Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium

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

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Etymology scriptorium

WT:ES redirects here. For help with edit summaries, see Help:Edit summary. For information about Spanish entries on Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:About Spanish.
Etymology scriptorium

Welcome to the Etymology scriptorium. This is the place to cogitate on etymological aspects of the Wiktionary entries.

Etymology scriptorium archives edit

May 2020

details of flibustier[edit]

French flibustier is now presented as a direct borrowing from Dutch, but several sources state that its direct source is English (from freebooter per TLFi, from flibutor per EWN). Both sources also assert influence from Dutch vlieboot or a descendant (the EWN states that this word had already influenced the English flibutor). The odd -s- is apparently an 18th-century hypercorrection (TLFi). @PUC, Lambiam Any opinions on this? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is all fuzzy. I see some online claims that Dutch vrijbuiter dates back to 1378, but reliable sources give 1572 for the earliest attestation. The oldest attestation of a cognate that I saw is Swedish fribytare, attested in 1559 and said to be from Low German fribüter,Svensk ordbok 2009 for which I did not find attestation dates. Kluge has Freibeuter < (1579) Freybeuter < frībüter < vrijbuiter.[1] All these Germanic forms can be analyzed as native forms (like Swedish fri + byte + -are). This is also true for earlier freebooter, said to be attested in the 1560s,[2] earlier than vrijbuiter. The Dutch term is universally said to be derived from the noun vrijbuit, but this noun is only attested in 1575. I do not understand the basis on which the etymologists have constructed their tree of descent. It looks as if TLFi states that Dutch vrijbuiter is a loan from English freebooter ("Empr. ... à l'angl. freebooter ...; également empr. par le néerl. vrijbuiter de même sens"). The explanation of the appearance of fl- in English as by influence of Dutch vlieboot, overriding the obvious and strong association with free, appears particularly weak to me. (And association with flyboat should have resulted in *flyboaters.) Spanish, which did have the loan word flibote, or French with flibot, neither of which have a prior semantic association with *fri, seem much more likely environments for this specific mutation.  --Lambiam 14:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately the SAOB references its citations excellently, the attestation is in a collection of government documents from the rule of Gustav I that is available here. The citation in question, which I cannot read, is from a letter to Klas Kristersson Horn dated 25 July 1559, who was then a military commander at Viborg. I have bolded the attested spelling of fribytare:
Till thett fempte. Um thett förbudh på thett räffvelsche seglatz thu schriffver, ther um våre undersåter sigh schole besväre, sammeledes um then Henrick v. Brygge, för thett han någen tilföring till Vijborg medt någre nödtorffter göre vilde etc., så veest thu tigh väll till erinnere, hure för:ne the räffvelsche sigh och elliest fast onaborligen och otilbörligen emott oss och våre undersåter förhollett haffve bådhe medt the frijbytere, the uthgiortt haffve, och elliest, som the och ähnnu icke vele lathe komme thett godtz tilbake igenn, som togz ifrå rydzerne under vårtt landt, hvilckitt storfursten hoss oss fordrer og vethe vill, och elliest udi alle måtte, så mykitt them haffver stått tilgörendes, varett oss emott och under ögenen, thesföruthen pläge the og vanvyrde then deell, som våre undersåter tijtt till them före, och icke giffve them therföre halfft värde eller lijke etc.
The English attestation from 1570 (which I reckon can technically count as being from the 1560s in absence of a year zero) is apparently spelt frebetter, which may not reflect a particularly transparant pronunciation. The spelling freebooter seems to be dated to 1598 and this is later than the oldest attestations of the fl- forms. The assertion by French etymologists that it was taken from English seems to be based on the date of attestation (not that this loyalty to chronology is observed anywhere else in this complex etymological construct). I too am sceptical that all these obviously related words descend from Dutch vrijbuiter, especially if the Low German can be found earlier, although all these early attestations are less than 15 years apart. The early English forms are apparently all in the OED, which I unfortunately cannot access for the time being. It would be interesting to see if the context of these attestations were the reason for the almost universal view that the English is a calque of the Dutch term.
Anyway, are you okay with it if I edit the French etymology to tone down the certainty of a borrowing rather than general derivation from Dutch, to note the possibility of influence from vlieboot (or a descendant of that word) and to give a date to the appearance of the unetymological -s- to the 18th century? @Lambiam ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Fine with me. I think it is good practice in general to present all theories that have an acceptable degree of plausibility (and a bad habit of some etymologists to present just one preferred theory as the only one without disclosing the reasoning that led to this preference).  --Lambiam 15:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Smashhoof has been so kind to look up the OED entry of "freebooter"; it turns out that all their earliest cites were in relation to the Eighty Years' War. That is likely their reason for supposing it derives from Dutch. @Lambiam ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
We are still in the dark why Kluge supposes that frībüter < vrijbuiter. I too cannot decipher the letter by Klas Kristersson Horn of 1559 to understand to whom the term frijbytere refers, and I have not found other references to Henrick v. Brygge other than in connection with equally undecipherable accounts of some event in 1559 in Viborg.  --Lambiam 12:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm having the original Idea that "frij" implies Frisian (/ˈfɹɪʒən/, /ˈfɹɪzi.ən/), obsolete Dutch Vriesch, but I don't see how (and I'm getting ahead of myself with Wismar, thus Weimar, the River Weser, family name Wischmeyer). "free", as in Frank is surely one of the more attractive interpretations.
"räffvelsche" in the second sentence very much reminds of Rotwelsch (räv "red") though raff, Raub "rape, rob" would be topical as well.
These names seem to be not one and the same, alas I cannot really read the text, either. 18:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
And they speak of notdürftig (makeshift), which looks as if it indeed described the boats (viz "nödtorffter göre",taken out of context). 17:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

