The Portuguese translation of mudflats according to Wiktionary is alagadiço. A source published by the Culture Bureau of Macau says taipa (for Taipa island in Macau) means 'mudflats'. Is 'taipa' a legitimate translation of 'mudflats' that should be added in the translation box of 'mudflat'? I know nothing of Portuguese so go in to the entries and change things as needed. Also hoping for an English IPA pronunciation for this island's name. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tollef Salemann: The bird has a very distinctive call that's associated with the spring, and it also is known as a nest parasite (see cuckold). I'm sure many plants named after the cuckoo are associated with the spring (the wood sorrel is probably in this category), but there are also a few named because of very old dirty jokes, such as the cuckoopint. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFV of the etymology.
Is there any evidence that points specifically a Mandarin origin? While it is certain that the etymon is Chinese, it is also likely to be from Cantonese, and the spelling oo suggests that the borrowing is relatively early (most likely 19th century), which in turn implies that the Cantonese theory is more likely than Mandarin. – wpi (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second fr.wikt cite refers to a scene in w:Mukden, a city in far northern China with a very cold climate. I think horse travel has always been more common in the North as well. —Soap—08:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cummings & Wolf, A Dictionary of Hong Kong English, 2011, give etymology as Cantonese, and the word is used in Cantonese (and HK English) to mean both "stable boy", and in slang, "a pimp". Same word as Mandarin (Webster's 3rd derives it from "Chinese (Pekinese)"). Early citations on Google Books show the word being used in numerous places all over China: HK, Shanghai, Wuhan. I think we just need to add Cantonese to the etymology. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are told that δάφνη(dáphnē) derives from pre-Greek dakʷ-(n-), as does laurus. Supposing this pre-Greek language to be closely related to proto-Hellenic, might it not derive from the same root as δάκρυον(dákruon) and δάκρυ(dákru), referring to the shape of the flowers? Please note that the Latin cognate of δάκρυον is Latinlacruma, so we see how easily d and l alternate. 24.108.18.8120:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be most commonly assumed that the Pre-Greek substrate was derived either from an Anatolian language, an unknown Non-Indo-European language or a combination of the both. Other scholars remain skeptical to its influence, though. Wakuran (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the language is unknown, the original consonant might have been something capable of generating both φ and w (lawrus). I am not insisting on this, but I would like to put this out there for others to consider. 24.108.18.8117:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, "Pre-Greek" is supposed to have not had aspiration distinctions on its plosives, making it a wildcard in terms of aspiration for derived Greek forms ("[Furée concluded] that Pre-Greek (‘Vorgriechisch’) did not distinguish between voiceless, voiced or aspirated consonants (that is, voice and aspiration were not distinctive features in the language). This is reflected in the fact that we often find variants of the same word with (e.g.) π, β or φ", "Pre-Greek Names", Robert Beekes).--Urszag (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beekes' construction of the supposed pre-Greek substrate is definitively non-IE and looks wildly unlike any language ever attested in Europe. The terminology is confusing, because we use pre-Greek to denote a non-IE language that Greek borrowed from, but some other languages use similar terms (e.g. I've seen pre-proto-Germanic) to denote an earlier unattested stage of a single language. And some people probably also use pre-Greek for languages that are not Greek but are clearly related to it, such as Phrygian. —Soap—08:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr I don't know much about Korean linguistics, but I can tell some info from my current knowledge of Korean.
The clusters must have derived from contractions, although Middle Korean is limited, so it's only supported by a small set of Koreanic loans into Japanese. Aspirated consonants also must come from /h/ < /Vh/ or /hV/.
@Chuterix, thank you, I'd gotten my wires crossed on the tone notation: IPA and Pinyin both use the acute accent to mark rising tone/pitch, and I'd forgotten that EN Wikt doesn't use this the same way for Middle Korean.
The English frame has a very respectable-looking etymology going back through Germanic stages such as *framjaną to PIE. Clicking on any of those gives a whole family of relatives and descendants.
But under Proto-West Germanic *hramu, after lots of respectable-looking descendants of the general shape ram-, there's a question mark over whether it could have been also borrowed into VL as *frama (!), thence OF and French frame, which we (strangely) don't have entries for. Then another question mark over whether the as-yet non-existent French frame could have given the ME frame, instead of the more obvious all-Germanic route. I'm tempted to delete this whole branch outright, but maybe there's some reputable evidence or authority saying that it's a possibility? --2A04:4A43:979F:F221:C933:4D91:38FD:D57017:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is one possibility. I have added a separate noun etymology at frame and mentioned it there. The issue is that Old Frenchframe (also fraimes(plural), fraine) is sparsely attested, and attested first (1305) in Anglo-Norman. In continental French it seems to have been strictly used with the meaning of an "embroidery loom frame". So it may have been generally agreed to have originally come from the English (from Middle English frame(“a structure composed according to a plan”), from the verb framen), and wasn't attested in Middle English till later. The possibility that it comes from Frankish *hramu however is compelling, because it actually fits (cf. Old Frenchfrime, froc) but the evidence is lacking. Leasnam (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old English cannot have inherited frame from *hramu and we separate *framjaną from *hramjaną. The Old Frankish evidence is still very indirect, assuming that the sound change is even valid.
As for the verb, Wartburg notes that adchramire exists in parallel to adframire in the Lex Salica, but this text is usually so corrupt that I doubt it can prove anything. The explanation implies perimeter so to speak, that the summons was posted on the fence of the court "dass die vorladung auf den umzäunten Gerichtsort ausgestellt wurde."[1] De Vries s.v.raam notes the same MLat. adhramire "een klacht naar het gerecht verwijzen", *hrama "omheinde gerechtsplaats", but the etymology remains uncertain because of competing evidence, thus also like Kluge/Seebold, Philippa et al..[2] It seems they cannot agree on PIE *(s)ker-, contra Heinertz (presumably the same one cited by Wartburg). De Vries quotes *ker "vlechten" (to braid), but we already have *ḱer-(“to plait, weave; rope, string”), curious enough. 141.20.6.6917:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read too that ML adchramire ~ adframire implies ("to fasten to"), perhaps derived from the Gothic 𐌷𐍂𐌰𐌼𐌾𐌰𐌽(hramjan, “to crucify”), although being found in Lex Salica would make me inclined to think otherwise, I would expect a Frankish loan. Indeed, one form, Latin adchrammisse shows the geminate 'm' which would be unexpected coming from Gothic. Old French has a verb (participle) which appears later than the noun (1387-1388), and in Anglo-Norman in the form framé(“framed”). Otherwise, we have a direct borrowing from Old Dutch in late Old French raime, ranme(“pole, rack for drying”) > Frenchrame.
