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.

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

@Chuck Entz, @Fay Freak, Just a heads-up about this user: they recently made similar changes on the Romanian Wiktionary. Although their initial contributions were mostly harmless, things quickly went south when I reverted some of their edits. We strongly discourage adding fringe theories that contradict the established scholarly consensus – especially since Dacian theories are problematic given that the language remains unattested. After the reverts, the user escalated the situation by calling me "semi-learned", "illiterate", and saying that "my Wiktionary isn't even worth two cents". Unsurprisingly, they were blocked for three days due to this unacceptable conduct. While I hope we won't face any similar issues here, I encourage everyone to keep an eye on their contributions. If any dubious changes pop up, please ping @Bogdan and @PUC, as they are well-versed in Romanian and have already reverted some questionable edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, any attempt to connect Romanian words with Dacian ones is spurious because (apart from a few medicinal plants in a glossary) we don't know any Dacian words, so it's always like "we don't know (or I don't like) the etymology of this word, so it might as well be Dacian" rather than serious scholarship. Bogdan (talk) 19:38, 18 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

There's a discussion of heimsuchen in “Heim” in Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm, 16 vols., Leipzig 1854–1961. The basic meaning is 'to seek out and visit someone at their home'. This could be a visit from evil spirits, as well as from God (whether in wrathful or gracious mood), harassers, investigators, etc. Voltaigne (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"visit" is putting it mildly. In general the stem means "assault" "attack", as in the Pforzen buckle, "Agil and Agilrun the whole army assaulted", and the old English law term hamsoken, or scottish hamesucken "to assault someone in their home". Griffon77 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me like "visit" would be besuchen, but suchen would be more like "to seek out". I'm also reminded of the phrase "to hit someone where they live". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, The Grimms defined it as originally meaning "einen daheim aufsuchen, besuchen", with several supporting quotations (link above). Obviously the word no longer connotes a benign visitation. Voltaigne (talk) 23:45, 13 July 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

I don’t know if onomatopoetic is the right term here.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

See also Too-Ra-Loo-Ra-Loo-Ral.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: it's scat singing. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:59, 16 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

Sounds reasonable: "that which smoke comes out of". PierreAbbat (talk) 06:48, 22 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

Yes, it seems obvious that it's just a borrowing from Hungarian. According to the first version of the kočiš entry, "-iš" supposedly corresponds to "-man", but in the Reverse Dictionary of Modern Slovak the only other animate masculine nouns ending in -iš are tovariš (“comrade”) (borrowed), derviš (“dervish”) (borrowed) and poliš (“cop”) (slang). Voltaigne (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I saw that the definition of "luch" I added was removed after failing RFV, and it seems like this is the right spot to ask about that?

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:luch

Is this reference good enough to reinstate the definition meaning "hovel"?

https://yiddish.english-dictionary.help/english-to-yiddish-meaning-hovel

The page lists several synonyms for hovel, including "6. hole :: לאָך". Is it enough that the author described the usage as meaning hovel and a dictionary lists it as a synonym for hovel? GudSpeller (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not. We need examples of usage, where someone uses the word in its intended meaning, not a mere mention, where someone discusses the word as a word. The one quote at Citations:luch is a usage; if two more usages like that can be found, the word can be reinstated. But if and when that happens, the info you provided will certainly be useful for the Etymology section. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, "6. hole :: לאָך" only tells us something about Yiddish (specifically, it hints at the possibility that our entry לאָך (lokh) is lacking a sense – although this could be deemed to be covered by the range of senses of English hole). It does not say anything about the English lexicon.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The very familiar etymology of this bird is that it's from the Malagasy name - and all our English, Romanian etc. entries point to this. But we haven't got an entry for Malagasy. And get this, the voluminous Malagasy Wiktionary hasn't either! My first 'wait a minute' thought was that although Malagasy has the affricates /tr dr/, they never begin words. Okay, a check on our lemmas shows there are plenty for initial /tr/, but those few for initial /dr/ are sound-symbolic/onomatopoeic. Hm, possible for a bird, from its call. Is, in fact, drongo a real Malagasy word? Can anyone find it in a dictionary more reliable than Malagasy Wiktionary? Hiztegilari (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

How about drongo in Malagasy dictionaries at malagasyword.org? Malagasy words beginning with dr- are listed here. Voltaigne (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Haven't made the entry yet, but it means "skull" or "cranium". No "lopov" in the Old Slovak dictionary. Serbo-Croatian lopov means thief, and its etymon Hungarian lopó means stealing. Slovak uses lebka for skull, for which I was not able to find a *lob- variant to even begin with. The only other lead I've got is that лопов (lopov) is also the word for "skull" in Carpathian Rusyn, but no further clues beyond that. Any ideas? Is there some Hungarian dialectal word that I haven't been looking out for? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old Slovak lopovček is a borrowing from Hungarian lopótök, which means calabash. tök is a round shape, I guess that's the closest I can get. Chihunglu83 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since Pannonian Rusyn лоповик (lopovik) means both "skull" and "calabash", the ultimate origin is indeed the above Hungarian word. See {{R:zlw-osk:Rocchi|page=14|vol=II}} on Slovak lopov (“koštýř”) for the materials, without the Pannonian Rusyn. The Pannonian Rusyn лоповик (lopovik) is connected to Slovak lopov by Kálal (the view should open in few days, until then use a US-American proxy). Vahag (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

