Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2020/September

@Justinrleung, Frigoris The name for the She people, 畲 (shē) (or 畬), is usually said to derive from 畲 (shē, “to slash and burn (a field)”). While slashing and burning fields was indeed a common agricultural practice of the She people, is it also be possible that the word 畲 (MC syae) is related to Hakka 儕／侪 (sà) (which is possibly from Proto-Tai *ʑaːjᴬ (“man; male”))? RcAlex36 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: Sorry, I wasn't able to find any reliable textual origin of the character 畲 (i.e. the one with 佘 on top). It's not very clear whether the name 畲 started as endonym or exonym, and if the latter, by whom. To make problem much worse, as you noted the character was way too much similar to 畬 (i.e. 余 on top), which is likely a source of confusion in both manuscripts, printed texts, and digitized ones.

The other matter is that the meaning of 畬 (OC *hljaː, *la) was unclear to begin with. In the "classics" it often appeared as one of the triplet 菑 (OC *ʔsrɯ, *ʔsɯː, *ʔsɯː) = 葘, 新 (OC *siŋ), and 畬, dated before 8th century BCE. Yang (1965) wrote extensively about the meanings of the concept-group, and according to him none of these could be safely identified with slash and burn. 畬 likely referred to high-grade, mature land that has been improved by cultivation.

If I'm allowed to make a guess, 畬 (OC *hljaː, *la) could have originally been a 形聲字 with 余 (OC *la) as phonetic-radical for the foreign word, and 田 the semantic radical for the translated meaning, which together transcribed the same loanword now found as prefix in many place-names, i.e. in 餘杭 (OC *la ɡaːŋ), 餘姚 (OC *la lew), 餘干 (OC *la kaːn), and countless others; see the Etymology at 餘杭／余杭 (Yúháng), ไร่ (râi), etc. It would be tricky to try to pin down how it became a demonym and why 畲. --Frigoris (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Frigoris: Thanks a lot for your information. There are actually two groups of She people, but for both groups 畲 (shē) is a Chinese exonym. The first group, which makes up 99% of what we now call 畲族 (Shēzú), speaks a variety of Chinese called 畲話／畲话 (Shēhuà, “Shehua”) that is closely related to Hakka. Members of this group use the endonym 山客 or 山客人. The second group, which currently inhabits the mountains of central Guangdong, speaks a Hmong-Mien language in which their their endonym is ho33 nte42 (活聶). W. South Coblin in his paper "Neo-Hakka, Paleo-Hakka, and Early Southern Highlands Chinese" thinks there is no evidence that suggests the two groups are related, although they are considered to be the same ethnic group by the Chinese government.

The earliest attestation of 畬 as the name of the ethnic group appears to be in 《後村先生大集》 from the Southern Song dynasty, but the sense "to slash and burn" was already recorded in Guangyun, compiled in 1008 in the Northern Song dynasty. RcAlex36 (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: thanks for the info. I checked the Song and Yuan editions of the Guangyun, and both listed 畬 homophonic to 奢 (MC syae) with gloss 燒榛種田. From the literature it appeared in the writing of 元結 in the year 764, 保守城邑，畲種山林. It seems we can indeed confirm that 畬/畲 had a valid reading /*ɕia/ connected to "slash and burn" since the 8th century, and well into the Yuan. Before Tang there was little attestation of the character 畬 at all except in the 菑新畬 triplet. I'm not sure how to take it, just in case the dating of the reading may help you investigate. --Frigoris (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

余 (OC *la)-田 (tián, “field”): Zhuang naz (“paddy field”)? (probably a chronologically inappropriate comparison.) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: We don't have evidence of syllable beginning with l- being used to transcribe a sound beginning with n- in Old Chinese (I think). RcAlex36 (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently we have "A compound of var (“what”) +‎ för", but var doesn't list what as a definition. Is the var entry lacking this meaning, or is there something else? (And likewise for hvorfor and others). Kritixilithos (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is bigger than just Swedish. Look at all the cognates at wherefore: it seems to be common to all Germanic languages to use the word for "where" as a prefix to a preposition to mean "what", and the word for "there" to mean "it". I think we should make entries for prefixes like English where-, Dutch waar-, German wo-, Swedish var-, etc. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Another group of these Germanic locative adverbs serving as prefixes that form pronominal adverbs is formed by the words for here (härför, hierbei). German has both da- (dabei) and archaic/fossilized dar- (darum). Dutch also uses the indeterminate er- (eraan).  --Lambiam 11:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

German uses the form with r before a vowel (worum, worin, worüber) and the form without r before a consonant (womit, wofür, wovor). —Mahāgaja · talk 14:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The German Wiktionary also has darbei, and the form darzu appears in the 18th-century title of a Bach cantata, Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes.  --Lambiam 18:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the r-forms are archaic before a consonant but normal before a vowel. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

where- = "what"; there- = "that"; here- = "this" Leasnam (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

