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.

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

In the English-language Wiktionary, at the entry for the uppercase letter I, in the "German" section, it gives the Latin phrase "I longa " as a related term.

Is this referring to the tall version of the letter I sometimes found in Roman inscriptions? Or has it come to mean something else in German? It isn't in de.wiktionary.org. It isn't in the online Duden (at least it's not under "Longa" and not at their entry for the letter I). Do Germans just happen to study Roman inscriptions a lot? Or maybe something to do with binnen-I? I'm just not sure why this item is where it is. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is just Latin, but yeah, German scholars have dealt a lot with Latin inscriptions. Imbricitor (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The pioneering role that Germans played in the field of linguistics is a fact, but quite irrelevant here. All there's to it is this: The Long I is a thing, it even has a wikipedia article, its German name is I longa, and we cover German terms in our dictionary. (Why don't Germans say langes I instead? Because that term already refers to the sound , so it would be ambiguous.) 2.207.102.157 23:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

User 91.122.22.140 (talk) (@91.122.22.140), returning to action after a recent block, has categorized the following Ukrainian suffixes and suffix forms in Category:Ukrainian terms suffixed with -ь:

• -ень (-enʹ) (Special:Diff/84705023)
• -ець (-ecʹ) (Special:Diff/84705051)
• -иць (-ycʹ) (Special:Diff/84705238)
• -ль (-lʹ) (Special:Diff/84705316)
• -нь (-nʹ) (Special:Diff/84705356)
• -ть (-tʹ) (Special:Diff/84705431)
• -єць (-jecʹ) (Special:Diff/84705563)
• -ієць (-ijecʹ) (Special:Diff/84705575)

I don't see how it makes sense to etymologize these forms as the result of suffixation with -ь (-ʹ). They simply end with the letter -ь. I propose that these edits be reverted, but first would like to get some input from other editors in case there's something I've missed. See also the following recent discussions of questionable work on Ukrainian suffixes:

• Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2025/March#Ukrainian_adverbs_in_-(ов)о
• Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2025/April#Nominalizations_of_feminine_forms_of_Ukrainian_adjectives_(англійська,_білоруська,_поліцейська,_російська,_українська,_чеська)
  

Voltaigne (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just undo them. Vininn126 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Voltaigne (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

78.81.123.235 (talk) (@78.81.123.235) is the latest IP address of the "Minor editing" editor (following on from 91.122.22.140 (talk) (blocked at the time of writing this) and 78.37.216.35 (talk)). This time, the user has categorized the following borrowed terms in Category:Ukrainian terms suffixed with -ь:

• коктейль (koktejlʹ)
• дирижабль (dyryžablʹ)
• Відень (Videnʹ)
• дизель (dyzelʹ)
• ансамбль (ansamblʹ)
• медаль (medalʹ)
• мігрень (mihrenʹ)
• деталь (detalʹ)
• пудель (pudelʹ)
• портфель (portfelʹ)

None of these are valid instances of the -ь suffix as defined at -ь#Ukrainian so I have reverted them all. Voltaigne (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Empty the category by changing the etymologies and later it can be deleted. Vininn126 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any idea how sense 2 of deonym (which seems more common than sense 1, theonym) came about? How did we get that meaning from (as some sources assert) roots for "god" + "name"? Or are those sources mistaken, does it have some other ety, e.g. from the prefix de-, signalling that such terms have been de-proper-noun-ized? - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Treccani gives the etymology of deonomastica as de- +‎ onomastica. One would expect a similar composition for deonym, (originally?) meaning, more generally, a common noun that started its life as a proper noun, such as badminton, marathon and quisling.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aha! Thank you. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This a term in speech pathology which is a synonym for sigmatisme latéral. I sometimes find it spelt with an 's', sometimes without. Is it at all related to German Schlund? Or is it onomatopoeic?

chlintement

schlintement

Wiktionnaire entry

Thank you.Pvanp7 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The article Lispeln in the German Wikipedia states:

Die Störung des „sch“ wird als „Schetismus“ bezeichnet, die des „ch“ als „Chitismus“.

I think the French terms are likewise onomatopoeic, with the same semantic distinction between the variants.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

But if they are onomatopoeic, then why add the 's' to the beginning of the word? Pvanp7 (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Two guesses. Theory one. Originally, chlintement was coined as expressing a mix of /ʃ/ (as in chaise) with /l/. The intended pronunciation was, accordingly, /ʃlɛ̃t.mɑ̃/, but since some French words starting with chl, such as chlore, are pronounced with the onset /kl/, the s was added to avoid an unintended pronunciation spelling.

Theory two. This is a source that mentions des consonnes schlintantes, a term also used here and here. In the context, the term schlintant is neutral and does not per se suggest a pronunciation problem, but its spelling may have led to the spelling schlintement.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what would be the chicken and egg here, considering the German-influenced spelling. Wakuran (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, I will try to write an etymology taking these possible sources into account over the coming days. Also when I first saw the word I thought it was pronounced /sklɛ̃t.mɑ̃/, which is part of the reason I found the addition of 's' such a strange choice. :) Pvanp7 (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've written a page for schlintement now. Thank you for your help, you really saved me a lot of time. I might add the pages for the red-links later on, though that will probably take some time, especially since there seems to be an overlap in meaning between sigmatisme, schlintement, chuintement, chlintement, and clichement. I still don't know if chlintement is just a variant form or not. Pvanp7 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

How does this etymology work phonetically? I can't think of any rule that deletes a PIE *p in Latin in any context, much less this one. Latin isn't Celtic. And there is no mention of linter (or *lunter) being a Celtic loanword or anything. This entry really needs more explaining. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems to come from Lewis & Short, but it's not explained there. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

De Vaan, you may already know, says "No etymology." Priscian mentions λιντήρ. I can't find much else, but I did find works (going back to the 1800s) agreeing with you that a connection with πλυντήρ (pluntḗr) (some works star it as if it's unattested), despite being the "traditional" etymology, seems unlikely precisely because of the odd lack of p. - -sche (discuss) 02:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@-sche: Beekes indicates that the word is not directly attested, only Πλυντήρια (Pluntḗria) (neuter plural), the name of a purification festival, and not much else. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The word leoa is said to come from Latin leaena. I think this is unlikely, since the change ae → o seams pretty unusual. Instead, like other dictionaries show, this word was probably formed by adding the feminine morpheme -a to the root leon- (in Vulgar Latin or Galician-Portuguese). Therefore, *leona → leõa → leoa would make way more sense and be in accordance with other analogous forms such as pavão → pavoa, leitão → leitoa. Compare Modern Italian leena, which is used poetically, to Spanish leona and Catalan lleona. OweOwnAwe (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That looks correct. Why did you remove your Vulgar Latin reconstruction *leona? — Ganjabarah (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree it's not from Latin leaena.--Urszag (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This word's pronunciation remains non-rhotic (with silent ⟨r⟩) even in rhotic accents, but the deletion may have been motivated by an earlier lag dissimilation (since ⟨ar⟩ is most commonly pronounced as /ɑː(r)/, not /æ/ vs. /ɑː/ due to trap–bath split). Does this make sense to people, as written, or can it be worded in a clearer way? - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

How about "The U.S. pronunciation (as if the word were spelled sasparilla) may be due to dissimilatory loss of the first of two r sounds (compare governor /ˈɡʌvənɚ/ and February /ˈfɛbjuɛɹi/)."? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's better. There's also the absence of an expected /ə/ to note: */ˌsɑɹsəpəˈɹɪlə/. Nicodene (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

