Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2024/March

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bulgarian адсорбция (adsorbcija)[edit]

The Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language says that the origin of this word is Latin adsorbtio. I have a few questions about this:

  1. Should the vowel length be 'adsorbtiō'?
  2. Should it be 'adsorptio' instead of 'adsorbtio'? We see this in absorptio, and I am vaguely familiar with some kind of /b/ → /p/ invalid IPA characters (/→/) change in Latin, but I don't know it well enough to weigh in.
  3. Does this etymology make sense? Is this a real Latin word, or is it a back-formation from Latin roots, where the actual etymology is from modern languages that made use of those roots?

Thanks, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril kovachev 1) Dictionaries often skip Latin vowel length 2) this word was likely formed after Latin using Latin morphemes, compare adsorpcja. Vininn126 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vininn126 So adsorbtiō is correct? And, what should be the treatment of the etymology then? Just write out the roots with {{affix}}? Should the Latin word be kept? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev Yes, and I'm not sure. This is an internationalisms, so it was likely formed in one language and spread. That honestly might be a better etymology, i.e. {{intnat|bg}}, compare {{cog|en|adsorption}}, ultimately from {{der|bg|la|[[ad-]] + [[sorbeō]] + [[-tiō]]}}. Or something along those lines. Vininn126 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if adsorptiō is even attested in Latin. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word was coined in German in 1882, so for the Bulgarian etymology I'd say it's borrowed from German Adsorption. Then you can add a {{surf|bg|адсорбирам|-ция}} if you like. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I said it's an internationalism formed after Latin using Latin roots. Vininn126 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, I have now updated the etymology, hopefully it's in a decent place now. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev I'm not sure about the New-Latin, but if it's any Latin it's that. Vininn126 (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vininn126 I dunno, I'm just citing what the source says. I'm not sure of the value of that either. But, for people looking at the sources (which are supposed to be reliable in general), it might be confusing if we don't mention that the dictionary is probably wrong in this case. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev I've been distrustful of the BEI in general; they've put out some odd etymologies, but it's not only them. Part of sourcing is knowing how to take that material and map it to the concepts confined within our project. Vininn126 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vininn126, Indeed, so am I, increasingly after seeing many such etymologies, and it hurts to think how many words may already have wrong etymologies entered from there. But virtually the only source of etymology we have for Bulgarian are those works by the IBL. I have a paper dictionary next to me that does mention the languages of origin, but nothing about specific terms, so it's not anywhere near as complete.
Anyway, in this case, are you saying it would be best to ignore what it says and remove the "New Latin" part? Should the reference still be kept? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 16:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril kovachev Personally I think whether the term is New Latin needs to be checked. If it's real, we could include it in other etymologies, but until that time I'd only mention the morphemes. Vininn126 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if it does exist in New Latin, but even then, we'd say the Latin word is derived from German. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a Latin verb newly formed from ad- +‎ sorbeō get adssimilated to assorbeō? This would then carry over to derived forms. Compare associō < ad- +‎ sociō and so on.  --Lambiam 20:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Learned words in modern languages usually use assimilated spellings of Latin prepositional prefixes (although not all of these were consistently used in historical Latin texts; the spelling ass- in particular seems to have been less common than the spelling ads- in Republican Latin), but not all new coinages use the assimilated variant. Compare adposition.--Urszag (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I'll remove it anyway for now then. Unfortunately it doesn't seem Google Books can search in Latin, so finding anything will be hard, at least for me... Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To search for Latin I add uniquely Latin words that are common as search terms, such as etiam and quoniam. This did not find any GBS results, also not for any of the oblique case forms of *adsorbtio or *adsorptio.  --Lambiam 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Бахмут[edit]

The content is reduplicated in Bakhmut. The name was discussed last in January 2023. IP posted a reference, Luchyk, V. V. (2014) “Ба́хмут”, in Етимологічний словник топонімів України [Etymological Dictionary of Toponyms of Ukraine] (in Ukrainian), Kyiv: Academy, →ISBN, page 35. I do not read Ukrainian but I am pretty sure that Luchyk says something about water and not so much about horses. Sources we have in footnotes mention horses mainly because they talk about a different word that actually means horse (бахма́т (baxmát)). Rudnyc'kyj does list Бахмут in the same entry but does not motivate the place name as derived from the river. Hurtmeplenty (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albus[edit]

I was studying the endonyms and exonyms of countries (as one does) and I specifically was looking at the etymologies for countries whose meaning is related to the color white. Two prime examples are the exonym of Albania and Alba in Scots Gaelic. While looking for others I discovered that the etymology of Lebanon comes from *laban- or the root l-b-n which also means white or in some dialects milk. I think the similarities are pretty clear but I haven't found any definite pieces of information discussing whether these are linked so consequently; I am here. If anyone could verify the possibility of Alban and Laban being connected I would greatly appreciate your insight! I would also be interested if someone has some more examples. (First time posting) KermitBretkosa (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albion is a good example of a place name deriving from a word meaning white. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tok Pisin paul[edit]

The Tok Pisin word "paul" is currently listed as "probably from English Paul." It's almost certainly not; the word's primary meanings are "bird/chicken" and "confused/tangled," neither of which makes any sense coming from the name "Paul." The Jacaranda Dictionary lists the former as coming from English "fowl," and I'd hazard a guess that the latter comes from English "foul," based on what I've seen in older sources on Tok Pisin. "paul" [paʊl] and "Paul" [pɔl] also aren't pronounced the same way; "Paul" is borrowed into Tok Pisin as "Pol" [pol]. I'm new to editing and don't know what the protocols for removing a spurious etymology are; do I need to cite sources to justify the removal or can I just delete the etymology from the entry? Laralei (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laralei: The current etymology has no source and is just a guess, so I think you're safe replacing it with a more reasonable one, especially since "bird/chicken" < "fowl" can be sourced to a published dictionary. We don't require sources for etymologies, especially not ones that seem obvious, but adding sources, especially for more arcane etymologies, is always welcome. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, “probably not from Paul ”. But given Tok Pisin foa < English four and Tok Pisin ful < English fool, how plausible is paul < fowl ?  --Lambiam 21:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states "[p] and [f] are not distinguished in Tok Pisin (they are in free variation)", apparently despite the existence of F and P as separate alphabet letters. Compare pis, although it has a less-than-three-attested-examples warning.--Urszag (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

spinnaker[edit]

Spine? Spindle? Spinach? 64.233.225.66 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymology Dictionary says "either a derivative of spin in the sense of "go rapidly" or based on a corrupt pronunciation of Sphinx, which was the name of the first yacht known to carry this type of racing sail." —Mahāgaja · talk 06:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Initially, it looks like something Low German and Dutch, but it is believed to be a Native English coinage? Wakuran (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macanese verb-forming suffixes[edit]

More specifically, -ê and -í. I'm not sure the extent to which these really count as independent suffixes, and whether I should possibly delete those pages.

I think -â is quite convincingly a workable suffix, as it is often added to words of various different endings regardless of the final vowel or original stress of the word; but for -ê and -í (and even -ú to a degree), it's not really adding to anything. Most often they're found on Malay-derived words, which are final-stressed anyway. Plus some of those Malay words (colek for cholê, cucuk for chuchú) end in -k, which becomes a glottal stop in Malay and silent in Macanese. The Glossário which I've used many times as a reference re-analyzes those as -er, -ir and -ur endings but where the -r is silent, but that doesn't feel right either since in modern Macanese final /ɾ/ is very much a thing.

So what do we think? Do I keep the -ê and -í entries or no? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Macanese suffixes, should I also change -do to fit the Portuguese entries, and make -ado and -ido instead? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persian "لاخ"[edit]

It is a suffix for place names like "سنگلاخ" meaning stony place. What is its possible etymology? Is it from Turkic *-lik? Kamran.nef (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While -lik is used for placenames (see e.g. Kayalık, Kovancılar), kayalık has a more general meaning of stoniness, rockiness; for example, the Turkish term for rocky shore is kayalık sahil. Does the Persian suffix also have this more general meaning?
I think there are very few examples of a language borrowing a productive suffix from another language – which in this case would be totally unrelated. My initial hypothesis would be it is one of those coincidences that one can expect to occur every now and then.  --Lambiam 20:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is only used for places. Dehkhoda says it means place and mine and he mentions the similarity between Persian and Turkish. I found لاخ in "An Etymological Dictionary of Persian, English and other Indo-European Languages", by Dr. Ali Nourai. He Drives it from PIE *lêsos meaning place, space, area, and he cites "An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary by Stuart E Mann", for the root. Although Nourai's book has some questionable etymologies, It is the only place I could find for the word. This word might be in "The etymological dictionary of Persian" by Mohammad Hassandust, but I don't have access to that book. There is a Turkic borrowing in Persian "قشلاق" meaning wintering house which has the ending -laq. I don't know whether it is qış+laq or qışla+k. Kamran.nef (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamran.nef: It is a morpheme meaning “comminuted”, identical to لخت (laxt, “piece, portion”) and idem “club“ we have, and in the soup لخشک (laxšak) Irman has lemmatized at the random form لاکشه (lākiša); whence Slavic lokša, лапша́ (lapšá). Monchi-Zadeh, Davoud (1990) Wörter aus Xurāsān und ihre Herkunft (Acta Iranica; 29)‎[1] (in German), Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 115 Nr. 336. Fay Freak (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and thanks to Lambiam. Kamran.nef (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, at the Russian лапша I almost wrote “Ultimately an Iranian word also found with different suffix in the dish лагма́н (lagmán, “laghman”)” until I saw its Chinese connections. Isn’t Chinese 拉麵／拉面 (lāmiàn), and hence ramen, in reality some phono-semantic matching of a Turkic term loaned from Iranian learnt by the Chinese in Xinjiang? I mean I do know that noodles have quite long an history at the eastern brink of Asia, and superficially the compound makes sense by itself, yet some attestation data, that is missing, might show something. Who’s doing Chinese these days? @Fish bowl. KevinUp who helped at Talk:八角 is gone. Fay Freak (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Chinese, we have 掛麵／挂面 (guàmiàn), 切麵／切面 (qiēmiàn), 抻麵／抻面 (chēnmiàn), 削麵／削面 (xiāomiàn), Chinese 索麵／索面 (suǒmiàn), 撈麵／捞面 (lāomiàn), 冷麵／冷面 (lěngmiàn), 拌麵／拌面 (bànmiàn), 涼麵／凉面 (liángmiàn), etc. Why would you think that 拉麵／拉面 (lāmiàn) is special from all these words? I can not find any necessity to put a brand new hypothesis without any attestation.At least we need an academic source to confirm it. Ydcok (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ydcok: Well thanks, it was only a hypothesis we have to leave open, as long as neither on the Turkic nor Chinese anything is written about age and distribution, or culinary history. For now we have only the word لخشک (laxšak) with its variants and the postformative as on درمان (darmān) and فرمان (farmān) on one hand and many words with 麵／面 (miàn) on the other hand. If ever such a formation were borrowed, it is sure the Chinese would have rendered it with 麵／面 (miàn), unless this is old enough that its older pronunciations fit less and the Turkic match the Mandarin. I find surprisingly little about the laghman noodle dish in academic databases, in European languages. Fay Freak (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the Middle Chinese pronunciation we should look at? In this case, it is *Lopmenh or something. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan[edit]

RFV of the etymology.

Austronesian Comparative Dictionary cau

funchi[edit]

Wiktionary etymology for this word mentions "From Spanish funche, original from Cuba, or even from Kikongo." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/funchi This is a difficult path to trace, however. Ascribing Spanish origins to Papiamentu words with obvious African cultural content is problematic. There are no sources that show that Cuban "funche" precedes Papiamentu "funchi". The Diccionario de la Real Academia Española mentions Cuba and Puerto Rico as places of usage but the word is also known in other Caribbean Spanish speaking countries of Dominican Republic and Venezuela. The Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage mentions the word in different spellings for seven English speaking islands and offers four possible African influences: Twi fugyee (adj.) soft, mealy (of boiled yam), Kimbundu funzi cassava mush, Congo fundi flour, porridge, and Yoruba funjẹ given to eat. ObaTango (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

イミユン[edit]

RFV of the etymology.

The Nakijin Dictionary cites ゑめて 'to demand' from an Omoro Soshi dictionary. — This unsigned comment was added by Chuterix (talk • contribs) at 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Would that be いみゆん? Why the katakana? Wakuran (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakuran: Chuterix had moved the entry to the katakana spelling at the time this was posted, but the move was reverted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the Japanese term いびる (ibiru, “to bully, to bother”). This seems a better phonetic match, albeit the Kotobank version of the NKD only cites this from the 1770s. Meanwhile, Japanese せびる (sebiru, “to pester, to insistently ask for something”) is from older seburu, only attested from the late 1500s, and I don't see Japanese seburu and Ryukyuan imiyun fitting together very well.
JLect's listing of imiyun at https://www.jlect.com/search.php?r=%E3%81%84%E3%81%BF%E3%82%86%E3%82%93&l=ryukyu&group=words glosses this as Japanese 催促する (saisoku suru, “to rush or hasten someone or something”). Are we sure that modern Ryukyuan imiyun is actually from the wemete listed in the Omoro Soshi dictionary? These don't seem to fit together either. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ゑめて means "（催促して 'demand and')。 The initial w- is probably due to the instability to え and ゑ. I do not have access to the Okinawa Kogo Daijiten to prove the putative emeru, however, I have requested an ILL loan for the dictionary.
Since the Omoro Soshi's date is at earliest 1531, I don't know if the Japanese terms you mentioned are cognates, since I don't think Old Okinawan would borrow a newly coined Japanese term, unless one hypothesizes that it must have existed earlier (unlikely scenario). Thus, I have removed the Japanese correspondances in that entry for the time being. Chuterix (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second, this make the assumption that ibiru < *ebiru/*eberu. Chuterix (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish liczba, cyfra, ilość[edit]

It's a kind of a mess.