“it seems to be common to all Germanic languages ” — Exactly, and the etymology sections shouldn't imply that the compounds were formed recently; they can be traced back to Proto–(Northwest )Germanic *hwarfuri. Though it's good to note their synchronic segmentabilities as well. 69.120.64.15 13:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology for these three entries. I propose that the etymology of these entries be changed to match the etymology for the English entry for “post-it,” which states that it is “from the 3M trademark Post-it.” Because these entries all come from the same origin, this change creates consistency within Wiktionary’s entries. Further, the etymology of the English entry for “post-it” is more accurate than the etymology for the French entry for “post-it” and the entry for “post-it note.” The etymology for the French entry for “post-it” (which states “Borrowed from English. Genericized trademark”) and the entry for “post-it note” (which states “originally a trademark.”) both suggest that “post-it” / “post-it note” is no longer a trademark of 3M, but instead is a generic term. However, there is no verification for this, as no legal authority has ever held the trademark to be generic. Instead, there are several court and administrative decisions (in the U.S., France, and elsewhere) that have held that 3M owns valid and enforceable rights in the trademark “Post-it” (in other words, that it remains a trademark and is not generic). See 3M Company v. Professional Gallery, Inc., Opposition No. 91173411, 2014 WL 3686877 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 2014) ("The above evidence leaves us in no doubt that POST-IT is a famous mark for sticky notes."). Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1005 (D. Minn. 1998) ("3M owns a valid mark—"Post-it"®. . .The "Post-it"® mark is strong. . .he evidence submitted is sufficient to establish the fame of the "Post-it"® mark"). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Dole (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 1997) ("This record establishes . . .the fame of opposer's POST-IT mark."). 3M Company v. Daval-Frerot (National Institute of Industrial Property, France 2016) (holding the mark “POST-IT” to be a valid and famous trademark). 3M Company (Republic of Turkey Turkish Patent Institute 2009) ("“t has been determined that the “POST-IT” trademark is a “well known” trademark recognized broadly by everyone. . . .”"). 3M Company v. Ahmed, Opposition No.OP000402446 (United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office 2015). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. D. Benito (Superior Court. Contentious, Madrid, Spain 2003). 3M Norway AS v. Note-it AS, Opposition No. 200477 (Norwegian Board of Appeal for the Industrial Property Office 2005). 3M Company v. Xρηστοσ Λϵριδησ, Opposition No. B 002276247 (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (EUIPO) 2015). 3M Company v. Estates Indust. Co., Ltd., Invalidation No. 2013-890061, Control No. 1285551 (Japan Patent Office 2014). Further, the “post-its” entry includes no etymology at all, such that the addition of the etymology “from the 3M trademark Post-it” will improve the substance of the entry. I believe these edits to the etymology for the French entry for “post-it” and the English entries for “post-it note” and “post-its” will improve the accuracy and consistency of these entries, but rather than editing these myself, I am requesting the community’s input. AHBPB (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@AHBPB: I'm not a lawyer, but I believe "genericized" is being used in the linguistic not the legal sense here–the use of "post-it" as a word in English/French is such that even a non-3M brand post-it is called a post-it. Similar to how any soda can be called a "coke" etc. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA:Thanks for commenting. The thought behind my proposed edit is two-fold. First, just like the English entry for “Post-it” reflects, the origin of “post-it” (and therefore, “post-it note,” “post-its” and the French “post-it”) all come “from the 3M trademark Post-it.” The English entry for Post-it already reflects this, so it seems inconsistent for the other entries (which come from the same place) to not reflect this consistent etymology. Further, the legal and linguistic use of “generic” references the same thing – namely, whether or not the term “post-it” has become the generic name by which people reference all sticky notes (not simply 3M branded ones). Given this, the fact that multiple courts (in the U.S. and France) have held that the term “post-it” is not generic (in any sense) suggests that these etymologies, as they currently exist, cannot be verified, and as such, that the suggested revision (which can be verified, and is undoubtedly the origin of these words) would be appropriate.AHBPB (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope, courts of law don't determine how language is used. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically the entry post-it note does not suggest anything about genericization. By origin, originally, it is a trademark, regardless of what it is now. Whereas the word “genericized” just means it has come to denote parts of a genus – sometimes at least, or often enough to be noteworthy, though there be disagreement with such usage. Apart from the fact that no disinterested reasonable reader would assume that the lexicographical usage here refers to any legal standards of any legal system as there are various thereof, with difficult legal effects for differently devised genericization, distinctly aloof the topic of this website. Fay Freak (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: I get your point that “originally a trademark” in the “post-it note” entry does not say anything about genericness (regardless of what definition you give that term). That said, I still think it would be more consistent if the etymology for “post-it note” matched the etymology for “post-it” (which says “from the 3M trademark Post-it”). It seems a bit odd that two related entries, which obviously originate from the same place, would have different etymologies. Additionally, “from the 3M trademark Post-it” is more precise and provides more information to the reader than “originally a trademark.” Any concerns with making that change to the “post-it note” etymology? AHBPB (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone’s assistance with these etymologies. It looks like the only one that is still inconsistent is the French etymology, which states “Borrowed from English post-it. Genericized trademark.” For consistency’s sake, I propose changing the French etymology to “From the 3M trademark Post-it” so that the French and English etymologies for the same word are the same. AHBPB (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Provide linguistic evidence that the French word is directly from the trademark, rather than being from English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Μετάknowledge:Petit Larousse is a respected French dictionary (first published in 1905) that defines “Post-it” as a “(nom déposé).” See https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/Post-it/62931?q=post-it#62226. “Nom déposé” translates to “trade name” or “registered name” in English. This seems to provide the requested linguistic support that the origin of “Post-it” in French is the trademark, and not just borrowed from English. Given this, I think changing the etymology to “From the 3M trademark Post-it” would make sense (from both a consistency and accuracy standpoint). Any concerns with doing so? AHBPB (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

See also postum note. DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Most dictionaries seem not definitely certain that "kid" in the sense of "fool" is the same ety as "kid" in the sense of "young animal/person", which we presently imply. Many have these under separate etys, with the former stated as "perhaps" from the latter, or similar wording. Should we do the same?

2. The only reference I have found to the ety of the sense "A small wooden mess tub in which sailors received their food" says that it is perhaps a variant of "kit". Should we have this one under a separate ety too?

Mihia (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that you may be making a bit of an overstatement by saying that most sources seem "definitely not certain". Some express doubt, but (then again) I have seen some sources express doubt that the word "boy" is of Germanic origin. I saw one that insisted that it was of Ancient Greek origin!

Most sources that I see, if they even express doubt on the matter, at the very least say "probably", not "perhaps". I do see two that use "perhaps". Century Dictionary also says that the verb is probably from the "child" sense.

In terms of derivation, I would have thought that the verb either came from some notion similar to that of "a pig in a poke"/"the cat is out of the bag", or came from the notion of "treating someone as one would a child". However, I notice that in the 18th century there is attestation of "kiddy" (in clear derivation from the commonly known noun) referring to a sort of knavish thief, and also that a verbal kiddy is an old variant of the verbal "kid" we are discussing here (as in "to jest"). Tharthan (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wrote "not definitely certain", which is rather different from "definitely not certain". Mihia (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I misread that line. I had thought that you had said "definitely not certain". Apologies. Tharthan (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Could this have come from English bug? Pugs do kind of resemble them, at least in the face. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would you go to semantics that absurd when the English word pug is right there? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: Definitely should be from pug rather than bug. The aspiration/voicing disparity is a very minor one in case you're wondering. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

An IP just changed it from the ridiculous "From Ancient Greek Κῠδωνία (Kudōnía)", to "From Ancient Greek Χανιά (Khaniá)".