More than a few dictionaries (also) give pronunciations with an in sarsa as well as pronunciations in which the sarsa part is bisyllabic.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Of the 55 examples at Youglish, I only hear bisyllabic sarsa in one. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I observe that words like rasp and grasp also have /ɑːsp/ in the UK but /æsp/ in the US. Is /æsp/ the original pronunciation here which the above-mentioned trap-bath split shifted to /ɑː/ for Britons, or is this just one of those US-UK differences like rationale...? - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem with YouGlish is that you get repeated clips of the same word from the same speaker, just said at a slightly different part of the video - it’s a good rough guide sometimes but in this instance there’s only one British clip and effectively only one Australian clip (as it shows several clips of the same woman). It’s hard to find British people saying the word on YouTube, or indeed in real life, as it’s not a popular or widespread drink or plant here but I would just say it in approximately the American way (but with an ‘a’ vowel that’s significantly shorter and of a different quality to the American one). I did find a clip of a YouTuber from Northern England say it more or less as I would here I wouldn’t say that the TRAP-BATH split properly applies to words spelt with an ‘r’ like ‘car’, ‘park’ and ‘sarsaparilla’ personally in any case, though I can see how it could be considered to be a related phenomenon. I also came across examples of Americans saying the ‘r’ and using the PALM/FATHER vowel (arguably the ‘bath’ vowel) rather than the TRAP one as well as a bisyllabic ‘sarsa’ from Americans and Jamaicans and at least one instance of ‘sasprilla’ with only three syllables. What does seem very wrong is the penultimate syllable given in our Northern English pronunciation suggesting it’s pronounced as though it’s spelt with -ella at the end instead of -illa. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve just corrected the ‘-ella’ mistake at the entry. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can someone offer advice on how to use Lessico Etimologico Italiano? Not that it looks as promising as it is bloated, but I'd like to see what they have on bronzo. I couldn't find it, or some wild variants neither on volume 7, part brac*--bulla, nor in the search interface. Another poss. is under the lemma "brundisium" - which refers away to some DI volume. This is where I'm stuck. What's your experience with it anyway? Danny lost (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Podlachian. How is it from Ukrainian мені ... років, rather than from/cognate with "мені ... літ" (compare Russian мне ... лет, Polish mam ... lat)? Voltaigne (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Case closed (Special:Diff/84877368). Voltaigne (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can the etymology of せん be sourced? According to various posts on the web, ん is not negative. It’s a contraction of the archaic auxiliary verb む. RicherK9 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

ん is a contraction of む and of ぬ according to goo辞書. ぬ is a particle that shows negation in modern colloquial speech (but is also the literary negation particle). Therefore, ん is negative in せん, where it can be looked at as しない and is similar to せぬ or せず. Compare ます's standard negative form ません or Kansai's へん (related to this せん). It's also recorded in some Eng. dicts. (Jisho.org, Kakimashou.com) and there are some posts on Yahoo!知恵袋 that talk about it (Post 1, Post 2, Post 3). Also see ん on Wiktionary. Languagelover3000 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reply

I know Ibrahim comes from a variant of אברהם (Abraham), but could the change be influenced עברי (Hebrew)? 2603:6080:BE00:6783:51A2:182F:55B0:68EF 22:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In Arabic, Ibrahim starts with an alif hamza, corresponding to a glottal stop, like the Hebrew alef of Abraham. The ayin of Hebrew עברי, corresponding to a voiced pharyngeal fricative, is reflected in Arabic عبري. These two onsets are very different phonemes.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the clarification. 2603:6080:BE00:6783:6882:AC44:58E6:9BE 16:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology. @Eirikr done this in like 2013 or earlier. Chuterix (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does Chilcotin dɨg (“Saskatoon berry”) come from Proto-Athabaskan *giʼgə (“berry”)? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This, seemingly referring to a slightly later work by this Smith, suggests that Tsilhqot’in dɨg is possibly contracted from dînsh-gige ‘blue grouse berry’ – (Smith 2008), where gige seems to be the unmodified descendant of *giʼgə. (It would also be interesting to track down the etymology of Babine-Witsuwit'en digï / dəgi (“huckleberry”), Dakelh (Stuart/Trembleur Lake) dəje "huckleberry", though, and to double-check what the usual clc reflex of PA *g is.) - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Mahāgaja · talk 06:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could the etymology be verified? The current unsourced etymology claims this as an alteration of portal, but etymonline just lists this as a transparent compound of port + hole. Horse Battery (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The earliest recorded uses show it clearly as port hole(s), then port-hole(s) and later porthole(s). I've updated the etymology. Leasnam (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The page claimed it's borrowed from Greek Ἀρκάς, which is clearly absurd (the ending doesn't match). I've changed "borrowed" to "derived", but the etymology still needs to be expanded. Arcadius or Ἀρκάδιος seem to be more likely source words, but I do not know for certain. 62.63.86.37 12:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it's safe to say it's from Ancient Greek Ἀρκάδιος (Arkádios), so I've added that now. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It’s more than safe. Emperor Ἀρκάδιος, known in Latin as Flavius Arcadius, is named Флавий Аркадий on the Russian Wikipedia.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that any reliable source would derive "learn" (to teach) from Proto-Germanic *laizijaną. Right? I mean, sure, the two verbs were merged semantically. The Middle English Dictionary already gives both senses for each of leren and lernen. And the same also happened elsewhere, of course. Dutch leren, Luxembourgish léieren have both senses, as does German lernen ("das lern ich dir" being colloquial as in English). But our etymology suggests that "learn" (to teach) genetically continues "leren", which is clearly not the case. 2.207.102.157 21:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Nevertheless, I've made a tweak to Etymology 2. Apparently the sense of "teach", as you say, is much older, going back to early Middle English (circa 1175, Ormulum) where it appears in To lokenn watt itt lerneþ uss ("To see what it teaches us"). Based on the form I would say it is clearly the Old English leornian (“to learn”) with a different sense. However, especially in later Middle English, I wonder how much of this usage was possibly interpreted as ler(e) "teaching, doctrine" + -nen "-en". In any event, this would still place the term under the first etymology. We used to show a note explaining the mixed-up usage. Leasnam (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've consolidated the two etymologies back into one. Please have a look Leasnam (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now the verb lear links to a non-existent etymology, though. Wakuran (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

fixed, and cross-referenced learn and lear. The Middle English entry still needs to be added under lernen with corresponding mention of the semantic shift and the quotation. Griffon77 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. Is there any chance that the sense “the cleansing of a wound” derives from Proto-Indo-European *puHrós, from *pewH- (“to be clean; to cleanse, purify”) (Sanskrit root पू)? How to explain the semantics if not? I can't think of a parallel for “fill” > “clean” or “treat a wound”, though it seems possible via the idea of covering (‘filling in’?) a wound with an ointment or poultice.
2. Why is this listed as a descendant at *puHrós (“~ (a kind of) wheat”)? Which sense is meant—“a kind of incense, bdellium”? Or one not listed? (@Victar, though I don't expect you to remember what you had in mind 6 years ago.)
3. What is the origin of the “incense” sense as well as “citron tree”? Should they to be grouped together and/or with “to purify”?

— Ganjabarah (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ganjabarah: It's not from *pewH- (“to be clean, pure”), but rather some separate similar root. The reconstruction *peh₁w- is suggested. See {{R:iir:Lubotsky:1988|136}}. --{{victar|talk}} 05:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, thanks. I will definitely have to separate the etymologies. Still not sure what to do about your पूर (pūra). I'm also wondering how regular the change ṝ > ūr as in the homophonous terms from *pl̥h₁- is; is this a late Sanskrit phenomenon? — Ganjabarah (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ganjabarah The intended meaning for पूर (pūra) at *puHrós is "cake", but the etymology is rather doubtful, see {{R:sa:KEWA|head=pūraḥ|page=322-3|vol=2}}.