鼧鼥 and Proto-Mongolic *tarbagan[edit]

Kangxi Dictionary claims 土撥 in 土撥鼠土拨鼠 (tǔbōshǔ, “marmot”) (literally "soil-pushing rat") was a corruption of 鼧鼥 (tuóbá) (attested in Bencao Gangmu published in 1596 CE). 鼧鼥 sounds quite similar to Proto-Mongolic *tarbagan (marmot) (> Mongolian ᠲᠠᠷᠪᠠᠭ᠎ᠠ (tarbaɣ-a)), which is "perhaps separable into *tarba- +‎ *-gan, with the second element recurring in other animal names". The tarbagan marmot is found in China (Inner Mongolia and Heilongjiang), northern and western Mongolia, and parts of Siberia, which historically all had Mongols. Is there any chance the Chinese word was borrowed from Proto-Mongolic or Classical Mongolian? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You have already backed up this assumption well enough: The only other option is that the word is from a Para-Mongolic language or otherwise somehow obscure related language with the same word and the same suffix (Turkic also has this animal- and plant suffix). But Khitan appears to have a different word for the marmot. Fay Freak (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


Stenogram is a word that has been marginally adopted into English, and I've so added it. However, while I'd put a bet on the main use coming from the Russian, it does seem possible at least some use comes from the Polish stenogram, and given "stenography", the form in theory could have been formed in English. (Every single example I've found comes from a Slavic origin, so it's clearly a borrowing, but arguably one that has properties of a calque.) The Russian word is стенограмма, I guess? Could someone with some Slavic knowledge add at least a basic etymology for English and if possible Polish?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also Albanian, Dutch, Indonesian and Swedish, and French has sténogramme and German Stenogramm. Here are some English uses without ostensible Slavic connection: [3], [4], [5].  --Lambiam 21:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Should "日" be "甶" in the IDS for "禺"?[edit]

Should "日" be "甶" in the IDS for "禺"? (I am a novice, & this may not be the correct forum so please direct me; I hesitated to edit the page without some feedback, and the talk page was empty)

In the ideographic description "composition" for "禺" [禺 (radical 114, 禸+4, 9 strokes, cangjie input 田中月戈 (WLBI), four-corner 60427, composition ⿻日禸)] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%A6%BA

I think the component "日" linking to https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5 should be "甶" linking to https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%94%B6#Chinese

ref1: same page: Glyph origin: "Unclear. Shuowen considers it to be an ideogrammic compound (會意): 甶 (“head of a ghost”) + 禸 (“to trample”) – a kind of monkey."

ref2: https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&char=%E7%A6%BA 說文解字: 《甶部》禺:母猴屬。頭似鬼。从甶从禸

... the component _could_ be: 田: ref2: https://zidian.911cha.com/zi79ba.html

or it could be 甲 as in my Pleco, but I cannot find any source that offers "日" Cheers,

@Salty3dog: "composition" is only a technical description of how to picture the character rather than anything directly to do with the character's origin, and it seems accurate to me: 禺 looks like 禸 superimposed (⿻) on 日. 甶 would not work here because of the extra stroke at the top. —Nizolan (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Salty3dog: How a given hanzi is digitized has little to do with its origin. Just because you see similar components in different characters does not necessarily mean there is any etymological connection between them. In fact, is a 獨體字; it cannot be broken down any further. When in doubt, check a good reference tool like 字源. (It says it's a 象形字.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the patient feedback. I understand now a little more... too soon old, but eager to learn


RFE not posted here before. The English cameo "appearance" indirectly links to camaeus, but that gives a circular definition linking back to cameo. So I'm not sure if this belongs to the Tea Room or here in the ES, because the etymology is missing, too. Slightly confusing, the intermediary link in Italian cammeo etymologizes Mediaevil Latin cammaeus, that is apparently just a geminated variant of camaeus without dedicated entry. 07:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the most recent discussion of this word I can find, Dimitros Plantzos (1996), "Hellenistic Cameos: Problems of Classification and Chronology", Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 41(1), at 115–116, states that the etymology is unknown and previous proposals are implausible. The first attestation is in Old French in 1222, preceding the first Medieval Latin attestation in 1295. The most popular (19th-century) proposal was apparently that it's a Crusades-era derivation from Byzantine Greek κειμήλιον ("heirloom"), but this suggestion does nothing to explain its specific meaning (a relief). —Nizolan (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Also not sure where the proposed German etymology that User:Leasnam added at camaïeu fits in (separate from camée, the derivation from Latin camaeus). Possibly they are separate derivations that became assimilated. —Nizolan (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no circularity in the etymologies: English cameo (short appearance) <etym English cameo (jewellery) <etym Latin camaeus (jewellery). There is also no circularity in the definitions: Latin camaeus (jewellery) <def English cameo (jewellery).  --Lambiam 20:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
That derivation from Middle High German comes from the link in the entry's Reference section located here [[6]] Leasnam (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Leasnam: Thanks. I just read through the entry and it actually says the opposite: "cependant aucun étymon germ. valable ne peut être avancé et le corresp. m. h. all. gâmahiu (Lexer) est empr. au fr." i.e. "however no valid Germanic etymon can be advanced and Middle High German gâmahiu is a loan from French" (emprunter à is borrow from). Have edited camaïeu accordingly. —Nizolan (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Germanic is interesting, because it can explain a from *ga. A comparison to co-, con-, cum is actually the reason of my inquiry. So I am not impressed if the TLF, whose expertise lies primarily with French, makes an unsourced statement about Middle High German. They might be right, the timing is in favour of this interpretation, but it could have gone back and forth if Latin shows *g* in "gemma" much earlier. For -meo, (or the whole) cp. *h₂éḱ-mō, Latvian dārgakmens "precious stone", Ru. kamen "stone", etc.
I dig the TLF's comparison to Greek, but can't read it. Can't we add that?
I remember that Sanskrit has many entries for gem, jewel under "k-", too. It's surreal. 18:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on the academic sources I can find about this word, it seems the problem that has led scholars to discount all the more obvious possible etymologies is figuring out where the specific meaning of a relief carved in multiple colours comes from. The word pops up in the middle of the 13th century with this sense from the very start—and simply chalking it up as a variant of the "gem" stem does little to explain it. This is what made Greek and Arabic etymologies attractive to scholars earlier in the 20th century, who traced it to the Crusades—the Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch also tentatively favours Arabic—but they're now considered linguistically problematic. —Nizolan (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Old Armenian ինն (inn)[edit]

Is the second 'n' a shared irregular development with Ancient Greek ἐννέα (ennéa), or from the final -n in Proto-Indo-European *h₁néwn̥?

RubixLang (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It is from the final -n in Proto-Indo-European *h₁néwn̥. See Martirosyan 2010 for a review of possible phonological developments. Most likely from Proto-Armenian *enun-, adopting the zero-grade vocalism of ordinal *h₁nun-o-. --Vahag (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


The (English) racial classification... what's the etymology? - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't find or think of any Latin root that would usefully parallel the etymology of mestizo, but after searching around a bit I wonder if it has something to do with Nahuatl coztic, "yellow"? Sources also mention "fustee" as another one alongside mustee and costee, and that might be connected to the yellow dye fustic. —Nizolan (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, it's almost certainly from castizo (sense 4, e.g.), by the same clipping as mestizomusteeNizolan (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Aha! Good find, thank you. - -sche (discuss) 07:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


I have added the slang neologism sense of "to flatten the tongue against the roof of the mouth for supposed health benefits". Would anyone happen to know its likely etymology? I have put it under Etymology 3 Onomatopoeic for now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is named after John Mew and his son Michael Mew. I added a separate etymology section. – Einstein2 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


There've been recurring efforts to either remove any mention of the folk etymology that explains the spelling, or alternatively to assert that the folk etymology is the etymology. I had previously added as many references as I could, but if anyone with more interest in or knowledge of Balkan languages wants to refine our etymology, it'd be appreciate. (I protected the page but perhaps that should be undone, especially if it stops anyone here from adding anything constructive.) - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


I added entries for Gargee'an and Garangao, English names for the recent Ramadan festival. Etymology for the first comes from Wikipedia. Etymology for the second is beyond my ability. Apparently the "gar" prefix has a common origin, but the words must have diverged in Arabic or its regional dialects before being borrowed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Grand Teton[edit]

I added Grand Teton and copied the etymology from Wikipedia. I only knew about the standard "French for big boobs" explanation but some editor on Wikipedia thinks it could be from an Indian tribe. I know what I want the etymology to be but I don't know what it is. Any of our experts have an opinion? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


appears to be a rare corruption of the character (Mandarin nuó < Middle Chinese /*nɑ/) especially in print. Specifically, it appears to be used for the phonetic value in transliteration of foreign names in Chinese. One finds in a Qing-era reprint of 史記 with in-line annotations (from 史記正義 by Zhang Shoujie, Tang era) that quoted from the long-lost 括地志 (Tang era)

:「大宛。」 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
:“大宛。” [Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=79522&page=68
Kuòdìzhì yún: “Shuàidūshānuó guó, yì míng Sūduìshānuó guó, běn hàn Dàyuān guó.” [Pinyin]
In the Kuodizhi it was written: "The country of '*Shiui(t)-tuo-sh[r?]a-na', aka. '*S(u)o-tuai-sh[r?]a-na', was originally the Dayuan during the Han era."

(In the English gloss above I tried to show reconstructed Middle Chinese readings of the Han-characters. The names were probably related to Ushrusana, Osrushana, Sogdia, or Scythia.)

The names 率都沙那/蘇對沙那 also appeared in the 新唐書·西域傳.

An image of the Qing era print with can be found at https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=79522&page=68 (in the last vertical line)

The point is that the character

  • is visually similar to , and
  • appears to follow the common usage of in transliteration of the foreign languages

Can we conclude that is a corrupted form of ? --Frigoris (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

it's all Greek to me[edit]

"It's all Greek to me" is listed as a possible calque from Medieval Latin but without the specific Latin phrase. According to Wikipedia the phrase is "Graecum est, non legitur" ("It's Greek, it cannot be read"), which isn't cited there but echoes many other sources. The hitch is that I can't find it in any actual medieval corpus.

The earliest example I can find is in a French book from 1586 by the Calvinist printer Henri Estienne, where it's brought up as part of a jibe against Catholics (here is the 1607 English translation for context). Later English citations also follow this vein, and tellingly a 1618 Jesuit Life and Martyrdom of Edmund Campion claims that he was taunted with the phrase around the time of his death (in 1581). One 17th-century book cites it as "the proverb of honest Accursius", and following that lead I found that some contemporary scholars have taken this at face value ([7]), but the phrase does not exist in Accursius' texts ([8]—the citation given here for the claim is also 17th-century).

