Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/February

On Talk:οὐρανός, a user has questioned our etymology and asserted it's not in any of the references which are cited (not for the etymology, which is uncited) at the bottom of the article. I mention it here so it gets seen. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Beekes’ entry for οὐρανός (ouranós) has the following:

As the Aeolic variation ὠρ-, ὀρ- probably stands for geminated ὀρρ-, the basis is likely to have been *(ϝ)ορσανός, accented like ὀρφανός and perhaps an enlargement of a noun *uorsó- = Skt. varṣá- ‘rain’.
Alternatively, like e.g. ὄχανον : ἔχω, ξόανον : ξέω, it has been supposed that οὐρανός, as an agent noun, derives from a verbal root *uers- as seen in Skt. várṣati ‘to rain’; alternatively, that it derives from the iterative ▶︎ οὐρέω, in the way that Indo-Iranian nouns in -ana- are connected with verbs in -ayati (= Gr. -έω); it would then mean “rainmaker” or “moistener, impregnator”. However, the identity of the suffixes Gr. -ανο- and IIr. -ana- can only be accepted under the doubtful assumption of PIE *a. Specht KZ 66 (1939): 199ff., Fraenkel 1955 s.v. viršùs and others interpreted it as “der zur Hohe in Beziehung stehende”, from the root of Skt. varṣman- ‘height’, Lith. viršùs ‘upper, highest seat’, to which Ἔρρος・ ὁ Ζεύς (H.) has also been connected, so from IE *uers-; however, this is not to be preferred, neither semantically nor formally.
The old identification with the theonym Skt. Váruṇa- is certainly wrong; see Mayrhofer EWAia s.v.
It has also been suggested that the word is of foreign, i.e. Pre-Greek, origin (DELG); note that -αν- is difficult to account for if the word represents an old IE formation.

This partly agrees with, but also partly contradicts our current etymology section. I have copied this in extenso in the hope that someone can manage to condense this into something suitable for our etymology section.  --Lambiam 09:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added Beekes as a reference and removed the bits that contradicted Beekes.  --Lambiam 16:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the etymological connotation here?

What is one supposed to be "coming off" of? Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but it evokes in my mind a soapbox one has established and stepped up on in order to advance an opinion or agenda Leasnam (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps "come off your high horse". DCDuring (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That’s how I interpreted it, but Partridge’s Dictionary of Catch Phrases tells us it comes from come off the grass!, said to be originally US idiom, so probably not related to the interdiction of UK college students’ walking on the grass.  --Lambiam 10:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So, hang on... this phrase, that is much more used in the UK than it is anywhere else, derives from an old American phrase (that is no longer used)? That's quite curious, to say the least.

This information definitely belongs in "come off it"'s etymology section.

I'm also wondering if we ought to include an additional "get real!" sense, which is slightly different from the current definition that we give. Tharthan (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also @Lambiam: the phrase "keep off (of) the grass" is seen on signs in the U.S., although it is something that seen mostly in parks. Tharthan (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The longer phrase is, apparently, still in use: , , also in Australia (, ). It is listed in Urban Dictionary – not a reliable source, but they tend to have current slang.  --Lambiam 07:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DARE has come off (imperative, both transitive and intransitive) "Quit! Stop! Cut it out!" with 2 print uses, one print mention, and a mention from one of their interviews, including come off it, from a rural upstate NY informant, elicited in response as a "expression to tell somebody to keep to himself and mind his own business". DCDuring (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Chinese character 印 (seal) seem to be having 又 (hand) and a tool which I can't identify, according to the Oracle bone script.--Alexceltare2 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a tool but a kneeling person, identical to the kneeling person in e.g. 卬 (áng), 邑 (yì), 即. Neither component seems to be phonetic, so I’d guess it’s an ideogrammic compound, but it would be nice to get a scholarly source on this (or at least someone who knows more about Old Chinese than I do). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It's said in 《增訂殷墟書契考釋》(1915) by 羅振玉 that it's a hand suppressing a kneeling person, and that it's the original character for 抑 (yì)(to suppress).--QIU Ao (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take your word for it. Alexceltare2 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a link in the related-term section of Greek χρυσός (chrysós) to Greek Κροίσος (Kroísos) and vice versa. The corresponding ancient Greek entries on the other hand do not mention any such link. Are these terms really etymologically related? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

One should expect that Κροίσος is (a Hellenized version of) a Lydian name. As far as I could see, it has no known etymology.  --Lambiam 11:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Crœsus was known in antiquity as the "golden king". (I believe I learned that in history class a few years back. I think it comes from Herodotus.) Probably wordplay or perhaps a folk etymology. But that's the relationship, as far as I'm aware. 2601:49:C301:D810:CDA9:2DB2:FC11:3267 17:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the idea is that χρυσός (khrusós) came from the name of the king, Κροῖσος (Kroîsos), due to the Lydians being the first to use gold currency? Not sure. Translation by A. D. Godley:

Herodotus 1.6 "Croesus was a Lydian by birth, son of Alyattes, and sovereign of all the nations west of the river Halys, which flows from the south between Syria and Paphlagonia and empties into the sea called Euxine."

Herodotus 1.94 " were the first men whom we know who coined and used gold and silver currency; and they were the first to sell by retail." --Thrasymedes (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary's entry says it is not related to English it. I feel that in unfair/misleading, considering *hiz, *hit, is just PIE *ke ("this") + *is, *id (note the pronominal inflection)

RubixLang (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in the same sense that you are taxonomically related to a goldfish. DCDuring (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that it is not a cognate of id. They aren't a perfect match, no, but they're not utterly unrelated either. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Can this link be made? Zaicz and Tótfalusi don't mention it.

I added the etymology to üsző. Also see Entry #1756 in Uralonet, online Uralic etymological database of the Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics.. Panda10 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The Indo-Iranian etymology for üsző is considered dubious or obsolete in most recent sources, e.g. {{R:trk:WOT}} (and already "problematic" per {{R:Joki 1973}}); Old Hungarian has isew (*isew > *iső) with no sign of initial *w. So the Finnic and Hung. words have nothing in common except *s ~ sz, and per Mordvin ваз (vaz) even this is illusory: the Finnic word comes from earlier *wasa, not **waśa as would be required for the Hungarian connection. --Tropylium (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

While it is a diminutive of Spatz "sparrow", indeed, the lemma in question is about the homonym foodstuff, that is at first sight unlikely to derive from the birds name. —This unsigned comment was added by 109.41.3.188 (talk) at 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

Yes, replace it, anon. Compare German Spatzeck (“tipcat”). You see in the treatise by Plangg that there are many expressive verbs in the dialects wherewith it can be compared. Since in the South one speaks dialects it will be such a term. Fay Freak (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The allusion to sparrow can be found in Pfeifer (1), who dates it C18 and compares Rindsvögel (beef birds, i.e. roulades), to discount a comparison to Batzen, by the way. 109.41.3.188 21:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Compare Italian spirelli, spiral and German Spitze "speyr, apex, cusp, tip", (not Eck "tip", but Spatz, see spit? sputter). Thanks for tip. 109.41.3.188 21:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The entry at like presently has nine different etymology sections for words that in many cases, to my eye, seem closely related. As previously discussed, my feeling is that top-level etymology divisions should be reserved for words that are not closely etymologically related. Slightly different derivation routes for different PoS of what is essentially the same word can be explained under the one etymology section. However, while I can't believe that we need nine sections for "like", I am not sure how many we do need. Some dictionaries give two. What do others think? Perhaps someone more knowledgeable might be able to take a look at this? Mihia (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. a similar situation exists at good. Mihia (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

With regards to like, Etymology sections 1 and 2 should be combined, and Etymologies 3-8 should also be combined. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 15:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done that. Mihia (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

In Upper Reka dialect, the albanians use the word "Bgjer" for "Green".

How can this gheg word be explained by the latin loan "Galbinus".

I think we should revise the etymology of the word "Gjelbër".

Or at least add the dialectal form in Wiktionnary.

) — This unsigned comment was added by 213.55.221.41 (talk).

Is this from Ancient Greek, or modern Greek? ὠμός specifically says modern Greek, but that seems doubtful, as these kinds of things normally derive from Ancient Greek: even if the compound is not attested until modern Greek, it seems more likely that the English word derives from omo- + -phagia from Ancient Greek elements, than that it's a borrowing of the modern Greek word. - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. The compound is attested. Note that classicists say "Greek" to mean "Ancient Greek" (unlike us), so when they or their works wander over here, they are ignorant of our conventions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I've removed the claim of descent from modern Greek (and the supposed modern Greek etymon) from ὠμός#Descendants, since both should be moved to ὠμοφαγία#Descendants instead. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Before I read the entry, I expected omophagia to be the eating of shoulders, compare ὦμος (ômos). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Like Demeter with Pelops’ shoulder at Tantalus’ banquet for the gods.  --Lambiam 12:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing etymology. Дрейгорич (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Дрейгорич:  Done. Please link entries in your requests. —Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. Seems like another case of vandalization. Cant find any source from either the previous edit or the current one. Wondering if this etym could be verified otherwise left as uncertain.

*lawwō according to Kroonen comes from Proto-Indo-European *lowH-éh₂-, root Proto-Indo-European *lewH- (“to cut”). User Gnosandes disagrees, discussion here, and says that it derives from Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂ through Holtzmann's law and Dybo's law. I've disagreed what that derivation on semantic and phonological grounds. PGmc could only come *loh₂wéh₂ if indeed from such root, and it's connection to Proto-Balto-Slavic *lā́ˀwāˀ (“place to sleep, bench, bed”) is too far-fetched semantically. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would a sequence -eh₂- become anything other than -ō- in Proto-Germanic? Can these two sound laws be summarised here so the arguments can be understood better? —Rua (mew) 12:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: according to Kroonen, Dybo's law shortens long pretonic vowels before resonants (page 20/21). Holtzmann's law is to explain the germinated "ww" and "jj" (page 38-40). 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The current etymology says that Romanian iad ("hell") comes from Old Church Slavonic адъ (adŭ). It makes perfect sense, but I'm wondering where the initial i in the Romanian word comes from, especially since none of its Slavic descendants exhibit this development? Is there an intermediary form which should be mentioned? DEX derives it ultimately from Ancient Greek ᾍδης (Hā́idēs) – it would make morphologically more sense if it was directly inherited from Greek, because initial h shows this development in other words. E.g. iederă (< Latin hedera) and ied (< Latin haedus). Any thoughts? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: Probably it was pronounced so because in Proto-Slavic/Old Church Slavonic there should not be any word starting with a vowel, w:History of Proto-Slavic § Prothesis; and this word as a later loanword followed the rules incompletely by analogy and maybe the spelling is learned and the word was more often jotated than it was expressed in writing, a reason for the spelling also being homonymy with the word for poison (ꙗдъ (jadŭ)). You will find that in each Slavic lemmata category there will be but few words starting with a (except Category:Belarusian lemmas because they write akanye). Fay Freak (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Old Church Slavonic initial а- /a/ was, for most words, in free variation between and since the time of the Proto-Slavic prothesis. There was no phonemic distinction between /a/ and /ja/ at the start of a word. (OCS initial ꙗ-, which we transliterate as ja-, contrarily represents phonemic /æ/ with prothetic non-phonemic -; word-internally, too, there was no phonemic distinction between -ꙗ- and -ѣ- (except where ꙗ was used to indicate that a preceding liquid was palatal), and Glagolitic manuscripts of course use Ⱑ for both of them.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand, it makes sense now. Thank you for your input @Fay Freak and @Vorziblix. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the "ta" particle mentioned in the etymology onomatopoeic? Tharthan (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What makes the sound it would purport to imitate?  --Lambiam 08:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue, hence why I am asking. The etymology section does not go into detail about how that particle is used elsewhere (if it is) nor where it came from. I'm assuming that this is (in fact) a particle, and is merely coincidentally a homograph of the second-person feminine singular possessive pronoun, rather than the pronoun itself being used in an unusual way ("your mark, there!" or something).

My assumption, assuming what the etymology says is correct, would be that it is either of onomatopoeic or expressive origin. Hence why I asked. Do you think that it is an expressive coinage? Tharthan (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

BUMP Tharthan (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The etymology is given as "femme" + "-ette". Is the "l" merely the interfix -l-, or does a suffix like -elette (currently listed as Middle French) exist in modern French? - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Digitized Treasury of the French Language, linked to in the entry, says that it originated in Middle French (c. 1365) with the meaning "weak woman" and that it was derived from femmette (from the 13th century) and modelled after/influenced by femelle. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I see. I've revised the etymology to mention that it's inherited from Middle French (but didn't specify a form). I also added the "equivalent to" etymology that fr.Wikt has, although that doesn't necessarily jive with the Treasury ety; feel free to replace it with the Treasury ety. - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help with finding sources on this term. Do the senses "complex, compound" and "ink" have the same etymology? Or, are there any sources that confirm that the "ink"-sense goes back to a corruption of a Persian word, later re-borrowed into it? @Fay Freak: etc. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: The sense “ink” is a Persian restriction of the use of the Arabic word for compound; one finds by searching that it is used in Iran and Afghanistan but not even in the Mughal Empire where one instead used روشنایی or روشنائی (rūšnāʼī) in the sense of ink, a sense it does not have in Iran (where it but means “light”). The Arabic term is حِبْر (ḥibr). Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nişanyan gives Arabic مُرَكَّب (murakkab) as the etymon of Turkish mürekkep (“ink”). (Somehow this gets automagically transliterated in the etymology section of our mürekkep entry as murakkib.) He gives the meaning as “1. compound; 2. in particular writing ink.” There is no mention of any Persian term. The distance between زکاب and مرکب seems a bit large to me for a misspelling. If it can be confirmed that the term also has this more particular meaning in Arabic, the corruption theory can definitively be discarded. I see no signs in this direction, but perhaps this was an archaic use, now obsolete.  --Lambiam 21:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

so, if Persian sense of "ink" has developed from the "compound" sense, can this be sourced and explained? What is the semantic link between these senses? Someone's gotta have written about this at some point. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade How is that different to imagine … inks are compounds. Now I have not been in the business of ink production to explain the details, but there are many ink review and ink antiquary blogs, as there are also pen fanatics, out there which you might follow up about the composition (ehem) of inks. Fay Freak (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Not clear to me. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The semantic link seems obvious enough to me. Making a good ink is a process that consists of making a complex mixture of many components in just the right proportions. See the Wikipedia article Ink. This does not do away with the need for further confirmation. Also, the question remains whether the specialization to the (sub)sense “ink” took already place in Arabic, as suggested by Nişanyan, or only, after having been borrowed, in Persian.  --Lambiam 08:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semantic similarity is prerequisite for convergence. tincture for example could be understood as such, if contrasting mixture, but I'm pretty sure those are not identical, and tinge, taint seems to be the original sense, if the evidence was not tainted.

If you need a contrary opinion, I merely have a murky idea, but synthesis is not the hallmark of this forum, so I cannot help. 109.41.2.22 15:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Phonchana (talk • contribs)/Theo.phonchana (talk • contribs) keeps editing Chihuahua to add the folk etymology that it comes from "Nahuatl Xicuahua". Although this claim can be found in a number of places, it is false because the alleged Nahuatl word is not attested, it does not have the shape of a Nahuatl placename (which require certain suffixes), and there's no way to interpret its components as producing the meaning it's alleged to have ("dry place" or "sandy place"), or any meaning for that matter. (Furthermore, we're not supposed to use the code nah.)

The other theory is that it comes from Tarahumara, although no actual etymon has been proposed. The only evidence for this seems to be that the Tarahumaras live in Chihuahua state, but the state was named after the city, and they do not live near the city.

I would suggest categorizing it as unknown until someone presents some actual evidence. --Lvovmauro (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The entry now says the etymology is unknown, as you suggested. (If the spurious Nahuatl or other etymologies were particularly common in "pop" sources—or if they were ever found in other dictionaries, which does not appear to be the case—then it might be worthwhile to specifically debunk/refute them. I know we do this on some entries, although the only one I can think of at the moment is fuck.) - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The etymology section currently says:

From {{etyl|ML.|en}} summārius, from {{etyl|la|en}} summa.

Lexico and the Online Etymology Dictionary support this for the adjective. I guess we need a separate section for the noun? We do not yet mention the Classical Latin summārium, which is used by Seneca in Letter 39 to Lucilius, c. AD 65 (English translation). The Online Etymology Dictionary claims this as the source of the noun summary. I was wondering, since summārium is classically attested, whether summārius came from summa + -arius directly or whether summa + -arium → summārium → summārius? For summārius, the DMLBS says "CL as sb. n., LL as sb. m. = accountant" (I think "Classical Latin as substantive neuter, Late Latin as substantive masculine = accountant"?). --Thrasymedes (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the ピカチュウ page, and I'm wondering if the etymology's source should be cited? It apparently comes from this interview with Satoshi Tajiri.

But also, many have noted Pikachu's resemblance to the pika, and this is probably not just coincidence. At the very least it probably qualifies as a popular folk etymology (if a word this new can even have a folk etymology!). I mean, it's so widespread that I think most English-speaking fans have probably heard it before. So is it worth noting?

2601:49:C301:D810:CDA9:2DB2:FC11:3267 17:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Our etymology gives the meaning of ピカ as “sparkle”, but in the interview Satoshi Tajiri states that it means “electric spark”. Electricity is part of the Pikachu concept – they amass electricity and they can spark with it. According to main designer Atsuko Nishida, the design was based on a squirrel. The Japanese term for the pika is ナキウサギ (nakiusagi), so the likeness with a pika is probably more a coincidence. Ken Sugimori, who finalized the Pikachu design, drew much of his inspiration from observing animals in aquariums and zoos. Therefore, it seems more likely that any influence went the other way, from the name to the (redesigned) appearance.  --Lambiam 10:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pokemon is evidently influenced by English (pocket monster), and it would be entirely fallacious to insinuate main character names could not be so. @Lambian, strictly speaking: you don't reject pika, but make an even stronger, so precise claim. That is however not fit for inclusion. It still appears to me you had disagreed with including the word in the ety. This is confusing to me. But if there is a common assumption, that regularly warrants mention with careful wording: "Alleged to be inspired by", "Perhaps", or "Expected to be ..." (literally expected by those reading, who commonly believe the allegation, at least once they see the photo under pika), for example. I can understand if one does not care to have such imprecission in the dictionary.

While the topic is on, the word-play could be taken a step further with catch, even catch yoo in Pikachu.

pika is new to me, suppose it is not that well known. That alone would be reason enough to link, for discoverability's sake. It couldn't be named for the character, though, could it? "Not found in modern dictionaries." I am growing paranoid. 109.41.2.226 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't let the similarity in spelling fool you: the Japanese sounds sort of like "peek at you", but the animal sounds like "pike-a". If it were pronounced like the animal, it would be something like "パイカチュウ". Also, having seen a pika in person, I don't see the resemblance. For one thing, the ears are much smaller and rounder in the pika- they don't stick out at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam, re: Tajiri's mention of sparks, it's still covered by the ぴか (pika) root: electric discharge causes a flash of light. We see the same conceptual relatedness in English spark and sparkle.

FWIW, I'm not aware of any Japanese terms that contain the root ぴか (pika) and are specific to electricity. An electric spark in Japanese would be translated as something like 火花 (hibana, literally “fire flower”) in reference to the physical spark as a hot bit of plasma or burning material, 閃光 (senkō, literally “sparkle shine”) to refer to the flash of light from the discharge, or スパーク (supāku) as the borrowed term to lend possible overtones of modernness. Note that Chinese-derived 閃光 (senkō) is written with the 光 kanji, which is also the spelling for native Japanese term 光 (hikari, “light, shining”), and which includes a version of this same ぴか (pika) root. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Now I feel reminded of the Asterix comics. Footnote: Asterix is "usually the star of the story". 109.41.0.188 19:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology: "From a Celtic word meaning 'hill' akin to Proto-Celtic *tol." I'm unaware of any Celtic word for 'hill' that looks like *tol. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This etymology may come from the Toledo entry at the Online Etymology Dictionary. See also John Everett-Heath's The Concise Dictionary of World Place Names, which says the name is "from the Celtic tol 'elevation' or 'rise'."

Tolētum is used by Livy (e.g., 35.7.8 and 35.22.7), who mentions Celtic tribes in the region ("the Vaccaei, the Vettones and the Celtiberi"). In 35.22.8, we have Tolētānīs (of the Toletani), so I guess we also have the plural noun Tolētānī, 2nd declension masculine, for the name of the inhabitants. Perhaps a Celtic origin with the Latin -ētum (place of) suffix might make sense historically? But that does not help us with the word itself.

Toledo is on a hill, so a word for 'hill' would make sense. The Irish tor (Foclóir Gaeilge–Béarla), which has a meaning of tall rock (for which we don't yet have an etymology), might perhaps be related? --Thrasymedes (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Both Irish tor (“tall rock, tower”) and Welsh twr (“heap, pile”) are loanwords from Latin turris (“tower”), so not Proto-Celtic. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thrasymedes:, @Mahagaja: According to Spenser's Welsh, Celtic *tol evolved from an earlier word meaning "hole" or "perforation," making it cognate with Welsh twll (“hole”), Irish toll (“hollow”), the surname O'Toole, etc; also cf. Matasovic p. 393-394 for this root. This possibly connects it to another Latin placename, modern French Toulon, which cites a paper in Spanish describing the word as well. DJ K-Çel (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Djkcel: I can't view the link to Spenser; does he explicitly derive Toletum from this root? —Mahāgaja · talk 17:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

See also Draper's 1919 article "Spenser's Linguistics in "The Present State of Ireland"" (pp. 482–483) for a discussion of tol. --Thrasymedes (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I was trying to link to, in this case on page 123. Spenser doesn't mention Toletum explicitly; the Toletum << *tol comes from Etymonline and Everett, and the rest comes from Spenser and Matasovic. I'd be happy to link to these sources on the entry. DJ K-Çel (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good if we could find the sources Etymonline and Everett-Heath are using to claim that *tol means hill, elevation? I guess Spencer's claim, *tol (“hilly country”), may be one of them. On the other hand, Draper seems to think poorly of Spencer's work: "Spencer's Welsh, on the whole, seems to be pretty thoroughly muddled … the author of The Present State of Ireland knew very little Welsh" (p. 123 / p. 483). Draper says that *tol "regularly signifies a hole or perforation" and the *tullo- (“pierced, perforated”) entry in Matasović's Etymological Dictionary Of Proto-Celtic (2009) discussed above supports this, but neither source seems to support *tol (“hill”). Two relevant quotations from A View of the present State of Ireland (1596) seem to be "the Tooles are called of the old Brytish woord Tol, that is, an hilly Country" and "for Brin in the Britons language signifieth wooddy, and Toll hilly, which names, it semeth, they tooke of the country which they inhabited, which is all very mountaine and wooddy." --Thrasymedes (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You're right, @Thrasymedes:, thanks. That's very helpful. I've updated the entry with the references. DJ K-Çel (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The name (O')Toole is almost certainly unrelated. The Irish form is Ó Tuathail which looks if anything like a derivative of tuath (“tribe; country”). It certainly can't come from anything looking like *tol- or *toll- in Proto-Celtic. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Given við in Old Norse, is it possible that the Old Norse word influenced the sense development of Old English wiþ (and/or its descendants)? Tharthan (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have basically the same set of meanings in Old English and Old Norse. Can you be more explicit in what you see as which Old Norse sense having possibly influenced which Old English sense development?  --Lambiam 09:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. But I was wondering if senses 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, and 2.4 of Old Norse við could have contributed to the shift in focus in the English language cognate from the "against" sense to the current most usual sense. Do you think that there is any more likelihood than not with regard to that? Tharthan (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

avec#French traces Frankish (apud hocque) and lists Norman aveu. with had replaced mid (cognate meta, German mit, perhaps mittels "by use of; with"). An earlier influence than Middle English (i.e. b ~ v, p ~ b, or Celtic mb, m ~ b) thus seems out of the question, and to remote for Norse and Norman, too. But a common initial source, i.e. aveu, for Norse and English might be of interest. 109.41.2.226 20:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)