I think पूर (pūra, “filling”) is technically from a secondary root पूर् (pūr) (probably back-formed from पूर्ण (pūrṇa)), also seen in the causative पूरयति (pūrayati). See further {{R:sa:Jamison:1983|page=149}}. Exarchus (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Compare Occitan gavach (“bird's crop, goiter, swelling; (figuratively) mountain-dweller, northerner, peasant”), which Diccionario de la lengua española glosses as “que habla mal” (“who speaks badly”); this apparently gave rise to a Western Romance wanderwort but is itself of unknown origin (suggested Celtic). The Old French words (see title) supposedly have an internal etymology and therefore would have to be the source of this other set if they are related; if not, it looks rather substratey, but the Latin caput etymology could work with some leeway. At the very least this would demonstrate convergent sound symbolism for round lumps such as heads (cf. PIE *gʰébʰ-l-, pseudo-PIE *káput, PIIr. *kapā́las : PWG *habVlō, even Proto-Afroasiatic *ḳapay- (“head, skull, occiput”); and with some overlapping consonants English clod, clot, Latin globus, glaeba, gibber). — Ganjabarah (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

monumentous refers to this discussion for etymology and origin notes. I just wanted to note that I've found this word used in an advertisement from November 1986, in that month's issue of Dragon magazine, promoting a then-upcoming roleplaying game from Game Designers Workshop (GDW), to be called Traveller: 2300 (it would later be renamed 2300AD in order to resolve consumer confusion with the company's other, unrelated, game line, Traveller). From the ad, "Never before has such a monumentous task been undertaken, either in gaming or in science fiction." Whateley23 (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The first explanation seems best, simply monument + ous. Explaining it as "confusion" or "a portmanteau" is unwarranted and judgemental. Griffon77 (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

oh, and apparently google books has a reference from 1889, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle no less, in "The Firm of Girdlestone." https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Firm_of_Girdlestone/szJXAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22monumentous%22&pg=PA365&printsec=frontcover

What's more August Brachet's French Grammar of 1869 says "monumentus" is found in inscriptions back beyond the 4th C. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/A_Historical_Grammar_of_the_French_Tongu/_Nwn56hEDJoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=monumentous&pg=PA97&printsec=frontcover. The *Lexicon totius Latinitatis: Appendix Lexici totius ... - Page 110, 1841 has a couple of Latin quotes. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Lexicon_totius_Latinitatis/55_ref5XuykC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=monumentous&pg=PA110&printsec=frontcover Griffon77 (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In these (rare) inscriptions it is a noun, a masculine variant of monumentum.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

hmm, that explains Brachet's description. Monumentus continues to be used in this manner in the 17th and 18th C. Griffon77 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're looking for a *monumentosus, of which I could find a few attestations in New Latin:

• in "Dictionarium linguarum Septem" (Ambrogio Calepino) under nedum with the meaning '(of offerings) fitting for a monument' or something of the sort (it could be a misspelling of monumentorum)
• in "Vindiciae pro veritate et iustitia rei iurisque cameralis" with meaning 'monumental'
• "ectropothecium monumentosum"; this species' name is not even current.
• a helpful gloss in a "Dictionarium trium linguarum": verbum monumentosum, vox empathica. Here with meaning 'emphatic'

I found Portuguese and Italian reflexes of it as "monumentoso", rare and seemingly colloquial, although quite old.

It seems different generations speaking different languagues with Romance background simply met in making the same mistake. Saumache (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In linguistics this kind of thing is not considered a "mistake". It's just natural language development. Grammarians and stylists would consider it a mistake, but they are notorious for favoring "educated" errors and inconsistent constructions such as myself (construing the reflexive self as the object), over the regular meself (self as a reflexive of the object me).

Porto Editora – no Dicionário infopédia da Língua Portuguesa . Porto: Porto Editora. . https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/monumentoso derives it from monumento + -oso Griffon77 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have no pretensions to linguisthood, let's say I'm a self-conscious grammarian, I'm not always non-judgmental/serious in my wording, mistake because it's poorely and only sporadically attested throughout history without ever having secured its place in any given dictionary, because in the end I'm sure it either wasn't (but I guess you'd say conflation means awareness of the rules of one's own language and is "natural development" thereof) or definitely was of their own volition for speakers of the past ~500 years to utter/write down such a nonce word (either by lack of vocabulary, confusion-conflation; humour, wit, sudden creativeness,...), it was never to root itself in, mistake because it's not needed. Portuguese -oso and -ous are equivalent to Latin -ōsus, monumento and monument to monumentum, sorry if I did not make my self clear. Saumache (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

-ous is a regular suffix for English words, one that people use all the time to create new words, many accepted despite being more nonsensical than monumentous, which at least has the Romance and Latin parallels you noted, unlike slumberous or splendiferous. Creating new words is not a mistake. Rare does not mean "incorrect" just because a user lacks academic prestige in English. Griffon77 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the late 19th century, when Doyle put the words “monumentous episode” in the mouth of his character, the collocation momentous episode was far more common than monumental episode, so the explanation of his character’s words is far more likely meant to characterize the character’s garbling of the English language than an “educated error” or a monumentous episode in language development.

Conversely, monumental task is far more common than momentous task, and the most likely explanation of the use of monumentous in “monumentous task” (in the ad quoted by the OP) is as a variant of monumental.

Possibly, there are also intentional uses (and not just mentions) of monumentous as a portmanteau. Classifying the nature of actual uses can only be approached on a case-by-case basis.  ​‑‑Lambiam 06:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Its most common use is in Congress. In 1947, a college yearbook uses it in combination with momentous, as "the momentous and monumentous task", clearly meaning "monumental, great". A 1910 obituary of George Willis Kirkaldy, published in a couple of academic journals with identical wording refers to his "monumentous catalogue of Hemiptera", here monumental seems a more likely sense as there are 80,000 species. In 1950 it is used by Joseph Appleyard, from 1967 a professor of English at Boston College. Griffon77 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

From a book with the title Horrible Words:

Humungous and ginormous bring to mind a word that would doubtless be found even stupider by the huffers and puffers, and the only one of these three that the OED has not yet deigned to include on its pages: monumentous, a nifty blend of monumental and momentous. As long ago as 1890, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gave it a whirl in the speech of a character in his novel The Firm of Girdlestone: ‘in all his experience he had never met with a more “monumentous episode” ’.

In other early uses the word also occurs in the speech of fictional characters who try to speak in a formal register, and then, as in the Arthur Conan Doyle quotation above, the intended meaning is just “momentous”, but here is a non-fictional use from 1910, where the meaning (as in the 1986 ad) is just “monumental”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that there are three distinguishable senses:

1. A misconstruction of momentous.
2. A rare variant of monumental.
3. (humorous) Blend of monumental +‎ momentous.

Which of these meet our CFI needs some investigation.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Either humorous or just misconceived, I guess... Wakuran (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does he mean "momentous" though? Describing the use of monumentous as "trying to speak in a formal register" is a judgement not based on facts in evidence. It's more a reflection of the reader's perception, rather than the writer's or speaker's intent. The difference in sense is that between senses of monument — memorial, or edifice — from one sense monumentous is "memorable", the other "large, monumental".Griffon77 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In fact I'd say the best definition of the word as used by Doyle is remarkable. Griffon77 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary and ESBM are in conflict. Wiktionary says азбука a reflex of Old East Slavic азъбукꙑ (azŭbuky). Etymological Dictionary of Belarusian Language says it's a borrowing from Russian а́збука (ázbuka) that displaced earlier абецадла (abjecadla). Both look convincing to me. Could someone double-check this etymology? Хтосьці (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Хтосьці (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

HSBM says it's attested since 15th century, so borrowing seems unlikely to me. Why would it be borrowing? Sławobóg (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good point, I didn't check HSBM. Thanks! Хтосьці (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The date is irrelevant; the evidence for borrowing will be whether it fits better with Belarusian or Russian morphology, displaces an earlier Belarusian form, or fell out of use in Belarusian and was re-borrowed (or imposed) from Russia later. ESBM does not contradict Wiktionary, but adds further explanation of how it came into Belarusian. There are technical differences between а́збука and абецадла. The latter can refer to a specific modification of the alphabet that came into use under Polish-Lithuanian hegemony, intended to reflect sound changes in Belarusian or Ukrainian, and then periodically repressed by Russian and USSR Russification policies. Griffon77 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

«The date is irrelevant» — it might be, but the presence of the word in Old Belarusian is not.

