Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/July

Hello,

is there a way to get a list of affixes by etymology, more precisely by language of origin. I found list of words in general by language origin, and lists of non-word morphemes (apparently) without origin, but both are exaggerately wide compared to my search: I need the intersection.

My original search was for greek prefixes matching some english sense (apart, for the matter). Then, I guessed it would be very useful in general to have such lists: to search for affixes themselves and words composed on them, or to make words yourself (I often do that).

What do you think ? Denispir (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a way to find the intersection of two categories using AWB, and also IIRC using one or another of our "gadgets". - -sche (discuss) 15:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

These two words are given as cognates, but in their etymology section a different history is told. Sanskrit अन्तर्, in its own etymology section, is derived from Proto-Indo-European *h₁énteros (“inner, what is inside”), an adjective formed from the adverb *h₁enter (“between”), whereas Greek ἔντερον is claimed to be from Proto-Indo-European *énteros, from Proto-Indo-European *én + *-teros (whence also -τερος (-teros, “comparative suffix”)). Leaving aside the missing laryngeal, the two stories might be compatible if e.g. *h₁énter = h₁én + ter, but that strikes me as a stretch. What is going on here? What's the true story? (This is, by the way, a good example of why it would be a good idea to source all etymological claims. In this case, we'd be able to compare the sources for validity and reliability.) --Pereru (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sanskrit अन्तर (ántara) preserves the original adjectival sense, comparing more nicely to the Greek word. Combining a preposition/adverb meaning "in" with a suffix forming comparative forms, in order to get the adjective meaning "interior, inner", doesn't really sound too stretchy to me.. I'm not sure if the laryngeal is just prosthetic or necessary (Balto-Slavic reflexes require zero-grade form *h₁n̥, so it's perhaps to fit the canonical form of PIE root). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The etymology of English sack claims the Egyptian origin, as do the descendants currently listed at 𓆷𓈎𓄜 (sAq). OTOH some other sources (e.g. Beekes 2010, OED) claim that the Greek word originates from a Semitic source, with e.g. Common Semitic *(deprecated template usage) śaqq- > Akkadian (deprecated template usage) saqqu, Hebrew (deprecated template usage) shaq, Syriac (deprecated template usage) saqqā etc. Are there some newer sources corroborating the (ultimate or direct) Egyptian origin? Have the Ancient Egyptians invented sackcloth? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I thought ancient Egyptian was a Semitic language? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, but it's related. The Semitic languages are one branch of the w:Afro-Asiatic family, but Egyptian, Berber, and various sub-Saharan African languages form other branches. When you consider that Egyptian and Akkadian are among the very earliest-attested languages, but were even back then only distantly related, you get an idea of how far back this family goes. It's by far the oldest widely-accepted family of them all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Is 'nyct-' from Ancient Greek, or Modern Greek? It was listed as modern, I changed it to Ancient, but then was unsure... - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto 'octakis-' and 'pseudomacedonism'. - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say they are ancient. Modern Greek rarely serves as a source for scientific or literary words. —CodeCat 17:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the entries accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Our entry says this word is from Scottish Gaelic, and we have a Scottish Gaelic word stob. Other dictionaries say stab is from Scots, though. Did Scots get it from Scottish Gaelic, or what's going on? - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be instead that Scots Gaelic got it from Scots, from a northern variant of Middle English stubbe (< stubb?), in its sense of a sharp splinter or a short nail (senses e and f here).

I haven't found anything likely looking in Old Irish or Old English.

— Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ref stab:

• (Origin uncertain; cp. stubben v. & EMnE stob to stab.)

  (a) To thrust with a pointed weapon, stab; ~ thurgh, stab (sb.); (b) to thrust (a pronged implement into a person's body).

— Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The etymology we give for Albanian theks (also listed under token#Etymology) seems wrong, at least if the claim that this word is derived from thek (for which a completely different root is given) is correct. As the historical phonology also conflicts with the etymological connection, on the face of it (and no explanation for the discrepancy, namely the irregular sound correspondence, is offered), I am inclined to believe that the etymology is simply wrong. It could well be true that theks is derived from thek, whose etymology is phonologically plausible, and the derivation is, in principle, semantically plausible (either "something pierced", as in a mark in hard material, or "something burned", as in a brand mark on cattle), although I cannot judge the details of the derivation – Albanian historical grammar is not my forte. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I inserted this etymology and, being an Albanian mother language speaker, I can say with some ammount of certainty that "theks" derives from "thek" 'to pierce, carve, burn' (cf."thik"-knife), with genitive "s" which si used in Albanian for deverbative nouns (like "kaps" from kap-to catch, hold, "vjedhes"-thief, from "vjedh"-to steal etc). Regarding phonology, I admit that the treatment of Albanian dental fricatives is a bit controversial, as they generally are considered to derive from older sybillants or affricates (the "dz" or "ts" clusters), and these to be reflections of PIE palatal stops, but this is not always the case. Some of them reflect indeed PIE sonorant dental stops. Comparing it to Germanic, we basically have Germanic *t-Albanian th or d, especially in final syllables. The examples are numerous: German Tanne (Eng.tan)-Alb.thane-crunberry shrub, Eng. token-Alb. thek-to pierce, carve, Eng. take-Alb.cek/thek-to touch, Germ. Rad-Alb. rath-wheel, yard-Alb. gardh-fence, herd-Alb.herdhe/çerdhe-nest etc. So, all this considered, I think theks could be a parallel to Engl. token or Islandic teikn. Of course, this remains open for debate! thanksEtimo (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Being a native speaker can be a mixed blessing with regard to etymologies, given phenomena such as folk etymology and analogical change. As for the matter at hand: please read the entire etymology. The part up to the first comma directly contradicts the part after it: PIE *deyǵ-, *deyḱ- ('to show, instruct, teach') is not the same as PIE *ḱeuk- ('to glow, burn, lighten') cited at thek. Also, your definition of w:sonorant seems to be different from mine: *n is the only "sonorant dental stop" in PIE that I know of- *d is an obstruent. Perhaps you meant voiced. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant voiced not sonorant (I translated literally from italian sonoro "voiced"), sorry about that. I know that thek and theks have different etymos, but that's my point. True, the PIE palatal stop "ḱ" has yielded in Albanian dental fricatives (voiceless, among others), but this is also the case with PIE dental stops (I still consider this phenomenon a bit puzzling though). I think "thek"-to pierce should be indeed considered as deriving from PIE *deyǵ, *deyḱ- to show (note the phonetic resemblance to "ḱeuk"), or at least this alternative should be added, because it cannot be separated from "thik"-knife. Besides, it is semantically a bit odd for a term meaning to carve, pierce to be derived from a meaning "to glow, burn" in case of signs, cause you "draw, carve" signs don't burn them! Finally, it is not sure whether "thek"-to carve, pierce has yielded other meanings like burn, roast or we are dealing in fact with two different verbs. The relation thek>theks is not a folk etymology, it's a mere grammatical contruction! I wait for further opinions.. Etimo (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In light of all these uncertainties, you should phrase your etymological proposals more cautiously, and you should also phrase the etymology in the entry theks more cautiously, hedging it with words such as "probably", "perhaps" and "possibly". You also need to point out problems with the etymology wherever they exist for the sake of honesty. Just because Albanian historical grammar and etymology is underresearched and much more obscure than Germanic etymology (which is itself a pretty obscure subject nowadays, though things are starting to improve) does not mean we can loosen the standards and methodical stringency of serious historical linguistics. Irregular sound correspondences are irregular and point to some complication, whether analogy or some other mechanism – they should not be brushed off as irrelevant. Every proposed change needs parallels, and should not be postulated ad hoc. That's what makes etymology plausible, testable and thus ultimately scientific.

Being honest about what you know for certain (or at least with high probability) and admitting when you just don't know something and are entering the realm of conjecture or speculation is essential. Even an obvious seeming connection can be wrong, and sound change is a reliable guide: when sound correspondences are off, the connection is dubious, however intuitive it may appear. (Native speaker intuition is never a reliable guide! You do not speak Proto-Albanian, you speak Modern Albanian.) There may be a way to save it, and some connections are so compelling and tantalising that they keep being mentioned and in fact do deserve mention for posterity, who might find a satisfying solution, but on the face of it you cannot treat it as given that they are correct.

I agree that the possibility of originally different etyma merging due to sound change always merits consideration, but in this case the much easier, more straightforward solution is that theks has nothing to do with *deyḱ- at all and the similarity to Latin index is simply misleading. Occam's Razor is another principle necessary in every field of research, every endeavour that aspires to be scientific.