So is it like хвиля (xvilja) and хвилька (xvilʹka) where the original primary meaning of the noun (in this case, calabash) was transferred to its diminutive, and then the original noun lost that primary meaning? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Slavs like diminutives, like children. Vahag (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 pay attention to Ukrainian dialectal ESUM, “лоповка” (лопов + -ка) where mentioned Hungarian lopótök (bot.) "type of pumpkin" (pumpkin > skull?). Also in Slovak there are (Dictionary of Slovak Dialects): https://slovnik.juls.savba.sk/?w=lopov what was mentioned in Ukrainian Etymological Dictionary. AshFox (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Masonry term; probably from Swedish, German or some other Germanic language, but I couldn't find a match. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The fuck did the Middle Chinese sound like? (Something like ngengk I guess.) 90.246.94.189 17:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Cantonese, and Mandarin+Japanese forms can be reconciled. Probably two different words written with same hanzi. Both Mandarin and Sino-Japanese reading seem to imply MC nang. Cantonese seems to be from a different source, or had some unique sound changes, or was re-borrowed from a different Chinese variety. Хтосьці (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wasn’t asking about Japanese kun readings. 90.246.94.189 12:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You were asking about Middle Chinese, and Sino-Xenic readings (including Sino-Japanese) are a valid source for reconstructing earlier stages of Chinese, including Middle Chinese.

(Also, I was talking about on-readings.

Kun-readings are, indeed, irrelevant, and I haven't said anything about kun-readings.) Хтосьці (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It might not actually existed in Middle Chinese I guess: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2025/April#乪 Ydcok (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What Hakka term is it? 90.246.94.189 12:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe 曲? Хтосьці (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the modern French version of old French version that was borrowed into Dutch? What was its Latin ancestor? 90.246.94.189 17:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems as if the French word has been replaced by a synonym. By the way, according to the French Wikipedia, the Old French variant was goherel. Wakuran (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the modern French word? 90.246.94.189 20:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Modern French word is harnais, akin to English harness. The Old French word goherel has become obsolete. Wakuran (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What Latin root did goherel come from? 90.246.94.189 12:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Dutch Wiktionary defines gareel as “yoke for draught animals”. So a plausible Latin etymon is iugum.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Page 8 of this PDF mentions that the etymology is unknown, although to me a Germanic borrowing looks likely. By the way, I was apparently wrong when I said the word has become obsolete. There exists a dialectal French word goria, and some rare surnames derived from the root. Wakuran (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This page puts forward two etymologies, one is that it's derived from Old French gorre (ribbon, cloth band), although it doesn't delve any further. Alternatively, that it is somehow derived from Proto-Germanic *garwijaną (prepare). Wakuran (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

But basically, all Old French words cannot be derived from Latin, some might have been borrowed from Germanic or Celtic languages, or might have been spontaneous coinages. And all Old French words haven't survived into Modern French. Some have died out. Wakuran (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why does the German term for Punjabi listed in the translation of King Kong? Every German piece of media about I could find about this Hollywood ape simply called him, well King Kong or kong for short, with little to no difference in pronunciation. 90.246.94.189 17:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was added by an anonymous editor some months ago. It's likely just racist nonsense vandalism that other editors failed to catch. Wakuran (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

Unsourced and doesn't match Etymology 2 in Latin lātus. Not sure if it's an oversight or some alternative theory. Trooper57 (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology in the Norwegian Bokmål entry Specifically, the Proto-Hellenic ancestor given: Proto-Hellenic *θᾱϝέομαι. It may be correct, but Wiktionary uses the Latin script. Perhaps this is really "*tʰāwéomai"

As above

As above, but in an Ancient Greek entry This time it's "From Proto-Hellenic *ϝῑρᾱξ". Perhaps "*wīrāks"?

Chuck Entz (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I converted the Ancient Greek entry to Latin script. The Norwegian Bokmål entries don't need to be taken all the way back to Proto-Hellenic anyway. I've greatly simplified them. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Etymology 5. I also suspect that some senses of Etymology 1, in particular "the reverse (or tails) of a coin" and maybe the heraldry sense, were borrowed directly from French and so would belong in Etymology 5; can we trace the history of the heraldry term through Middle English and into Old French? Also, the etymology at atomic pile explains that the similarity to French pile (“battery”) is a coincidence, but is it? English also has pile (“battery”) as I have added for Etymology 5, and the structural overlap between this technology and a voltaic pile (a primitive battery) is remarkable. I have listed it as a derived term under Etymology 1 only because the sense "atomic pile" is already listed there. — 2600:4808:9C30:C500:E889:2AA5:70BA:578F 00:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW re the heraldic sense, the MED has a 1486 use ("now folowyth of certan armys in the wich iij pilis mete to gedyr in oon coone") and considers it to be the same ultimately-Old-English-derived word as the "pointed missile; large stake" senses. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

(This was discussed at Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2024/November#buy_it_+_buy_the_farm but that didn't broach this point.)

