Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/June. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/June, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/June in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/June you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/June will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/June, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.
I can't imagine they're cognates in the usual sense, as Grimm's Law would have to have applied to the Germanic form. I think the editor simply misunderstood what "cognate" means. —Angr17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we have some confirmation of the etymology second part of this compound? German schön seems unlikely since German ö usually gets katakanified as e, (e.g. Gödel is rendered ゲーデルgēderu). However, I can't think of any better etymology. —Angr14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added a couple specific refs to the etym section. And for some reason schön wound up in Japanese as シャン (c.f. http://www.weblio.jp/content/シャン), possibly influenced by native JA words like 相思, 想思(shansu, “darling, sweetheart; sex”, kanji spellings are probably rare; Daijirin and Daijisen suggest this may be restricted to Nagasaki dialect, as noted here), or しゃんと(shanto, “straightforwardly; straightly, uprightly, with good carriage (as of one's posture)”, adverb). HTH, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The etymology is given as: "Swedish, getost meaning goat cheese." Surely this is meant to say Norwegian and not Swedish? geit is the Norwegian spelling -- get the Swedish ditto. Diupwijk (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Right, geit is Norwegian, not Swedish. I have corrected it. If you think it's OK now, you may remove the template. --MaEr (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Researching the etymology of Japanese term 瑠璃(ruri, “lapis lazuli”), I found that this is traced back to Sanskrit वैडूर्य(vaiḍūrya), itself apparently of various meanings relating to blue gemstones and glass or ceramic glaze. The sound and meaning led me to look up vitrum, and I was surprised to see very similar meanings, but only “unknown” as the etymology of the Latin term.
FWIW, I think the Sanskrit vaiḍūrya must be the uninflected noun stem, and the short -a ending means it's either masculine or neuter. Neuter would match the Latin.
I rather suspect that these two are cousins, but I do not know how to research this any further, as this is well outside my area of expertise, and as I cannot read (or even input) Devanagari. Does anyone here know more, and / or can anyone here find out more? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig18:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It's unlikely the Sanskrit and Latin words are related. The ḍ in the Sanskrit word makes it likely to be a loanword rather than a native word. (The only time you get ḍ in native words AFAIK is in *-izd-/-uzd > *-iẓḍ-/-uẓḍ- (by the ruki rule) > -īḍ-/-ūḍ-, e.g. nīḍa "nest" < *nizdos.) Yes, vaiḍūrya is the bare stem (the usual lemma form for Sanskrit nouns), and it is usually neuter. Monier-Williams connects it vaguely with vidūraja "cat's eye (jewel)". As for vitrum, the Online Etymology Dictionary says it may be related to vitrium(“woad”); it's not in the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots at all, so Calvert Watkins doesn't seem to think it's cognate with a Sanskrit word. —Angr18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Angr. When you say, "it's not in the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots at all", what does the "it" refer to? Woad? Vitrum? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig18:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Any Indo-European root believed to be the origin of vitrum. The way to use that dictionary is to look up a modern English word in the index and see what root it refers you to; neither vitreous nor vitrify are in the index, meaning no IE root is proposed as the origin of vitrum. —Angr19:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Poking around some to follow up Angr's hint at a relation with vidūraja, I see suggestions that vidūraja seems to derive from vidūra (“far away”) + -ja (“produced, from”), such as here and a bit more explicitly here. So perhaps then vaiḍūrya might instead be related to Proto-Germanic*wīdaz, and then Proto-Indo-European*wī-, *wey-(“apart, asunder, in two”), from Proto-Indo-European*weye-(“to drive”)? It would make historical sense, since lapis lazuli (and presumably the other jewels that these terms may refer to) came from far away, relative to Sanskrit speakers. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig17:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Aside from being in use in proper nouns and parts of proper nouns, and occasional references to a type of tree, the only English reference I can find for this term is in a Middle English work Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (where it seems to function as a noun as often as an adjective, and the meaning isn't especially clear from context). I can't find any modern reference to the English adjective sense. --Dajagr21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is all right. Yes, it's been obsolete for a long time, but it crops up quite a lot in Gawain as you say, and also some otehr early modern stuff. You're right, it can also be a noun. I've expanded the entry a bit. Widsith07:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if Attila's name is not Germanic in origin, it would still probably have been borrowed into High German early enough to shift t > z. —CodeCat21:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is annoying, and the layout defaces the page. I've undone your table layout to make this section less visually obtrusive. Moreover, your commentary is difficult to understand, tangential and not to the point, and largely irrelevant. This page is intended for concise and specificdiscussions, not for ramblingmusings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The Latvian and Lithuanian e-nouns
Latvian and Lithuanian both have a class of nouns ending in -e (Nominative -ė in the latter). I haven't been able to find an equivalent class of nouns in Slavic, but it seems that even in Latvian/Lithuanian it is a relatively small group of nouns. The Slavic languages have a much stronger tendency towards eliminating small/irregular declensions so that may be why. What I wonder though is where this class of nouns came from in PIE. PIE didn't have a group of e-nouns that I am aware, so does anyone know? —CodeCat21:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
What are some examples of nouns of this class; especially, what are some examples of nouns with good Indo-European pedigrees in this class? —Angr22:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
So far I have found only two nouns with a clear Slavic cognate: zeme, žemė, *zemja and tele, *telę, neither of which really have a good PIE etymology that doesn't require morphological restructuring at some point. The formations also seem to differ too; the first is a ja-stem in Slavic while the second is an nt-stem. I wonder if this class of nouns is just the ja-stem class in Latvian and Lithuanian (with a change -ja > -e?) but I don't know enough about those languages and their history to know for sure. —CodeCat22:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe like the Latin fifth declension, this class doesn't really have a PIE source group, but arose from several different sources in a handful of words by a kind of linguistic convergent evolution. Yeah, Baltic is conservative in many ways, but it's not PIE and does have some innovations (like losing the 3rd person plural verb forms). —Angr12:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
See . Like Angr said, it's a convergent development of several sources (mostly ih₂-stems). In Balto-Slavic ih₂-stems where almost completely merged with jā-stems, although they've preserved -ī (*< PIE *-iH) in nominative singular. Proto-Slavic retained some nouns of this type (PSl. *aldī > CS *oldi, PSl. milnī > CS. *mъlni. PSl. *sandī > CS *sǫdii etc.) but it was an unproductive class. nt-stems are usually explained as a Proto-Slavic innovation, although some ascribe it to Balto-Slavic period because of Latvian -ēn- nouns which (just as Proto-Slavic -nt-stems) usually denote young of an animal (e.g. telēns, pīlēns), which is when you think about it too much of a correspondence to be coincidental (with the assumption of -nt- being the original form and Baltic generalizing nominoaccusative *-ēn < *-ent). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
That does clear up some things, but it also leaves me with new questions. If the -ī/jā stems became Balto-Slavic ē-stems, then why are there still -ī/jā stems in Balto-Slavic as well? And what happened to the ē-stems in Slavic? —CodeCat20:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I recall reading that only the vrki-type -ih₂-stems became ē-stems (such as vìlkė), while the devi-type remained as such (such as martì). Now if I only remembered where that was ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Why are the verb and noun entries under different etymologies? I know nothing about Old English but steppan sounds to me like it is just the verb form of stepe. Also the definitions to move the foot in walking; to advance or recede by raising and moving one of the feet to another resting place, or by moving both feet in succession (verb) and an advance or movement made from one foot to the other; a pace (noun) seem to make it the same word. SpinningSpark18:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ--there should be two etymologies at step: one for the verb and one for the noun. The forms of each were distinct only until Modern English (verb < ME steppen < OE steppan < PGmc *stapjaną; noun < ME steppe, steape, stape < OE stæpe, stepe < PGmc *stapiz) Leasnam (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)