Apparently the earliest recorded English use of "Greek" as "incomprehensible" is from 1566, well before the first Latin citation. In that case an English translator used it to render a play that doesn't mention "Greek" in its original Italian ([9]). Given all this I wonder whether this is not a Medieval Latin phrase at all but a Reformation-era invention projected back from an existing English/French phrase. —Nizolan (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

and [edit]

Any etymological connection? Is it plausible that (OC *qaːŋʔ, *qraŋs, “to project, to reflect (light)”) is an -s suffixed derivative of (OC *qraŋʔ, “shadow, image”)? The semantics are tempting, and from what I gather a verbalizing -s with various resultant meanings was pretty common in Old Chinese. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: I think may have been a late descendant (後起字) and a cognate of . Both points to (OC *kraŋʔ) etymologically. I'm not aware of itself being attested commonly in early (say, Pre-Qin) writings, but it's quite interesting to notice that both and carry the senses of "bright; illuminate" and "not bright; shade". --Frigoris (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vorziblix, Frigoris: I've updated their etymologies. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, all! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Is this Serbo-Croatian word that means "criterion" from Arabic? Dngweh2s (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it’s straightforwardly mjeriti (to measure) +‎ -lo (suffix forming instrument nouns). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Bengali and Assamese vs Sanskrit[edit]

As Sanskrit is the ancestor language of Bengali and Assamese, can ALL Bengali and Assamese words which derived from Sanskrit be converted to use "inh" instead of "der" and "bor" ? This can be done by a bot. Another suggestion, Bengali-script substitution of Sanskrit in etymology section should be removed e.g. {{der|bn|sa|पानीय|পানীয|water, drink}} as the same norm like other languages. --Octahedron80 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No. They can be learned loanwords. See tatsama. --Vahag (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that not all Bengali and Assamese words of Sanskrit origin are inherited. I also agree that we should display Sanskrit only in Devanagari, not in other scripts, in etymology sections. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well then, we must cleanup Sanskrit to show only in Devanagari. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Technically it is not "Sanskrit", but rather "Prakrit", as the term "Sanskrit" (lit. 'refined, (well-)formed') is the literary (i.e. "artificial"!) language codified by the Indian grammarian Pāṇini: all linguistic features that were considered vulgar, illogical or barbaric (as encountered in the popular Prakrit language(s)) were excised from his "refined" grammar. Prakrit is a generic term for all the "natural" source language(s) of modern Indo-Aryan languages: "the most frequent meanings of the term "prakṛta", from which the word "prakrit" is derived, are "original, natural, normal" and the term is derived from prakṛti, "making or placing before or at first, the original or natural form or condition of anything, original or primary substance" (Monier Monier-Williams). In the end, Sanskrit was the highly artificial language (largely frozen in time and place) considered fit for the higher classes, whereas Prakrit became the somewhat dismissive term for the naturally evolving language spoken by the populace and the informal dialect spoken by the elite among themselves and with their servants.—This unsigned comment was added by 2a01:cb04:a87:6000:d82e:d3:afb9:86a9 (talk) at 15:37, 2 June 2020 ‎(UTC).
While technically you may be correct, there's so little material in the vernacular language of the time that we follow the vast majority of reference works in using "Sanskrit" as a surrogate for "Old Indic contemporaneous with early Sanskrit". It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
The same goes for using Devanagari for our Sanskrit entries. In reality, most of the early Sanskrit works were preserved in the memory of scholars and passed down orally from generation to generation, and then on a succession of perishable palm-leaf manuscripts, with each copied from a previous one before it was lost. Having entries in dozens of different scripts would make it difficult to see the language as a whole, so we chose to standardize on the native script that's used most in reference works. That's not to say that entries in other scripts are forbidden, but they should be in addition to, not instead of, Devanagari entries.
Then there's the matter of Sanskrit continuing to be used long after it had ceased to be a living language. Scholars continued to write new works patterned after the language of the old ones (some still do today).
Given how tricky this source material is, doing honest, reliable etymologies in the languages that have descended from "Sanskrit" or borrowed from it is very difficult, and shouldn't be attempted by non-scholars except to summarize the work of those who are qualified to do so. I took a year of Sanskrit at UCLA, but I know I'm not qualified- and I sincerely doubt you are, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

son of a gun[edit]

RFV of the etymology.

I was tempted to just remove this, since it was debunked by snopes.com almost two decades ago, but it's been in the entry since 2006. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The just-so story is oft-told, but that doesn't make it any less of a just-so story. Merriam-Webster says, "a mild or euphemistic alternative to son of a bitch". Green's Dictionary of Slang has sonofagun as "a euph. for sonofabitch n." Etymology online doesn't have it as a headword, but at son of a bitch refers to "the toned-down form son-of-a-gun". While it's difficult to prove a negative, the Snopes article Chuck Entz links to at least shows that the supposed naval origin is dubious. Remove the son of a gun, I say, or at least tone it down and note that it's dubious. Cnilep (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
There's always the possibility that there's no story behind it at all. Just as there are minced oaths like son of a biscuit and jiminy cricket that substitute a word that sounds similar, it's entirely possible that this is just substitution of anything that rhymes, which doesn't have much to work with.

Anglo-Saxon descendant of *sek[edit]

Is an Anglo-Saxon descendant of *sek attested? --Njardarlogar (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Njardarlogar: Apparently not. According to A. Campbell's Old English Grammar, "It is a peculiarity of the Ingvaeonic languages, distinguishing them from OHG, that the pronoun of the third person is also used as the reflexive and reciprocal pronoun of the third person, e.g. OE ða beþohte he hine then he bethought himself, hie… hie ġemetton they met one another" (§ 704, p. 289). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Some Bavarian Dialects know this, too, a a stackexchange answer reveals, with ihn used even for females.
S: could be short for both, naively speaking: the reflexive or the nominative (3rdPSgF, 3rdPPl, and more). So far I thought ihn (MHG 3rdPSgM accusative) for femals was a case of severe hypercorrection. Now I'm not sure, as it fits in line with two other "coincidents" (one being a, an). 17:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@mahagaja we don't say where the -k is from, any idea? It's not in Kroonen's, which might mean it was not interesting enough. DWDS merely implies an original accusative. 17:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Interesting. I suppose the etymology for oneself could use some more information about when the formulation one's self started to be used, and what it competed with. Merriam-Webster states that the term was first attested in 1540. According to The Online Etymology Dictionary, himself has roots in Anglo-Saxon. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Njardarlogar: the -k is the same one as in *mek and *þek, which is apparently from Proto-Indo-European *ge (intensive particle). —Mahāgaja · talk 18:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


Is 飞蓬 fēipéng for a species of Erigeron a phonetic borrowing from English fleabane? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: It is definitely not the latter.
[Classical Chinese, trad.]
[Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: 《詩·衛風》
Zì bó zhī dōng, shǒu rú fēi péng. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this example)
--Frigoris (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Are we sure its not? This reminds me of 便盆 /biànpén/ for bedpan. One thing that would help is to see how old the first use of the word is in Chinese. Soap 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Did you even look at the comment right above yours? When you don't have anything concrete to add to a discussion, consider not commenting. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The quotation is too old to for all senses of the word to be English borrowings, but is it using the same sense I was asking about? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vox Sciurorum: Some clarification here. I mean that the phrase 飛蓬 has much earlier attestation. In the absence of further evidence, a more likely explanation is that the sense of 飛蓬 as a specific taxonomy in botany may have been simply borrowed or inherited from classical literature. The majority of taxonomic identities of plant/animal/mineral names attested in the classics have always been murky, but meanwhile, it's not rare or inconceivable that later generations, when naming a plant or something, tend to borrow names (rather than taxonomic values, which have been unclear to begin with) from the classics. We don't necessarily know if the species listed under 杜衡 was the same plant as in Qu Yuan's Li Sao:
留夷揭車杜衡芳芷 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
留夷揭车杜衡芳芷 [Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: The Verses of Chu, 4th century BCE – 2nd century CE
Qí liúyí yǔ jiēchē xī, zá dùhéng yǔ fāngzhǐ. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this example)
But it's quite conceivable that the word 杜衡 as a name of "that specific plant, Asarum forbesii" was to some extent influenced by classical literature. --Frigoris (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


This construction looks odd. Normally the PIE nasal infix is inserted after a consonant which becomes vocalic (weyḱ -> wineḱ). In the case of steh₂, this is not possible, and the resulting consonant cluster looks strange even for PIE. This would imply that this root cannot take the nasal infix. Is there any alternative explanation for alternations like stand/stood?

I'm not familiar with n-infix and I would have thought it's a participle *-ont(s), but if the page says it's infix, that's that.
Suppose *steh2- is a s-mobile form of *dheh1- "to do, put, place". There are no cases of *s- + voiced, the causative semantics fit (though that's stellen in German, also sit, set in English, po-sine in Latin, etc.), and a breathy consonant is not fully obstruent (cp. Engl. 'th'). So it makes sense, except for the last bit, that is most important here. There is '-n-' in PGem *dona (cf. do), as one might expect in this picture. Cp. *-ōną, where the '-n-' appears inovated under the given explanation, nevertheless, still in line with the sonorant requirement.
As long as the so-called s-mobile is poorly understood, it would be best not to expect a singular explanation. So I won't try. 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind that. Actually, we don't index a Germanic continuation for this word; consequently stand doesn't link it either. The Pre-Germanic forms found in the entries seem to be taken from Kroonen, who gives a bit more detail on *standan and *sten, which see:
"It follows that the verb largely arose by internally Germanic analogies, and did not start out as the nasal present it synchronically ap-pears to be, ..." (*standan pg. 473)
"[*sten] can only be reconciled ... by positing a Narten-present 3sg. *steh2-ti, *steh2-nti ... which has no extra-Gm. counterpart." (*sten pg. 477)
He adds an alternative that isn't complete either and requires *-aja- > long *-a-, then tentatively follows Seeboldt (viz. Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen starken Verben, 1970, pg. 464) in concluding
"... the view that it arose due to analogy with *gen 'to go'." (pg. 477).
Problem I see here is that one should try to poke holes into the derivation of go as well, as long as the origin of PGem *ga-from PIE *k'om- is not well understood. To my delight, Kroonen mentions something like that:
"OE gan on the other hand, can only have developed from *gai, which seems to imply an i-present ... We may also consider the possibility that the stem *gai arose from *ga-i, i.e. the perfective prefix *ga- plus *-i-, the continuant of PIE root *h1ei- "to go" (Kluge 1894, s.v. gehn; Kortlandt 1990)." (pg. 175). 23:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese イケてる[edit]

The slang term イケてる (iketeru, to be cool, attractive) seems likely to be an elided form of いけている, but which verb is it from? 活ける/()ける (ikeru, to live; to arrange flowers)? 行ける/() (iku, to (be able to) go; to orgasm; to get high)? Or perhaps none of these: I'm just guessing that is from the て-いる form of a verb.

This online slang dictionary says it's from ()かす (ikasu, to revive; to capitalize on), but I'm not sure that's reliable. Daijisen has the definition, but not the etymology. Cnilep (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the contracted progressive verb form ~ている (~te iru) of verb 行ける (ikeru). As we can see here in the KDJ entry at Kotobank, in section 2 sense 3:


Cites are given for this sense since at least 1770, so it's not that recent.
The cool, attractive sense seems like a basic and minor shift from the KDJ sense, which in turn appears to be a relatively straightforward sense extension from the basic potential form of 行く (iku, to go), especially when considered as the opposite of 行けない (ikenai, can't go, by extension, “unacceptable, awful, not good”). I don't think イケてる (iketeru) has anything to do derivationally with drugs or orgasms.
FWIW, unless イケてる (iketeru) has some lexical wrinkles independent of 行ける (ikeru) and which currently aren't in evidence in either our entry or anything I've found online in my current (admittedly cursory) searches, I don't think イケてる (iketeru) merits an entry, as a simple and obvious conjugation of 行ける (ikeru). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Couple of things: That the KDJ entry for 行く should include a definition, conjugation, etc. of 行く is, um, 当たり前. From there the conclusion that the slang sense of イケてる is an extended use of 行けている is a slight leap; it is small, and it's one that I entirely agree is likely, but a leap nonetheless.
Also, let us assume that the slang term is derived from the standard verb, that it's form is only slightly (and predictably) different, and that it's meaning is clearly related. It does not necessarily follow from that that the slang form is not a separate lexeme. The line between polysemy and homonymy is notoriously vague. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cnilep, due to a site redesign / restyling a few months back, many Kotobank pages became harder to read, and that is one such example. You have to look closely and check the quotes to establish which reading each section is for. That second section in the KDJ entry is for 行ける (ikeru), not 行く (iku). Though similarly not clearly marked, the third section is for 行い (okonai), the fourth is for 行う (okonau), etc.
Separately, I'm not flat-out saying "we shouldn't have this entry", but rather questioning whether we have enough justification for a separate entry. I'm not sure we do, but I'm open to being convinced. Right now, I see very little semantic difference between 行ける (ikeru, very good, KDJ: 「なかなかいいものである」) and イケてる (iketeru, cool, DJS: 「かっこいい」). There's the subtle difference in aspect by using the ~てる form, but again that's entirely expected and a regular (informal, abbreviated) conjugation form. Are there other details of meaning or usage that make these two more lexically distinct? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr Yes, I think our understandings are very close here (and I think my comments make me sound like an ass, so sorry for that). Cnilep (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


Are Latin umerus and Russian рамя cognates?Dngweh2s (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, рамя (ramja) would be closer to Latin armus as they are both ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *h₂er-. Check out de Vaan p. 55. DJ K-Çel (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


Thomas Twyford's 1883 model of the toilet was called Unitas. Popular in Russia.

inasmuch as, insofar as[edit]

These originated from spaced phrases equivalent (if perhaps spelled slightly differently, in Middle English) to "in as much as", "in so far as". Why were only the first three words run together, and not the whole phrase "inasmuchas", "insofaras"? Was it originally more common to use them without the "as", and if so, in what phrases? [[inasmuch]]'s only citation (on the citations page) is in fact of "inasmuch as", and insofar's only citation is for "in so far at least" with spaces. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A date for the phrase would be neat.
1. "insofar" was not in the OED first ed. (1933, archive.net), it's now at least in Collins, MW, etc. What does the 2nd OED say?
Insofar insofern exists in German as well, already in Grimm's DWB (glossed als), there would be farther precedent for the univerbation. But far and fern is a pair of false friends.
Although "in" chiefly reflects *h1en-, it is anyhow tempting to compare also, else and other, to begin with, the latter possibly from *h2en- (reminiscent of Ger. ansonsten), akin to *hent- and *henti which appear in various subordinating conjunctions with a tendency to univerbation, e.g. and so forth, and so on (for another univerbation, cf. Kloekhorst 2010, Hittite mān, maḫḫan, māḫḫan, māḫḫanda and mānḫanda). This is in line with the semantics licenced by far(ther), in the sense besides, in the odd case (which is how it is used in German legalese, by my estimate). The Balto-Slavic *no, possibly "well", is vexing, because we give competing accounts involving *h2en- but also the roots from "now" and "no" (cf. Latvian no, too, cp. near, *h2nek'-, co). Therefore it will be remembered that *h1e- ~ *i- may be morphemic on it's own. If it is man in the Hittite example that licenses the sense "when" in an univerbation that is ultimately concessive, it might also be of tangential interest.
Anyways, in extremo I might be completely off the rails, if in case and similar appear oh so transparent.
Still, you have to concede to several uncertainties, if, in the other hand, I have to compare any "some", Ger. ein- ~ in--either from "one", *oyn-, or "in", *h1en-, respectively, but underspecified in ein-; whereby any "all" again should be comparable to every, ever:
> "originally a phrase whose first element undoubtedly consists of Old English ā (“ever, always”) + in (“in”) + an element possibly from feorh (“life, existence”) (dative fēore)"
Nevermind that there's a little bit of uncertainty about some form of si in Latin, incase that it mattered.
2. inasmuch is in etymonline, copied from the OED 1st ed. as about 14th C. from a northern lect's verbiage, "in als mikel". The added as appears around the same time. The first OED is often outdated on timestamps; For what it's worth, the quote's for "1. in so far as" are one from "a 1300" (approx. 13th?), "c 1380 Wyclif" (circa?), "1526 Tindale" with a gloss "[ags. Gosp. swa lange swa; Wyclif as long as]", and first univerbation "inasmuch as" from 1722; all with two as. Whereas "2. In that; in view of the fact that; [...]; since, because" has the same univerbation almost two centuries earlier, and likewise all instances with added 'as'. A third heading is given for the obsolete form "without as: In an equal or like degree, likewise. Obs.", quoting only one from the 18th, with univerbation. (link to the page) 11:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Since my Ansatz was assuming a corresponding *inso- to also, consider at least Fr. ainsi. This is complicated. It's probably from Latin "in", as per the forms with "en-". But cf. en-:
> "[…] forms are from Proto-Indo-European *en (“in, into”). Intensive use of Old French en-, an- is due to confluence with Frankish *an- (intensive prefix), related to Old English on- (intensive prefix). More at in-, on-.
Further, ainsi is perhaps from OF ains instead, that is from *h2ent- indeed.
To put things in perspective, note that ainsi is linked from aussi. I can't explain succinctly why this is relevant and why a unique derivation from aluid sic is perhaps imprecise. Instead ...
Speaking of "instead": that's anstelle in German! Either way, they are precisely within the previously aluded to semantics, that I'm not quite sure are obvious in Engl. insofar. Speaking of "either": that's entweder in German. If the way is the goal, excuse when I disgress: I consulted aussi because of Ger. auch, because of auch noch, because of *h2nek'- (due to DWDS, where nach is seen with noch, which we must disagree with), and *h2eh2nok'- (cf. enough, ever so slightly uncertain), which, pending semantics, I read tentatively as "auchnoch" (sue me), only rather arbitrary because of the mentioned Latvian *no*. Ironicly, noch is collocated in "weder noch", "weder ... noch ..." (neither ... nor); the negative quality is rather apparent, therefore cp. further Norse ingen, not to be confused with Ger. irgend- "any". Also, if Frankish was already in the bigger picture, then "auch" might be a considerable comparison to aussi (notwithstanding autre, etc. if and only if Frankish influence could cause sound change), whereas aluid sic looks like a reasonable comarison to all so--that I can't explain at all, but note that *yos (in *h2el-yos) is somehow akin to *h1e-. What's more, a side of *h2ew- "away", (cf. auch), earlier "up" (cf. Cyril Brosch 2013) to be expected in e.g. away, awake (wake up, Ger. aufwachen, erwecken, cp. Dutch er from an old pronomial with -r, as long ad Ger. er- < uz- "out" cannot explain it, nor Gothic urinnan "arise" next to "go out", IIRC usrinnan is attested synchronicly), would be ... that would be ... getting ahead of myself. Hitting a wall.

I'm sure I can't read the TLFi properly (ainsi), but there are examples contrasting autre, there is a note that in the opinion of grammarians it's a poor substitute for 'semblable', and there is ainsi que as a collocation, which is notable not only where que matches as, but also because it might give a clue to your question:
> III.− [Empl. comme conj. de coordination, toujours en tête de prop.]
> A.− Sert à introduire un exemple. Par exemple :
>25. Les différentes proportions de ces matières font les différentes couleurs des cheveux. Ainsi les rouges ont beaucoup plus d'huile noir-verdâtre que les autres. H. de Balzac, César Birotteau,1837, p. 136.
>26. Il y a des cas où une chose est nécessaire du seul fait qu'elle est possible. Ainsi manger quand on a faim, donner à boire à un blessé mourant de soif, l'eau étant tout près. S. Weil, La Pesanteur et la grâce,1943, p. 52.
In these examples, the conjunctions que and quand are removed from the head (deeply embedded, subordinate, I'm no grammarian). If that were the same in English, though the examples don't really show it, there would have been reason to separate the morphemes.
Reading insofar as SoP would make it so unspecific so that many readings from ainsi appear possible. The grammar note indicates that it accrued semantic widening; IMHO, that's often symptomatic of conflation with other lexems, and possibly followed by semantic narrowing. The same could be said about in- versus an-. Thus, it seems hardly likely that the two phrases had an originally common source, but, if one had to calcify before erroding completely, then perhaps under pressure from adstrata. This could happen in insulated instances, in writing or higher registers, but not before the damage was done.
All in all, that's barely scratching the surface--like a cart free-wheeling in the mud. This question would be better placed at the Tea Room, IMHO. 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


Wouldn't this just be from English November? Same for all these Telugu months. Ultimateria (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they all ought to be fixed... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Ultimateria (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Magainan etymological root[edit]

The Wikipedia article mentions that this was derived from the Hebrew word magain meaning shield.


This etymology needs to be expanded, as a number of older sources thought that English kick was from Celtic, rather than vice versa. The claims tend to be circular, with reference to Scottish Gaelic or Welsh terms that appear, in actually, to be borrowed from English.

But we ought to be clear, nevertheless. Tharthan (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Welsh etymology appears to check out. GPC derives both cic and cicio from English kick and the English page doesn't seem to list any Celtic terms. DJ K-Çel (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The Century Dictionary suggests Scottish Gaelic ceig, but it appears to me that that is also from the English. Tharthan (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

chungus, Internet slang[edit]

The IP user who created chungus included etymology from chunk + either (translingual) -us or anus. @Equinox removed the anus bit, which I agree seems highly unlikely. This strikes me as likely from dingus or perhaps something similar. I've marked it as unknown, perhaps with -us. Thoughts? Cnilep (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is some kind of a contamination formation, the semantically best source for -gus might be from (an eye spelling of) humungous. --Tropylium (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Development of σύ ()[edit]

I just want to confirm this hypothesis of the seemingly irregular development of σύ

IIRC twe > se is regular in Greek. The nominative tu was then modified to su by analogy.

RubixLang (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Beekes agrees in his entry σύ: “Initial σ- in IA [Ionic–Attic], etc. was introduced after σέ < *tue.”  --Lambiam 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/May#farlie.

The etymology for this word lists an Old English ferlish as the source. I'm no expert, but doesn't the spelling -ish rather than -isċ suggest that it's Middle English instead? I couldn't find anything useful with a quick Google search. OR AlexMC (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@OR AlexMC: I moved this, since it's an etymological question.
It doesn't seem to be Middle English: the Middle English Dictionary has 44 quotes with 7 spellings- none of which are "ferlish" (though "ferlis" is close). Bosworth Toller has several variants in the first vowel, but everything ends in "-lic", as expected. Following the link provided in the entry to a Webster 1913-based website, I notice that "OE ferlish" is contrasted with "AS fǣrlīc". Methinks that "OE" is really Early Modern English in this case, unless the Middle English spelling has been normalized. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
And just to mix things up some more, this seems to be also early Scots. I would note that the Middle English Dictionary has a link to an OED entry for "ferly", which seems to be a variant of modern Scots ferlie. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and links to useful resources, I appreciate it. OR AlexMC (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Permission to move PIE*h₁óngʷl̥ to *h₁óngʷōl?[edit]

the only other instance of an amphikinetic l-stem suffix is h₂ébōl, which does, in fact, have such a long o grade. The long o grade also matches up with the consensus on amphikinetic animate nominatives. The Armenian and Aryan reflexes show this too. I have edited the pages to reflect this but am waiting to move the page. Anatol Rath (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


This is a term of highly diverse meanings. The evolution of the meanings is not always obvious. In addition some of the meanings are backformations, which we do not break out as separate etymologies. Etymology 1 shows meaningss for the ENM etymon jakke which I cannot find in the Middle English Dictionary. Does anyone have the stomach to review the entry to clarify distinct etymologies and sense evolution. DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The entry in the MED can be found here [[10]] Leasnam (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
"brass coin"? Also Middle English Jack? DCDuring (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
1460 quote is in Old French, but the "Jackes" appears to be a Middle English term used as a loan in this passage (?) Leasnam (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Southern Ndebele[edit]

Etymology of "le"

Le Means "this" and "there"

Non-Gothic examples of the *firi- verb prefix?[edit]

@Mnemosientje, DerRudymeister This prefix is clearly separated from others in Gothic, but in the other Germanic languages, it seems to have been conflated with *furi- and *fra-. I wonder if there are any clear examples of this prefix occurring semantically in other Germanic languages, cases that can't reflect the other two. —Rua (mew) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You'd have to comb through Bosworth-Toller for OE and Köbler for OHG to verify. I can't recall any specific examples off the top of my head. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be an obscure prefix in old english, it was probably only distinct in adjectives and nouns, fyrwit is the only 'clear' example I can find. --DerRudymeister (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have Köbler. Searching in Grimm for "ahd. firi" finds four results related to firiwizzan (e.g. Fürwitz next to Vorwitz) and one in verstehen. The later, he notes, has no cognate in Gothic, but compares to understand (this compared to inter), the former formally matches OE fyrwit and Gothic fairweitjan. Searching for "ahd. fir" finds 600 mostly unrelated results, that I didn't sift fir.
I can take a guess from the other entries in the Gothic category: vereinen (cp. durchmengen, not verkackeiern); vergreifen (cp. durchgreifen); verheißungsvoll (cp. perhaps umbenennen analog perimeter, Umkreis); verrinnen; verwirken. I thought I found confirmation in DWDS verwirken quoting "ahd. firwurken", but the same didn't work out for verrinnen quoting far-. I won't insinuate semantics either. So I stopped there.
Grimm notes several old variants next to firiwizan, too, so I'm sure the spelling alone is no reliable indicator anyhow--perhaps not even for the Gothic. Comparison to durch- (e.g. durchsteigen, durchblicken ~ verstehen) seems trife, and exploring polysemous ModHG ver- alone would be a tremendous effort to begin with. I could mention loads of tentative comparisons that I can't make myself. 19:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
You might be interested to learn that Köbler's dictionaries are all freely available on his own website: Gothic, Old English, Old High German, Old Norse, Old Saxon, Old Frisian. There's a bunch more if you explore the site. The Gothic one is quite complete, not sure about the others. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Italian buffo and buffone[edit]

The etymologies of Italian buffo and buffone are circular. Does anyone know anything about these etymologies? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I always thought the common Romance etymology for these was something like Medieval Latin buffa, "imitative of puffing out the cheeks," which I see linked in French bouffer, English buffet, and probably all the terms over at bufar. Etymonline entry DJ K-Çel (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The original sense of the noun buffo is something like “a puff of air”. It is plausible that the noun buffone was derived from this. Perhaps the adjective, meaning “funny”, came from buffone and was carried over – probably as a shortening of basso buffo in the opera buffa genre – to a secondary noun sense (not listed under the L2 Italian, but also used there, as seen in the title of Enzo Dara’s book Anche il buffo nel suo piccolo).  --Lambiam 14:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020


What's kindergartner's etymology in relation to kindergarten? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

kindergarten + -er, with spelling influenced by German Kindergärtner; but probably not derived directly from the German because of the difference in meaning. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, there is the second sense with that meaning, with a quote dating from the 19th century... Leasnam (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a split in etymology is needed (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

wiktionary : etymology of entry "kyarn"[edit]

kyarn is an Appalachian/southern word used by natives of the area. Kyarn is simply a derivative of the word "carrion".

I used it as a child. An example of a use of the word in a sentence could be, "That dog rolled in kyarn!"

ผล (pǒn)[edit]

I found an unlinked challenge to the etymology of this Thai word by @Jaspet; the etymology section then derived the word from Sanskrit. I've added a reference to the 1999 Thai Royal Institute Dictionary, which says it derives from Pali and/or Sanskrit. (I think it's unlikely we can ever resolve beyond 'and/or'.) I've added Pali as an alternative source. I propose we close this challenge. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)