User talk:Florian Blaschke

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, 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! -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello! Please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we know what languages we can help in. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


Just because you "Can't see a reason" does not make the work of professional etymologists wrong. The next time you can't see the reason, try asking first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Which Spanish and Portuguese etymological dictionaries have you already tried? Have you looked at the 1856 Diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana, precidido de unos Rudimentos de etimología treatise on Spanish etymology by Pedro Felipe Monlau y Roca? Which Galegan and French etymological dictionaries did you check? Or are you only asking now because you got caught out? You're quick to eliminate information that you "can't see" justification for, without a reference to support you, but won't change your mind without chapter and verse? Did it never occur to you that the inheritted "native" forms are dios, dieu, etc. and that Deus was secondarily borrowed from Ecclesiastical Latin? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop this line of argument. If you think that it's "not my job", then you shouldn't be editing a wiki. EncycloPetey has already gone through more trouble in providing you refs than I would have. In fact, he already listed some of the "native" forms and you apparently failed to understand him. The only thing I appreciate here is that you apparently have ceased to edit war at Deus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Do you have any sources on the origin of the word elephant? Beekes claim that Greek ἐλέφας (eléphas) is Berber-Egyptian compound which sounds stupid. The oldest related attestation is Akkadian 𒄠𒋛 (pīru) (see talkpage). Blažek (see reference) is a well-known long ranger, even though his explanation seems plausible, and the Russian web site, apparently sourcing Militarev & Kogan (not checked in paper edition though), optimistically reconstructs plethora of Proto-Semitic forms, and Orel's work cited at 𓍋𓃀𓅱𓌟 has been criticized for many errors. Something more up-to-date and without agenda is needed. If necessary, we can create an appendix page which would discuss all theories and which individual etymologies could link to. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


I've read it will be online. Do you perhaps know when? :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not right now, but I could ask – or write to Kümmel. With the LIV2, most handy as PDF, and the addenda, however, I don't have a pressing need for it personally, although I'm looking forward to it, too :)
Probably even more important for us, it seems Kroonen's book is finally available! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Which LIV for Proto-Baltic *rad-?[edit]

You added information from the LIV to the etymology section of Latvian rast, plus an argumentation that looks like OR (original research). Nothing against it, but I'd like it to be properly sourced. Could you give me the reference to the version of the LIV that you pulled that particular interpretation from? Is there a reference to your claim that "some remnant of the initial w, even if regularly lost word-initially, should have remained in other (e.g., zero-grade) forms", or should you yourself be credited? (If you don't want to write the necessary footnote, I can do it myself, if you provide the necessary information and references.) --Pereru (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's OR; do with it what you want, I don't care. I think Stang (1966), Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, is the standard reference on Baltic out there, if you need a source for the claim that initial *w definitely does not disappear and stays put before * in Baltic (compare Old Prussian wīrds "word"), if not before consonantal *r also. There are only two editions of the LIV so far (the third edition is apparently going to be published online, see above) and I always use the most recent one.
I just tried to correct the existing account, which could easily contain OR as well (one should need to check the source, but it's difficult to do so for those Wiktionarians – i. e., most of us – who don't read Latvian; reason not to provide refs in exotic languages without relevant literal quote and translation), and "*werdʰ-, *wr-edʰ-, *h₂erHdʰ- ("to grow; high")" is patent nonsense: you can't have a root that capriciously starts either in w or a laryngeal (and may contain a further laryngeal), depending on your mood, or whatever you happen to find convenient. These are clearly two (or more) different roots. ---Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic notation[edit]

