Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/April

Our etymology first says this is from corona (“circle of light”) (as in stellar corona) and then says it's from corona (“crown”) (referring to the crown-like spikes). Which is it? I've more often heard the second explanation. See also the question on the talk page about whether this compound was formed in English or derives from the old genus name (or the other way round). - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to the 1968 Nature paper but that seems like a good place to start looking. DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Found it: "Particles are more or less rounded in profile; although there is a certain amount of poly-morphism, there is also a characteristic "fringe" of projections 200 A long, which are rounded or petal shaped, rather than sharp or pointed, as in the myxoviruses. This appearance, recalling the solar corona, is shared by mouse hepatitis virus and several viruses recently recovered from man, namely strain B814, 229E and several others." DTLHS (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It was correct until fairly recently.  --Lambiam 07:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas on this one? It's apparently cognate with the Gaulish source of the tribe Ruteni, but I can't find it in any etymological dictionaries... DJ K-Çel (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop working on Celtic tribe name etymologies, thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 00:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

After the etymologies for like were consolidated, it would be nice if the roots would be carefully checked up. Now it just looks as if the ugly bits were swept under the carpet.

Many people will appreciate a clean main space, but the large etymologies are impenetrable if the meat is between the lines while the roots offer little insight. The truth might be that what looks like a paradigm is rather poorly understood. The entry for PIE *leyg- is not what the link promisses and "body" (or "corpse") remains a Germanic isogloss. There's no proper treatment of the paradigm, only marginalia and miscellania in the literature, I expect, as if it was a certain fact. There's not a single reference noted in these pages. The first reference I consulted, Kroonen, rather disagrees with these pages, though also not fully convincing. Can't say I like to complain. 109.41.1.43 03:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you imply that some of these Proto-Germanic lemmas: *līkāną, *galīkaz, *līką, *-līkaz; aren't related to each other? I agree that *leyg- shouldn't be linked or even mentioned, as long as it doesn't list the meaning on the article.

Anatol Rath (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The etymologies of English materialism and French matérialisme can rightly be called a circular mess. Online Merriam-Webster gives a late 17th century date for the English. TLFi dates the French to the early 18th century and supports the etymology in the French entry. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In the chapter ”Boyle’s Influence on Locke” of the book The Bloomsbury Companion to Robert Boyle (Jan-Erik Jones, editor; 2019; Bloomsbury Publishing; →ISBN) Peter R. Anstey wrotes, on p. 59, that in the French edition of 1700 of Essay IV. iii. 16, the translator, Pierre Coste, translated Boyle’s term “corpuscularian Hypothesis” by “l’hypothese des Philosophes Materialistes” , which is explained in a gloss to mean those “'who explain the effects of nature by the sole consideration of the size, figure and movement of the parts of matter” – thus, similar to the natural philosophy of Democritus, not what now is understood by the term. Perhaps the French term matérialisme was also introduced by the translator. Unfortunately, it is not clear which work is meant by “Essay”. The date 1674 in the etymology section of matérialisme suggests that it is something Boyle originally published in 1674 – but perhaps it refers to another translation that appeared that year. Le Trésor mentions the title “The Excellency and Grounds of the mechanical Hypothesis”, which is according to other sources an annex to “The Excellency of Theology compared with Natural Philosophy”, written in 1665. Indeed, both GBS (No preview) and the French Wikipedia’s article on Robert Boyle give 1674 for “The Excellency of Theology compared with Natural Philosophy” (French title: L’Excellence de la théologie comparée à la philosophie naturelle). Then, in the chapter “Boyle’s Epistemology: The Interaction between Scientific and Religious Knowledge” in the same book, J. J. Macintosh has a section entitled “The argument from the necessary failure of materialism”. The author sketches Boyle’s argument, which is twofold. The description of the first one, which is similar to that of the watchmaker, starts with the words, “Materialism (‘somatism’) relies too much on chance”. This suggests (to me) that the term somatism is Boyle’s for what now is understood by “materialism“. Boyle formulated and embraced the “corpuscularian Hypothesis” for explaining phenomena in the realms of chemistry and physics, but rejected materialism as we understand the term for explaining life and the mind.  --Lambiam 21:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam thank you for that, that's quite an article. :) Perhaps one option is that English materialism was modelled on French matérialiste. Such a direction would also be consistent with the dates given by the dictionaries, though of course they aren't very far apart and there might well be older uses in either language. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I see now that Le Trésor, at the lemma matérialiste, identifies the Essay translated by Conte in which the term appears. It is actually an essay by Locke, not by Boyle (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding). But in other senses the French term is already attested from 1555. In the sense of “someone ascribing all manifestations, also the apparently mental ones, to matter”, it is attested in a manuscript from 1698, preceding Conte’s translation (which does not have that strong sense). In any case, I think the indications that Boyle did not himself coin the term materialism are strong, but it would be nice if we had access to the text of The Excellency of Theology compared with Natural Philosophy and its translation (or at least of L’Excellence de la théologie). The OEtymD gives 1748 as the date of the appearance of the term materialism in English, but “1660s and after in various philosophical and theological senses” for materialist. If materialist was used since the 1660s in various senses (Le Trésor has more precisely 1668), it is only by accident that materialism is not attested earlier. What does the OED say?  --Lambiam 18:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this/ what you're looking for? or perhaps this?/ Chuck Entz (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. No materialism found, but the text has, in good ole plain English: “materialiſts”. The same linked to Google Books: “materialiſts”. This edition is from 1744, but the work dates from 1664 (according to the English Wikipedia) or 1674 (according to the French Wikipedia). The French translation may be the missing link.  --Lambiam 21:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The etymology given at wildernis would seem to imply that the fact that the English and Dutch cognates here appear formationally identical is a coincidence (when contrasted with, say, German Wildnis).

@Rua @Lambiam: Is this probable? Tharthan (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The etymology in the entry is practically identical to the one provided by the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands. Nederlands Etymologisch Woordenboek elaborates on the English term, stating that it presumably wasn't borrowed from continental Germanic, but is related to the noun wilder, wildor with the meaning "game, wild animal(s)" (it is not clarified what stage of English this is, but there's an entry here for Old English). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume that by “German cognate” you (Thartan) mean Wildnis. To complicate the issue, there is also a poetic variant Wildernis, found e.g. in Goethe’s Faust. The Grimms give two more attestations. According to Trübners dictionary this form is found from the 16th to 19th century.
    Tinne van Rompaey has written a detailed account of the diachronic development of several Dutch nominalizing suffixes (“A diachronic account of Dutch -nis, -heid, -dom and -schap”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 129:2 (2013), pp. 87–121. Download PDF). Inasmuch as relevant, the following is a summary. The suffix -(e)nesse, -(e)nisse, originally deverbal and very productive, was generalized in Old Dutch to also being deadjectival. Like most other etymologists, she ascribes the r in Middle Dutch wildernisse to the majority of adjectives used with -nisse ending in -er, as seen e.g. in duysternisse, from Old Dutch thiusternussi. But she also offers an alternative theory (p. 95), viz. that this was influenced by the co-existence of the synonym wildert (“desert”). Van Rompaey calls wildernisse “Late Middle Dutch”, but the Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek states the word is attested as early as 1279. It also ascribes the r to the influence of other words such as donkernesse and deemsternesse.  --Lambiam 12:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If there was a rare poetic variant of Wildnis in German, Wildernis, then doesn't that take away somewhat from the notion that Dutch wildernis solely exists as wildernis because of historical influence from other words ending in -nis (or, rather, older forms of such words in Middle Dutch)?

Or are we arguing that Finsternis led to the form of the poetic German Wildernis? Or perhaps that influence from the Dutch word led to the poetic German term? Tharthan (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not arguing anything about the genesis of German Wildernis, nor am I aware of anyone else having proffered arguments. The German term is attested only some 2 to 3 centuries after the Middle Dutch and English terms, so any outside influence must have worked in the Eastward direction. Goethe may have known the Dutch or English term and found the poetic freedom of borrowing an extra syllable convenient in view of the exigencies of the metre. Look, now, you got me arguing.  --Lambiam 22:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The German might be a borrowing from the Low German Wildernis, which I have just created. The term has been attested since Middle Low German as wildernisse. Leasnam (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

So then where did the MLG German -er come from? An independent but identical epenthesis as seen in MDu? The plot thickens.  --Lambiam 08:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, as in the case of the English word, it may be a -der ("animal, deer") rather than -er. The English word is likely an extension of ME wilderne "wilderness" or from ME wildern "uninhabited, desolate" + -ness, with wildern and wilderne coming from OE wild-dēoren "of wild beasts". If this were also true of Old Saxon and Old Dutch, we could postulate a *wild-diorin/*wildi-diorin from *wild-dior/*wildi-dior ("wild animal") (cp. Old High German wildtior (“wild animal”), tiorīn (“beastly, wild”)), with a similar evolutionary development as in English. Leasnam (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Leasnam note that v. wildern has quite different connotations relevant to border transgression. 109.41.3.154 10:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@109.41.3.154 Thank you, I am aware of that. However I never made mention of any verb wildern. I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't see how this is relevant... Leasnam (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound ignorant, but I wouldn't know how that helped and I couldn't know how much you do know. I do mean to sound indifferent, but hoped it might help. Maybe you can help me out here, "poach" does not seem like an apt translation for e.g. intruding into the king's forrest, or another tribe's hunting grounds for game.

bewilder reinforces my impression that "wildern" has a connotation of danger (my impression only). The allusion to hunting further reminds of an archaic root in Weidmann "hunter", which gives incongruent accounts: once at weiden which shows some polysemy and implies "hunt" were secondary, another at *waiþanjaną, etc. with *waiþō linking, without further explanation, Weide, that does however not link back and maybe has no suitable definition either (I also consulted DWDS/weiden but that didn't help). It is notable that "Weidmannsheil" as a greet is more often heared as "Waldmannsheil", I mean it's said correctly, but it is prone for misunderstanding because Wald (cp. Waldmeister "woodruff, forrest master", Förster) is a much more common word. Whereas Engl, whereas wilder rather derives a convergence with wander. That's a very flimsy connection to draw, and many other words spring to mind (Geweih, unendliche Weiten, Waldemar ~ Vladimir, further Wilkür, wolf ~ ylgr, ... w*), only to suggest that maybe wilderness as a poetic term was indeed quite obscure.

Most of all, it was the -er in wilder that was warranted to level against -der "dear". 109.41.3.8 17:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Why have two etymology sections? PUC – 14:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The rationale for the split etymologies is somewhat understandable in this older revision which introduced the split.  --Lambiam 18:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

How sensible is it to list Norwegian slå under the etymology of the English word slap, unless we intend to suggest that Proto-Germanic *slahaną had consonantally-altered descendants in some daughter languages.

Off of the top of my head, the consonantal alteration seen in a certain German verb borrowed from a Middle Dutch verb meaning "to breed" that is closely related to a certain vulgar English verb of otherwise identical meaning, when compared to its Middle Dutch original, would be pretty similar to such a supposed alteration (although with /k/ → /p/, rather than /x/ → /p/).

But do we have any evidence that slap may somehow be a derivative of Proto-Germanic *slahaną? Or is that perhaps given there for some other reason? Tharthan (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the Etymology, and removed the reference to slå. Leasnam (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(Moved from the WT:Tea room, where I erroneously raised it first)

Several (though not all) of the "etymology" sections in dormir go beyond Latin dormio and cite PIE *drem- (“run, sleep”). However, that entry does not mention "sleep", and all the derivatives it does mention relate to "run".

I haven't a copy of Pokorny to hand: is this simply a mistake? Perhaps two distinct PIE roots conflated? Or is there evidence that the PIE root did have this surprising range of meanings? --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(I should credit that this question was actually raised on Linguistics Stack Exchange by Ergative Man.) --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

According to de Vaan p. 179-180:

" The PIE roots *drem- and *dreH- both have two meanings: 'run' and 'sleep'. The meaning 'sleep' is only found in Latin and Slavic for *drem, in Indic for *dreH, and in Greek for *dr-."

The PIE entry should probably be updated to reflect the meaning of 'sleep,' but the Slavic terms are missing. DJ K-Çel (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For Slavic see *drěmati. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is also *Hnidrā́H in Proto-Indo-Iranian, which gives *niδrā- in Iranian whence Armenian նիրհ, and Sanskrit निद्रा, निद्राति. I assume then that the PII is an evolution of the *dreH reported in the quotation? MGorrone (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Gypsobelum, noun - This etymology is missing or incomplete. Please add to it, or discuss it at the Etymology scriptorium.

Gypsobelum refers to “love darts” of snails. A love dart (also known as a gypsobelum) is a sharp, calcareous or chitinous dart which some hermaphroditic land snails and slugs create. What all the shapes of love darts have in common is their harpoon-like or needle-like ability to pierce.

The word comes from two Greek words.

Gypso -

Gypsum is a soft white or grey mineral consisting of hydrated calcium sulphate. It occurs chiefly in sedimentary deposits and is used to make plaster of Paris and fertilizers, and in the building industry.

The word comes from Greek gupsos (γύψος) meaning plaster.

Belum -

From Ancient Greek βελόνη (belónē, “needle”) meaning needle.

Thanks. Isn't βέλος (bélos, “dart”) a more likely source for the second component?  --Lambiam 07:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That is in fact how John W. Taylor explained it. I suppose he was the coiner. Wikipedia has no article on this eminent malacologist, and he is not even mentioned in the List of malacologists there, but see this obituary: John William Taylor, 1845–1931.  --Lambiam 08:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Over at सृगाल, we find the following Etymology section:

«Several etymologies have been proposed: literally "howling"; or from Proto-Indo-Iranian *śr̩gʰu- (Blažek); or from Proto-Sino-Tibetan *s-k-jwal (“wild canine”).»

Apparently, *śr̩gʰu- means "Blažek". Except, what does that mean? It seems to be a name… proponent of the theory? But the reference is by Michael Witzel, not by a Blažek… is it «Blažek apud Witzel», meaning that Witzel paper cites Blažek's proposal? Then why not refer to a Blažek work? Is that proposal not recorded in writing before the Witzel paper? And in the end, what does *śr̩gʰu- mean? Was it created specifically for the Sanskrit word, or are there other descendants? Which?

Note: Cross-posted from Tea Room after a long time of no replies.

MGorrone (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems the etymology of which you speak has been altered a week or two ago. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Václav Blažek is a historical linguist. Undoubtedly the reference means that Witzel mentions Blažek's proposal.  --Lambiam 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone know if these two words are related, etymologically? (Not too important. Just wondering...) 76.111.168.184 02:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but this is a @Vorziblix question. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s a good thought, but not too likely, as tjt is feminine and its root is only tj-, which leaves us with a single consonant in common. Some distant connection is still possible, but it’s not much to go off. I’ve not found any scholarly sources etymologically linking the two. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

餘皇 (Zuozhuan transcription, Zhengzhang: /*la ɡʷaːŋ/) > 艅艎 (orthographic descendant). Originally, name of the personal vessel of the ancient Kings of Wu (吳).

Has there been a credible reconstruction based on a 吳-越 substrate language candidate?

Is the word for raft in Turkic languages, e.g. Turkish sal, Kazakh сал (sal), related to Old Chinese 槎 (chá) (Zhengzhang: /*zraːl/)?

Moved from the Tea room.

The current etymology of 'շուշտ' - 'Doubtful', 'mistrustful' is listed as unknown. However, I speculate that the word could be related to Georgian word for 'weak' - სუსტი which in turn came from Persian سست (sost).

After all, a weak man doesn't trust... but neither does a strong man. Vxern (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan PUC – 20:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any semantic connexion between "lazy, loose" and "doubtful, mistrustful". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The connection that the strong can expend to trust other people since he cannot be hit by them as hard as a weak men, and that a strong man can trust more in his own power and a strong man is usually someone who trusts in himself because bravery is what lets you obtain power. While a connection is there the a change in meaning from one to the other is rather hard. Fay Freak (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vxern: Etymological discussions should be posted to WT:ES. "Doubtful, mistrustful" is not a good translation. The word means "uncertain, dithering" or similar. Much more common is ան-շուշտ (an-šušt, “certain”). The connection with Persian is attractive and has been proposed before. The semantics are easy buts > š needs an explanation. @Calak, can s ~ š be explained within Iranian? --Vahag (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well we have NW -št vs SW -st in MIr.; compare Parthian rāšt vs MP rāst. However if we derive MP sust form OIr. *θrusta-, then it doesn't yield NW sušt (OIr. *θr- > NW MIr. hr-, SW MIr. s-).

For s ~ š in Iranian languages compare Persian šoš "lung" form MP suš (in fact it is s...š > š...š assimilation).--Calak (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any possibility this word comes from Greek mythology (the Furies)? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No, because they're not called "Furies" in the original Greek, they're the Ἐρῑνῠ́ες (Erīnúes). The English name is descriptive, not borrowed.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The name Furiae for these disagreeable goddesses was already used in Classical Latin, the plural of the common noun furia used as a proper noun. I think English Furies can be seen as a calque of the Latin sobriquet.  --Lambiam 12:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

According to "w:Tamada", the word tamada (“toastmaster”) means "head of the table" in Georgian. Would a Georgian speaker kindly have a look at the etymology in the entry and see if it is all right? Thanks. (Pinging @Atitarev, Dixtosa in case you are able to assist.) — SGconlaw (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What you have there is a folk etymology. See https://twitter.com/thomas_wier/status/1170962679940505600 for the correct etymology. --Vahag (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: thanks! I see. I understand that "Circassian" is not one language but a family of languages. Which Circassian language is tħamada ("old man") from? — SGconlaw (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I have expanded Kabardian тхьэмадэ (tḥɛmadɛ) with references. The borrowings are said to be from "Common Circassian". I don't know if that should be equated with Proto-Circassian. For the sake of convenience, I have dumped the descendants in the Kabardian page. --Vahag (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: OK, great. Thanks again. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the etymologies at virus present the borrowings of the word into all the presented languages as independently from Latin. However, Beijerinck's article from 1898 in which he is said to have coined the modern virological sense was written in German (page 5) and I reckon a prior Dutch intermediary is also possible. So while a direct borrowing from Latin is justified or reasonable for languages in which the archaic sense "venom" can be attested, that seems less the case for languages that only have it in a more modern sense, where German and in quite a few cases probably English and French functioned as intermediaries. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Before the “modern virological sense” was “coined” – it rather developed until virusses could be seen with microscopes around the 1930s – there had been apart from a literal sense “venom” a vague metaphorical sense of something unseen but harmful, also contagion and the like, so you cannot just “attest“ two distinct senses. Why does there need to be an intermediary anyway? A learned man could have looked at multiple languages at the same time and borrowed from all. And if a learned man could do that, even more so it happened in different scientific communties in different countries, like i.e. the Arabic ones. So the Arabic term is from French, from English, from German, from Russian, from Turkish, from Latin directly etc. etc. Fay Freak (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

By “independently from Latin”, do you mean “independent from each other and directly from Latin”? From Beijerinck's text it is clear he treats Virus (like it is in Latin) as a mass noun denoting a “contagious living fluid”, denying a corpuscular character. Apparently he could not imagine corpuscular pathogens smaller than the pores of his filter. Since he does not bother to introduce the term, it is reasonable to assume he thought it was familiar to his audience.  --Lambiam 10:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

In Old English, the form siġe appears to be the regular inheritance of the PG form, which is a z-stem. In PWG, this appears to have been reformed as an i-stem *sigi, which then gives the OE form without issue. If we assume that sigor is a leftover of the original PG oblique stem, then it must reflect PWG *sigiʀ-, which most certainly gives *siġ(e)r- in OE and not the form with the back vowel and no palatalisation that's actually attested. Therefore I wonder if this form is actually borrowed from Old Norse sigr, which has no such palatalisation. The addition of the epenthetic -o- would then be the natural OE choice, as it's the only epenthetic vowel that's allowed after a non-palatal g. —Rua (mew) 08:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Googling yields a suggestion that it forms a pair like dǣg : dōgor, hrēð : hrōðor, sæl : salor etc.; Henry Sweet has some more. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Etymology: From French verb "lisser" = "to smoooth". Hence "lissoir" = "smoother" i.e. an object that smooths.

Thanks. More precisely, borrowed from French lissoir, from lisser + -oir. In French the meaning is any tool used for smoothing a surface, also a contemporary one, and it need not be made of bone but can be any smooth and hard material such as steel or marble, and the term also used for tools to smooth e.g. paper or fabrics. Is the English use really strictly confined to Neanderthal bone tools for smoothing leather?  --Lambiam 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I contest somewhat the etymology as it is presently, as "crown of thorns" in very late Old English was "þornene crune". Moreover, Middle English used "crune" as an alternative form of coroune. It is true that Old English used corōna, but evidently "crune" is not "corōna".

If we can reasonably say that "rock" is partially inherited from Old English because of stānrocc, and can say that "war" is partially inherited from Old English because of its presence very late in it, then I insist that we say the same about "crown".

@Leasnam: What say you? Tharthan (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a legitimate argument could be made that a word entered late Old English as crune (crūne ?) that led to Middle English crune, croune; and that a second, slightly later borrowing (re-borrowing) of the same word from Anglo-Norman resulted in what we find in Middle English as corone, coroun. Leasnam (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And since all of those are considered variations of the same word, and since our etymology section for crown indicates that the modern word is derived from "Middle English coroune, croune, crowne", I'd say that we could say that it is "partially from late Old English crune". Tharthan (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit, but if no one objects by some time tomorrow, I will modify the etymology given at crown to indicate that it was partially inherited from (late) Old English. Tharthan (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It is my opinion the passage "þornene crune" under discussion is Middle English, not Old English; therefore any attempt to say that the word was present in Old English based on it is misguided. Firstly, the MED dates the text to around 1225. This is later than usual dating of the Ormulum, which is definitely Middle English.

Secondly, the text, despite some archaising spellings, displays features which are unmistakably characteristic of Middle English, such as holi gost (OE halig gast), chirche (OE cirice), ich (OE ic), iblescede (OE gebletsode, dat. of gebletsod), loverd (OE hlaford), neiles (OE næglas). Additionally, there's a few French loans evident in the text (sacremens, merci, grace, obedience, seint), none of which are known in OE AFAIK. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

saint merged somewhat with earlier (inherited) sanct, though, as you know. Hence forms such as "senct", "sainct" and "seinct".

Secondly, what of https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/AHA2688.0001.001/1:3.22?rgn=div2;submit=Go;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext ? The exact final "cut off line" for all of Old English is somewhat grey, because it appears to have held on longer in some areas than in others. Hence why a number of years are often cited. You are right that by 1225, it is way too far past the Anglo-Saxon period, but instances of earlier use are fair game. Some overcautious sources simply deeming that anything on or slightly after 1100 is automatically Early Middle English, hardly means that Late Old English wasn't used on or after that year.

Tharthan (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That link is displaying a error for me, but I'm assuming you mean this. The reason why it says "Old English Homilies" is because in the Victorian era, when it was published, the Old English period was sometimes considered to extend well into the 1200s; people called things such as Layamon's Brut and Henry III's 1258 proclamation "Old English". Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The earlier forms of the glyph 更 could be 隸定ed as 㪅, which is an alternative form in the Shuowen. The lower component of 㪅, namely 攴 (pū, “to hit lightly/briefly, '小擊' > to play a percussion instrument”), shows a hand (see 又) holding a mallet or stick reaching to an object — the 丙 component which looks like a bell or some other hollow instrument. A graphic reading of the pictogram 㪅 is thus "ringing a bell (or some other hollow thing); striking the hour (manually)."

As noun, 更 (gēng, “two-hour”) is meant to be struck, as in 打更 or 敲更 (to signal the hour at night).

Has there been verifiable source mentioning a reading for the glyph 更 as striking an instrument? Frigoris (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Between Old Norse vin, Gothic 𐍅𐌹𐌽𐌾𐌰 (winja), Old High German winne and Old Dutch/Frankish *winna, *wenne, is this a good candidate for an entry? Sadly, Kroonen does not cover these terms.

2. Is this from Proto-Indo-European *wenh₁- (“to wish, strive for”)? cf. Pokorny p. 3318, where he at least derives the Gothic word from that root via *ṵeni-s. DJ K-Çel (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Orel has an entry for it, I say go ahead. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Taken together, the entries for -ețe, -ice and -ez (all at least partially cognate) mention two different explanations for the form: derivation from a Latin plural form -itiae or derivation from the Latin fifth-declension variant -itiem instead of the first-declension -itiam. Does anyone know more about this point of etymology? I find the plural etymology a little less believable but I might be wrong.--Urszag (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In general Romance nouns inherited from Latin are derived from the nominative or accusative singular, so indeed a plural etymology would be somewhat surprising. The derivation from -itiem appears to me to explain the Romance forms adequately.  --Lambiam 09:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

An IP asked this on the talk page. It sounded like a good question, so I brought it here.

A look for similar cases turned up a number of terms that had something like -er in Middle English or other source:

• dollar was borrowed from some language after Middle English times- but all the candidates have -er
• tar is from tarr, but that's not explained by Old English teoru

Others that have some sort of possible indirect explanation:

The ones where I included Latin terms were probably part of a crusade that existed at one time to make English as much like Latin as possible.

Etymonline quotes Barnhart: "The form in -ar is probably in imitation of the refashioned forms such as scholar for scoler and pillar for piler". That, of course, doesn't answer why liar got this treatment, and not other agent nouns. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe interference from lier (which came first?)? DTLHS (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Some more terms to consider: priar, feuar / fiar, apocryphiar (blend with liar?), familiar (Middle English familier). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

forebear is another. Although it superficially looks like fore- + bear, it is actually forebe + -ar (i.e. 'fore-be-er'). -ar was used alternatively to -er or -ere in Middle English, so it's not at all out of the ordinary. Leasnam (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Another couple of "doer" words in -ar are beggar (which we say is from beg +‎ -ar, -ar from Latin -āris (“of, pertaining to”)) and registrar (which we say is from from registrum (“register”) + -ārius (“agent”)). I'm not quite clear why the suffix in "beggar" would mean "of, pertaining to", however. Mihia (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mihia: that -ar in beggar is Etymology 3 @ -ar. Leasnam (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops, yes, thanks. Mihia (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The monosyllabic examples with /ɑɹ/ (mar, star, war) represent regular lowering-and-backing of /ɛ/ in Middle English (as reflected also in e.g. the doublets parson / person, varsity / university and the spelling of sergeant). This is probably unrelated to examples that have unstressed /əɹ/ — unless we wanted to speculate on Middle English having had a contrast between unstressed /ɛɹ/ > /ɑɹ/ versus /əɹ/ which would only survive in orthography.

Sugar and vinegar could be a graphical device; suger, vineger could suggest the incorrect pronunciations /sjuːdʒəɹ/, /vɪnədʒəɹ/. There do not seem to be unsegmentable English words ending in -gher, -guer which would be the other two expected ways to force a pronunciation with /g/. --Tropylium (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Presently the entry says:

Created by author Elisabeth Beresford; they originally appeared in a series of children's novels from 1968. Possibly related to the dialectal word womble, or derived from Wimbledon, where they were said to live.

It is easy to find sources saying that this derives from a child's pronunciation of "Wimbledon" as "Wombledon". I can't find any mention elsewhere of the relationship to the dialect word. Is there any evidence for this? Mihia (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless this obituary is made of whole cloth, the origin is solely the mispronunciation by Elisabeth Beresford’s young daughter, Kate.  --Lambiam 15:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC). See also this interview with Kate herself.  --Lambiam 15:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll just delete the reference to the dialect word. Mihia (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

How is the loss of initial /h/ due to Grassmann's law? As the Wikipedia article says, that law states that "if an aspirated consonant is followed by another aspirated consonant in the next syllable, the first one loses the aspiration". That doesn't seem to be the the case here. PUC – 08:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The entry ἁ- (ha-) says this: “The form without the rough breathing is due to Grassmann's law or analogy.” (My emphasis by underlining.) Presumably this loss was then by analogy. Beekes does not discuss the loss of aspiration, but writes “with copulative α < *sm̥” (with a despirited alpha) and reconstructs *ha-g^welp^heh-o-.  --Lambiam 18:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)