I recently heard a US professor, , use this in a YouTube video which I have unfortunately lost the URL of, but his usage, relating to the compensation given to families of Russian soldiers killed in battle in the Russia-Ukraine War, showed he thought the phrase related exactly to that, ie the compensation for death in action being used to secure the lifestyles of relatives by allowing them to buy a farm or whatever. Neither of our present etymologies allows for that, though one speaks of a soldier dreaming of buying a farm. TBH, I didn't even realise that other countries gave compensation to families of those KIA, unless the death was due to their country's negligence. Has anyone else heard that explanation?

BTW, as was commented previously, I too associated it solely with air force deaths until recently, and only in WWII or later fiction, ie I've never heard anyone use it or seen it used in news or current affairs, though I forget if it was initially US usage only in my reading/watching. --Enginear 06:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have a question, how do you guys find etymology of words I can see my baby swimming (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lots of different places. Many general dictionaries list etymology. There are also specific etymological dictionaries. Sometimes articles in linguistics journals. Some words, like doghouse and garage door opener have etymologies so obvious we don't even have to look them up. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Carpathian and Pannonian Rusyn word for "eyelash".

1. Who borrowed it from who?
2. What's the ultimate etymology of the word? Could it be related to павучина (pavučina, “spiderweb”)?

Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This reminds me of the Aeon Flux opening. Wakuran (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably connected with Belarusian паве́ка (pavjéka), Ukrainian паві́ко (pavíko), Polish powieko, Slovak paveko (“eyelid”) Vahag (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFE for this term? Many websites suggest an origin in the 唐音 reading of 火榻 or 火榻子, but I don't have access to very many reputable sources. Horse Battery (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found the etymology on Daijirin, which Apple devices have as a built-in dictionary — they say it's 「火榻」の唐音から. as for 榻子 vs. just 榻, this is the same problem we have at きゃたつ. despite what the Daijirin says, I feel like the etymon is *火榻子 if anything, because it'd be really weird to get tatsu as a reading from a character with MC -p, especially in tō-on. there are examples of this, like 立 and 雑 (these all get the -tsu from analogy with words where they're contracted to りっ, ざっ, etc.).

but tō-on is notably irregular and "weird", so I don't really know. it'd be very nice if the Chinese words that kotatsu and kyatatsu come from were attested somewhere though... mati ★ (talk · contribs) 12:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Etymonline says these (and their Latin and Greek etyma) are related; we (and Beekes?) say they're not. What is correct? - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Etymonline drives me crazy because while they have a site-wide bibliography, they provide no way to find out what claims come from what sources. I occasionally use them as a research starting-point, but because of the the sourcing issue I personally avoid using them as a lone reference.

As to your query, there appears to be some debate over the relationship between urina and οὖρον (oûron). One view is that they are indeed cognate, while another holds that they are not cognate but that urina's meaning was potentially influenced by οὖρον.

de Vaan goes into detail on this subject in an Etymological Dictionary of Latin (p. 644):

"ūrīna 'urine' ... The meaning of the verb shows that 'urine' is a secondary development; the older word for 'to piss' is meiiо̄ , mingо̄ , apart from onomatopoeia like *pissо̄. According to WH, the meaning 'urine' of ūrīna may have been influenced by Gr. οὖρον 'urine'. The original meaning must then have been 'water' vel sim. Leumann 1977: 552 and 328 regards ūrīna as a back-formation to the verb, which would be a latinization of Gr. οὐρεῖν 'to piss'. Yet this does not explain the meaning ‘to dive’ which the Latin verb has. Oleson 1976 points out that divers typically suffer diuresis (they produce more urine) while diving, and that this may explain the meaning 'diver' of urinator. In that case, 'urine' is indeed the oldest meaning of ūrīna. Oleson surmises that the Greek verb was borrowed into Latin via Etruscan, where it lost its original *w-. But if the verb was borrowed after the fifth century from Attic, this is not necessary. If ūrīna ‘water’ is old, it presupposes an adj. *ūr-īno- ‘watery’ formed from a noun *ūr(o)- 'water'."

Pangur Bán & I (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The article on "zero" says it is derived from an Arabic word calqued from Sanskrit "śūnyá" (शून्य). It cites the online OED entry as the reference for this. However, the OED entry doesn't mention it at all. Seems fishy, but I suppose the online entry could have been updated. I'm not an experienced editor at all, so please let me know what to do — or, you know, do it! I won't complain. Jajobi (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• The mention of the Arabic term refers to the entry for cipher, where OED notes "The Arabic was simply a translation of the Sanskrit name śūnya, literally ‘empty’." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What should be added as the etymology? J3133 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

OED states an alteration of popsy (“girl, girlfriend”), perhaps by influence of tootsie. Leasnam (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, I can see it also being a clipping of nincompoop + -sy, where nincompoop is used in an endearing way, i.e. "a fool in love". Leasnam (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added as I did not know the OED had an entry. J3133 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Found on w:fr:Sex (rocher). Please verify the etymology and add it to sex if it is correct. 2402:3A80:1985:553D:72B5:62F4:E6AA:83CD 17:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have this coming from the Aramaic word quoted in the Bible. But there is an Etruscan word taliθa (“girl?”), and a Greek word τᾶλις (tâlis, “maiden”). there is some literature linked from Wikipedia here and following. None of these mention Aramaic. If Wikipedia is correct about that and we are correct about this, then Etruscan taliθa and Latin talitha are completely unrelated. If this is the case, we should at least mention it. But I wonder if we are mistaken, or if it's possible that Aramaic loaned a word from early Greek that also got around to Etruscan and then into Latin. —Soap— 02:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Soap: Don't forget that the "tha" in the Aramaic phrase quoted in Mark is just a feminine nominal ending with a suffixed article. See Proto-West Semitic *ṭalay- for the real etymon: a word for a sheep or a goat that got applied to children in the same way as kid in English. Without the feminine ending it's usually translated as "boy". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Talitha transliterates Aramaic טליתא as ṭalyəṯāʾ, but talitha has ṭalītā’. Which is correct? Exarchus (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to sound crabby, but I have variously heard that this word ultimately has its roots A. in some substrate language, B. in an onomatopoeic formation C. in a derivative of a Proto-Indo-European *grobʰeh₂yéti|t=scratch, claw at}}.

Is the ultimate origin uncertain or unclear, or not? Tharthan (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

According to the Wiktionary entries, it might rather be the similar term *krabitaz (crayfish) that is borrowed. Both the terms have had some semantic span/ drift between related crustaceans, such as crab, crayfish and lobster, though. Wakuran (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wakuran: There is some inconsistency across our entries on this. Our entry for the German word Krabbe suggests that the word (Krabbe/crab) might be from a substrate language, but that the ultimate origin is "unknown." Meanwhile, at the end of the etymology section in our entry for Persian خرچنگ (xarčang), is the line "These wide-spread, phonetically similar terms (compare Proto-Germanic *krabbô) suggest an ideophonic origin - sound symbolism imitating the scratchy movement of crustaceans and similar creatures" which is akin to the suggestion that I have seen in some sources that Proto-Germanic *krabbô might have been somehow imitative of the sound made by a crab's claws. Our entry for خرچنگ points to words like Avestan 𐬐𐬵𐬀𐬭𐬞𐬎 (kharpu, “crab”) and Ancient Greek κᾱ́ρᾰβος (kā́răbos) ("crayfish, beetle"). Tharthan (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. "Some substrate language" is baseless without clear indentification. 2. "wide-spread" is no argument if variation from borrowing could be older. 3. I am not sure if *grebʰ- is uncertain per se, but *(s)ker- also works, for example if *(s)k was rebracketed after the processing of Grimm's law for unknown reasons. NoldUsedJoint (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's baseless per se, as most of the pre-IE European languages seem to have vanished without a trace. It might be (at least partially) an explanation for unexpected or otherwise unexplained phonetics, I guess. Wakuran (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there is a genuine possibility that there may be more than meets the eye re: the etymology of crab, then that should probably be noted in the etymology sections of relevant entries. As I said earlier, that's already been the case at Krabbe, but it's been inconsistent across other entries. Tharthan (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oof, good catch, a lot of inconsistent information is indeed spread around multiple entries. For now I have tried to consolidate the information to a smaller number of places, and harmonize those to acknowledge each other (crab, Krabbe, κάραβος, carabus, քարբ). More work is needed. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did you miss Krebs vis-a-vis crabs, or cancer. NoldUsedJoint (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Is Indonesian/Malay word pasrah ("to surrender, resign oneself, to accept something (usually negative) without resistance") a Sanskrit loanword? Please Yuliadhi (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dutch navenant (“accordingly”) is explained as being from Old French à l’avenant, which is IMO phonetically implausible. The explanation continues, “Equivalent to a rebracketing of in avenant.” (I think “contraction” may be a better term here than “rebracketing”.) This requires avenant to have been a noun. What would have been the meaning of that noun?

Is it possible (perhaps even plausible) that navenantt was formed as a contraction of Old French en avenant? Here is a sentence from a letter dated 1574:

Mesmes j’entendz que la pluspart de la Flandre dyminuent tous les jours d’affection et se veullent tenir fortz d’hommes d’eux mesmes pour s’en servir et se deffendre en avenant l’occasion.

The meaning of en avenant in this sentence appears to be “as required by”, “in accordance with”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Etymologiebank derives from 'in avenante' Exarchus (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"This requires avenant to have been a noun. What would have been the meaning of that noun?"

See VMNW Exarchus (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That explains this second explanation, But then, why would we write as a first “explanation”,

“From Middle Dutch navenant, from Old French a l'avenant ”?

 ​‑‑Lambiam 07:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sloppiness? Exarchus (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve said farewell to the Old French; the text is now

From Middle Dutch navenant, a contraction of in avenant.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, maybe what EWN is saying is that 'in avenant' is partly translated from French 'a l'avenant'. Exarchus (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You mean a partial calque? Since Middle Dutch avenant is attested from 1280 in the sense of “proportional share”, and in avenant(e) enters the scene in 1370, it would be a full calque – but meaningwise it appears to be an honest SOP of in + avenant, so we do not need a theory of Old French à l'avenant having served as a model.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The 1280 attestation also has "in avenant" Exarchus (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We give the etymology of λάμπα as from Italian lampa. But the Triantafyllidis Dictionary reports this as an adapted borrowing from French lampe. Apart from the appeal to authority, is there an argument for preferring one over the other?  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For Armenian as spoken in Constantinople and Smyrna {{R:hy:Ačaṙean:1951}} reports that the European loanwords are mostly from Italian up until the 19th century. Those are usually oral borrowings, used by the common folk. Starting from the 19th century Italian is replaced by French. French borrowings are mostly learned borrowings. If Greek follows the same pattern, then one should look at the date of attestation of λάμπα (lámpa) and determine its philological status — is it recorded in dialects or is it a learned borrowing. If it is an old, vulgar word, then the source is Italian. If it is a newer, bookish word, then the source is French. Vahag (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The plot thickens. Consider the etymology of Turkish lamba, which we say is from Ottoman Turkish لامبه (lamba), لامپه (lampa); the latter is said to be borrowed from Italian. However, according to Nişanyan, it is a loan from French, found in an 1876 Ottoman Turkish dictionary as lampa (glossed as “European-style lamp”) and in an 1892 French–Ottoman Turkish dictionary', as lamba, translating French lampe. Turkish tends to preserve the pronunciation of loanwords (like kontrplak from /kɔ̃.tʁə.plak/); the -mb- strongly suggests Greek influence, and the ending on -a argues against a direct borrowing from French.

If GBS can be trusted, the Greek word begins to appear (other than as a proper noun for a Cretan city) in the second half of the 19th century. (There are many 18th-century ghits, but these appear to be scannos.) Interestingly, the earliest manifestation is in 1835 as part of a refrain

λάμπα σκάμπα, τσιμπιριμπιτὸ, συνταγματάκι σᾶς ζητῶ,

about which the (German) author of the text quoting this says that it is a refrain whose particular meaning he has not been able to discern. (The words σκάμπα and τσιμπιριμπιτό are only found in this refrain.) An Italian–Greek dictionary from 1927 marks the word λάμπα with an asterisk as paróla del‘uso comúne, which I suppose means the same as our informal or colloquial.  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

don't know if this is the right place to ask, but: can someone who's better than me at template code write the etymology here? the classical form is 掲ぐ kakagu, and the word itself comes from 掻き上げる kaki-ageru. (see the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here). mati ★ (talk · contribs) 07:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added; still needs a little work though. Horse Battery (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

thank you! (by the way, is your username on here a reference to the correct horse battery staple xkcd?) mati ★ (talk · contribs) 18:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Following the J-Pop naming school, presumably. Wakuran (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's right! I chose those two words specifically because they felt the most natural to combine, as if related to the term horsepower. Horse Battery (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Is Malay word jata ("coat of arms, emblem") a Sanskrit loanword? Please Yuliadhi (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Means "pumpkin". Almost definitely linked to Serbo-Croatian бундева / bundeva, but I have no idea where further to go with this. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it cognate with Eastern Pwo စာင်း (cáiɴ)? According to Kato's Pwo Karen Grammar (2004, p. 5), the Pwo word means 'run' in Western Pwo Karen and 'walk' in Eastern Pwo Karen. Rodher617 (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We say "The golf sense is from the devil as an imaginary player." but 'pedia suggests, at w:Colonel Bogey March#History, that he's more a John Doe, initially a "standard opponent" and later a "presiding spirit of the course" and an incognito one played against, listing 3 references, none available online AFAICS. They also state a theory that it was the pseudonym of a real army officer who played in the Edwardian period, in which case either none of the above was true, or perhaps he used that already-current pseudonym. I'm considering amending our gloss to "The golf sense is from imagining the presiding spirit of the course as an opposing player" -- a phraseology which does not exclude the possibility that the spirit is devilish. Any thoughts? --Enginear 14:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The phrase “the presiding spirit of the course” fails to convey a specific meaning to me.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If this word was first used in the 16th century, it is possible that it might be formed form 'aye'; but if it was only first recorded at that time, but orally used for millennia, an alternative possibility is that EH is remotely akin to Ancient Greek 'AIEIN' (1st person singular = ᾺΙΩ, to hear). Andrew H. Gray 18:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC) Andrew H. Gray 18:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The explanation "natural exclamation" sounds very likely to me. It's just a spontaneous interjection. Wakuran (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Catalan ballador - (earliest attestation I could find)
• Italian ballador - (, , ; earliest attestation I could find)
• Asturian ballador? - () Not sure if this Asturian, but maybe?
• Spanish ballador - (, , )
• Italian ballador - (, , )
• Galician bailador
• Sardinian ballaturi - (, , ) it is also, apparently, Calabarese (, )
• Papiamentu bailador - (, , )
• Portuguese bailador - (, , ; earliest attestation I could find)
• Spanish bailador - (, ; earliest attestation I could find])

Graearms (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I figured I should request the attention of an individual more knowledgeable of the Romance language as I myself cannot determine whether these are ultimately derived from Latin ballator. Graearms (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It might be difficult to ascertain whether they're directly derived or re-coined from the verbs, I assume. Wakuran (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess "inherited" would be a better term than "derived" here, when I think about it... Wakuran (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

• From cyn- +‎ mwyn. Cognate with Old Irish toirtheach.