Method, method, method. That's what counts in science. And the devil is always in the details. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you say, however, you have to be a bit more precise with your objections. I don't take my Albanian ethnicity as an endowment of absolute truth when it comes to the language, but, considering that there are many people out there (and here) who write about the language without even knowing it, you will excuse my liberty of being a bit self-confident when it comes to the meaning of a word. If you read my etymological entries you will notice that there is a big deal of "maybe"'s and "probably"s etc. because I'm well aware that nothing can be declared to be 100% accurate when it comes to etymology, especially Albanian. My deductions on this particular term come from the sound changes observed in many other similar Albanian words and on the behaviour of PIE dental stops in Albanian (beside taking into account semantics). It is a fact that dental fricatives in Albanian reflect mainly PIE dental stops (and of palatals stops as well, but I've noticed that some etymos are misleading), and you can compare it to Germanic to understand this behaviour in both language families. In German, for example, we have Tanne-woods while in Albanian we have Thanë, both stemming from PIE *dʰonu - 'fir'. PIE voiced dental stops are reflected in Albanian as they are, or as voiced dental fricatives, especially at the end of a word (gardh, rath, pordh, burdh etc). PIE short 'e' and 'ey' are reflected in Albanian as 'e'. So in 'theks', we have both consonant and vowel correspondence, and, last but not least, we have a similar (or pretty much the same) meaning that this term shows in other languages, especially Germanic, with wich share a quasi direct meaning correspondence: 'sign, mark, something cut'. Using your Okam's razor theory, if a term have the same form and meaning of other IE counterparts, isn't it reasonable that it might actually stem from that same root? In my opinion yes, it is! Unless you have another explanation...Etimo (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

But Albanian th is not the regular outcome of PIE *d in word-initial position, nor in medial or final position nor anywhere else. You cannot adduce another isolated, uncertain and doubtful sound-alike connection (i. e., based on superficial similarity) such as thanë and German Tanne (let alone rath and German Rad, where there is an etymological *t), where you moreover completely ignore the difference between a *d and a *dʰ, to overturn this consensus. You need to argue in much more detail when you attempt to explain apparent exceptions away. That's especially crucial in underresearched languages (from an etymological point of view) such as Albanian, but ultimately, it is necessary everywhere. Many if not most etymological proposals are, unfortunately, incredibly sloppy, gentlemanly glossing over many pesky little problems (as I underlined, the devil is in the details), even in serious academic linguistics. But you commit even embarrassingly basic blunders that show you're not as professional as you pretend. (And, BTW, Occam's Razor is not a theory, but a fundamental principle used in every kind of logical reasoning, not just science, but, for example, criminal investigations, too.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first of all I never said I'm an scholar and second, yes, it is possible that Albanian th could be a reflection of PIE* d and dʰ in initial position (I don't ignore the difference, it's you who probably ignore their behavior in Albanian), but this phenomenon needs to be further explained and researched. While Albanian dh (the voiced counterpart of th) surely is reflected in medial and final position (gardh< PIE*gʰórdʰos, English yard, Russian gorod-city, dhez/ndez-to burn <PIE*dhegwh etc.) the 'th' sound is a bit more complicated as it is still not very clear what, and how many, PIE sounds it reflects. What I assert is that some cases (SOME, not all) strongly suggest that 'th' actually reflects PIE dental stops, probably originating from (or influenced by) words which initially reflected PIE 'd' (consonant alternation d-dh/th-(sh)t is a widespread phenomenon in Albanian, especially with cluster formations), but could also be a direct reflex of PIE *t. Th and dh, although etymologically different sounds, are sometimes mixed by speakers depending on their dialect, so it is not at all senseless to presume for some words an origin from PIE dʰ (thanë<*dhanë, so to speak), and for some others, from PIE 't' (which I think might be more archaic, cf. rath). Moreover, considering that PIE 'dʰ' yields a voiced dental fricative, why should it be so hard to believe that the same phenomenon might have touched also its voiceless counterpart (of course this is not a rule) ?? Because, otherwise how else would you explain clean etymological parallels, hard to dismiss as coincidences, like Thanë and Tanne (you have many other IE cognates for this term), thelë-piece, portion and Germ.Teil-piece, thartë-sour and Eng. tart, Germ. zahrt (semantically almost equal), byth-butt and Old English byt, bytt-butt, rath/reth- Germ.Rad, Lith.ratas, ther-to slit, to skin, cut and English tear, German zehren (Ancient Greek δέρω-to skin), thek(thike)-to carve/knife and Isl. teikn, thuk-to make dense, press, thicken and Old Irish tjug (cf.Old English thicce), cek/thek-to touch and Old English tacan-take (<PIE *deh₁g), cep/thep-point, tip, corner and English tip etc. I mean, I don't see nothing unprofessional nor "embarrassingly basic blunders" (about which you are kindly asked to be more specific) in these considerations, which quite plainly suggest a PIE dental stop origin of Albanian 'th' for some words. To explain them with the current theory on Albanian sound changes I think would be etymologically deviant. Otherwise again, feel free to come forward with an explanation of your own, in case you have one...Etimo (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

