Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2021/September

@-sche, Lambiam, Leasnam, Mahagaja:

A minor matter, but something regarding the earlier form of the man's surname, "Quislin"...

The final form, "Quisling" quite clearly is Kvislemark + -ing (sense 2).

But is the earlier form, Quislin, Kvislemark + a Latinate -in suffix seen in certain Scandinavian surnames (from -inus)?

Cf. Lundin, Ahlin, Nordin, Dahlin, Sahlin.

If so, we probably ought to note that. Tharthan (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, referencing a book with no Google preview, “The family name derives from Quislinus, a Latinised name invented by Quisling's ancestor Lauritz Ibsen Quislin (1634–1703), based on the village of Kvislemark near Slagelse, Denmark, whence he had emigrated.” If Quislin derives from Quislinus, then this ancestor reinvented the Latinization. But perhaps the author of the book got the order of derivations wrong, or the presentation is misleading; the intention could be that ancestor Lauritz, the son of Ib, adopted a family name and turned kvissel – the first component of Kvislemark (a terrain at a fork in a river) – into a surname using -inus and henceforth styled himself “Lauritz Ibsen Quislin(us)“. See also Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/August § quisling.  --Lambiam 06:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.

If you are right about that, then presumably, Quislin later became to Quisling due to reanalysis after immigration to Norway as Kvislemark + -ing (sense 2). If no one has any objections to that analysis, the relevant part of the etymology section probably ought to be amended, so that it says:

The name is seemingly supposed to mean "one who is from Kvislemark", and is equivalent to Kvislemark +‎ -ing (suffix designating a person of a certain origin or with certain qualities). However, the earlier form of the name, Quislinus/Quislin, appears to have originally been intended as Kvislemark + Latin -inus (“suffix indicating a relationship of position, possession, or origin”), and only later on came to be reinterpreted as Kvislemark + Norwegian -ing (“suffix designating a person of a certain origin or with certain qualities”).

Tharthan (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know when the spelling change Quislin → Quisling took place, but the person effecting the change may have been unaware of any association with the utterly insignificant Danish parish Kvislemark.  --Lambiam 21:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly true. I have modified the etymology section at quisling, taking what you just said into account. Feel free to revert if you take issue with the edit. Tharthan (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if to protest but since Lambi said effectively the same, I think the compound is too long and we would usually cite a reinterpretation of the suffix in such cases, the stem morphology to be left as an exercise for the reader if you don't want to cite a cranberry, if only to shave screen real estate. The exercise should be simpler if there was a page for Kvislemark.

It would be lovely to have the place name in place, but I am puzzled by the previous thread. The only two examples for *tw > kʷ that I can think of in any Germanic branch are Quark and queer, where I thought the latter was from metastasis of the labio-velar that was already there in *terkʷ, while lacking compeling counter examples. ApisAzuli (talk)

I know about the Scandinavian words kvitra (with daughter terms) and Dutch kwetteren for tweet, twitter, although it seems unclear if they are strictly related. Wakuran (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cf. Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/twitwizōną. Wakuran (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Btw, is Frisian tsjotterje believed to be related, or would it have another origin? Wakuran (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, on a related note, there's Old Norse trana or trani from Proto-Germanic *kranô. Wakuran (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The racial terms. Any idea what the etymology of either is? Compare mustee, costee, which are from Spanish mestizo, castizo. A reference cited in costee suggests that it (or the alt form castee) would be directly from Spanish casta by analogy to mustee, so I suppose dustee could be from dusty or dust + -ee by analogy to mustee, but I wonder if there's not a Spanish etymon. mustiphini from mestizo fino shows that the sound/form can become quite different from the original Spanish. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The old Century Dictionary speculates, with question mark, that fustee might be from mustee and dustee from fustee. I almost wonder whether people connected mustee to musty and then derived fustee from fusty (“musty”), and dustee from dusty: to this day I can find books calling someone's skin colour "dusty". - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@-sche: What about PCel. *dusnos (“dark, brown”), cognate with L. fuscus and, so it seems, indeed with dust? I noticed this while looking into

The English entry says the source of the Spanish word is Taino, while the Spanish entry says it's native Spanish from cima (“mountaintop”). Other references I can find also differ in which origin they state. Which is right? Generally, works which cite Taino say the Taino word meant "wild" and was applied by the Taino (and then the Spanish) to undomesticated plants and animals, but Helaine Silverman, D. Fairchild Ruggles, Cultural Heritage and Human Rights (2008), page 108, says the "Taino" word was applied to cattle that escaped domestication and took to the hills (emphasis mine); perhaps it is then that the word is Spanish and the Taino (once they shifted to speaking Spanish) are only responsible for a semantic development? - -sche (discuss) 07:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The Spanish Wiktionary mentions both etymological theories. It appears that the term originated in the Americas, which lends some support to the theory of Taíno origin, and afaik -(a)rrón, although seen as an extension of -ón in abejarrón, otherwise does not carry a sense such as “dweller”. I can imagine though that Spanish cima and the numerous Spanish words ending on -arrón influenced the form of the loanword. The first ref given at the Spanish Wiktionary, a 57-page article entitled “Cimarrón: apuntes sobre sus primeras documentaciones y su probable origen” (”Cimarrón: notes on its first documentations and its probable origin”), gives an extensive discussion, resulting in the conclusion that the term comes from an indigenous Taíno word símaran, a durative of the word símara meaning arrow, like an arrow escaping the bow. I have not read the whole article, so I cannot judge how convincing its arguments are.  --Lambiam 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've expanded the entry. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

maybe from OldIr dess (right) < *deks-o- ; see Cymr. dehau and Bret. dehou from Celt. *deks-owo- see also Sk. daks-ina, Gr. δεξ-ιό-ς (dex-io-s), Lat. dex-ter

Yes; I've added it now. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a bit more specificity on what the "misunderstanding" was: misreading, or mistaking the meaning...? I want to check because it seems like this could be categorized as (etymologically) a ghost word. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What about Hyllested’s ideas? --Espoo (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

whose dissertation can be downloaded here.  --Lambiam 08:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This is very interesting, especially in view of a later paper about Finnic reflexes of laryngeals as *s, but the argument concludes in an appeal to ignorance, however valid, that a Slavic intermediate may have existed, which lacking cannot be included, naturally. The criticizm of Slavic "stone" is very real, see @AlexB over at Stackexchange] with further references, and an atypical conclusion: Languages are very complex phenomena and they cannot be adequately described with "die Lautgesetze kennen keine Ausnahmen." I'd subscribe to that.

The current ety suffers from the fact that there's no independent evidence to the particular formation in the same sense. It may have had *-mn, but that's mostly guess work. Personally I would rather refer to the Latin and Slavic words for hammer#translation from *mel-, cp. marcellus, martellus, mortar and pistle (see also Fäustling) and suppose a prefix like Grimm alternant of the ga-prefix, cp. confect, commerce, comeo (as in Lillehammer?) when it was still meaningful, or perhaps *ḱeh3-, cf. cos. The type with a slanted edge is not really used for pounding, mind. It's imaginable that various confluences fell together, because, as the saying goes, if everything you have is a hammer ... ApisAzuli (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I split out the sense " A good-humoured, slow-witted fellow, usually an elderly man" to a separate ety on the basis of what other dictionaries do, but we also have the sense "The chief bosun's mate", which is presently under the same ety as the pH-stabiliser, portion of computer memory, device to cushion impact on trains, etc. etc. It occurred to me that the "bosun's mate" sense could in fact be the same ety as the "fellow" sense, but I cannot find verification of this. Does anyone know for sure where this sense belongs, or can find out? Mihia (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I did find one definition which reads 'a navy term for a boatswain's mate, part of whose duties is to administer the "cat"', possibly as if administering the "cat" explained the term. Mihia (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The "cat" referred to is not something I would ever associate with the phrase "good-humoured"... Chuck Entz (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm beginning to think it probably has nothing to do with the "fellow" sense, but whether it belongs in its existing place either, I don't know. Mihia (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thinking again about the "cat" association, it now seems to me more likely that it is connected with the "leather" sense, ultimately connected with "buffalo", in which case this sense of "buffer" probably should go under ety 1. Mihia (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I found a book that discusses the issue, though it doesn't come to a definitive conclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thanks. Google won't show me that content; would it be possible for you to give me the gist of it, if it's not too long and complicated? Mihia (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia Google is real picky about showing things from one country domain to people from another one. You might have better luck if you replace "google.com" with "google.co.uk" in the URL. Anyway, the book says the most common explanation is that the boatswain's mates act as a "buffer" between the officers and the rest of the crew. It then mentions an 1864 slang dictionary that says, in reference to the buffer's use of the "cat", that it might be from buff, as in bare skin, and finally gives the author's own theory that it might be from buff, apparently an obsolete term meaning to strike a blow or buffet. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I changed it to co.uk and it worked! Thanks for that tip. If the mate acts as a "buffer" between the officers and the rest of the crew, then this sense is in the correct section. I feel slightly sceptical about this "most common explanation", but since I really have no idea I will leave it alone. Thanks for your help. Mihia (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone got an etymology for fáilte (“welcome”) or fáilid (“happy”)? There's nothing in Vendryes, Matasovic, or Pokorny. —caoimhinoc (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is something at Manx failt.  --Lambiam 08:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the same there is a fáilte. I'm looking for a source. —caoimhinoc (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The etymologies for these two words denote their meanings in their respective languages; rupee comes from a word meaning stamped and ruble from one meaning cut. There seems to have been minimal effort to trace each word back to its PIE root. Considering that Russian and Hindustani are both Indo-European languages and the words have a similar form and original meaning, I wonder if they are descended from the same root, but it is beyond my ability at this time to research that now. 2408:8221:2D:BBD0:35D8:D8C3:6988:B3B3 10:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The roots of the words seem to be Sanskrit रूप् (form, shape) and Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/rǫbiti (to chop), but the Sanskrit lemma doesn't have any etymology. Wakuran (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Sanskrit root रूप् (rūp) is said to be a back-formation from the noun रूप (rūpa), i.e. a denominal verb. This can be seen in the MW dictionary (the last two entries on the page). --Frigoris (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting analogy and admittedly possible on the face of it. (I know of one comparable case: *peḱu- (“cattle”), leading to pecunia and fee. Livestock was apparently the most important form of wealth for the Indo-Europeans.) But the meaning 'currency' doesn't go back very far in either language. I also don't see how a Sanskrit /p/ could be related to Russian /b/. I'd put this one with accidental similarity. —caoimhinoc (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV of the etimology. — This unsigned comment was added by 2A01:E0A:9B9:A870:C847:43C3:7976:714C (talk) at 18:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

Well, it says “usually”, so I guess it is in many sources and one of them is in the lengthy reference list, have you even looked? The Semitic word is apparently the one I described under إِنَاء (ʔināʔ). Fay Freak (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd second a rfv of the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov claim. Don't see how that could work. —caoimhinoc (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this etymology is beyond farfetched. --{{victar|talk}} 06:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the "rava" that is alluded to? Is this just another form of rapa (turnip)? If so, doesn't that derive from Latin rapum rather than Dutch? I'm confused what the Dutch influence is supposed to be, if any. 70.175.192.217 06:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Dutch part was grafted on to the etymology in 2013 by a user who's added lots of bad etymologies over the years: they're much, much better than they were back then, but they still make lots of mistakes. It looks like they were trying to combine the etymology that was there with the etymology for English ravel, with predictable results. I've removed that part as obvious incompetent nonsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c You wrote an rfe asking why the Mandarin reading does not end in -ng. According to MOEDict, xīng is indeed an alternative pronunciation which I've added to the entry, but I do feel that there is probably more to it etymologicaly, considering that -ng is the expected Mandarin ending. ChromeGames923 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Finnish tumma, Estonian tume, Voro tummõ etc. can't be connected to Proto-Slavic *tьma both meaning "dark,darkness"? Kutkar (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The entry is located under Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/tьma. Wakuran (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

According to OED, English mali (“money”) is “from Xhosa imali, Zulu imali (“money”), both ultimately from English money.” Our Xhosa and Zulu entries state they are “from Swahili mali, ultimately from Arabic مال (māl).” The Xhosa entry references “Sergio Baldi, “Swahili”, in: Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (2011)”. Sgconlaw states “this is a new entry first published June 2000 (so not an old entry that has yet to be reviewed)”. Which is the correct etymology? J3133 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering if it is likely for Arabic to influence Zulu? Are there many Muslim Zulus, perhaps? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The OED is not especially reliable for borrowings; they simply don't have the necessary breadth of expertise. Baldi is not always right, but the distributional evidence he cites makes this clearly favourable to the alternative, which requires an unmotivated shift from /n/ to /l/. @Sgconlaw, Arabic did not directly influence Zulu, but if you looked at Baldi's evidence, it would become immediately clear that multiple individual borrowings with the same semantic shift is highly unparsimonious.

@J3133, is there a reason you added this to June's subpage? I suggest you move it to the current page. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There don't have to be. Arab traders had extensive dealings all along the east coast of Africa and Swahili developed as a lingua franca for Africans to communicate with Arabs and each other. There have been Zulu speakers who also spoke Swahili for a long, long time. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

So is it advisable to cite both etymologies as alternatives, or only the Arabic one? If the latter, we should provide a fuller citation to Baldi, and I think we should at least mention the OED’s etymology and explain why we feel it is less plausible. Who can draft something appropriate? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these maximal English etymologies, but I know you are, so I added more text to satisfy you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: thanks. Might I add that a fuller explanation with sources as you have added would probably avoid someone coming along in the future and changing it back to the OED version. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I prefer those "maximal etymologies" to the situation where two related words have contrasting etymologies with a "more at" note, such as are and art. Wakuran (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Proto-Anatolian, so this request may be entirely unjustified, but many of the IPA transcriptions look rather strange. In particular, the great majority of consonants are geminated. The word for "bear" is /ħːŕ̩tːkːɔs/, for example. I just want to mention it, so it can be ruled out that someone conjured up something funny here, because I've seen it once before with IPA in a less prominent language. 88.64.225.109 04:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: *Hŕ̥tḱos. It looks a bit strange, but a cursory inspection suggests that the editor who added this is quite capable and knowledgeable.  --Lambiam 08:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Having skimmed over the entries in Category:Proto-Anatolian terms with IPA pronunciation, it is apparent that is used to indicate a fortis-lenis distinction (e.g. d vs. t ), so it seems to be ok. Even H is solid, since Melchert uses H for the voiceless laryngeal and h for the voiced one.

But I agree, without explanatory notes (e.g. in Wiktionary:About Proto-Anatolian or the linked WP page w:Proto-Anatolian_language) and ideally a source for this phonetic interpretation of Melchert's reconstruction, it is confusing. Which brings us back to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/August#IPA_for_reconstructed_languages. –Austronesier (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

At the very least it needs the asterisk marked up, conventionally, also for Proto-Germanic

Whether it's fine and reliable, or not, is entirely relative to how useful this is, as Mahagaja and Austronesier said in that thread, but I disagree that the about-pages are better places to deal with. Because, if the verbose explanation may use IPA for clarity, there'd be need to avoid it in the reconstruction entry, where the reader is more likely to look first. The international standard is a good choice, because it is easier to research generally speaking. It's just a bit of funny punctuation added. However, that point is crucial.

I favor Victar's judgement to remove the pronounciation, nevertheless, if only to avoid uncomfortable discussions. Like, I'm worried about the age old question around the linguistic reality of reconstruction, such as in this case. This thread is concerned with verification, not policy. I see no way to verify that PA had /*ħ/, if it rests mostly on Sumero-Akkadian Cuniform readings from many centuries later. I'm in no position to criticize it appropriately, but it seems too important to accept unchallenged for laryngeal theory, if the only resolution seems to be that it's broad transcription with several possible representations in a narrower sense, and underlying *h2, *h3. It's still unclear to me what that really means to you. ApisAzuli (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, adding IPA to reconstructions as in this case creates an illusion of unverifiable precision (like /*ħ/ for PA *H, or saying that PA lenes were unvoiced) which historical linguists don't offer in many cases–for good reasons. It's like adding geographical coordinates to a country infobox in WP. Some proto-sounds are like Singapore or Liechtenstein and can be pinned down in a meaningful way, but for others the range of possibilities and opinions is as large as Brazil. –Austronesier (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This moves into policy territory, but a heading Reconstructed pronunciation will remove any unwarranted illusion of precision.  --Lambiam 12:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I committed several typoes. Now, I reckon, that about-page exclusive treatment of the phonology could be justified by a need to be verbose and even handed. A heading 'reconstructed pronunciation' does not offer the needed level of detail. Anyhow, I had meant to say the opposite, that a single Cesar Chiffre or other rule set using IPA would pave the way for including the corollary data in the entries. So, "there'd be need to avoid it ". However, the way it is now it set precedent by way of anchoring, largely dictating content for the about-page. And it seems to be mistaken: I have by the way revisited Kloekhorst 2018 on the matter (though the download from his page seems to be broken), who summarized a forming consensus on PA uvular stops, largely following Weiss 2016 and others but citing Melchert 1994 as uncertain. What has changed since then? Craig Melchert has recently published 78 pages of a chapter on "The Position of Anatolian" in draft for preview (so not a good reference per se, but see his page), where it does tentatively suggest labialized uvulars */xʷ/ eg. for the case of *tr̥Hʷánts as the outcome of *h2w, if I am not mistaken. The exposition is slightly cryptic, but pharyngeals (viz. ħ) are nowhere to be found. @Tom 144, Lambian, Austronesier ApisAzuli (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ApisAzuli: Thanks for pointing out these sources. From what I can get there, Melcherts "conventional" *H/*h are now interpreted by him as /, and as / by Kloekhorst. So the transcription /ħːŕ̩tːkːɔs/ contains a hybrid of Kloekhorst's length interpretation of the fortis-lenis contrast (see Kloekhorst (2016)), and the common pharyngeal interpretation of *h₂ and *h₃ (which is rejected by Kloekhorst). –Austronesier (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A convenient way of expressing the fortis/lenis distinction in IPA is with the "strong articulation" diacritic ◌͈ from the Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet for the fortis series, leaving the lenis series unmarked. We already use it for Korean and Old Irish. /ħ͈ŕ̩t͈k͈ɔs/ or /x͈ŕ̩t͈k͈ɔs/ might look less startling than with length marks. Nevertheless, I am still opposed to the inclusion of IPA transcriptions for proto-languages. WT:About Proto-Anatolian should have a discussion of the various proposals for the phonetic realization of each reconstructed phoneme, but the entry itself shouldn't give pronunciation information, IMO. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was noticing this the other day on *tr̥Hʷánts (since I'm working on the PIE entry). Hʷ is controversial enough, let's not reconstruct largyngeals. --{{victar|talk}} 20:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit was made by a rather disruptive user . --Fytcha (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Norse hypothesis is standing since September 2010.

The writing style of the more recent edit is rejectable and should be reverted. The previous version is not perfect either, because we would usually leave details up to the respective entry and simply gloss "moon", or nothing, which was not supported by the templates in 2010,I imagine. If the editor was serious they had better create the respective entry, where the quotation is a better fit. Adding qualifications into the competing, thus far accepted hypothesis changes very little, because the template system does not support probabilistic reckoning (does it?) and the tone is too confrontational anyway. It should be understood that almost all etymologies are hypothetical to varying degrees.

More over, they fail to see that the Norse alternative might, hypothetically speaking, also apply to the Scottish etymon, whether that's intended or not. This point of view should give them some rest. ApisAzuli (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I've not heard of the Norse connection before, but I found some corroborating info here ] under GLÁMR. Leasnam (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Etymonline mentions it, as well. Wakuran (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

‘glamour’ is definitely from Scots. OED says so. All the oldest citations are from Scotland. The text should make clear that the two hypotheses—gramarye or glámr—pertain to the origin of the Scots word. They both seem equally likely to me. I think they should be brief and the Scots entry can optionally contain a more detailed discussion. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I might buy into an etymological confluence of two tributaries, gramarye and glámr, whose collusion gave birth to Scots glamer.  --Lambiam 09:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, most likely incorrect or at least inaccurate in the form as it is presented now. Sanskrit देवसभा (devasabhā) means literally a सभा (sabhā, “assembly hall”) of the देव (deva)s, which doesn't match the meanings of the Chinese 天堂 (tiāntáng) as defined in the entry. In Buddhist mythology, there's a devasabhā hall by the name सुधर्मा (sudharmā) in the Trāyastriṃśa heaven of Śakra (Indra). (This is also the name of a hall of the Yādavas in the Harivaṃśa). In extant translations in Chinese Buddhism the word devasabhā was typically glossed over while a phrase like "the devasabhā known as Sudharmā" was translated together as 善法堂 from its name; su- (good) + dharma + -ā (feminine ending to agree with sabhā). There's a mention though, in the classical Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese glossary book Mahāvyutpatti; you can see the mentioning here where devasabhā was glossed as 天堂 or 靈霄殿. However, this cannot be understood to mean that it was actually used like that in the texts, nor that the Chinese term 天堂 first ever arose from a translation of devasabhā. Most of the earliest attestations of the Chinese term couldn't be "mapped" to an Indic original. Some later authors such as Yijing (monk) used it quite idiomatically (as in modern usage) to translate any word in the sense of "heaven; paradise" without the सभा (sabhā) stuff; e.g. for दिव्य (divya, “heavenly; celestial”, adj), as in the phrase दिव्येषु कामेषु (divyeṣu kāmeṣu, “in heavenly delights”) -> 受天堂樂 in the 《根本説一切有部毘奈耶藥事》. --Frigoris (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, if @Kungming2 (who added the etymology) is out there, do you have some source for the etymology? --Frigoris (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it more parsimonious to assume Lithuanian košė and Slavic kaša are siblings, or that one borrowed from the other (which would most likely be Lithuanian borrowing from Slavic)? Košė does seem slightly more like the hypothesized related Lithuanian word košti which makes me think it could be independent, but I wasn't able to find any source either way. (Also, this is my first time making a Reconstruction page so I'm not sure if I did it right. I copied it from another and then modified the details. Might have gotten something wrong.) 70.175.192.217 21:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The Lithuanian verb is real, more often as perfective nukošti. There are however multiple problems with that hypothesis:

• Different intonation (it doesn't change easily in Baltic languages).
• The Latvian counterpart kāst "to filter, to decant" does not produce a noun; there's a regionalism kašas pl but that's clearly from kasīt "to scratch".
• Filtering or decanting isn't actually involved in making porridge.

Therefore, košė is more likely a borrowing from Slavic. Panya kijivu (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The entry at Turkish -u introduces this suffix as a nominalizing suffix, providing the example korku. This in itself is already dubious as it doesn't mention vowel harmony, and I wouldn't expect -u to be used as the canonical form.

But when following the link to this example word, the etymology now links to another suffix -i. In this page in turn, no mention is made about any nominalizing function.

Can a Turkish editor clarify? Sitaron (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there are two issues: whether -u should be the lemma, and what its definition should be. I've addressed the first by posting it at WT:RFM, but I have no clue about the other one. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sitaron: -u is a harmonized form of -i, as are -ü and -ı. It is correct that they are a derivational suffix to form a noun from a verb (cf. yazı, ölçü, koku and many more). --Fytcha (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sitaron: As for canonicalization, Wiktionary doesn't do this for Turkish suffixes unfortunately, see for instance -im, -ım, -um, -üm (only one of them contains all three meanings and the complete etymology). If I were to decide, I'd make all but the canonical forms of the suffixes into pages whose only purpose is to refer to the canonical form of the suffix (as in -dük).

The canonical forms are those with i and e. --Fytcha (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A possible approach would be to have a consolidated entry -ı/-i/-u/-ü, with definitions for separate entries -ı etcetera of the form “Vowel-harmonized form of -ı/-i/-u/-ü ”. A similar approach can be used for -ler/-lar and other context-dependent suffix variation such as -(y)ken and -de/-da/-te/-ta. For korku the etymology should then use “From {{|tr|korkmak|ı/-i/-u/-ü|alt2=u|alt1=kork-|t1=to be afraid}}”.  --Lambiam 09:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I support this idea. What about deverbal verb-forming suffixes, for example Turkish reflexive suffix is written as -n- in linguistics however verbs with this suffix combined with both of the inflectional and noun-forming suffix -n in Turkish words suffixed with -n. Should we handle it like Turkish words suffixed with -e and Turkish words suffixed with -e (dative) or like Turkish words suffixed with -la and Turkish words suffixed with -la-.

Is it OK to use minus sign after the suffix and what about plus sign before it if it's denominal. MhmtÖ (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Could anyone knowledgeable enough would please ADD an ENTRY to Wiktionary for the MISSING above-referenced Hebrew word (hopefully, with its Arabic/Aramaic cognates)/

Thank you,

AK63 (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like an etymological question. Have you tried WT:Requested_entries_(Hebrew)#כ? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There is one now, but did you mean the Mishnaic noun כִּיחַ or the modern verb כִּיֵּחַ?  --Lambiam 09:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not know how this Etymology Scriptorium works (I would be surprised if this theory actually comes into consideration), but just wanted to let a few people know that these are a possible pair.

If the relation is unclear, consider Swahili simba and Sanskrit सिंह ("siṃhá")

(I do not know how they are related, but I did hear that us Indians used to trade a lot with East Africa) ॥ ☼ সূর্যমান ☽ ॥ 14:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/sinȷ́ʰás, they're unrelated. According to User:Metaknowledge. Wakuran (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Mayrhofer “The reminiscence of Swahili simba “lion” is clearly coincidental” (My translation). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Mayrhofer has no experties in African languages, is it? Meta has worked in Bantu languages, but is no expert in Indo-Iranian, has erred before, and the line only says "likely unrelated". The question has been posted on every etymology forum on the internet and it is always struck down under the iron doctrine of coincidence, without irony or anything amounting to an argument. Although, there are so many languages between, below and above this and that, like Elamite and Dravidian and a couple unknown ones too, that nobody could be expected to show an unambiguous path of transmission at the supposed time-depth.

The Indo-Iranian reconstruction rests on a single reflex and should be technically inadmissable because of it; the further reconstruction all the more, if it would be incompatible with the central Asian donor hypothesis. It refers to a wanderword, so the timing might be based on a suspected donor, but we clearly can't say which one. Bantu has a problem with dating as well because of the lack of writing. The *n is a noun-class prefix and should not distract from the question. Howsoever, the animal is and was native to both continents, so trade relations are per se no argument. The question would be, what kind of relation to expect. Since the words can be unrelated coincidents, the default answer is what you see here.

On another note, the Iranian forms tentatively attributed to a different donor don't look anything alike, and the Indo-Aryan cognates under for that one root differ quite a bit in meaning. ApisAzuli (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The question that would need to be answered for any kind of a connection is where the Bantu *b comes from or where does it go in Indo-Iranian. Note that ṃ is not an /m/ but rather marks nasalization: /sĩɦə/, so we cannot even assume anything like *m > *mb. --Tropylium (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

diopside#English

The entry gives two mineralogy articles for further reading, which have some etymology notes, but they conflict with each other and with Wikipedia's non-referenced assertion (see bullet points). If we assume Min.dat has misread Greek lettering, some of the conflict is resolved.

Min.dat "Diopside"

Named in 1806 by Rene Just Haüy From the Greek διζ- for "double" and οψτζ- "appearance," in allusion to two possible orientations of the prism zone.

Webmineral's "Diopside"

From the Greek dis - "two kinds" and opsis - "opinion."

Wikipedia's "Diopside" article (uncited)

Diopside derives its name from the Greek dis, "twice", and òpsè, "face" in reference to the two ways of orienting the vertical prism.

Current Wiktionary entry (uncited)

Ancient Greek (“through”) + (“view”)

——JavaRogers (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster and AHD both agree it's from French diopside, from di- (“two”) (from Ancient Greek δίς (dís)) + ὄψις (ópsis). —Mahāgaja · talk 21:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Mindat.org’s stem οψτζ- is phonotactically impossible. Ancient Greek ὄψις (ópsis) means “aspect, appearance, view, sight, vision”. Perhaps it can be used figuratively for “viewpoint, opinion”, but this is definitely not a primary meaning. Ancient Greek ὀψέ (opsé) does exist but is an adverb meaning “late”. The noun ὄψ (óps) means “eye, face”, but its stem is ὄπ-, so its use should have given rise to ^✽diopide (cf. dinopid).  --Lambiam 08:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Diopside seems to be from Ancient Greek δίοψις (díopsis) which is a rare term for "transparency" and therefore analysable as Ancient Greek διά (diá) + Ancient Greek ὄψις (ópsis); the mineral in its pure form is (according to wikipedia) transparent. οψτζ looks like an attempt to imitate the letter forms of ὄψις without knowing the Greeek script, ὀψέ in the wp-article is clearly a misreading of ὄψις. The explanations with Ancient Greek δίς (dís) can be regarded as folk etymologies. --Akletos (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve adjusted the etymology accordingly.  --Lambiam 04:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume the etymologies for related cognates also should be adjusted, if there's time. Wakuran (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I am outside my usual field of knowledge/interest here, but I am a Latinist who is currently learning Attic Greek.

I came across greek kratos in my studies, and being aware of Kratom, on a total whim I wondered if it was at all possible the two were related. Thanks to wiktionary, I came across क्रतु which is cognate with the Greek word, of course, but also could/would have definitely been transmitted to the region in which Kratom grows. The two words are obviously both phonologically similar. Kratom being an intoxicating plant used by the locals with opioidergic effects, the Sanskrit word has clear significant semantic similarity to the psychoactive effects of the plant, ie. "power, might, ability".

I, however, know nothing of Thai, and I don't know how the phonological or morphological "arithmetic" works out here. I'm sure however that there are probably Thai words which are loaned from Sanskrit, and so I'm assuming the "arithmetic" is known. My only question is, thus, if it is at all possible that the two words are related? Arxandr (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Initially, the semantic shift seem pretty far-fetched to me. Not any more believable than the connection between a hut and the tree it's made of (?), anyway... Wakuran (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the tree might be too weak for cottage material, when I look at the images. Possibly the leaves could be used for rain cover, if anything. Wakuran (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong etymology section. The "hut" etymology is from Khmer. The idea being discussed is whether people borrowed the Sanskrit word as the name of the plant due a perceived connection between the effects of the plant and the meaning of the Sanskrit word. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I thought that it might be a connection between the two Thai words, although they had different meanings, but on second thought, that might be an incorrect assumption, as well. Wakuran (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

These two are not related. The in the Thai word is spelled with ท. This was a plain voiced stop in earlier stages of Thai and is the regular rendering of द d in loans from Sanskrit and Pali, e.g. เทพ (têep) from Sanskrit देव (deva). The त in क्रतु however remains an unaspirated in Thai and is spelled with ต, e.g. ญาติ (yâat) from जाति (jāti). Also in the last example, one can see that final short vowels in nouns of the i- and u-declensions become zero. So a loan from Sanskrit क्रतु would have become something like **กรตุ (**grad). Finally the tone mark in กระท่อม is also atypical of loans from Sanskrit/Pali. –Austronesier (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The only reason why I might be inclined to cling on to this theory is that the word has no known etymology and describes a plant which really only lives deep in the jungle. The Sanskrit (or, I suppose, most likely Pali) that would have been transferred may have been very colloquial. The word's origins must be obscure because its etymology cannot be found anywhere, and though I understand that its very unlikely, I wonder if it is at all still possible that through local dialects or even accents of Thai, this plant came to be named as such. Per wikipedia's very well cited entry on the traditional use of the plant, I just wonder if perhaps it was a neologism formed from Sanskrit or Pali that was done post-hoc -- the connection seems very strong, as the Thai knew it's properties and indeed used it in some cases for religious rites. But I am not the expert here, and again know nothing of Thai or the other languages of the region, but given where it grows -- would it not be more likely to originate in one of the insular language families of the region? It grows most notably in Indonesia... Perhaps its something like Sanskrit->Malay->Thai. However I appreciate your work in disputing the initial theory here, and I know that this is make-or-break for establishing etymologies. Arxandr (talk)

According to Doerfer, Gerhard (1967) Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur: Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission; 20)‎ (in German), volume III, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, pages 357-358, this word is difficult to have a Turkic origin, and Herzenberg thinks it is from Iranian *ham-tāpa-, which borrowed from an Eastern Iranian language, such as a later Sogdian dialect, which had not only -*t- >-*δ- > -*l-, but also -*p- > -*b > -w as reflected in many Tajik dialects (Studies in Persian etymology). — Ydcok (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sanskrit शून्य (śūnya) is the source of many words for zero or cipher. They were all listed as descendants rather than borrowings. I split the list based on whether the word was definitely a borrowing (unrelated language) or possibly inherited (listed as a child langage in Category:Sanskrit language). It occurs to me that there may be learned borrowings mixed with genuine descendants. For example, Hindi शून्य (śūnya) says it is "borrowed". Can somebody clean up the rest? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned them up. I can't confirm Assamese, but it looks like a descendant, Dhivehi is recorded as a descendant, the Pali word is part of its inherited lexicon, and the Punjabi looks inherited - but might possibly show contamination. The cluster -ny- was generally assimilated, so its presence is a give away. The Thai word is a hybrid - the consonants are from Pali and the vowel is from Sanskrit. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Our entry currently just has the etym as "uncertain". I read somewhere not too long ago that this was ultimately from French angler (“to angle something”), mis-parsed as anglais and then translated into English (a bit of a mondegreen?). Has anyone else encountered this derivation? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That might make sense for clé anglaise, Engländer (“monkey wrench”). And I always thought it was a calque in the other direction! The most reasonable explanation for Schraubenzieher outside irregular changes would also refers to the angular momentum of levers and pullies (german.stackexchange). There is a rare saying, schief ist englisch und englisch ist modern (skewed slant is an Anglish thang ...?), which, I imagine, is referring to the diphtongized vowels. ApisAzuli (talk)

For another tangent, now that I have read the entry, consider that this is called anschneiden or anschnippeln in table tennis, maybe also arcing bow shots, car racing, and of course bowling. To cut has a similar sense in cricket. The participle has a velar, an-ge-schnitten. I recall gain, again, gegen, angegen, implying that more northern varieties with similar changes might have ŋ, as for Dutch aansnijden, participle /ˈaŋɣəˌsnedə(n/. Henceforth it may be questionable if its prefix is really an- (with notable complications for the reconstruction in Old Dutch, and possible conflation with in- in the beginning point of entry sense, to say the least).

In sum sum, angle from Latin angulus is only needed to account for the 'l', s. v. -else for example. ApisAzuli (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. Bye-Bye 75.174.187.83 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Corruption of munnion, French moignon (“stump of an amputated limb, stump”).

How reliable is this etymology? It contradicts what apparently all other dictionaries say. --Espoo (talk)2

A discussion of the etymology can be found here, where it is said that “the old derivation ... from mognon ‘stump,’ is clearly wrong”. (I do not find this discussion particularly clear.)  --Lambiam 11:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it correct for us to be calling this a "phono-semantic matching"? Perhaps the editor who added it felt English picked "chop" out of association with "mixed" or "broken"? But that connection seems tenuous, and "suey" does not seem to have been an English word at all at the time (although it is now supposedly a childish/slangy shortening of "suicide"). Chop-chop and chopsticks are just listed as borrowings. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Aren't the "mixed"/"broken" just meanings found in the original Chinese? And the connection with chop mainly due to the English verb? (Although the lemmas seem to indicate that the form originated in Chinese Pidgin English.) Wakuran (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I.e. rather than phono-semantic matching, the "chop" part might be a folk etymology, but maybe that was what you meant? Wakuran (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you search giblets you find 什件. The first character, that may read Cantonese /t͡säːp̚²/, is defined as alternative form of 杂. Seems the semantic association to chopping is not far fetched, while these particular glosses may be irrelevant for a native speaker in a second language. Whether the pronounciation was intentional is anyone's guess, as the history is uncertain, but the vowel change woukd otherwise have to be regular. ApisAzuli (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I remember some Norwegian comedians doing a joke on this where "Suey" was interpreted as the name of a dog... I guess Norwegian comedy often could feel pretty rural and provincial... Wakuran (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it to "borrowing". - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on what, erring on the safe side? I mean generally, how do you distinguish reanalysis from calquing (or partial calquing) on a homonym when the homophony / allophony is exceptionally broad? Same thing as with money / mali above (explaining why it entered english, not where the swahili was from, it's clearly a substitution for and of money in English, not talking about some Arabic currency).

Also, I suspect that the second half is actually akin to sushi. I cannot judge the alleged 16th century quotation from the wiki artikel, but everything else would seemn to post date American usage, so take it with a grain of salt. 2A00:20:6000:DF79:8D13:4DA0:871F:E7FE 19:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the entry, "sushi" seems to be derived from an old Japanese word meaning "sour". I don't think there's any connection to the Cantonese word. Wakuran (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ya, Japanese すし (sushi) is from a root meaning sour, with no connection I can see to Chinese 碎 (suì, “shattered; fragments; talkative”). There is a connection to Chinese 酢 (“vinegar”), but not to 碎 (suì). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr: With all due respect, that's not what I was talking about. I was in fact not aware of the etymology. I haven't explained it the first time and still don't feel like going out on a limb. Let me put it this way, if -shi was an archaic conjugation (which one?) then why was it not regularly lost? Suppose it's not unusual for familiar food names to fossilize, somewhat like tagliatelle which ending is no doubt a reanalyzed diminutive suffix. ApisAzuli (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@ApisAzuli: Indeed, what were you talking about? Honest confusion on my part. Your only other contribution to this thread is the bit above about "Well, if you search giblets you find 什件." The すし (sushi) connection was brought up by an anon.

Re: the -shi ending, if you visit the lemma entry for the food item at 寿司, that explains that this is the archaic terminal (i.e. predicative) ending for adjectives, as used in pre-modern Japanese and older. If someone makes a simple statement, it's sour, they would have said sushi, as this terminal ending for adjectives includes an inherent "it is" sense. By extension, I could imagine a shift in usage whereby a conversation like "what's that?" → "sushi" is reanalyzed where the response is interpreted as a noun rather than an adjective. There are other instances of terminal-conjugation adjectives or adjectival phrases that have become nouns, such as 顎無し (aginashi, “Sagittaria aginashi”, a kind of flower, literally “it has no sepals”), or 少し (sukoshi, “a little bit”, literally “it is a small amount”). Whatever the case, monolingual Japanese sources are consistent in deriving the noun from the terminal conjugation of the adjective.

If you were the IPv6 anon who posted about sushi, then the only way I can think to connect the suey in chop suey with すし (sushi) would be if the suey were derived somehow from 酢 or 醋. Then the two would be cognate. But it looks like the suey is instead from 碎 (suì), which (as best I can tell) is wholly unrelated to either 酢 or 醋. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This word, paṭhamapurisa (“third person”) is undoubtedly related to Sanskrit प्रथमपुरुष (prathamapuruṣa). I am raising its etymology here because Svartava2 has changed its etymology from --RichardW57 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

{{calque|pi|sa|प्रथमपुरुष|t=third person}}, compounded as {{compound|pi|paṭhama|t1=first|purisa|t2=person}}. The uncompounded form also exists.

to

{{inh+|pi|sa|प्रथमपुरुष}}. Snchronically, {{compound|pi|paṭhama|t1=first|purisa|t2=person|nocap=1|type=kd}}.

The first issue is that the use of {{inh+}} is either a lie or a reckless assertion. As has been pointed out, the template links the output to a definition of 'inherited' that requires descent via regular sound changes, and the cerebralisation in paṭhama is an irregular development from prathama, and a vocalic development from puruṣa to purisa would be irregular, and indeed I have seen no evidence that the second 'u' is original.

The second issue is that I believe that this word is a calque. Oriental ('native' is the wrong word) Pali grammars appear to be part of the Indian tradition of grammars, which appears to have very much started with the analysis of Sanskrit. Most of the terminology is the same as Sanskrit, but adapted to Pali phonology - semi-learned loans in some people's vocabulary, though I think that that English term is a semantic loan (calque even?) from ardhatatsama. Why should we believe that this word is a common inheritance with the Sanskrit word?

The third issue is that I believe the etymology section should mention the existence of the uncompounded form, whose nominative singular is paṭhamo puriso, i.e. the first part is also inflected. Note that this is an idiomatic phrase - the literal translation in English would be 'first person', not 'third person'. I have given the two-word phrase in the alternative forms section.

The fourth issue is that I believe it is worth noting that the phrase/compound word retains its meaning even when other words are inserted, e.g. the genitive plural paṭhamamajjhimuttamapurisānaṃ "third, second, and first persons".

I am therefore mostly reverting the edit by @Svartava2. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Is there a version of 'PIE word' that doesn't add the box of the word in the term's article?
2. Also is there a version of 'PIE root see' for PIE words?

 --The cool numel 21:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to achieve with the non-boxing  PIE word  version? The purpose of {{PIE word}} – which has been nominated for deletion – is to add a box containing the word in an article. If it doesn’t do that, then what is it it should do instead? Instead of some “{{PIE word see}}”, simply list descendants in a section Descendants, like the entry {{desc|hyx-pro||*u(m)s}} found at *h₂ṓms. (Is Sanskrit अंस (aṃsa) missing there?)  --Lambiam 09:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding the page to the category <language> terms derived from PIE and <language> terms derived from the PIE word <x> The cool numel (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The former should be done (assuming inheritance) using {{inh|xx|pie|*PIE-term}}, in which xx is the code for the recipient language, as seen at the etymology section of daughter, which has “from {{inh|en|ine-pro|*dʰugh₂tḗr}}”. For the latter, the descendants list at the PIE term will do. Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰugh₂tḗr § Descendants lists Proto-Germanic *duhtēr, and Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/duhtēr § Descendants lists English daughter.  --Lambiam 22:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The article daughter, for example, doesn't have the category "English terms derived from dʰugh₂tḗr" which is what I'm looking for. PIE roots, for example Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰeh₁- § Derived terms uses the template {{PIE root see}} to add all categories of words derived from it. The cool numel (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am not in favour of such overspecific categories. There are also no categories such as Category:English terms derived from ἄμη, Category:English terms derived from masculus, Category:English terms derived from trognon or Category:English terms derived from wrītaną.  --Lambiam 13:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait what @Lambian? Categories like English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *méǵh₂s exist anyway and there are 43 of them. Are all of them bad? I mean it's just like terms by PIE root isn't it?  --The cool numel 17:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see how these categories are useful; IMO their minor curiosity value (if any) does not merit their existence.  --Lambiam 09:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Including categories like "English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *men- (think)"? Or the other ~600 categories like it? The cool numel (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please stop @The cool numel. --{{victar|talk}} 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

might there be a connection between 婆婆丁 and the japanese reading of たんぽぽ (tanpopo)? — This unsigned comment was added by 219.74.247.106 (talk) at 18:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC).

I think it's negative, the form 婆婆丁 and 孛孛丁 were already recorded in the Ming period documents (滇南本草, 救荒本草, 农政全书, 本草蒙筌, etc.), and according to Chinese dialectologist Itsuku Oota (太田斎), 婆婆丁 and similar forms were simply derived from the formal form 蒲公英 and mixed with folk etymology, which produced a lot of interesting dialectal forms of dandelion, including 布布丁, 姑姑英, 婆婆英, 薄薄丁, 馍馍菜, 不登登, 孛登高, etc. Some of those forms can also be found in Wiktionary: Ydcok (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• @219.74.247.106: Japanese sources bring that up, particularly an older version of the Chinese term, 丁婆婆 (MC treang|teng ba ba). However, at least one Japanese source (Gogen Yurai Jiten, "Etymology Derivation Dictionary") rejects that hypothesis due to the time lag between when the flower was called 丁婆婆 in Chinese and when the Japanese term たんぽぽ (tanpopo) shows up, apparently sometime during the Edo Period (1600–1868).

Separately, I find the contention mentioned above a bit odd, that Chinese 婆婆丁 (pópodīng) is somehow derived from 蒲公英 (púgōngyīng). The vowels aren't too far off, but the consonantal shifts seem strained...?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I came up with a similar example for corruption by folk etymology, the English word asparagus, in some dialects, this word was replaced by sparrow grass, which has nothing to do with sparrow nor grass. I think similar process has happened between 蒲公英 and 婆婆丁. Ydcok (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Eirikr: Well, according to Oota (2017), 婆婆丁 was contaminated by 婆婆, with the first two syllables somehow duplicated.

This is how 婆婆丁 derived from 蒲公英 explained by Oota:

pʰu kuəŋ iəŋ (蒲公英) → pʰu pʰu iəŋ/tiəŋ (扑扑丁)→ pʰuə pʰuə iəŋ/tiəŋ (婆婆英/婆婆丁)

But he did not explain why 丁 and 英 was interchangeable in many dialects, he found both 婆婆英 and 婆婆丁 in some dialects of Hebei, and this counterpart: 咕咕英 (Daixian, Shanxi) vs 咕咕丁 (Shenze, Hebei).

‑‑ Ydcok (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We say the lack of a final -o in English (vs standard Italian Milano) suggests borrowing from French, but as pointed out on the talk page, the final -o is also lacking from the native Milanese Lombard Milan. Could this just be a borrowing of the local name, then? - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

On the face of it, that certainly seems more likely, especially given that standard Italian would not have been standard yet when the name was borrowed into English. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

So several categorizations “<language> terms borrowed/derived from Italian” are probably somewhat anachronistic.  --Lambiam 09:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a borrowing from French is more likely, because English borrowed several names of cities on the continent from French rather than the local language, e.g. Turin, Florence, Rome, Venice, Munich, Prague, etc. As for terms derived from Italian, remember that our definition of Italian goes very far back, since we consider Old Italian (which is as old as Old English) an etymology-only variant of Italian. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

In the old days Venice with its language Venetian was a big source of loanwords. I correct incorrect attributions to Italian as I notice them. See {{R:tr:LF}}. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw that English pizza is etymologized as, specifically, “Borrowed from Neapolitan pizza”. Is that perhaps too specific? The modern style of pizza, first documented by Vincenzo Corrado who wrote in Italian, is a Napolitan innovation. This does not imply the term is originally Napolitan, and not at all that Napolitan was the donor language.  --Lambiam 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Bringing these edits to gig and giggle to public attention. Especially the latter one reeks of a folk etymology. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I was just bold and reverted the claptrap at giggle -- given the extremely common addition of suffix -le to form frequentatives, and also the Middle English antecedent and cognates in Dutch and German, the purported mish-mash of Irish gíog + geal strains credibility so much it makes my head hurt. The removal of the Middle English and the Dutch and German looks like borderline vandalism to boot.

I am less certain about the changes to gig, so I've left that as-is. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have de-giggled that change.  --Lambiam 08:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• PS: Over on Wikipedia, I've backed out the same user's rubbish on the w:List of English words of Irish origin page. He'd added avocado, among other flaming incompetence. Sheesh. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

At  jig  I read: “An assimilated form of earlier gig ”.

1. Should that be, “Dissimilation of”?
2. Is there any substantiating support for this claim? In particular, is this earlier “gig” attested?
3. If so, shouldn’t the sense “jig” be listed as the definition of a (presumably obsolete) entry at gig?
4. Or is this earlier “gig”, perhaps, an earlier “alternative form of jig”? – the spelling “gig” for the pronunciation /d͡ʒɪɡ/ would not be entirely strange.

So many questions, ...  --Lambiam 09:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's etymology of jig is: "perhaps from Middle French giguer (“to frolic”), from gigue (“fiddle”), of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gīga (“fiddle”); akin to Old Norse geiga (“to turn aside”)", which seems to match up with our gig#Etymology 1. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have replaced the section by one derived from the entry in The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.  --Lambiam 10:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the etymology of this French phrase? What I wrote previously was reverted so I am unsure. — This unsigned comment was added by Ffffrr (talk • contribs).

It is one specific form of a more general idiom: prendre de <action> à <quelqu’un>, in which: the subject can be bien, but also grand bien, or mal; the indirect object (à <quelqu’un>) can be pronominal, becoming lui or in the plural leur; the verb agrees with the third-person singular subject but can be any of the present (prend), past historic (prit), perfect (a pris), future (prendra) or conditional (prendrait), but not the imperfect; and the action can be an infinitive, or pronominal, becoming en. So a manifestation of the idiom may take the form, grand bien leur prendrait de rééditer ce genre de performance.. The sense of the verb in the idiom is “to contribute to a (good or bad) result”; see sense 60 for prendre at the French Wiktionary.  --Lambiam 07:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: That's an interesting phrase. When the subject is impersonal, the imperfect is not unheard of: "Je ne savais pas ce qu'il me prenait de dire ça à un total inconnu"; "Quand il lui prenait de téléphoner à Alexandre, c'était en général pour lui demander son avis"; "s'il lui prenait parfois de rêver de répit, d'accalmies, de plages de silence".

Compare also the turn of phrase qu'est-ce qui te prend ?, qu'est-ce qui lui a pris ? (≈ quelle mouche l’a piqué ?), "il me prenait parfois de folles envies de serrer cette charmante enfant dans mes bras et de l'appeler ma fille" (= "de folles envies me prenaient parfois de...", where the sujet réel, which is a noun designating some emotion, is displaced behind the verb and replaced by an impersonal il). PUC – 19:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

These seem to be different idioms. Do they, or at least the second one, correspond to sense 66 for prendre at the French Wiktionary, Concevoir un sentiment pour quelqu’un? Note that the definition for sense 60 is not grammatically substitutible (Bien lui a pris d’avoir été averti à temps ≠ Bien lui a contribué à un bon ou à un mauvais résultat d’avoir été averti à temps), and I suspect the same may hold for 66. The usexes given are too bare to see the grammatical pattern. Can one replace je ne sais pas ce qu’il me prit de dire ça by je ne sais pas quel caprice me prit de dire ça and then also by je ne comprends pas comment il me prit de caprice de dire ça?  --Lambiam 22:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)