Ivan Štambuk and I have had some disagreements in the past over the rules about what notation to use for Proto-Balto-Slavic terms. His point of view seems to be that we can only use words in the exact same notation that is found in sources. His stance is also that we can only copy from sources verbatim, and are not allowed to do any etymological researching of our own, even though there is no policy against original research on Wiktionary (and it's one of the reasons WT:ES is full of such researching). My own stance is that such a practice is unworkable because you get a mishmash of different reconstructions and notations that confuse the user without really adding any benefit. It also goes against our long-standing practice of normalising the notation of other reconstructed languages like Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European. I've invited Ivan to discuss this at Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Balto-Slavic and I would appreciate it if you joined in as well. —CodeCat 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not "notation" it's your original research with which you contaminated a bunch of articles with. There are several mutually conflicting reconstructions of Balto-Slavic, and what you are pushing under the disguise of being a merely a notional convention is in fact a theory synthesized by you and not supported by any other scholar. You even object your original research being tagged as such. Yes it should be a "mishmash" of different theories because there is not a single theory supported by every linguist. People coming to etymologies of Balto-Slavic words want to be presented with credible scholarship not theories fabricated by Wiktionary editors. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
See, this is the kind of disagreement I mean. I look forward to having a proper discussion to sort this out. —CodeCat 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you first undo all of your disputed edits ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually undid your disputed edits. —CodeCat 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
My edits are not disputed. They were backed up by sources. That you personally disagree with respect scholars is yours and only yours problem. You're making original research and selectively ignoring large chunk of scholarship. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your disagreement. Unifying notations is not original research. What Derksen transcribes as *o is the exact same phoneme as what most others notate as *a. Proto-Balto-Slavic had merged earlier *a and *o (apparently after final i was lost after long vowel plus m, ō was shortened before final consonants, for example in the genitive plural – of the thematic stems and probably others – or the thematic first person singular, and stressed syllable-final o became u – see Hill's paper for this). There is absolutely no need to tolerate inconsistencies in notation. WT:AINE-BSL is a good guide.
For example, some sources transcribe the Proto-Germanic phonemes usually notated as /h/, /þ/, /b/, /d/, /g/ respectively as /χ/, /θ/, /ƀ/ or /β/, /đ/ or /ð/, /ǥ/ or /ɣ/ (to say nothing of the notoriously controversial Auslaut). We use Ringe's rather traditional notation, but for example Kroonen's is different. We all know that PIE notations differ from source to source; I'm not sure on what authority our notation is based. If we disallow unification, we could not take reconstructions from sources that transcribe Proto-Germanic differently, or that notate PIE differently, whether with regard to major points such as the presence of laryngeals or trivial differences such as how to notate labialisation, palatalisation or aspiration, or alternatively we would be required to put up with chaos and ugly crowded titles listing every attested notation. That would be patently absurd.
It is a fact of life in historical linguistics, and in fact everywhere in linguistics, that there are almost no universally agreed norms and almost every author follows a slightly different notation, sometimes even more than one during the course of one's work, just like terms and names may differ slightly from author to author, but most differences are transparent and trivial and do not impede communication because linguists are smart, flexible people, not rigidly programmed computers. It is more like different dialects or national written standards.
Wikifundamentalism is uncalled for. The requirement to source our reconstructions does not extend to the precise notation used. Nobody is disputing that we should avoid creating our own reconstructions, but NOR policy (which does not really exist on Wiktionary anyway) does not limit us to slavish copying of our sources. Internal consistency (which is expected and required of any work) trumps faithfulness, because using dozens of slightly (or sometimes even majorly) different notations side by side would be confusing and overwhelming for everyone, as CodeCat has rightly pointed out. A major part of the work of compilation (the primary activity on Wiktionary) is ensuring exactly such consistency. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Derksen follows Kortlandt's theory according to which PBSl. had both *o and *a, and the merger occurred only in post-PBSl. period in individual branches. It's all described in the introduction (which you obviously haven't read :P)
Yes there are no universally agreed norms. Most unfortunately simply follow their own interpretation of a particular theory and simply ignore or everyone else (or disregard as "false"). The point is - PBSl. as a language is too far in the history from attestations, and there is too little evidence (basically only three branches, of which Western Baltic is so poorly attested that it barely constitutes evidence). There will never be universally agreed reconstruction of it. These "trivial" notational differences reflect fundamentally different protolanguage stages and reconstructions. I see favoring *a and glottal stop notation as POV-pushing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
So what, two branches are enough for the comparative method and actually make things easier than having to compare a dozen branches. It's no different than Germanic where we only have West Germanic and North Germanic (which probably even are a single branch, Northwest Germanic) and then East Germanic, which is not attested much better than West Baltic, so if we accept that there are only Northwest Germanic and East Germanic, essentially represented only by Gothic, in fact the situation is, according to your standard, worse! I haven't read Derksen's introduction, no, but I've never claimed or implied I have read his book. :P
We need to decide on some particular interpretation, however. Kortlandt's theory is minority, perhaps not exactly fringe, but not mainstream either. Most researchers agree that the merger was already complete in Proto-Balto-Slavic – even if very recent, as in Hill's implied chronology, which I think is compatible what most researchers believe about Proto-Balto-Slavic anyway. Siding with the predominant opinion in a field is not POV-pushing, pushing a distinct minority opinion like Kortlandt's is. Think of article titles in Wikipedia: There can be only one, so we use what most reliable sources use, if only by a slim majority. We should do the same, go with the majority. We can still list alternative reconstructions in the article itself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No it's not a minority. There are what, 20 people in the world that deal with the reconstruction and history of PBSl. and ~ half of them are Kortlant's followers. The rest is composed of single-researcher theories that can only be gleaned by surveying papers dispersed into various journals over the years. There is no "mainstream". What you (two) are advocating is pure POV-pushing. PS: I am not a follower of Kortlandt, I just uphold the NPOV principle. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If choosing a single internally consistent representation/reconstruction for Proto-Balto-Slavic is POV pushing then yes, I will gladly admit I am a POV pusher. My POV is that being consistent helps Wiktionary more than the mess you're suggesting. —CodeCat 20:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
All of these reconstructions reflect theories that are equally "internally consistent". It's not my problem that those theories are a mess and dumbing them down notionally and paradigmatically (the infinitive ending that I disputed in a discussion as well as the various inflections that you invented by taking advantage of the fact that they are not forbidden) is not going to fix that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

