Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium

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.

Click here to start a new Etymology scriptorium discussion.

Wiktionary discussion rooms (edit) see also: requests

Information desk start a new discussion | this month | archives Newcomers’ questions, minor problems, specific requests for information or assistance.

Tea room start a new discussion | this month | archives Questions and discussions about specific words.

Etymology scriptorium start a new discussion | this month | archives Questions and discussions about etymology—the historical development of words.

Beer parlour start a new discussion | this month | archives General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.

Grease pit start a new discussion | this month | archives Technical questions, requests and discussions.

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 – All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

Etymology scriptorium

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

Etymology scriptorium archives edit
2025 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2024 January February March April May June July August September October November December
Earlier years 2023 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2022 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2021 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2020 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2019 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2018 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2017 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2014 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 February March April May June July August September October November December 2011 January March April May June July October November December 2010 February March April May June August September October November December 2009 February March August

December 2024

Reconstruction:Proto-South Dravidian/cinkiwēr

The redirect doesn't make sense at all, and is clearly vandalism by a currently blocked user. However, even though I'm not a Dravidianist, I question the reconstruction itself: Neither Reconstruction:Proto-Dravidian/cinkiwēr nor Reconstruction:Proto-South Dravidian/cinkiwēr seems to be a plausible reconstruction, given that Old Tamil 𑀇𑀜𑁆𑀘𑀺𑀯𑁂𑀭𑁆 (iñcivēr) seems to be a compound inside Old Tamil, and 𑀇𑀜𑁆𑀘𑀺 (iñci) a loanword (even if Old Tamil is apparently not the direct source of Sauraseni Prakrit 𑀲𑀺𑀁𑀕𑀺𑀯𑁂𑀭 (siṃgivera)). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

egel

According to the Proto-Germanic pages these are not related. tbf the derivation of *egalaz is phonologically uncertain. Suryaratha03 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a source, but the page for 'egel' has a more recent source which doesn't seem so sure about the connection. Kluge says the origin of Egel is unclear. Exarchus (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European *h₁eǵʰis says: "Related to *h₂éngʷʰis and *h₁ógʷʰis." Seems debatable/dubious... Exarchus (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Filos

Filos, a protist, is the type genus of the family Filidae. I do not have access to the to the full original publication to know its etymology. Can you read this paper: E. Kim, E. et al? Gerardgiraud (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

They write:

Etymology: Filos (m.), friend, alludes to its epibiontic relationship with Apoikia; agilis, agile, refers to its swimming motion.

This is a slightly unusual Romanization of Ancient Greek φίλος (phílos).  --Lambiam 08:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Korkyra

w:Korkyra_(mythology) tells us she was the daughter of Asopos and Metope. I analyze this as Ancient Greek κόρη (kórē, “girl, maiden”) + Ancient Greek κῡρῐ́ᾱ (kūrĭ́ā, “lady”), thus young lady. 24.108.0.44 13:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You should obviously realise that the mythology can be invented after the island has been named. But the original name is apparently Κέρκυρα, which Frisk (Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch) relates to the Illyric demonym Κέρκυρες, but he also mentions a possible link to Latin quercus (“oak”). Exarchus (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Corfu article the word already occurs in Mycenaean Greek as ko-ro-ku-ra-i-jo. Exarchus (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The Illyrian reflex of Quercus would probably be similar to Lithuanian perkūnas, so Κέρκυρες would probably be borrowed from this toponym; w:Corfu#Name tells us that Kerkyra is the Doric variant of Korkyra. And ko-ro-ku-ra-i-jo sounds very much like a Mycenean version of κόρη-κῡρῐ́ᾱ. 24.108.0.44 22:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The source for the link to Latin 'quercus' is this article. The explanation given of the first 'k' is assimilation to second 'k' (p.84). But this is simply one hypothesis and Chantraine calls it 'unprovable'. Exarchus (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether Mycenaean ko-ro-ku-ra-i-jo has anything to do with the island is unclear according to 'The Mycenaean Greek Vocabulary', they also mention a possible connection to γόργυρα or Κροκύλεια. (But maybe those hypotheses are outdated?) The Mycenaean version of κόρη (kórē) is 𐀒𐀷 (ko-wa /⁠kórwā⁠/), so no, it doesn't look like a version of κόρη-κῡρῐ́ᾱ in any case. Exarchus (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Few terms in the Lex Frisionum

I've been making a small list of Germanic terms found in the Latin-language Lex Frisionum compiled during the reign of Charlemagne. A few of these I am not sure how to explain, namely

• forresni (“instigation”) (apparently containing for-)
• herthamon (“pericardium”) (containing heart)
• mithridri (“midriff”) (containing mid-)
• screona (“weaver’s hut”)
• sipido (“type of scar”)
• smelo (“upper phalanx of the thumb”)
• lito (“serf”)
• fresum (“a type of Frisian fabric”).

ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 15:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I might hazard a guess that -resni would include the root res- as in English rise and -ni as in the Scandinavian inchoative/ causative verb ending -na. Wakuran (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That, or forresni "treason" is a derivative of Old Frisian forrēda (“to betray”), the -resni part being distantly related to Old English rǣs (“advice”)...Leasnam (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• The others:
  • hertehama = herte + *hama "garment, covering";
  • mithridri = mid + hrithere "diaphragm";
  • screona = Old Frisian skirma (“shelter”) ? or skrīn (“shrine, chest, coffer”) ?;
  • sipido = Old Frisian sipda, spido, septa, septha (“scar”), perhaps from *saipiþu < *saipu "amber, salve", related to Old English sāp (“amber, resin, pomade”) ?;
  • smelo = ? perhaps from smel "small" ?
  • lito = ? perhaps from lēt "half-free";
  • fresum = from Frēs "Frisian", or perhaps related to frēsle "curl, nap";
• Leasnam (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Certain:

• herthamon ‘pericardium’ < *hertô (“heart”) + *hamô (“wrapping”).
• lito ‘serf’ < *lētaz (“id.”). Note that ⟨i⟩ represented both [i] and [e] in Late Latin spelling.

Uncertain:

• screona ‘weaver's hut’ < *skūrō (“shack”, see descendants).
• smelo ‘upper phalanx of the thumb’ < *smalaz (“small”). Cf. Old Frisian smel (“small”) for the stressed vowel.