Removed out of process by a Welsh IP. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, the idea that tirion is from cyn- + mwyn is of course absurd. That was accidentally taken over from the synonym cymwyn. As for being cognate with Old Irish toirthech (not -each), that's highly doubtful as well. The Welsh cognate of toirthech is toreithiog. There's no way to reconcile the first i of tirion with the the o(i) of torad and toirthech. Arafsymudwr (talk • contribs), {{R:cy:GPC}} doesn't suggest any etymology; do you have another source for Welsh etymologies? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sundanese, meaning "allured". The prefix ka- indicates that this adjective is an accidental aspect of an certain passive transitive verb, though the original sense of bita is lost (written as ngbr.(niet in gebruik, "not in use") in Coolsma's Sundanese Dictionary). However, I found something in Zoetmulder's Old Javanese Dictionary that sounds suspiciously similar enough to the aforementioned verb which is the lemma bawita ~ babita ("eager?"). Might these be related? Udaradingin (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do the stems of Latin sterno follow a regular pattern or do they indicate the intrusion of some other etyma? Both strat- and strav- seem, to my naive eyes, to diverge significantly from the lemma form. I can see that various cognates in the etymology similarly diverge from PIE roots, but how did Latin absorb or develop such different stems? DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: It's regular enough, but it's somewhat archaic by Latin standards. It's definitely not suppletive, which I think is what you're asking by "do they indicate the intrusion of some other etyma". All the forms come from the same PIE root *sterh₃-. The present stem contains the n of the PIE n-infix, which was originally found only in verb forms derived directly from the present stem. In some verbs (like this one), that remains the case, and the n is absent from the perfect and supine stems. In other verbs (e.g. iungo), the n has spread throughout the verbal paradigm, giving perfect iunxi and supine iunctum; but the n is still missing from the related noun iugum. The strā- of the perfect and supine stems comes from the zero grade of the PIE root, namely *str̥h₃-. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I suppose there is strong evidence for the zerp-grade apart from sterno. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What's the ety? (πεύκη?) - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia; "pine tree", although the sources might be a bit unclear. Wakuran (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In that case, it might be directly from a PIE root; cf. πεύκη. Wakuran (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Our etymology says "Possibly the Moors' native name ", which would make sense if the definition were then "Moor", but the entry never mentions Moors again. Maybe this etymology was meant to go in the entry Μαῦρος instead? (But that entry derives itself from ᾰ̓μαυρός.) - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's obviously aiming for the "people with dark skin"-->"dark" concept, which doesn't seem all that persuasive, considering that the LSJ entry has a quote from the Odyssey. I'm not sure something from historical times would have developed into things like the "dim" and "unclear" senses by the time of Homeric Greek. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don’t see a quote at “μαυρός”, in Liddell & Scott (1940) A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: I was a bit sloppy. The quote is at the entry for “ἀμαυρός”, in Liddell & Scott (1940) A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Still, it's hard to see how the two could have separate etymologies, given that they are so similar in both spelling and meaning that LSJ's entry for μαυρός (maurós) just refers the reader to ἀμαυρός (amaurós). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What I find particularly unlikely is that the ordinary adjective μαυρός would be from the Moors' native name while the ethnonym Μαῦρος (the Moors' Greek name) was merely from the ordinary adjective μαυρός. I also note that Μαῦρος claims μαυρός is from ἀμαυρός, but ἀμαυρός seems much less sure of this. I have tried to harmonize the entries somewhat, moving mentions of the theories to better places and linking between the entries, but further attention is needed. - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology says: "Colported first in criminology in 1908 by the PhD thesis Unverbesserliche Verbrecher und ihre Behandlung p. 28 of Shigema Oba, a Japanese jurist moving 1905 to Germany for studying Western law, on the model of alleged statistician English ***dark-number which according to current corpora seems either entirely made up as such or merely heard in some lecture (but rather false memory since he neither hyphenated it in a likely manner nor translated it correctly, were it to have existed). Anyone feel like rendering this into better English? - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

A feel like it should, if only replacing the verb colport, which can be cited as a transitive verb to improve the current definition nonetheless. Mysterious wording for a mysterious event, how fitting … Fay Freak (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cleaning up old 24.108 edits, I find this one which has caused -treme and τρῆμᾰ to have different ideas about their origin. Which is correct? - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Might τετραίνω be a reduplicated variant of the same PIE root? Wakuran (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The ideas are not so much different as complementary. Beekes’ Etymological Dictionary Of Greek refers for τρῆμα to τετραίνω, which he states to come from “IE *terh₁- ‘rub’”. Alternative verb forms named include an aorist τρῆσαι and a future τρήσω, and derived terms include, next to τρῆμα, τρητός (“pierced”) and τρῆσις (“perforation”). The syllable τε- is called a “reduplication syllable”, thought to have been taken from the perfect; cf. the perfect βέβλημαι of βάλλω (“to throw”), with derived terms such as βλῆμα (“a throw”).  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

A pretty common surname among Rusyns. Claimed by one source to be of Hungarian origin, but that source just lists Hungarian surnames in Rusyn and gives no further elaboration. Does make sense though; a lot of -(ov)ski type Rusyn surnames are from Hungarian, like Русковски (Ruskovski). For now, the best I've got is Csellő, and that might well be the correct etymon, but it's hard to Google that without hundreds of results for "cello" in my way.

There's also Венчельовски (Venčelʹovski), which I don't know if it's related or not. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I checked SARVAŠSKÉ PRIEZVISKÁ (2022) ISBN 978-615-01-5023-9, p.46, and it says: Cselovszky as a Hungarian rendering of a Slovak surname Čelovský (Slovaks in Hungary). Ultimate origin is a place name Čelovce in Prešov. Seems like the surname Čelovský is often attested outside of the Slovak border. Csellő sounds legit morphologically, but there were only a few Csellő (per forebears), it's unlikely they passed down this surname. Chihunglu83 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chihunglu83: interesting. Have you been able to find any dialectal *Čeľovský or perhaps *Čelevský that would explain the random palatalized L in the middle of the word? And is there any attested form of something that could give rise to Венчельовски (Venčelʹovski)? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The form dag(g)arius/um/daggerius/daggarum is found in British Latin (otherwise daca/daga), borrowed from the English vernacular: Statuta Willelmi Regis Scotiæ cap. 23 (12th c.): "Habeat equum, habergeon, capitium e ferro, ensem, et cultellum qui dicitur Dagger.... Habeat arcum et sagittas et Daggarium, et cultellum."

Could the -er ending be of diminutive origin (Old French -el)? Similar to platter < Old French platel (French plateau), dulcimer, jimmer (maybe pottinger?). Also French epenthetic -r-, seen in jasper and provender. I only looked for English terms derived from Old to Middle French but I'm sure I've seen this -er extension elsewhere... Saumache (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with -er as a diminutive ending. Latin has the ending -ārium (the neuter form of -ārius) which can be used as a suffix forming instrument nouns such as muscārium. In the masculine, this suffix is ultimately thought to be the source of the English agent-noun suffix -er. A connection of some kind to this ending seems more likely to me.--Urszag (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag not that -er is a full-fledged suffix but that the Old French ending -el has already given English -er, see platter < platel (I have scoured for French-derived English terms ending with -er using CirrusSearch and above examples are all I have). The Latin word must be derived from the English (the ending -arius/um thus being part of its Latinization), see here where it is severally mentioned how the word is used "vulgo", "vulgariter". Some form of the word "dagger" is thus attested to have been used in England before the 12th century, but the -er extension seems restricted to Great Britain. Being attested before the French does offer some doubting ground as to whether it has been borrowed from it, my theory then looses some credibility. More data needed. Saumache (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The entry for "sheatfish" includes a list of species it may belong to. One of the species is Micromeria - but Wiktionary and Wikipedia are both telling me that Micromeria is a small leafy plant. Are there two separate Micromeria, one a plant and the other a fish? Or is this a mistake? TooManyFingers (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note: The plant Micromeria has a synonym Micronema. So Micronema apparently refers to a plant and also a sheatfish. I am only guessing, but I think the fish does NOT have a synonym Micromeria. Probably someone accidentally treated the plant synonyms as if they belonged to the fish too. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@TooManyFingers: It's entirely possible for both an animal and a plant to have the same name, but I'm having trouble finding any reference to Micromeria (which is the name for a genus, not a species) as the name for a fish. It is indeed likely that someone got Micronema H. W. Schott (a plant genus) and Micronema Bleeker (an animal genus) switched. It turns out that Micronema piperella was originally published as Micromeria piperella, but Schott decided that it needed to be in a separate genus and used it as the type species of his new genus Micronema. Having genera of the same two names as synonyms of each other in both the plant and animal kingdoms is too much of a coincidence. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree, as far as I'm capable of agreeing in a subject I'm not familiar with.

Anything that leads people to be better informed, rather than more confused, is good in my opinion. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. My (old) mistake. DCDuring (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Everyone has told me it just makes sense. Source? 38.43.39.220 02:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology currently given at Lloegr presents the most widely accepted hypothesis at the moment, but really no one knows for certain. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

But it makes sense that is "the lost lands"? 38.43.39.220 16:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, no. I can't think of any Celtic word for "lost" that's anything like Lloegr. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone find a source though? or is this going to turn into an etymological cesspool like all other Lloegr threads? 38.43.39.220 20:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are sources linked in the entry. The "lost lands" hypothesis appears to be a fanciful idea from people without deeper knowledge of Celtic languages, and probably doesn't need any further sourcing. Wakuran (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why are you trying to ignite an argument other IP? These arguments have been going on for years and this doesn't help. 38.43.37.159 19:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is this a joke referencing the YouTube video of Cambrian Chronicles about this fallacy?