Done - I've split the "sore, lesion" sense out from Etym 1 to be the new Etym 2. The two have distinct and unrelated PIE origins. Leasnam (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From: https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/vascoDe vascón, y este del latín Vasco, probablemente una variante con metátesis de Auscus, y en última instancia una variante del endónimo euskal. Los gentilicios aquitano y gascón son probablemente variantes del mismo étimo latino.
Here it is suggesting that Vasco is from the same root as Euskal, Euskara etc. and I think it is reasonable; Vasco was originally pronounced Wasco. Any thoughts? 24.108.18.8104:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
w:Julio Caro Baroja reckons that w:Ausci is derived from the same root, and that Aquitania is a variant of Auscitania. It makes no sense that it should derive from Latin aqua, since the name is found in Caesar's De Bello Gallico, written long before the Romans started establishing Latin names in Gaul.
The thought occured to me. *Acua for *ahwō would be a reasonable approximation to Cesar, cf. vacalus, vahalus, Waal, and *awjō is well established in toponymy. Tolkien's Auenland "the Shire" comes to mind, de.WP translates “Gau”, and *gawją(“district”) even matches Gascon. The PIE root is not that well established with only Latin, Germanic and perhaps Hittite ("? akukal(la?)- or akutal(la?)- 'Waschbecken'", Tischler apud Starling DB) despite Ruhlen's inclusion in a list of 20 Proto-Human root words. The argument against Romans naming the territory at will makes no sense and in assuming borrowing the only vid point is that old Basque is a plausible option.
See gascon, vascō, the initial g is attributed to Visigothic following TLFi, pace DEAF s.v. “Gasco” who note that a late Wascones and Basque are evidence of a bilabial in pre-Romanic substrate. So far they agree, “on peut présumer que les Wisigoths aient prononcé Wasconia” (Rohlfs, Le Gascon, 2nd - 3rd. ed., pg. 19), but the first quotation from the 4th century matches the Gothic invasion too well. Aquitania from Latin Ausci is also difficult to justify.
The Germanic languages were nowhere near Aquitaine in the first century BC, when Caesar first used the word, and there is no Celtic reflex for aqua/ahwa. The Frankish Germanic language may have influenced the form of Gascon, but the root word was there long before. Likewise Vasco, Vascones was around in early imperial times, whereas Velasco does not turn up until the middle ages. In short, the lack of early contact between Aquitaine and the Germanic languages renders a Germanic explanation of its name impossible. 24.108.18.8105:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. We cannot reconstruct *ákʷā by the three witness rule, excepting Hittite where it would merge with *h₁egʷʰ-. The alternative is borrowing in pre-Proto-Germanic. This could be indirect evidence in addition to the assumption that Aquitaine is borrowed into Latin.
“From earlier Iberian origins, Beaker metallurgy was established in Spain, Portugal, and southeast France, spreading west along the Garonne-Gironde corridor to reach Atlantic France by 2500 BC. The transmission of this knowledge to Ireland may have occurred through maritime contacts with the Brittany-Loire region [...] where a hybridization of Atlantic and Middle Rhine Beaker influences took place [...]”
– William O'Brien 2023: 153 in: The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited. Kristiansen, Kroonen, Willerslev (ed.)
It triangulates Aquitaine. Albeit, it has also been observed that the cultural artifacts skip this region. I thought it implies travel along the coasts. The influence on Celtic languages identified with the Hallstatt culture is obscure. The decisive point is that *kʷ is generally assumed on the Proto-Celtic side in this period.
In sum: A change from aqui to va is not justified in Latin, nor does Aqui- follow regularly from Ausci. Aquitaine is not evidence of any Basque word that I know of because Proto-Basque does not have *kʷ. Ausci is evidence of *Au(s)- only, seeing that Oscan, Faliscan, Etruscan etc. share the same suffix, that is by the way regular in English -ish < PIE *-iskos. **Eu(s)- has no convincing etymology in Basque, so *(k)era (euskara) remains as a guess which is not supported by the Latin evidence and contradicted by the existence of other suffixes *-(C)kV in Basque and elsewhere. 2A00:20:6010:D506:B991:B69F:800A:4BDA17:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OED derives Middle English colk(“apple core”) from Old English *colc, and ultimately back to Proto-Germanic *kulkaz as an extension of *kelǭ(“throat”). The OED connects this to goke(“core or heart of a rope”) (which we don't have an entry for), and says it's frequently found as gowk in northern England - particularly Tyneside. We have an entry for gowk(“apple core”), which historically referred to the core of any thing, but we derive this from a semantic shift of Northern Middle English yolke, from Old English ġeoloca(“yolk”). I sourced this from A Dictionary of the North East Dialect, which notes the OED definition (among several others).
I've updated the etymology. Relation to yolk is unlikely due to phonetics. I think confusion arose due to the fact that gowk can also mean the "yolk of an egg" but this is due to analogy with the yolk being in the centre. Leasnam (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oromo word for the month of May, "Caamsaa", is currently unknown in etymology. What do we think of the possibility that it is derived from Arabic خمسة? It is the fifth month of the year, and خمسة means "five". Koreacurry (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it isn't wholly impossible. Oromo does not have a velar fricatives while it does have fricatives to correspond with the rest of its stop series. I could see /tʃ/ being a substitute in their phonology. It captures the constriction of the airway (being an affricate) and the higher friction of the velar fricative compared to the palatoalveolar fricative (by incorporating /t/ and becoming an affricate).