This seems to be just barely correct, as far as it goes: w:Chania says it's a Byzantine Greek transliteration of an Arabic name. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The reported Arabic name is Al Hanim, meaning “the Inn”. Modern Greek has the noun χάνι (kháni), meaning “inn”, which has the plural χάνια, and came via Ottoman Turkish خان (han) from Persian خان (xân, “caravanserai”). This has the Arabic descendant خَان (ḵān). It is not entirely clear how to go from there to hanim. (There is also an Arabic noun هانم (hānum), which however means “lady”.) The new name appears centuries before Ottoman rule. Wikipedia mentions the theory that the Arabic name Al Hanim came from the Greek name Αλχανία (Alchanía) of a village near Kydonia where Zeus used to be worshipped under the local name Velkhanos. When the Arabs took over from the Byzantine Empire, paganism had been exterminated, but it is conceivable that the toponym persisted.  --Lambiam 18:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

squelch's etymology could be improved, but it also doesn't really account for quelch, which Lexico (by Oxford) claims is simply "imitative".

Is this quell + quench fused together, or most probably an entirely imitative formation? Tharthan (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, Quadmix77, Karaeng Matoaya I was unable to find information on the etymology of Korean 한 (han), a word transcribed as 韓 in Hanja meaning "great". It is the same word as the first syllable of 한강 (han'gang, “Han River”) although it is written as 漢江 in Hanja. Clearly, 한 is not of Sinitic origin and is a native Korean word. Is it possible that 한 (han, “great; Korea”) is ultimately related to Old Turkic 𐰴𐰍𐰣 (qǧn¹, “khagan”) and Mongolian ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ (qaɣan, “emperor; khan”)? RcAlex36 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: 한 (han, “great”) is a prenominal form of Middle Korean 하다 (hata, “great”). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Oh, I know nothing about Korean (as you may be able to guess) and was merely reading the wiki page Samhan which suggested a connection, although Vovin (2007) did not actually discuss this. So the name Han (한 (han)) (already recorded as 韓 in 《後漢書》 written in the first half of the 5th century CE) came earlier than the sense "great"? RcAlex36 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the research, but I think it is reasonable so presume that 'great-country' was reinterpreted in Chinese as just 'Han-country' and then modified to produce 'three-Han'. totally separated from Korean grammar. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: For your reference, the Samhan recorded in Houhanshu are 馬韓, 辰韓 and 弁辰 (弁韓 in 三國志). I don't know if the three names reflect the true names of the three tribes. RcAlex36 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

한 (han) in 한강 (Han'gang) means “big” as in 한글 (han'geul), while that in 한국 (Han'guk) is from the Chinese 韓. 韓 doesn’t mean “big”. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought 한국 (han'guk) was a shortening from 대한민국 (daehanmin'guk). Leasnam (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

大韓民國. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

But is it actually related to Chinese 韓? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not known the etymology of grib.I propose to associate grib(mushroom) with a name of the sun.grib having a cover(hat)approximatively round like sun.This sun is gari in Berik(Papua),zero grade *gri+suffix b .Another name of mushroom is gomba in Hungarian and Slavic.In my opinion it is comparable with gubasun in Proto-Bantu(Meeussen).Write mushroom Wiktionary,press Etymology and Translations.(Ion Carstoiu). — This unsigned comment was added by 109.98.164.249 (talk) at 03:22, September 7 (UTC).

Add Latin fungus,which is comparable with pungasun in Ayapathu(Australia)Cf.Greek spongos too ,with p>f.(Ion Carstoiu) — This unsigned comment was added by 109.98.164.249 (talk) at 03:37, September 7 (UTC).

Please sign your contributions by typing four tildes (~~~~). Is your theory that all terms for somewhat roundish things descend from a Proto-World word for “sun”? The evidence appears somewhat lacking, at least to me.  --Lambiam 08:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation on the idea that this derives in part from Old English mēse, mēose ("table"). Tharthan (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I can find a few dictionaries from the 17- and 1800s which seem to assume such a connection, but everything modern says it's (only) from Old or Anglo- French, and Liberman explicitly rejects a connection to mese here. (As an aside, English mese could stand to have citations.) - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Liberman seems to concede that it is possible that the Old English word influenced the Middle English mes, but there is absolutely no way to confirm such a suspicion.

That's hardly enough to justify claiming the Old English word to partially be the origin of the Modern English word, methinks. Tharthan (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Tangential question: What is the etymology of the Old English word? Is it borrowed from Latin mēnsa? If so, and if mess can be considered inherited from mē(o)se, that would make mess a doublet of mesa and mensa, which should be noted in its etymology section. — 69.120.64.15 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Old English mēse, mīse, mēose, mȳse is related to Old High German mias, mies, meas and Gothic 𐌼𐌴𐍃 (mēs), all believed to be borrowed from Vulgar Latin mēsa, from Latin mēnsa (“table”). Leasnam (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Frigoris May I have the first attestation of these compounds in Japanese? These compounds are said to have been coined by foreign missionaries in China. See 和製漢語 (hézhì hànyǔ) and 學科:華製新漢語及中文固有語/非和製漢語 for moredetails. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The respective etymologies of wasei kango are not well understood, even among academics. You will probably need to cite a thorough investigation for each and every term. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• First cited to 1871, per the KDJ entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• First cited to 1862, per the KDJ entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Found in William Lobschied's English and Chinese Dictionary, with Punti and Mandarin Pronunciation, published in 1866-1869. 新華外來詞詞典 claims it's also found in Samuel Wells Williams's An English and Chinese Vocabulary, in the Court Dialect, published in 1844, but I can't seem to find it there. RcAlex36 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• First cited to 827, per the KDJ entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The citation dated 827 was clearly for the "classical" sense. The sense "physics" is a different matter. --Frigoris (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The question posed in the header to this section here was whether the Chinese compound was coined in Japanese. As stated above:

"May I have the first attestation of these compounds in Japanese? These compounds are said to have been coined by foreign missionaries in China."

With a cite date to 827 in a Buddhist context, it is almost certainly a borrowing from Middle Chinese, and has nothing to do with "foreign missionaries in China".

The sense development is a different question. A semantic shift in an existing term by definition cannot be wasei kango, since the compound already existed and thus cannot be wasei ("invented in Japan"). In this case, the sense shift was not that great: the older Buddhist sense might be rendered as "the reason for things, the thus-ness of things", which indeed the discipline of physics seeks to explain. For that matter, the full term for physics in Japanese is 物理学 (butsurigaku), basically "the study of the reason for things", which seems to be derived in a straightforward fashion from the meanings of the constituent parts of the compound. The physics sense for the shorter term 物理 (butsuri) arose as a contraction of 物理学 (butsurigaku).

A more appropriate description might be that the Chinese term's physics sense was "reborrowed" -- which, indeed, was the etymology given in 2017 by Daniel Carrero. The very next edit was this one by an anon, who changed that to wasei kango. I believe that's where the error was introduced. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the "old" sense in Chinese originally had nothing to do with Buddhism. It was simply SOP. The etymology for any sense pertaining to Buddhism in particular might have been {{semantic loan}} from an Indic language. For the reborrowed sense physics I think it is fine to list it under an Etymology heading with a sense-subheading (e.g. ; '''physics''') using {{wasei kango}}; the template automatically add the term to a category that includes reborrowed terms. --Frigoris (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Good to know re: the non-Buddhist nature of the term's original sense in Chinese. I suspected as much as it's a pretty straightforward composition of the meanings of the individual characters. I didn't mean to imply that the Chinese term itself was Buddhist, simply that the Japanese term was; I hope that was clear.

Regarding the {{wasei kango}} template, I continue to feel that this is inappropriate. The term existed in Chinese prior to any usage in Japanese, so by definition the term is not wasei. I'm also very concerned that the {{wasei kango}} template automatically adds a "reborrowed" category, as terms that are actually {{wasei kango}} by definition would not have existed in Chinese prior to their coinage in Japanese. These thus cannot be reborrowings, and can only be borrowings. I think there's been some considerable confusion here at the EN WT about what the label wasei kango means. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

大辞林 says it's coined in English and Chinese Dictionary, with Punti and Mandarin Pronunciation (1866-1869). See Insurance in the volume 3 of that dictionary. @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Eirikr I guess we can close this RFV-etymology. RcAlex36 (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• The KDJ entry cites the term in Japanese to 1879, FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

精選版 日本国語大辞典 :

(1)アメリカの物理学書の漢訳「格物入門」（一八六八）や「英華字典」（一八六六‐六九）で用いられて日本に入り、明治初期に定着した。
(2)明治三年（一八七〇）一月二六日に東京・横浜間の電報が開通したが、「電報」のほかに「電信」「伝信」とも呼ばれた。

 (1) Used in the Chinese translation of the American physics book 格物入門 (1868) and in 英華字典 (1866-89), it entered Japan and became set in the Meiji period.
(2) A telegraph was established between Tokyo and Yokohama in Meiji 3 (1860) January 26; besides ']', it was also called ']' and ']'.

—Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

We have the native Old English "seize" verb in one ety section, and the Old-French-derived noun for a "tool with hooks" in another. However, we also have several noun-related verb senses: "to fasten, as with a grapple" and "to use a grapple" are currently under ety 1 together with the native "seize" verb, while "to climb" is under ety 2 as being related to the noun, even though I can find many instances where it refers to climbing by seizing branches, rocks, etc without the use of a hook-tool, in addition to instances where it does refer to climbing via a hook-tool. So, the division seems arbitrary. Should the "fasten as with a grapple" and "use a grapple" senses be moved under the noun's ety section? Or should all those be moved info a third ety section that says something like "by extension from the noun and the existing verb"? I've normally avoided doing that, but am not sure what to do here. (I also just added a verb "to raise by means of a grapple", and a citation where "three ropes that had been grappled up the shaft", which I wasn't sure where to put.) - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

For now, I moved all the hook-tool-related verb senses under ety 2. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I notice the verb is only theoretically native, but isn't actually attested in Middle or Old English. How can we be sure a Middle English verb existed, then, as opposed to all the verb senses (including the sense "seize") being derived from the noun and the idea of seizing things with grappling hooks? Merriam-Webster derives both the noun and the verb from the Old French noun, and explicitly makes the semantic connection, defining the "seize" sense as "seize with or as if with a grapple"; Lexico does likewise. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Dutch grabbelen exists, though. As does regional German grabbeln. And the known existence of ġegræppian makes a *græpplian far from impossible.

Even more importantly, grabble exists in Modern English. Tharthan (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet another issue: the noun sense “a close hand-to-hand struggle” is listed under Etymology 2, while the verb sense “to wrestle or tussle” is listed under Etymology 1. My money is on this noun sense being from the verb. I think grapple and tussle are synonyms.  --Lambiam 16:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I've moved that sense up. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the etymology of this term? I think that a full explanation could be really helpful to people who use the incorrect 'alot' spelling in their writing alot. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

My wild guess is that "a lot" originally referred to a literal lot (unit of acreage) and gradually became a metaphor. For instance:
A: How many couches do you have?
B: I have a whole lot full of them.
Later
C: How many couches does B have?
A: A lot full of them!
C: That sounds like a lot of couches! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I would remove the etymology section (and the RFE tag with it), because multiword terms where the head links to the words individually (see under the sub-heading Pronoun: a lot) do not usually require an etymology, as that etymology is self-explanatory (in this case it would just look like: a +‎ lot). A lot commonly refers to a large quantity, and that sense of lot must predate the usage of a lot as a set phrase. The etymology is just as transparent as some other synonymous expressions like a great deal or loads ; the only difference is that those expressions didn't become nearly as popular as a lot and so aren't fixed, grammaticalized phrases. If what you want is a history of how it came to be a popular expression, that's a valid thing to ask for, but unfortunately I don't expect you'll find anything more than some vacuous citations of its earliest known attestations. — 69.120.64.15 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Beyond the question of transparency of meaning, is there a historical period of earliest known usage for this term? Is this an Anglo-Saxon term, or when did this concept come about? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding dismissive or pessimistic, I seriously doubt that there has been any study on how the semantic development of lot coincides with its co-occurrence with a; dictionaries tend to focus on "individual words", and a lot has not been considered a single word until very recent times. Concerning its Anglo-Saxon origins: that part is irrelevant, because the expression was formed in Modern English, i.e. within the last 600 years or so, and the further etymologies should be left for the pages a and lot. — 69.120.64.15 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely understand you. What I'm trying to say is that we ought to have a scientific attitude toward all components of English, even the lowly and barbaric elements of the language like this one. We ought to ask ourselves: where did this come from? When did English start using this phraseology (according to the scholars of linguistics)? Would Chaucer have understood this phrase? Would Shakespeare? I think the key to helping people today avoid the spelling 'alot' could easily be found in a short narrative which could possibly be derived from an academically informed view of the origin of the phrase in this language. (In Chinese characters, short stories based on false etymologies endlessly plague the Chinese languages and their users, but those stories actually do sometimes have significant value in helping people remember the form of the characters.) I am very proud to ask this question, despite the fact it seems like a banal or low-level issue, because I think a lot of children could get a great benefit from our work if we lift a finger to give a rational explanation for the origin of this term that then spreads into the educational system via short stories from teachers. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at, and this is getting very sidetracked. Yes, we ought to care as much about set phrases as words, and there's no reason call the former "lowly" or "barbaric", but I don't understand what your argument is. What do you suggest we do exactly? My point was that academic sources and dictionaries probably won't give any explanation that goes deeper than that the etymology is "a + lot", if even that. And in my personal opinion, that's sufficient and self-explanatory; the semantic information after all is entirely about the word lot. But please feel free to search for something more informative!
Also, the point of etymological information on Wiktionary isn't to provide prescriptivism; that information goes under a "Usage notes" section when necessary. But simply stating that alot is nonstandard is sufficient to express it in this case. — 69.120.64.15 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it'll help to think about it this way: Someone who understands the word lot to mean "any large number or amount (of something)" will necessarily have no problem understanding the phrase a lot, in the same way that they would understand the lot or lots. So the question of whether it would have been understood by Shakespeare or any arbitrary English speaker in the distant past is a question of the historical semantics of the word lot and is completely independent of the status of a lot as a set phrase nowadays. A more relevant question is whether Shakespeare etc. would have actually used a lot as a set phrase. Keep in mind that if it were not a set phrase, it wouldn't have reason to be an entry on Wiktionary. — 69.120.64.15 20:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Geographyinitiative, I don't agree that we ought to approach elements of English from an "analyse under a microscope" perspective. That's not what normal human beings do, and thus it will produce an inaccurate (or, at the very least, incomplete) understanding of things with regard to certain things about the language.

You have to remember that the people speaking a language, and those who continue its existence, are not übergeeks, generally. They are normal people who are using the language for communication, for artistic purposes, etc. It's not something that follows an entirely predictable formula to a T. That is why we cannot reconstruct the precise Proto-Indo-European root of words such as flea. Many elements of language do change in predictable ways, but if you approach anything and everything about English from an "analyse under a microscope" perspective, you are going to get an incomplete picture, and not the full truth.

Also, if you think that giving a PowerPoint presentation on the history of "a lot" will convince youths to not misspell it, you'll be sorely disappointed. Many people, perhaps most, don't care that much about etymology, or even the history of phrases. They are far more concerned about what is most convenient for them, and I am sure that they would say that using a one space shorter, misspelled version of a lot, would be more convenient. After all, why do you think people insist on spelling though as tho (which has been an annoying intentional habit of some people for hundreds of years) or even thou? Or some similarly insisting on indiscriminately using thru for all cases of through.

They don't care about etymology, nor of accuracy in spelling. They care about convenience. That's it. Tharthan (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot is pretty new, having appeared in the 19th century if I remember correctly. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What's the ending -erole that the etymology cites? — 69.120.64.15 18:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The etymology here is in tension with Trésor de la langue française informatisé, which says it was inherited from Middle French: "1583 casserolle « ustensile de cuisine » (Inv. d'Anne de Nicolay, Nº62 ds Gay)". But it does not say where the word of 1583 came from. I will make an appropriate change without removing the mention of an ending -erole. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I should have read to the end of the etymology section before posting. "Dér. du rad. de casse4* « récipient »; suff. -erol(l)e (-ole*)" is the source of the etymology section. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Other references I looked at, when they discuss the ending at all, also say it was ultimately the diminutive (-ole). Is -(e)rol(l)e, in one or more spellings, a variant (or derivative) of that suffix? (And/or where is the r from?) Cassoulet seems to be a relative, btw (perhaps showing another diminutive suffix?). - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassole seems to be this first element + suffix without the intrusive r. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ooh that's a clever observation! — 69.120.64.15 20:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the entries on cassola, could this go all the way back to Vulgar Latin? It wouldn't explain the problem of the intrusive -(e)r- in French, or the double-⟨l⟩ variant, but at least it provides a basis for the etymology. (Or are they all borrowed from some common early Medieval source?) — 69.120.64.15 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

See https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/casse/3. From Medieval Latin cattia (that from Ancient Greek κυάθιον, diminutive of κύαθος (kúathos, “ladle”)) influenced by Provneçal cassa (large spoon). This is a sense of the French casse we don't have yet. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/-ole: "Le suff. -ole/-olle peut s'élargir parfois en -iole (absidiole, artériole) ou en -erol(l)e (casserole, féverol(l)e, flammerole, lignerolle, profiterole), avec, dans ce dernier cas, possibilité ou non du redoublement de l finale." That's all I know. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Aha, the other examples there help with researching this. My first thought was that the (e)r could be there simply to break up a sequence of two vowels, something French also uses -l- for in some cases (like togo + -ais becoming togolais); this would not explain e.g. profiterole, but our and fr.Wikt's entries on it say it is from profiter + -ole, with the er part of the first element, not the suffix as that link suggests. Kristoffer Nyrop's Grammaire historique de la langue française (volume 3, page 184), although it's more than a century old (1908!), makes an argument we should be able to test: that in many words, the r comes is not part of the suffix but is either part of the first element or part of a word borrowed "whole" from another language: "erole (ou erolle) est tiré de mots comme vfr. bannerole (dér. de bannière), vfr. faverole (dér. de fabaria), fougerolle (de fougère), primerole (primariolus), barquerolle (vén. barcaruola), casserole (it. cazzaruola), muserole (it. museruola). On a rapproché bannerole de ban, faverole de fave (fève), primerole de prime, barquerolle de barque, casserole de casse, etc., d'où est né le nouveau suffixe -erole, forme allongée de -ole. Ce suffixe, très peu productif, existe dèes la fin du moyen âge et s'emploie dans: bequerolle (de bec); bouterolle (de bouter); caterole (de se catir); — èverole dér. de eve, eau; flammerolle (de flamme); lignerole (de ligne); moucherole (de mouche); rousserolle, fauvette (de roux)." (Another word that ends in erole, banderole, though semantically connected to bande, was apparently borrowed from Italian banderuola where the suffix is ultimately cognate to -ière.) OTOH, casseron appears to be formed using the same root and a different diminutive suffix -on, but again that intrusive er. I'll poke around, especially in more modern sources, later. - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a 1969 article in Romance Philology, volume 23, page 298, which says:

-erole ← -er- (< -ÅR) + -ole ( < -EOLU): maierole. A lengthened var. of -ole, this suffix appears in the late Middle Ages, formed through “false division”, namely the secondary rapprochement of, say, bannerole (banniere + -ole) or casserole with ban- or cass-. Is the -er- intercalated for rhythmic or differentiatory purposes? This "interfix" conveys no semantic message: It simply serves as an occasionally handy grammatical tool.

Thomas S. Thomov, Morphologie du français moderne (1960), page 28, derives -erole from -er + -ole, and -eron (as would explain casseron?) from -ier + -on. Fr.Wikt also gives + -er + -ole in the etymologies of several -erole words, and while I was initially sceptical as none of the senses they had at -er leapt out as making sense here, maybe there is some suffix -er which does make sense here.

- -sche (discuss) 04:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we define a French interfix -er-? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure that out — whether it's more correct to speak of an interfix -er- (or a suffix -er with a different meaning than the ones we currently cover), or only of suffixes like -erole and -eron, or neither (if examples are all cases where er actually comes from the first element, the etymon in another language, or infrequent analogy with such cases). (Clearly, some sources speak of -erole and -eron as suffixes, but they seem (per Thomov, etc) to be compound suffixes, so the er is still to be explained.) I'm glad the IP brought this up, this is a fascinating rabbit hole. One thing I'm now looking for: does er occur before other (diminutive, etc) suffixes / elsewhere? - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I continue to be frustrated that many sources discussing this are quite old, but for the value of its (researchable) examples if nothing else, Auguste Brachet, Paget Jackson Toynbee, A Historical Grammar of the French Language (1896), page 290, discusses "the derivatives -er-eau, -er-elle, -ot-eau, as in:—poét-er-eau, tomb-er-eau, pass-er-elle, saut-er-elle, diabl-ot-eau, &c.", page 291 discusses "the intercalation of -er- band-er-ole, cass-er-ole, lis-er-olle, mouch-er-olle, &c.", and page 292, discussing -eur, says "the earlier form of the feminine was in -eresse, from -er- and -esse (-issa) e.g. dans-eresse, ment-eresse, veng-eresse, which survives in a few instances, e.g. bail-eresse, chass-eresse, demand-eresse, enchant-eresse, péch-eresse, veng-eresse, &c.", and page 294, discusses the use of -on, "and with the intercalation of -er-, -ich-, -ill-, diminutives, such as:—ail-er-on, mouch-er-on, puc-er-on; ber-ich-on, carp-ill-on, &c." (I may start a list of words which contain this sequence at User:-sche/-er-.) - -sche (discuss) 00:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, after plenty of digging, I created an entry for -er- and entries for -erole and -eron. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@-sche: Nice work! I really appreciate it. — 69.120.64.15 06:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Eirikr, A-cai, Frigoris RFV of the etymology. This compound was not attested in Chinese before 1926, and was borrowed from Japanese, according to 新華外來詞詞典 (2019). RcAlex36 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty, 《溪漲》, in 《古穰集》

連朝疏雨過溪漲欲臨軒濤響激松石波流入草原潺潺欹樹拔滾滾落花翻古渡逰人隔時時看水痕

Qing Dynasty, 《全史宮詞》

《灤京雜詠注》載，馬湩，馬奶子也。每年八月，開「馬奶子宴」，始奏起程。《楊鐵崖宮詞》云：「天上鴐鵝先有信。」每歲，鴐鵝鳥先回草原。

Qing Dynasty, 《搗玉台》

弄了一個時辰許，款款輕輕，淺送輕提，如駿馬悠悠走草原，又似頭絲瓜隨風轉，漸漸滑落至花心，頓頓挫挫複扭扭，一時春光不等閒，秋花已入佳境，花飛王洞。

第十九回　異域女別有情致　草原上酣戰正濃

Qing Dynasty, 《枕瑤釵》

見那黑漆漆一片，如那莽莽草原一般。

It is notable that An English and Chinese Vocabulary in Court Dialect (1844), English and Chinese Dictionary (1847-1848), English and Chinese Dictionary, with Punti and Mandarin Pronunciation (1866-1869) and Vocabulary and Handbook of the Chinese Language (1872) do not contain the compound 草原. In particular, English and Chinese Dictionary, with Punti and Mandarin Pronunciation (1866-1869) has 牧地, 草地, 草場 and 苑 for "meadow", 廣草埔 for "prairie" and 草埔 for "savanna". Meanwhile, Vocabulary and Handbook of the Chinese Language (1872) has 草埔, 荒蕪之地 and 荒野 for "prairie" (volume 1), 平野 for "prairie" (volume 2), 草坡, 草地 and 牧場 for "meadow" (volume 1), 草坡 for "meadow" (volume 2) and 土坡 for "grass-plat or meadow" (volume 1).

In Japanese, 草原 is first cited to 1871 per the KDJ entry. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: (Pinging retroactively doesn't work, so pinging @Eirikr, Frigoris again. A-cai isn't that active these days.) Given those cites above, either 草原 doesn't mean what it means now, or else it'd be proof against borrowing from Japanese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36, Eirikr, Justinrleung: In the Samguk yusa, written in Classical Chinese around the 13th century in ancient Korea, there was a poem that read

草原縱獵床頭臥 / 酒肆狂歌井底眠 // 隻履浮空何處去 / 一雙珍重火中蓮 — link.

It is clear that the meaning there matches the current semantics. --Frigoris (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• @RcAlex36, Justinrleung, Frigoris: Here's what I'm finding.

• This grapheme is first cited in Japanese to the late Muromachi period (1336–1573) as the spelling for term 草原(くさはら) (kusahara) (likely realized at the time more like kusafara), as a simple compound of Japonic terms 草(くさ) (kusa, “grass”) + 原(はら) (hara, “field; plain”).
• The term 草原(そうげん) (sōgen) of similar meaning but Middle Chinese-derived reading is first cited to 1871.

The shift to a Sinitic reading isn't that unusual, and may be in keeping with the use of Sinitic terms to indicate a more formal register than Japonic synonyms (vaguely similar to the difference in register in English between Latinate and Germanic synonyms). This shift sometimes happened in Japanese based on the expected Sinitic readings of the individual characters, rather than any derivation from a long-ago borrowing in toto from Middle Chinese. I suspect the sōgen reading for 草原 arose in this fashion.

Time allowing, I'll update the Japanese 草原 entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: Sourced from the KDJ entry at Kotobank. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Despite this I really don't think some Ming or Qing poet would borrow くさはら or そうげん from Japanese then. It is more plausible the Chinese and Japanese terms are coined independently. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001: No argument there. For that matter, the Ming / Qing usage may have influenced the shift in reading in Japanese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• @RcAlex36 I'm failing to find reliable copies of 枕瑤釵 and 搗玉台 outside of ctext (probably because of its erotic nature?). How are we sure they're written in the Qing dynasty? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible for these to have the same etymology as https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/skr%C3%A1#Old_Norse ? --Espoo (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. It would require changes due to folk etymology, and semantically there's nothing dried or withered about a squirrel. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Old Norse skrá has an Indo-European origin. Beekes thinks σκίουρος (skíouros) has a pre-Greek origin, which means non-Indo-European. He also think the -ουρος part is a suffix, which means the ⟨r⟩ is not part of the root.  --Lambiam 11:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Frigoris: This word is in the yangping tone in the Xi'an dialect. A person on Zhihu proposes it is a borrowing from Persian سر (“head”). I guess this makes sense, given Xi'an has a significant Hui population. What are your thoughts? Is there any material that discusses the etymology of this word? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: Do you have a link to the Zhihu? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It's this post. RcAlex36 (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

An extremely widespread family of wanderwords with its root in φαντασία (phantasía). But the details are complicated, and it's unclear which are from the Latin version, which if any (other than the Latin) are directly from Ancient Greek, and which are from Old French, Italian, or another medieval source. I'm not sufficiently familiar with etymological sources for all the various languages that this concerns, so any help providing etymologies would be appreciated, especially for fantasi and фантазия. — 69.120.64.15 16:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Also: Based on semantics, some appear to be from more than one source, i.e. the musical sense (English fantasia), which is linked to Italian, being conflated with the sense(s) of "fantasy". — 69.120.64.15 16:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems that this duality of meanings can be linked to French, which presumably incorporated Italian fantasia only as a semantic calque. — 69.120.64.15 17:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. Says comes from Proto-Germanic *grīmô (“mask”) (via Gothic), however I think connection to Proto-Germanic *grimmaz (“fierce, cruel, terrible”) seems equally likely (?). Leasnam (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV for the etymology of this. The article attests that “folk etymology” says it comes from a portmanteau of “female” and “hemorrhoid.” From what I have seen it’s instead likely a portmanteau of “female, “android” and/or “humanoid,” implying the less-than-humanity of the subject.— This unsigned comment was added by 67.141.61.119 (talk).

• Some guy who writes about incel slang agrees, and the hemorrhoid explanation seems very unlikely in comparison. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV for the wasei kango etym in all entries in Category:Wasei kango which do not cite references individually evaluating the attestation of the terms in question. As shown above in #草原, generic references such as Xinhua Wailaici Cidian are not reliable etymological references in this regard. 49.195.114.249 06:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(Notifying Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly): Hi all. An IP is mass-removing Wasei kango etymologies, linking this topic in the edit summary. Drawing your attention to this. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atitarev The IP is Wyang, who is also running his bot to remove the rest of them. I don’t think it’s an appropriate move to remove all of them wholesale. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 11:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Thank you. I had the suspicion but brushed it off when finding out that Wyang was the one who actually added many Wasei kango etymologies in the first place, as per Talk:電話. I agree, many of these would be valid, reverting may be the right first step as you suggested. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been 35 days since and no one has said anything substantial. Is anyone actually willing to provide evidence of works that discuss the earliest attestations in Chinese and Japanese? Anyone? Or is everyone willing to accept an abundance of shoddy, secondary etymologies like 草原 above being left on entries and misguiding readers? 49.180.102.209 23:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@49.180.102.209: The fact that no one has responded does not give you the go-ahead to remove every etymology in the category. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Again a comment without substantiality. The rfv-etym has already failed and yet you are disputing the legitimacy of the rfv-etym? Are you going to provide any references that individually discuss the attestations, or? 49.180.102.209 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@49.180.102.209: Well, verifying etymologies is a good thing indeed but it takes time. I know hearing "we are volunteers! blah blah blah..." is annoying but this is how Wiktionary works de facto. Adding {{rfv-etym}} first is definitely a better way to do this than removing them all abruptly. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏, see above at #物理 -- I think, and probably this anon does too, that "wasei kango" has been misunderstood and misused for years. In at least a few cases, as at #草原, the template was arguably misapplied by an anonymous user in a way that also removed older and arguably more-correct content. In these cases at least, I view the above 49.xx.xx.xx anon as doing cleanup work that doesn't require any rfv. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

English has bracken for a type of fern. Swedish has bräken and Danish has bregne. Old Swedish and Middle Danish have identically spelled brækne. So it appears likely that the eastern branch of Old Norse also had brækne. Icelandic is different, burkni, although it could be cognate. Are the Old Norse ancestors of these words known or reconstructed? The Danish definition gives Proto-Germanic *brak- (“bushes, undergrowth”) as an ancestor, but what happened in between? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Why EN:hidrosis is with "i" and not with "y"?? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 11:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sobreira: Because it's from Ancient Greek ἱδρώς (hidrṓs, “sweat”), not ὕδωρ (húdōr, “water”). Despite superficial similarity and semantic closeness, the two words are etymologically unrelated. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Thanks, magnus Gaja. User_talk:Sobreira

RFV of the etymology: which senses are borrowed from Japanese? --沈澄心✉ 12:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The “nature” as opposed to humans. The original sense is “naturally”. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

ち from Middle Chinese? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd always learned the ち (chi) reading as native to Japonic. The Middle Chinese is /t͡sʰen/, from which I don't think a chi reading would naturally evolve. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology: From Middle Chinese 千 (MC t͡sʰen, “thousand”). -- Huhu9001 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Huhu9001, there are two etymology sections at 千#Japanese. One derives modern reading sen from Middle Chinese /t͡sʰen/. The other derives modern reading chi from Old Japanese. Neither section includes any RFV notice.

To confirm -- you're asking for verification that modern Japanese on'yomi sen for 千 derives from Middle Chinese 千 (MC tshen)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: User:Poketalker has removed the {{rfv-etym}} template from the etymology for reading chi. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd missed that. @Huhu9001, looking at the older version of the page, I understand now your concerns. Does @Poketalker's substantial reworking yesterday address your concerns? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Yes. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Dutch adverb vast, meaning “surely”, is listed under a separate Etymology 2 (which is missing) from the adjective, whose etymology is given as, “From Middle Dutch vast, from Old Dutch fast, from Proto-Germanic *fastuz.” Is there any reason to think the adverb might have a different etymology?  --Lambiam 07:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, adverbial use of adjectives is as you know very common in Dutch, and this is a clear case. I have removed the etymology 2 header. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Although, diachronically it may have a morphologically slightly different earlier form which may merit a different etymology section, or simply a special mention in the Etymology 1 section; Middle Dutch has vaste which is cognate with OHG fasto, which still clearly shows the adverbial suffix *-ô. Perhaps a common West-Germanic origin can be traced for the adverb vast and OHG fasto. Again, not sure if it really warrants a separate etymology section at this point though (English fast doesn't have a separate ety for the adverb either}}). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Kurdish kesp is closer to persian کسب in meaning but are they both loans from arabic كسب? Could anybody help me with reaching the correct sources for these? --Balyozxane (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Persian کسب lists Northern Kurdish kesp as a descendent. Where did you see it stated that the latter is a (direct) loan from Arabic?  --Lambiam 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you check the article history , you will see that the etimology of Persian term was blank as well as the descendants and that's exactly why i asked that question here. --Balyozxane (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV for the etymology. Not in the source given. — 69.120.64.15 06:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously related to the vocative ending, but not to the verb ending. Perhaps I should just move that etymology to that section and put a RFE for Etymology 1. — 69.120.64.15 06:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked at this and removed the erroneous etymology written there by now. HeliosX (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this spelling influenced by Cartman from South Park?__Gamren (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gamren: I don’t think television series – unless they are dedicated education programs – have chances to influence spellings, or are there examples for that? Additionally, South Park debuted in 1997 while there is a quote from 1990. Fay Freak (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to believe that most of our Cebuano terms supposedly borrowed from English are actually borrowed from Spanish? See inspirasyon, which lists an English source for Cebuano and a Spanish source for Tagalog. Unfortunately, I think both the English and Spanish pronunciations would be adapted into this spelling. I've had to correct many instances of the English being too obscure to borrow, or e.g. using g pronounced /h/, obviously Spanish. If I could just find a Cebuano dictionary from before 1898, I could rule out English... Ultimateria (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Etymology given as bo (“live”) + vete (“wheat”), which seems fine synchronically, but virtually all other Germanic languages call buckwheat by a name corresponding to beech + wheat. Was the Swedish word perhaps originally bokvete and then modified by folk etymology? And as for the synchronic analysis of the modern word, isn't one of the noun meanings of bo (“nest, home”) more likely than the verb meaning “to live (somewhere), to dwell”? —Mahāgaja · talk 15:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

SAOB says

liksom boghvede (o. kanske förmedladt af detta) af mnt. bokwete, af bok, bokollon, o. wete, hvete; jfr holl. boekweit (hvaraf sannol. eng. buckwheat), t. buchweizen, äfvensom nylat. fagopyrum, af lat. fagus, bok, o. gr. πυρός, hvete. ...

We do not have Danish boghvede yet. According to ordnet.dk, it comes from Middle Low German bokwete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like the Swedish is a half-borrowing/half-calque from the Danish (because k > g > ∅ is a Danish phonological change, not a Swedish one), but the Danish looks like a calque from MLG. Sort of the way the English word is a half-borrowing/half-calque of Dutch boekweit (we borrowed boek phonologically as buck rather than calquing it as beech or book, but calqued weit as wheat). (And very cute is Welsh gwethin gwenith yr hydd (literally “wheat of the stag”), clearly a calque of the English without regard to the English word's own ancestry.) —Mahāgaja · talk 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I added Danish boghvede but did not touch Swedish bovete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I updated etymology for bovete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I created bokwete and filled in some of its descendants. Some additions that would be nice to have:

• Page for Middle Dutch boecweite, apparently a calque of the Middle Low German
• Etymology for Icelandic bókhveiti, which shows an obvious relationship but I don't know the path the word took to get to Iceland. It's not in the dictionary I found.
• Etymology for Norwegian bokhvete -- from Danish or direct from Middle Low German?
• That Welsh word. I can't find it spelled exactly that way. Not knowing the language I don't know what inflected or mutated forms to look for.

Any other Germanic languages? Frisian? Low German? Based on a little searching bokwete did not make it into Yiddish. (Also not a language I know, so I could easily miss it.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum:, sorry about the Welsh, I got the consonants mixed up. It's gwenith yr hydd, though gwenith yr haidd (literally “wheat of the barley”) gets some use too and is probably a folk-etymological alteration. The only Yiddish word for buckwheat I've found is the Ukrainian loanword רעטשקע (retshke). —Mahāgaja · talk 19:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The word कुल is there in the word Sanskrit गोकुल meaning cowherd. I feel it is descended from PIE *gʷowkólos, as both mean cowherd as well. Gʷowkólos seems to be formed of *gʷṓws + *kʷel(to turn). If that is the case, then could कुल be descenadant of *kʷel — This unsigned comment was added by LolPacino (talk • contribs) at 09:59, 28 September 2020.

@LolPacino: Sanskrit गोकुल (gokula) is considered a new formation of गो (go, “cow”) +‎ कुल (kula, “family, herd, house (ect.)”). Sanskrit has several formations with गो (go, “cow”) to mean “cowherd”, like गोपाल (gopā́la), etc. --{{victar|talk}} 17:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny enough, गोचारक (gocāraka, “cowherd”) is a word-for-word cognate with *gʷow-kʷólh₁-o-s, but it too is a new formation from गो (go, “cow”) +‎ चारक (cāraka, “herdsman”), from aorist अचारीत् (acārīt, “to wander around”) +‎ -अक (-aka), which is also ultimately from PIE *kʷelh₁-. --{{victar|talk}} 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.
Rather from Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/perd-/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/pesd- and with pēdīcō similar to pēdō being the more correct form, cp. Georges? --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. This entry was originally "giiwedinodin" and then moved here, and the etymology was added later, but i can't find a source for it. SteveGat (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Are praise and precious doublets because they both derive from Latin pretium, or do we have a stricter definition? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we have a stricter definition. Price and prize are doublets because they're both from Latin pretium, but the noun praise is from the verb praise, which is from the verb pretiō, and precious is from pretiōsus. So they're all related, but not all doublets. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The etymology describes the apostrophe as apologetic, a term which apparently is specific to Scots words. But the etymology makes no mention of a Scots derivation or link, and the entry is not marked (Scotland). So you can see that I am perplexed. 1.136.110.157 01:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you're justified in feeling perplexed. It looks as if the term was invented specifically for Scots, and it cannot sensibly be applied to an English word. I think that whoever wrote that note was thinking of the functional role of the apologetic apostrophe, implying that a letter (and hence a sound) is missing when it isn't; but they ignored the social meaning of the "apologetic apostrophe", which is about linguistic colonialism. I shall remove the word. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)