مرسي and ميرسى[edit]


Just letting you know that both spellings are acceptable. مرسي is more standard and strict. Writing out dotless yāʾ instead of is quite common, although confusing, so ميرسى is an alternative form. Egyptian and Sudanese (not only) authors rarely use ي in the final positions, making it harder for non-native speakers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about the final yāʿ, but about the medial one – the alternative form would read mīrsī instead of the intended mersī/mirsī, as in Arabic only long vowels are indicated. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Persönlicher Angriff[edit]

Wäre schön, wenn du auf persönliche Angriffe in Zukunft verzichten könntest. Auf eine kooperative Arbeit. DANKE. --Hirabutor (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mit einer auf Wikipedia geblockten Sockenpuppe? Eines rassistischen, antisemitischen panturkistischen Vandalen, der in seinem Zoo aus Sockenpuppen und Identitäten sogar eine nach mir benennt? Einer türkischen Entsprechung eines Neo-Nazis, der sich explizit als "Arier" definiert? ROTFL. Nö. Du hast ja eine Vollmeise. Geh sterben. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Danke für diese äußerst ehrliche Meinungsäußerung, wenn auch etwas geschmacklos und unkooperativ. Das weiß ich sehr zu schätzen. --Hirabutor (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Aber gerne doch. Mit Spinnern wie dir, die nicht aufhören, Wikimedia-Projekte mit ihrer nationalistischen Propaganda zu verpesten, kann es keine "kooperative Arbeit" geben. Unsere Interessen sind diametral einander entgegengesetzt – du willst die "Urtürken" verherrlichen und zu den "wahren Ariern" erklären; ich will, daß Wikimedia-Projekte wie vorgesehen echte wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse vermitteln und keine pseudowissenschaftlichen Fantasien oder nationalistisches Wunschdenken. Deine Absichten (gingen sie nicht schon aus deiner Aktivität hier sattsam hervor) sind mir wohlbekannt – Du hast sie auf einschlägigen rassistischen Foren explizit geäußert. Verpiß dich aus Wikipedia und Wiktionary, du rassistisches Arschloch! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Abgesehen davon, dass ich mich von deinen ruden Behauptungen weder angesprochen noch eingeschüchtert fühle, muss ich ehrlich zugeben, dass von allen Behauptungen ganz besonders dein Arier-Wahn, der sich ganz klar und deutlich in deiner persönlichen Absicht herauskristalisiert, mich zum Schmunzeln gebracht hat. Gerade du müsstest doch wissen, dass das Konzept der arischen Superrasse Anstoß zum Mythos der invasorischen Streitaxt-Reiter gab, vermengt mit dem arischen Groß-Mythos, Resultat: Pangermanismus -> Nazi Ideologie -> 50 Mio. Tote. Wohl bekomms! Im Gegensatz zu dir bin ich da eher ein Freund des neutralen Standpunktes. Deine daraus resultierende hochgradige Voreingenommenheit gegenüber dir "diametral" befindlicher Literatur und deine fäkale Ausdrucksweise bestätigen nur dein vom Indo-Eurozentrismus (bzw. Pangermanismus) geprägtes Weltbild. Also im Grunde genommen nichts weiter als alteingesessener Kolonial-Rassismus in modernem Gewand, oder politisch korrekt ausgedrückt: "Frie-den" erhaltende Missionen für "Men-schen-rech-te". Daher wundere ich mich über deine "diametrale" Auffassungsgabe kaum. Und Übrigens, auch, wenn ich kein Befürworter der Altaischen Theorie bin, gibt es dank mir nun seit knapp einem Jahr auch Altaische Rekonstruktionen in der Wiktionary. Also, wenn man das nicht Fortschritt nennen darf. --Hirabutor (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Gratulation, du hast die uralte und von dir favorisierte Neonazi- und Hindutva-/Panturkisten-Taktik, kackdreist einfach ihre Gegner als Nazis, Rassisten und "Kolonialisten" zu verunglimpfen (Vorwürfe, die das Verhalten der Gegner natürlich nie auch nur ansatzweise rechtfertigt), schon wieder mal aus der Mottenkiste geholt (aus den einschlägigen neurechten Websites gut vertraut ist der Slogan "Antifaschisten/Gutmenschen/Linksradikale sind die eigentlichen Faschisten", verkürzt zu "Linksfaschisten" etc.); vor allem lustig, wie du und deine Socken und Kumpanen ausgerechnet der erzlinken Gimbutas immer braune Ideologie anzuhängen versuchen (die indogermanischen streitaxtschwingenden Invasoren sind ja ihre Ansicht; nur daß sie sie, was gerne unterschlagen wird, als frauenfeindliche Barbaren und die großen Unterdrücker und "Bösewichter der Vorgeschichte" ansah und nicht etwa als "Zivilisatoren" und "heroische Kulturbringer", wie etwa der reichlich rechtspopulistisch argumentierende Duchesne, der sich aber auf ihre Theorie beruft). Gähn. (Zum Thema Streitaxtkultur/Schnurkeramik eigentlich schon Haak et al. 2015 gelesen?)
Du weißt genauso gut wie ich, daß Germanen, Arier und Indogermanen drei unterschiedliche paar Stiefel sind. Ich habe übrigens auch nie Sympathien für die Kriegsspiele und Einmischungen der US-Hawks in Asien und Lateinamerika bekundet, und der Rest deiner Faselei ergibt noch weniger Sinn (siehe auch Tone argument, Straw man argument etc.). Oder hast du irgendein Problem beim Erkennen von Ironie, wenn ich über "arische Übermenschen" (als Strohmann von Hindutvas und Panturkisten, wohlgemerkt!) spotte?
(Da kann ich Afrozentristen wie dem Typen von noch mehr abgewinnen; der ist wenigstens recht gut informiert und hat ganz interessante Gedanken und Argumente. Witzig, wie er den Standpunkt weißer Rassisten ins Gegenteil verkehrt, daß nämlich nicht "Rassenmischung" zwischen Schwarzen und Weißen dysgenisch sei und Kinder von ausschließlich weißen Eltern das Ideal, sondern genau umgekehrt, was biologisch sogar mehr Sinn ergibt, vgl. heterosis.)
Gratulation für die Bereicherung von Wiktionary mit pseudowissenschaftlichem Schwachsinn. Genau auf diese Art von "Fortschritt" kann und will ich lieber verzichten. Diesen Müll will ich nicht in Wiki-Projekten haben. Und Adjektive schreibt man klein, auch den von dir verehrten altaischen Schrott. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Danke für dein Response. Will erst gar nicht um den heißen Brei reden. Ich machs kurz und knackig... bezüglich "indo-germanisch" und Gimbutas "indo-germanischer" Türken empfehle ich entdoktrinierte Alineische Linguisten-Medizin:

Man kann übrigens nicht Kurgan-nomadisch leben und gleichzeitig Ackerbauer sein. Zudem ist Gimbutas Theorie lediglich eine neue Variante des traditionellen indo-germanischen Szenarios. Sie war schlicht und ergreifend eine baltische Nationalistin. Und nein, ich habe dich nicht als Nazi beschimpft, habe lediglich das Wurzelwuchern des eurozentrischen Denkens und dessen Auswirkungen veranschaulicht, Stichwort: Kolonialismus-Rechtfertigung. Die Betonung liegt hierbei auf -> Rechtfertigung, diese war allemal rassistisch. Und ja, die linksfaschistoide Antifa besteht hauptsächlich aus geschichtsvergessenen Schwachköpfen und wird von der duckmäuserischen Nicht-Regierungsorganisation gegen nach Souveränität strebende Gruppen instrumentalisiert, dasselbe gilt übrigens für rechts-Faschisten. Da muss ich dich enttäuschen, ich stehe nicht auf das "Teile und Herrsche Prinzip".

Haak et al. 2015 habe ich gelesen, bin anschließend lachend in Tränen ausgebrochen. Hallo? R1b und "indo-germanisch"?! Hallo? Agglutination und "indo-germanisch"? Wer's glaubt, wird selig. Gegenfrage: hast du Trofimova et al. 2015 gelesen (auf kyrillisch)?

Und zu guter Letzt: die Taxanomie beweist, Indo-Germanisch hat eine deutlich geringere wissenschaftliche Existenzberechtigung als das ohnehin nicht existenzberechtigte Altaisch, welches in Wirklichkeit den türkischen Spracheinfluss auf benachbarte Gruppen widerspiegelt. Dies scheinst du ja unverhohlen zu leugnen oder was soll "pseudowissenschaftlichem Schwachsinn" bedeuten? Tut beim ersten Lesen weh, entspricht in der Tat den wissenschaftlichen Fakten. Was gedenkst du nun zu tun? Eine Hetzkampagne gegen altaische Rekonstruktionen? --Hirabutor (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Die Hypothese aus dem LIV war in Deinem Beitrag zur Etymologie des Verben rast nicht sehr gut formuliert und paßte also nicht fließend beim Stil des Textes; ich habe ihn also verkürzt und zu einer Fußnote versetzt. Einige Informationen über die Quelle (Ausgabe, Jahr, Seitenummer) müssen noch hinzugefügt werden; anders ist es schwer zu verstehen, was aus dem LIV kommt und was aus dem LEV. Vielleicht besser solche Veränderungen zuerst besprechen (z.B. mit den anderen am Lettischen interessierten Wiktionarians) und erst danach durchführen? --Pereru (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Naja, es ist ja nicht so leicht, Wiktionarians, die an Thema XY interessiert sind, zu finden, und mit denen irgendetwas zu besprechen. Das zieht sich. Also habe ich damals mal schnell diesen Kommentar in den Artikel gesetzt, auch wenn er von der Form her nicht paßt. Wenn man ständig nur auf Diskussionsseiten Hinweise, Einwände und Kritik ablädt, ohne am Artikel etwas zu ändern, bringt das erfahrungsgemäß wenig. Daher ja auch die Empfehlung unter WT:BOLD. Gerade bei wenig aktiven Seiten ist so ein Borderline-Diskussionsbeitrag im Artikel manchmal besser, auch wenn er gegen die Richtlinien ist, weil er Leute zu Reaktionen provoziert, die Diskussionsseiten (in Wiktionary ohnehin kaum noch genutzt) oder die spezialisierten Wiktionary-Seiten für derartige Diskussionen (Tea room, Etymology scriptorium) nicht lesen. Es war also eine rein pragmatische Erwägung. "Dubious"-Tags wie in Wikipedia gibt es hier ja nicht. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Um die Wahrheit zu sagen, war das auch meine eigene Erfahrung :)... und ich habe auch keine echt gute Lösung. Aber findest Du nicht, dass es schlecht ist, wenn solche Veränderungen einfach so durchgeführt werden, ohne dass anderen Interessierten (z.B. dem Originalautor des Seites, oder dem letzten Wiktionarian, der die Seite bearbeitet hat) Bescheid gegeben wird? Besonders was etymologische Information angeht scheint mir das den Zielen des Wiktionaries nicht zu dienen... Vielleicht auch z.B. den Beitrag im scriptorium zu erwähnen? Anders müsste ein Interessierter (z.B. ich) alle lettische Seiten regelmässig durchsehen, um sich zu vergewissern, dass nichts Wesentliches verändert worden ist -- und das wäre zuviel Arbeit... --Pereru (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


@Florian Blasche. Thank you so much for your message - my due apologies for not having replied beforehand! What you mention about Cornish is quite enlightening, because the new Cornish dictionary states that Old Cornish BREST < A.S. BRÆS, that to me is nonsense. They certainly are both derivatives of the same root, albeit pre-historic - please see my discussion on brass. I also need to clarify my nonsensical reply to your previous comments on the ache discussion page. It may be disputable scientifically, but I believe in facts that have a real foundation. Prior to around 2230 BCE, the whole world only spoke one language after 2344 BCE; and there is very slender evidence that it was primitive Hebrew - named after 'Eber', father of 'Peleg' in whose days language was divided. That there were a number of antediluvian languages is indisputable, including Sumerian, and possibly others that were resurrected. This does not mean that Hebrew was the parent language of the Aryan or Indian branch of P.I.E. as Bodmer put it in the "Loom of Language" volume, or connected with Indo-European at all, but just that certain lexemes, or at least, syllables were carried through accidentally. Otherwise, it was after this period that most of the language heads were formed, testified somewhat by the splinter groups of languages left in the Caucasus chain. I am not a Jew - and even if I was I would not be biased by any ancestral connection when it comes to ascertaining important facts; but there is something simpler and more pure about Hebrew construction than that of most other languages I have ever seen, hence my unproved belief that it or ancient Aramaic was the first verbal language between God and men - that is from Adam onwards - as their names are all meaningful, as also the rivers (except the Euphrates), in that Hebrew language. Andrew H. Gray 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Andrew

Erm, you believe in biblical literalist chronology and the Adamic language? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

While you're fixing Proto-POV...[edit]

The same claims (from the same person) as the ones at *h₂eryós are also to be found at *ħər. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I missed that. Thanks. Fixed.
Szemerényi was a highly respected scholar, so I hesitate to leave the suggestion off entirely, but it just doesn't sound particularly plausible to me, although I can't exclude the possibility completely. Indo-Iranian-speaking peoples do not seem to have been in (close) contact with Semitic-speakers, let alone specifically Ugaritic-speakers, in the 2nd millennium BC. Temporally and geographically, it's simply very difficult to make sense of. So, yeah, perhaps not impossible, but not probable either, and hardly better than the other guesses.
Ultimately, the precise meaning and origin of *arya- is a quite difficult and apparently intractable problem. An Iranist friend says she once checked all the attestations in the Vedic corpus and is not even convinced that it has the autonymic sense in Indic and Old Persian. She's very sceptical about the traditional story and it is only in Middle Iranian that she agrees that it must have referred to Iranian speakers. In Vedic, there seem to be several superficially similar but distinct formations with different meanings that are difficult to harmonise with the Iranian evidence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

York (etymology)[edit]

@Florian Blaschke (talk) Your etymology is obviously correct by the gradations you have included, but also quite intriguing. Previously, I wrongly supposed 'York' to be a simple corruption of Latin "erica" (heather), since I wrongly conjectured that Spanish "yermo" was just a corruption of "erēmus" (waste, desert); hence my thanks! Andrew H. Gray 20:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC) --Andrew (talk)

First of all, using yermo as evidence for English etymology is rather dubious, since each language has its own unique history of sound changes- otherwise English would be like Spanish, or vice versa. English didn't borrow much Latin outside of legal, religious and other technical vocabulary, and Latin's status as a written standard tended to keep Latin derivatives from straying too far from the original. Old French would be much more likely as a source, but French only gave us briar (the wood used for pipes, not the thorny plant), and the other loanword is ling, which apparently came from Old Norse.
Also, erica was a rather late borrowing from Greek that doesn't seem to have ended up in many of the daughter languages, except as a taxonomic term. Besides, it referred to heather, the plant, not to the heath vegetation type/landscape, so moor would be an inaccurate translation. What you do find is something like French bruyère, Catalan bruc, Spanish brezo, Italian brugo, which are said to come from Gaulish or some other continental Celtic language. As it turns out, the current theory seems to be that Ancient Greek ἐρείκη (ereíkē), Proto-Celtic *wroikos, and Proto-Slavic *vȇrsъ, among others, reflect common borrowing from some unknown non-Indo-European source.
It's very easy to come up with all kinds of theories if you don't pay enough attention to the details, but the truth can be just as interesting- and often more surprising. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)