User talk:Djkcel/2013

Is the Gaulish form actually attested? if not, it should have an * in front of it. The best way to do that is using the {{recons}} template, which is just like {{term}}, except for reconstructed forms (even for unattested forms in otherwise attested languages). Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit to this entry. Wiktionary policy is that we try not to duplicate information for form-of entries; it simply becomes too much work to keep all the information coordinated, up-to-date, and so on. The etymology you entered on δρακεῖν already existed on δέρκομαι, and belongs there (and only there). That being said, aside from the misplacement, it was a good etymology, I do appreciate your effort in entering it, and I sincerely hope you'll continue to work on Ancient Greek on Wiktionary. If you have any questions, please feel quite free to ask. Cheers. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for the delay, since it took me a minute to remember the talk page formatting. Appreciate the response, and a big d'oh for not realizing I was just editing one form of δέρκομαι and hence duplicating the origin. I'll keep a better eye out in the future and avoid clones. Djkcel (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could I ask what your source is for this? I'm not finding any evidence of the name κρυσ anywhere. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's from A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (Smith, Williams) via OED, but unfortunately I probably mis-transliterated it, since they don't use Greek letters. "Krus" is said to be the mythological hero/ancestor (possibly Syrian/Philistine?) who Crete is named after, but I'm not sure if κρυσ is how that would be spelled. Would it be better to add in the romanized letters?

Sorry it has taken me so long to answer this question. In the future, if you have a transliteration, it's probably best to simply put down that transliteration, and add {{rfscript|sc=Grek}}. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You should definitely double-check that. It's much more likely to be Κρής (Krḗs). I don't think you'll find "Krus" in any print source, unless there's a very strange typo out there somewhere. 2604:2D80:D50A:F300:0:0:0:1882 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask what your source is for this one, and if you know how it works? I'm trying to remember the various phoneme evolution rules, but am having a hard time getting "lithos" from "per". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please accept my apology. That origin was meant for πέτρα, not λίθος. I see that you already fixed it - appreciate it.

Hi. I’d like to know the source for two etymologies you added:

• panocha. How can Vulgar Latin have a word for a plant native to America?
• galla.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Also: Portuguese arrumar. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. Let's see...

• In Spanish, the original sense of 'panocha' was a loan translation of English panicle, which refers to a cluster of flowers. This itself came from Vulgar Latin panicula, itself a diminutive of panus "ear of millet," which from Greek "penos." Therefore when 'panocha' evolved in Spanish and took on several more meanings, such as 'corncob,' it always had that origin in the original botanical term from vulgar Latin. Source: OED. </nowiki>
• "Galla" is a bit trickier. We use "gall" in English to refer to the sore spots on horses' skin by chafing, which came from Latin "galla" whose original sense of "oak apple" evolved into "lump on plant" or "sore." This is where Germanic shows up as a strong suggestion because the other meaning of "gall" in English is for bile and the contents of the gallbladder, which of course came through Germanic from PIE *ghel. The Germanic term for bile, bitter objects could have influenced Latin if the meaning was for a sore, especially when considering lumps/sores on plants. Source: OED.
• Portuguese and Spanish arrumar are the same word and share the same original meaning, which was nautical. Many nautical terms were borrowed from Dutch; the original sense for arrumar was to distribute and place loads in a ship, borrowed from the Dutch nautical term for "space, central location" on a ship, from "ruim.' Source: A marine pocket dictionary of the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German languages. Djkcel (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm skeptical about the loan-translation part: panocha shows the type of sound changes one would expect much earlier in the history of the language, so it must be inherited from Vulgar Latin. I suppose the panicle sense might be borrowed- but by means of substituting a similar word already present in Spanish. I changed "ear of corn" to "ear of grain" in the definition, because in US usage corn refers strictly to maize, and one can say things like "panocha de trigo". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

As for gall: the explanation in the entry is missing most of the information that links "poison sore" to the etymology of gall to the Latin term- leaving cryptic non sequiturs. You need to look at it from the viewpoint of someone who hasn't read the entries in other dictionaries, and add what's necessary. Linking to gall doesn't help, because one etymology doesn't mention anything about poison sores, and the other just links back to the Latin entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, millet. The entry used to say maize. Regarding arrumar, my dictionary says the etymology is uncertain, possibly from French arrumer or from a- + rumo + -ar.

Oh, and I just finished marking your edits as patrolled, and I must ask you: please start paying more attention to formatting! — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Joan Coromines (Breve diccionario etimológico ...) states:

• panoja, del lat. vg. panucula (clásico panicula), diminutivo de panus. La variante regional panocha no está explicada con seguridad. — this contradicts your etymology.
• arrumar: after French arrumer from Gmc rûm ("space", English room, German Raum) — this confirms your etymology more or less.

--MaEr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know for a fact that the surname Chinchilla isn't from Aymara, but the fact that you added the etymology at the same time you added the etymology to the genus name gave me enough doubt to revert you on it. Do you really have a source that gives the surname and the animal name the same origin? I would think that w:Chinchilla de Monte-Aragón would be a more likely source. I don't remember the details, but this isn't the first time this has happened. Please be careful about placing etymologies in the correct entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It’s φ not ϕ. ϕ is a mathematical/IPA symbol. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

- Latin word was borrowed from Greek, which was in turn inherited from PIE blah blah, and has cognates blah blah. It the Latin word was not inherited from PIE, it makes no sense to mention Gothic, Old English, Albanian etc. cognates of the Greek word. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, so if the borrowing is from Greek + PIE, I can just leave it at that and leave the cognates out. I do think it's helpful to keep the PIE derivation in there as it keeps the tags (Latin words from PIE) updated. Thanks - Djkcel (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but that way you could get Japanese word being derived from PIE simply because of some English borrowing in Japanese. And also cannot make distinction between inherited and borrowed words by inspecting categories such as "Xxx terms derived from PIE". Now that I think about it, perhaps we should split these categories in two, one for inheritance ("Xxx terms inherited from Proto-X) and one for borrowings ("Xxx terms derived from Proto-Y"). That would also be useful for Romance languages who borrowed lots of post-Vulgar Latin vocabulary. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think the Arabic origin is possible? Do you have information on what plant is referred to by 'arnabiyah'? Do you have information on plants in genus Arnica being native to Arab-speaking countries? DCDuring TALK 01:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Etymonline attributes it to Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language". I've only been able to find references going back as far as 1697, though I haven't looked that deeply, yet. Etymonline says 1753, but that's just the date Linnaeus published it in Species Plantarum. It's an alpine plant in southern Europe, so I would expect it to be known by a variety of poorly-attested local names before that. It does grow in Spain, where Arabic loanwords are fairly common, but I doubt that any Arabic name would be originally for the same plant, unless it was a name that originated in Spain (it's not uncommon for names to get transferred to new species outside of a language's homeland). The conventional wisdom seems to be that it might have come from ptarmica, which comes from the Greek word for sneezing. The main plant with that name is sneezewort, but it's possible that they both shared the name by virtue of their common ability to cause sneezing. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence- just guesses. I think you were righ to change "probably" to "possibly". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply