Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Tagalog word luntian. Dictionaries say it's of Chinese origin. Vocabulario de la lengua Tagala, lists green as "halong tiang" in 1860. Halong tiang can be interpreted as halong tiyan which can mean bile (yellow green color maybe). However, I am open to the possibility that bile may not be the case but this may actually be Chinese, or Hokkien to be exact. I am guessing this is 濃蒼／浓苍(lông-chhang, “deep green”). Any thoughts? It's also possible that "halongtiang" itself is supposed to be Chinese. — This unsigned comment was added by Ysrael214 (talk • contribs).
Reverted. The reference does not support the claim. Quite the opposite, Kluge admitted "kriegsgefangener Slave" and an Italian trajectory.
I do agree with the spirit of the change and with diff, which meant to cut it off at Latin but kept the offending bit. I'd cut it off at the first mention of ME. and sweep the ugly bits under that node. Alas, my own opinions on the matter won't matter much, so I'm done here. 109.43.49.2605:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
After Fuzzy Barsik reverted back, I first re-reverted and then after reading the sources added a brief mention of what we may call the "skuleuo hypothesis". Fuzzy reverted once again and asked me to explain myself on the talk page. I'm bringing it here to get more eyes on the issue. Basically, both Kluge and Köbler are vastly overstating the case for derivation from Ancient Greek σκῡλεύω(skūleúō). No Latin form *scylāvus is attested, only sclāvus is. In addition, there's no realistic way to derive a noun *scylāvus from σκῡλεύω – how did the e become an ā? That doesn't just happen spontaneously. And nouns derived from verbs almost always take some sort of suffix, they don't just replace the 1st person singular -ō with the nominative singular -us. The semantics of the supposed change are pretty wobbly too: getting from a verb meaning 'to strip a slain enemy' to a noun presumably first meaning 'living prisoner of war' isn't obvious at all. And is sclāvus ever actually attested in the meaning 'prisoner of war'? Or does it mean 'slave' right from its first attestation? The hypothesis fails on phonology, morphology and semantics, and frankly smacks of an attempt on the part of the later editors of Kluge's dictionary (copied by Köbler, who is a lawyer by trade and only a hobby linguist) to avoid hurting Slavic people's feelings rather than performing rigorous historical linguistics. We can mention the idea briefly, since it is in Kluge's well respected dictionary, but we must not imply in any way that it's anything more than a fringe notion. —Mahāgaja · talk07:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
First and foremost, I do not assess what view is prevailing at all. If anyone possesses hard data of any sort of a poll among linguists better yet slavists, please share.
Second, I do my best to present known facts on evolving etymologists views regard to the word 'slave' origin. Does 6th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1899) say that the word 'slave' cannot derive from 'Slav'? Yes, it does. Does it constitute a dispute to the 'mainstream view'? Yes, it does. Does 22th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1989) clearly state that the word 'slave' derives from skyleúo, skyláō, and phonetical similarity with the name of Slavs in middle greek resulted in erroneous etymological assumptions on the word 'slave' origin? Yes, it does as well. Does 22th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1989) makes just a tentative assumptions on the influence of skyleúo, skyláō to sclāvus. No, it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, what is the reason for removing the statement that the version of the 'slave' derivation from 'Slav' is disputed since XIX? What is the reason for insisting on 'influence', whereas the Dictionary does provide definitely clear point of view?
"Does 6th ed. of Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch Der Deutschen Sprache (1899) say that the word 'slave' cannot derive from 'Slav'?" No, it does not. It says (rather confusingly) that it can't come from the Slavic East, because no West Slavic ethnic group ever called itself Slavs. (die Bezeichnung Sklaven kann nicht vom slav. Osten ausgegangen sein, weil keine westliche slav. Völkerschaft sich je Sklave genannt hat). (I'm not sure why he says it can't come from the East because no West Slavic group uses the name; maybe it's a typo, or maybe by "slav. Osten" he means the eastern part of the German Sprachraum, which was formerly West Slavic-speaking.) But South Slavic does use that designation, as Kluge shows by pointing to "aslov. Slověninŭ" (in our terms, Old Church Slavonic словѣнинъ(slověninŭ)). He never disputes that 'slave' comes from 'Slav', he merely disputes that it's a West Slavic (or maybe East Slavic?) term. I say Köbler is tentative about the association because his entry has no fewer than three question marks in it. Finally, just because another dictionary has published an implausible etymology doesn't mean we're required to repeat it here. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no rule against thinking for ourselves. —Mahāgaja · talk12:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on F. Kluge 6th edition. I found and corrected a typo in the word 'Osten', which resulted in unfortunate translation error. Regard to Köbler, it's a secondary / supplementary source, while primary source is F. Kluge. But thanks on Wiktionary policy clarification as well. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
For the subject matter. G. Korth derives reconstructed *scylāvus from συλάω. He assumes the contraction from *scylāvus to sclavus being possible based on Laurentius Dieffenbach Supplement to Du Canges Glossarium: Scolauus as a secondary form of Sclauus. Another one German linguist, Daniel Scholten (well, at least Wiki passes him off for a linguist), who also shares F. Kluge's current version, points out that 'Slave' is defined as a "prisoner of war" ("eigentl. kriegsgefangener Slave") in Lexer's Mittelhochdeutsche Wörterbuch, whereas Slavs are not associated with slaves in Grimms Wörterbuch. Being definitely a dabbler at Greek, I personally can't see any stressing on an enemy slaining in συλάω, σκυλεύω definition in ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ ΛΕΞΙΚΟ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΓΛΩΣΣΑΣ. But I'm in no way insist on closing gaps mentioned by you. What I actually suggest is to present Korth-Kluge's version as is without any "tentatively assume" and "may have been influenced by" and then say that their hypothesis has also been criticised. I hope you could provide appropriate references for that. What I stambled over in Byzantinoslavica, Vol. 33 doesn't sound impressive that much. This way it won't look Orwell like "it doesn't exist, it has never been existed", CRIMESTOP etc. Thanks. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Small side note, anywhere these additions are kept, someone may want to wordsmith the verbiage like "since XVIII and widespread up to date" (still present on Wikipedia as of this writing) into more usual English. (I don't have time to look into the meat of the matter right now.) - -sche(discuss)21:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Since when the "spoils of war" etymology has current is looking less than clear. Stopping this gap may require further research. By the way, the entry rather used to implicate Old High German which is closer than Classical Latin to the Medieval Latin, which there is now as a catch-all category. Does it require a labeled entry in #Latin? Glossing the etyma is difficult, anyway, because it may be unclear to the reader how "slave" and "Slav" respectively are to be interpreted in the context of the time. That makes it rather encyclopedic material and leaves nothing much to be done with our etymology, save for notable folk etymology to show that an ethnonym was subsumed among metonymy, so that mere semantic drift alone will look less ad-hoc. 81.92.17.12910:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Check this one, please: "From Middle English sclave, from Old French esclave, from Late Middle High German sklave, from Medieval Latin sclāvus, from Late Latin Sclāvus, from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβοζ , 'Εσκλαβήνοζ.
According to the widespread view, which is known since 18th century, Byzantine Σκλάβινοι, 'Εσκλαβηνοί, borrowd from Slav gen self-name *Slověninŭ turned into Σκλάβοζ, 'Εσκλαβήνοζ (Late Latin Sclāvus) in the meaning 'prisoner of war Slave', 'slave' in 8th/9th century, because they often became captured and enslaved. However this version is disputed since 19th century.
Alternative contemporary hypothesis states that Medieval Latin sclāvus via *scylāvus derives from Byzantine σκυλάω , σκυλεύω - "to strip the enemy (killed in a battle)", "to make booty / extract spoils of war". This version is criticised as well." Does is sound clear enough / correct? Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. If you don't mind, I'll present in Wikipedia the "expanded edition" above. On a side note, why do you transcribe σκῡλεύω, σκῡλάω as , and not as , ? Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Our transliterations of Ancient Greek are generated automatically by Module:grc-translit, which uses u for upsilon partly because it reflects the oldest pronunciation, and partly because it allows the e-grade/o-grade/zero-grade triplet of ευ, ου, υ to be transliterated eu, ou, u rather than the less transparent eu, ou, y (and nobody wants to transliterate αυ, ευ, ου as ay, ey, oy, which would be truly perverse). Incidentally, in your text above you've used zeta (ζ) instead of final sigma (ς). —Mahāgaja · talk18:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Just noting that I undid a good-faith addition of a version of this to Sklave, on the grounds that we should try to centralize the info and the dispute in one place, either the English entry (this being the English Wiktionary) or the last uncontentious etymon (i.e., cut every other entry's etymology off at Greek or Latin and hash out the theories there), because if we restate the dispute on each descendant's page, they will fall out of sync and into inconsistency whenever someone edits slave and doesn't even realize the info is also in Sklave, etc. Anyone want to create an entry for scolauus and mention it as part of the evidence for the skūleúō hypothesis? - -sche(discuss)17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's start from the very beginning. Which entries are worth creating: scolavus, *scylavus, σκῡλάω(skūláō), σκῡλεύω(skūleúō)? Neither G. Korth, nor E. Seebold in F. Kluge's 22th mention scolavus, they talk about *scylavus. scolavus is mentioned by Hans Ditten in his critique of G. Korth hypothesis. σκῡλάω(skūláō) and σκῡλεύω(skūleúō) are forms of the same verb and goes in ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ ΛΕΞΙΚΟ ΤΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΓΛΩΣΣΑΣ in single entry. The entry on Σκλᾰ́βος(Sklábos) does exist and requires consorted correction. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Surjection, Thadh There seems to be something funky going on with a few words related to Proto-Finnic*süü(“thread, fibre”). Our entry claims the word to be a cognate of Komi-Zyrianси(śi, “hair”). That entry, however, claims a relation to Proto-Finnic*sää(“weather”), though the sense given in the etymology is "thread". Additionally, the Komi-Zyrian entry claims both words to descend from Proto-Uralic*säŋä, which we unfortunately lack. On the contrary, the entry for *süü claims the word to descend from another – perhaps, though not obviously, related – Proto-Uralic word (*süxe or *süje), which we also lack.