This idea could work decently if it was an old enough loan to have developed from a pre-Oromo *kʼeemsaa. On the other hand… our actual entry states that it does not mean 'May' but 'April'. --Tropylium (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what do n̥ and H mean here: The form ἀν- (an-) appears when followed by a laryngeal and a vowel: that is, in an open syllable of the n̥HV- form.
-- Espoo (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard in Ancient Greek that word-initial ῥ gets geminated to -ρρ- when a prefix is added (or when it's the second term in a compound). Some other examples with ῥυθμός(rhuthmós) are ἐπιρρυθμίζω(epirrhuthmízō), μεταρρυθμίζω(metarrhuthmízō), φιλόρρυθμος(philórrhuthmos) etc. The symbol "n̥" refers to a syllabic n in Proto-Indo-European, and "H" is a variable covering any of the three PIE laryngeals h₁ h₂ h₃. The text is saying that when the PIE prefix *n̥-(“un-, not”) is attached to a word beginning with any laryngeal followed by any vowel, then the prefix surfaces as ἀν-(an-) in Ancient Greek (rather than as ἀ-(a-)). —Mahāgaja · talk09:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I speak Northern Saami, I saw this word has missing etymology but I'm fairly certain it has to do with "maŋit"(following) + "árga"(weekday). Monday is "vuossárga" which would come from "vuosttaš"(first) + "árga" = "first weekday" so it makes sense it would be followed by "following weekday". 141.195.41.3804:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The genitive case is "maŋibu", apparently. So, "next one of the weekdays", presumably. (Disclaimer that my knowledge of Sami languages is very limited.) Wakuran (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just that: maŋit is in origin a comparative form *mëŋēmpē, so it gets a compounding stem form maŋŋeb- (and not any of the various other possibilities). --Tropylium (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "female deer" sense is an alteration of hearst, which we don't have yet, and which looks like it could easily come from a syncope or possibly a metathesis of Middle English *hertesse(“a hart-ess”), but of course only a guess Leasnam (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the tide sense have a (slightly?) different etymology than the earthwork sense? Does the tide sense come via Dutch? Early sources mention it as a Dutch word. The 1933 OED only has the earthwork sense (and pronunciation /ædʒə(ɹ)/, approximating later/ecclesiastical Latin); the modern online OED also lists /æɡə(ɹ)/, which would approximate classical Latin and is the pronunciation the only in-depth Youtube video about the earthworks I can find uses. BTW, diff split the "rampart" sense into two senses on the grounds that "You can't set fire dirt" earthworks as in the quote, but the aforementioned video (c. 6:45) asserts that earthen agger-ramparts were strengthened with logs etc and that this was the way in which it was possible to set fire to them. - -sche(discuss)18:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFV of the etymology.
@Fay Freak added a rambling etymology that a Saudi IP took issue with. I reverted the latter because they mangled things a bit, and because it looks like the same IP that tries to enforce a puristic prescriptive approach in our Arabic entries. I would appreciate opinions of third parties here, since I have limited knowledge in this area. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz: We have this discussed at Talk:ქაბლა. There is never enough rambling, I have to apologize for the form of argument first, to express circumstantial indications that tilt the multipolar balance in one or the other direction but people not writing all etymologies aren’t sensitive about; like on the “date” word I once attempted to be concise about but it was only enough for experts who already understood the principal reckonings in such borrowing stories. It took me already half a decade then to dare write about the suspicious etymology of the “ram” word, as this problem was left over.
As we find e.g. in the Comprehensive Aramaic lexicon (I would not need to have it say this to note what are regular and what irregular correspondences …), the expected Aramaic cognate would have final /s/, because Proto-Semitic*s₂(/ɬ/, we nowadays believe, table of other correspondences is found conveniently at Semitic languages) only gives native Arabic ش(š), while Aramaic שׂ ~ ם(s). So due to the attestation dates they know, the said authors (Nöldeke and Fraenkel, much respected, I have learnt the Orientalist methodology from them, while we may doubt whether IP could understand them in general) had no choice, but assume Syriac and Mandaic having borrowed from Arabic.
Now, if we introduce third factors into consideration, which we also have no choice about if we describe all languages, Wiktionary would contradict itself (across multiple pages) if it maintained this sentence while at the same presenting what is common in Armenology, that the Armenian word is from Syriac, before the timeframe Nöldeke and Fraenkel envisioned, on top it should be concerning that the Syriac vocalism does not fit either the Arabic nor Armenian vocalism directly; notably the IP did not leave what the authors reasoned unmodified either and tried some deception to push their favourite story of languages loaning from Arabic rather than vice versa (and thus indirectly 5th-century Armenian from Arabic, which is unprecedented yet! Sagan standard anyone?), claiming they would “take the opinion of expert linguists” (of the 19th century, in their particular cases explicitly not dealing with Armenology or Kartvelology since they had enough work spearheading Semitic) and leave a confused stub, instead of presenting the material and possible lines of reasoning, admitting our embarrassment. So we will either have Wiktionary contradicting itself, and the intellects of the readers, as long as we describe all languages, Armenian as well as Arabic, or a more informative etymologization that is not found as completely anywhere.
We say Old Armenian քաւշ(kʻawš) is from Classical Syriac because formerly in Armenology all old Semitic borrowings were assumed to be from Classical Syriac by default. In reality, քաւշ(kʻawš) can be from another unattested variety of Aramaic or even from another Semitic language (but not Arabic). Vahag (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Main problems are following. There is no certain connection between -ve and -vigi, and also no certain connection between lom- and lang-. All the sources I've found, have no bullet-proof explanation on this. May it be that Norwegian lomvi and langvie are two unrelated words with same sense? May it also be that lomvi is not Norwegain at all, but borrowed from Danish, which borrowed it from Faroese, while the Norwegian original form -vi(v)e, found also in Danish sources, is related to the Icelandic langvigi?