«ESBM does not contradict Wiktionary» — my understanding is that we don't use {{inh+|...}} for words that existed in a common ancestor, but then fell out of use but then were re-borrowed. In such cases, we use {{bor+|...}} (and mark the common ancestory with {{der|...}}). So, the current etymology does contradict ESBM. However, ESBM doesn't seem to list its sources here, so I guess it’s OK to deviate from it — especially since HSBM lists this word as existing in Old Ruthenian, and ESBM doesn't even mention it, so it's possible that ESBM compilers missed this part.

«There are technical differences between а́збука and абецадла» — if I understand ESBM’s point correctly, its point is that abecadła used to have a broader meaning that it has today (and was used for use cases that are now covered by azbuka). So, basically, if we accept ESBM’s point of view, then we need to assume that azbuka existed in Old Belarusian, was displaced by abecadła and then re-borrowed from Russian. I think it looks doubtful, and it looks more plausible that modern Belarusian form simply continues Old Belarusian one. Хтосьці (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is English rustic related to Persian روستا (rustâ)? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

No. The Iranian word etymologically means "river-bed" and contains *hráwtah (“river”) + تکیدن (takidan, “to run”). Vahag (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have any insight here? the prototheme seems to be OHG deot, "nation", but the deuterotheme heih has me stumped. doesn't really match the expected morphology of haoh, hoh, and neither haih, nor hieh fit the morphology of another known word. Modern Luxembourgish has heih for standard German hoch "high", but this variant doesn't seem to go back far enough, unless this is evidence it does. Griffon77 (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The manuscript is here https://manuscripta.at/diglit/AT7290-HsA1/0011

the i is not clear at all, it looks like Deothe:h. Griffon77 (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

PhanAnh123 has removed a number of sources indicating that the word phở comes from French (pot au) feu and has labelled this "a popular folk etymology that is certainly false". Is this justified? I note that the OED (which admittedly specializes in English, not Vietnamese) treats the feu theory as plausible. Zacwill (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

At any rate, I'd leave out "that is certainly false", since being false is part of the definition of a folk etymology. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have removed "that is certainly false" (which would need a source), but left the labelling of it as a folk etymology. - -sche (discuss) 07:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology says "Unknown" but then says it's cognate to English murrain, which (according to that entry) has a clear Latin etymon. Was the intent to say that it's unclear what exact route the Latin word took on its way to Portuguese, or was the "unknown" meant to apply to the "drizzle" sense while the "sickness" sense has a clear etymology, or what? - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've revised the entry, but if anyone can provide more detail, please do. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology for the navajo word for no/not, doo, does not exist, why? 38.43.33.153 21:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Few regular editors with deeper knowledge of Navajo, or no one knowing why due to lack of attested Navajo writing, presumably. Wakuran (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would assume the former, because there are lots of Athabascan languages up north to compare with, and this should be very basic vocabulary. With indigenous languages north of the US border attestation doesn't go back very far by Old World standards, but there were no great empires to wipe out the smaller languages before the Europeans arrived. And people have been doing a lot of comparative work on the Na-Dene languages, because they represent the best shot we have of demonstrating genetic relationships between languages of Asia and the Americas. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hungarian föld. This was tagged in August, 2023; but I don't see that it was ever listed. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which sense of kind (-kind?) does breadkind derive from? Lfellet (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be just noun sense 1. It looks like there's also meatkind and salt kind (salted meat) and fish kind. I can't find closed forms of those, so I wonder if we should have a extra sense at kind, "(Caribbean) Food of a particular category". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Means "sparrow", the bird. There exists the relational adjective тащи (tašči) and the "diminutive" тащок (taščok), so I doubt this was a native derivation, and instead I feel like all three were inherited from Old Slovak or borrowed from Carpathian Rusyn, but I cannot find anything of the sort using regular reconstruction rules. The noun declines with the usual -че (-če) small animal neuter ending, so a borrowing from Hungarian seems unlikely. Any ideas? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could it be 'baby bird → small bird → sparrow' with initial p- dropped? Cf. Slovak vtáča, Polish ptaszę, Old Ruthenian пташа (ptaša) (HSBM). Not sure why it has -ще and not -че, though. Хтосьці (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Хтосьці: My mistake; таще (tašče) actually means "baby sparrow", while тащок (taščok) is the actual word for "sparrow". And there's an inexplicable proclivity for Pannonian to form diminutives using specifically -чок (-čok) as opposed to -ок (-ok), e.g. ашовчок (ašovčok), ангелчок (anhelčok), камиончок (kamiončok), гарчок (harčok). So maybe тащок (taščok) was formed by птах (ptax) or Old Slovak vták + -чок (-čok), and then Old Slovak vtáča (we know that Slovak -ča usually corresponds to Pannonian -че) and the relational adjective vtáčí were modified by analogy, giving таще (tašče) and тащи (tašči). Insaneguy1083 (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is птах (ptax) +‎ -че (-če). See here, page 11. Vahag (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That, or inheritance from Old Slovak vtáča n. Stands to reason, I think, that Old Slovak could have formed an eastern variant *vtášča (via vták + -ča in the same way you suggested) that was just never written down. Never thought about the possibility of dropping an initial consonant when forming such diminutive forms, but now that it's been pointed out that that happens, it makes total sense. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology. two problems:

• the form flird cited in the etymology seems Scots only. if this is the case, the current way we phrased it is confusing; if it isn't, I can't find any evidence of flird outside of Scots.
• Is the form gill-flurt cited in the etymology (=jillflirt?) actually Middle English? This word (and its various variants) is unattested until the Early Modern period and is very transparently a combination of flirt and Jill, gillian, etc. (unless one can say for certain that jillflirt and affiliated predate flirt; but flirt in the sense of "woman that behaves inappropriately" is as early as mid 16 c., and in the sense of "a jibe" yet earlier, while OED's earliest record for jillflirt &c. is an attestation of flurt-gills in 1597)

--ragweed theater _{talk, user} 21:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've cleaned it up a bit. Please have a look and see if anything further is needed. Leasnam (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

looks good, thank you! i've also made some small changes to the wording on Scots flird in that section. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 11:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do we have a date for this? It's been enteredas OHG, but the Monumenta Germaniae Historica dates the first entries to the 12th C., which makes it Middle High German, except that this is also the Latin 3rd declension form, in Latin, not high German texts. Griffon77 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology. Most of the dictionaries say it comes from 《莊子》 (Zhuangzi), earlier than Shuoyuan.--Kethyga (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

see e.g. 古代漢語大詞典（新一版）, which cites Shuoyuan explicitly (and cites only Shuoyuan). note that though Zhuangzi has the tale itself, the usual moral today (i.e., thou shalt not overfocus so much on immediate gains as to fail to recognize potential dangers) is not really the point in Zhuangzi. it's not until in the Hàn literature that we have on record the tale coupled with the moral explicitly.

that said, Shuoyuan isn't the only Hàn source with this fable-- this is also in Han Shi Waizhuan (Book 10, Chapter 21), and the wording there is actually much closer to the idiom (and might have actually been the place the idiom got its current wording from). i have rewritten the etymology ragweed theater _{talk, user} 21:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

We say "origin Unknown, possibly from Tatar turman". The old NED also mentions this idea, and suggests Russian дурман (durman) as another derivative of Turkic. But our Russian entry (and e.g. durnaropė) considers itself a native formation. If the much more similar дурман is not from turman, is stramonium? What do more recent works say about its etymology? - -sche (discuss) 15:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will address only the supposed Tatar turman: it is taken from Korsch and supposedly means "horse remedy". However, the correct Tatar term is дәрман (därman, “remedy”) < Persian درمان (darmân). Perhaps Korsch confused it with Tatar турман (turman, “paraphernalia, accessories”). Vahag (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

From some Romance language (e.g. Old French grain (“melancholy, sorry, sad”)) ultimately from Proto-Germanic *gramaz? Saumache (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Treccani and Garzanti simply say "from Germanic (*)gram".

Etimo is more detailed: Old French gram (also Old French grain and Old French graim), from Old High German gram (cfr. Old Norse grami).

Old Norse grami is an inflection of Old Norse gramr; Old High German gram is also mentioned in the etymology section of German gram. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Now, do we add unclear descendants to entries of reconstructed terms? It is not to be found at *gramaz, neither is Cimbrian gramo which, interestingly enough shares the same meaning seen in French and Italian (but see also Middle Dutch gram and although not directly from *gramaz, German gramvoll, English grame) and might be historically relevant, though it can itself be some early borrowing from Italian too. The word is said to have been used in Lombardy and Provence in old dictionnaries and to have had the possible meaning 'cupido, desideroso'. I will update the entry further, waiting for data you can provide. Saumache (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which sense of lead is this from? The metal Pb as bullets are made of it? Or the verb /li:d/ as it apparently will lead the shooter to the target? Phacromallus (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Leads are something that can be computed, so this is a count noun referring to something non-material. While somehow each source I look at does not define the term but assumes the reader is familiar with it, the sense seems intimately bound to estimating the future position of a moving target, given that a launched projectile needs time to bridge the gap. We have a sense for the verb, defined as “To aim in front of a moving target, in order that the shot may hit the target as it passes.” My guess is that the meaning of the noun is the distance, in the direction of motion of the target, between where the target is at the time of firing and where it will be when hit. But I am not sure; perhaps the meaning is simply the position one should aim at.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The sense is "the distance ahead of something moving". you lead the target because it will catch up to where you are aiming. Griffon77 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which sense of lead is this from? Phacromallus (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

No pronunciation key, but I suppose it's from the verb "to lead". Wakuran (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

A functional synonym of leading hand, but the literal sense is closer to foreman and first mate. The lead hand is the one at the front. Griffon77 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

2nd defn in lacemaking? I doubt there's any metal involved. Should we split into 2 etymlogies? Phacromallus (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It possibly refers to bobbin lace, in Italy in particular using lead bobbins (piombini) to tension the threads, although bone, wood and pewter were more common elsewhere. Griffon77 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can we align the etymology sections of Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ulbanduz, Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/olbandu, Old High German olbenta, Old English olfend, Middle English olfent, Icelandic úlfaldi, Gothic 𐌿𐌻𐌱𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃 (ulbandus), etc?

The Gothic entry is the most extensive, and notably also mentiones alternative etymological possibilities (which I personally prefer, but that’s neither here nor there). Cheers  _hugarheimur 08:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm leaning towards moving most of what is at Gothic 𐌿𐌻𐌱𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃 (ulbandus) to Proto-Germanic *ulbanduz, unless there are objects (?) Leasnam (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dutch rommelen is said to be “related to rumoer”. What is the meaning here of “related”?

• Dutch rumoer is borrowed from French rumeur, inherited from Latin rumor which is thought to come from onomatopoeic Proto-Indo-European *h₃rewH- (“to shout, to roar”).
• rommelen itself is also said to be of imitative origin.
• English rumble, which has similar meanings, while said to be a frequentative form of Middle English romen (“to roar”), is additionally claimed to be cognate with Dutch rommelen (“to rumble”), Low German rummeln (“to rumble”), German rumpeln (“to be noisy”), Danish rumle (“to rumble”), all of imitative origin.
• The etymology of roam tells us that romen derives from Proto-Indo-European *h₃reyH- (“to move, lift, flow”).

Methinks this is etymological overload.  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, one thing is that when I added that etyl, the entry for rumoer didn't exist yet. But, it really is simple: the source says "Klanknabootsend woord, verwant met → rumoer." (an onomatopoeic word, related to rumoer). I took the French part out, since that should go on rumoer. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Swedish has råma (to moo), which I suppose might be related. Wakuran (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Both English moo and Russian мыча́ть (myčátʹ) have onomatopeic roots. Does that mean they are related, or does related, in this context, have a deeper meaning?  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I saw a few speculations on Quora about this, including one where it was said that they were so named because Chicago-style hot dogs which use these peppers were sold in baseball stadiums or something. I'd probably say that that's not true, since Americans generally say "sports" and not "sport". One could even say that Americans defend the "s" in "sports" as much as the Brits defend the "s" in "maths". Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's a compound word, though, so possibly the -s could have been dropped for phonological reasons, I guess. Wakuran (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... although it's true that plurals often get singularized in compounds (even pluralia tanta, e.g. pant leg/trouser leg or scissor kick) my native-speaker intuition is that a pepper named after sports would still be called a "sports pepper", like sports drink or sports page. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here is a putative explanation:

"... They were called sports because they didn't burn your hand when you picked them. Also, a sport pepper looks like somebody dressed up in a nice, new suit That's just how it looks. ..."

The speaker is reminiscing about how they used to pick tabasco peppers (which burned the pickers' hands) and later instead sports.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology section raises three questions that Orel (and Beekes) doesn't answer, either:

1. How, pray tell, are Albanian upri (“group of peasants helping another peasant with chores in his farm”) and (for that matter) Ancient Greek ὕπερος (húperos, “pestle”) semantically related to “over”? For the life of me I can't think of any way to link these meanings.