One only has to look at the completely unrelated deus (“god”) and θεός (theós, “god”) to see the dangers inherent in your approach. With so many words out there, coincidences are bound to happen. You really have to do systematic studies of the correspondences to tell the difference between coincidences and real cognates. Giving an easy, but wrong answer to a question is worse than saying "I don't know", because it discourages others from doing the hard work to find the real answers. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we all agree on that part but the above considerations are not based on coincidences but on logical deductions considering Albanian phonology and PIE reflexes. I'm not saying you've got to take it as the Bible, only consider the possibility. PIE 'd' has yielded d and dh but the words in question also point to a 'th' reflex for that. This is substantiated by the fact that in Albanian 'th' words are coupled with 'd' words forming contiguous meanings like dejë-place where snow thaws and thaj-to dry, melt; dalloj-to tell, divide and thelë-piece, portion etc. A similar phenomenon happens in Greek. Greek θεός (theós, “god”) is phonetically different from Latin deus (“god”), but what about Greek θύρα (thúra, “door”) and, say, Albanian 'derë' pl. dyer- door or German Tuer-'id', or Greek θάλλω (thállō, “to grow, bloom”) and Albanian 'dal-go out, leave, bloom', or θυγάτηρ (thugátēr, “daughter”) and English daughter don't we have here a clear case of a dental fricative reflecting a PIE dental stop? Ancient Greek shares this same phenomenon with Albanian concerning PIE dʰ, only in Albanian this appears to have been extended also to PIE 'd' and 't' (for a very small number of words). In my opinion, the word 'theks' falls into this category, although further analysis is needed...Etimo (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• All these walls of text, and no sources? We are not supposed to speculate too much about etymologies, but compile in a NPOV way established scholarly opinions. I've removed the disputed etymology until it is properly sourced. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can do that as I haven't provided a reference for this term (I'll add it as soon as I find one), but the above considerations are a fact reflected in many other Albanian words!!! Etimo (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Our etymology for bad does not work out phonetically. See also Appendix:Proto-Germanic/bad-. The expected Proto-Germanic form would be *baid- and the discrepancy is not even noted. That's not only bad, that's inacceptable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it how someone slipped a variant without -dʰ- in order to account for Balto-Slavic forms (which do have several reflexes of PIE *bʰoydʰ-, just not the ones listed). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Now the creator of the page has added yet another root with a (different) diphthong. Aaaargh. That – does – not – work! Sorry, but, man – just stop it and get real. "Etymology unknown" is a much more honest statement than half-baked, amateurish speculation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It states that the etymology is "uncertain." That means that anything else given is speculative. Gerhard Koebler suggests derivation from bʰew- "to hit, beat".

You, creator, might want to check out the reference given in the footnote here: Coates, Richard (1988), "Middle English badde and Related Puzzles" in NOWELE 11, pp. 91–104. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. Long before I ever created the page. I still stand by what I have written. Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So you reject the fundamental methodological principles of historical linguistics and scientific etymology, just like our friend Etimo above. The etymological suggestions given by you are both impossible – unless there is a confounding factor, but there is no suggestion of any explanation; the difficulty/problem is not even acknowledged. That's pseudoscience at its worst. I've removed your speculative proposals, and the meaning you gave for the root, which was based on the speculation and not on the actual evidence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This word is phonologically very suspicious. Proto-Slavic did not allow palatal and velar consonants in the same syllable, so a combination like *šk was not possible. Either it was nonpalatal *sk or palatal *šč. —CodeCat 01:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

According to ru:wikt, it's from Latin: Russian borrowed from Polish: szkatuła -> Italian scatola, Middle Latin castula, related Latin: cistella. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The word Appendix:Proto-Slavic/škatulъja is of Slavic origin, from comparative évidences (шкатулка, škatulja, škatula, škatla, szkatuła, škatule, škatuľa) to particular usage, whilst Latin languages does not use it excessively to its forma only Italian (scatola) and Esperanto (skatolo) who développé its forma from Italian, other Latin languages got its formæ direct from Latin castula or cistella; French (case, caisse), Spanish (casilla, caja) Portuguese (caixa)...or Croatian (kištra). The word itself could be very early Latinism, but it is non the less a Slavic word (like Appendix:Proto-Slavic/luna) , regardless of Middle or Late Latin which itself could be under Slavic influence. Thus scatula, scatola or any other forma as such, is Slavicism, that came probably from Croatian in Italian under mutual influence that both languages had on each other. Slavić (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

All Romance languages have a cognate of west, but that doesn't mean it is Latin. —CodeCat 15:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I stopped reading at "is of Slavic origin". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ivane, molim te proveri škatulja, škatulja i škatla (sl) ako možeš. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

škatulъja is a Slavism used only in Italian and in some cases in Middle Latin, same as Germanismi west or danse is used in Latin and Slavic languages.

p.s. (Štambuk ako misliš constructivno doprinositi, ter iznositi svoje mnienje samo daj, nu ovo tvoje infantilno ponašanje, je nikaj drugo kot čisti bakanismus par exellence.) Slavić (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that bunch of other dictionaries etymologize it the other way. If the word were borrowed from Latin into Proto-Slavic (assuming that the form scatula was spoken a millennium earlier), it would've had a different form. There is no Common Slavic word for "box". You made this reconstruction up with no evidence whatsoever. could have and could be are not enough. Italian word is inherited from Latin, and this is one of billion Romance borrowings into (Serbo-)Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And even then, there is nothing to account for a word that supposedly has "šk" in it. Proto-Slavic phonotactics did not allow for such a combination. —CodeCat 19:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to be fluent in Serbo-Croatian to recognize that a word like infantilno is inappropriate for discussion here. Please be civil and avoid personal attacks. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. A reference to sexual foreplay. By Wonderfool, well known for being sex obsessed, which makes me think it may be bogus. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The entry was created by WF, but the etymology was added by SemperBlotto. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I always thought it was related to metaphorically "having one's finger up one's ass", which metaphor seems to exist in multiple languages. DCDuring TALK 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Are the Malagasy and Swahili sections on this page related at all? The coincidence seems pretty stark, if coincidence it is, and I note that the Swahili word is in the n class, which is traditionally used for borrowings from other languages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Malagasy word has the n, so any borrowing would most likely be from Swahili to Malagasy, which fits better with the histories of the two languages: I'm not sure if Swahili is an established language on Madagascar, but the closely-related w:Comorian language certainly is. Given Swahili's role as a widespread trade language in the area, I'm sure there's been plenty of opportunity for borrowing over the centuries. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The distribution of prenasalised obstruent onsets is very limited in Malagasy; a few instances of this resulted from loss of base-initial vowel - VNC- > NC-. In the case of njia there is no evidence of a lost initial vowel. It is quite possibly a Bantu loan, in which case the alternative form jia would be the nativised form (or borrowed from the Bantu plural?). Wyang (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As the Wiktionary page indicates, njia is invariable. The page you linked to is inaccurate, and I can easily demonstrate it. google books:"dege la" has way more Swahili hits than google books:"dege ya", which is what that page would have one think to be standard. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Njia is from Proto-Bantu *jida (path, road, way, passage). —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Etruscan? Semitic? Does anyone have a reference for any of this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I now added de Vaan's etymology. --Vahag (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My sources say it's from Arabic, although they don't give an actual etymon. That seems likely enough, but could it be ultimately from French maladie? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. Swahili has /l/ and /d/, so why would they change the French word from /maladi/ to /maraði/~/marazi/? And since the Arabic word for 'sick' is مريض (marīḍ) it seems likely there would be a noun from that would provide a plausible source for the Swahili word. —Angr 17:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I managed to find مرض (maraḍ), which is in fact the etymon and conforms both phonologically and semantically. But as a side note, many dialects of Swahili don't distinguish /l/ and /r/, even though the Standard acrolect does, which in turn leads to hypercorrection. But this is merely a coincidence, apparently. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)