In this case, Icelandic -vía and Old Norse -vé are not related to anything, if they are even related to eachother. And how do we know that Danish lomvi is from Faroese at all? And where the Swedish lomvia came from? Tollef Salemann (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Russian Амур borrowed from Solon amur, as the etymological section of the Russian entry currently claims? In Nivkh toponyms in the Amur-Sakhalin region of the Russian Far East (2021), Gruzdeva and Temina wrote:
The Russians first named this river when they came to the Upper Amur around 1650. The first local ethnic group they met were the Daghur, so the Russian name of the river is apparently based on a false dissection of the Daghur name Kara mur ‘Black River,’ which itself is a translation equivalent of the Manchu name of the river Sahaliyan ula ‘Black River.’
This view is shared by Hölzl, who referenced it in The Etymology of “Manchu”: A Critical Evaluation of the Riverside Hypothesis (2023).
Moreover, Piispanen in Languages in Contact: Dagur and Solon (2019) suggested instead that Solon amur was borrowed from Russian Амур:
We have Solon amur 'река = river'; Ewen amar ~ amar 'река = river' (TMS 1 40). Standard Ewen, however, refers to
the ‘Amur river’ as tamur, while Russian uses the name reka amur (lit. river Amur) for the same. Are the Solon and Ewen forms given in the TMS not just forms contaminated by the Russian word (i.e. tamuramur, due to influence from Russian)? The Solon live right next to the river, along Ducher, Jurchen, Nanai, Ulcha, Dagur, Ainu, Nivkh and Ewenki populations, and Russian influence in this case seems very likely in explaining the Solon and Ewen forms of the TMS entry. Curiously, there is also another comparandum with Dagur mur ‘large river’ (MGCD 492), which appears shortened, but which likely is of a different origin.
Are these authors correct about the etymology of Russian Амур?
If this can help or make you even more confused, I'm pretty sure that Amur was mentioned for the first time by ataman Moskvitin around 1640. The Wikipedia mentions that he got this name from a Nivkh amanat, who mentioned a big river called Mamur (sic!). Although I clearly remember from some book that this amanat guy never said Mamur, but Omura (fem. gender), and I'm not sure if he was Nivkh. Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this does not add confusion, because later uses do not depend on this mention. The river could only have acquired a name in Russian with repeated exposure to it. It may however be true that the name was already mangled by hearsay in statu nascendi when finally fixed. Fay Freak (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the later expeditions did not used the name "Amur", but rather Shilka and Chirkola and similar to it (even when they are close to the ocean). I'm not sure when the name Amur came into broad use.
Anyway, a Solon woman Damanzia has reported already in ataman Khabarov's time in 1652 that Dahurs and Solons call the river for Shilka, and only Russians are using the "Amur" name: "про Амуръ де рѣку она Даманзя не знаетъ, гдѣ Амуръ рѣка, а называютъ де Рускіе люди Ярко съ товарыши Амуромъ рѣкою Шилку рѣку, а Дауры де и Тунгусы тое рѣку зовутъ Шилкою, а не Амуромъ".
Despite it, it is not impossible that the name "Amur" is originally from Solon "amur", which means river, which Russians just didn't understood. Solons were the first nation the first Russian expeditions met every time before they got contact with Dahurs. So I don't really see a problem with Solon origin of the word.
An alternative variant gonna be the low-Amur languages. If Russians got the name "Amur" from Moskvitin's expedition and during the wintering of Poyarkov's expedition, that can explain why Damanzia said that the name was used only by Russians. In this case, the name Amur came from Nivkh, Ulch or Nanai language. Tollef Salemann (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reminds me of something from an African Languages class I took many years ago: there are apparently several bodies of water in Africa with some variant of "sedlo" in the name. The story was that explorers would point to the body of water and ask what it was called, to which the locals replied "c'est de l'eau"- French for "that's water". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Solon variant is most obvious, because we already have the candidate for the original word, and an easy semantic shift. Although I think that Nivkh origin sounds more cool and mysterious. Tollef Salemann (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any source mentioning this. Probably some kind of personal research, but it seems reasonable enough to keep. -saph 🍏17:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it looks reasonable at all. This is far more likely to be a chance resemblance (and not a very close one at that) than an actual relation. —Mahāgaja · talk19:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in the case of не́рка(nérka) they managed to bring a Finnish ichthyonym to the other end of Russia. Fisherman care less about national borders. Not so likely for a generic name however. Fay Freak (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it's still a possibility, it's not like they're claiming it's a loanword from Proto-Azteco-Vasconic or something. -saph 🍏17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible source is at https://www.scribd.com/document/470618618/The-Origins-of-Proto-Indo-European-The-C-pdf, JIES volume 47 The Origins of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian Substrate Hypothesis, Number 1 & 2 Spring/Summer 2019. I can't find it in Colarusso's work, only Bomhard's, which is not so good by argumentum ad hominem. (The latter's notoriously good at finding 'Nostratic cognates' and too thin-skinned for robust debates.) The arguments are good for Caucasian-PIE connections in general. The Caucasian connection presumes the word goes back to PIE, rather than the Western PIE region. --RichardW57m (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster tells us that an arylide is "a usually acid amide (as an anilide) in which hydrogen of the amido group is replaced by aryl (as phenyl)" and that it comes from aryl + -ide. My knowledge of chemistry isn't good enough to understand that definition, but apparently such compounds are used to make yellow pigments [1]. —Mahāgaja · talk16:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Online Etymology Dictionary entry for mook refers to a series of books about "Little Mook", but doesn't seem to endorse it as a source. The earliest seems to be Little Mook and other Fairy Tales, by w:Wilhelm Hauff. This is an 1881 translation of w:''Little Muck'' (German fairy tale) (c. 1825). Muck and Mook are given as nicknames for Mukrah in the original and the translation, respectively. "Little Muck/Mook" is a sympathetic or, at least, pitiable character in the story. It is hard to see how there can be any but the loosest connection to the definition of mook, which is c. 1930. But at least it predates the earliest usage, unlike the usage mentioned in TV Tropes.
UD has it derived from malook claimed to be Italian-American in usage, applied to 1. a personal not worthy of respect or 2. a "regular guy".
I have tightened up this etymology and removed all the TV Tropes stuff about mook jong as this is chronologically untenable as an origin; added some sources, but that still leaves some of the suggested etymologies unsourced. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhombicosidodecahedron: translation of Latin text in etymology section[edit]
We list no etymology for soit. This is common as it is assumed that an inflected form of a verb must come from that verb, but this verb is irregular. The etymology on être implies that it comes from sedere(“sit”), but which form? Is it from the subjunctive, or from the indicative form ("sedet")? Indicative seems a better match. The template doesnt say. Also, is it possible that the /t/ was deleted and re-applied later, as with some other forms? —Soap—10:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know which forms derive from sedere, then? The template states that all of the forms beginning with soi- do, which by any reasonable understanding would include soit. If there are two different sources merging into the same word, we should explain that too. Still, I think what's more important is to specify which form of sedere, if known, is the source, rather than just saying that they come from that root. —Soap—11:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the present subjunctive forms of être are from sedeo was added by User:DDG9912 without a source. I don't why it should be so; it's not hard to get them (and the corresponding forms in other Western Romance languages) from the present subjunctive of sum. —Mahāgaja · talk12:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is fairly easy to derive French soit from sit (retention of -t in this context is not regular, but can be explained as an analogical restoration), that is not the case for all Western Romance languages: Portuguese seja is not straightforwardly derivable from sit, and Spanish sea can be explained as deriving, like seja, from Latin sedeat. Given that context, I am a bit uncertain whether the French form really is from Latin sit. However, I found a French historical grammar that suggests that "popular Latin" developed a paradigm sia, sias, siamus, siatis, siant:https://archive.org/details/outlinesoffrench00bakeuoft/outlinesoffrench00bakeuoft/page/182/mode/2up?q=soit Those also seem to be continued in Italian.--Urszag (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Latin sedēre(“sit”), the subjunctive form in question is sĕdeat, which through regular sound-changes yields the French siée and not at all soit. The indicative, for good measure, was sĕdet, which lives on in the regular French outcome sied.
The source that you have linked implies that soit does not derive from *sĭat on the grounds of there being no attestation of the expected *seiet (> *soiet) in Old French. Whether that is in fact unattested, and if so whether it could have existed previously and then lost the additional vowel, is immaterial to this discussion, as the origin remains Latin sĭt either way, whether via a regularised *sĭat or not. The same goes for all of the other soi- or soy- conjugations. I am not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any scholarly source that links any of these to Latin sedēre.
There is a bibliography in "Copulas in the Romance Languages" (Christopher Pountain, Oxford Research Encyclopedias) that I have not gone through yet. Pountain writes "The forms of Sp. ser, for example, do not reflect straightforward descent from Lat. esse ~ *essere, but are generally taken to involve suppletion by forms of Lat. sedēre ‘sit’ (the infinitive ser itself, and the present subjective sea,13 etc.)". Footnote 13 provides the following references: "Following Lloyd (1987, pp. 299–300) and Stengaard (1991, pp. 93–111). Pope (1934, p. 299), however, regarded the similar Fr. sois, etc., as deriving from analogical forms *siam, etc., replacing Lat. sim, etc., which could also be the origin of Sp. sea."
As I said, I'm not sure what the right explanation of the whole situation is. The French form soit may well come from sit (that seems most likely to me), but I wanted to push back on Mahagaja's statement that "the corresponding forms in other Western Romance languages" are all easily derived from the present subjunctive of sum.
I believe Latin sedeam sedeās sedeat sedeāmus sedeātis sedeant would, according to Latin-to-French sound changes, regularly yield *sie, *sies, *sieṭ, *soyiens, soyez, *sient (where "ie" = i.ə). (For tonic forms, compare medium, peius, peior > mi-, pis, pire; for atonic forms, compare mediānus > moyen). The tonic forms do not seem plausible as a source of the French subjunctive forms of être. The 1st and 2nd-person plural forms seem at least valid from a phonetic standpoint, although that derivation may be ruled unlikely on other grounds.--Urszag (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*sǐat could explain the Spanish sea, but not the Old Spanish seya and Portuguese seja. For Ibero-Romance there are good reasons to believe sedēre was merged into the copula, and this is the majority view in scholarship, as far as I am aware. Note that the direct outcome of sedēre, namely seer in medieval Ibero-Romance, fell out of use during the Middle Ages, apparently submerged into ser < essere.
For sĕdeat > siée, there was a morphological reordering along the way, with sĕd-e-at replaced by *sĕd-at, as in the Italian sièda or Romanian șadă.
Soyez belongs to the set croyez, oyez, voyez :: crēdētis, audītis, vĭdētis; none of the outcomes in French are phonologically regular. Envoyez :: invǐātis in particular is a close parallel to soyez :: *sǐātis. Most likely all of these underwent paradigm levelling according to their rhizotonic conjugations. For instance the stem voi- (in voi/voiz/voit/voient < vĭdeo/vĭdēs/vĭdet/vĭdent) combined with the generalised 2PL ending -ez (< -ātis) makes voiez (> voyez). Nicodene (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know where the -s- comes from in the Latin-derived words obscene, abstrude, and others? Can it be residue from the prefix ex- re-interpreted as ec-? Or maybe a hint of s-mobile? Is it possible that obscene is not ob- + caenum at all, but rather derived from the Greek loanword scaena(“scene”)? —Soap—10:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@soap: If you look at the etymologies in Wiktionary, you'll see that the -s- appears to go back to PIE. It's selection in Latin is phonetically conditioned. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Exarchus If Hindi धातुf(dhātu) is simply a borrowing of Sanskrit धातुm(dhātu), where does the gender come from? The inherited word is feminine in Pali (contra Turner); the masculine word is a borrowing from the Sanskrit grammarians. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A similar case appears to be वस्तुf(vastu, “thing”): neuter in Sanskrit, Platts gives it as masculine, nowadays feminine. Notice that inherited बस्त(bast) is also feminine.
@Word0151 @RichardW57 The dictionaries I look at say it's feminine, and I can find several occurences of धातुएँ in for example the धातु Wikipedia article. So it would probably be more correct to say that it can be both masculine and feminine. Exarchus (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Exarchus:: My suspicion was that it had taken the gender of the inherited form, but according to Turner, Prakrit धाउ(dhāu) is also masculine, which he also asserts for the Pali. A tendency for nouns in -u to become feminine sounds more plausible. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sgconlaw. I think dree shouldn't be indicated as an alternative form of dreich. Alternative forms are assumed to have the same etymology. Although dreich and dree share a common Middle English etymon, they are different in that dreich probably took the path Middle English > Scots > Scottish English while dree took the path of Middle English > Northern English. See Talk:dreich#dreich vs dree for more details. Does anyone else agree? Ioaxxere (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just say that I had followed the existing references (chiefly the OED), and although what @Ioaxxere stated on the talk page diverges from them it seems to make sense. If we are not to follow the published references, though, it's probably best to get consensus here. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common claim: that barramundi was renamed from Asian Sea Bass in the 1980s because it sounded nicer. 12Wikipedia
But searching through trove archive, I can find lots of articles referencing barramundi from before the 1980s. And I can't find any mentioning asian sea bass.
I have found the story of barramundi being popularised in the US, but that didn't happen until the 2000s.
See also German Rucola marketed in the 1980s, but I know this because I am German and not because the internet is good to depict this, and Greek yoghurt pushed in the 1980s but first in the UK, only in the 2000s becoming an US term. It can well be true. Again I am far from sea and don’t know the fish-market enough to confidently research this one. Fay Freak (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CitationsFreak making a case in point here: we see how adjustments of multiply editors in the fashion of broken telephone absolutize and falsify word origins. The coinage is not how the term spread. Especially in product descriptions it is possible that one producer wanted it to be used and used it by itself in industry publications when it was not lexicalized by the community. In this fashion in Google Books Greek yoghurt had a spike of generic use in the 1980s when before usually (which means not always) literal Greek yoghurt was noted. My original careful language was then slanted by @-sche towards statements about the composition of certain products and a certain company rather than certain language usage and no explicit mention about genericization being a process, and now CitationsFreak has but left a completely detached note about UK, begging the question why the UK is mentioned when now it is a North American term, both helping out Putin and the racists supported by him by not pointing out to Americans, in whose curricula the four economic freedoms get the short end of the stick, how the UK’s EU membership influenced their culture and through the EU we have a greater palette of dairy products and designations even in the US. Twenty years ago we didn’t get skyr, also promoted by a certain company, now on all German supermarket shelves, and bodybuilders excruciated their tastebuds with Magerquark. Listening comprehension of North American coaches hearing the term in foreign diet plans is slowly increasing, over the years. But then CitationsFreak will be like “ackchyually, Skyr is attested earlier” – yeah but in how exquisite a context? We just had it how etymologies cannot be essentialized as chains from points in time along which a community pops over anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the term spread when the concept behind it became popular. I don't feel like that is worth noting. My version of the etym was right, there was an association with this food and Greece before Fage existed. (For example, I've seen someone in a US publication that they went to Greece, and got "Greek yogurt".) The fact that I didn't say it came from it being easier to access due to it being an EU country was something I forgot, and will include when I rewrite the etym sometime today. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the name originally referred to another fish, probably the Australian lungfish or the Southern saratoga, but that the non-aboriginal population of Australia transferred it to the current species, which was also known as the giant perch. That doesn't mean the story about the name being adopted for marketing purposes is wrong. Outside of Australia, the fish was mostly known by various local names like begti and cockup until the more generic-sounding international name "Asian sea bass" was adopted. I think the Australian name was later promoted world-wide over the others for marketing reasons. I can see why: "begti" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue for English speakers, while both cockup and the original kakap have some pretty ugly associations for those same English speakers, and "Asian sea bass" is rather bland and forgettable. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barramundi was used in association with Lates and Scleropages (also another genus) at least as far back as 1890. I'm not sure that the "marketing" angle is worth too much emphasis. There are interesting marketing angles to the Chilean sea bass. DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not the right place to ask about this, but if Macanese borrows a term from Malay that was already reduplicated in Malay (see also palám-palám), should I add the Macanese reduplications category to it or no? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not found a distinct plural so far, nor have I found any Macanese reduplications that go above 2 of the same unit, and I've gone through about two glossaries complete with usage examples as well as just blogs of people writing in Macanese. In Macanese it's possible to have the singular form be the plural form as well, especially when the amount of something isn't particularly relevant to the main idea of the sentence, and one would have to derive the number by context (a la Cantonese). The plural of copo-copo could very well just be copo-copo. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just realized the question was if it should be in the reduplications category. In that case, the question is, does singleton copo exist? If not, then I wouldn't call it a Macanese reduplication. —Mahāgaja · talk09:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know much about Malay, so this may be no help, but I think that animal names in some Austronesian languages are reduplicated in their base forms. I know I saw manu-manu on a wordlist somewhere as the reflex of manu "bird". —Soap—16:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned this apparent connection in the Icelandic entry a few days ago, but I realize that it should have "professional" approval. Are these words cognates? I have checked that the PIE roots of these words are the same. ॥ ☼সূর্যমান☽ ॥ 20:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find *samband in Old Norse. It appears that the word is a new formation in the modern Scandinavian languages from the productive prefix sam- + band. Leasnam (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a striking resemblance. It is possible, but I consider it unlikely. For one the Icelandic prefix sam- is from *samaz, a nominalisation of *sem. Secondly, attested PIE compounds with use the variant *sm̥. (See LIPP vol. 2 p. 724.) So if it existed, it would've had be reformed at least twice, once in Germanic, once in Indo-Iranian. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name Amerigo is stressed there. The Medieval Latin pronunciation also. The first who knew the country were learned, and so were certain more specific terms about America in Arabic, Ottoman, and Persian. In effect no less probably from French Amérique, like الْمَكْسِيك(al-maksīk); the ـا can be analogical because it is a “country-name”; terms with that ending have become more frequent and replaced older ones without the ending, such as أَرْنَؤُد(ʔarnaʔud) and كُرْج(kurj). We have learnt that politicians arbitrarily chose official names, and make them parts of compulsory education hence accepted usage, hence the names are arbitrary and learned again. Fay Freak (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak I notice that Latin America has a form with a stressed long 'ī', I think the Arabic term would rather come from that than from French. Wasn't الْمَكْسِيك(al-maksīk) only borrowed around the time of Mexican independence? (before that it was 'Nueva España')
Italian luglio: dissimilation or assimilation[edit]
Just encountered luglio. Interesting. One alternative given for the etymology is that it's doublet of Giulio with the first consonant changed from /dʒ/ (or whatever the sound was at the time, such as /j/) to /l/. The etymology section currently says this is dissimilation, but in what sense? My first thought was that it's assimilation in that the first consonant becomes lateral like the second. An anonymous user suggested it was dissimilation from giugno (and corrected the manual IPA at that time, which suggests they might have known what they were talking about). That at least makes sense to me, though usually dissimilation doesn't involve another word, but the edits were reverted. — Eru·tuon18:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle */ˈjulju/ > */ˈlulju/ could either be called dissimilation, considering the loss of the palatal element, or assimilation, considering the new /l/. Nicodene (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well dissimilation can involve other words if theyre commonly used in adjacent contexts the way month names and numeral names are. to be honest i cant think of any other examples but im pretty sure there are some. —Soap—13:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit odd that the only source cited on the entry, Orel, isn't a fan of the etymology: 'Hardly borrowed from but, probably, semantically influenced by Lat scrībō'.
That said, I'm not sure what the issue is unless scrīb-ō :: *skrīb-aną presents some phonological or morphological issue (?). It seems all are agreed that at least the semantics are Latin. Nicodene (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really present a phonological issue, it's just that Germanic could have completely independently developed the term, there's no clear reason to assume that it was borrowed from Latin. It's not even necessary that it would have been semantically influenced by Latin, it's not too far of a semantic shift. -saph 🍏08:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it normal for there not to be traces of the pre-'write' sense then? As for the historical context, is there doubt among scholars about writing spreading to the Germanic peoples from the Mediterranean in the time of the Roman Empire? Nicodene (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't think of the technological part. Latin would have influenced it semantically, but again there's no reason to assume that it is derived from Latin. -saph 🍏14:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's sourcing (even in the form of the source already cited in the entry) for the idea it's inherited and only influenced, and if there's also sourcing for the idea it's borrowed, why not just mention both theories? "X takes this to be a borrowing from Latin, but Y alternatively thinks it could be inherited and semantically influenced", and qualify which theory is more widely accepted. - -sche(discuss)15:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas? I'm a native Cantonese speaker and I've got nothing. Could this be some sort of idiomatic phrase from a South Asian language or Malay? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The etymologies of the constituent words were added by OP themselves. The question is where, or in what language, did the combination 'lose' + 'key' → 'have diarrhoea' originate? A quick Google search does not reveal a Portuguese equivalent, but it would be best to ask a native speaker like @Stríðsdrengur. Nicodene (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have Jacob listed in two different places as meaning he shall heel in Hebrew. What sense of heel is meant here, if it's even one at all? I wouldn't expect such an idiomatic verb to have the same, or even a similar, set of meanings in Biblical Hebrew as it does in modern English. The עקב page suggests it might have a meaning similar to "follow close behind", but quite a few other meanings are possible as well even just from looking at that same page. —Soap—15:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I meant to add I dont think jacuzzi qualifies as a doublet, since it almost certainly contains an Italian-only suffix and perhaps a plural or fossilized genitive morpheme. —Soap—15:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We say “the first element, (…), was likely borrowed through Celtic, (…); see Proto-Celtic *salanos.”
David Stifter strongly disagrees, see this recent Twitter post where he refers to this article of his: Hallstatt - In eisenzeitlicher Tradition? in: Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbeitrage der 1. Linzer Gesprache zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchaologie. Oberosterreichisches Landesmuseum, Linz, pp. 229-240. (also available here).
His main points are contained in the abstract in English:
An etymology from a putative Celtic *hal ‘salt’ < PIE *sal has been claimed for various placenames attested from the middle ages onwards, containing an element hall in Central Europe, among them most notably Hallstatt and Hallein. But this etymology is rendered unlikely, if not impossible by a number of facts: 1.The required sound change PIE *s > Celtic *h has no convincing parallel in Continental Celtic. 2.The Proto-Celtic word for ‘salt’, that can be reconstructed on the basis of the Insular Celtic languages, is *saleyno-, although the existence of a root noun *sal cannot be excluded for Continental Celtic. 3.The placenames in hall unequivocally show a geminated ll, whereas a word for ‘salt’ would have contained a single l. 4. Placenames in hall- are found exclusively in areas settled by Germanic peoples, but not in other areas inhabited by Celtic peoples in antiquity. 5. It is highly unlikely that the invading Germanic peoples of the early middle ages would have encountered speakers of Celtic languages in the Alpine regions, but rather speakers of Romance languages. Romance does not possess the sound /h/. 6. The attestations of hal(l) as a proper noun in Old and Middle High German point to a meaning ‘place where salt is produced by simmering brine, salt pan’, not ‘salt’. Furthermore the method of salt-production in the middle ages was completely different from Iron Age salt-mining. 7. Most of the places with hall in their name lack a continuous settlement since antiquity; most of them are foundations of the early and high medieval period.Therefore an etymology for hall has to be found within Germanic, not Celtic. Various Germanic proposals have been made in the last 150 years, none of which is without semantic or phonological problems. My new proposal is to derive hall from Proto-Germanic *χallan, which continues PIE *kalnom or *kHlnom ‘hardened skin, encrustation’ (cp. Latin callum ‘horny skin, callus’). This originally must have referred to the encrusted salt that forms in during the simmering of brine. From the salt thus produced the word must have been transferred to the instrument and place of simmering.
Should we change the etymology? My own intuition would be to go ahead and just remove the mention of Celtic completely and just give Stifter’s etymology, but I don’t know whether there’s counter-arguments to this out there, so I’ve decided to leave this up for discussion here.
I don't think we should remove the Celtic etymology, but we should note that it's the traditional etymology and then follow it up with a note briefly explaining Stifter's hypothesis. —Mahāgaja · talk08:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely not sure about this, but I found another city in eastern Germany, Halle which may contain the same meaning of "salt". I've also created Proto-Germanic *hallą and listed various descendants, most notably the Middle High Germanhal(“saltworks”), but unsure if this might not be taken from the name of the City, or was inherited. The gender (neuter) suggests inheritance to me, but I could be merely wishful-seeing. Leasnam (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leasnam: Stifter in his article lists several places with the name Halle in Germany, see §1.2.2 Deutschland. He explicitly says that hall in OHG and MHG does not mean salt – but rather ‘a place where salt is produced from brine’, §2.2:
Im alt- und mittelhochdeutschen bedeutet hal(l) nicht ‘salz,’ wie man bei der herleitung von einem keltischen wort für ‘salz’ erwarten würde, sondern den ‘ort, wo das mineral erzeugt oder verarbeitet wird’ (vgl. Schwarz 1925: 187 und Meineke 1999), offenbar ein geläufiger terminus technicus.
which I’d translate as (but please do correct, my German’s shit): “In Old and Middle HG hal(l) does not mean ‘salt,’ as one would expect from the derivation from a Celtic word for ‘salt’, but a ‘site where the mineral gets produced or processed’ (see Schwarz 1925: 187 and Meineke 1999), apparently a common terminus technicus.”
And then, directly following, remarks that it’s typically a part of a compound for a specific type of salt (but doesn’t mean salt by itself!):
In althochdeutschen texten kommt das wort nicht als simplex vor (…). In einem rezept finden man halasalz ‘hall-salz’, d.h. salz, das durch sieden aus sole gewonnen wurde, offenbar als kontrastive bildung zu merisalz ‘meersalz’, erdsalz ‘salz aus der erde, steinsalz’ und lûtarsalz ‘natürliches laugensalz, steinsalz’.
ie. “In Old High German texts the word doesn’t appear as a simplex (…). In one recipe/prescription one finds halasaz ‘hall-salt’, i.e. salt which is obtained by boiling/simmering of brine, evidently a formation contrastive to merisalz ‘sea-salt’, erdsalz ‘salt from the earth, rock-salt’, and lûtarsalz ‘natural alkaline salt, rock-salt’.”
This is attested through its various derived terms and so isn't a reconstruction. The issue is that the mainspace already has the corresponding entry -do, so a simple move is not possible. Help? Nicodene (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking how to preserve the edit history for attribution requirements, one thing I've done in similar cases is move the page to the other entry's talk page Talk:-do, overwrite the latest revision with a note that earlier edit history is preserved in the edit history, and make a similar note in the edit summary when I'm merging any missing content into the main entry. - -sche(discuss)01:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any ideas? It’s one of those Greek-ish poetic names like Pamela or Ophelia which usually have some real inspiration in the language, but could this one just be phonetic rather than semantically significant. CanadianRosbif (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, chess in Modern Greek is skáki (from Italian), and in Ancient Greek is zatríkion (from mangled Persian). Swedish has a similar name Kajsa, although that is derived from Karin, and one of many variations on Ancient Greek Aikaterī́nē. I might hazard a guess that William Jones could have thought about how English church was derived from Ancient Greek kyriakón, trying to create a similar pre-palatalized Greek version. (Although English chess is mangled French rather than anything else.) Wakuran (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that it was coined to look like it could be a Greek name (and -ισσα(-issa) is a common suffix on female given names) that could be the ancestor of the word chess. —Mahāgaja · talk20:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two "etymologies" are apparently originally one word via ad- + altus(“fed”), with the burn/sacrifice sense coming from the notion of "feeding" fire by sacrifice/offerings and the "adult" sense from living organisms being "fed" or "raised" to grow up. The exact same participle meaning "fed" is reconstructed by De Vaan to explain both etymologies. So do we merge them under one etymology? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though they are the same root, we imply they were formed from different words, one being adoleo and the other adolesco. If this were English, we would list such independent formations as two separate etymologies. For example, if a word that can be both a noun and a verb in modern English had different spellings for the noun and verb in Middle English, we often list those as two separate etymologies.
It's possible we have an unwritten policy to be more expansive with English than with other languages because it's the language of the project. I'm not aware of any formal rule, and we dont always separate. One word where I compressed two etymologies into one is guess. My rationale being that few people are going to expect two separate entries, and people might miss the second entry when they see the end of what was the first. —Soap—06:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that verbs suffixed with -sco(r) do not, as a rule, have past participles of their own.
Would it be good to follow the precedent set by altus? We list two etymologies for that word as well, one meaning high/tall/deep and the other meaning mature/well-fed. It seems to be a similar situation .... the root is the same alo(“grow”), but was formed twice independently from different forms of that verb (supine and stative, i think). if those two are separate, perhaps this means the two adultus etymologies should be separate as well. —Soap—10:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the two altus are different since they come from different ablaut grades (e-grade for "high" and zero for the participle). adultus derives from the zero grade participle altus(“fed, nourished”) in both senses. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A direct borrowing is very unlikely since Ahom was not in contact with Chinese. It would have to be borrowing between some ancestor of Chinese and some ancestor of Ahom. —Mahāgaja · talk17:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahagaja Yeah, The Numbers, Calendar system and Religious elements were borrowed from East Asia (Chinese) during ancient time. Dragons, Confucian elements are clearly visible in Ahom religion according to the studies. So, that could be possible. Ahom scriptures also mentioned China as 𑜉𑜢𑜤𑜂𑜫 𑜁𑜦𑜧. So adding 神 as cognate with 𑜏𑜦𑜂𑜫 shouldn't be a misinterpretation! KhiLanTzi (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz Sure, but the borrowing been there since ancient period due to religious exchanges between Taoic religions and same geographical location of Ancient Kr-Dai and Sino-tibetan . For further information you can check this category (less words because of few entries). KhiLanTzi (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've split the "sore, lesion" sense out from Etym 1 to be the new Etym 2. The two have distinct and unrelated PIE origins. Leasnam (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