2. Where, pray tell, does the inflected form unza come from?

3. How, pray tell, is Albanian uri (“hunger”) (also “mole”, a different etymon not mentioned in Wiktionary, but in Orel) supposed to be "related" to upri? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

A pestle is the upper part of a mortar, presumably... Wakuran (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some languages have different words for upper and lower grindstone, those being concave and convex. ANewUserHasJoined (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It might be utterly irrelevant, but I also got to think of the modern English gay slang terms "top" and "bottom". Wakuran (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've definitely heard "mortar and pestle" used as a sexual metaphor. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Without knowing anything about Albanian historical phonology, I suspect unza is a case of suppletion. And as for the semantics, almost anything is possible with enough time. The same root has also given us German Ober (“waiter”), Obers (“cream”), and Oberst (“colonel”). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology for ทุก (túk) compares it to 獨 (*doːɡ, “single, alone”) using {{der}} with the plausible implication that the Tai word is ultimately borrowed from Old Chinese. The Tai word seems to have a restricted distribution - we list it for Thai, Lao, Northern Thai, Khün and Lü. @This, that and the other has changed the template to {{cog}} in the Northern Thai entry ᨴᩩᨠ as though the relationship were less direct. Which one should we be using? At present the Tai cognates are now inconsistent about the relationship with Old Chinese. The comparison with Old Chinese was added anonymously. (Notifying Alifshinobi, Octahedron80, YURi, Judexvivorum, หมวดซาโต้, Atitarev, GinGlaep, Noktonissian): --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think he just misuse of der template. That's okay to compare to something that might be possibly their long ancestor. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My another theory is that "ทุก" is spreaded from Ayutthaya Old Thai to the north. That's why "ทุก" just exists in this subgroup. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My change was based on the fact that the etymology says "Compare...", which does not imply any kind of derivation relation. I don't think the text of the etymology should be so clearly out of sync with the categorisation. This, that and the other (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to say that ทุก is derived from old Chinese *do:g as the time period for old Chinese is 1000 BC while ทุก is a contemporary Thai word that can be traced back to only around 500 years ago. Also, ทุก means "all" and "every" as opposed to "single" and "one". They are antonyms. I'm not so convinced that the words are related. Noktonissian (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Alifshinobi, Octahedron80, YURi, Judexvivorum, หมวดซาโต้, Atitarev, GinGlaep, Noktonissian): , @This, that and the other: I can see a possible connection through the sense 'each', i.e. 'every single one', but I don't find it very convincing. In cases like this, where 'compare' is mere speculation, I think {{link}} would be better. Or is someone doing something useful with {{der}} or {{cog}} in cases like this? To me, {{temp,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

@RichardW57 there is {{ncog}} as well. Perhaps that one is a better fit here. {{l}} (= {{link}}) and {{l+}} are not suitable as they don't present the language name as a link to Wikipedia, as is standard in our etymology sections. This, that and the other (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or just use {{m+}}, which doesn't make any implication at all about whether the term is cognate or not. AFAIK all three are functionally identical, so it's kind of silly to make an issue about something that's only visible in the wikitext. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

A reason for worrying is the prospect that they might start categorising. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wish someone had the time, money? and ability to add that 500-year old citation. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that speculative connections require a separate template, but perhaps saying things like "possibly a cognate of" might not be as misleading. --A.S. (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My dictionaries say that 柄(ひ)杓(しゃく) (hishaku, “ladle”) comes from ひさく (hisaku), from earlier ひさこ (hisako) or ひさご (hisago), which would appear to be a japonic word, making the kanji ateji (phono-semantic matching?), but what about 杓(しゃく) (shaku, “ladle”)? Does anyone know whether this word is Chinese in origin, or possibly an apheresis of hishaku? Horse Battery (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems shaku is a normal Chinede borrowing. (hi- reading of the first kanji, on the other hand, is unexpected.)

See the Pronunciation 2 in the Chinese part of the article 杓 (Middle Chinese dzyak), looks like a straightforward source of Japanese shaku.

For similar examples, see 妁 MC dzyak/tsyak > kan-on shaku. In other cases, initial dz- is borrowed as s(h)- (e.g.上 MC dzyangH gave kan-on shou < syau, my understanding is, it's from earlier *syaŋu) and -yak is borrowed as -(y)aku (弱 MC nyak > kan-on jaku). Хтосьці (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is -man used here instead?

Secondly, how's it pronounced? JMGN (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I just edited the Japanese etymology section, which previously presented two incompatible etymologies in a way that I found confusing, not mentioning until the end that the second one was supposed to be incorrect. I added one source but I'd appreciate anyone who actually knows Japanese etymologies updating it further. I'm not sure exactly what the wording "manuscript kana glosses" means in this case: is the word attested anywhere with a man'yōgana spelling in Old Japanese, or does it just appear with the kanji spelling 紙? When is the first attested spelling of the word in kana? The quotation from 720 cited by the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten seems like it should go in the Old Japanese section. As far as I can tell, the relevant passage in the Nihon Shoki reads 且能作彩色及紙墨, with the word written in kanji; but I can't find much useful information online about the original writing conventions of the Nihon Shoki (is it a form of kanbun, with kana glosses already present in the original? Or are pronunciation glosses generally assumed to belong to a later date?). The note in the Old Japanese entry that talks about "The reconstruction as *KAMI₁ and not **KAMI₂" seems to imply that we have to infer the Old Japanese pronunciation, rather than having direct attestation of it. That makes me wonder how we can be certain it was *KAMI₁ and not *KABI₁ in Old Japanese. Urszag (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Elsewhere the manuscript (https://manuscripta.at/diglit/AT7290-HsA1/0013) clearly has Senlhart. I'm inclined to link this to Proto-Germanic *senaz, but can't find any evidence of any equivalent to *senilaz. A document from Freising, on the other hand, has Snelhart. Griffon77 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-ukaz come from Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-kos? It would make it a doublet of Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-gaz but it is a similar evolution as with -iko#Ladino and Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/-ъkъ to make a diminutive. Arnerob1234 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The phonetics don't match up. It would require an explanation on why it would be irregular. Wakuran (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I thought maybe as loanword; maybe from Proto-Balto-Slavic, but such loanwords seem to be rare; maybe from Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/-kelos but it's uncertain if that even existed and other examples like -क#Sanskrit seem impossible. Arnerob1234 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe suffixes like that usually aren't borrowed. Wakuran (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This seems pretty transparent: owíŋža is a flexible thing on a bed, and ská is white. Can any Siouan speakers confirm? PierreAbbat (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old Sundanese and Old Javanese meaning "magnet/lodestone". Zoetmulder (1982) in his Old Javanese Dictionary compares this word's etymology to Persian خراسانی (“Khorasani”). Any explanation on why? Is there any record that the Persians traded metal like magnets/lodestone in the Maritime Silk Road, especially in the 13-16th century? Udaradingin (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess this might be based on Vladimir Orel's entry for *smauʒjanan, which gives "MHG sich smougen 'to cling'" as a descendant. Orel also lists Old English smēaġan (“consider”) as a descendant, but experts on Old English say that's from *smauhōj-, and the lack of i-umlaut points against derivation from *smaugijan, so I just removed that derivation from these two entries. It seems dubious to keep a Proto-West Germanic reconstruction with only one descendant. But I haven't gone through Orel's bibliography, and I guess sich smougen ought to be listed somewhere, so I'm not sure the entry is ready to be deleted yet. Does anyone have more info to work from? Urszag (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd cleared these - Forstemann's reference work is not a list of Old High German names. His "Altdeutsche" includes multiple languages - Norse, Old English, Old Dutch/Frankish, Old High German, Gothic, Vandal, Middle High German ... and Greek and Latin adaptations. He lists this name as Ags - AngloSaxon. Griffon77 (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Due to this 2021 edit, we present the noun "A young person who is considered to be over-emotional or stereotypically emo." and adjective "Associated with youth subcultures embodying emotional sensitivity." as having different etymologies. Is that correct? Also, a user just replaced ety 2 with the claim that the adjective was coined by Helen Gurley Brown; as many of the user's other edits have had errors and the book cited for this claim doesn't look to be particularly focused on or reliable for etymologies, it'd be wise to check whether this is correct. - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Both senses go back to the word emotion(al), anyway. And the different words might likely have been conflated on various times. Wakuran (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that the more usual sense of the noun, applied to persons, is that of being associated with the emo subculture. Wikipedia writes, “The emo subculture was stereotypically associated with social alienation, sensitivity, misanthropy, introversion, and angst.“ This does not mean (I hope) that this stereotype is automatically assumed to apply to any individual emo kid, many of whom were not actually inflicted by any of this but just liked the music and felt at home in the subculture. Applied to people who are not actually thought to be associated with the emo subculture, it may be a derived meaning, a disapproving term for “someone behaving like the imaginary stereotype”. This needs IMO some unambiguous uses for attestation.

Here is the relevant passage concerning the imputation of Brown as the coiner of the adjective:

Emo is a word invented by Helen Gurley Brown, the grand dame of Cosmopolitan magazine. Emo translated is “Give more emotion!” Once Cosmopolitan asked me to write an article on communicating sensitive matters (most specifically advising young women on how to make their boyfriends more passionate). I interviewed a passel of psychologists, communications experts, and sexologists. My draft came back from Cosmo all marked up with “MORE EMO” scribbled on every page. I called my editor and asked what it meant. She said that was Helen’s way of saying downplay all that factual stuff with the sex therapists and so-called experts. Write about the emotion the young woman feels when her boyfriend isn’t passionate enough, the emotion the accused male feels when confronted, and the emotion the couple feels about discussing their quandary.

This shows several things. To begin, in Brown’s use of EMO in “MORE EMO” it appears to me as a noun, as in “More Cowbell”. Then, it is clearly a clipping of emotion. The writer’s suggested “translation” as “Give more emotion!” is not substitutable: “MORE give more emotion!”?? It is also unlikely that Brown was the first to clip emotion, and use in private scribbled communication is not the same as coinage.

There may be enough attestable uses of emo as just a clipping of emotion or emotional to warrant inclusion, in which case it should have a different etymology than that of the subcultural emo.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

As in Category:Bulgarian terms suffixed with -ле. Doesn't seem like a particularly Slavic affix to me. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Was Bulgarian ever significantly in contact with High German languages? It sure seems reminiscent of German -le and Yiddish ־ל (-l). —Mahāgaja · talk 11:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not that I'm aware. When I think of non-Slavic lexical influences in Bulgarian that aren't necessarily found in surrounding Slavic languages, I tend to just think of Greek, and maybe Turkic. I'd argue that Czech, Polish and the surrounding West Slavic languages and dialects were the Slavic languages most influenced by High German. I can see where the argument holds semantically and morphologically, but there's just very little German influence that isn't also found in other South Slavic languages. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's also Romanian -el and Greek -ούλης (-oúlis), but they don't look particularly promising morphologically. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology currently on the page for रीछ page reads

"Inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit रिच्छ (riccha), रिक्ख (rikkha), from Sanskrit ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa), from Proto-Indo-Aryan *Hŕ̥ṭṣas, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hŕ̥ćšas, from Proto-Indo-European *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. Turner considers the development ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa) > रिच्छ (riccha) rather than ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa) > रिक्ख (rikkha) > Hindi *रीख (*rīkh), which would be expected, to be a case of taboo deformation (borrowing from a neighboring dialect)."

however this is unnecessary as the Prakrits (and thus the modern Indo-Aryan lanuguages) don't come from Sanskrit but directly from Proto Indo-Aryan and the sound change of Proto Indo-Iranian *Hŕ̥ćšas > Proto Indo-Aryan *Hŕ̥ćšas > Hindi रीछ /ɾiːt͡ʃʰ/ is completely regular. This obviously points towards a wider problem across all of wiktionary for Indo-Aryan languages, where conflating Sanskrit with Proto Indo-Aryan causes the proposing of irregular sound changes where they actually are regular. ChromeBones (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This word has an entry for 3 different Arabic varieties. In Levantine it's listed as a word that comes from Spanish while in Hejazi it's Italian. Which is it? Does anyone know? Jinengi (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For many centuries, large swaths of especially the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea were under Genoese or Venetian control, and many Levantines were Venetian or Genoese, so borrowing from an Italian language seems a priori far more likely. Compare also Ottoman Turkish بانیو (banyo), generally thought to have been borrowed from Italian. Many Ladino speakers fled to Morocco and the early Ottoman Empire, so a borrowing of Ladino באניו (banyo), from Old Spanish banno, is IMO not implausible for Moroccan Arabic, and a secondary influence on Ottoman Turkish and other languages spoken in the Levant cannot be excluded.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Might it make sense to includ something like "from an unknown Romance language, compare..." and then list various examples like Ladino, Italian, etc. ChromeBones (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do we have a language code for w:Mediterranean Lingua Franca (“... the fact the language is not well attested means only a few hundred words in the language have been recorded to the present-day”)? 185.109.152.115 08:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes; the code is pml, but we call it Sabir rather than Mediterranean Lingua Franca. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

In his entry for sulphur/sulpur, De Vaan writes "The development of *selpos to *solpos would be irregular". Does anyone else understand what he means by this? I'm confused, since before a consonant, *-el- > -ol- > -ul- is regular in Latin, as in pulpa from *pelpa or vult < *welt.

Second, in his entry for fulgō and fulgur, De Vaan seems to assume that Latin fulg- in both of these words must derive from zero-grade *bʰlg-, but wouldn't it be equally regular as the outcome of e-grade *bʰelg-? I'm wondering about this because I wonder whether pre-Latin *folgos could be analogous or even cogate to Proto-Indo-Iranian *bʰárgas > Sanskrit भर्गस् (bhargas). Schrijver 1991:477 seems to discuss both and distinguishes the Latin word as being from *bʰlǵ-, versus the Sanskrit word as being from *bʰelg-/*bʰolg-, but I didn't see an explanation of how we can be confident in either the zero-ablaut grade or the palatovelar behind the Latin form. Don't *-os nouns in PIE usually take the e-grade of the root, like *yéwgos (> Latin iūgera)? Urszag (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that maybe the idea is that the e-grade would be *bʰle-g-, as in Greek φλέγω (phlégō), but currently we don't show the Latin forms as a descendant of that root formation at *bʰel-. Should they be moved? (I guess this is why De Vaan refers to "schwebe-ablaut" when mentioning the Sanskrit word.)--Urszag (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone confirm this? It was added by an IP known for many erroneous etymologies (though some correct ones, too), then changed from "probably related to" to "probably from" by another IP. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The use of edit summaries in Anglish spelled with obsolete letters by the second IP doesn't exactly inspire confidence... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The English section says this is (from French and) related to chopiner, thus a nickname for a tippler, which I can find references supporting. The French section says it's related to chop and thus a nickname for someone pugnacious. Which is correct? (It could be both, for different bearers...) - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay but I don't think that both are different 41.121.13.193 06:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It also looks similar to the Spanish chupar, although that might be a coincidence. (And for the record, it's also fairly similar to the English tope.) Wakuran (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

I'm no professional linguist, but the etymology added by Geheimrat Goethe (23) sounds like a bit of truth mixed with complete BS to me. I suspect they read the etymology entry at DWDS here and completely misunderstood it. I'm primarilly confused by these claims:

• "The si/se was originally used to strengthen demonstrative pronouns, which is still preserved today in dieser, diese, dieses."

  According to the entries here on wiktionary the -s- in dieser etc. is from the oblique stem of PG *þat, which was *þes-

• "The sie probably found its way into German primarily via the Old Saxon se, which developed as a plural form of the simple demonstrative thia."

  considering that Proto West Germanic is reconstructed with *sī/si(j)u, I find it unlikely that Old High German loaned it from Old Saxon instead of inheriting it.

So, is there anything to verify these claims? --Kolibri8-II (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/24.108.18.81 (the problematic IP mentioned a few sections up) changed this from "borrowed from Kikuyu kere nyaga (“white mountain”)" to "borrowed from Kikuyu kere nyaga (“ostrich mountain”)"; someone else later changed it to "Kamba kii nyaa (“ostrich mountain”)". Wikipedia says the etymology is uncertain and Etymonline says it's "Kikuyu Kirinyaga, from kere nyaga, literally "white mountain"". I have edited the entry to mention the various possibilities, but if anyone feels like bringing more or better sources to bear and editing it further, please do... - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#napa & napa cabbage.

Request for reference for etymology 1. While I don't think the 菜(な)っ葉(ぱ) (nappa, “leafy greens”) origin is unlikely, I would prefer if a source was added which documents this. Horse Battery (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Horse Battery: Requests for verification pages are for verifying usage, not etymologies. I've moved your post to the correct page. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for moving it to the correct location. I'm not sure what I was thinking last night, because I've put them in the correct location before.. Horse Battery (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, in a snippet view of a list in a Japanese linguistic journal of what appear to be English plant names borrowed or derived from Japanese, I see “napa ( cabbage ) ”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Someone with more knowledge of Romanian etymology should probably check the edits of Daniel197801 (talk • contribs) and Peterdi55 (talk • contribs), who (especially the latter) seem to be promoting their own etymological theories on various Romanian entries. (I don't think the users are necessarily related in some other way, though.) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are not my theories! Everything I have added is thoroughly argued with quotes from the most important Romanian linguists and, especially, with convincing terms from a large number of Indo-European languages. If you find a single added word that does not exist in the respective languages, please indicate it! The etymologies are based only on the comparative method used in current European etymology. The corrected etymologies were wrong, precisely because they were based on outdated procedures, used by some Romanian linguists 100 years ago. If someone who is good at etymology proves to me with solid and objective arguments that I am wrong, that my arguments are not pertinent, but the obvious exaggerations that I have corrected, I agree to return to the old etymological solutions. But I am sure that I am not wrong, because I am very good at etymology! However, I appreciate your vigilance, the fact that you want everything to be correct, because etymology is a science and no one can afford to deviate from the rigor and objectivity that must characterize any science. I have always been guided by these principles. Peterdi55 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you find a single added word that does not exist in the respective languages, please indicate it!

You linked spellings not used by the individual languages all the time. Even though the terms have been entered elsewhere on Wiktionary in the correct spellings, in particular on βράθυ (bráthu). The Arabic word does not exist though, in any spelling. This with the exclusive reliance on Indo-European, while you habitually read none of the references, or even our formatting standards, shows that you are too lazy for linguistics. Take a deep breath for a few years and learn some languages before you teach others about etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see that you avoid discussing the substance of the problem and are looking for all sorts of trifles, that is, pretexts to reproach me for something. For example, you reproach me for not transcribing a word from ancient Greek in the original, omitting the fact that in etymology linguists do not, in very many cases, give the terms in the original alphabets of the languages ​​in which they are written. At least Wiktionary does this in all cases where words appear in the Tocharian language (A and B), these being transcribed with Latin characters, although there was a specific alphabet. And the words in Avestan are simply not transcribed at all! The Ancient Greek word βράθυ I draw your attention to the fact that it is not transcribed corectly (brathu) as you mistakenly think, but (brathy), because the letter υ did not transcrided the sound u in ancient Greek, but a sound that is represented in the international phonetic alphabet IPA with the symbol y and resembles the ü in German. So before you explain etymology to me, I invite you to study more, because you still have a long way to go before you reach my level! I have university and postgraduate studies in linguistics and have been studying etymology for more than 20 years. Peterdi55 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

And you have not ensconced in the 21st century. Typesetting foreign alphabets had inherent limits, leading to agreement within the publication field to omit them in favour of transcriptions, which we now surmount against dust-ridden linguistics chairs – except the foreign script is not encoded, as in the case of Tocharian. But even thirty years back it did not absolve you from referring to the original dictionaries instead of scraping theories and arguments together from your local authors and letting them argue in circles against each other. No etymology without a bit of philology. How are you getting more material to solve word origins?

The transcription is irrelevant, the Greek transcription here is even automatically provided by the template {{m}}, not me, so your whole argument breaks apart and brings us back to the major complaint about your contributions that you don't give a damn on following Wiktionary's formatting or engaging in any pertinent research. I reproach you for the culmination of more than twenty years of laziness, and your following linguists just in its support, as if to drag everyone down to sluggard levels that would be impressive only to the clueless lay, by its academic sound, is merely indicative of it. Just citing everyone – which even you did poorly, for someone with postgraduate studies in linguistics – does not exhaust science, it is antics vaguely similar to linguistics. Your university teachers should be ashamed of the futility of their workfarce. Fay Freak (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You give yourself such an air of superiority as if you were some kind of linguist, but in reality you are nothing more than a dilettante who doesn't have even the vaguest idea of ​​etymology! I'm sure you don't have any philological studies, and if you did, they wouldn't have been of any use to you! Because, if you had, you wouldn't accept more than embarrassing, embarrassing, totally unscientific etymologies, such as that of the word "zmeură", which is not based on any valid argument, or that of the Romanian "brad", in which the so-called arguments contradict each other! In fact, the second part of this so-called etymology, which is nothing more than a sophistical tangle, has no place in an attempt to deduce the origin of a word, but in a grammar work (and a bad one at that), because it doesn't reach any etymological conclusion! Simply put, it's a sterile discussion around the phonetic alternations that occur when switching from the singular to the plural number of a word. And in the first part of the etymology, the possibility of borrowing a basic Romanian word from Albanian is ridiculously discussed, as if Romanians and Albanians had ever lived together. Historians have clearly established that this did not happen, but there are still absurd linguists who base their etymologies on such an hypothesis. And you, who have no connection with etymology, believe such lucubrations. And you also give yourself an air of superiority, like a dilettante who has come to deal with things that are clearly beyond him! Peterdi55 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This has gotten totally out of hand. No need for namecalling- either of you. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with what you say, but it's easy to see that those insults were not initiated by me. I just responded to his. No one has the right to question my competence, which no honest person can deny! For someone who does not have these competences to come and assume an air of superiority is very annoying! And that's exactly what he did. And in very rude terms. I'm the most polite person possible, but I can't stand people who don't respect me. And I have every right to do so. Peterdi55 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could someone elaborate on the etymology? @Mahagaja? PUC – 16:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it's pretty self-explanatory. It might be due to me being Swedish and used to the Swedish calqued version of the same word, but still. The spirit seeks or searches for something it cannot find, so it basically dwells and lingers in the place. Wakuran (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a link between toora loora#English and ture, lure ! https://fr.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/turelure ? 194.207.86.26 17:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They're onomatopoetic, anyway. You can even compare with tra-la-la. Wakuran (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is obviously popoca plus something, but what? I don't think Nahuatl words begin with "lq". And if it's a noun, why doesn't it end with -tl or -lli? PierreAbbat (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@PierreAbbat. Re: the "lq": First of all, Nahuatl is basically spelled phonetically using archaic Spanish orthography (with a few additions like "tl"). That means "qu" is just a "k" sound before a front vowel. Also, it's entirely possibly that there's some morpheme after "popoca".

Re: the ending: not every Nahuatl noun ends in -tl or -lli. Uto-Aztecan and European languages handle possession in quite different ways: European languages add a genitive ending to show the possessor, while Uto-Aztecan languages have absolutive suffixes to show something isn't possessed. A noun without -tl would be read as if there was an "of" in front of it.

I'm not exactly an expert on Nahuatl morphology, but my best guess is that were looking at a form or derivation of the verb popoca (to smoke) + a form or derivation of the verb quiza (to emerge) with maybe another morpheme or two. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is this suffix "-iš" in the context of Slovak? How is this not a direct borrowing from Hungarian kocsis? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply