Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/May

At the moment, we give both etymologies as coming ultimately from *lewh₃-. But De Vaan only considers the first, the "wash" sense, to come from it, and indeed that's what the PIE page currently says. For the second one, meaning "cut off" or "loosen", we don't have an entry currently, and the two sources I have available give different forms: De Vaan gives *lewH- while Kroonen gives *lewh₁-. Does anyone have any other sources on this particular root that can swing the decision one way or another? I'm not entirely sure what Kroonen's evidence is for *h₁. —Rua (mew) 14:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

On Wiktionary, English loose has “from *lewH-, *lū- (“to untie, set free, separate”)”, while Ancient Greek λύω (lúō) too is said to come from *lewh₃-. Albanian laj, etymology 2, is said to come from*leuh₃-.  --Lambiam 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there any sources covering Greek or Indo-Iranian that mention this root? —Rua (mew) 10:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a kind of phone scam originating in Japanese. I added an awesome Spanish entry already. Just need the English and link to some Japanese term. --I learned some phrases (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• The Japanese term is ワン切(ぎ)り (wangiri), literally "one cut". This refers to a practice of calling someone's cell phone, letting it ring once, and then hanging up. The callee's phone will show your number, allowing the callee to call you back, if they so choose.

It's not necessarily a scam. It often is, such as when performed by an autodialler from a premium-rate phone number, in the hopes that the callee calls back and incurs the extra charges. However, it could also be innocuous, such as when exchanging numbers and wanting to save your friend from the minor trouble of typing your number into their contact information.

More on the Japanese Wikipedia at w:ja:ワン切り, and some content also on the English Wikipedia, specifically about the fraudulent angle, at w:Phone_fraud#Fraud_against_customers_by_third_parties. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we confident in our etymology? Sources that I've seen suggest that the word has Arabic origins. Tharthan (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to label it "uncertain", with the Arabic being cited as one possibility, followed by the English dialectal origin second. Leasnam (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Arabic source being mentioned is usually the verbal noun ضَرْب (ḍarb), but since the English term is a verb, the Arabic verb ضَرَبَ (ḍaraba) itself, with forms like مَضْرُوب (maḍrūb) (“being drubbed”) appears to me equally likely. The Turkish noun darp is a loan from the Arabic verbal noun.  --Lambiam 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Tharthan (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good ! Leasnam (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Can the etymology be sourced? Wikipedia and the TLFi says it comes from Latin maritima instead. @Lambiam? Chignon – Пучок 10:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Most sources agree it comes from Latin maritima, several stating that in Roman times the ares was known as Maritima Regio. The latter is of course also generic Latin for “country by the sea-side”; any sea-side region could be referred to by that term, and I did not find independent confirmation that today’s Maremma was specifically referred to by the Romans as Maritima Regio, like for instance as an administrative division. The Lombardic derivation seems a bit implausible, first for the name having stuck virtually unchanged in the ten-plus centuries since Lombardic went extinct, and, second, for the semantic distance between the concept of a horse pen and the vast geographic area designated by the term. The web pages sporting this theory were all posted by the same person, so that leaves one source who, as far as I can see, in spite of a BA in linguistics and graduating with honors and obviously investing time in collecting etymological data, cannot lay claim to specific scholarly reputability.

The Italian Wikipedia mentions yet another theory, to wit that the name derives from Spanish marisma, meaning “swamp”. This Spanish term also derives from Latin maritima. The area was known for being a malarial swamp (see the article Grosseto in the online Brittanica), and it belonged to the State of the Presidi, which was under Spanish control from 1557 to 1707, so a voyage from Latin maritima to Spanish marisma to Maremma does not at all look impossible.  --Lambiam 13:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Brutal Russian made this change to etymology 2 of sere, which I reverted as it was not supported by the OED Online. His response (at "Talk:sere") was as follows:

"Hello, on my revision that you've undone: I haven't found the word in the 1933 edition of OED so I don't know what exactly it says, but my edit was motivated by what I hope you will agree are two unquestionable facts:

• that there is no such verb as serēre~sereō in Latin, there is only serere~serō;
• that serere and serō is the same word in two different forms (INF and 1SG PRES IND), therefore saying that serō comes from serere, let alone citing two separate meanings for forms of the same word, is misleading and lacks sense.

If the information in OED seems to disagree with either of these two facts, then I suggest we drop the OED reference altogether (possibly substituting any other dictionary mentioning the word) and either leave the Latin etymology to the Latin entry for serō, or copy it from there. Brutal Russian (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)"

I'm not in a position to assess the explanation, so kindly assist if you are familiar with Latin. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The perfect serui clearly shows this is a verb of the third conjugation, which all have a short thematic vowel, so the presentation serēre with a long ē is incorrect, like Brutal Russian said. The form sero is also a give-away; you cannot just make a long ē disappear like that. I don’t know what the OED says; does it really have a macron over the e? Just serere would have been correct, except that conventionally Latin and Greek verbs are lemmatized under the first-person singular present active instead of the infinitive, and we follow that convention. Many English dictionaries do not and use the Latin and Greek infinitive instead when giving etymologies.  --Lambiam 21:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with Latin, but etymology 2 at sere used serō, not sero, and I note that our Latin entry says serēre is either the second-person singular future passive indicative or second-person singular present passive subjunctive of serō. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Brutal Russian said all right. Almost needed to puke after reading out *serēre. There isn’t such a word and if there were it wouldn’t mean “to join one after another”.

Also I sometimes give the infinitive while linking to the 1st person singular present, does not matter or depends on what one wants to show of the verb. But of course the form must be right. Fay Freak (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. On checking, I note that the OED Online indicated the word as serĕre, but Oxford Dictionaries Online dropped the breve, using only serere. Should I indicate serere (in line with Oxford Dictionaries Online) as an inflected from of serō, or drop it entirely? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so the INF serere and the 1SG ACT IND serō are two alterantive dictionary forms, the former natural to the speakers, the latter conventional - we may choose one or the other, but not both. Wiktionary uses the latter, but I prefer to give the infinitive whenever possible because the reason for the convention is opaque to me. As for the two seemingly different meanings the entry mentions, I had left the "to join one after another" as a compromise that perhaps is more illustrative of the semantic development, but that meaning is neither primary nor that given on Wiktionary (no wonder, with L&S as reference!). Thus I propose giving the infinitive form redirecting to the main entry (like that: serere) and give the meaning as "to link, string, join together" combining meanings #1 and #2 from the Oxford Latin Dictionary (I'll update the Latin entry accordingly in the meantime).Brutal Russian (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the reason for the convention is that this is how in antiquity word lists were lemmatized by Greek grammarians, simply because the first-person singular present active indicative was the first entry in the paradigm of a verb (like λύω, λύεις, λύει, ...). This was copied by the Romans, who were totally blown away by Greek culture and thought it was cool to do some Latin grammar in the same vein, and then copied again in the Renaissance by awe-struck scholars rediscovering Greek and Roman civilization. And then it became a tradition passed on by each generation of classicists to the next. Just so you know, we call something like ] “pipe-linking” to the target, not “redirecting”.  --Lambiam 12:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ve tried to fix Latin serere by giving the serēre forms their rightful places. Latinists, please double check ut ne futuerim sursum.  --Lambiam 11:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We give the etymology of imperium in imperio as a calque of Ancient Greek κράτος εν κράτει (krátos en krátei). But the Greek Wiktionary states that κράτος εν κράτει derives from Latin imperium in imperio. The phrase “imperium in imperio” is used in Spinoza’s Tractatus Politicus, chapter 6, paragraph 2, as well as in the preface to part 3 of his Ethica, without any suggestion of being derived from or related to earlier uses; the sense in the context (Imo hominem in natura veluti imperium in imperio concipere videntur) in these works has nothing to do with the political concept of state, the empires in question being humankind and nature. (Spinoza does not agree with the viewpoint expressed in the sentence. Elsewhere, in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus chapter 17, he uses the term in a more political sense.) So which came first, the Greek or the Latin? If this is Ancient Greek (and not Katharevousa) the ε should have a spiritus lenis: ἐν.  --Lambiam 10:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find at all that it is an ancient Greek expression and I corrected the el.wikt lemma with a rfe, @Lambiam. It may be written in polytonic κράτος ἐν κράτει (monotonic script κράτος εν κράτει), but that does not mean that it is ancient. I find the expression in greek books of the 1800s. The Latin (the Spinoza quotation) is more likely --sarri.greek (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this common phrase is connected to the Beatnik-era "blow one's jets" (or similar), meaning "to get all worked up". I would assume so, but considering the fact that only "cool your jets" survives contemporarily, despite other phrases from the era like "get bent out of shape" still possessing plenty of staying power. Tharthan (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I can find attestation only back to 1970. But online sources connect the expression to "future slang" based on juvenile science fiction, such as by Robert Heinlein, the Tom Corbett series, begun in 1948 with Space Cadet. DCDuring (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sense two, the singular with a plural sistrens, is listed as needing an etymology. The etymology is ultimately use / adaptation of sistren ("sisters") as a singular, no? Brethrens is also attested (in reference to things other than Rastafarianism). Are the Rastafarian terms derived via creole? - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

All three of these verbs are given by Derksen with an acute accent on the root. But at the same time, he also gives these as accent paradigm b, which is historically the class of verbs without an acute on the root. This seems like a contradiction. Are there really accent paradigm b words with acute roots? Jasanoff calls these "molō-presents", and traces them to original h₂e-conjugation verbs (which survive as a class only in Anatolian). —Rua (mew) 13:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean grave accents?  --Lambiam 22:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Acute is a suprasegmental feature on syllables in Balto-Slavic, and in Slavic the acute accent is a specific kind of rising intonation that results when the accent of a word falls on a syllable that had the Balto-Slavic acute feature. It doesn't have anything to do with the symbol ´. —Rua (mew) 10:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting verification that this was inherited from Middle English. Any citation between the sixteenth and twentieth centuries would suffice. DTLHS (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

An alternative possibility is that this term could have been revived from the Middle English word, which would make it a borrowing from Middle English. As English curricula have always featured studies on Middle English, exposure to Middle English writings have always exerted some influence on the modern language. The similarities between the two terms are compellingly close, perhaps too close to be merely coincidental. There are several publications of these ME works in the 19th century ] right before the reemergence of the word in the early 20th century... Leasnam (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The etymology gives pirateren + -ij as the first option. This seems implausible, because pirateren (spelt pirateeren in the WNT's spelling by De Vries & Te Winkel) would be pronounced /pi.raːˈteː.rə(n)/. The alternative (piraat + -erij) seems more likely by far. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A similar issue arises with the noun hoererij: is this from hoereren + -ij, or hoer + -erij? Well, in all other cases where -ij might seem to be an option, the first e in -eren is unstressed, so the alternative -erij is indeed far more plausible. Also, for nominalizing verbs that denote an activity, -erij is the suffix of choice, whereas -ij is suffixed to nouns denoting people. So the option -ij is extremely implausible, so much so that I believe we can safely rule it out.  --Lambiam 11:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this a loanword from another Italic language? (hence the lack of rhoticism)

RubixLang (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A speculative idea: perhaps the existence of Latin narus, according to Lewis & Short an alternative form of the adjective gnarus, blocked the otherwise obligatory rhotacism in this case. For another exception lacking a satisfactory explanation, see the noun rosa.  --Lambiam 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I found a paper “Exceptions to rhotacism” that mentions both nāsus and rosa (see Section 3.1), without offering – as far as I could see in a cursory examination – an explanation for these cases.  --Lambiam 20:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

How was this formed? Ought we not to provide an etymology section for this part of the entry, or add a line or two to the general etymology section?

I can guess of three possible ways how it may have been formed off of the top of my head:

1. In reference to the more warful and hunting nature associated with men (so, thus, by analogy with distaff in its literal sense). Compare ♂.

2. Of lowbrow origin.

3. Similar to 2; by *mistaken* analogy with distaff (although this seems to be almost certainly not the case, because *a.* distaff is still known in its literal sense , and *b.* if so, why not "staff" then? Not only would that be the logical result of a wrongful analogy, but it was in use ages ago in a slang sense that would have made the wrongful analogy be quite comprehensible)

Which one is it? Is there another possibility that I'm not considering? Tharthan (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It may be questioned whether distaff and spear in these senses are true adjectives instead of attributive nouns. I don’t know if this is relevant, but in Sranan Tongo, for which English was the main lexifier, one of the meanings of spir is “erection”. The word also entered the Surinamese Dutch lexicon in the form spier, usually as an adjective (“having an erection“).  --Lambiam 21:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The etymology currently at English haggard seems a bit odd. I'd expected a relation to German hager. Does anyone have any insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The relation to German Hag (French haie) the Trésor calls a folk etymology. They cut the etymology as obscure. The other etymologies mentioned in the French Wiktionary are even worse. Similarly the origin of German “hager” is unknown. It is plausible though that the French is from German (as it has an h aspiré). Fay Freak (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I could use some assistance on two etymologies - Balto-Slavic and Latin(?). There are a few cognates, including Serbo-Croatian mùrava/му̀рава (etym 1). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology, particularly "The sense 'jackal' has arisen because of the unfamiliarity of most modern Chinese speakers with dholes, since wild dholes are now very uncommon in China, and media featuring jackals is far more common than media featuring dholes. Most modern Chinese speakers are only familiar with 豺 as a wild canid that is neither a fox nor a wolf." @Corsicanwarrah — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung When I added that, I was making an assumption, but I thought it was a reasonable assumption. Now I realise I'm not supposed to do that...

After making that edit, I found this article () which mentions that due to European scholars' unfamiliarity with dholes, 豺 was variously translated as "wolf", "jackal" or "ravenous beast" in old Chinese texts. What do you make of this? --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Corsicanwarrah: This is probably a more likely description of why it's translated as "wolf" or "jackal". I've removed the etymology and added a usage note instead. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung The new usage note only takes English translations into consideration; what about modern Chinese speakers? Please clarify. 68.193.209.173 19:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: The definition given, i.e. dhole, is what modern Chinese speakers would refer to (at least according to most modern Chinese dictionaries). (not sure why you're not logged in) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung But didn't you state above that most modern Chinese speakers are not familiar with dholes, and that they use this character to refer to jackals? I'm kind of confused. 68.193.209.173 19:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnny Shiz: I think you're confused. It was Corsicanwarrah who made that claim above. I sent it here to verify the claim, which I have now removed because it doesn't seem to hold water. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I see; got it! Case closed. 68.193.209.173 19:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally find the etymology that we list to be the most likely, but I have also seen Scottish Gaelic spong (ultimately a cognate to English sponge), which means "tinder", given as the etymon by other sources. Is it possible that both were contributing factors to the English word, with the spark sense coming from where we say it comes from, but the "tinder" sense being also partially influenced by the Scottish Gaelic word?

And, on a similar subject, how likely is it that punk ultimately derives from spunk? This funk~spunk~punk spectrum of words seems particularly versatile. Tharthan (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added the Old Irish to the etymology Leasnam (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This has a "reference" (a link to a mailing list) that isn't even available any more. Can someone add proper references? Particularly for "rejected by Romance linguists". DTLHS (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

We list dance macabre as a derived term (also at the French entry), but according to the etymology section at Le Trésor it is the other way around: the adjective comes from the name of the dance, with the earliest attestation (1376) in the form de Macabré la dance, later (> 1433) la dance De Macabré metaphorically for dying; then (1611) Danse Macabré for death, which becomes (1811) Danse Macabre. Le Trésor states that the derivations from Arabic are baseless and prefers to explain Macabré as a variant of the biblical name Macchabée, noting that the forms Judas Macabrés and judas macabre for Judas Maccabeus are attested. There is also a Medieval attestation of the Latin designation choraea Machabaeorum, meaning “dance of the Maccabees”, presumably representing a theatrical portrayal of the martyrdom of the Maccabees. However, Le Trésor remarks, the hypothesis that this corresponds with la dance De Macabré conflicts with the fact that in all attested French versions Macabré is in the singular. Le Trésor mentions two further theories that seem somewhat obscure to me, according to which the name is that of a painter or a poet.  --Lambiam 10:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That it's a variant of قَفَص (qafaṣ) is plausible, but far from obvious. So since Arabic is not one of the languages where we have standard dictionaries to check, this should probably be sourced. Particularly the part that is so specific as to make it a re-borrowing from Persian qafas. The phonology seems very far-fetched. Is there even a variant qavas in Persian? (Even if so, is usually replaced with rather than .) And then what about the part? 90.186.72.21 20:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The vocalism is absolutely no problem. The pattern KāLūM is popular in the dialects and applied onto everything. For a striking instance, شَاكُوش (šākūš) is Ottoman Turkish چكیچ (çekiç). قَادُوس (qādūs) corresponds to Classical Syriac ܩܱܕܣܴܐ (qadsā, qaddəsā). مِجْرَفَة (mijrafa, “shovel”) is جَارُوف (jārūf) in dialects, because they really like this pattern. Many more examples, of which I hardly collected because this pattern by whole is not literary (the pattern is borrowed from Aramaic). You might look into the dialect atlas to see more.

This pattern could need an entry in Appendix:Arabic nominals to refer to it for people who do not know this, but then I won’t bear to write a comprehensive morphology of Arabic.

/s/ to /ʃ/ is a usual alternation in the vulgar tongue though not following a fixed rule. It usually appears arbitrarily when there is an imitative motivation. “To suck up”: شَفَطَ (šafaṭa), سَفَطَ (safaṭa). There are also many Romance/Latin borrowings with /ʃ/ for /s/ freely since the sound does not exist in Latin. شَكْوَس (šakwas) is salicastrum as well as شَقْوَاص (šaqwāṣ) (zero logics), شُبِر (šubir) is sūber.

Maybe not obvious to the untrained ear. But you haven’t even proferred an alternative proposal. Fay Freak (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, without standard dictionaries, sourced how? There aren’t any dictionaries which have set a standard, nor do standard dictionaries aspire to include reliable derivations, nor has anyone ever published an etymological dictionary of Arabic, and often derivations have bidden in the class room, in the heads of the professors. Wiktionary is the first. The best one could do possibly, is to collect oldest uses, or refer to old historians noting the use of the word, which is very far with the current state of corpora availability and can be foreseen to not add anything more anyhow. Such words pop up and then the connection is like this. Fay Freak (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

1.) You claimed that it's a variant of قَفَص (qafaṣ), so the vocalism is a giant problem, because a variant cannot take a completely different measure. It would then not be a variant, but another formation from the same root. Is that what you now claim?

2.) I don't need to put forward an alternative proposal, you have to prove yours (or at least make it plausible).

3.) What I said was that since Arabic has no standard dictionary, you should provide a source for your claims (e.g. an article from a journal). In languages like German, English, etc., we have standard dictionaries that can be considered default sources, so the etymology sections in these languages don't necessarily need a source. The same goes for other languages if the etymology is more or less obvious. Yours is all but that.

4.) Since it has become obvious from your answer that you made the whole thing up in your mind, I will delete your etymology now. Best regards. 90.186.72.21 00:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that’s not even written by me, not my claims, and since it is now written as a “hypothesis”, nobody claims. Also you wouldn’t ask anyone who writes such articles “to provide sources”. The journal articles end up only conjecturing too. Or they end up writing nothing, like you like to delete rather than have anything possible written, because when one does not need to write an etymological dictionary containing every word one rather avoids to discuss what one is in doubt of. What can only help is to find quotes where an earlier form of the term is employed, and to find other forms in other languages with related meaning. Consider that Wiktionary is a secondary source. Fay Freak (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest here that it might be borrowed from Turkish koğuş that could also be used for "jail cell".--78.171.248.131 20:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the etymology of this? (It means "Hungary" in Russian). 68.193.209.173 22:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The etymology is right there in the entry. From Polish Węgry, which lacks etymology but must be from Proto-Slavic *ǫgъrinъ. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, will edit the Polish entry accordingly. Shall I also add the Polish term to the list of derivatives at the bottom of the Proto-Slavic entry? I'm no expert in Slavic languages, and I don't want to make a mistake. 68.193.209.173 23:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No. If you don't understand something, don't edit it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The entry Węgier (“Hungarian male person”) already has the Proto-Slavic etymology (*ǫgъrinъ). Russian венгр (vengr, “Hungarian male person”) is derived from it. Polish country names like Niemcy, Czechy, Węgry, Włochy are formed as inanimate plural forms from names of nationalities with a special declension. Węgry (“Hungary”) is from Węgier (“Hungarian”). The actual plural for Węgier (“Hungarian”) is Węgrzy. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I rolled back the etymology addition by the anon user. As I said. Węgier is inherited (not derived) from *ǫgъrinъ but Węgry is formed from Węgier. It's not just the plural ending -y, it's a special type of forming of some Slavic country names. Someone with more knowledge should do it. All you can do if you DON'T know or don't know how is request it, e.g. with {{rfe|lang=pl}} and discuss here.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Mh, I don't think Węgier is inherited from *ǫgъrinъ: where is the suffix? The Proto-Slavic entry gives węgrzyn as a descendant, which seems to be a better match. Rather, Węgier must come from the base word of *ǫgъrinъ ( + *-inъ). Canonicalization (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicalization: To be exact, yes, but -in/-yn is a suffix that is often dropped in Slavic languages to form new words, adjectives, etc. Russian у́грин (úgrin) (disused after Old East Slavic) is directly inherited from *ǫgъrinъ and уго́рец (ugórec) (dated) is also related with cognates in other modern languages. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the Proto-Slavic reconstruction with the suffix *-inъ based on anyway? Anatoli argues that it was dropped in the Polish form, but what evidence is there that this is not the original situation? Polish may instead directly reflect a suffixless form of the word inherited from Proto-Slavic. —Rua (mew) 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is my speculation. I don't know if *ǫgъrъ exists but there are seemingly many descendants without the suffix. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk? Canonicalization (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicalization, Rua, Guldrelokk: There you go, as I suspected, the suffix *-inъ is dropped in various forms. The Old Church Slavonic ѫгринъ (ǫgrinŭ) has the suffixless plural form ѫгре (ǫgre). In Russian, the suffix -ин (-in) dropped in forming plurals or other PoS, e.g. тата́рин (tatárin, “Tatar”) has the plural form тата́ры (tatáry) and the adjective is тата́рский (tatárskij). See Vasmer's etymology of у́грин (úgrin). (I'm hesitating to create this Russian entry у́грин (úgrin) at the moment because I don't know the declension type and it's disused, as I mentioned). Also calling @Benwing2. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

*ǫgrъ can be reconstructed for suffixless forms. *ǫgrinъ is not derived from *ǫgrъ: Slavic singulatives in *-inъ imply the existence of a collective term, of which there is not sign, so it must be a direct adaptation of a foreign ethnonym. I’d make these variant forms, or just wouldn’t care. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(chiming in) I'm very at sea with the Slavic languages, but I was struck by the similarity to the term Onoğur, a name for a Turkic-speaking group (specifically of the Oghur languages) that had a major impact on the development of the Hungarian language and people. Any chance that the Slavic term is a borrowing of the Turkic? This might explain that final /-r/, not as a suffix, but rather as part of the initial borrowing. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Vasmer agrees with you ("основаны на тюрк. этнониме ᾽Ονόγουροι (Приск, Агафий), ср.-лат. Hunuguri (Иордан), Onoguria terra (Географ Равеннский), булг. оn ogur, др.-тюрк. оn oguz "десять огузских родов""). In any case /r/ is part of the base word; the suffix is *-inъ. Canonicalization (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicalization, Rua, Guldrelokk, Benwing2: I've had a go at у́грин (úgrin). It contradicts some Russian sources saying (Wikipedia article on угры) that у́гры m anim pl (úgry) is unrelated to у́грин m anim (úgrin) - probably depends on the sense. The singular угр m anim (ugr) is rarely used, it seems like a back-formation. I have also created уго́рец (ugórec). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The entry still needs checking. BTW, Vasmer says *ǫgъrinъ was borrowed from into Old Lithuanian (what's the code?) unguras (“Hungarian”). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev: The other way around. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk: You're right, thanks! --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least list Węgry as being derived from Węgier, without respect to the disputed ultimate origins? 68.193.209.173 23:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Węgry is derived from Węgier. It's the simplest way to describe the etymology (a minimum requirement) but as I said above, along with Niemcy, Czechy, Włochy, someone would need to describe the method of this formation - country names in plural (inanimate) with a special declension. The declension type seems archaic (locative Węgrzech), compare with alternative locative plural niebiesiech of niebiosa (“heavens”). I've seen online discussions but I don't feel confident to add the etymology and our Polish editors don't seem very active, let me try @Wrzodek: could you help with the etymology or contribute to this discussion? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Aleksander Brückner, like Vasmer (but earlier), derives Węgr(z)y from Onogur. Russian Венгрия (Vengrija) (spelled Wiengrija) is from Polish. He also says that Węgrzyn was formerly used like Węgier is today (but was it used solely?). I found some more Books ghits: in respect of the aformentioned suffix -inъ, a Kashubian etymological dictionary suggesting Węgrzyn is Old Polish, similar Kashubian result, Węgrzyn and Slavic ethnonymy. Modern dictionaries only mention węgrzyn in the meanings of "a wine from Hungary" or "a door-to-door salesman (from Hungary)". And while we're at it, Węgier is a similar word to wągier, our Wiktionary entry suggests *ǫgrъ as its etymology, A. Brückner for some reason has this word under untypical spelling "węgry" (perhaps more common in his day). Wrzodek (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wrzodek: Thanks for your input. Good to see someone supporting the reconstruction *ǫgrъ. Do you know if there is a grammatical explanation for the plural forms and inflections of Węgry, Niemcy, Czechy, Włochy? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the English etymology section for Hungary, it takes you to Medieval Latin Hungāria. If you look at the Latin etymology section for Hungaria, it takes you to Hungari or Ungari (most likely two variants of the same term) but does not specify a language, in addition to supplying a note that the initial h- appeared due to confusion with the Hunns, or Hunni. What language do those two terms belong to; I'm guessing Latin, but I could be wrong. Are those terms related to the Proto-Slavic, the Turkic, or the Old Lithuanian? If so, in what way? 68.193.209.173 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

All exonyms for Hungarians are from the Turkic name of the Onoğurs. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk If you feel comfortable doing so, please update the etymology sections for all applicable entries (Hungary, Венгрия, Węgry, etc.). If you don't, let's bring this to the main discussion above and wait to hear the consensus of other users. 68.193.209.173 19:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk, 68.193.209.173: There is probably not enough references to explain definitely. I have expanded a bit on Russian Ве́нгрия (Véngrija), which is different grammatically from Polish Węgry. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Although the entry lists both Proto-Indo-European *sek- and Proto-Indo-European *sekʷ- as roots, the first root seems not to have much connection with the word, and many sources list the word as a derivation of the second root. However, only the first root lists the word as a derivation. — This unsigned comment was added by StrongestStrike (talk • contribs) at 10:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

How hasn’t it much connection to the root “to cut”? A sign is first and foremost something cut into something. Also a sign is something that one follows. With such abstract meanings one can posit anything. Fay Freak (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the entry “signum”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, has “perh. Sanscr. sag-, to cling to, adhere”. I suppose this corresponds to Sanskrit सजति (sájati, “to cling or adhere to”) mentioned as a cognate at Latin seges and Lithuanian segti, and said to be from Proto-Indo-European *se(n)g- (“to attach, to touch”).  --Lambiam 11:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Cannot Proto-European *sekʷ- also mean "to see, look at" ? Leasnam (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Fay Freak is right. Cf. IEW 895, Walde Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 534 (rejecting the *sekʷ- etymology), Lubotsky Etymological dictionary of Latin 563, all for *sek-no- ‘cut’. The trivial semantic shift ‘mark’ > ‘sign’ has parallels like Finnish merkki. If anything, I would get rid of the *sekʷ- etymology, as I can’t find a major Latin or Indo-European source endorsing it. Guldrelokk (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Could an Arabic speaker expand the etymology of munshi? The OED says the Arabic word is derived from the active participle anša'a ("to compose a piece of writing"), which is the causative of naša'a ("to come into being"). Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The verb you mention is أَنْشَأَ (ʔanšaʔa). But I personally don't think the English entry needs to go into the Arabic morphology. The Arabic etymon (when it is created) can explain it there. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Fay Freak has created the Arabic etymon. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Benwing2, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino, Chignon): I have doubts about the Polish origin of the word кра́ля (králja) - claimed by Vasmer. Does the word "kral" exist or did it exist in modern or Old Polish? Also, I think -я (-ja) was added to the masculine form in Russian or Ukrainian. Cinemantique has responded on the Russian Wiktionary but I'm still not satisfied.

My gut feeling or understanding is that

1. Czech král entered Russian or Ukrainian as краль (kralʹ), now hardly used.
2. -я (-ja) was added but not sure Czech even has or ever had the feminine from krála. Polish doesn't have the word krala either. Again, I think it was a Ukrainian addition - the feminine form.

In Ukrainian the term is much more frequent and prominent and not necessarily ironic as in modern Russian (we don't have a Ukrainian entry yet). It's also used in Belarusian. (Notifying Hergilei, Tweenk, Shumkichi, Wrzodek, Asank neo): , (Notifying Rua, Wikitiki89): Sorry for too many notifications, just ignore if you're not interested or don't know. Also calling @Vahagn Petrosyan, Dan Polansky who might help.

My questions are:

1. Czech or Polish origin of Ukrainian/Russian?
2. Does the feminine form exist in the source language or is it Ukrainian or Russian invention?
3. There are indications that the term first entered Ukrainian and then Russian but it's hard to prove, since linguists often treated Ukrainian as "Western Russian" as part of Russian (not Old Ukrainian and Old Belarusian)

It's also a bit hard to search, as there are many instances of surname transliterations. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Vasmer doesn’t ‘claim’ that though, he lists five references. Polish kral, kralka (dialectal klara, klarka) are old card terms 1 2 3. I am no expert in the transmission of card terminology, and I would just follow the etymological dictionaries. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk: Thank you. I wasn't attentive and proactive enough and took a wrong way to search for answers. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Czech for queen is královna; I am unaware of Czech *krála or *krala. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What's the etymology? Is it about a ship that can "hold water", i.e. remain afloat?

This site says that it's "used since the 1600’s, the idiom alludes figuratively to a container that cannot hold water and thus is useless. When an argument “has holes in it” the same allusion is suggested. As well, the related idiom “Swiss-cheese argument” refers to an argument with holes in it and thus one that “does not hold water.”"Canonicalization (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe the allusion to a container holding water ( = being useful) is correct. Leasnam (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In Jeremiah 2:13, Jahweh laments, “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (KJV) Already a poetical metaphor in the Book of Jeremiah, I suspect this metaphor was the source of the current idiom: to say that a cistern/argument does not hold water is to say that it is broken. The KJV was published in 1611, so that would fit with “used since the 1600s”. The Wycliffe Bible already had “that moun not holde watris”, but it was not nearly as widespread and influential.  --Lambiam 20:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've long been amused by the application of the metaphor as in:

• 1928, Justin W. McEachren, The Valve World‎, volume 25, page 158:

  The world, we will say on this score, profits more by valves that will hold water than it does by philosophy that will not.

DCDuring (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam Bit of a Germanism there, Lambiam. When the name of God is written in English (by those who would write it), the first letter is... the English letter that corresponds to the sound value of the first letter that the German form of the Name has for that word, if you catch my drift. The reason why this case is an exception to the usual truth that Biblical names are written even in English with the letter that would be used in German and a number of other European countries is because the modern, accurate way of writing the Name in English if one is going to write it was first used after that historical method of transliteration of Biblical names (largely borrowed from French and German, from what I understand) was no longer current. Plus, it would have led to an inaccurate spelling pronunciation by most English speakers. Tharthan (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Why, yes, but this standard is a double standard; otherwise one would write Yeremiah, as the German is Jeremia. It is also violated by the Name Jehovah, which is what the American Standard Version has. The spelling Jahweh used to be an accepted spelling in English for those who preferred to use the historical vocalization of HaShem, as seen e.g. in Volume VII (Hymms—Liberty) of the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics of 1915.  --Lambiam 10:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please would someone check the etymology of these two words. Unfortunately, I have very little etymological or Old English knowledge.

I assume Beverly is a later variant spelling of Beverley (I think the Yorkshire town of Beverley was so-spelled long before any speaker of English or any Germanic language sailed to America, let alone reached Los Angeles, though I could be wrong), so the etymology would preferably be at Beverley rather than at Beverly as at present.

Far more serious, either the etymology is wrong, or neither we nor the OED have an entry for one of the words (and we have a faulty link).

The claimed etymology is shown as Old English beofor (“beaver”) + lēac (“stream”).

That would be fine, except that we do not have an entry for lēac, and the wikilink takes us to ang|leac||leek (and the same word in Irish/Scottish Gaelic means slab, etc).

The OED claims that it is léac which means leek, and only has leac as a verb meaning to close in, lock (which I was pleased to see, since I now see why canal locks were so called). Like us, OED does not have an entry for lēac. (My apologies if these differences in accents are trivial, but as I said, I know very little about Old English.)

While, if ang|lēac really does mean river, that seems a logical combination, it differs from the etymology I had previously seen. I had been interested in it for years, since I was brought up near the w:Beverley Brook (Ignore the etymology in that article -- I wrote it years ago, to match what follows!). What I understood, taken from one of the two books entitled A dictionary of London Place Names, neither of which I have to hand at present, is that while the first part derived from ang|beofor, which became ME bever and now beaver, the second was from ang|lēah||clearing/glade/meadow, which became ME lea/ley/lei/leigh (which all still exist multiple times in place names, though only ley seems to have still been in occasional use within the last 50 years, though with the meaning of temporary (crop rotating) pasture rather than a permanent meadow as in ME. (I did believe that I'd seen it defined as water meadow, and certainly all the places that come to mind with that name are on flood plains, but I can't find any evidence of that meaning today.)

So, is ang|lēac||stream a correct definition (in which case, we should probably have an entry for it and correct the misplaced link) and in any case, is that the etymology of -ley in Beverley, or should it be from ang|lēah||clearing/glade/meadow and ME lea/ley/lei/leigh? The name of the stream Beverley Brook would be tautological if the former is correct, and it would be strange for the town Beverley to translate as Beaver River, particularly as it is positioned on the banks of the River Hull, which also appears to be an old name. However, oddities like this do exist elsewhere, so that is not conclusive. Also, since the original meaning of ang|lēah||clearing/glade/meadow seems to have been a clearing in a wood (does the later change in meaning suggest early-English agriculture was based on cutting down trees, just as still occurs in the Amazon basin and much of Africa?) and since beavers gnaw down trees to build dams, the idea of Beaver Clearing/Meadow seems just as appropriate as Beaver River. --Enginear 22:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Or it could be none of the above. In the Middle English dictionary entry for bever, there's a quote (under 2c): "Beverlay ..is at the este from Yorke..as the place or lake of bevers or of grayes ". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the Latin original of the quoted passage, with two Middle English translations on the next page. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting! (I was slightly surprised that I could still understand the gist of the Latin -- it probably means it was written by someone with a very small Latin vocabulary!) According to the town was founded in 7th century, so I suspect Beverlacum is a calque of the name in the local North-Anglian OE dialect. 'pedia then goes on to say "The name of the town was changed to Bevreli or Beverlac, meaning beaver-clearing or beaver-lake, in the 10th century; a reference to the colonies of beavers in the River Hull at the time." referencing Hopkins The History of Beverley from the Earliest Times to the Year 2003, which doesn't seem to have even a snippet available online. However, if we assume for the present that the text accurately reflects the reference, I think they have solved the problem, at least as far as Beverley, E Yorks is concerned. It looks as if two names were in use for a time:

• Beverlac (assuming Hopkins is correct, this must be a dialectal shortening of Beverlacu#Old_English) = Beaver lake, which was then calqued to Beverlacum (oddly, as pointed out in lake#Etymology_1, ang|lacu, although synonymous with all, is not cognate with Latin lacus or Scottish Gaelic loch (also loaned to Scots) or indeed ang|lagu). This name appears to have been used in the ref you gave, which must have been written after 1326 (mentioned on the last page of the Intro as the last full year w:Ranulf Higden covered -- the rest was added by others) and 1364 (when he died). Both translations into ME used Beverlay. According to the frontispiece, the first one was by w:John Trevisa which, according to w:Dialogue on Translation Between a Lord and a Clerk was published in 1387, and the second was a few decades later, by "an unknown writer of the 15th century", which, if we use lay#Etymology_2, is a correct translation, but...
• Bevreli, which presumably morphed to Beverley = beaver clearing/meadow, where ley has alternative forms including lea, leigh and lay#Etymology_6.

So now, re Beverley, E Yorks, at least by 400 yrs after 2 alternative names were noted, we have two homographs (and probably homophones too), one for each definition. And although Beverlay can be a calque of Beverlacum, itself a calque of Beverlac, it is not a particularly obvious word to choose -- surely, the original Beverlac, or the ME equivalent Beverlake, would be more likely to be chosen. So I suggest that the fact two different translators, whose texts differ significantly in the surrounding sentences, both chose Beverlay, is probably because they knew that that was what the settlement was now called!

So, my summary of the present position (bearing in mind I am not too au fait with our etymology style, so please correct me) is:

• As yet, we have found no evidence for the present etymology (Old English beofor (“beaver”) + lēac (“stream”)) but it is early days yet. The etymology was added by User:Makaokalani. I'll alert him.
• For Beverley, E Yorks, it seems likely that the etymology is something like "From Middle English Beverlay (previously both Bevreli and Beverlac), from Middle English bever (“beaver”) + either or both Middle English lay (“clearing or meadow”) and Middle English lay (“lake”).
• For all other Beverleys and Beverlys, the same ambiguity would apply unless there was evidence to the contrary --Enginear 05:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

(TL;DR) – It is not necessarily the case that all Beverl(e)ys have the same etymology.  --Lambiam 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is long, which is why I put a 7 line summary at the end, which inter alia says just that. --Enginear 22:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

My source was Hanks&Hodges Dictionary of First Names. You're very welcome to give better and more exact etymologies. I don't know any dead languages, I'm mainly interested in given names: which language they come from and why were they taken up. The literal meaning often plays no role in it. Also, place names were not accepted in the wiktionary of 2007.--Makaokalani (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Added the surname definition to Beverley.--Makaokalani (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this from Ancient Greek ἀνατομικός (anatomikós) or anatomia + -icus? There are plenty of Romance etymologies to clean up either way. Ultimateria (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

While Ancient Greek ἀνατομικός (anatomikós) is an adjective – although the feminine ἀνατομική (anatomikḗ) is used as a noun, short for ἀνατομική τέχνη (anatomikḗ tékhnē), the art of anatomy – Latin anatomicus is strictly a noun. Latin anatomia is a variant of anatomica, which comes from ἀνατομική (anatomikḗ) (see “anatomia”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press), and this has probably influenced the form of the Latin noun for the profession of anatomist: anatomic(a) + -us. Cf. Latin iuridicus, in which the suffix is -us, not -icus.  --Lambiam 13:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam: So what's the source for the adjectives for "anatomic" in Romance languages? Ultimateria (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I may have spoken to hastily. L&S only mention anatomicus (in the lemma anatomia) as a noun meaning “anatomist”, but the word has later also been used by Augustine in De anima et eius origine (aka De natura et origine animae) as an adjective with the meaning “pertaining to anatomy”. Le Trésor considers French anatomique a borrowing from this Late Latin adjective. Since Augustin also uses anatomicus in De civitate Dei as a noun for the profession, it is plausible that he repurposed the term as an adjective; most Latin nouns on -icus, like mathematicus and medicus, are adjectives used as nouns, so this would be a rather natural thing to do. It is not impossible that he knew the word as an adjective from Greek, but it is known that his acquaintance with Greek literature was very limited.  --Lambiam 04:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

To someone more than I, this proposition:

"εὑρίσκω" may be in some relation to the PIE construct "*h₂éristos"--kin to Latin's "ars".

At the very least, I see a semantic link somewhat approximated by "power by (means of) discernment".

Isn’t Proto-Indo-European *h₂éristos a superlative formed from the root *h₂er-, of which the first part of the verb ἀραρίσκω (ararískō, “to (make) fit”) = ἀραρί- + -σκω is a reduplicated descendant? I think εὑρίσκω is likewise formed with the suffix -σκω. The entry Douglas Harper (2001–2024) “heuristic”, in Online Etymology Dictionary traces εὑρίσκω (heurískō) back to Proto-Indo-European *were-, “to find”. I have no opinion on how plausible this is.  --Lambiam 14:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking further, I see the proposed PIE roots are really all over the place, none with any supporting evidence, varying from *h₁wérus (“broad”) (Pokorny) to *ue-ur- (Beekes) to *suer- (Taillardat). In summary: Etymology unknown.  --Lambiam 14:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you misread Pokorny, he derives εὑρίσκω from *u̯er- ‘finden, nehmen’, same as Beekes, not *u̯er- ‘weit’. Same LIV 698 (*u̯reh₁- ‘finden’) with references. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Based upon the dates of earliest attestation (that I can find), this appears to have most likelily been coined based off of bumblebee.

bumblebee is an alteration of the older humblebee, perhaps (and I'm speculating on this) first jocularly (think "It's not a humble bee, Cliff, it's a bumble bee!"), or alternatively perhaps an honest (mis)analysis of the word "humble" in the word "humblebee" (thinking that it is from "hum" + frequentative -le ), and then thinking that "humble" (as an derivative of "hum") is not really used, thus driving the desire to change it to "bumble" instead, 'or' perhaps from mishearing/misremembering "humblebee" as it would be spoken in an h-dropping dialect; /ˈʌmbəl(.)biː/, perhaps with subconscious influence from the "b" in "bee".

It could, of course, be a bit of all three. But this is just speculation.

"dumbledore" seems to have been coined later, and I posit that it was coined based off of "bumblebee". dor could already be used to mean "bumblebee", so "dumbledore" was probably an alliterative extension, modelled on "bumblebee".

Thoughts? Tharthan (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The variant bumbledore can be attested: , , , . One possible road is that bumbledore comes from older dumbledore, modified by the influence of bumblebee. Another possibility is that bumbledore is older and gave rise to dumbledore by alliteration, similar to humblebee → bumblebee.

An interesting snippet of info is to be gleaned here – unfortunately all we get to see. With some effort I managed to extract a larger segment:

“... onomatopoeic origin, are very loosely applied to any large flying insect which makes a humming or buzzing noise. Engl. Dial. Dict give bumbledore and bumbledrum as in use in Somerset and Devon for a bumblebee. In my experience, the commonest term for a bumblebee is drummel-drane (i.e. drumble-drone), while the cockchafer is more usually oakweb. (pronounced oak’ub). But Eng. Dial. Dict gives dumbledore for bumble-bee, cockchafer, and large black dor beetle.”

 --Lambiam 13:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

We have “Origin unknown; perhaps from bole.” I think it is much more plausible that this is a cognate of Dutch bolder and German Poller, which both go back on Old French poultre, earlier Old French poltrel, hypothesized to come from a Vulgar Latin diminutive of Latin pullus, thus originally meaning “foal”.  --Lambiam 12:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Middle English Dictionary also shows this "probably from bole". The Middle English word is attested from 1307 as bollardes (plural). The Dutch word, however, is not attested till 1565 as polder (initially with a p) and only later acquires the initial b around 1856. So it would be a stretch to get bollard from Dutch polder or Old French poltre, poultre. This coupled with the historical timing may make it improbable to be linked to the Dutch/Frech word. Leasnam (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Buzz! Buzz! Buzz! I wonder why he does? Is it pure coincidence that a male bee, while flying, tends to produce a low-pitched buzz? The noun and the verb (in this sense) appear not to be cognates. (The question was prompted by my seeing that a dor – a cognate of drone – is defined as an insect making a droning noise while flying.)  --Lambiam 12:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, can't PIE *dʰrēn- "male bee" be connected somehow to *dʰer- "to buzz" ? Maybe it's not a coincidence at all :) Leasnam (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The noun and the verb are unquestionably related. Germanic *drunjanan ‘to drone’ is simply a denominative from *drunan- ‘drone’. Lubotsky (Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic 101) derives Germanic *drenan- and its variants from IE *dʰr-en- with individualizing suffix, along with a few Greek words, while others may not go further than *dʰren- (I don’t find any other formations from *dʰer- ‘buzz’); the ‘different’ roots in the English entry are an artifact of mindlessly mixing different sources. It is beyond doubt that onomatopoetic *dʰr- is underlying. The Balto-Slavic words may reflect the voiceless variant *tr-. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Besides, OE dran, dræn ‘drone’ cannot possibly stem from Germ. *drēn-, which would give OE *drōn. The correct reading is probably drăn with a short vowel, while Eng. drone is from the Germ. variant *drunan-. See Kroonen The Proto-Germanic n-stems 154. Guldrelokk (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, as *spēnuz. Enlightening. Leasnam (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The above may explain the Old English ( < Proto-Germanic *dranuz ?) though the byform Old English dræn is unusual in that it's not *dren, but Old Saxon and Old High German both have variants with a long vowel: Old Saxon drān (beside Old Saxon dreno) and Old High German trān (beside Old High German treno). What is the origin of these long-vowel variants ? Maybe the Old English is the result of two separate but related roots that fused ? Leasnam (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk: is there any paradigm that you know of that could level PIE into PGmc ē and a ? I'm still assuming this is a Germanic u-stem Leasnam (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

After thinking about this, had the vowel in OE drān been short from *dranuz it would be *dranu or *drænu. If it had been an i-stem it would end in -e, *drene (cf. ēowu from *awiz); and if re-analysed as an o-stem also dranu. The closest relative to OE drān f is OSX drāna f, even though OE drān/drǣn is declined like an i-stem. Could it be a borrowing from Old Saxon to account for the fact that the ān didn't become nasalised to ōn ? Leasnam (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It must have gone from *drēnuz to WGmc *drāni and *drānu, then to OE drǣn and drān. Leasnam (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The etymology of English glory is:

From Middle English glory, glorie, from Old French glorie (“glory”), from Latin glōria (“glory, fame, renown, praise, ambition, boasting”), from Proto-Indo-European *glōs-, *gals-, *galos- (“voice, cry”).

While the etymology of Latin glōria is:

For *gnōria, maybe through *ǵnoh₃ris (“knowledge”) (compare Ancient Greek γνώριμος (gnṓrimos, “well-known, familiar”)), from Proto-Indo-European *ǵneh₃- (“to know, recognize”).

Should the etymologies be fixed?

@StrongestStrike They have been fixed already. Also, I know you're a newbie here, but you're supposed to sign your messages using four tildes. 68.193.209.173 23:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The etymology at glōria appears to call the transition *gnōria → glōria “dissimilation”, but I don’t see which other phoneme in gnōria is similar to the /n/.  --Lambiam 10:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely not dissimilation. A change of gn to gl improves the sonority of the onset cluster (compare the change of kn/gn to kr/gr in many Goidelic varieties), but I'm unaware of any other instance of such a change in Latin. The usual treatment of word-initial gn in Latin is to simplify it to n (gnōtus > nōtus), so I'd expect a *gnōria to become *nōria, not glōria. Deriving glōria from *ǵneh₃- seems like grasping at straws to me. If it's possible to get the phonology to work, *ǵʰley- seems semantically like the most likely PIE root to be the source. I know *ǵʰ before a vowel becomes h in Latin, but I don't know what happens to *ǵʰ before l. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

* became already in the prehistory of Latin. A change * > , if more recent, is dissimilative. Guldrelokk (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a duplex dissimilation: each of the two similar phonemes is being dissimilated from its twin! Is it possible that the journey went like * → * → * → ?  --Lambiam 13:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've seen a particular French (as in, the interpretation comes from French speakers) interpretation of cane ("duck") as being from Latin anas ("duck"), with an arbitrary epenthetic c-.

The idea that an arbitrary c- (in particular) was just suddenly added sounds doubtful to me, but could cane be a fusion of anas, and some word of onomatopoeic origin that referred to an animal sound?

Is our current etymology a canard? Do we have quacks as etymology writers? Have our editors been making ducks and drakes of their time? Tharthan (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal attack, Tharthan. Regardless of validity, is that really something you want to do ? The material for the current etymology can be easily sourced online. Leasnam (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The old French word cane has both the meaning of "boat" and "waterfowl". It seems plausible that the word through the "boat" sense ties to Kahn. Not saying that anas might not have contributed, but how would we explain the c ? Leasnam (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not very personal, and the high percentage of puns suggests that the attack part wasn't serious. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm good. It just doesn't seem very um, necessary. If there is an issue with an etymology, then the beef is with the etymology and the source, not the editor. We're not supposed to be "crafting" our own etymologies anyway. Right ? Leasnam (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't necessary. The literal "meaning" was just there to set up the puns. It shouldn't be construed as an attack any more than than "This morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How the elephant got in my pajamas, I'll never know" should be construed as an assertion about the sartorial preferences of pachyderms. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now. I'm just being paranoid. I just always expect everyone to know that every etymology in question is mine...since one can just look up the history. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but I always give the benefit of the doubt :) Leasnam (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the etymology of this Italian word? 68.193.209.173 00:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it is scorr(ere) +‎ -evole, “being able to slide”.  --Lambiam 09:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam Thanks, very much. 68.193.209.173 19:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology for the noun. Said to be "from the apparent blue colour of the gums of Indonesian people". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Another explanation I have heard is that it is related to the so-called slate-grey nevus prevalent among new-born Austronesians. Yet another explanation, which I heard from a waitress at an Indonesian restaurant named “Blauw”, is that it comes from a blue sheen on the pitch-black hair of some Indonesians. The multiplicity of proposed etymologies suggests that the origin is unknown.  --Lambiam 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the etymology of Persian آلو (âlu, “plume, prune”) (Etymology 1; not to be confused with Etymology 2 !)? Is it cognate to Sanskrit आलु (ālu, “plume”)?—Lbdñk^{|⏳|🙊🙉🙈|} 16:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The most apparent etymology for this word seems to be from Latin, a compound of quam ("as much as, how, how much, as, than") and -que ("and"). The thing is, though, that *quanque and *quamque are not even attested words in Latin! (Sure, it does appear on a few unreliable websites here and there, but that doesn't really count, does it?)

Quisque is a Latin pronoun that definitely exists, meaning "each one" or "anyone". One might believe that *quanque or *quamque is an inflected form of quisque, but it is not, because quisque is based on the interrogative pronoun quis/quis/qui, of which quam is not an inflected form, not the relative pronoun qui/quae/quod, of which quam is an inflected form.

My question is this: how did Old French quanque develop? Was it a post-Latin compound, or am I wrong about the word *quanque/*quamque not existing in Latin? I would be very interested to know about this all. 68.193.209.173 20:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See fr:quanque. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A few of the possible etymologies for this adverb-meaning "then", "afterwards", "hence", "therefore", or "thus"-involve *dumque, an unattested Latin pronoun or adverb. Apparently, this is supposed to be a combination of Latin dum and umquam. Dum means "while" or "as long as", and umquam means "ever"; any sources that specify a reconstructed definition for *dumque, or if not, any ideas as to what it may have meant? 68.193.209.173 20:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

No shortage of theories here, but a dearth of conclusive evidence. According to the Dizionario Etimologico online, a web version of Pianigiani’s Vocabolario etimologico della lingua italiana, dunque is a shortening of adunque, for which the theories vary as being from ad tunc, ad hunc, denique < donique = donec, and a combination of these working towards the result.  --Lambiam 15:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A venenum is not a "love potion", and not linked with the "love" INE root, it is a liquid and as such, I'd mention the Lewis & Short etymology of virus i.e. INE u̯eis- ("flow"); to this root, Pokorny links vena (as for ves-na). --Diligent (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t seem formally possible: venēnum has a short root vowel. Venēnum < *wenez-no- is an adjective in -no- from Venus, an s-stem. Lubotsky Etymological Dictionary of Latin 660 has a short comment on the semantics. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A small suggestion: the etymology suggests the PIE construct *ḱerh₂ (which is good), however this skips the intermediary of: κεραός (keraós) + -νῡμῐ (-nūmi).

A heretical alternative could be κεραός (keraós) + νεύω (neúō)--a sense of "nodding of the river/horn," which approximates "mixture" (keránnumi) but this is too speculative to be taken seriously.

==> Also, a note should be included, in the definition of keránnumi, to the significance of "diluting the wine with water" (Hurrah for drinking horns).

The *ḱerh₂- in question is *k̑erh₂- ‘mischen’ (LIV 328, IEW 582). I do not believe it can possibly be identical with *k̑erh₂- ‘horn’, there is no semantic connection whatsoever. In any case, Gr. κεράννυμι is most certainly not denominative; see the LIV entry for details on the formation. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The figurative meaning of unhinged is listed under Etymology 2, un- +‎ hinged. Yet the verb unhinge gives a 2008 quotation in which the past participle of the verb means, figuratively, “come off its hinges”, that is, mentally disturbed. A much older use is in George Eliott’s 1861 novel Silas Marner, in the beginning of Chapter 2: “Minds that have been unhinged from their old faith and love, ...”. Clearly, the “old faith and love” are the frame that used to offer support; the issue is not so much that the hinges of these minds have been removed, as that they have come loose from the hinges, so that they are no longer hinged. If that leaves any doubt, here are two quotes from an 1803 commentary on the bible: “After having unhinged the public mind, ...” ; “The moſt ſacred ties of ſociety muſt have been unhinged by ſuch an unnatural aſſociation; ...” . In both, the word unhinged is clearly a past participle. There are also plenty of hits for “unhinging effect”. In light of this evidence I think that listing figurative unhinged under Etymology 2 is improper. (BTW, the usex an unhinged door for the sense “not furnished with a hinge” is ambiguous.)  --Lambiam 13:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)