Nicodene (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

hurry up and wait

Is this military? TDHoward (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The US Armed Forces appear to be the origin. A former US Army officer (1988–2004) writes at Quora:^[1]

That is exactly the phrase I recall from my days in the military when there was a task that had to be done at a certain time or a place. Unless it was a true emergency, it was almost never tackled right away.

“Hurry up and wait” is military lingo.

For example, if a group of soldiers were awaiting orders from above to do just about anything, they’d be told that orders were pending and to await those orders.

Another Quora post, from a USMC nco (Force Recon-Vietnam):^[2]

The phrase, Hurry up and wait is common in all the branches. It’s almost a Mantra.

 --Lambiam 08:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

When I was a child, I heard it from my father (who was in the US Army during WWII) as a characterization of how time was spent, especially during complex operations involving multiple units. DCDuring (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I first heard the expression from someone who had grown up an army brat. I wouldn't label it {{lb|en|military}}, but it does seem worth mentioning in the Etymology section that the phrase originated in the military. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• The song Hurry Up and Wait doesn't use it militarily P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Stereophonics? Pitbull? It's a relatively recent song, though, so I ascribe that to poetic licence. Wakuran (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

imut

I think the lack of words resembling 'imut' in languages such as Malay and Javanese, added with the fact that 'imut' in Sundanese means 'to smile' (smiling does make someone look cute) would make it a Sundanese-derived Indonesian term. Udaradingin (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Udaradingin: You're on the right track. In pre-1980 sources, the word doesn't show up other than in Sundanese texts. It starts to appear as a colloquial Indonesian term in the 1980s: this Google Books snippet[3] from the Kamus bahasa prokem is very telling and may indicate how the semantic change has come about. –Austronesier (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

つんつん

ぽつんつんぼ 2600:387:B:3:0:0:0:49 14:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Latin involō

"to attack, seize, take possession of, carry off" Might this sense not be from such a compound as in- +‎ vola +‎ -ō (to take in one's hand, grasp) ? If we separate the "to attack" meaning it is semantically plausible, even more so than the one we used thus far (to fly/rush in -> invade -> pillage -> seize ?). Saumache (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've found this gloss by Servius on Aeneid 3.233, for what it's worth: "praedam pedibus circumvolat uncis aut circum praedam [dixit] volat uncis pedibus: aut intra volam interiorem manus amplectitur praedam: unde et 'involare' dicimus intra volam tenere, unde et pyra quaedam volema dicuntur, eo quod volam impleant." Other New Latin dictionnaries mention it but I think I'm chasing rainbows. Saumache (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Nájera

Rfv of etymology for Spanish town, added by blocked Gfarnab. Exarchus (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

hewers of wood and drawers of water

The following page has wrong information: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hewers_of_wood_and_drawers_of_water#English

It states that this biblical term is first mentiioned in Joshua 9:21. Howeverm the term already appears in Deut. 29:10

Avraham Roo 2A06:C701:762A:7000:F966:6AE5:71A9:3F6A 13:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Deut. 29:11 has "from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water", so not technically the same as the English expression. Exarchus (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

French fuite

It is written that this word comes from the feminine singular past participle of the verb fuir (“to flee, to escape”). However, this inflected form is shown as fuie on this verb's entry. Confusing... OweOwnAwe (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the etymology based on TLFi. Exarchus (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I find the form *fūgĭta given by the TLFi strange. (I haven't looked yet at the references it gives.) The postulated lengthening of the vowel seems unnecessary, since short u sometimes became [y] or [ɥ] before a palatal sound (e.g. Old French dui from duī). I would expect the short i in -gĭta to syncopate, creating a consonant cluster which would protect the following -t-. I see that our entry for fuie actually gives its etymon as *fūgīta: I agree that a form in -īta is more likely to be the source of this form, but doesn't this contradict what the TLFi says?--Urszag (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The length of the i in *fūgīta (at fuie) was changed by IP-user 81.154.157.159, so it doesn't have to mean anything. FEW actually gives fŭgĭta, with short 'u'.

Maybe the 'g' disappeared before the 'i' would have done so. Phonological history of French says about the Proto-Gallo-Ibero-Romance stage: "/j/, /dj/, /ɡj/, /ɡʲ/ have all merged as /j/ by this point." Exarchus (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the length of the 'u', you also have to look at the other Romance languages and wouldn't short Vulgar Latin /u/ have given Italian 'foggire'? Exarchus (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It is cognate with Catalan fuita and Spanish huida, from fŭgĭta according to Coromines. Also participle in Spanish and Old Catalan still used in Balearic: ca:fuit. Vriullop (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Old Saxon Delensions of "mann"

I'm not sure if this is the right disscussion room and I don't know how to edit an article but the declension of Old Saxon "mann" is:

singular
nominative: man 
accusative: man
gentive: mannes/mannas
dative: manne/man
plural:
nominative: man 
accusative: man
genitive: manno 
dative: mannun/ mannon

source: "§202. Declination. conson. stämme." p.72 of "SAMMLUNG KURZER GRAMMATIKEN GERMANISCHER DIALEKTE. HERAUSGEGEBEN VON WILHELM BRAUNE" 202.71.151.4 16:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the dictionary form be "man" if it is the singular nominative? Wakuran (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe the nominative singular could also be mann (e.g. uuas thar ên gigamalod mann that uuas fruod gomo) Leasnam (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Gothic *𐌻𐌰𐌹𐍃𐍉 (*laisō)

What is the reason for reconstructing this as an ōn-stem? Pinging @Leasnam who created it. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:411A:E5C7:9C89:9AF0 02:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe I did because it was presented as such [here]. Why [the] Koebler [website] reconstructs it shows a reconstruction as an n-stem, I have no clue. Leasnam (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Köbler doesnt reconstruct anything. The man is mainly a legal expert and started this comprehensive dictionary to contain all important works. For that particular entry he cites Pokorny: click on an entry to view more details. Imbricitor (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It does strike me as odd, since the West Germanic counterparts are strong o-stems, and West Germanic and Gothic tend to agree in keeping PGmc strong o-stems as such. Leasnam (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ancient Greek οὐλόμενος (2nd verse of the Iliad)

This word, when only looking at its morpho-semantical origin, could likely mean "perished". However its meaning really is "destructive". This has been explained by bringing up the curse ὄλοιο/ὄλοιτο "may you perish/may it perish". But I can't see how this is a sufficient explanation. A thing that should perish is not necessarily something destructive, and even less in the context we are given in the Iliad. Sure, when you know something is destructive or will bring ruin, you might wish for it to perish - but this doubling up on the "destruction"-notion seems to be illogical. Instead, it could simply be a special usage of the middle participle with an active meaning. We know a similar case, inversely, from the active perfect ὀλωλέναι "to have perished" where a middle form would be expected. Does anyone know more about this? Imbricitor (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on deponent verb, perhaps relevant. Wakuran (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

καλέω

Beekes might be saying "-έω ~ -άω" and "-ή ~ -έω", not "+ -έω". The problem is that future κᾰλέω/κᾰλέσω and aorist ἐκᾰ́λεσᾰ have short ε while -έω gives a long η future -ήσω and aorist -ησᾰ. Similar problems affect τελέω and ζέω. Perhaps the page -έω needs to be edited? 172.97.141.219 16:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure ῥέω or ζέω should be mentioned at -έω, as those verbs aren't ῥ/ζ + -έω. Exarchus (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

About καλέω: LIV gives this as *kl̥h₁- + -éye-, so with a different suffix than for causative verbs. I'm going to add that one to the *-éyeti page. Exarchus (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Further clarification of associated roots

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂werg- says it is associated with ἐέργω, whereas the latter is linked to ἔργω, which says it is in turn from Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁wreǵ-. Further clarification is needed. Σ>―(〃°ω°〃)♡→L.C.D.（-{に〇〇する}-） 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

dogdraw

Which sense of draw does dogdraw derive from? P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

(Verb) 4.To move, travel, approach.> 4. (hunting, now rare) To search for game; to track a quarry. [from 16th c.] Chuck Entz (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

ചാരായം

The Malayalam etymology says it comes from Sanskrit सरक (saraka), but the Tamil cognate சாராயம் (cārāyam) has it coming from Sanskrit सार (sāra, “nectar, juice”). Pinging @Vis M. Exarchus (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

kuit

This entry (for both Afrikaans and Dutch) claims that the two different meanings have different etymologies but the given "etymology" (which only goes back to Middle Dutch) is identical. But the Dutch WT nl:kuit gives both meanings for its etymology 1. (Its etymology 2 is a different word - a kind of beer - which is not mentioned in our article.) The Dutch page also has several references, where we have none. Shall I just go ahead an attempt to update our entry from the information in the Dutch item? ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The Middle Dutch could be two different words, so that alone means little. But all of the dictionaries at etymologiebank.nl do agree that it's most likely one and the same. So I've merged them into one etymology with two noun entries. I've not done anything about the beer sense, because I don't know that word. 2.203.201.41 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

THank you. That's much better (you've even added some etymology). ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there actually a source for indicating the sense "fish eggs" as masculine? Van Dale gives "v(m)". The gender in Middle Dutch was apparently "m., o."

The word is mostly used without article, so I personally couldn't tell what the gender is without looking it up. Exarchus (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal gives (v.) for either of the two,^[4][5] as well as for the third, obsolete “beer” sense.^[6]  --Lambiam 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd change it to feminine then. But 'het kuit' is also used (though a lot less frequently), shouldn't this be added too? Exarchus (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

In het Groene Boekje and other dictionaries I could consult, it is strictly a de word in all senses. I bet het kuit is hardly ever used in the anatomical sense – zero ghits for pijn in het kuit en precisely one for kramp in het kuit against a gazillion for kramp in de kuit. We could either ignore the anomalous use of het for the “roe” sense, or mention it in a Usage note while noting that this gender reassignment has not been sanctioned by dictionaries.  --Lambiam 21:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I was certainly not suggesting giving the anatomical sense as optionally neuter. But I'm not surprised some people use het for the "roe" sense, given that it isn't a very common term (except in the expression kuitschieten, and also apparently hom of kuit in the Netherlands) and having an uncountable noun as neuter isn't unusual (het zand, het water, het gras,...). Association with het zaad seems also possible. Exarchus (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I edited the article (also removing the diminutive), feel free to improve.

Unrelatedly I noticed that many articles are not following the guidelines for Dutch gender, as at barkruk m or f. Exarchus (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

méfier bad link?

The “fier” portion points to Latin “ferus”. Should be to Latin “fido”, no? Unless it’s wild to trust ;-) TLauckBenson (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

fier#French lists both senses, unless this is some kind of joke. Wakuran (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see that Latin ferus lists French fer as a descendant instead of fier, which I remember was due to some technical issue. Wakuran (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. TLauckBenson (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely technical issues. Now that I've added 'fier' as alternative form for etymology 2 at fer, it is also shown at Latin 'ferrum'. Exarchus (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂ṓms

@Exarchus @Caoimhin ceallach I couldn't find any evidence or scholarship that reconstructs an asigmatic athematic root noun for the descendants. The declension table even used to have an s-suffix until Victar removed the s-suffix in 2018, a change whose rationale I cannot figure out. Should we restore the s-suffix to this word? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Martirosyan thinks the formation is similar to *néh₂s and the derived terms imply an -s, so ...

It's a bit funny how all of h₁/₂/₃/₄ have been reconstructed here. Maybe *H- would be the most honest option. Exarchus (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It's especially notable that Martirosyan doesn't even mention a root noun. Since all descendants are s-stems of some sort, I don't see how PIE could have been anything else. Though what type of s-stem is of course a more difficult question. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Accents on Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/upó, Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂epó etc.

Is there any source for these accents? The *upo page was moved to *upó with argumentation "With h₂epó, pró..." For *h₂epo, Beekes actually reconstructs *h₂épo (at ἀπό). And then the accent at Sanskrit अप- (apa-) was idiotically changed from 'ápa' to 'apá' here and (after being corrected) again here to conform to the reconstruction. Exarchus (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, Andrew Byrd gives */apó/ as alternative for */h₂epó/ at p.8 of The Indo-European Syllable, though without talking about the accent. Exarchus (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Add etymology for Spanish empavesar

Thank you. Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Plausibly borrowed from Italian impavesare.  --Lambiam 13:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Duchuyfootball (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Chinese doublets?

Pannonian Rusyn has two words for "tea", тея (teja) and чай (čaj). Obviously, the first one comes from Hokkien and the second one from non-Hokkien Sinitic. But it's the same character, 茶. Are they (the Pannonian terms) technically doublets? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say so, and likewise for any language with both a word from the "tea" family and a word from the "cha(i)" family, since both families descend from the same Old Chinese word. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

王八蛋

RFV of the etymology. Is it not simply 王八 (wángba, “bastard”) + 蛋 (dàn, “suffix denoting “person of certain characteristics”, usually with a pejorative tone”)? "王 + numeral" for a person of certain characteristics, e.g. 黃六／黄六 (written as 王六 in the Song dynasty work 夢梁錄) and 王老五, is typical in Chinese anyway. RcAlex36 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

オリガルヒ

I changed this from "oligarchy" to "oligarch" because it doesn't appear to mean "oligarchy" based on the original Etymology, and based on the wikipedia entry. But, also, does this word really come from олигархи, and not олигарх? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 03:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about how Russian gets adapted to Japanese, but олигарх (oligarx) → オリガルヒ (origaruhi) seems eminently possible since ヒ is pronounced [çi] and consonants have to be followed by a vowel in Japanese (with a few exceptions not relevant here). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Some transliterations of a final ⟨х⟩:

• Вах (Vax) → ヴァフ (vafu).^[7]
• Сандармох (Sandarmox) → サンダルモフ (sandarumofu).^[8]
• Черных (Černyx) → チェルヌィフ (cheru'nwifu)^[9]

But:

• Генрих (Genrix) → ゲンリク (genriku).^[10]

 --Lambiam 12:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Final х → フ is interesting, especially since the transliteration of the German name Bach (as in Johann Sebastian) is バッハ (Bahha). I always assumed that a was chosen as the support vowel precisely to avoid having an f-like sound trying to match a /x/. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mahagaja In German loanwords/names /x/ generally becomes /hhV/, with the vowel matching whatever vowel comes previously, whereas /ç/ tends to just be represented with ヒ. I'm not sure why German /x/ becomes geminated but not Russian /x/, or why Russian /x/ generally defaults to フ without matching the prior vowel, but either way there's no avoidance to using フ for /x/

German examples:

• Bach /bax/ > バッハ (bahha)
• Bruch /bʁʊx/ > ブルッフ (buruffu)
• Koch /kɔx/ > コッホ (kohho)
• Friedrich /fʁiːdʁɪç/ > フリードリヒ (furīdorihi)
• Lech /lɛç/ > レヒ川(がわ) (rehigawa)

Horse Battery (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking into it a bit more, the gemination appears to merely represent the short vowel, as with English loanwords, with vowel lengthening representing long vowels: Buchholtz /buːxhɔlt͡s/ > ブーフホルツ (būfuhorutsu) Horse Battery (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lambiam That's quite persuasive, because it seems to show that ひ coming from final х isn't usual at all. Before reading this I thought exactly as @Mahagaja's first reply. How did you come up with these examples, and are there any where the sound chosen is ひ? It would be most helpful if we had a source that would weigh in, but no dictionary I have has this word. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 18:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia I went through various lists of Russian geographical features, novelists and artists, seeking names ending on ⟨kh⟩, verifying they ended on ⟨х⟩ in Russian, and finally trying to find a Japanese article on the topic. (The final bit was the easy part.)  --Lambiam 20:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Daijisen says that it is borrowed from Russian олига́рх (oligárx).[11] Helloworld6666 (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

bagatelle

So I was following the etymology of bagatelle, which unsurpisingly comes from French, which comes from Italian bagattella.

On bagattella, it gives the etymology as "From Late Latin baga, from Latin baca. But on the page for "baga", it says it comes not from "baca" but from Middle English bagge, which just means bag. Which all told suggests the word went from Middle English to Latin to Italian to French to (modern) English. Which seems a little improbable. Also the the definitions "trifle" and "bag" is a bit of a stretch. If instead we go to "baca" we find it means "small fruit, berry; pearl; bead", which is a better semantic match.

In short: the etymology for Italian bagattella points to Late Latin baga, which seems questionable. Possibly there is an additional sense of "baga" that is missing here.

98.110.52.169 08:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Etymonline says, "perhaps a diminutive of Latin baca (“berry”), or from one of the continental words (such as Old French bague (“bundle”)) from the same source as English bag (n.)", so apparently it might be either one. 'Bag' → 'trifle' on its own might be a stretch, but remember bagattella is a diminutive, and 'small bag' → 'trifle' isn't such a stretch after all. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Pianigiani’s etymological dictionary^[12] gives as the primary derivation Latin baga, glossed as fardello, roba, but mentions that Schuchardt compares it to bagattino (a small coin^[13]) and derives it from baca; also, Littrè is mentioned as saying that the word was used in a 15th-century text in the sense of circle, ring, suggesting a relation with Low Latin bauga (“bracelet”).  --Lambiam 12:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Low Latin bauga (“bracelet”) seems to be a Germanc borrowing as well, aking to Old Norse baugr (bracelet, ring). Wakuran (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Coromines^[14] notes the old Italian sense both as trifle and sleight of hand. Apart from Schuchardt's baca, he suggests some Franco-Provençal form akin to Old Occitan bagastel and Old French baastel (sleight of hand). Vriullop (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, baastel is related to Latin bastum, from what I can see. Wakuran (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm new to Wiktionary, and I want to ask you to help format my pages.

In particular, I've made edits in 고슴도치 and 셤. Particular about the etymology. I've used textual evidence from Ancient Chinese sources. But I don't know the format of this website. Can you guys help me clean up the page please? Thank you! Blahhmosh (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I want to ask. In the same page in <使高麗錄> there is a line saying "麗人謂笠為「軋」", meaning that "Koreans pronounce '笠' (the stereotypical Asian straw conical hat) as '軋'". I've taken a look one of the Middle Chinese/Dialectal pronunciation of 軋, and it is roughly (gat), and is pronunced very similarly to "갓" (gat), the native Korean word for that stereotypical Korean black hat. What do you think? Blahhmosh (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Blahhmosh Your edits look good to me. It would maybe be helpful to include a transcription of the document/book titles, however (in parentheses following the title). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, if you look at other entries in Wiktionary that talk about Late Old Korean origins of words such as 비#Etymology_1, you'd see that it's much more formatted. I want my entries to be as formatted like the one in the example. @Andrew Sheedy

And I already did include the name of the document as a source. Blahhmosh (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Blahhmosh The best thing to do would be to take a look at the page for the template that is used. I'm not familiar with it, because I don't edit Korean, but it's explained at Template:ko-etym-native. If you can't figure that out, then take a look at how the titles are formatted in that entry (and earlier in the etymology of 고슴도치). That's what I was talking about (although now I realize that the standard is to put the original script in parentheses, not the transcription). So put "First attested in Transcription of title in italics (Korean script name in parentheses), year, as Old/Middle Korean [term]." Someone else who knows more can then templatize it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume you can look at the source of a page you want to emulate, and then copy/ paste the format with replaced word entries. Wakuran (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

For most things, yes, but the template he/she is trying to copy is not at all intuitive, IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Minerva from Etruscan?

Given the ultimate origin of the name is hypothesized to be Indo-European, it's suspicious to see the Latin word marked as a borrowing from Etruscan (rather than the reverse). Does any reliable source actually say this? De Vaan treats it as a native Latin form, only mentioning Etruscan as a means of dating the Latin sound change -sv- > -rv-: "Since the deity Menerva is attested in Etruscan from the sixth c. onwards, the sound law must have taken place before that time" (page 381). Urszag (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That part of the etymology hasn't changed since 2011. It seems to be based an a misunderstanding of De Vaan. The etymology seems decent, but the nature of Etruscan makes it so that if the word was actually Etruscan in origin, it is near-impossible to prove. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The page for *ménos has Minerva coming from Proto-Italic *menezwā. I suppose Etruscan 𐌌𐌄𐌍𐌄𐌓𐌅𐌀 (menerva) is to be added there, possibly as borrowing from the also to be added "VOLat. menrva, menerva" given by de Vaan. Exarchus (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Can VOL menrva be the result of Latin-internal processes? I thought that kind of syncope was specifically Etruscan. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Etruscan is required to explain that form. The development of forms like *agros > ager or *tris > ter is usually understood as implying that Latin at some point had a syllabic rhotic that was later resolved to /er/. Lindsay in "The Latin Language" says "There are some indications that vocalic l and r were sounds not unknown to the Italic languages down to a fairly late period, g. Marrucinian pacrsi [...] Sabine Atrno [...] though how far these are merely graphic is hard to decide" (pages 278-279). Early Latin seems to have sometimes used alphabet letters as signs for their names, e.g. Lindsay says "Terentius Scaurus, second cent. A. D. (p. 15 K.) tells us that the letter K was called ka, while the name of C was ce, and that these letters themselves had been before his time used to indicate the syllables represented by their names, e.g. krus (for ka-rus), cra (for cera)" (p.6). Since er is supposed to have been the name of the letter R, it seems possible to me that menrva could be just a defective spelling of /menerwa/.--Urszag (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the Latin etymology + the *ménos page. Exarchus (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Zellack (stone)

Gunter Grass (The Dog Years, p. 5) gives this as Danzig dialect for stone. I can't find anything in German or Polish (or similar languages) to suggest an etymology, so my best guess is that it is imitative of stones clattering against each other. Anyone have any better ideas? (The only Kashubian word I could find, cela (calf), doesn't fit at all). 24.108.0.44 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking through Deutsches Wörterbuch, I came across the German word Zellenkalk (Cellular dolomite), but it might not be that great a suggestion. Wakuran (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Old Swedish gjalla “(re)pay”

Some sources (e.g. Derksen 2008, p. 557f; Orel 2003, p. 160f) claim that this word must reflect *gelþ- instead of *geld-, even though Old Norse gjalda (id.) is securely attested, and therefore it alters the whole Indo-European etymology to preclude a reconstruction *gʰeldʰ-, instead requiring *gʰelt-. This seems silly to me, even just focusing on the Old Swedish etymology from Old Norse: the word is also attested with the spellings giælda, gialda, giælla, and gælla (and at this point I'm not sure gjalla is even one of them). Kroonen, a Germanic specialist, makes no mention of the problem. Can any experts weigh in on this? — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:20CB:C23:5C50:263B 04:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

-ld- > -ll- is regular in Swedish. Compare Swedish hålla with Icelandic halda. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 21:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Having the Swedish doublets gälda and gälla might seem strange, but the former might have been influenced by Middle Low German gelden and the Swedish noun gäld. Wakuran (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Vannella

Vannella (protist) is the type genus of the family Vannellidae, but I have not been able to find its etymology. Any ideas? Gerardgiraud (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A guess: Latin vannus (“winnowing basket”) +‎ -ella. Bovee may have preferred the feminine gender to leave the epithets of species transferred from the genus Flabellula, such as F. crassa, invariant under the reclassification.  --Lambiam 18:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I see now this is also the etymology given for the species name Vanellus, which seems to have lost one n in the process of suffixation.  --Lambiam 18:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thank you. Gerardgiraud (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Dutch joekel, Romani ʒukel

The Dutch is from Romani. Regarding the further origin, the Romani entry derives it from Sanskrit जकुट (jakuṭa) with sources, while the Dutch entry derives it from Arabic جاهِل (jāhil, “ignorant”) without sources. My requests would be: 1.) the Sanskrit should be glossed; 2.) it should be checked whether the Arabic derivation has merit as an alternative theory; 3.) the etymology sections should be brought in line accordingly. 92.73.31.113 21:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also Swedish jycke, likely from the same Romani word. Wakuran (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

the Sanskrit means "dog", seems clearly a more likely source than the Arabic Exarchus (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! So I'll just adapt the Dutch etymology. If we ever find a source that somehow corroborates the Arabic theory, we can still bring it back. 92.73.31.113 04:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Dutch historical linguist Hans Beelen and etymologist Nicoline van der Sijs agree with the Romani theory, not even mentioning any other.^[15]  --Lambiam 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, the question was not about the Romani origin of the Dutch word, but about the further origin of the Romani word. 92.73.31.113 19:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

gramadoela

From Xhosa? Tollef Salemann (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I would assume not. Initial g- pronounced gutturally looks very Afrikaans. Seems to be an Afrikaans word for "boondocks" or similar. At most, it might be an Afrikaans reinterpretation of a native African word, I guess. I'm not entirely sure on what its Afrikaans origin would be, but the part 'doel' could possibly mean "destination". Wakuran (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The ⟨oe⟩ strongly points to borrowing from Afrikaans, in which the term is easily attested. But it is not among the estimated 95% of Afrikaans words that are inherited from Dutch. The Afrikaans pronunciation is probably /χra.maˈdu.la/. An Afrikaans word with initial [χ] not from Dutch is gogga, said to be borrowed from a Khoe language.  --Lambiam 12:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

pasmat

Possibly from Dutch "Spaansche mat"? Udaradingin (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nederlandse woorden wereldwijd has this:

Spaanse mat ‘Spaanse zilveren munt’ → indonesisch pasmat ‘Spaans zilveren muntstuk’; ambons-maleis spānsmat ‘rijksdaalder’; javaans sepasmat ‘Spaanse zilveren munt; rijksdaalder’; kupang-maleis spansemat ‘geldstuk’; menadonees spansemat ‘geldstuk’; soendanees pasmat ‘rijksdaalder’; ternataans-maleis spansemat ‘geldstuk’; creools-portugees (batavia) spansmat ‘rijksdaalder’.

Note that a rijksdaalder is not the same as a Spanish dollar. The text “het Holl. Spaansche mat” in the entry PASMAT in the Soendaneesch-Hollandsch Woordenboek is meant to give the etymology, not the meaning. This is obvious in the entry KOEMPĔNI, where “idem” can only mean that the Sundanese meaning is that of the immediately preceding Dutch etymon.

 --Lambiam 11:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the initial s was dropped through metanalysis of spasmat as = se- + pasmat. –Austronesier (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Dearne

River in Yorkshire, no etymology given. I refer to Irish dearna, Welsh darn, piece, fragment, palm of the hand...it seems the most likely explanation. I am also looking at Findhorn -d is intrusive, and wikipedia examines - sceptically - the idea that it derives from Fionn-eireann, although this does not make much sense. I suggest this might be Fionn-dhearna (with the dh soft or silent), in which case it would be similar to the Yorkshire Dearne. Thoughts? 24.108.0.44 05:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added an etymology to the page which traces it back to Dirna (AD 1155), and added two possible theories. Please feel free to elaborate as needed. Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Your explanation of Dearne is better than mine. But I am still interested in Findhorn etc., so I will pursue my suggestions. 24.108.0.44 03:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

sallfly

Tagged but not listed.
Named sallfly due to confusion with the somewhat similar looking sawfly ? Leasnam (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

heraldic pallets

The etymology of the heraldic sense is clearly more than just "From Latin palla". Collins says it's from Middle English palet, from Middle French palet, from pal, but I'm having a hard time finding either the (relevant) Middle English word in dictionaries or in use (there are of course many other Middle English words spelled palet) or the relevant Middle French word. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Gocevia

The protist Gocevia is the type genus of the family Goceviidae. I haven't found the etymology. Any ideas? Gerardgiraud (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably named after a scientist named Gocev or Gochev or something like that. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A good idea but difficult to know who this Gocev or Gochev (Bulgarian surname) is, isn't it? Gerardgiraud (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A plausible guess is Petyr (or Petar) Gochev; [16]. Wakuran (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gerardgiraud: Wikispecies has the genus in a category of "Eponyms of Petar Velikov Gočev". If you go to the page for the type species, it has a a reference listing the page number, and a link to a PDF of the original article. On the last paragraph of that page it says:

Това ми даба основание да създамъ отъ него новъ родъ,

нареченъ на името на моя приятелъ, геолога П. Гочевъ -

Gočevia pontica n.g. n.sp.

Which Google Translate quite plausibly renders as:

This gives me reason to create a new genus from it,

named after my friend, the geologist P. Gočev -

Gočevia pontica n.g. n.sp.

The haček was no doubt removed due to the restrictions of the taxonomic code, but it does explain why it's Gocevia rather than Gochevia, which would be a more logical romanization. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It may be a "logical" romanization from Cyrillic to English, but it does not compute for romanization from Cyrillic to Latin and many other languages written with the Latin alphabet, such as Czech, German, Italian, Irish, Lithuanian, Polish and Turkish.  --Lambiam 10:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Gocevia is pretty logical for Latin. Although Classical Latin doesn't have a /t͡ʃ/ phoneme, Ecclesiastical Latin does, and Gocevia would be pronounced /ɡɔˈt͡ʃɛvia/ in that variety. Note also that Czechia is called Cechia in New Latin. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

щойно

Does there exist / did there use to exist some *що́йний (*ščójnyj)? If not, where does this come from? Perhaps linked to що (ščo)? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added etymological info from {{R:uk:ESUM}}. Voltaigne (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

PWGmc *glāʀōn

Should this be *glāʀōn or *glaʀōn ? If *glāʀōn then there are difficulties with Middle English as one would expect gloren or gleren Leasnam (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

etymologiebank.nl says the (Middle) English comes from (Middle) Dutch Exarchus (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, Orel simply has MLG 'glāren' as descendant of his reconstruction *ʒlēsjanan. Is there a reason why this wouldn't work?

Notice that MLG has glār ("resin") from < *glēza- according to Kroonen, so maybe there was a *glēzijaną variant... Exarchus (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm having doubts about *glēsijaną, which I have mentioned on the talk page [here]. And if Old Norse glæsa has a different origin, then *glēsijaną goes bye-bye. The Middle Low German for "resin" also has a variant that's short, glar, and a denominal glarren (“to apply resin to, smear with a sticky substance”), which also shows a short vowel. Leasnam (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure which the most active thread, but I created RC:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰleh₁-. --{{victar|talk}} 07:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

glær

Related to the above, I would like to know what others think of Old English glær (“amber”), and whether the vowel should be long or short. In the past, I set up the OE entry to show both a long and short vowel [here], but recently I decided it was short as most credible resources show it as glær.

Now that Proto-Germanic *glēsijaną is again a thing in my book, this re-opens the door to the possibility that glær could be glǣr. Indeed, Old Saxon glēr (“resin”), if a cognate, supports this. However, the only way I see to reconcile glǣr and glēr is if they come from Proto-West Germanic *glairi or *glaiʀi (unless this is a shared borrowing from another language). Then there is the Late Latin glaesum, which shows a long vowel/diphthong. A while ago, I created added to *glēzô to connect these. Does anyone have any advice on how to straighten out this mess ? Leasnam (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Kroonen gives OE glǣr at *glasa- ~ *glaza- and derives it from *glēza- Exarchus (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Einführung in das Altsächsische mentions (p.23) that in some words, Proto-Germanic *ē¹ resulted in ē, with gēr as example. It doesn't seem too far-fetched that glēr might be another one... Exarchus (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

About Latin: Lewis & Short give Tacitus and Plinius using glaesum so the indication 'Medieval Latin' at *glēzô is wrong (and the borrowing from Frankish too)

To be precise: Pliny uses "glaesum" and Tacitus "glesum". Exarchus (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, it should be from PGmc. Fixed. Is it "glesum" or "glēsum" ? Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's 'glēsum', but obviously written 'glesum'. But I don't think Pliny the Elder nor Tacitus are 'Late Latin' either. Exarchus (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure either why the Gmc reconstruction is an n-stem (as per Pokorny). I favour moving it to a neuter a-stem. Any objections ? Leasnam (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

My only objection would be that the word is indicated as masculine in Old English by Kroonen, but I see you changed the gender there, are other sources saying something else? Exarchus (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the original Bosworth Toller's dictionary indicates it as neuter but the 1921 supplement corrects this to masculine (incorporated here).

But I don't know how accurately Old English reflects the Proto-Germanic gender. Exarchus (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for neuter nouns in PGmc to shift to masculine in West Germanic Leasnam (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The Latin byform glessum correlates too neatly with Proto-Germanic *glasą. Can anyone help rule out the possibility that it may have gone from glessum > glēsum ? or is the inverse the more likely event ? Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

An obvious question is when did each form first occur. Du Cange quotes Pliny as using "glessum", while more recent editions have "glaesum". So maybe "glessum" is nowadays considered a scribal error when it comes to Pliny. Is there any 20th century Latin dictionary giving "glessum"? Because for some reason, Short's 1891 Elementary Latin Dictionary has omitted "glessum" compared to the 1879 Lewis & Short edition. Gaffiot doesn't mention it. Exarchus (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

coacervo

What happened to the <n>? I thought it could only be lost next to consonants and not between vowels. Surface analysis gives co- not con-. 172.97.141.219 04:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Usage notes for con- say: "Before vowels and h, the prefix becomes co-, or rarely com-." Exarchus (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops I misremembered. I mixed Latin rules up with English rules that distinguish co-/con- and retain the <n>. 172.97.141.219 09:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Chwalu

Noticed this word looks and sounds an awful lot like the old English cwalu and was wondering if there's an etymological link anywhere or if it's just coincidence? Chwalu doesn't have any etymology listed at all for context which is unfortunately somewhat common for Welsh words. 2A00:23C7:7C04:2601:6029:60FF:FE7D:FAB6 23:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess not, as Welsh chw- apparently is derived from Proto-Celtic s(w)- and Old English cw- from Proto-Germanic k(w)-. The phonetics don't match up. It might possibly be a borrowing in some direction, but I am inclined to believe it is just a coincidence. Wakuran (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Etymologies by User:Minhandsomely

User barely speaks English, is highly creative with etymologies, and seems to mix up Nôm spellings with etymologies. Maybe someone with better command of Chinese and/or etymologies can save some of these, but otherwise they should just be deleted. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

nhẩn nha

忍牙 → unhurried, leisurely

tha thẩn

赦蜃 → relaxed, with infinite wander

thầm

忱 → in a whispery, breathy, or hushed voice; in secret; secretly

toang hoang

洵荒 → unlocked and wide open

cục mịch

局冪 → dull-witted; stupid; clumsy; foolish

lận đận

吝憚 → beset with difficulties; unsuccessful; ill-starred

long đong

攏凍 → filled with hardship and misfortune

liệt

劣 or 裂 → paralyzed

There’s probably more. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

hống hách

吼嚇 → overbearing; domineering. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

ME gloren

Could Middle English gloren ("to shine, gleam, glow; glisten"; whence modern English glore, gloar (“to gaze, stare, shine, glow”)) be from Old English *glārian (further from Proto-West Germanic *glāʀōn) ? The word has counterparts in West Frisian gloarje, Dutch gloren, Low German gloren, Norwegian Nynorsk glora, Swedish glora but the Middle English seems to be the earliest attested, and I'm thinking may be the source of all the others. A few sources cite a rare Middle Dutch gloren, but I haven't been able to find it. Other sources say the word is older and hails from Proto-Germanic *gluz-, but the early evidence is wanting. Leasnam (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be possible. Proto-West-Germanic *ā regularly became West Saxon *ǣ/Anglian *ē unless it was followed by a nasal, right?--Urszag (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I can think of a few exceptions: Old English slāpan, a variant of slǣpan, which does show the change you mention; plus blāwan from Proto-West Germanic *blāan; sāwan from Proto-West Germanic *sāan; Old English crāwe from Proto-West Germanic *krāā; etc. Leasnam (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't familiar with those. Ringe and Taylor 2014 says the lack of fronting before *w (unless followed by a high front vowel) is a regular exception (page 146), and that West Saxon *ǣ was probably regularly retracted to -ā- before a single consonant (other than a non-coronal obstruent) + back vowel (page 199-200). So a West Saxon *glārian seems possible after all, although I'm not sure how many such forms survived into Middle English.--Urszag (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I dare to conjecture that Middle English glaren and gloren may actually be the same word... Leasnam (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I created RC:Proto-West Germanic/glōrōn. --{{victar|talk}} 07:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

inverno

Can a Vulgar Latin *hinbernum ~ *himbernum really yield these forms with /v/? Wouldn't, for example, the Italian outcome of such a form be *imberno rather than inverno? 92.73.31.113 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The form belongs to a later period in which original intervocalic ‘b’ had long ago turned to a fricative.

The problem here is that you’ve tried to interpret *hinbernum through the (anachronistic) prism of Classical Latin sound-to-spelling correspondences. Nicodene (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for a separate *hīnbernum form? I would have assumed that an assimilated *hīmbernum form would have gained ground fairly quickly. Wakuran (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I imagine that the nasal simply remained dependent on the following fricative for its place of articulation.

For instance *[imβɛ́rnu] initially, then in places where [β] turned to [v], the [m] followed suit automatically (yielding [ɱ], which can be phonemically recategorized as /n/).

Traditional Latin spelling varies quite a bit in such cases. One author’s imbutus is another’s inbutus, though both probably said it with [m]. The ⟨n⟩ spelling is likely for morphological reasons (the prefix being in-, which generally does have [n]).

Nicodene (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

æne#Old English

@Leasnam Any ideas what is triggering i-umlaut in this word? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure, but it's a pattern seen in many terms related to ān (“one”): āniġ ~ ǣniġ; ānlīċ ~ ǣnlīċ; āninga ~ ǣninga; ānes ~ ǣnes; ānlīepe ~ ǣnlīepe; ānwintre ~ ǣnwintre; etc. Leasnam (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably the same sound change first seen in Proto-Norse ᛗᛁᚾᛁᚾᛟ (minino), also Old English Wēden. It seems like -an- had a tendency to become -in- in certain words in northern Germanic (Proto-Norse and English). This new vowel caused i-umlaut in OE but not in ON, which was more resistant (cf. Proto-Germanic *hugiz > Old Norse hugr, Old English hyge). So ǣne < *aininō < *ainanō. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

kecap#Sundanese

Is it possible that the Sundanese kecap ("word") might be related to Indonesian ucap ("to say")? Or maybe with kecap ("tongue smacking") via semantic difference? The latter seems a little far-fetched, though. Udaradingin (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Boo (marijuana)

Could the plant be named after the boojum, which was thus named by Godfrey Sykes in the early 20th century? One might see a superficial resemblance between the two plants, especially when "under the influence". And the Boojum is from Baja California, not far from stoner territory. 24.108.0.44 02:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Boojum tree? Would it have been widely known, even among stoners? Wakuran (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, they would go rambling in their VW campers or dirt bikes. Don't you remember w:The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers? 24.108.0.44 03:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

ghingheri

^{ghingheri in Treccani.it – Vocabolario Treccani on line, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana} says it is just onomatopoeical.

^{Pianigiani, Ottorino (1907) “ghinghero”, in Vocabolario etimologico della lingua italiana (in Italian), Rome: Albrighi & Segati} has a more convoluted origin.

As far as I understand (it uses terms that aren't very clear to me):

• guindolo (“winder of silk”) => ghindolo in Tuscan dialect
• it corrupted standard Italian agghindare (“to dress up”) into agghingare in Tuscan dialect.
• A ghinghero is like a nice/fine piece of clothing, from agghingare.
• in ghingheri also used in Italian means "in fine clothes"

Emanuele6 (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

eshk

Etymology 1 does not have a source and *aisk- definitely doesn't look right. -saph (user—talk—contribs) 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Derksen gives Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- for Lithuanian aiškus, though without mentioning Albanian. Exarchus (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks much like ultimately derived from Arabic عِشْق (ʕišq). The Turkish form that should have mediated the borrowing is irregular (aşk), but then I don't know much about what happened in detail to borrowings from Turkish into Albanian. –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

cassumunar

Ety guessed as Hindi. What's their word for the plant? Also, would b interesting to see the other local names for it, and see if any resemble 90.174.3.200 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I would say it's from some Dravidian language's name for wild turmeric, such as Tamil கஸ்தூரிமஞ்சள் (kastūrimañcaḷ), or Malayalam കസ്തൂരിമഞ്ഞൾ (kastūrimaññaḷ)(in the derived terms at Malayalam മഞ്ഞൾ (maññaḷ)- see also കസ്തൂരിമഞ്ഞൾ on the Malayalam Wikipedia.Wikipedia ^ml

Trying to reach a consensus on a specific use of -ate (verbal suffix)

See user talk:J3133 § on -ate. I have remade quite entirely the -ate page and categorized most of the lemmas that are part of it over the past few months and realize now how I should have brought up this talk earlier. This concerns the suffixation (here according to my views; otherwise the borrowing...) of Latin verbs with the verbal suffix -ate. Among other uses (if not uses, appearances) of it are through: inheritance through Middle English; anglicizing of Romance verbs; suffixation of a non-Latin verbal stem (in other words: in any other circumstance involving suffixation); back-formation; etc. . The gist of it is, whether we ought to analyze, as many other dictionaries do, verbs such as masturbate (the fortuitous verb which made me raise the point to @J3133) as directly borrowed from Latin perfect passive participles (masturbātus → masturbate) or as derivatives from the verbal root or "participial stems" (see the above talk for more) (masturb(or) + -ate → masturbate). I have followed the latter in my hundreds of edits and I will change the ones concerned according to consensus if needed. My explanation is to be read at the dicussion linked above, it might be a little convoluted, I can always try rewriting it. Saumache (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I realized that what I have said is flawed, especially through the authority of other verbs such as protect (1435) or applause which are early English borrowings, and borrowed directly from Latin participal stem, that in masturbate -ate is here not a suffix but reanalyzable as one. I guess the term "borrowing" just sounds off to me in this case, since we borrow a participle/adjective as a verb. I do maintain that the phrasings

• from masturbatus + -ate
• from masturbat- + -ate

are wrong and misleading. I would prefer such phrasing for any verb (even protect/applause) taken from Latin perfect passive participle: "derived/borrowed from Latin... (masturbātus/masturbāt-, the second as in the OED, accouting for the loss of inflectional endings), perfect passive participle of... (see { {af/m|en|-ate|id1=verb|pos1=verb-forming suffix}} for more/on how verbs have been derived from Latin participles)". Which is actually a phrasing I have used... (irradiate, create,...). And maybe accordingly, making the Etymology section at -ate (verb) more general or adding it to a "further etymology" section would be nice (I know the page may look a little scrappy). Thus, (still according to my volage self) verbs like masturbate are borrowings but can be reanalyzed as having been suffixed (contrary to protect and applause), hence the categorization.

Some specific verbs derived from Latin verbs are still to be analyzed as: root + -ate. e.g. ambiate since the Latin verb which it is derived from is of the 4th conjugation and by borrowing would give English ambit. The case is true for any non first conjugation Latin verb-derived English verb showing final -ate (except collate and other suppletives for obvious reasons). Such a case may even make me think the all thing over again, but I guess it simply is a matter of when lived and who was the word-coiner. Bref, I should stop trying to make language a perfect generative formula. Saumache (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)