Is there another sense for *sää that we lack, and is the cognate listed on *süü wrong? Are *sää and *süü related? Is the etymology and cognate listed on *си incorrect? Is something else going on? brittletheories (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There is definitely another sense of *sää we lack (see Finnish sää, which also mentions the Udmurt cognate which definitely derives from the same Proto-Permic term as Komi). I don't know anything about this *süü relation to Permic, I'll try looking into it. Thadh (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've figured this out: Komi-Zyrian си(śi, “hair”) < *säŋä, whereas Komi-Zyrian сі(si, “fibre”) < *süje. Those are two different words Thadh (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The Dutch word kip(“chicken; cop”) has a list of descendants under it. It starts with Petjo, which I'd never heard of, but it's a Dutch creole in Indonesia, so fair enough. It then has arrows indicating borrowings into various American languages such as Mohawk and Munsee. All the Amerind words are considerably longer than the monosyllable. None of the descendants has an entry here. So I don't know what actually happened, but probably not this as its stands. --92.41.177.22119:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
These are mentioned in the book Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages, pages 293–294. (Except the Munsee term looks different from what we give. Not sure where our spelling came from, it has zero web hits independent of Wiktionary.) As for the number of syllables, another book dealing with Dutch loanwords in Amerindian languages states that "Reduplication was a frequently applied morphological procedure". Also note that all of the Amerindian languages in question are found in the northeastern or Mid-Atlantic US, consistent with the location of New Netherland. 98.170.164.8819:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't find the Mahican term outside Nicoline van der Sijs's works, either (etymologiebank.nl, which also mentions them, also cites them to her), which makes it harder to answer questions about them. Sijs does say the languages borrowed the reduplicated Dutch "call-name kipkip", which would explain the reduplication. The "-(V)s"/"-(V)sh" endings may be the Algonquian diminutive suffix, as Sijs says about the Munsee word. (And the spelling of Munsee words in various records is quite variable, which might explain the discrepancy in spelling, although we should try to use an attested / reference-supported spelling.) - -sche(discuss)22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've not found Van der Sijs's books about borrowings from Dutch to be particularly reliable sources. I mean it's a very wide field, so I'm not saying she does bad work, but one should double-check. 88.64.225.11720:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I suppose a conservative approach would be: if we can't find the Mahican (etc) terms in works about Mahican (etc), then just drop them on the theory that Sijs may be decently reliable for Dutch etymological theories but not for Mahican (about which I have no reason to think she has any particular expertise); if we can find proof the terms exist, we can create entries and explicitly attribute the etymological theory that they're from Dutch to her. It would also be good to try to cite the supposed Dutch kipkip she mentions. - -sche(discuss)18:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Check out Citations:Shanghai, Citations:Shang-hai, Citations:Shanghae, Citations:Shang-hae, Citations:Chang-hai, etc. Where and when does the English language loan word 'Shanghai' (the proper noun for the city itself) come from? Yeah, Mandarin. But why spell it that way? For instance, 'Beijing' was generated from the romanization scheme called Pinyin (Hanyu Pinyin) in 1958. Any insights on how 'Shanghai' was created? It predates Wade-Giles- it exists in 1840: see Citations:Shanghai. This is an exciting question to me, because no modern dictionaries I have seen tell us when 'Shanghai' became an English language word. This is a word with an artificial origin probably within the 19th century or maybe 18th. Is no one alive today intellectually interested to know when or how it was created? That's disturbing. There are specifics for days about the verb form 'shanghai' and its origin, but when it comes to the proper noun itself? Crickets. It's a fascinating intellectual blind spot. See also: diff & diff. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)(modified)
The obnoxious hostility of the etym edit summary seems very overstated, especially given the less helpful replacement content that currently seems to wrongly focus on the question of first attribution of the present spelling. Unless Wiktionary:Etymology got massively worsened recently and someone forgot to update the policy page, nothing should be bolded at all and the focus should be on the English word itself and not the attestation date or (necessarily) its precise spelling. Similarly, the current spelling is precisely based on atonal pinyin from modern standard Mandarin (it's not Peking or Canton any more); the identical but separately derived 20th century spelling was from the Postal Map based on its modifications of Wade; and it's not political or a mockery that "defies the concept of etymology" to point any of that out. The OED among others talk about when Shanghai became an English word, although you obviously mean when the Chinese placename was first transcribed into English.
That said, it's fine to skip most of those niceties in the interest of terseness and simply say it's first attested as an irregular atonal romanization of the formal pronunciation of the Chinese name—the local dialect's Zanghae would have probably been transcribed a bit differently—and continuing on with that into its Chinese history. The citation list shows that Shang-hay and Shanghay should be listed as obsolete variants, but it's fair enough that those probably didn't influence the Opium War era terms. If we're doing a thorough citation section, though, obviously at least one occurrance of the name in the Treaty of Nanking should be mentioned, as well as the earliest European cite of the name if available. Since it never showed up in Marco Polo, it would presumably be something from one of the Jesuits. It's Xanghai on this 1655 Latin map. — LlywelynII16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Diatom genus Eupodiscus
Hello all. The meaning of the genus name of the diatom Eupodiscus Bailey, 1851 (family Eupodiscaceae) escapes me. Is this name derived from: 1/ Greek ευπο / eupos and Latin discus, or 2/ Greek ευ, true, and discus, disk, but in this case what does "po" mean? Gerardgiraud (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
εὐ-(eu-) + πούς(poús) + -ίσκος(-ískos). In Ancient Greek, *ds > s, with lengthening of the previous vowel, so πούς is really *ποδς (pods). It might also be eu- + Podiscus, in which case all the parts would ultimately be the same, but the latter two would have been combined into an earlier name (here is a good candidate, which would no doubt have later been found invalid- you can't just change a published name in light of later information). Chuck Entz (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
So who would have borrowed from whom? I guess an -ar-ending isn't improbable no matter if it would be a Romance or a Slavic word to begin with. Wakuran (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article doesn't give a source, but only an attestation. Here's two sources which clearly attribute the term to Kayser: a biographical sketch in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, quote: "He then turned to the phenomena of condensation of gases on solids now known as adsorption. It was Kayser who introduced this designation at the suggestion of Dubois-Reymond". And a volume on adsorption: "In that year, Kayser introduced the term adsorption..."
If we know who coined it, we should probably update all the relevant language etymologies and figure out more or less the source language. Vininn126 (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, Heinrich Kayser was German and wrote his studies in German, so it seems the circumstantial evidence points in that direction. Wakuran (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
It could have been both the noun and the verb, and other languages modelled it. What is a good German etymological dictionary? Vininn126 (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
If it was only the noun, we can probably assume other languages borrowed it from German, making the verbs perhaps a back-formation in English modelled on German? Vininn126 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The full text is available here. Kayser uses both the noun Adsorption and the verb in various inflected forms (adsorbirt, adsorbirenden ). –Austronesier (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess so, yes. If the forms are predictable, you will usually not cite every conjugation before creating an entry with inflection table. 141.20.6.6115:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
RFV of the etymology. "Most of the spelling in Europe is that of the Portuguese, and for this reason it is given in the following Table of syllables."-Morrison's A Dictionary of the Chinese Language, 1815, page 3 "The pronunciation is thrice given ; first the English, and second the Portuguese of the Mandarine Tongue, and third the Canton dialect." page 4 "Shan Xan Shan訕／讪 (shàn) To detract."page 14 "Portug. French Engliſh X Ch Shxan chan ſhân" An Alphabetical Table of all the Words which compose the Chinese Language according to the Portugese, French, and English Pronunciation, translator of Jean-Baptiste Du Halde, 1738, at page viii. See also: diff & diff. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
You can tell a lot from the spelling. The languages of the main colonial powers had different ways of representing sounds not present in Latin (in this case, the sound of English "sh":
Sound
Language
Spelling
ʃ
English
sh
French
ch
German
sch
Italian
sci
Portuguese
x
It should be noted that none of these languages have the contrast represented by Mandarin x vs sh, so they used a single, different sound for both. Dutch and Spanish don't have this sound in native words, so I didn't include them. Older Spanish used to have this sound and spelled it with "x", just as Portuguese does, but the terms that historically had it now have /χ/ instead.
From the table above, you can see that this term's spelling is likely from Portuguese, Chang-hai (below) is likely from French (though "h" is normally silent in French), and English Shanghai likely originated in English. The Mandarin word's current pinyin spelling is only coincidently the same, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your reply. I have updated the etymologies based on my views and the above reply. I think it's really fascinating to learn about the origins of these words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
RFV of the etymology. "Portug. French Engliſh X Ch Shxam chang ſhâng" An Alphabetical Table of all the Words which compose the Chinese Language according to the Portugese, French, and English Pronunciation, translator of Jean-Baptiste Du Halde, 1738, at page viii "Portug. French Engliſh X Ch ShHai Hai Hay" at page vi Also, Changhaï. I also saw a lot of French stuff when looking for cites. See also: diff & diff.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
diff claims a relation to amarus through Sicialian as per the edit summary. The Semitic entries offer no further etymology; Latin claims an Indo-European origin? 109.40.240.9108:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Reverted. Just because they both have an m and an r in them isn't good enough to establish a relationship. And I really don't see what Sicilian has to do with anything. The only way they could be related is if the Latin were a Semitic loanword, but I can't find any evidence of that. —Mahāgaja · talk08:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The Hebrew term is, yes. I really wish we had someone at Wiktionary who knew a lot about Proto-Semitic and could unify our Semitic etymologies. I was pretty shocked when I noticed we don't have a CAT:Proto-Semitic roots. —Mahāgaja · talk06:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
We have hardly enough CAT:Proto-Semitic lemmas to be concerned about bi-lateral roots. That wouldn't be very useful and there is a motion against it. Proto-Semitic *ḥdṯ- is requesting to be moved to a form with vowels. *ḥamaṣ́- refers to itself as a root, *ḥamṣ́- as likely the original form. Roots like radicals are meaningful concepts for categories, but nobody speaks without vowels. The abstraction is a secondary concern. The hyph-in is quirky though. 109.40.242.20020:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Anon sees it, by reconstructing a base stem verb of discernible meaning carried on by the individual Semitic languages we effectively have the basic unit from which other verbs and other parts of speech in as much as we understand their Proto-Semitic formation possibilities are derived, and play it safe, whereas the description of “roots” more easily descends into speculation since you don’t envision a real starting point, or one may not know to portray relationships in an unchaotic fashion even if knowing to avoid the fancy endowing Indo-European studies with their typical uncertainty; in the *ḥ-m-ṣ́ example I just created multiple pages and thus portray the root. Long story short, there are ways the idea of a root is shown without an explicit root page being created, which in the individual languages I always considered but an index page anyway, also often thinking about words deriving from other words rather than roots. Fay Freak (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Thalassiobeckia (diatom)
The genus Thalassiobeckia of the family Thalassiobeckiaceae, is a fossil diatom identified at the bottom of Lake Baikal (Siberia); the name comes from thalass-, sea (although it was a freshwater diatom), but I don't understand the suffix beck. Could this be an allusion to Lake Baikal? If so, how did the authors switched from "baikal" to "beckia"? By the way, the word becken means "basin" in German, but I don't don't think it has anything to do with German. Gerardgiraud (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The obvious guess would be that this is a "Beckia" (probably named after someone named "Beck") that's being differentiated from some other "Beckia" to avoid using a name that's already published and has priority. A quick look at Algaebase shows that there is, indeed, a genus called Beckia which was published before Thalassiobeckia. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It's a good lead. Indeed, there are plenty of "Beckia" in the field of algae:
Blue algae
Beckia Crawford, 1988
Blennothrix groesbeckiana 2001
Hydrocoleum groesbeckianum, Drouet 1942
Phormidium Groesbeckianum, Drouet 1942 dedicated to M. J. Groesbeck (M.D. of Portville, California)
Diatoms
Ellerbeckia Crawford, 1988
Thallassiobeckia Khursevich & Fedenya, 2005
Peridians
Nottbeckia Hans., Daug. & Moes., 2018
Obviously it's not the same "Beck" who are honored. Perhaps the dedication is identical for Beckia and Ellerbeckia but probably not for Thallassiobeckia. Gerardgiraud (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
It may well be Groesbeck, Ellerbeck, or Nottbeck (person or place) that are associated (not necessarily honored) with those taxa or epithets. But I am very confident that you will not find and person or place called by the macaronic name Thalassiobeckia. I am not sure why you have both a diatoms and a blue algae header. Aren't all diatoms algae, or at least not generally accepted as distinct from algae? Also, it is conceivable that Thalassiobeckia derives from the obsolete arthropod genus Beckia of springtails, based on mere resemblance in static appearance or means of mobility. DCDuring (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This pasta name is malformed; pasting Ancient Greek thalassa + Beck + -ia together should have resulting in Thalassobeckia. The spurious -i- is also seen in the genus name Thalassiosira (P. T. Cleve, 1873; emend. G. R. Hasle, 1973) and in Thalassiophyta, coined by A. H. Church in 1919 to denote salt-water vegetation in general. --Lambiam08:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@DCDuring I wrote "blue algae" which is the old name given to these organisms. But these "blue algae" are closer to bacteria than to "algae", the scientific name is cyanobacteria. And on the other hand you should know that "algae" (or "seaweed") is a vernacular term and therefore has no botanical value ; it's used for convenience or laziness 😕
@Lambiam It is normal for the error to exist in the genus and the family because it is the genus (the typical genus) which gives the name of the family, thus propagating the error. Gerardgiraud (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Thallassiobeckia" just seems to be GerardGiraud's typo for "Thalassiobeckia". Google doesn't find the two-l spelling for either a genus or a family. AlgaeBase has the one-l spelling for both genus and family. DCDuring (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't find Beckia Crawford 1988, though I can find relatively numerous scannos of Eller- | beckia Crawford 1988. DCDuring (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The honoree of Beckia would seem to be Günther Beck von Mannagetta und Lerchenau (d. 1932) who seems to have described Beckia bella (Beck) Elenkin 1938 under its basionym Holopedia bella (corrected to Holopedium bellum) Beck 1929 (syn. of Microcrocis bella (Beck) Komarek & Anagnostides 1995). This was a freshwater species, so thalassio- would have served to differentiate Thalassiobeckia as a saltwater species as Lambiam indicated above. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems plausible for G. Beck @DCDuring. Except that the Thalassiobeckia is a freshwater fossil diatom discovered at the bottom of Lake Baikal. Anyway thanks for helping. Gerardgiraud (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Right, he didn't discover it. He was honored by Beckia. As Chuck Entz, Lambiam, and I have said, Thalassiobeckia was certainly formed by prefixing thalassio- to Beckia, probably to differentiate the new genus and its species (deepwater?) from the pre-existing genus Beckia and its species (discovered in waters of German or Czech mountains), which the describer must have thought resembled Beckia gen. and spp. in some way. DCDuring (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This is indeed a good guess. Lake Baikal can be perceived as an inland sea, being the largest reserve of liquid fresh water on the Earth's surface. Gerardgiraud (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
立
How did Old Chinese initial /k.r/ evolve into Middle Chinese initial /l/? I tried pronouncing /k.r/ progressively lazier and landed on something like /ɬ/, which I can see how that could morph into /l/. Does anyone have any definitive answers? LittleWhole (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't have an answer to this specific question, but in general, the process of sound change isn't always obvious. In Albanian, Proto-Indo-European /s/ has become /ɟ/ in some contexts. In Armenian, PIE /dw/ has become /jerk/ at the beginning of a word, while /s/ has become /kʰ/ at the end of a word (at least sometimes, I'm not clear on the details). Sound change can be very weird. —Mahāgaja · talk07:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
In a system with no /e/ ~ /ɛ/ contrast, both symbols are right, and the IPA actually prefers the use of the typographically simpler character. —Mahāgaja · talk11:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
My favourite example of a combination of non-obvious sound changes is Classical Persian /ɡul/ from Old Persian *vr̥da-, from which also Armenian vard(“rose”) and possibly English rose. --Lambiam08:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
In general, shifts between l and r are quite common in the languages of the world, as are cluster simplifications involving assimilation and/or loss of the first element. A combination of the two would be completely normal. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
This generalization does not work out. Zhenzhang reconstructs this one without velar prefix. STEDT cites another reconstruction with *gl and a prior Proto-Sino-Tibetan root of the same form, but reconstructs Proto-Tibeto-Burman *g-r(j)ap. The rGyalrong languages and some others show the velar prefix as separate morpheme ka, alternating with ta; a Chinese prefix /*k-/ is here whyever not indicated. I might not know what those tokens denote, but a grammatical explanation is at least as likely as a sound change. The cognate 位 /*ɢʷrəp-s/ (B-S) maintains a prefix and, by my estimate, reflects this in the radical, which is graphically related and even reconstructs the same meaning for PTB *niŋ "STAND" (STEDT, provisional) if that's identical to OC /*ni/ (B-S). ALthough 人 has it uncertain for a good number of reasons. Now our reconstruction page gives primacy to the liquid. One might rightly ask, how is it so? @OP Other than text-books, the newer etymological dictionaries tend to have a concise introduction. 109.40.240.1123:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
One of the features of the Baxter-Sagart (2014) reconstruction is a greater number of consonant clusters and prefixes. /*k.r/ is reconstructed as the initial in 立, 力, 六, 綸, and the pharyngeal version /*k.rˤ/ for 蠟, 籃, 鬲, 蓮, 籠, 卵, 腡, 螺.
Evidence from related phonetic series within Chinese, with 泣 traditionally being considered canonical. It is listed as 从水立聲 in the Shuowen, a phono-semantic character. 泣retained its velar initial into Middle Chinese, and this implies there must have been a velar in 立 too. 泣 also comes with documented evidence for a cluster, from a cognate in Tibetan ཁྲབ་ཁྲབ(khrab khrab).
Evidence from the Northern Min topolects, where one encounters an /s/- initial in the colloquial layer for 卵, 螺, 笠... implying one of Norman (1973)'s aspirated sonorants in Proto-Min, /*lh/, which is reconstructed in Old Chinese as coming from a pre-initial consonant /*C.r/.
At Vietnamese sức, a loan from Chinese 力(lì), there is presented the evidence from the velar initial in Mường and Chứt/Rục, the latter of which maintains the initial consonant cluster /kʰrɨk/. There is quite the correspondence between Old Chinese /*k.r/, Proto-Vietic /*k-r/ and modern Vietnamese /*ʂ/, orthographically s-.
At Thai หก(hòk), a loan from Chinese 六, we have a glottal initial /h/ in standard Thai, coming from Proto-Tai*krokᴰ, where you can see the split between modern /r/ initials and /h~x/ initials.
Interestingly, according to Baxter-Sagart, the character 粒, according to the Kangxi dictionary originally 𩚷, is also 从米立聲。Shaojiang Min apparently has /sən/, and Hakka and Cantonese both have "upper-register tones" for this colloquial term (i.e. in Standard Cantonese this is lap1/lɐp⁵/ instead of the expected lap6/lɐp²/, which is the regular reflex from Middle Chinese of 立, being in the literary layer). Although this is reconstructed with the initial /*p.r/ on account of its relationship with 皀 and the many readings starting /p-/ that the latter has in Middle Chinese, the orthography points to /*k.r/ being one possible dialectal variation. This is all building on the reasoning behind the reconstruction of 立. ― Michael Ly (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I know that Kraken Mare (a lake of hydrocarbons the size of the Caspian Sea on Titan, a moon of Saturn) was discovered in 2006, and officially named in April 2008 but when was the name 'Kraken Mare' proposed? It was adopted by the IAU on 11 April 2008, but who proposed the naming, and when? Is that knowable? I'm looking for the true origin of the term, not the point at which it was adopted by the IAU --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The taxonomic name for one genus of mynas is Mino, supposedly derived from Hindi. How did the terminal "o" get there? By taxonomist's or printer's mistake? By intermediating language? I have a Google Books reference to OED article saying mino was how the term first appeared in English according to OED. Century and NED have mino as one of the forms of myna. DCDuring (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
English mino ("myna") seems to have entered English in the late 18th century. It is now used as genus only for certain mynas of New Guinea. Taxonomically, it might have been used to avoid conflict with another genus name like Maina(s), but I haven't found that name in use as a taxon yet. DCDuring (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I would assume the form mino is due to hypercorrection: vowel reduction resulted in forms like fella/ˈfɛlə/ from fellow/ˈfɛloː/ and winda/ˈwɪndə/ from window/ˈwɪndoː/ in many nonstandard English dialects (except in Northern England and Scotland, which preferred e.g. fallae, windae/ˈfɑle/, /′wʌnde/ invalid IPA characters (′)), so a unlettered speaker wouldn't've been unjustified in assuming that /ˈmɐɪnə/ was a colloquial way of pronouncing mino/ˈmɐɪnoː/. As for its taxonomic use, I have no idea; it may well be that mino just happened to be the usual form in the idiolect of whoever named the genus. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 17:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
There's also ὕδερος, a synonym for dropsy, which isn't related to either of those others. We also exclude ἱδρώς "sweat". Coincidences do happen .... semantic influence may have also taken place, especially over a long period of time .... and there are examples closer at hand, such as English having two words both spelled ooze that mean similar things but are not cognates. —Soap—22:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The words in the section called borrowings are apparently designated as direct borrowings from the Latin porrum. This is not correct for Swedish purjo and purjolök. According to https://www.saob.se/artikel/?unik=P_2273-0379.K9Oi, purjo comes from purjolök, and the j apparently comes from French dialectal forms, and the older form purlök apparently comes from the Middle Low German porlōk.
Re: your last question: that's how {{desctree}} works. It parses the target entry for a Descendants section, then parses the entries for each of the descendants there, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I really need help with this one.
Bańkowski claims it was influenced by Ukrainian, which we claim is from Old Ruthenian, in turn... from Polish. However he claims the Romanian word comes from Hungarian. He also claims the Old Polish word is unrelated. In Old and Middle Polish the word meant a type of wine, and around the 18th century it came to mean the plant, according to some dictionaries. All of the old definitions seem to match, which makes me think Bańkowski is wrong here. (I need to add these definitions). Vininn126 (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm closing this one and deciding that Bańkowski is wrong here.
Currently reads It was believed by some conservatives that the phones were given for free with unlimited minutes to members of minority groups by the Obama administration.
Agree. Not sure why there is a special callout on "some conservatives" either. I've removed it, as it's not relevant to the etymology. Leasnam (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I reverted an unformatted and generally clueless edit by User:WaldoWraldaWolderGodsPower, which also was fixated on odd details like documenting the origin of Ralph Waldo Emerson's middle name and proving that the Teutonic Order was Teutonic. They have, however, raised some possibly legitimate points on the talk page about whether the current etymology is correct. It does seem odd that a name would be based on a word for "thief".
Of course "two comes after one" , but who came up with this specific wording, and when? Was there pre-war speculation about future wars using this or other nomenclature? I think this would be something interesting to explore. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I found a cite, now in the entry, from a novel published in 1894, for world-war referring to a world-wide war involving the great powers of Europe and eventually Muslim and Buddhist countries. The cite contradicted our etymology, which had it a calque of Weltkrieg. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Some investigations have convinced me that the suffix -phone has two different etymologies:
A suffix primarily forming adjectives, which may then often do double duty as a noun. Examples of terms formed with this suffix are homophone (actually borrowed from Ancient Greek ὁμόφωνος(homóphōnos)) and francophone. This suffix stems from the Ancient Greek adjectival suffix -φωνος(-phōnos, “related to voice or sound”).
A suffix forming nouns, all neologisms. Examples of terms formed with this suffix are téléphone and saxophone. This suffix stems from the Ancient Greek noun φωνή(phōnḗ, “voice, sound”).
While the suffix -φωνος is derived from the noun φωνή, these suffixes are distinct in origin, meaning, and use. Most current etymologies of words suffixed with -phone fail to make the distinction (and many fail to acknowledge that they are loanwords). The OED does tend to make the distinction. I’d begin an operation to fix this if I did not lack the time (for the foreseeable future). --Lambiam15:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be up my alley. I'll look at this and may reach out to you if I have any questions. Please feel free to make suggestions as well. Leasnam (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I first encountered this term verbally in, maybe, the early 2000s? The explanation I recall is that the bon part implies "plump, ample" and/or "wide" in reference to the bust and hips, while the kyu part is indeed from 窮屈(kyūkutsu, “narrow, skinny”) in reference to the waist.
I have not been able to find this term in any references, and I am loath to add an etym based purely on my 20+-year-old memory, but if that's all we've got, that's all we've got.
First attested in Câmi-ül Fürs (1501) as "baklaɣu" with the same meaning. Until my own edits, it stated that it possibly derived from Middle Mongolian *baɣla, which it then sources to Old Turkic(baɣla-, “to tie”). I can't find any evidence of that Mongolian reconstruction anywhere (including the 3 volume Etymological Dictionary of Mongolian Languages). What I can say, however, is that baklaɣu corresponds almost perfectly to Middle Mongol ᠪᠠᠭᠯᠠᠭᠠ(baɣlag-a, “bundle, package”), which itself originally comes from ᠪᠠᠭ(bag, “covering”) + ᠯᠤᠭᠠ(-lug-a, “with”), literally “with covering”.
Being frank, I’m getting a strong sense of Turkish linguistic purism here. It extends well beyond the scope of the sources given. Theknightwho (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
If I were being extra speculative, by the way, I'd suggest it might even have come from ᠪᠠᠭ ᠯᠤᠭᠠ ᠪᠠᠨ(bag-lug-a-ban) ("with its own covering") IPA(key): /ˈpakɮaːw̜a/, which is the reflexive comitative case. Theknightwho (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I have reviewed the literature and cleaned up the entry a bit. The Mongolic origin is from the historian cited at w:Baklava#Etymology. @Theknightwho, if I understand correctly, you are suggesting a different Mongolic origin as an original research. If we are going with your suggestion, then the references to baɣla- should be removed. --Vahag (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. I've looked into this a bit more, and what he's probably referring to is ᠪᠠᠭᠯᠠᠬᠤ(baɣlaqu, “to package, to bundle, to fasten”), which roughly equivalent to the gerund when used as a predicate (i.e. "packaging, bundling, fastening"). This is a process noun, and seems unlikely (though possible). Again, it comes from ᠪᠠᠭ(bag) + ᠊ᠯᠠᠬᠤ(-laqu) (verb-forming suffix), and fundamentally from Proto-Mongolic *baɣu. Old Turkic (ba-, “bind”) does exist (and is probably related). If any derivation does exist, then it's likely to be via Old Uyghur baɣ first. However, we can also reconstruct Proto-Tungusic *ba, so the direction of travel is not clear. This is one of those awkward Altaic roots. It's certainly not clear that Old Turkic is an ancestor to the Mongolian, though. Theknightwho (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the criticism that Buell doesn't explain the final -a is relevant, because you have explained that shift yourself in the etymology section.As for the rendering of ɣ as k in Turkic, that seems understandable given that ᠭ (g / ɣ) and ᠬ (k / q) are orthographically identical in that position: compare ᠪᠠᠭᠯᠠᠬᠤ(baɣlaqu) and ᠪᠠᠬᠯᠠᠬᠤ(baqlaqu). It may just have been a mistake, or, more accurately, the pronunciation difference was contextual when used as a medial: compare ᠪᠠᠬᠠᠯᠤᠤᠷ(baqaluur, “choke”), which derives from the same root. You could easily construct it as ᠪᠠᠭ᠋ᠠᠯᠤᠤᠷ(baɣaluur). Theknightwho (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The oldest form seems to be Old Irish ethait(“winged creature, bird, insect”), which probably comes from the root of Proto-Celtic *ɸeteti(“to fly”), just as Old Irish én(“bird”) and ette(“wing, feather”) do. The Indo-European root is *peth₂-(“to fly”). —Mahāgaja · talk07:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
So, where does the initial f- come from? In Nynorsk dialects (which I believe is mostly rural Western Norwegian), Germanic /x-/ kinda reverted back to PIE /k-/, so I initially felt it could have been something similar, but if the /ɸ-/ was completely dropped, it might not be as likely... Wakuran (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wakuran: Under lenition (one of the Irish mutations), /f/ disappears (in orthography, it's spelled fh, but it's completely silent). For example, an fear/ənˠˈfʲaɾˠ/ is 'the man' in the nominative, but an fhir/əˈn̠ʲiɾʲ/ is 'of the man' in the genitive. Lenition is extremely common in Irish and affects all lexical parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, numerals, sometimes pronouns), so any word starting with f will be encountered without the /f/ a very large amount of the time. So for words starting with vowels, people get used to the pattern of /f/ in non-lenition environments alternating with ∅ in lenition environments. Therefore, by analogy, it's fairly common in Irish (and all the Goidelic languages, in fact, since this alternation is found in all of them) that words that etymologically begin with a vowel acquire an unetymological /f/, basically because the nothingness before their initial vowel is reinterpreted as fh in lenition environments. It doesn't happen only to words that had *ɸ in Proto-Celtic; for example, Irish fan is from Old Irish anaid, which is from Proto-Celtic *anati, so it's definitely not a restoration of Proto-Celtic *ɸ, which had already disappeared centuries before these unetymological fs start showing up. —Mahāgaja · talk18:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Fish bowl, Justinrleung, Tooironic, Theknightwho, Wyang & anyone interested: hey all, I am I mildly unsure if the etymology of 'Taibei' is correct. I personally think it's correct because I've got one or two documents from the late 1970's and a few from the early 1980's that use the spelling 'Taibei', and during that window of time, no romanization system (I know of) for Mandarin yet existed that could create the spelling 'Taibei' except for Hanyu Pinyin (usually known as pinyin). Further, I've got three semi-reliable references on the entry itself saying that the word is from pinyin. After that time, at least two more romanization systems were created that are consistent with the spelling 'Taibei' (see the ramblings of some insane madperson here: Talk:Taibei). My conclusion is that the origin of 'Taibei' in English is a separate question from the way that someone creates the word. Someone at their house could use Tongyong Pinyin to recreate the word 'Taibei' straight from Mandarin, but in my opinion, the etymology of the English langauge term 'Taibei' doesn't change once that person does that. Also, how would this logic apply to the town in Fujian called Sansha? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you mean that English doesn't 'care' about what happens in Chinese once it has borrowed a term, even if the system it borrowed from at the time becomes replaced/outdated/whatever. It can just be confusing if that new system also happens to generate the same transliteration. I generally agree, though it's a bit tricky with transliterations, because you can always speculate on what would have happened if the new system had been a bit different instead.To use the examples of Beijing and Shanghai (that we've talked about in the past): English Beijing only came into existence due to Hanyu Pinyin, and eventually supplanted Peking. That's really straightforward. On the other hand, English Shanghai pre-dates pinyin, but it just-so-happened that the pinyin was also Shanghai. If we were being really pernickety, we could say that pinyin isn't the origin of the English term, but it is the reason we're still using it. That is just speculation, though.With Taibei, though, I'd probably leave it at Hanyu Pinyin. Although Tongyong Pinyin exists, I'm doubtful that any English terms derived from it have supplanted those from Pinyin (or Wade-Giles or whatever). I guess it could happen with place names that have stuck to the Tongyong spelling, but given that Taibei has never been the official romanisation in Taiwan (as it remained Taipei the whole time), and Mainland China never used Tongyong Pinyin in the first place, there's no way Tongyong could ever be the reason for the continued use of Taibei in English. Theknightwho (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It's easy to assume that the term with "b" (Taibei vs Taipei) was derived from mainland Mandarin, so from Hanyu Pinyin, like any place name in Taiwan, such as a much less common "Gaoxiong (=Kaohsiung). Tongyong Pinyin was hardly known outside Taiwan and had little currency in Taiwan itself.
However, Gaosyong (from Tongyong Pinyin) is more common than Gaoxiong (from Hanyu Pinyin), so the Tongyong Pinyin theory for Taiwanese place names and for "Taibei" specifically may be valid. Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)04:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Just know that I really am open to other ideas about my work on romanizations/transliterations from Mandarin, etc. Contact me if you don't like what I do on any particular entry. I am exploring an aspect of the origin of English language loan words that is not fully understood (as far as I know). Some mainstream dictionaries like Collins do mention pinyin in etymologies- see Guangzhou#Etymology, but that's an outlier. I am attempting to understand how romanization schemes fit into the etymologies of English language words derived from Mandarin. This has always been recognized as a nightmarishly confusing part of the English language. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The etymology stated is published in Eleanor Webster Bulatkin. "The Spanish Word 'Matiz': Its Origin and Semantic Evolution in the Technical Vocabulary of Medieval Painters." Traditio 10 (1954): 459-527.