however, I do not believe that the Late Latin word that Charlemagne used was the selfsame word. "Cloth" is a rather mundane material, and to find the only evidence of it being used in Arles as a Personal Name is doubly dubious in my opinion. Also, Aachen is a long way from Arles. Leasnam 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


I would agree that there is a plethera of cognates and similar forms for Boy, but there needs to be. The etymology of Boy is uncertain and disputed. As such, there needs to be as much information given to substantiate the PGmc claim given to Boy. And you are otherwise correct, that, when a word is clear cut, there does not need to be excessive cognates listed. 'Boy' is different (and more never hurts :)Leasnam 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am the original author of the etymology from a long time ago, so only my own work was sacrificed. Listing for instance MDu boeve and Du boef is essentially saying the same thing twice; nor is it useful to list multiple German dialect words (one will suffice). This is something I didn't realize at the time I originally posted. The cognates - boef, Bueb - are explained by Dutch and German etymologists who give bobon as their reconstructed form and list 'boy' as a cognate. The word does not seem to be in dispute, once again, outside the English-speaking world. The fact that Chambers (Chambers Dic. of Etym.) and Orel (A Hndbook of Gmc. Etym.) used the same base for their entries on 'boy' leads me to believe this is not really in dispute, among Germanic specialists, that is. Flibjib8 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know you were the original author, but none of us owns the material we post to Wiktionary. I know this is hard, but it's true. And I happen to obtain benefit by the cognates, and they do not seem too exhaustive, no more than in any dictionary source. Please let me try and clean up the old stuff to possibly reach a compromise before you remove it all again. Truthfully, I find a lot of your material (old and new) to be extremely helpful! Leasnam 14:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Block 4[edit]

Please stop. Take time to learn Wiktionary formatting rather than ignoring it. Neither Ancient Greek nor Sanskrit is written in Latin letters. If you are unable to produce text in those languages' scripts, then do not add them. Your blocks will continue to be progressively longer each time you flout formatting conventions. The community does not appreciate it when we have to clean up constantly after someone. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for a response, or even a change in my practice, you shold try speaking to me rather than blocking me. You might like to do like Ivan below and act like an editor by offering suggestions or tips, rather than resorting to punishment without talking first. Flibjib8 17:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried that. Either you don't listen, or you fail to remember. Look back up the page where I notified you about our house style of using "compare" and of not using "cf.". Despite this, you're still changing "compare" into "cf." (see the edit you made to two less than 24 hours ago). If you don't change your editing in response to advice, then there's no point in giving the advice, is there? --EncycloPetey 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed your posts. I've changed twice (term template) and keeping "From", but I haven't changed cf. So, I do listen. However, above, I've made the case for keeping cf. largely because "compare" and "cf." don't actually imply the same relationship to the term and the use of "cf." is not shorthand but rather a very technical device. I simply don't agree with the house style in this regard and won't change accordingly. In any case, I've reviewed your blocks, and none of them involved a discussion beforehand or made any explicit reference to specific mistakes - which, clearly, would be of more use than a block. Flibjib8 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Flibjib8 , you should really take some time studying the usage of those templates such as {{term}} or {{rfscript}}. Yeah I know it's PITA to take care of it, and focus on the actual content itself, but that's how things are down here and every time you don't do it, somebody else has to (and it's no fun trust me). If you accept this obligation than the block could be lifted immediately, but if you don't, you'll find yourself blocked for ever-longer periods of time. We'd lose a great editor, and you'd lose an opportunity to contribute to the greatest dictionary ever. Please reconsider all of the suggestions made on your talkpage. --Ivan Štambuk 14:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
To be honest Ivan, I've lost interest in this site. The unwieldy coding formalities and the impersonable heavy-handed editors have turned, what is for me, a light-hearted hobby into a draconian nightmare. It's now clear to me why there aren't more etymological contributors. As for the blocks, it's hard to take them seriously, especially since they appear to be knee-jerk reactions that come out of nowhere. Flibjib8 17:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Flibjib8, I struggle to understand your inchoate frustration, but rest assured that your edits are appreciated. There are indeed 3 or 4 templates for etymologies to master, after which your formatting will become irreproachable. These are, besides the two mentioned by Ivan, {{etyl}}, and, if one has no clue about the etymology - {{rfe}}, or, if one quæstions some etymology - {{rfv-etymology}}. I cannot think of more and as soon as you have made yourself familiar with them, the misapprehensions will disappear. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is the discussion about doing without cf.. If you are eager to discuss the issue, feel free to revive it on the BP. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology formatting[edit]

You're getting better at formatting the etymologies correctly, but you're not quite there yet. This diff shows the difference between how you formatted bull#Etymology 1 and how it should be formatted. Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to have taken this comment on board as you are still not formatting all the etymologies you contribute correctly. For example at heave "from {{etyl|ang|en}} ''[[hebban]]''" should be "from {{etyl|ang|en}} {{term|hebban|lang=ang}}". Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This was formatting that was already present and seemed to work. I know there are variations and other possibilities to linking words, so I didn't tamper with it; though, I have now gone back and edited it. For things that I add, however, I generally use the term template. As for other things, I have reviewed the "bull" edit, and the major distinctions I saw were that (1) I didn't put glosses in the template, but I do that deliberately, (2) I didn't repeat the "Proto-Indo-European" label, which if I had, it would have been a poor stylistic choice (and isn't done in etymologies), and (3) I didn't code entries in their native script, which I am not capable of doing. There wasn't really anything to be learned or adopt. Flibjib8 10:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The main thing is that glosses should be in the term template, one of the principle functions of it is to ensure consistent, customisable (see WT:PREFS) formatting of them. Therefore there is still more to do at heave, and probably elsewhere too.
Regarding the native scripts, if you don't know a script, then do as I did and put the transliteration in the term template and add eg {{rfscript|Greek}} template somewhere logical. This alerts people who do know the script where their expertise is needed, and makes it clear which words are wanted.
I know that it seems like we're being pedantic over formatting, but because of the nature of Wiktionary, poor formatting means creating lots of work for other people. As an example, I've been working to cleanup just some of the problems with pronunciation section formatting for months now and there are still nearly 4000 entries that have one or more problems based on current knowledge. Sorry if we seem harsh doing this, but we really do value your contributions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Flibjib8, I implore you, desist from moving the meaning of the word from the term template out of the template (I am referring to this edit especially Low German Gör (child)), as this is contrary to established formatting. You have been around for a while and are aware of the functionality of {{term}}. I already pledged to try cleaning up after you in order to prævent your blocking by discontented administrators, but it goes without saying that you are supposed to inflict as less clean-up work as possible while enriching the etymology sections. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


I hope you understand that I was sincere in appreciating the depth of the etymological information you have provided. In fact I am in no position to fully appreciate it.

It is precisely because it seems so good that it is an excellent test of how we display such information. It should all be in Wiktionary; the question is how and where. I am sure that you understand that many of our users are simply looking for very basic information: definitions and translations. At the same time we would like to include as much scholarly information as possible. It pushes the limits of the software and our "policy" processes to reconcile these goals. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See WT:TR#yawn DCDuring TALK 23:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
First, I hesitate on whether the middle portion (which I recently removed) truly belongs in the etymology. Second, the etymology, as I had it, is so complicated to follow that it is highly problematic and far too lengthy. Your tearoom remarks were astute, and I do not consider the entry finished or difinitive. I am working on a way to refine and hopefully shorten the presentation style. As for this site's policy, I am whole-heartedly for anything that "pushes". Flibjib8 00:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that my later revision was "undone", which seems obstinate on your part, but I have found the final missing piece and completed the etymology, which, ironically, integrates all of the original material (including the recently removed middle portion). Flibjib8 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your latest edit to yawn as you removed glosses from term templates, which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. Unfortunately this may mean that any improvements you made will also have been lost and you'll need to do them again. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but as has been explained several times, the correct formatting is very important here on Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Flibjib, in this last edit of yours you deliberately erased the Danish and Gothic verbs which descend from the same Proto-Germanic root and changed the Latin verb to its infinitive which is not its lemma form. 1st person sg. present indicative is the lemma form for Latin verbs and if you are unable to determine it from the infinitive which you supposedly have at hand, then at least refrain from changing the already present lemma (capio) to the infinitive(capere). As for the removal of Gothic and Danish which were also in the etymology section, do you have any explanation for that? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is traditional practice in Latin-English materials to cite Latin cognates in the 1st person singular form, it is the infinitive that is cited in English-language etymological works generally. This is preferable for comparison especially when the infinitive more closely resembles the IE root. As for Gothic and Danish, we've been over this before. I list just a few cogantes for comparison, usually some of English's closer modern relatives, which is why I have again removed the Old Norse and Gothic cognates. I put the Danish word back up and removed the Swedish. I was originally trying to create continuity between the cognates listed at "have" and "heave", for which I had chosen Swedish. It also doesn't serve any purpose to list several closely linked languages (i.e., Danish AND Swedish) or different stages of the same family (Old Norse AND Danish or Swedish), so I have left only Danish from the Scandinavian family. You had a problem before and it was over Danish again... you seem to love this language. Finally, the etymology section should not be bloated with an exhaustive list of all cogantes past and present. Flibjib8 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Flibjib8, I strongly advise you against relapsing to such kind of edits. Whilst I could put up with the expurgation of the Bulgarian word (regardless of my nationality), you deliberately obliterated the Cyrillic form of the Serbo-Croatian word брашно. Serbo-Croatian in its Ekavian or Ijekavian varieties is official in four countries - Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia and Bosna and Hercegovina. According to the constitution of Serbia, it is official and ought to be written in the Cyrillic script. Therefore, removing the Cyrillic form of any Serbo-Croatian word amounts to giving præcedence to the non-Serbian variety of the language, which is as outrageous as inadmissible. Refer to WT:ASH for more information. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, you ought to explain edits like this: [3], [4]. Do you have præjudices against the Gothic language, which is the only East Germanic language with literary heritage and the most ancient Germanic language and thus priceless from an etymological point of view, or (which I deem more probable) you do not have Gothic fonts and see nothing but red squares. Those red squares, if that is the case, are a full-fledged digital repræsentation of the Gothic script, which may or may not appear as squares, but is inexendable. For people who either do not have the Gothic fonts or have no knowledge soever in the Gothic language there are transliterations, which are always provided. Thence, removing the Gothic cognate (or, if you consider cognate here a misnomer, the Gothic word which æqually derived from Proto-Germanic) is unjustified. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove Sanskrit arpaya (causative of ṛcchati), after you yourself added it?? If you wonder why I added two præsent tense forms (which are the lemma for Sanskrit verbs, the 3rd person of the præsent tense), the reason was that they are most common. There were another one or two, which I omitted. Consider WT:About Sanskrit. Additionally, I urge you once again to make use of the {{rfscript}}, whenever you are unable to write the cognate in the Devanagari, Avestan, Gothic or Greek script (those four are parameters for the template). Do you know with certainty whether there is kinship between arpaya and the other words? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be insane. There is no reason to provide both a cyrillic and roman form of an etymon, considering it's the same word. Given that English, and this dictionary in general, is written in the roman alphabet, the roman form should be preferred. Your cries of ethnic indignation fall on deaf ears, and the Serbian Constitution and the like have absolutely no place or effect here. Your reasoning is irrational.
Further, I removed the Gothic cognate because it is irrelevant. The etymology section is not meant to be a listing of every and all cognates possible, and modern cognates should be preferred, especially close ones. Gothic is perhaps the remotEST and oldEST cognate that is listable, which justifies its removal. The way the transcription script displays has nothing to do with my edit.
Finally, although giving a small etymology of "arpaya" is excessive and uncalled for, it did look as though it made an argument AGAINST "arpaya" being related to the headword (awl). I do not know for certain, as you say, whether "arpaya" is related, so I removed it to be safe, and I think it should stay that way. Flibjib8 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Your argumentum ad hominem is not welcome (you might be insane). I quoted the constitutian of Serbia just in order to disprove your mandacious claim which you wrote in the edit summary - that the Serbo-Croatian used the Latin alphabet. This is not even half of the truth, but a third, because the Serbo-Croatian language uses both Latin and Cyrillic alphabet. In the past, it also used Glagolitic script. In the etymological dictionary of the Bulgarian language issued by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Serbo-Cratian cognates are listed only in the Cyrillic script. If in your dictionary it is vice versa, this only means that imposing a Cyrillic-only or Latin-only stance and listing cognates in one of those disregarding the other would disturb a not inconsiderable number of editors and prove to be POV. Therefore, using both scripts is the best reconciliatory approach. Trying to disprove the necessity for the Cyrilling script is futile. I have never resorted to ethnic arguments, please remain tranquil and do not misinterpret me. As for Gothic, being remote from both West and North Germanic languages may be their disadvantage, but being the oldest attested Germanic language is their ultimate advantage which justifies listing those cognates. If you want to get rid of Gothic at any cost, then move the cognate to the etymology section of the Old English præcursor of the modern English word, if there is one and if that entry has been created. Otherwise, do not expurgate the Gothic cognate. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No one is disputing the fact that SCr is written in two alphabets. The reason, quite obviously, why cyrillic was preferred in the EtymDicBulg. is that the compilers were Bulgarians who use cyrillic! Were they taking a stance? Preferring roman script in a roman-alphabet language in a roman-alphabet dictionary is just as sensible as preferring cyrillic in a cyrillic-alphabet language in a cyrillic-alphabet dictionary, wouldn't you say? It is a matter of convention and readability. In any case, it still makes no sense to add both; the roman stays.
As for Gothic, being attested early or late is immaterial; the point of listing the cognates is for comparison, and Gothic is comparatively remote from English as an old extinct lang. Clearly, if so many more modern cognates exist, they should take precedence. Gothic cognates should never have been added in the first place, and I suspect you added them because you are a Gothic enthusiast of some sort; so if you want to preserve them, you, not I, should move them. Flibjib8 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


FYI, I as asked to comment about this and have replied here [5]. Everyone please (re-)read Wiktionary:ETY#Cognates which was written specifically to address these issues. --Ivan Štambuk 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Flibjib, it is you who are an adversary of the Gothic language. As already noted by Ivan, Gothic has no modern æquivalents. Furthermore, since North Germanic cognates have the right to be mentioned, so do the East Germanic ones, because they are æqually distant from West Germanic languages. Yes, I am fond of the Gothic language and turn up intermittently on Gothic wikipedia, but that has nothing to do with the etymological necessity for the cognates from this precious language. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It would appear from Ivan's comment that he thinks Gothic should be reserved for the Old English page, and I agree; second, he thinks only ONE Slavic language should suffice, and I agree. I do not "hate" the Gothic language; it's just that it has no place in a BRIEF list of cognates with MODERN English. The etymology section should not be a laundary list; rather, on proto-language pages, like those for PIE roots or Proto-Germanic, then complete lists of cognates, esp. Gothic, makes sense. I do not agree with Ivan about Russian or German taking precedence because they have more speakers; clearly, relatedness is more important. Finally, Scandinavian languages are much more closely related to English than Gothic. You should perhaps review some litterature on the subject. I hope this is the end of this nonsense. Flibjib8 12:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Take a closer look at Ivan's reply: Also, Gothic cognate is IMHO OK to mention [...], but only because Gothic has no modern descendants. I already admitted that only one Slavic cognate should be added and præcedence is doubtless to be given to Russian as the biggest. If you want to link Czech at any cost, then go to ель#Etymology and mention it. relatedness is more important If we præsume that this is true, how could possibly the closer relatedness of Czech and English in comparison with that of Czech and Russian be proven? In no wise. Scandinavian languages are much more closely related to English than Gothic - prove this, please. On the contrary, Gothic has much more in common with North Germanic languages than with English, cf. the Gotho-Nordic hypothesis. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't selectively edit quotes. Ivan says in full, "[...] although it should really belong to the etymology section of respective Old English etymon, but only because Gothic has no modern descendants", so perhaps you should reread it. Here I would also add the fact that it's distantly related, both in time (which accounts for much) and on the geneological tree.
English belongs to the Anglo-Frisian (aka North-Sea) branch of West Germanic, along with its sister language Scots, and closest relative Frisian (West, East, North). Further relatives in WGmc are Dutch, Low German, and most distantly German. North Gmc (aka Scandinavian) shares more traits in common with WGmc, specifically Anglo-Fris, than with Gothic. You can read about it in "Old English and its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages" by Orrin W. Robinson, among many others. There's even a chart of traits. For example, in N & W Gmc *z > r (rhotacism), but not in Gothic; both have ā merged with ǣ, Gothic does not; both have i/j-umlaut, Gothic does not; both use ē/ō ablaut in class VII verbs where Gothic uses reduplication; Gothic has a dual and passive verbal inflection, the others don't; both use compound tenses to mark aspect, Gothic uses a system with the particle ga-; etc. Orrin even states: "[...] it is clear that the characteristics shared by North and West Germanic range widely in both phonology and grammar, affect a very large part of the lexicon, and attest to a long period of contact between speakers of the languages involved." You're the only one who contests this.
These are similarities between North and West Gmc, not evidence of closer kinship. They're wholly parallel developments or or results of areal diffusion, not indications of a shared, common node, exclusive of East Gmc (specifics regarding rhoticcism and i/j mutation greatly differ). Also, who's to say that Gothic, in time, might not also have participated in i/j mutation. I/j mutation was a rather late and scattered development in N and W Gmc. Compound verbal tenses too. At the time when Gothic was penned down, these features didn't fully exist in the other languages or were in process of being worked out. Such considerations are noteworthy, but trivial imho. As touching use of Gothic as a Modern English cognate, I agree that it is valid, especially when there are no other Gmc cognates available (as in the case of between), or when the Gothic form demonstrates a bridge between Gmc forms and other PIE forms, like those seen in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, etc. <<You should perhaps review some litterature on the subject. I hope this is the end of this nonsense.>> --In my opinion, comments like these are unacceptable. Leasnam 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Generally, I wouldn't care which Slavic cognate is listed, as long as there's just one, but changing Czech to Russian is particularly pointless since Russian here (el') is somewhat less immediately identifiable as related the PIE root than Czech, which has maintained the -d- phoneme, making it a clearer form for comparison.
My comment about relatedness referred to the fact that German is less related to English than certain other Gmc languages, and Czech is more "visually" related (by retaining the -d-) to the PIE root than Russian. Perhaps "relevancy" would be a better word. Shall we go another round? You seem inexhaustibly contrarian. Flibjib8 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Your endeavour to substantiate that claim about the close relationship of W and N Germanic languages is not convincing. Au contraire, there are innumerable examples which corroborate the fact that North and East Germanic languages are very close and are opposed to West Germanic. Here are some of them:
  1. Numerous inchoative verbs end in -na: Gothic gawaknan, Old Norse vakna (as opposed to German wachen)
  2. Absence of gemination before j, compare Gothic 𐌺𐌿𐌽𐌹 (kuni) and Old Norse kyn as opposed to German Kinn (and the OE æquivalent, if any)
  3. dative absolute - at with a particle, which is absent in West Germanic languages.
  4. What do you mean by Gothic has a passive verbal inflection; the others don't? Danish, Swedish and Old Norse also have synthetic mediopassive, which is absent in West Germanic languages, cf. Gothic baírada and Danish bæres with German wird getragen and English is borne.
As you are already a steady contributor here, do you mind putting one {{Babel}} template on your user page. I am particularly interested whether you have any knowledge in whichever North Germanic language, especially after your far-fetched claim that they do not have passive verbal inflection. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I do NOT want to open this up to babel. I already don't want to have this conversation, with you or anyone else, and the prospect of talking with other obsessives like yourself is unappealing.
You're arguing my point for me; you see, if NGmc and Goth are closer to each other as you say, then that means WGmc is more distant from both, which means that Goth has no place in a comparison with English. Thank you.
Unfortunately, of course, you're completely wrong here. NGmc and WGmc are usually spoken of as a Northwest Germanic subgroup, and most current scholars attest to that fact:
  • Fortson, "IE Lang & Culture: An Intro" - "Today, the prevailing view is that North and West Germanic formed a subgroup, often called Northwest Germanic." (p. 301)
  • Wayne Harbert, "The Germanic Languages" - "[...] very widely accepted hypothesis is that GMC first split into a Northwest GMC branch and an East GMC branch [...]." (p. 7)
Now, if you want to go against the overwhelming majority of scholars and disprove the Northwest subgroup, you've got your work cut out for you.
As for your paultry list, I'll grant you the dative absolute, gemination, and Versharfung (hardening), but your point about infinitives makes no sense: all Gmc infinitives developed from *-anan, with Goth & WGmc > -an, but ON > -a, so if anything, this is a trait shared by WGmc and Goth. Is that it? You're going to have to do better.
Finally, by my remark about passive inflections I meant that Goth had an INHERITED medio-passive from PIE, whereas the other two have innovated: NGmc has REBUILT a passive from cliticizing sik to the present and WGmc uses auxiliaries. Stop harrassing me about this. Your arguments go nowhere. Flibjib8 11:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Наиболее значителны общие черты, объединяющие готский язык с северной группой германских языков

Most considerable are the common traits which unite the Gothic language with the Northern group of the Germanic languages.
It is from М. М. Гухман, Готский язык, M., 1958
I cannot conceal my astonichment caused by your claim that, arguably, most current trends united East and West Germanic languages. Please, put it this way: Most current trends in countries where West Germanic languages are dominant ... and you will (hopefully) fathom how subjective this is. M. M. Gukhman, on the other hand, is a renowned Russian linguist, has no Germanic background and therefore his judgement concerning the classification of the Gorhic language is to be considered objective and it is obviously favourable to a North-East kinship. Please, refrain from resorting repeatedly (obsessives like yourself) to argumenta ad hominem in order to prove your point. They are not convincing. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 22:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic Forms[edit]

Please read here, as a few changes have been implemented with regards to Proto-Germanic forms. We no longer use non-latin bookstaves (e.g. χ, ʒ, đ, etc) except for þ. Also, please write out cf. as "confer"/"compare", etc. Actually, I believe "compare" is preferred over "confer" here. We try to stray away from the use of abbreviations. Thanks. Leasnam 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove related PGmc terms, as in the case with man. Although removal may be okay here (I am still debating whether to add them back), in most other instances the byforms are used to connect to cognate forms, as in the case with wang, where the Old English and Old Saxon were neuter, but OHG was feminine, and Old Norse was masculine. My practise has been to list the immediate predecessor form first, with the byforms following. I believe this is the purpose for allowing multiple arguments in the Proto-Germanic template to begin with. Thanks. Leasnam 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Listing multiple byforms that do not underly OE forms would be excessive, and MAN and WANG are good examples where listing those byforms is superfluous. They should be considered in a PGmc entry, or entered separately for the etymologies of the reflexes in cognate languages. Also, in cases like WANG, the diversification of gender is almost certainly a later development, as it generally is in parent > daughter lang. evolution, and so presenting multiple protoforms is somewhat anachronistic. While I admit that postulating a single-gender protoform is problematic, esp. for WANG, it's all the more reason to prefer and limit oneself to the underlying form of the language being treated. I realize that sometimes this is impossible, but for MAN in particular, it isn't. Flibjib8 19:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, "excessive" and "superfluous" are matters of opinion. And as you are aware, everyone has a differing opinion; their own preferences too. What is important is that we get along and work together. Question: is there anything inherently wrong with 3 PGmc forms over one, or in having slight superfluity? Personally, I think some of the cognates listed under heron are rather superfluous, most are too distant semantically. I left Cymraeg as it actually means "heron", and English speakers are familiar with the Welsh language and people. Many wouldn't know what Lithuanian, let along what "aorist" are. Same for Avestan in some others I've seen. Does it offend or break a cardinal rule of Etymology? (does any such rule even exist?), or just a personal preference? My point is, why bother to fuss. We all need to use soft skills in dealing with one another. Btw, MAN doesn't need the other forms, so I won't add them back. And it never hurts to discuss an issue openly first, before coming to a decision. People will respect you for it in the end. Leasnam 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
<<They should be considered in a PGmc entry, or entered separately for the etymologies of the reflexes in cognate languages.>> Yes, and yes, but 1). it doesn't hurt to have them here as well; and 2). such entries do not exist, nor might ever exist.
<<Also, in cases like WANG, the diversification of gender is almost certainly a later development, as it generally is in parent > daughter lang. evolution, and so presenting multiple protoforms is somewhat anachronistic.>> I would have to disagree with you here. The Old English and Old Saxon forms were neuter weak stems (n-stems), and in OE wange represents 1 of only 3 neuters of this class. I would hardly think that a realignment to such a vestigial and diminishing class is what occurred. What we could and have done is use the generic stem *wanga-, but this no longer makes sense, since we are linking to actual reconstructed forms. Putting them here allows me to 1). create the page from this entry, and 2). remember that I need to create the page from this entry :p Leasnam 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Dude! Your confusing PIE roots again. PGmc *swīm- comes from the root meaning to sway/swing related to the Welsh chwŷf/chwim (movement). PGmc turns e before a nasal to i to produce *swimmanan. Leasnam 14:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The two are related. Sway/swing/swim are all ultimately from the same root. And the difference between *swEmmanan and *swImmanan is the difference between before and after. In the end, it doesn't make any difference which vowel is represented. Flibjib8 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If it makes no difference, then why did you change it? There was nothing wrong with the way it was. Surely there are other entries in more need of etymological attention than this one. Leasnam 14:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've already changed it back to "swIm-". And I don't choose words based on need. Flibjib8 14:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If the two are related, they are at the PIE level. In PGmc, one is not the derivative of another. "And I don't choose words based on need." No, you mindlessly copy what some other person has worked diligently on, straight out of a book. The info is too scholarly (and quite boring I might add). Leasnam 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Virtually every element of Wiktionary is copied from one source or another; especially the etymologies. I'm sorry if you don't like accuracy. How absurd! And you're certainly one to talk. Mindless I think is when you list older etymons alongside their newer reflexes (e.g., OHG next to G) or rely on extremely outdated material. How have you been any less boring; what are your suggestions for "livening up" etymology? You seem more interested in pettily preserving your format. Flibjib8 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No. I am not kidding. I value accuracy, but you seem to think accuracy is the prime determinent. Accuracy is not a tool to one-up or gain ground over others. This is not the place to flex know-how, or show off how much you know. This is a place where others can come and be helped. Making etymologies look like something out of a Medical journal is not beneficial. Neither is pissing off others who work here. We know that PIE existed. You don't have to prove it over and again with cognates that users cannot possibly relate to. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE. It's interesting to you, we know, and that is okay, but it's about the users. Besides, you're not as accurate as you think. The issue isn't accuracy at all. It's the SPIRIT in which you do things that drives everyone insane. If you would cooperate and quit undoing everyone's work you wouldn't keep hitting this wall. Stop it. Please. Leasnam 16:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
And it's not my format. It's the format the administrators want us to use. If you do not wish to listen to them, and take what they say seriously, then go edit somewhere else. Leasnam 16:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
*First, no one has ever complained about my inclusion of PIE information, except you. I haven't had problems with anyone (except you) in terms of content; virtually every problem I've had until now has been about coding. I think including PIE information is important, for anyone, to see how our language relates to others. And while it may seem like everyone WOULD know about PIE or be aware it existed, I think that most people don't. My listings are admittedly overlong sometimes, but, just as you said above, the PIE pages simply don't exist. Also, sources are highly variable on roots, which is why listing cognates is somewhat important in identifying what actual root is being talked about (e.g. SWIM); this also complicates the matter of adding PIE root entries. If you aren't interested in PIE information, that's a personal choice; however, that information is nonetheless important, and apparently most print dictionaries agree with that. You yourself are guilty of similar excesses, only you focus them on Gmc. Ideally, an entry would just be a brief chain in which every word linked to another entry without the need for listing cognates; but that just isn't possible yet. I'm going to continue adding PIE info.
*As for rules, you'll find there aren't really many here. Although, there is an unofficial styleguide which seems to say nothing about leaving out PIE roots or information, or much on presentation style for that matter. In any case, I do not use this site as a way to show off. No one knows who I am, and my interaction with other people is clearly at a minimum. Who in the world would I be showing off to? Users? A page is just a page from their standpoint, so I wouldn't expect their adulation. My peers? I think this talk page alone is evidence that that's not the case. My interest is in completion, which I assume is also yours when you go overboard with listing Gmc cognates.
*As for my accuracy, I'm not sure to what you're referring, but I'm only as good as my sources and my understanding of historical linguistics. I can provide in most cases citations for whatever you might have a dispute with, so I'm not just pulling the info. from thin air, but either no one quibbles or no one presents concrete proof to really rebut anything. Just think about the way you handled SWIM: I changed swemmanan to swimmanan, but that obviously wasn't your real problem, because you reverted it AGAIN without explanation. I'm open to discussion, but no one else seems to be. I've conceded when it's trivial or I've been wrong, so I'm perfectly open: I don't pretend to be infallible.
*You say I "undo" other people's work, but I don't -- the one thing I never do is "revert"; if content is wrong or incomplete, then I edit it. Can you say the same? Once again, I think this has more to do with you staking a personal claim on the etymologies you contribute and not really being open to them being expanded, reduced, or corrected. Flibjib8 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with your PIE inclusion, nor your content. I must say I am leery about your sole adherence to one or few questionable and radical (or as you like to put it, "up to date") sources, to the exclusion or relegation of all others as inferior (seriously dude, you come across that way). And you do go a bit excessive when there is little semantic relationship--sky is a good example. Greek "eyebrow" has nothing to do with "sky" nor "cloud" nor "cover", even though it's technically related. Why is it there???.
I have an issue with your format. Please use the {{proto}} templates correctly, placing the meanings inside of them. Also, if you don't have the script, just transcribe {{term|||tr=yadayadayada|meaning|lang=}}. This will help a lot for the next person who does have the ability to add the script. We all need to be consistent in our formatting. I too had to change my way of doing things. And I get the clustering of cognates around the proto-languages, but these are hard to read and difficult to follow. I am trying to make it as pleasing to users as possible. Wiktionary is not an Etymological dictionary. It is first and foremost a Dictionary. Etymologies are not required, though they are provided for insight and for interest. Therefore, an Etymology should be pleasing to read, and should make one think "Hmm, that's interesting". Your cluster format--yeah, no one else really does that. It's like a disruption to the flow. Can you conform to how most others do it? Please? And I don't think anyone coming here cares about PIE. Honestly. They just want to know what a word means. Leasnam 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm sure there are plenty of things a casual user doesn't care about, obviously, but cutting an etymology off before PIE doesn't make any real sense. Once again, most print dics. keep PIE info, and they have space constraints, so I'm just don't see any reason to stop. Clearly, etymologies may be the least interesting thing to a reader, but if you're going to put it up, it should be complete, esp. for the miniscule number of people who are interested. And please, Wikt. isn't about putting up the bare minimum; the translations and etymology sections are proof of that; and I know you're just as into the etymologies as I am.
I completely disagree on formatting. Your way of doing things bunches things together at the end that don't really go together, and at times it's completely confusing. I'll agree that reducing the number of PIE comparandae is doable, but you STILL keep doing the same thing with Gmc (e.g. QUACK, etc.), so you don't even practice what you preach. Sorry, I just don't buy it. As for my sources, I'm sorry, but I think you rely way to heavily on very old material. That just doesn't make sense in any kind of research. If you've got some suggested readings that aren't 30 yrs old or more, or something more orthodox, I'd like to hear about them. Finally, as for formatting, I've been through this with several editors, and gone through a number of bans, but I'm just not willing to add glosses into the code. It's so attrocious; if anything ruins the flow, it's the fact that every gloss appears quoted and in parentheses. The default format should be changed; you'd be hard pressed to find something in print that uses double punctuation like that. Flibjib8 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
"Finally, as for formatting, I've been through this with several editors, and gone through a number of bans, but I'm just not willing to add glosses into the code." --This is why you've been blocked in the past. And this is why you'll continue to be blocked. Leasnam 15:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

stop adding hypotheticals[edit]

Does the pot calling the kettle black mean anything to you? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's one thing to add protoforms that are witnessed by actual forms; it's quite another to fabricate several stages between a protoform and an actual attested form. There's no call for addding them, especially since they're virtually identical to the OE forms underlying "quake". At least I'm not pulling PIE reconstructions from thin air. Flibjib8 23:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
cwacian would be identical, yes, but that means nothing. it would be a homonym to the ancestor of 'quake'. this is not uncommon. obviously, if you are deriving a ME form from PGmc, then an intermediary form must have existed. We use hypotheticals all the time, for Vulgar Latin, PGmc, PIE. Leasnam 23:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but in those cases there are attested forms to back them up; that's not possible in this case. And you'll notice quake and the earlier form queck are not homonyms, so the forms underlying them cannot be identical, which makes your reconstruction inaccurate. That's precisely why you shouldn't be adding unattested forms between an attested form and a protoform, which is itself hypothetical. Plus, unless you can cite the reconstructions, you're essentially relying on your own suppositions, which the wikis take a dim view of. Flibjib8 00:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
See, there you go again. "which makes your reconstruction inaccurate". --this is what I mean by authoritarian. First, it's not *my* form, it's the one from Century dictionary (like yours matching that in Webster's). Century makes no mention of "queck" at all. It says "From ME queken, *quakken = MDu quacken, queken = <yada, yada, yada>. Regardless of when this dictionary was published, no new revelations regarding this word have come please do not bring up that it's old. Certain things are *done* (and this is probably one of them). Based on those TWO forms, the reconstruction would be accurate. No OE scholar would object to those forms. They are wholly plausible. But right now, I am searching for attestation of ME queken. What OED holds is contrary to both. Leasnam 00:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll save you the trouble: queken is in Webster's. Look, the fact that Century is old is precisely why you made this error. And why in the world do you keep relying on such out-of-date material? It's just so odd? You think I'm being authoritarian just because I point out where you're making mistakes. You won't find a single modern dictionary that makes the same conjecture, probably because they realized it'd be a homograph. And there have been MAJOR changes in word etymologies since then, not necessarily with quack though. It's like reading physics books from 100 years ago and assuming nothing's changed. Flibjib8 00:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
"I'll save you the trouble: queken is in Webster's. Look, the fact that Century is old is precisely why you made this error."--NO. Once again, you lead with insult. I KNOW it's in Websters. You don't have to save me anything. And I did not make an error. You want to point out a MISTAKE? A MISTAKE is when YOU linked PGmc *kwakojanan to PIE *kwak-, which cannot possibly happen due to Grimms. And I saw you catch it and change it. You're flying by the seat of your pants! ANd you want to make ME feel like I should do penance???Leasnam 01:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Reread your previous message. You said that you were searching for an attestation of ME queken, so I told you it came from Webster's. If you took offense to that, then it's because you're not keeping track of what you're writing. As for the kwakojanan, I was writing two entries at once, and accidently put it in the wrong one. That isn't at all the same kind of error you keep making. Flibjib8 13:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You're not the expert you need everyone to think you are ;) Leasnam 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not relying on "out-of-date" material. I use ALL material, old AND new, and I've seen the good AND the bad. I sort through it all, digest it, think on it again, chew it some more, compare it some more, THEN spit out an etymology. That's called KNOWLEDGE. I've been exposed to these sources for many, many decades now...Leasnam 01:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't use all material; that much is certain by what you choose to put in your etymologies. Your sifting is limited to pre-1950. I suspect you rely on a combination of out-of-date print material and information on the internet, which limits the information you're exposed to to outdated hypotheses and incomplete scholarship. That's a far cry from knowledge. A great example is DRAPE or PARK, where you have relied on Skeat's speculations, but that have been abandonned by not only English-language dics/etym dics, but also French, German, and Dutch dics. How in the world are you sifting here? Flibjib8 13:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


"removed gombh- verb root; if added, it should come at the end" --where do you come up with such authroitarian types of notions? gombh is the lemma form of the PIE root, and belongs as an argument in the proto template. An additional one at the end is not required. Leasnam 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you asked that question shows that you may be knowledgeable in PGmc, but you have a very shaky understanding of historical linguistics. COMB comes from a noun which means 'tooth/peg' and all the comparandae listed are nouns. Aside from Sanskrit, no other language has an attested verb form that corresponds to the root, which means it's already somewhat shaky to reconstruct a verb, but if you did, clearly that would be a step backward, e.g., comb < camb < kambaz < gombhos (noun) < gombh (verb). It's derivation; you can't just bunch things up together. And really, you're going to call me authoritarian? You're literally editing me faster than I can save an entry. That's insane. Flibjib8 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
"The fact that you asked that question shows that you may be knowledgeable in PGmc, but you have a very shaky understanding of historical linguistics." --NO. What we have here is a misunderstanding between what you meant and what I understood. The gombh- form did come after gombhos. It was the second argument (to me, that's after in order of derivation as well). Do you mean that I might have specified it this way: *gombhos, from PIE *gombh- "to <blah>, <blah>, <blah>"? --Yeah, I could have done it that way, but that could be thought of as a waste of space. But I see no problem in doing it the other way, but note, I have done amny already as I have described, where the full form and the lemma share the same proto-template...Leasnam 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Just because you've coded one after the other in the same template doesn't make it passable. If you look at the way it displays, it looks like you're implying two reconstructed forms with no real discernable difference between the two, and there's no way to understand (unless you're already in the know), that one comes from another. The way you scramble elements doesn't save space so much as it really obscures how things are related. It's like saying: "redundant, from Latin redundans redundare unda." It's just a nonsensical jumble. Flibjib8 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be like saying Latin redundant-, redundans ("redundant"), and it makes perfect sense. I have no problem with the way you describe. But at the point of PIE, I don't think it's necessary to show PIE derivatives unless there is a major change in the form. Even base lemmas can take a host of different forma and variations, and we group these do we not? Leasnam 00:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You've just contradicted yourself. If you "don't think it's necessry to show PIE deriv.s, etc.", then why you do you keep insisting on it? You just want it your way. And this isn't about how lemma can take on different forms; this is about the fact that assuming there's a verb is shaky territory, not to mention wholly unnecessary to point out. I mean, aren't you the one trying to get me to be more concise, and here you are trying to find any excuse to expand the derivational chain more. Flibjib8 00:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You need to quit worrying about me, and focus on getting your format right. I've been cleaning up your mess all day. I won't keep doing it. Leasnam 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You're the one who keeps coming after me, not the other way around. And you're not cleaning anything up; you're completely twisting a lot of etymologies so that they reflect Skeat's or Century's or some old nonsense. As for my format, it's just fine. Flibjib8 13:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Germanic descendants[edit]

When you add descendants, could you please add links to them like the other languages have? You can link to Low German words with {{l|nds|(word here)}}. And try not to remove any information, I've had to restore several Old Dutch ancestors since you replaced them with a Middle Dutch one altogether. Thanks. —CodeCat 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with nds - Niedersaksisch (Low Saxon) - is that it refers to a dialect group, not the whole language. Otherwise, I add and have added links when the proper templates exist. I removed the Old Dutch forms because they're unattested; I'm not sure you should be opening up the descendants list to hypothetical forms; some of them were wrong - like ODu *oi for Du ooi 'ewe'; the obvious reconstruction would be *owi. And that's a perfect example of why speculative reconstructions don't really belong. Presumably, then, a person could do the same for any language, and there are some exuberant contributors who would love nothing more than to do just that. Flibjib8 00:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That's beside the point. You've been removing a lot of information that is correct and you've also added incorrect information. For example on Template:termx you added dæl as a descendant, but it can't be a descendant because of how OE developed. It is a descendant of Template:termx. You also changed the Dutch descendant of Template:termx to heer when it should be heir like it originally said. I really get the feeling you're not doing your research properly and are just making changes based on your general intuition rather than actual historical facts. —CodeCat 12:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not at all beside the point. Anyway, I admittedly screwed up dailiz/dailan, but that's because I didn't notice there were 2 entries, and, frankly, they were already screwed up: a number of cognates had already been mistakenly listed for both. As for heer, the modern Dutch spelling IS heer, not heir; look it up in a Dutch dictionary. I'd say you need to do your own research. Flibjib8 19:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
There's actually 3 (the other is Template:termx).
"already screwed up"? What was the problem with the cognates? (or do you mean descendants?). Please, enlighten us. Btw, regarding User:CodeCat's need for research, he is Dutch. And it's heir = army; heer = lord/master/host(archaic). This is the second time I've seen you make the embarrassing mistake of trying to educate a native speaker on their own language. Leasnam 08:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I meant that some of the same descendants (which are also cognates at the same time) have been listed twice under one entry and again under another (OS/OHG/G), so I'm apparently not the first person to make this mistake. I don't know how much clearer to make that. As for heer, it would appear heir is the more recent spelling. My mistake. I didn't know CodeCat was a native Dutch-spkr, a fact which should have been mentioned, and so this might have given an unintended arrogant feel to my reply. And I would apologize to CodeCat, if perhpas he was the one talking to me. And this is the 1st time, not the 2nd. Flibjib8 18:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Old Low Franconian[edit]

You are correct to distinguish Old Low Frankish from Old Frankish of the High variety, however, using text or wikipedia-directed 'Old Low Franconian' does not group the terms. It is essentially the same as Old Dutch, however, I realise you prefer not to use that nomenclature (?). Have you considered creating a template then for (Old) Low Frankish (the immediate predecessor of Old Dutch)? I think such would be useful, as this can be distinguished from Old Dutch (reducing redundancy), plus it adds a greater level of detail. Leasnam 19:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For the time being, I have been replaing it with Low Frankish, as for all intents here, Frankish is Frankish--i.e. an obscure ancient Germanic language spoken in what is now modern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Leasnam 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It hadn't occurred to me that it was possible. I'd like to, and do the same for Low German. What I will say for terminology is that 'Old Dutch' and 'Old Low Franconian' are the same thing, except that 'ODu' is used by Dutch/Germ-spkrs whereas 'OLFrc' is used by Eng-spkrs, which is why I hate to see 'Old Dutch'. Plus, apparently, in the past 'ODu' was commonly used to refer to 'Middle Dutch', which just confuses things more. In any case, I've used OLFrc just recently for actual attested forms on the Gmc appendix pages; there's no sense in listing unattested forms, which is what the label ODu was being used for, and is commonly used for in Dutch litterature. 'Frankish', I think, should be avoided: there's no need to posit something before OLFrc and give it its own name. So I'm on board for reducing redundancy. Flibjib8 00:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
When a template, or a close approximate, already exists, we should use it. Frankish and Old Dutch already exist, and several category pages are already up and running off them. I would advise against recreating the wheel at this point for such a small matter. English speaker can get used to the new nomenclature. Leasnam 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If this is an Eng-lang dic, then it makes sense to use established terminology set my Eng-spkrs. I will continue to use "OLFrc" as a label, though I may code using the "odt" template. Flibjib8 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I am an English speaker, and a native English speaker. I have no qualms regarding Old Dutch over Old Low Franconian, and both mean exactly the same thing to me. Old Dutch makes more sense, since it is analogous to Old-Middle-Modern English/Old-Middle-Modern French/etc.. Today's English users can adapt. As far as the label, the label is what matters, not the language code in the term template. That affects only the linking. If you continue to use OLFrc as a header, I will continue to revert it. Leasnam 07:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that's established (even though I asked you in the prev. post). But really, if they're the same, there's no basis for you to revert me. Don't you see how you're imposing a behavior on me where there is absolutely no call - or guideline or rule - to do so and that you're out of line? If they mean the same thing, and if we agree both terms are used, and that it's the label - not the code - that matters, then why are you trying to force your way? What's funny is that you almost had me rethinking my position until you got heavy-handed. Flibjib8 17:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
They mean the same thing, but Old Dutch functions as a categorising agent; w:Old Low Franconian does not. What is the difficulty in you understanding this? Leasnam 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand and have understood that, but that's not a basis for using a certain term, if others exist, and arguably, it's not necessarily right. I have never had a problem with coding etymons under odt, but I'm not particularly interested in having Old Dutch show up as a label, i.e., using etyl|odt. What I find remarkable is that you opened this thread with questions, but seem to have never intended for any of this to be open to debate. Flibjib8 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if you're going to edit over me, don't use "Low Frankish", since that means modern Low Franconian, aka Dutch. The Old is crucial.


Old English *wyhtel never existed, so far as we know. It is a hypothetical form mistaken for real by later dictionaries. I'll grant you though, you copied it accurately! :p Leasnam 19:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So it would appear. What a strange mistake. Anyway, next time, try to be a little less of a smart aleck; people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Flibjib8 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not strange. It's typical of what you've been doing for a very long time.
"Anyway, next time, try to be a little less of a smart aleck; people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"-- To quote a third party observer: "Does the pot calling the kettle black mean anything to you?"
I don't have time for silly games. No one has ever taken issue with my work here. You, on the other hand, cannot make such a statement. Leasnam 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't have time for games, but you sure play them. Are you a native speaker of English? Sometimes you read my messages and respond with just shocking anger: I was referring to the history of how "wyhtel" came into being, not my own mistake. And the 3rd party was wrong himself - poor choice of quotes on your part. I haven't made a mistake like wyhtel, and in this case, it's purely the fault of dics. If you had any manners, you would have made me aware of your edit without making a snide remark. Anyway, what I said certainly applies: you've made a number of errors yourself - you've managed to screw up quake, drape, park/paddock, lead, and so on. It would seem your knowledge pretty much ends at PGmc. If no one else has called you on your nonsense it's because not many others could. Flibjib8 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
"You don't have time for games, but you sure play them."--Wrong. You made an ad hominem attack because you were called out. I know I make mistakes. I make them all the time. That's not the problem. But you said your sources are more correct because they are newer (which isn't the case). You're missing the gem in the rock. You're not qualified to be doing what you're doing. But you act as though you are...Since you're obviously not, humble yourself and be willing to learn.
I have manners, but you warranted a rebuke. Your tone in earlier posts was arrogant and smug.
drape is not perfect--it never was, nor will it be in your hands (honestly, you do not know what is right and wrong). The difference is not the material, or errors. It's your treatment of others, and your self-righteous, cavalier "my way or the highway" attitude--your apparent belief that you are correct and others are summarily wrong. You behave as if you are here to fix us, to fix our errors. Who the hell mandated you? And don't say that's what the purpose of editing is. Because it's not what you're doing so much as how you're going about it. Perhaps you just do not have social skills. I also do not comprehend your seeming contempt of Wiktionary. Where is the comparable language site that you've created? Leasnam 07:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
* You say you have manners, but just read your last post. You even opened this thread with a snide remark. You acted first with impoliteness. Just what was it that warranted a rebuke, given the fact you spoke first? And this, if you read your most recent threads, is part of a pattern on your part. If I respond with any kind of disfavorable tone, it's because you put me immediately on the defensive: I'm not just going to stand for the way you talk to me. I don't know what happened between earlier this year and recently, but YOUR, not my, tone has completely changed. Your impression of smugness is, I think, the primary motivator for most of your actions toward me. I do not have a "my way or the highway" attitude; but I don't just adopt bad practices blindly. The only thing I've remained stubborn about is not coding glosses into templates, and I've explained why, and my reasons are reasonable. Throughout our discussions, you have repeatedly sidestepped most of the essential points I've brought up in response to your opening posts and have fallen back time and time again on my supposed smugness. That isn't going to cut it. This post is a great example of how you couldn't let well enough alone by just telling me that "wyhtel" doesn't exist, and instead have turned the discussion (which really didn't need to be discussed) into an argument.
* I don't have contempt for Wiktionary; but I don't care much for some of the administrators and contributors. For instance, I don't understand why people revert rather than edit. If there's a mistake, a person whould edit it out. For example, my first block came about because I miscoded something, and the admin. handled the situation by reverting my edits without explanation. Then, when I restored my edits, I was blocked, but the admin. didn't seem to understand the problem was miscoding. It took another admin. to explain what happened. And certain contributors are overzealous; they would gladly turn the etymology section into a laundary list of cognates, which conflicts with what I've been told about being concise. Recently, I clashed with a contributor, who relentlessly harrassed me by trying to (poorly) convince me that EGmc and WGmc are more related, just so he could list Gothic cognates in etymology sections: that's pretty irresponsible. In other words, it's chaotic here, and I think words like "editing" and "editor" are thrown around without any real meaning.
* Now, if you want to talk about qualifications, reliance on outdated material IS a serious problem, especially since earlier etym. material was so open to speculation. Drape/drab, and other similar etymologies, are not slightly mistaken, they are completely fouled up. For exmaple, drape, leaving aside its immediate origin, is ultimately from PIE *drap/drop- (cf. Av drafša 'banner', Skt drāpĭḥ 'mantle', drapsáh 'banner', Lith drãpanos (pl) 'linens', Gk drepein 'to pluck', Serb drápati 'to scratch, scrape'). Now, given your knowledge of PGmc, do you think it's possible for a PIE d and p to be inherited as is by PGmc? Obviously not. Not surprisingly, the inherited reflexes are in fact MHG trabe 'fringe', ON trof 'fringe'. Then there's the fact that *drappo (or some similar form) appears in personal names in Gaulish territory (- Webster's 3rd New Int'l), and that the earliest attestations of the word are in Oribasius (5th c.) (Dubois/Mitterand/Dauzat) and the Vita Caesaris Arelatis (6th c.) (Sauvignac), and the fact the word does not occur in Gmc, which all argue against Gmc. You once offered up deferred stress (!) as an explanation, but, clearly, in a word composed of a root syllable and an inflexion, there is nowhere for an accent to defer from or to, even in compounding, for which, also, there is no evidence. In this single instance, you've shown an ignorance or disregard for the prevailing view on the etym. of this word, an inability to recognize or use some basic historical phonetic principles, and a failure to exploit sources. Now, if that sounds smug, just keep in mind it's in RESPONSE to your above reply which isn't exactly dispassionate. Flibjib8 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

drape (reprise)[edit]

Now, if you want to talk about qualifications, reliance on outdated material IS a serious problem, especially since earlier etym. material was so open to speculation. Drape/drab, and other similar etymologies, are not slightly mistaken, they are completely fouled up. For exmaple, drape, leaving aside its immediate origin, is ultimately from PIE *drap/drop- (cf. Av drafša 'banner', Skt drāpĭḥ 'mantle', drapsáh 'banner', Lith drãpanos (pl) 'linens', Gk drepein 'to pluck', Serb drápati 'to scratch, scrape'). Now, given your knowledge of PGmc, do you think it's possible for a PIE d and p to be inherited as is by PGmc? Obviously not. Not surprisingly, the inherited reflexes are in fact MHG trabe 'fringe', ON trof 'fringe'. Then there's the fact that *drappo (or some similar form) appears in personal names in Gaulish territory (- Webster's 3rd New Int'l), and that the earliest attestations of the word are in Oribasius (5th c.) (Dubois/Mitterand/Dauzat) and the Vita Caesaris Arelatis (6th c.) (Sauvignac), and the fact the word does not occur in Gmc, which all argue against Gmc. You once offered up deferred stress (!) as an explanation, but, clearly, in a word composed of a root syllable and an inflexion, there is nowhere for an accent to defer from or to, even in compounding, for which, also, there is no evidence. In this single instance, you've shown an ignorance or disregard for the prevailing view on the etym. of this word, an inability to recognize or use some basic historical phonetic principles, and a failure to exploit sources. Now, if that sounds smug, just keep in mind it's in RESPONSE to your above reply which isn't exactly dispassionate. Flibjib8 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

<<For exmaple, drape, leaving aside its immediate origin, is ultimately from PIE *drap/drop->> --This connection, despite the similarity of the forms, is not proven, and does not in reality appear plausible. You are starting from a conclusion (i.e. that they are linked) and trying to backtrack from there. That is not science. That is the opposite of science. Granted, I understand and realise the coincidental similarity, but we cannot postulate based on this alone. We must take the earliest sure attestation of the word and work backward from there.
Now, my original assumption was that it was a byform of the Gmc trab-/trap-. That is most likely incorrect. After researching a bit more, the Gmc link is not a word derived from PIE *drap- "a rag", but *dhrebh- (to beat, make thick), through WGmc *drepana/drap/drāp- "to beat, strike" in the sense of "that which has been beaten or fulled". What we are sure is that the word comes into romance from Gmc. That much is clear. The other cites you give are nowhere close to conclusive, but are at best "hopeful". If Celtic *drappo existed in the sense of "cloth, kerchief", which is an otherwise mundane and common article, then we would have more record of it than a first time mention by a German in Germany in the late Middle Ages. I cannot find any attestation of this word in Celtic at all, not in any insular languages, where it is not borrowed. I refer to your own statement above about not adding hypotheticals that are not backed up by attested forms. Also, were it from Celtic/Gaulish, the form might certainly be different due to regular sound changes in Gallo-Romance: we might rather have French *dreve/*dref for this instead of drap- (as certainly MLat would have picked it up from Celtic thru Old French). Too many holes in this theory. The correct origin is not a word meaning "a piece of cloth, a napkin", but "cloth (the material), beaten and fulled until heavy and thick", a sense which survives in our word "drape" (curtain) and "drabcloth" and in the Old French verb draper "to full cloth". No one would confuse a drape (heavy curtain) for a handkerchief (the article). The attempt by some (I do not specifically mean you here) who take an elemental, one dimensional, simplistic approach by saying: "Oh, it looks like PIE *drap- therefore it must be *drap-, therefore we must find a way to connect it to *drap-" is simply not going to cut it.
I admit, the coincidence is striking, and I understand this might otherwise be a good example to demonstrate a case for PIE, but not this word. This case is flawed. Leasnam 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you've confused me with yourself.
Uh,, I didn't. Leasnam 09:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • First, you keep dismissing the attestations I've given you, but you have no basis for doing so. The Oribasius reference is also mentioned in von Wartburg (1934). I don't know what your problem is, whether it's that you don't have the 2ndary sources in hand or the primary, but either way just because you can't get ahold of them doesn't invalidate those sources and is frankly not my problem. Try your local college library. Sooner or later you're going to have to face up to the fact that the word's earliest attestation pre-dates the Gmc invasion and occurs in a Romance-spking area. Your obstinence here is not objective.
  • Second, you've gotten the semantic and phonetic devlopment internal to French wrong.
    • To begin with, dráp•pu(s/m), after the inflexion dropped off, resulted in a monosyllabic word with stressed -á- and /p/ word-final. P in this position didn't voice or otherwise change until dropped ca. 13th cent. (cf. loup [lu] 'he-wolf' (lupus) vs. louve [luv] 'she-wolf' (lupa)). The a, in a stressed closed syllable, also did not change (cf. arbre, chant, part). Even had the word been feminine the geminate -pp- would simply become -p- (cf. nappe [nap] 'talbecloth', sape [sap] 'spade'). The ethnic origin of the word would have no effect here, assuming the word entered the lexicon prior to the 6th cent. or so. The geminate had to be present for correct syllabication for the outcome [drap], otherwise the word may have turned out like Fr chef 'crown of the head' < ca•pu(m) (notice the Ital. reflexes preserve the distinction: capo vs. drappo).
Right. There was also drapus/drapum > *dref. Leasnam 09:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As for the sense development, the meaning of drappus in LL is 'cloth, piece of cloth', which was retained as 'piece of cloth, rag' in Sp/Pg, and in It it's 'broadcloth', but Fr/Cat/Occ retain the most meanings with 'piece of cloth; heavy (animal fiber) cloth' as opposed to toile/tela 'plant fiber (ie. linen/hemp/cotton) cloth' and It panno/Sp paño 'woolen cloth'; in other words, the word originally referred to a type of heavy cloth, and there is no one word in Rom. langs. for 'cloth'. That's important because creating a word from 'fulling; to full' for something that is fulled along with other similar things doesn't make any sense. The loan is hardly surprising considering the other Gaulish clothing/fabric loans and their renown for woolen textiles. The verb draper, of course, is a derivative of the noun and in OFr had the meaning of 'to make "drap" cloth generally', not 'to full', even though fulling is part of the overall process.
  • Finally, trying to attach drappus to Gmc leads nowhere. While the basic shape drVp seems to match the PIE root *dreb 'tremble, shake', if you assume it's from Gmc (isn't this you backtracking?), the fact is that Gmc only has *drepan 'to strike, slam' (cf. OHG treffan, G treffen, MLG/MDu drēpen, OS (obar)drepan, OE drepan, ON drepa) and could not with its -e- and simplex -p- have leant drappus to Romance. It is inconceivable that Romance - not just French - would have borrowed the word and changed the vowel and geminated the -p-. Semantically, the Gmc meanings have evolved into taking, snatching, grabbing, deathblows, fighting, ie. hand-oriented actions. Fulling is traditionally a trampling process, hence Du/G walken, or Fr fouler 'to full; stomp (grapes)', and there is no instance of Gmc reflexes of this word being used to refer to 'fulling' or 'trampling'. So not only is there no Gmc reflex with the same exact shape, but there's none with a similar meaning, and innovating BOTH phonetically and semantically just doesn't happen in direct borrowing situations. Finally, the word's presence in places where only Gaulish or Celtic was spoken (Pg/Sp - Cat/Occ/Fr/Fr-Prov - Rhaet - NItal) - which was more extensive than any one Gmc lang. - with all the same form and varied meanings along the lines of "piece of cloth; type of cloth", argue against a Gmc borrowing. For Pg/Sp specifically, the development strike > full > cloth > shred/rag by Proto-Romance is implausible in such a short time span. Flibjib8 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You're mistaken here, the ablaut sequence of WGmc drepana is drap/drāp in the past tense, from which a verbal noun would have been created. So this is not a problem. As far as using other Gmc words for "full", that also does not matter, as Romance usually takes the odd Gmc word and reconstructs anew based on its own system, compare the word blancus ("white"), which doesn't resemble other Gmc words for "white" (weiss, wit, white), but it is Gmc nonetheless. Also abandoner, which doesn't look like verlassen/verlaten/etc. Catalan is outside of the Celtic range. The development of strike>full>flannel>cloth>rag/flag is plausible given the timeframe. All of those languages you list derive their words from LL drapus, not from individual borrowing from substratal Celtic languages. Leasnam 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And yet the actual nouns that are attested are MDu drepe & OE drepe 'blow, hit'. If a word was constructed from the past, that would be internal to Gmc - Rom. spkrs would not innovate a word in this way (esp. one involving ablaut!) on their own initiative - that doesn't happen. And I'm afraid the sense development is pivotal here. Despite your contention, words are not fabricated like this from foreign material. (And frankly, how is drappus constructed "based on its own system"?) For instance, Romance blanc/o 'white' is from Gmc forms which are attested, e.g. OHG blanch 'bright', OE blanca 'white horse', ON blakkr, etc. and clearly the bright/white meaning is very much present already in Gmc - Rom. has created nothing here. Abandoner is built on a Gmc word at its core, and this is certainly innovation, but the core word itself ban was not innovated in meaning or form; that's not at all the same thing. Catalan is in the Celtic range; basically, Catalan while not currently situated where Celtic ethnic settlement took place, it's sandwiched in between 2 areas that were, and the language, being closest to Occitan, was nonetheless part of a continuum in which Gaulish influence is undeniable in the language. The modern reflexes do all derive from drapPus, but the word was certainly not used everywhere in Latin - it's absent in Romanian, S. Ital., and Sard., which means it was a regional word, limited to formerly Celtic-spking (or influenced) areas. Once again, drappus in its earliest attestation in Latin had the meaning of 'piece of cloth', in other words, based on your theory, the full sense develop. had happened by the beginning of PRom - extreme semantic develop. in that short a time span is NOT possible. Finally, there is no dref: we're talking about drap, a word that had to have come from a geminate. draPus/draPum are later attestations which clearly reflect French phonetic development. This is you backtracking, from the wrong word I might add. You're really reaching here. Flibjib8 18:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
<And yet the actual nouns that are attested are MDu drepe & OE drepe 'blow, hit'.>. Uhh, PGmc forms are: *drapiz, and *drēpiz; Old Frisian has drop; Old Norse has dráp ("slaughter"); Middle Low German drapen ("to strike, manage, work"). This wouldn't be derived in Romance from drepana, but borrowed as a pre-existing derivative from a Gmc language. Tell me this, where is the greater amount of evidence? In the Celtic camp (you use Gaulish, but Gaulish was never in Iberia) or Gmc? There is no solid evidence for a Celtic origin. The majority of scholars and etymologists lean toward the Gmc origin. Period. We should too. Leasnam 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
First, the majority of scholars (Barnhart/Chambers, Onions, LeRobert, Kluge, VanDale, Webster's3rd, von Wartburg, TdLF, Sauvignac, Mallory/Adams, Zingarelli etym., RealAcad., Corominas, etc.) do not lean toward Gmc, and this has been the case for a long time. I couldn't guess what you're reading. Second, the word entered the language where Gaulish was spoken, and Iberia was a majority Celtic-spking country, which probably bolstered the word's use in Iberia (there are a number of words like this). Odd you would raise this point since the exact same problem would apply to a Gmc loan. Third, names of the sort Drappus, Drappès, Drappō are recorded in inscriptions in Gaulish terr., which if nothing else attests to the presence of a word with the same phonetic shape. You've found Gmc reflexes with -a-, bravo, but none of them occur in a language in a direct borrowing situation with Romance (exc. ON), nor do they have geminate -pp-, plus they all mean 'hit, deathblow, etc.'. I'm sorry, but considering there's a PIE root *drep/drop with a meaning of cloth/clothes/linens, which is far more workable than a fanciful strike > full > cloth devlpmnt, and the word is attested with a form that is corroborated through anthroponyms and such, and the word appears first at an early enough date to make a Gmc loan very unlikely, and the fact there is no corresponding word either in shape or in meaning in Gmc despite the fact Gmc langs. are extremely well attested, I'd say there's far more evidence in favor of a Celtic origin. Flibjib8 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Who names their son "Cloth"? Same phonetic shape??? Is that all you've got? This is no good. Pitiful. What do Drappus, Drappès, Drappō mean? And how does a personal name of unknown meaning evidence drapus? Do you think there is the possibility that A Celtic word *drappo existed, but it is wholly not in the direct lineage of drapus? What can you show me that would convince me otherwise? There is more probablility in Gmc *drāpa than this! Leasnam 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, the Gmc word did not solely mean "deathblow", although that is one of the descendant definitions. It also produced words meaning to pluck a harp > psaltry > ballad > poem. It is actually the Low Saxon that gets cited as the primary source, and there is no stretch between "to work, manage, strike" > "to work material, beat, full". Leasnam 23:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering the names Booker, Fuller, Sherman, etc., it really isn't a stretch. I said the names show that a word of the same phonetic shape existed, which does evidence that drapPus is not only phonetically possible in Gaulish, but existed. This is more than you can say for Gmc. To continue to dismiss this isn't scientific. Further, given your knowledge of PGmc, you must know that some words are only attested in personal names in certain langs. I find it hilarious that this is the only thing you can ultimately find fault with. Besides, I've given you plenty of other reasons already why the Gmc word doesn't work at all. In the end, you've offered up a specious Gmc etym., one in which there is no recorded corresponding word or sense devlopment in Gmc to support it (whereas Gaul. attests the word in names) and that is not possible by the 5th cent, esp. for "Low Saxon" (!), and for such a large area. If you're not convinced, that's really not my problem. You continue to recast this as if the weight of evidence is in your favor, but it simply isn't. Pluck > ballad (surely this is by way of derivatives) - yet another sense restricted to hand movement and nowhere close to fulling/cloth/etc. And who cites "Low Saxon"? To repeat, there is no sense in adopting a word based on the notion of fulling (which is not the sense of the Gmc word anyway), considering fulling is common to all types of cloth; it is not a distinctive property. And you can't seem to understand that the sense development you're talking about requires several steps to occur WITHIN Rom., but borrowing doesn't happen like that. I'm sure you'll keep trying. Flibjib8 01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
<< Considering the names Booker, Fuller, Sherman, etc., it really isn't a stretch >> Yes it is ! Those are surnames which developed MUCH later based one's occupation. Are you telling me that the names Drappus, Drappès, Drappō are agent surnames ? Where is the agent suffix ? -ius ? I believe they were forenames.
<< I said the names show that a word of the same phonetic shape existed, which does evidence that drapPus is not only phonetically possible in Gaulish, but existed. This is more than you can say for Gmc >> And the same is not possible in Gmc (i.e. *drappaz) ??? perhaps you forget PGmc *lippōn, *lappōn, *kwappōn, *skuppaz, *huppēn, *knappaz...yeah, that gemminate consonant is conclusively gaulish !
<< In the end, you've offered up a specious Gmc etym., one in which there is no recorded corresponding word or sense devlopment in Gmc to support it >> One could argue that it is the lesser of two evils (i.e. the better of two possibilities). You, on the other hand, can offer up no true sense development, because your word is completely fabricated, made-up based on the hypothetical PIE form!
<< whereas Gaul. attests the word in names >> NO. You cannot tie the two together, because you do not know what the personal names mean. You're just guessing. This is not only sloppy, it's irresponsible.
<< I'm sure you'll keep trying >> I think this time it is you who have me confused with yourself. Leasnam 06:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Basing your objection on a surname/forename difference is nonsensical considering ancient peoples didn't make that kind of distinction. Notice also that in Eng, some of these names have BECOME forenames. It's all completely cultural. A quick perusal of Gaulish names, or Gmc, or of any ancient people, will show that naming conventions varied widely. And why should the word necessarily be formed from an agent suffix? In any case, names (except in Judeo-Christian society), are usually derived from word elements inside the language, so it's not like the names are automatically dissassociable.
You've missed my point here. I'm not saying there are phonetic laws in Gmc that prevent a word of shape drapp to be formed, I'm saying Gmc has not shown any actual word (name, or otherwise) with this phonetic shape (or sense) to have ever existed.
There is no sense development to show here. PIE drap/drop 'cloth, piece of cloth, shred, etc.' > Gaul. drappus 'piece of cloth' > LL 'id.'. This is the lesser of 2 evils precisely because it doesn't require an outrageously contrived sense development. The crux of your proposed devlmnt is unworkable.
Like I said, the meaning may be unknown, but here you have drapp-, which means that a word of identical shape did exist in Gaulish, whereas the same cannot be said for Gmc. And given the word was borrowed in Gaulish terr. with the meaning 'cloth, piece of cloth', which would go straight back to PIE with minimal change, you have more proof here for a Gaul. borrowing.
And no, I definitely had you in mind; the proof is the fact you responded yet again, more determined than ever, but with nothing to say. You're relentless here even though you continue to offer no evidence, and you're not backed by scholarly work. You've misrepresented your position saying that scholarly opinion was majoritarily on your side, and that you're well-versed in the subject, which to judge from this discussion, you are not. In other words, you've argued long (but not hard) for your own research, or for a long-abandoned hypothesis, and ultimately that doesn't belong in an etymology on Wiktionary. Flibjib8 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
<< but with nothing to say >> Strange. You had much nothing to say about my nothing to say.
The name theory should be thrown out. If we do not know, then we need to put we do not know. The name adds no strength to the stance of those who would cite a Celtic origin.
<< You're relentless here even though you continue to offer no evidence >> Then you're either blind, or something's not right in your head. And also, you have done just the same.
<< You've misrepresented your position >> I find this statement very concerning. It is not my position. I fear that you are too personally connected to your etymologies. You are not an etymologist, nor a true linguistic specialist. You're a translator. Leasnam 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, there is always the possibility that we are both correct. This is only speculation, but given the distribution of the name (E France, Luxembourg, Germany and one attest in South East France), it may have been a Celtic loan into Gmc, then into LL. Certainly, the meaning would have been influenced by Gmc *drapiz, as evidenced by the OFr word, but it is too bad that we do not have better record of this. Leasnam 21:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's not your position, who's is it? List some sources for once. It shouldn't be hard if you've got the majority opinion on your side. The name evidence should not be thrown out; it clearly does add to the overall theory for the phonetic reasons I've already explained. As for credentials, I'm as much an etymologist as you are, and until Wik'ry makes it a requirement for it to be my profession, I'm staying put. Finally, a roundabout Celt. loan into Gmc makes no sense at all, esp. since there is no reason whatsoever to assume the word entered into Romance through Gmc. The meaning in particular is clearly not influenced by Gmc. I've been through how neither cloth nor fulling are encoded in the meaning of the Gmc cognates - of any time period - and how instead the word clearly reflects the shape and meaning of PIE *drap, and how the Fr word does not show any sign of phonetic influence from Gmc - in fact, it argues against Gmc. What's more, the attestation locations were all in what was Gaul. terr., not Gmc terr; one in particular, the name Drappès, occurs in 51 B.C. and is a chieftain's name. No, the word and the names were clearly not from or influenced by Gmc, and I'm not mistaken about the fact you've failed to present proof to the contrary. As a final point, there is in fact a Celtic cognate - Welsh drab 'shred, torn-off piece', drabio 'to tear' - where the -b is definitely from -p/pp-. Flibjib8 12:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Flibjib. A consensus here is that etymologies for modern languages should prefer modern to ancient cognates, and immediate to distant ones (something you yourself have argued for further up the page). It is therefore infinitely preferable to have the Germanic cognates which you keep removing, rather than the potential Tocharian cognate which you keep adding (which is better placed at the equivalent Old English page). As a rule, any modern cognates are useful additions, and if someone else has added them you certainly shouldn't remove them. Ancient cognates can be trimmed out for readability or space, though many editors make an exception for Latin. Etymologies for ancient languages are more accommodating, because it's felt that those with an interest in them will inherently have more tolerance for and interest in detailed etymologies.

I look through many, many of your edits, along with those of other unaccredited contributors while patrolling recent changes. Most of them I approve or make only minor changes to, but given some of the conversations above you will forgive me for not bothering to try to talk to you about this first. Since you still ignore formatting conventions which you don't happen to like, despite being asked time and again to follow them, I thought it was a waste of time. Now I am going to revert you on this page again, I hope this explains why. Ƿidsiþ 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. If an entry exists, as one does for the PGmc entry (hawwanan), then there is no need to list Gmc cognates at all because they are already listed on that entry page. There is not, however, an entry page for the PIE root, thus I've listed several forms. Otherwise, I agree with you. As for not trying to talk to me, that's ultimately a mistake and precisely how to get off on the wrong foot with someone. I've made it clear that I'm open to discussion, but if you read some of the above threads more closely, you'll see that most of the people I talked with were not. Believe me, I'm not trying to be malicious or petty. Flibjib8 17:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is no need for them, there is certainly no need to remove them: they are still of interest, and have more relevance than Middle Irish or Tocharian for most users, who may speak another modern language but are unlikely to study an extinct one. I take your point about PIE but the fact remains that if you are just looking for somewhere to infodump cognates, then the OE page is a better choice than the modern English one. Alternatively, ask a PIE editor to create the relevant root page. Hope that makes sense. Ƿidsiþ 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, actually, your opening statement doesn't make any sense. The need to list Gmc cognates at all is only created by the absence of a PGmc list page; however, here there is one. I'm not sure you understand what you're saying. I realize Gmc cognates have more relevance, and I would normally be the first person to advocate listing them (in moderation), but with a click of a mouse a person can go consult a full list. Clearly, it's needlessly redundant to make TWO lists here. Isn't that the point of all the wikifying? I am not advocating removing the Gmc cognates IN FAVOR OF PIE; I'm advocating removing the cognates REGARDLESS OF PIE. You are addressing a completely different issue than what I'm talking about. Take a moment to calmly rethink what you and I are saying. Also, if you're against "infodumping", then take another look at the Gmc cog. list - it's not exactly concise. Flibjib8 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
But the need to list Germanic cognates is not only created by the absence of a PGmc page. The need exists anyway, as a primary function of our etymology sections. Modern cognates are a valid part of any page in and of itself, and belong there, quite irrespective of their existence on any relevant proto page. Ƿidsiþ 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, there we differ. That might make sense if we were talking about conventional print matter; however, the use of wiki-links makes it totally needless to repeat info. Modern cogs. are a valid part of any etymology, but not of ANY page when links can be made. They don't need to be listed by rote everywhere and anywhere possible. The more sensible thing to do is to dump them into one list and link back to them. Why overcomplicate the etym. section by bloating it out with a nearly full listing of all modern cogs? It's overkill; you've got to be more concise, otherwise it looks like ranting. And really, Scots? Is that relevant? And 2 Scandinavian languages, rather than 1? You've got to know where to draw the line between being practical and self-indulgence; I've had trouble with this myself. Frankly, at this point, you're just arguing for license to infodump yourself. Flibjib8 20:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology, formatting[edit]

I have reverted your etymology edit at bacon. You have removed useful glosses that state the meanings of the terms. Also, you have moved "back" outside of the term template to 'back', exactly the opposite of what you should be doing. --Dan Polansky 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The glosses were not useful; they were all repeats, and when words do not change in meaning from one stage to the next, they should not be slavishly glossed - standard dictionary practice. As for 'back', if you look again, you'll see that that element was never in a template. Plus, the prev. version was a disorganized jumble. That's why I've undid your revert. Flibjib8 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see now where 'back' was in a template, but it glossed two different roots at the same time, one of which didn't mean 'back'. What a jumble. Flibjib8 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I diagree with you. I like the glosses. The glosses at different words were worded differently, to say the least. At least two people like the glosses--the person who has added them and me--while one person dislikes them--you. You should stop removing them until you gain support for this practice. --Dan Polansky 14:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Put slightly differently: either demonstrate consensus for your practice or stop. You cannot go ahead as you see fit without consideration for preferences of other editors. --Dan Polansky 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Your problem here is that you are reverting a bad edit, and if you want to re-add the glosses, then that's one thing, but reverting the whole thing won't do. In this specific case, the glosses are incorrect in that they are too broad; bacon meant "bacon, flitch" in all forms up to PGmc, and the "from" between stages rather obviously means the meaning passed from one stage to another. One gloss has "strip of lard", which is clearly a confusion of the Fr word lard 'bacon' for Eng - Eng lard doesn't come in strips. In other words, getting rid of the glosses is due to a number of problems here. Other problems include the running together of discrete cognates like bakko and bakan, rather than explaining that one comes from the other. If you're in favor of explicitness, then you should be for that. Similarly, your favored version returns a jumble of cognates together, some for bakko others for bakan, not to mention the fact that the earlier-listed cognates which were modern were needlessly replaced with older ones. Finally, the editor and you do not make a consensus. You're the one who needs to show that it is general practice to gloss all elements in an etymology, and that really involves going to an administrator. Based on the site's etymology styleguide, you would appear to be wrong. Otherwise, I'm just as free as you are to edit in favor of conciseness. Flibjib8 12:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I see your point: Wiktionary:Etymology does not in any way suggest that it is common to list glosses in etymology. But it is common, as you can see for yourself by looking around the dictionary. Unfortunately, WT:ETY does not really track consensus. For instance, many people seem to prefer the use of "from", while WT:ETY mandates the use of "<". If you doubt that it is fairly common and supported by community for items in etymology list to contain glosses, we may discuss this in Beer parlour and see what the response will be. I accept your point that the removed glosses could have been inaccurate, which would be a fairly good reason for their removal, although replacing them with accurate glosses would be better I think.
In any case, I would like to ask you to place glosses into term template rather than as 'gloss' after the template. If you disagree, we can try to resolve the issue in Beer parlour to see what other editors think.
As regards the ordering of cognates, I have nothing to say for that, and I do not oppose your reordering them. --Dan Polansky 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
<< and when words do not change in meaning from one stage to the next, they should not be slavishly glossed >> This may be true for dictionaries and people familiar with dictionary styles, but not everyone coming here automatically assumes this. It's best therefore to occasionally re-affirm the meanings at various stages so that people are not left wondering. Leasnam 18:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Wiktionary, in case you haven't noticed, is a dictionary, and in the absence of precise guidelines, it makes sense to apply dic. practice, esp. when it's sensible. The use of "from" between stages implies the word - form and meaning - passed from one stage to the next; for a user to not understand that would to be to not understand the word "from". It's pretty intuitive. I'm sorry, but something like E bacon < ME bacoun < ANorm bacun doesn't leave anyone wondering. Flibjib8 12:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of town[edit]

Sorry to have to advise you, but all the dictionary's additions after that of the Hittite form, are completely unrelated, and about the most irrelevant that I have seen in the main entries. However, they are very good up until the Latin and Greek additions that are derived from entirely different roots. Etymology and dictionary comparisons have been a field of interest for one for over 45 years and therefore have formed the basis for the Regulations for editing Etymologies (on my User Page). Andrew H. Gray 18:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Andrew

If I and everyone else adhered rigidly to those guidelines there should be no occasion for any dispute. After the P.G. root and cognates of WHEY, had the rest of the paragraph after "perhaps" been my edit, I should have struck it out as being totally irrelevant. Andrew H. Gray 18:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Andrew talk