Liczba defined as "mathematical concept used for describing amounts with the help of digits or symbols" does not seem right, because that would be the colloquial or proscribed meaning - amount translates to "ilość", which is not the same as "liczba" (the former is for measuring uncountable nouns, the latter for countable). The entry on ilość correctly states that the meaning "liczba" is proscribed in ilość.

I don't really understand what "1. (obsolete) number (digit itself)" is supposed to mean in the entry for liczba. When was liczba ever used to mean "(sama[?]) cyfra"? Or is digit here referring to "figure", which is a proscribed meaning of cyfra? The entry on cyfra equates this proscribed meaning with the prescribed one, being "digit (a distinct symbol representing a natural number in a positional number system)" - this is definitely wrong. They should be separate definitions. Figure is translatable to "cyfra" only in the colloquial or proscribed sense, meaning either "result of counting (liczba)" or "result of measuring (ilość)". This is somewhat defined in the definition of liczba stating "2. number (result of counting) Synonyms: (proscribed) ilość, liczebność, liczność", but then this is missing the proscribed synonym cyfra, the main culprit, so to speak.

I've probably missed something, but hopefully this makes it easier to understand what edits need to be made. I'd like somebody's input, and to help mainly or solely with the semantic side of this, as I'm not proficient with the technical aspect (context labels and such) of editing yet.

I also apologize if this is the wrong place to bring this up. It's basically my first contribution. Is this room the right place to discuss the definitions in this sense, or is it just for etymology side of things? Polorzanca (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polorzanca The main difference is of course if the thing is countable or not - ilość is used with uncountable nouns which you cannot use numbers directly with. "5 waters" only makes sense as an elision of "five glasses of water", therefor you cannot use digits to directly mention the numbers, whereas with countable nouns you can "five people". We are indeed missing the proscribed synonym ilość on liczba, which I have added with a qualifier.
Liczba was once synonymous with cyfra. I.e. liczba 5, as opposed to cyfra 5, as evinced in SJP1900.
I have not had time to clean up the entry cyfra yet and it is missing many explanations and definitions.
I would say that the WT:Tea Room would have been the ideal forum for this. Vininn126 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link between gulbia and geule?[edit]

I'm looking for the etymology of modern Irish gulba, meaning snout or beak.

This information is on the page for Latin gulbia.

This page says it's probably not Indo-European, but it has striking similarity to:

  1. gullet, snout, face (of an animal)

Are these words linked? —2001:861:5700:4370:3596:608:F785:5550 20:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Celtic words can't come from Proto-Indo-European *gʷel-, because *gʷ became *b in Proto-Celtic. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

करम्भ[edit]

RFV of the etymology:

Possibly from Proto-Indo-European *ḱr̥h₃-m- (“porridge, soup”) or *ḱh₁erh₂- (“to mix”).

An IP tried to fix this by manually replacing the palatal "*ḱ" with non-palatal "*k", but it seems to me like that's just papering over the fact that this was probably copied from an entry on the other side of the satem/centum line, possibly Latin cremor. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The connection with Latin cremor was Charpentier's idea and is rejected by Mayrhofer on formal grounds. I have updated our entry. Vahag (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

trồng[edit]

I just found that 種 has one meaning the same with "trồng". The Proto-Vietic phonic of "trồng" is *m-loːŋ, and 種 has 2 ancient ones : *k.toŋʔ and *(mə-)toŋʔ-s However I am not sure if the latter phonic of 種 is relevant enough to *m-loːŋ

I am not an etymologist so this is just my perspective. Could you prove it please? Lưu Quang Trường (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

гулууз[edit]

Basically the last term still on Category:Requests for native script for Chinese terms - but there's no sourcing for it, and the only results for searches with this etymology for "carcass" from Chinese listed is the Wiktionary page itself. Kungming2 (talk)

micio[edit]

According to Nocentini micio is linked to Catalan mixo and comes from an onomatopoeic word used in the Mediterrarean area as a call for the cat.-- Carnby (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be moix? Wiktionary has no Catalan listing for mixo. Wakuran (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakuran Sorry, I meant mix. Moix is Balearic Catalan, not sure whether related or not. Compare also Leonese mixu and Spanish micho, from the same onomatopoeia.-- Carnby (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dirt[edit]

RFV of the etymology. Specifically: reconstruction at the PIE level. No cognates provided outside of Germanic. -saph 🍏 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAOB mentions "relatives in Slavic languages" without specifying. The relevant volume was published in 1922, so it could be an outdated hypothesis... Wakuran (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through EDPG, Kroonen says "no certain etymology" of the Proto-Germanic root but suggests the following connections:
  • Lithuanian tríedžiu (“to have diarrhoea”) < *tréydʰyeti
    • I believe the expected outcome of that would be *trìedži(?).
  • Lithuanian trìdė f (“diarrhoea”) < *tridʰyéh₂
    • I really do not see this one happening, especially given that Kroonen presumed *dʰy > dž for the above cognate and that ė is not a regular outcome of *eh₂.
  • Dialectal Russian дришта́ть (drištátʹ, “to have diarrhoea”), Serbo-Croatian drískati, dríćkati (“id.”) < *dʰridsḱéti (with lengthening of *i by Winter's law)
    • Firstly, these two terms don't even appear to use the same suffix, unless there's some regular sound change in Russian of *dsḱ > št I'm missing. The two also have accents in different places, which leads me to believe that these were formed at entirely different times.
At best the Balto-Slavic terms are simply from the same substratum etymon as the Germanic terms, I really doubt this can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European. -saph 🍏 01:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin ūniō (“onion”)[edit]

This is a hapax mentioned as the name that some rural folk used for a type of onion, and it survives as an inherited form only in northern and southwestern Gallo-Romance. In scenarios like this one is often dealing with a specialized word that was borrowed from another language into Latin but failed to spread beyond its original area. Here one might expect a Gaulish word, and as it happens the source that we cite for ūniō's etymology mentions there being a Middle Irish uinniun (> oinniún) and Welsh wynwyn, with the comment ‘as if from Celt. *usniūn- rather than a loan word from Latin [...] they demonstrate the initial short vowel *ŭ-’.

In fact the Romance forms under ūniō also reflect */ŭ-/, and there isn't any particular evidence for an /ū-/ in the Latin word, apart from the etymology that we currently give (inheritance from a Proto-Italic *uznjō would indeed imply /ū-/).

If we accept the ultimate Indo-European etymology as it is, I would rather think that unio was borrowed from Celtic with /ŭ-/. On the other hand, our entry for Irish oinniún gives it as a borrowing from Old French oignon (< Latin unio), and our entry for Welsh wynwyn gives it as a borrowing from Middle English (< Old French oignon, again).

Meanwhile under unio we have a Proto-West Germanic *unnjā, given with a short */ŭ-/, but the reconstruction is cited as *ūniju, *unnjā in the etymology for Old English ȳn.

What do people knowledgeable about Celtic and Germanic make of the overall picture? Paging @Mahagaja, @Sokkjo/@Victar, @Leasnam, @Caoimhin ceallach. (@Hazarasp as well, if you don't mind.) Nicodene (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis to say that the "onion" word was borrowed from Celtic into Latin rather than the other way around. Still, neither the Irish nor the Welsh can come directly from a thematic *usniyūnos/-ā or an n-stem Proto-Celtic *usniyū without interference from something else, so maybe a native Celtic word was altered under the influence of the Latin word? —Mahāgaja · talk 15:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walde-Hofmann (vol. 2, p. 820) give uniō with a short u as the form. According to them the Germanic terms are from Latin and the Celtic terms from English (ultimately from Old French or Norman I guess, which seems probably to me if the pronunciation of oignon /uˈɲun/ is correct). They don't give an etymology. A borrowing vice-versa seems unlikely to me too. I'd wonder how the ending -ō would have arisen. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up to commenting here much, but I agree with the notion that Welsh wynwyn is a Middle English borrowing (as stated by the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru); it would seem to be an alteration of earlier *wyniwn or winiwn, even though such forms are only attested later.
As for the Germanic forms, Old High German unna and its descendants (e.g. Luxembourgish Ënn) would seem to require Proto-West Germanic *unnjā. However, the existence of a collateral *ūnijā is needed to explain Old English ȳn/ȳne (though compare ynnelẽac) and the OHG compound ūnilouh (Central Franconian Öllich can come from either ūnilouh or *unnilouh). There seems to be no obvious intra-Germanic source for this variation, so it must somehow be explained in terms of the Romance source. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possibility: reconstruct a quasi-ablauting n-stem ūnjō ~ unnjaz, similar to strūtō ~ struttaz "throat". It's not inconceivable that a Latin loanword got roped into this pattern if it was common enough (see Kroonen 2011 pp. 267-95 for other examples). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how plausible that is, given that Kroonen lists no examples of /n/:/nn/ apophony; additionally, given that the consonantal alternations he posits aren't productive even in the oldest WGmc languages, it's unclear whether they would've been productive at the time of borrowing. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Mahagaja said, deriving Welsh wynwyn from *wósH-r̥ ~ *usH-én-s isn't possible without some shenanigans, and it looks pretty clearly from Middle English (or directly from Old French). Perhaps the word survived in Gallo-Romance thanks to reinforcement from Frankish? --{{victar|talk}} 04:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Thank you all for your input. It sounds as though a Celtic or German origin isn't likely, at least not without Latin involvement on some level.
The case for a Latin origin might be reinforced by unio (“pearl”), which is well-attested and shares the masculine gender of unio (“onion”) - more specifically the masculine gender implied by the latter's descendants. This sets the two apart from unio f (“unity”), as does the fact that they are attested some three centuries earlier.
If we accept the ones meaning ‘onion’ and ‘pearl’ as one word, and the semantics don't seem unimaginable at least, then we are no longer dealing with a hapax. On the other hand we are left with a somewhat odd timeline if we take the etymology as-is. Inherited from a Proto-Indo-European word for ‘onion’, recorded several times as ‘pearl’ but only once in passing as ‘onion’, then handed off to Romance and Germanic as ‘onion’. Stranger things have happened though.
Vowel length is also an issue, but it sounds as though a Latin /ū-/ is corroborated by some of the Germanic reflexes. That leaves the question of why a short variant would have developed, for which I have no answer. Nicodene (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish "toplu" and Persian تپل[edit]

Is the Persian word from Turkish(ic)? Kamran.nef (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamran.nef: Probably. Also, please add an e-mail address to your account. Fay Freak (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak Thanks. Done. Kamran.nef (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pashto "kalay" and Punjabi "kullī کلی[edit]

So کلی means 'village' in Pashto and 'small hut' in Punjabi. Any possibility that these two are linked? Punjabi Kullī is the feminine of kullā which means 'a modest home'. نعم البدل (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

moneta[edit]

RFV of the etymology.--62.73.69.121 13:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there appear to be two senses to the Latin proper noun Moneta: (1) the name of a goddess equated to the Greek goddess Mnemosyne; (2) an epithet of the goddess Juno (Iuno Moneta), a goddess equated to the Greek goddess Hera. Only the latter sense is claimed to have a connection to Ancient Greek μονήρης.
Disregarding sources that may have copied the claim from the Wikipedia article Moneta, to which it was added in Latin script already in in 2008 and using Greek letters in in 2009, the closest I found to a source relating Moneta to Ancient Greek μονήρης is in an article, or rather a monograph, written in Classical Greek, that appeared in 1909 in volume 5 of the Journal international d'archéologie numismatique:[2]
Κύριον χαρακτηριστικὸν τῆς παραδόσεως περὶ τῆς διὰ τοῦ ἐπιθέτου Moneta ἢ Μονήτα ἐπικλήσεως τῆς Ἥρας εἶναι ἡ ἐν ἀπορίᾳ χρημάτων, κατόπιν σεισμοῦ (Cicero) ἢ πολέμον (Σουΐδας), ἐπανόρθωσις τῇ συμβουλῇ χρησμοῦ τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Ἥρας διὰ συὸς ἐγκύμογος (sue plena procuratio). Λοιπὸν γνωρίζομεν ὅτι ὁ σῦς, δηλαδὴ ὁ ἄγριος ὕς, ἐκαλεῖτο ἑλληνιστὶ μονιὸς ὡς ζῶν μονήρης καὶ ἐν ἰδίᾳ μονῇ μονιτεύων (πβλ. καὶ τὰς λέξεις μονηΐς, μονία, μονίας).
It uses the word μονιὸς (moniòs) (“wild swine”) as a stepping stone: the oracle of the Hera temple gave the Romans advice on a situation of financial distress; the advice was communicated through a pregnant sow, a wild one; and wild swine prefer a solitary life.
Notwithstanding the admirable creativity for the sense development, it remains to be explained why the ancient Romans chose to use a word of Greek provenance to bestow an epithet on their divine protectress. Furthermore, the transformation from something like /moˈne.res/ to /moˈneː.ta/ is also a nontrivial step.  --Lambiam 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
data: in Greek, Katharevousa: p.214 (214-217) etymology of Moneta under the chapter p.207 (jambons), of p.147 Numismatics lessons, by Ioannis Svoronos in theJournal international d'archéologie numismatique, vol.9, 1906. Contents. ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ I 05:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

弖[edit]

RFV of the etymology.

Absolutely no sources; added by dead @荒巻モロゾフ. Do not close just because of claimed (but definitely not) harassment. Chuterix (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere not too long ago that this 弖 character form is a known scribal variant for 氐. Can't find where I saw that just at the moment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=1000071&page=179 Xie1995 (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Xiè xiè, @Xie1995! That isn't the page I remember, but that definitely corroborates what I saw. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

秋津[edit]

I think this entire entry is all wrong etymology-wise. Akizu appears to be the initial form while akitsu is a shift since the Heian period (per Kōjien and Daijirin, and the NKD just stating the historical spelling あきづ is the older form). The etymology of akitsu is also pretty odd, since I'm not even sure where the mushi element comes from (perhaps it's a misreading of the NKD entry which gives あきつ虫 as the definition). akitsumushi *is* an entry in the NKD but is only attested since the Edo period and is given as a compound with mushi, so I don't think it has much to do with this. lattermint (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update re akitsu mushi: the user who added that etymology gave their reasoning in this edit, but once again that seems quite spurious given it's a term of its own that postdates the original term and the mushi bit is still completely arbitrary. lattermint (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The revision history doesn't inspire confidence. Both of the editors who contributed to the etymology have been banned for high volumes of edits in languages they don't know. Fumiko is particularly arrogant and incompetent. That said, I don't know enough to comment on the etymology itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lattermint, looks like the dodgy etym was added in this edit from February 2019.
As you note, the akidu reading is the oldest attested form, making akitu or akitsu the later development (which the prior etym editor had gotten backwards).
I don't have time to dive into this one to fix it up fully, so for now, I've gone ahead and ripped out the incorrect info. Better to be incomplete than to be wrong. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mille[edit]

The cited source (De Vaan) is misrepresented in this entry. De Vaan doesn't say *ǵʰéslo- 'thousand' comes from the root *ǵʰés- for 'hand'; what he says is that *ǵʰéslo- may have meant 'heap' (which is, at least, obviously more plausible semantically for the meaning 'thousand' than 'a full hand'). The derivation from 'hand' is repeated in the entry for the Greek cognate and in the entry on *ǵʰéslom itself, but nowhere is it sourced, and in fact it contradicts the cited sources (Beekes, like De Vaan, assumes 'heap' and does not mention 'hand'). I can't even start to rewrite all of these entries to fix this, but false attributions of views to sources are as bad as it gets and should not be tolerated.--62.73.69.121 11:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look into de Vaan's dictionary there are references.
  • Ernout-Meillet refer to F. Sommer, "Handbuch der Laut- und Formenlehre" (1902), who glossed *smī-ǵzhlī "Tausendheit", *ǵzhlī=*ǵhslī- *ǵʰéslo- "1000", *sm̥-ǵʰéslo- "ein Tausend", and remark on a variety of different explanations which they call more ingenious than convincing because in their view no set term for "1000" existed in Indo-European.
  • Walde-Hofmann concure basically, rejecting a hypothesis by Grimm and followed by Brugmann.
De Vaan also cites Leumann, Coleman, Sihler and Meiser who offer different vowel changes to account for final -e.
  • Meiser in turn cites Rix for the semantics of a handfull of seed kernels "eine Hand(voll [von Samenkörnern])" from which a large quantity "eine große Anzahl" (Meiser 1998: 174), which may be translated as "a heap" (thus de Vaan), except that that is not exactly what Rix wrote.
TIL: *-lo- (viz. *-lós) marks Verbaladjektive like nomina agentis. So *ǵʰes- would have to be a verb root in origin, in zero-grade, for which no direct evidence exists, but fassen (“grasp, to catch”) is plausible in comparison with the noted nouns summed up under *ǵʰes- (Rix 1991: 228). It is not included in LIV² (Rix, Kümmel et al.) but there is *ǵʰer-, cf. हृ (hṛ, “to take”), notably without reliable comparison (NB: hortus is cited in both works). Note that the reference to kernels may be informed by either typology or poetry ("And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered," GEN 13:16). The reference to the hand is typologically likely at least for the lower numbers. For higher numberals, I 'd like to say I read a lot, but I can not.
  • Sihler, "[μυριάς (muriás) "10,000" etc.] also have the meaning of any immense number, and that is probably the original meaning." (1995: 425). This seems to be true of Indo-Iranian "1000" which can mean higher thousands as well. And I would argue that so many, some and German so manche (meaning "some, a lot" but built as "so many") are a useful tangent to this point even if they should not be cognate in the strict sense.
So, technically the quote is correct? Admittedly, Weiss Grammar says that "[...] the semantic development is questionable" (2005: 373), if you want to quote substantially. The root can still be found in NIL though (Wodtko-Irslinger-Schneider 2008: 170-172).
More research is needed. Any form of discussion should be handled in the reconstruction space, so I will delete the bit. Is that better? On the downside, this too is questionable if a unique word is not reconstructable as Rix seems to argue that different phrases existed which fossilized independently in Greek, Latin and Indo-Iranian, and are absent in the more peripheral branches. To lemmatize under *ǵʰéslom which is not immediately attested to mean "thousand" or anything is perhaps not the best idea.
See also Wiktionary:Etymology#References. DurdyWendy (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moenis[edit]

Has anyone ever suggested in print that Moenis, the Latin name for the River Main, is from Proto-Celtic *moinis (“treasure, precious object”)? Phonologically, the connection is beautiful, but I've never heard of Iron Age Europeans giving their rivers names with that sort of meaning. Usually river names mean things like "river" or "water" or "full of fish" or are named after river deities. They didn't usually go in for metaphors like "this river is a real treasure". —Mahāgaja · talk 13:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable suggestion! But *moinis derives from PIE *mey- (to change), so it may refer to a river with a tendency to change its course. 24.108.18.81 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Germanic cognate *mainiz means "common" and the Latin cognate mūnis means "ready to be of service, obliging", so maybe the Celtic word originally meant something like "belonging to everyone" or "useful", both which could conceivably be a way to describe a river. On the other hand, precious treasures most certainly do not belong to everyone and tend not to be particularly useful, either. Hmm... —Mahāgaja · talk 19:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good suggestions! But a river is more likely to be named for something like a tendency to change course. 24.108.18.81 23:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mahagaja, if you are interested in German river names, do you have any suggestions for Ems aka Amisia?
  • Ad fontes, I have no source, but you may be able to access Kuhn's article in Beiträge zur Namenforschung 4 (1969)? Ad Asterisk, I believe you are too critical in the end. Ritual spaces receive donations which need to be stored. As a profane example, the original Habsburg was a treasury and Hab maybe a hydronymic, compare Haff, but this is not documented. On a grander scale, reserve (fund) is cognate with reservation (land), you know, where *ser- (“to protect”) may be cognate to *srew- (“to flow”), formally speaking. Certainly there are more examples which fail less to convince than a game of bingo with fishy names instead of numbers. DurdyWendy (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khitan[edit]

Cathay comes from Khitan, that is well established. So what about Khitan? There is not much to go on, except that the original form was something like qid un. The Khitans had close dealings with Korea in both trade and warfare, especially with w:Balhae#Fall.

I'd like to suggest that Khitan might be an exonym derived from #크다 (keuda), Middle Korean khútá (great, big).

w:Alexander Vovin has written much on Korean-Khitan linguistic exchange' 24.108.18.81 19:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long section at the ZH Wikipedia article specifically about this very topic. Starting with the existing research would probably be a good idea. Kungming2 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, really helpful! I'll have to consult zh:wikipedia more often! 24.108.18.81 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this at Cathay, let's see if it gets accepted. 24.108.18.81 02:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sputter, splutter[edit]

We say "splutter" is merely sound-imitative, whereas we say "sputter" is a equivalent to "spout" + "-er" and derives from semantically meaningful (rather than merely onomatopoeic) roots, but the meanings are so interchangeable that it seems unlikely there is not a stronger connection. Is splutter perhaps a sound-motivated alteration of sputter? - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

猫[edit]

RFV of the etymology (Etymology 2; nekoma).

Added by Aramaki Morozov, with absolutely zero sources as usual. "note that in compound words for species names, the pitch pattern may be simplised to <-HL> when the final element is a 2-mora noun..." Any examples? (Martin (1987:234-239) gives examples of a atonic two-mora noun + atonic two mora noun changing to atonic noun <LLLL>. He gives exceptions, but compounds that have <LLHL> often are compounds of <LL> + <HH>; his exceptions where he gives compounds of <LL> + <LL> are just plain <LLLH> or <LLHH> (see WT discord for pictures of the page) Chuterix (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%8C%AB&direction=next&oldid=69907402 The edit in question. Chuterix (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything in particular to say about the pitch patterns, but I am concerned that our current etymology for the neko reading doesn't mention the common view that this is onomatopoeic ne + diminutive / endearing suffix -ko. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr: Of course the initial mora must have been onomatopoeic, but the problem is that we cannot account for the word final -ma that begins to appear in MJ, and ko1 'child' is a class 1.1 word (initial high register <H> accent). Note that 真 (ma, “real”) is only prefix or noun (but prefix is more common), and 間 (ma, “space”) does not match semantically. To tell whether a monosyllabic word belongs to the low register is if it has a Atamadaka (H-L) accent in Tokyo, which is the regular reflex. Class 1.1 and 1.2 are Heiban (L-H) in standard Tokyo dialect. There are irregularities, which is why it's best I deal with the comparative accentual stuff; otherwise based solely on Tokyo, 雲 (kumo, “cloud”) could theoretically be a class 2.4/5 word, but other dialects point to class 2.3, and the irregular accent is likely due to contamination with 蜘蛛 (kumo, “spider”) (< pJ *kompo 2.5). Chuterix (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that nekoma appears from the 900s, while neko from the 800s. I wonder if this development might be one of the following:
  • suffix -ma indicating state: "cat-ness" as perhaps an originally humorous nuance
  • influence from or blend with koma ("foal, young horse" / "piece, as for chess")
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It actually appears first attest in Shin'yaku Kegon Ongi Shiki, per JDB (p. 559). The Engishiki attestation is also incorrect spelling (in the particular manuscript), the same entry in JDB cites 禰古 for Engishiki (p. 559). The problem is that ko1ma 'stallion' is also 2.1 (tone class extracted from Martin 1987, 455, will further check when I get home). Anyways this "<-LL> changes to <-HL> in animal names if final compound is two mora noun" is completely unsourced and needs to be investigated. If Aramaki can just come back and explain this mess. Chuterix (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added an example of this unsourced "fact", so this rfv-etym is solved (at least right now). Chuterix (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China ~ Qin[edit]

The most accepted theory is that China derives from 秦 (Qin) - a family, a dynasty, and the state it founded. So whence comes 秦?

It seems to derive from 秦 valley in eastern Gansu, where the surname first appeared as retainers of the Zhou. The ideogram combines the images pestle and grain, so it was probably a word refering to fertile territory. Compare 餐 (can, to eat).

Any suggestions would be welcome. 24.108.18.81 01:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so I have posted this to 秦. 24.108.18.81 17:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/lusą[edit]

RFV of the etymology. Would have expected origin from the same extension of PIE *lewh as for the verb *leusan-.--62.73.69.121 09:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Leasnam (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/winnaną[edit]

RFV of the etymology. Kroonen derives it from a separate root *wen-, not from *wenh/Hwenh1 as in *weniz. LIV keeps the two roots *wen- and *wenH- separate as well. Even if some do equate them, that may be a minority view that shouldn't be presented as the main version in the entry on *winnan-, 'win' etc.--62.73.69.121 11:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, LIV derives it from *wn̥-néw-ti, cognate with Sanskrit वनोति (vanoti, “to win”). The derivation from *wenH- is Gotō's (1987) "Die „I. Präsensklasse" im Vedischen", but LIV's is better. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

provincia[edit]

RFV of the etymology. As 'alternative etymologies' to De Vaan's reasonable interpretation, it is claimed to derive from a supposed PIE *proHwo- 'right judge, master', or from a *prowo- 'right, true'. Neither is sourced. Even worse, Proto-Slavic pravъ 'right, correct' (as reflected also in the entries about all of its descendants) is also claimed to derive from the same alleged PIE 'right judge, master', which would clearly be too secondary and specialised a meaning to be able to give rise to the basic meaning of 'right(-hand)'.--62.73.69.121 13:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do for a reconstruction with multiple forms?[edit]

What is the suggested policy when a root has two forms (whether because of uncertainty/disagreement about the reconstructed form or because it is believed there really were two forms)? As an example, consider Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/wey-; the main source for this reconstruction, Krishnamurti (2003), gives the root as *wec/wey. Which of the following is the correct way to handle this, or if none of them are correct, what do you suggest? (I have omitted the Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/ from the prefixes for clarity):

  1. Name the page wey- and set up a redirect from wec-, or vice versa.
  2. Name the page wec-/wey- and set up a redirect from wec- and wey-.
  3. Essentially the same as the last option, but name the page wec/wey- (only one dash, at the end, instead of two).
  4. Name the page wey- but create a page for wec- whose definition is something like Alternate form of wey-.
(a) Do the above, but then also set up redirects from wec-/wey-, wec/wey-, wey/wec-, etc. to wey-.

Note that I'm asking partly because there are cases where an entry links to a non-existent version of the title, e.g. ಬಿಸಿಲು whose etymology contains a reference to the presently non-existent Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/wec-/*wey- (note also the superfluous asterisk due to the use of the {{der}} template). Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have different conventions for different reconstructed languages. For Proto-Indo-European, our common practice is to pick one reconstruction as the primary one, then list alternative reconstructions on the page. For Proto-Sino-Tibetan, on the other hand, we have entry names like Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/b-r-gjat ~ b-g-rjat and Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/m-ljak ~ mrak ~ mruk, where the competing hypotheses are all listed in the page name. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Does anyone familiar with the Proto-Dravidian entries happen to know what the convention is? Pinging @AleksiB 1945 and @Bhashashastri1234 (as the only two users I have interacted with who work on Dravidian). Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through CAT:Proto-Dravidian lemmas I didn't see any formatted like Proto-Sino-Tibetan, but after a word search I did find several with "Alternative reconstructions" sections: Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/caH-, Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/puH, Reconstruction:Proto-North Dravidian/keH-, Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/pilli and Reconstruction:Proto-South Dravidian/ū. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reconstructed word structure depends on the majority of the descendant word structures. If one of the forms has more descendants than the other, then that will be created as the main entry, and the other form will be under the heading of alternative forms. Illustrious Lock (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
imo if there is a difference in reconstruction between diff authors then we could use alt reconstructions and if a single author considers the word form to be uncertain/considers that indeed there were multiple forms in the proto lang we could use alt forms. For the title we could use the most commonly accepted form/the rec of the most prominent author (BK) or the form with the most descendents, better than using PST like form1~form2 in the title. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AleksiB 1945 @Illustrious Lock what do you suggest we do in this specific case, for *wec-/wey-? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC
The page Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/wec- already exists and wey- will be put under the heading of alternative forms. Illustrious Lock (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

iubeō[edit]

If Latin iubeō is from Old Latin ioubeō, from Proto-Italic *jouðejō, why isn't the u long in Classical Latin? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is it was shortened in analogy to iussī, iussum. A reason could be that there were many (or any?) 2nd conjugation verbs with preserved root ablaut. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi جند / ਜਿੰਦ / jind[edit]

Meaning 'life'/'soul'. Would this be a corruption/linked to Persian زِنْدَگِی (zindagī) or related to ਜਿਊਣਾ (jiūṇā, “to live”), along with other terms derived from the Sanskrit root जीव् (jīv) (like جِیوَن (jīvan, “life, youth”))? نعم البدل (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be related to جیندا/جیوندا Notevenkidding (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India[edit]

Term India could possibly develop from Arabic term Hindiyyah هِنْدِيَّة

  • Reasons

Term India was the synonymous term for Mogul empire. https://in.pinterest.com/pin/538180224194101915/

Hindiyyah هِنْدِيَّة happens to one of the official name of Mogul empire which is found on the epithet of Emperor Aurangzeb. https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175254/http://www.asiaurangabad.in/pdf/Tourist/Tomb_of_Aurangzeb-_Khulatabad.pdf

Term Hindostan was also the synonymous term for Mogul empire https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Hindoostan,_1788,_by_Rennell.jpg

But Term Indostan happens to be the obsolete form of term Hindoostan/Hindustan https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Indostan

As Hindoostan became Indostan in latin, Like that; Hindiyyah (Hindia) became India. Abirtel (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin name was India, which was almost certainly borrowed from Ancient Greek Ἰνδία (Indía). The latter name can be explained as Ἰνδός (Indós, “the Indus river”) +‎ -ία (-ía), in which the suffix -ία is regularly used to form names of geographic areas (Αἰολία (Aiolía), Αἰτωλία (Aitōlía), Ἀλβανία (Albanía), ...). At the time, the predecessors of Arabic, the Old Arabic languages, were languages of low prestige, attested by scant inscriptions, so borrowing from Old Arabic is unlikely. The name Ἰνδός (Indós) for the river comes likely from Old Persian Hiⁿduš.  --Lambiam 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any word that has last "ia" ending has an absolute linkage of semitic linkage.
Greek or Latin surely have semitic links in their naming system.
Moreover, Greek tradition does not only have one tradition. There are other traditions also.
Arabic or even other semitic tongue has very fixed naming system for place. Like wise Aramaic term for "Bharat" is Hendea" which is very close to Arabic Hindiyyah.
Wiktionary has an entry for Hindia, there has been asserted that, It is just another term for portuguese term Índia.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hindia
I do not understand why there is such Semiticophobia among Europeans!
Likewise: If you go for Amalia term, we are told Amalia is a germanic term!
But if you go to root it is a Semitic term for sure. It is a direct borrowing of Hebrew/Arabic root word "Amal عمل". The female version is Amal + iyya(t) = Amaliyyah عَمَلِيَّة. Male version is Aamil عامل
If you really think present India term is from Greek Ἰνδία then only Modern day Pakistan could be the from that historic point. Other regions of Modern day India can't be India, bcz they were distinct political and cultural entities. Abirtel (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many English terms borrowed from Arabic, but India is not one of them. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated earlier,
territory of Modern term India exceeds The territory of Greek India.
So English term India is borrowed from latin Hindia/India. Abirtel (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asia is also from Greek, even though in Greek it used to refer to a small part of western Anatolia. So what? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be completely different etymological viewpoint.
All of the etymologies must be added on the page of certain word.
Greetings. Abirtel (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Greek part of Greco-Roman cromulent[edit]

In diff, a user added that cromulent "may be analyzed as an ultimately [[Greco-Latin]] term, hypothetically as if from {{m|VL.||*cromulentus}} (then borrowed to English via {{noncog|fro|-}}; compare {{m|en|corpulent}}, {{m|en|excellent}}, etc.), from fictitious prefix {{suf|la|*cromus|ulentus|t1=rightness?|t2=full of, abounding in}}." OK, the suffix is Latinate, but what part of this hypothetical etymology is Greek, that would make it "Greco-Latin" as opposed to "Latinate"? (As an aside, I have more than once found that user's edits to entries to be unhelpful... not necessarily introducing errors per se, but unnecessary verbosity or speculation...) - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche I think they're using Greco-Latin as a synonym for "Classical". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the etymology, removing the unsourced speculation that if a Latin word *cromus had existed and meant "rightness", this would look like it was derived from it. - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

недвижимость[edit]

Is it a calque of French immobilier or German Immobilie? Shoshin000 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They all translate Latin rēs immōbilis.
The native German is Liegenschaft, also phrases as liegender Grund, liegendes Gut, vs. Fahrnis, so недви́жимость (nedvížimostʹ) is contracted from недвижимая вещь, directly corresponding to the name with classical Roman jurisprudence. Fay Freak (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tuck[edit]

RFV of Etymology 4. Other dicts just give this as a straightforward sense development of Ety 1, first as a verb, then transferred to the noun. I can't imagine why British school slang would be formed from an Old Occitan root. This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Flet#Stop! and Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/September Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems like this user's edits from 2013 may not have been properly audited. Cat:English terms derived from Occitan and Cat:English terms derived from Old Occitan may need a look. This, that and the other (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they seem to be a prime example of what I like to call the Small Shiny Object school of etymology: they remind me of a creature like a packrat or magpie that picks up whatever attracts its attention without knowing anything about it. I bet @Nicodene could make short work of their edit history. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

po-po[edit]

The etymology for the English slang word currently gives two highly specific and apparently contradictory explanations of its origin: "From reduplication of the abbreviation PO (“police officer”), originally in reference to partnered bike officers in Southern California whose paired shirts would read POPO" and "POPO originated in Pontiac Michigan during Detroit's heaviest crime wave during the 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s." Can either of these specific details (about "partnered bike officers in Southern California" or "Pontiac Michigan") be verified by any reliable source? To me, it seems plausible that it could have originated simply from reduplication of the initial syllable of police, which has a pronunciation /ˈpoʊ.liːs/ in some accents. It having something to do with abbreviations on the shirts of partnered bike officers seems unnecessary and unlikely. Urszag (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a connection to poopoo could have played a part, considering how many slurs that exist for the occupation. Wakuran (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both OED and Green's Dictionary of Slang state that it comes from shortening and reduplication of police, which seems intuitively correct to me. I suspect that the two highly specific origins are received wisdom in Southern California and Michigan, respectively; one of them might be true, but it is also possible that neither is. Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

相槌[edit]

I've seen multiple instances (including most major dictionaries like weblio, goo.jp and kotobank) quote that the origin of the word 相槌 is in the context of making a Katana sword, namely that when 3 people forge a sword together the master/the one crafting the sword taps it with the hammer (to give the rythm) and gives the 相槌 whereas the other three in succession respond by hitting the sword with their hammer. ジュリあン (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NKD entry here at Kotobank cites this to the 1260s, but with regard to any workpiece in a forge, and perhaps only one master and one apprentice: the master taps for the rhythm, the apprentice hits with the hammer. Alternatively, both strike the workpiece with their hammers, in succession.
Your post here doesn't actually include a question. Could you clarify? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It said the word was missing a etymology on here so I thought surely others know better than me how to add that (I never edited here) and I wanted to rule out that it was a misunderstanding of the Japanese on my side as I'm quite good but nowhere near fluent. ジュリあン (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udmurt and Yakut borrowing from Mongolian?[edit]

Anybody knows if Udmurt курень (kureń, “brown”) and Yakut күрэҥ (küreñ, “brown ponny”) are borrowed from Mongolian? Tollef Salemann (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems also that Udmurt may be borrowed from Tatar көрән (körän), which is from Mongolian. Tollef Salemann (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola 1977 (Materialen zur wotjakischen Etymologie) points towards the following references (sorry for un-backtranslitterated Cyrillic):
  • Fedotov, M. R. 1968: Istoričeskie svjazi čuvašskogo jazyka s volžskimi i permskimi finno-ugorskimi jazykami, p. 110 (Čeboksary)
  • 1975: Fenno-ugristica. Trudy po finnougrovedeniju I, p. 320 (Tartu)
  • 1959: Voprosy udmurtskogo jazykoznanija 1, p. 40 (Iževsk)
  • 1973: Voprosy udmurtskogo jazykoznanija. Vypusk vtoroj, p. 35 (Iževsk)
and if it appears in the first of those, fairly safe guess it's proposed to be Mongolic ↔ Bulghar > older Chuvash → Udmurt. --Tropylium (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! In modern Chuvash brown is хӑмӑр tho. Tollef Salemann (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nether[edit]

from PIE *h₁n̥dʰér, perchance? 203.145.95.77 15:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way PIE *-dʰe ~ *-dʰi derived Proto-Germanic *-þ, so it seemed possible being an exception to Grimm's law with this parallel example (especially that the *-dʰ- from *h₁n̥dʰér is from *-dʰe ~ *-dʰi) 203.145.95.77 15:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • h₁n̥dʰér derived Latin inferus which *dʰ shifted to /θ/, compare Proto-Germanic niþer. I think its more plausible being from*h₁n̥dʰér, since the *-þer is unexplained.
203.145.95.77 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be different derivations from the same basic PIE root, as far as I can see. Wakuran (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The -þer seems to be from -téros. Still derivation from *h₁n̥dʰér would be more believable 203.145.95.77 00:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English already has under, so I guess -dʰ- becoming -th- would be difficult to explain. Wakuran (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

פּינקלען[edit]

Any ideas? Surely not related to German pinkeln. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not Slavic or something, perhaps from "blinkeln", iterative of "blinken". By dissimilation and/or influenced by "פֿינקלען" = German "funkeln" (older also "fünkeln"). 90.186.83.227 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nausicaa[edit]

The links to Latin Nausicaa are broken, as there is no Latin entry. Ncfavier (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

madka[edit]

Hi! The etymology currently given for the Polish entry on "madka" (Blend of English mad +‎ matka (“mother”)) is a possible one, but not the most probable one. According to WSJP, Wyraz utworzony być może jako imitacja hiperpoprawnych zapisów wyrazu matka. Możliwe jest też skojarzenie z ang. przymiotnikiem mad 'szalony'. (Word coined possible as an imitation of hypercorrect spellings of the word 'matka'. Possible connotations with the English adjective 'mad'.). I would like to correct it, but I'm not sure which template(s) to use for 1. uncertain/multiple etymologies 2. words created from alternative spellings. Any help would be highly appreciated! Thank you! Literowka (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese -deira[edit]

An entry should be created regarding the suffix -deira. There seems to be a Category:Portuguese_terms_suffixed_with_-deira, which includes words like "brincadeira" and, as I just found out, "escorredeira" and "escorregadeira". How does this suffix work? Polomo47 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's equivalent etymologically to -(a)do + the feminine of -eiro, but I can't say what the best analysis is for how it works in the current language.--Urszag (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nahal[edit]

What's the etymology of etymology section 1? Hebrew? - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, נַחַל. Fay Freak (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2024/March&oldid=79016916"