(To the people who didn't watch it: the idea that Lloegr means 'lost lands' appeared due to the misreading of the Dictionary of Celtic Mythology by Peter Ellis and was popularised by The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwall.) Хтосьці (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's like saying "rover" means "dog". But you see it all the time with Proper names. numerous sites claim Napoleon means conqueror or some such. Griffon77 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The etymology section has:

“From Middle English God spede, short for God spede þe, God spede yow, etc., from God + spede, singular subjunctive form of speden (“to help, further, cause to prosper”), equivalent to God +‎ speed. Compare God bless, God damn.”

Not (also) from Middle English god (“good”) + spede (“fortune”) = “prosperity”  ?  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Imho, it should be. Leasnam (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

While such a interpretation isn't strictly impossible, God spede is attested first in contexts that render it improbable, such as the word order in God me spede ("may God favour me", Of Arthour and of Merlin, The Summoner's Tale) and God him spede ("may God favour him", Sir Tristrem); the plausibility of the subjunctive etymology is reinforced by parallel collocations such as God me amende (very common; e.g. Guy of Warwick, the Harley Lyrics, the Prose Brut) and God me help(e) (Piers Plowman, with a modern parallel in So help me God). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The concept of subject-dative might apply, virtually * God, him may prosper. The morphology is inscrutable to me. spōwan does note impersonal, with dative of person, but spēdan does not. Nevertheless, *spōidi.3sg.ind matches the subjunctive *spōē.3sg.subj, which seems to be ambiguous indeed in the old middle voice optative *-oytó, *-oyh₁ó (Appendix:Proto-Indo-European_verbs#Verb_endings). Seize the day! NoldUsedJoint (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

From: bener (correct)

bener(NJ) → wener → celer → seler "metathesis"→ leres (KJ)????? any Idea?

sound changes: b → w → c → s n → N → l?

sample proof data: w → c in Sundanese:

kiwa (left) → kénca (left)

lawah (spider) → lancah (spider)

c → s in Sundanese:

ciga → siga

b → w → c → s in Javanese:

bareng (NJ)→ wareng → careng → sareng (KJ)

banget (NJ) → wanget → canget → sanget (KJ)

NJ = Ngoko Javanese, Gavantara (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In some cases -wald alternates between -uuald, -ald, and -old, but that is not the case here. There is no record of a name Berhtald alternating with Berhtold in the record. Old English Beorhtweald, for different people than OHG Berhthold, dos not make them the same PWGmc name. Why would it? It's simply capricious and narcissistic. "those Old High Germans were morons, mispelling a good English name like that". Are we expected to presume they always re-analysed "Berhtwald" as "Berhthold" when giving someone a name? That's preposterous, and if they did, they created a new name from Berht and hold. nowhere is there a person named Berhtwald being renamed Berhthold retroactively. that happens in English historical records, where -frith is remodelled as ferth in later accounts, and then new names created from -ferth. but that isn't happening here. When they record the English name, they do it as Berhtwald, in Vitae Wilfridis, but they that was written by an English migrant, just like Wilfrid, anyway. But this is contemporary or later than the first OHG records of Berhthold so can't have been an inspiration.

Yes, Forstemann doesn't like Hultha as a deuterotheme, but under Berthold the only examples he actually gives with -ald (regularly altered from the Latin forms by Forstemann) are in a list of monks from Charoux in Aquitaine, the English name from the Vitae of Boniface, an index listing for Berahdaldus that turns out to be an alteration of the texts Berahtoldus, dat. Berahtoldo, in Frankfurt 1007 CE, once in Pardessus, which is not OHG, and a Bretaldus, in the dative Bretaldo in Piedmont, Italy.

The record in OHG for Berthold has exclusively and consistently -hold/Holt or -old, never -ald or -wald. There is no basis to assume this goes back to an older WGmc form in -wald. NONE. Griffon77 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Means "polenta". Absolutely no clue with the etymology. There aren't even any words that start with замеш- (zameš-) or замех- (zamex-) in the Pannonian dictionary that I use. No zameška or anything similar attested in the Old Slovak dictionary either. A quick googling reveals that zameška (“cornmeal porridge”) is a real thing in some Slovak dialects, so it's not a Serbo-Croatian borrowing, but that doesn't much help with the etymology. There exists Old Slovak zameškať (“to neglect, to ignore, to be late”), but it's rather semantically challenging methinks. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Related to Pannonian Rusyn замишац pf (zamišac, “to mix in”)? Medʹeši, H., Fejsa, M., Timko-Djitko, O. (2010) “замишац”, in Ramač, Ju., editor, Руско-сербски словнїк (in Pannonian Rusyn), Novi Sad: Faculty of Philosophy.

See also Ukrainian за́мішка f (zámiška), a type of flour porridge. Related to заміша́ти pf (zamišáty, “to mix in”), a cognate of замишац (zamišac). Ukrainian Wikipedia informs us that замішка made from maize/corn is a part of Lemko cuisine.^{w:uk:Лемківська кухня}

Other cognates:

• Slovak zamiešať pf 'to mix', 'to mix in' or 'to randomize'. See “zamiešať”, in Slovníkový portál Jazykovedného ústavu Ľ. Štúra SAV (in Slovak), https://slovnik.juls.savba.sk, 2003–2025.
• Serbo-Croatian замешати^{(sr:замешати)}

Voltaigne (talk) Voltaigne (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply