Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/February

About Spanish búho―as well as Romanian bufniță—we are told that they derive from Vulgar Latin *būfus. So I imagined the same would be true of their apparent close cousin, the French hibou. But its entry ventures a (possible) derivation "from Proto-Germanic *hūwô and/or *uwwilǭ," and the only Latinate reference for hibou is a comparison to Latin būbo.

Aren't búho and hibou in fact more directly related than their respective entries suggest?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how. There's no way for the Latin b to migrate from the beginning of the word to the middle, and the change of f to h is a Spanish change, not a French one, so we can't even assume some sort of metathesis. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

If there is some connection, it is simply one of onomatopoeia for the owl's hoot (cf. Georgian ბუ /bu/). Phonologically French hibou cannot reflect a descent from *būfus, which would have yielded something like *buf /byf/. It cannot descend directly from any of the Germanic forms mentioned either. No surprise that the TLFi and FEW both decline to offer an etymon. Nicodene (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The etymology starts with “From earlier ins an”. I don’t believe that’s true. The standard Classical Gaelic (ie. late 12th c. spoken) forms were san, isin, sna, is na (cf. IGT i §67 and BST 190 27–192 2, p. 5: “(…) rachad sna tighibh agus is na tighibh ó dhul ionnta. As mé duine as f(h)earr san bhaile agus is in bhaile. .c. A-táid san bhaile an bhuidhean · caidhe sráid na seanchuidheadh .c.”; and notes: “Before pl. art. i n- gives is na, ’sna; (…) Before sg. art. i n- is isin, san (often sa before consonants).”).

You also get sind ló in Lebor Laignech version of “the Táin” (12th c. Middle Irish, see examples in http://dil.ie/26891), or sind aidchi adhuair in Saltair na Rann (early M.Ir. poetry), while there are a few examples of ins an, ins na in eDIL from later prose texts and sometimes poetry (late 14th c. Leabhar Buidhe Leacáin, 15th c. Feis Tighe Chonáin, poetry of 15th c. Philip Bocht Ó hUiginn). Apparently i san also was likely used in early modern County Laois (Leinster, see this video).

And the same form, sa(n), sna; ’sy(n), in all Gaelic dialects, from Munster, to Scotland, and the Isle of Man (I’m told ’s ny appears in Manx sermons too, but not in the Bible or HLSM, and I don’t have any example at hand), while the “full” forms differ: ins an /əns ən/, anns an /aũns ən/, ayns y(n) /o(n)sə(n) ~ u(n)sə(n) ~ əsə(n)/.

So it seems to me that the “From earlier ins an” part should be dropped from the etymology, perhaps classical usage of san should be mentioned, and the Usage Notes probably should mention that it is commonly understood to be a shortening of ins an – but actually it’s rather the older inherited form with the initial i- dropped (from forms like issin, issind, issa; compare the plural article inna → na), while ins is an innovation with -n- reintroduced by analogy. The same applies to Scottish Gaelic entry (+ anns). What do you think? // Silmeth ^@talk 23:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. Go ahead. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology 2 says that this is from onda, anda. This seems strange to me because of the unexplained initial /j/. Since the Modern English term is an adjective while the Old English term is a verb, I thought perhaps it could be from the past participle of the verb andian: ġeandod. However, then there is a final consonant and I'm not sure if it's regular to lose that (I'm no expert in English historical phonology). Does this seem plausible at all? --Smashhoof (Talk · Contributions) 22:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary denies that it has a separate etymology, and says that this is just a misunderstanding by Spenser of the meaning of the adjective: "Spenserian word, with the sense ‘furious, savage’, due to misunderstanding of a passage containing yond a.1 or adv., prob. the following:—Beth egre as is a Tygre yond in Ynde (Chaucer Clerk's T. 1143)."--Urszag (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a puzzle. Also spelled houguine, hocguine, hougine, it initially denoted armor for arms, thighs and lower legs, then in the 1600s shifted to butt armor. Godefroy quotes Fauchet writing c. 1600 "houguines (dont vient hoguiner, pour molester et facher), car ces armes n'estoient pas si joints aux corps comme la cuirasse", which could explain the semantic shift (if the basic idea was ≈accessory armor), but what's the origin? I considered hoguiner in the sometimes-mentioned sense of "thwart" (armor thwarts blows), but Fauchet seems to think the verb is from the noun, and anyway if there's a connection I'd prefer it be substantiated by a more recent reference work. FEW derives hoguines and hoguiner from Old Norse haugr, but "hill" → "armor for arms/legs" / "annoy" seem like odd semantic jumps. (Also, the verb is found in a rather different set of forms, hoguigner, hoquiner, so it's conceivable it has a different origin than the noun. Jouancoux's 1890 glossaire étymologique du patois Picard derives hoguiner from a Saxon verb hogian, but again, more recent reference works are needed.) - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

For others' convenience, here is the FEW entry in question, and here are possibly relevant entries (one, two, and three) from a more modern source that contradicts the FEW. (Expand the etymology sections.) I am not entirely what to make of all this yet. Nicodene (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean a recent reference work for Old Saxon?

I can't help but think of protective spells as tatoos. Incidently there's Hexe to compare OS *hagon, s.v. PGem *hagōną. That's literally hogwash, isn't it? ApisAzuli (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, a more recent reference work for any of it; one for Old Saxon would be useful if something substantiated the connection to Old Saxon, but otherwise no. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A connection to hoguette ("small barrel") is semantically intelligible enough, paralleling English tonlet, tonnelet (“armor skirt”) being related to French tonnelet (“small barrel, keg”), although this still leaves the ultimately origin unresolved. The old (1930s) OED suggested a possible connection between this word and Scottish and northern English dialectal hogger (“coarse stocking without the foot, used as a gaiter; short piece of metal pipe used as a connector”), btw. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Saw this as FWOTD. We give the etymology from Wielki słownik języka polskiego:

From Old Polish pasorzyt, pasirzyt, analyzable as paść (“to graze”) +‎ -o- +‎ rzyć (“butt”), literally "butt grazer".

But is that all there is to it? The form is a good match to the Greek and Latin word with metathesis of r and s. Is this a folk-etymological or humorous deformation of an original borrowing? 4pq1injbok (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve always thought about it this way – that it’s a humorous native formation based on Latin parasītus instead of a direct borrowing or calque. I’d say Latin/Greek inspiration for this formation should be mentioned. It’s definitely late (ie. Old Polish, post Proto-Slavic) formation, when Latin had big influence on Polish.

Also, I believe the modern unetymological spelling pasożyt stems from the connection with parasītus (as if the ż corresponded to Latin s here), but that’s just my own belief/hypothesis. I don’t have a good source on the reasoning behind this spelling. // Silmeth ^@talk 10:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, for the ż my guess woulda been influence of żywić or maybe żyć. 4pq1injbok (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

żyć, or cyto-.

The -r-, -ir- might be for w, I guess (I don't know Polish). Any archaism or corruption can be explained from use as slur like German Pickel am Arsch der Gesellschaft (zit on the arse of society). W.r.t. to graze cf. Mitesser (**paras-eat). ApisAzuli (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@4pq1injbok: You’re probably right about the influence of życie on the spelling (but I don’t want to believe that the reform committee in 1936 would settle on the spelling against etymology just because the word rzyć was outdated in most dialects of the early 20th century… :P).

Anyway, all the attestations of the word in Słownik staropolski (see volume 6 there, p. 45, s.v. Pasiżyt, Pasirzyt and (Pasożyt) Pasorzyt) are glossing Latin parasitus (except for the most recent one, ~1500, which has Scurra, id est leccator, proprie qui sequitur curiam gratia cibi blaszno, pąszyrzyth) so inspiration from the Latin word doesn’t seem controversial to me.

Also, interesting, the first attestation is written Pasiszit (~1420), indeed suggesting the ż form, meaning ‘one living at another’s expense’ rather than ‘one grazing on another’s arse’ – although not long after there are also Passirzyt (1437) and paszorzyth (1444) // Silmeth ^@talk 13:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Could it be related to French housse? PUC – 18:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Cf. Halfter 2., "... from Old High German hulft, hulst (“saddlecloth”, also hulfter, but in a copy from the 14th c.). ..."

See also футляр. ApisAzuli (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise futerał, indicating MLat. ApisAzuli (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems the other way around, from what I can see. The French word was borrowed from a West Germanic word, from a family of words related to *huljaną. Wakuran (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If both ultimately derive from Proto-Germanic *huljaną, they are indeed related. A missing link is whether Frankish *hulftijā stems from the Proto-Germanic term. Halter suggest a relation with Proto-Germanic *hulistrą, from *huljaną.  --Lambiam 08:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The semantics of the supposed etymology make no sense. How is does the dative case of the reflexive pronoun turn into the second person dual pronoun? On top of that, the ώ remains unexplained. RubixLang (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

For σφώ, σφῶϊ, Beekes refers to σφεῖς, where these forms are not further explained but listed as duals. No explanation is offered for the semantic hop-over from 3rd plural to 2nd plural. The pronoun σφεῖς is not necessarily reflexive. Is there an Ancient Greek 3rd-person dual pronoun, “the two of them, both of them”?  --Lambiam 09:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Yes: σφωέ (sphōé). —Mahāgaja · talk 11:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: In any case, I think a note connecting it with σφωέ and σφεῖς should be added to the article for σφώ RubixLang (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@RubixLang, Lambiam: Rix ({{R:grc:HGG}}) is apparently the source of the hypothesis; he says σφι (sphi) was originally the dative plural of the reflexive pronoun and is equivalent to Latin sibī; from here forms in σφ- spread to other cases of the reflexive pronoun; the reflexive pronoun begins to be used non-reflexively, so that these σφ-forms are just third-person plural personal pronouns, and from there they spread to the third person dual and even creep into the second person dual (whose ώ is taken over from the first-person dual pronoun νώ (nṓ)). Meanwhile Sihler ({{R:ine:Sihler:1995}}) gives a truly bizarre suggestion that the σφ-forms come from something starting with *sǵʰw-, from Proto-Indo-European *seǵʰ- (“powerful”) as some sort of honorific pronoun, only to conclude that Mycenaean Greek 𐀟𐀂 (pe-i) proves that the φ can't have come from a labiovelar anyway. He never suggests where they do come from, he merely sets up this utterly wacky straw man, only to knock it down again. —Mahāgaja · talk 23:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought about honorifics, too, or rather familiar, cp. sib, Sippe. The honrific might be seen in augustus etc., ego, whatever, cp. auto-, autonomy and equivalently sloboda (“freedom”), Svobodová etc., similar the Suebi, whereby Galician witnesses Suegos. ApisAzuli (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Also Sache if originally 'die beiden Streithähne' , cp. honeymoon, hjon ("couple"). ApisAzuli (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The etymology of ıhlamur is given as (via Ottoman Turkish) ‘from Ancient Greek φλαμουρία (phlamouría, “linden tree”)’. LSJ has no such entry. The Greek Wiktionary gives the etymology of (Modern) Greek φλαμουριά (note the different accent placement) as being from φλαμούρι + -ιά, where φλαμούρι (flamoúri) is from Byzantine Greek φλαμούριον (phlamoúrion), from Koine Greek φλάμμουλα (phlámmoula), from Latin flammula. All this is presented without giving a source. The usual term for the linden tree in Ancient Greek is φιλύρα (philúra). Any ideas for sources to verify the etymology?  --Lambiam 19:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

See فلامور (fılamur) with references. The motivation for the sense development from the word for "war flag" seems to be User:Fay Freak's idea. Vahag (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan, Lambiam: From what I remember and what Vahagn seems to have realized, there have been bare treatments of these terms, which I synthesized, and at some literature places one did realize the connection between linden and war flags, where ever I got it from (probably some German journal snippets). Sure also that the term did not exist before the Middle Ages, indeed the ”Ancient” part of “Ancient Greek” does not fit (and LSJ ends its treatment when again? 200 CE?). Greek Wiktionary did not go down the rabbithole that much as I did (which already sufficed for creating the entries at 04:50 of a 2018 night). Fay Freak (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

From GOI Reading Group: Proceedings of the Thurneysen Fanclub: issue 22 (Lars Nooij, David Stifter et al.):

We try to think of examples of Irish au, but avoid many of them, because they are rather complicated. One of these is dóu, dáu, dó ‘to him, to it’. This derives from the (Western) Indo-European preposition *do, *dō, which had both a long- and a short-vowel form. In Celtic these turned into *do and *dū respectively and both forms are reflected in Irish and British. Welsh has *dū > Old Welsh di > Middle Welsh i/y ‘to, for’. The Irish preposition must also go back to *dū > Ir. do, by means of pretonic shortening of the vowel, followed by the early 8^th century loss of the distinction between u and o in final, unstressed position (evidence for this is found in the conjugated forms dúnn and dúib, which preserve the u). The conjugated preposition dó ‘to him, to it’, however, is probably derived from the plain short form *do in adverbial function, without any enclitic pronoun. As it is a stressed word it was lengthened to dó in Old Irish. This means that, ironically, the short Old Irish do goes back to *dū < *dō with a long vowel, whereas the long Old Irish dó goes back to *do with a short vowel.

I wonder if *do should be moved to *dū then (as the long form seems to be preserved in (some of?) the daughter languages as the base preposition), or at least the latter noted as a variant form (and explicitly given as the ancestor of OIr. do and Welsh i – which now lists *de and *to- in its etymology instead). But I don’t feel comfortable enough in Proto-Celtic or Brittonic to edit/move it on my own. // Silmeth ^@talk 21:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't access the link you provided; can you give the full bibliographic citation for the quote above? In principle, it sounds plausible that the PC form of the preposition was *dū, especially considering how frequently the prefix shows up as du- in Old Irish. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, that PDF is hosted only on academia.edu (access requires creating a free account there) – those are just otherwise unpublished notes from Stifter and some other people’s meeting with commentary of Thurneysen’s grammar (they were analysing it paragraph by paragraph, taking notes for the purpose of writing new more up-to-date Old Irish grammar).

But you can find the same etymology eg. in David Stifter (2014) “The history of Old Irish preverb to-”, in Elisa Roma, David Stifter, editors, Linguistic and philological studies in Early Irish, →ISBN, pages 203–246 – but it’s not the focus of the article, so not a lot of argumentation for it (it’s rather given as a fact), although there’s a footnote with “Cp. Gaul. duci (La Graufesenque, cp. Delamarre 2003: 153; RIG L-65) and maybe duti < *dō-(e)ti (?) (lead-plate from Chartres, Lambert et al. 2013); OW di, MW y.” is given. Stifter also notes there that the preposition appears exclusively as du in the reviewed earliest OIr. texts, but the article shows that there’s generally no consistency between written pretonic o and u in early OIr. so this doesn’t need to be significant. // Silmeth ^@talk 20:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

RFV of etymologies 1 and 3. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The name of the silicoflagellate genus Lyramula (discovered by G. Dallas Hanna in 1928), derives from the Latin lyra, in reference to the "lyre-shape"" of the siliceous skeletons, but the meaning of the suffix mula is not clear. Thanks for helping. Gerardgiraud (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

He may have discovered the specimen(s), but he invented or erected the genus and its name. I'll look into what Lyram may have come from. DCDuring (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Judging by the images for Lyramula furcata (none in Commons), it is clear it must be from lyra, in which case lyram is singular accusative. I suspect that form was selected for euphony. The genus is an extinct one of silicoflagellates. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I think you've had a look to the image Vallacerta & Lyramula I've recently imported to illustrate Lyramulaceae family. Lyramula skeleton is clearly lyra-shaped. Gerardgiraud (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The etymology in the entry involved French groseille and in turn, Middle Dutch, French, back to PIE. This seems less than straightforward for a taxonomic term, especially since grossulus (“small, unripe fig”) seems a reasonable fit for a genus/subgenus that includes gooseberry and -arius is a common Latin suffix. Grossularia appears in a catalog compiled by Gaspard Bauhin (French-born, professor of Greek, rector of the uni, botanist) of plants growing around Basel, published in 16221602. DCDuring (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of French groseille. The entry at TLFI for groseille mentions Medieval Latin grosellarius from the 11th century. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The main issue here is that a 'Vulgar Latin' *grossulāria could not yield the ending ⟨eille⟩ /-ɛj/ in French. It would also probably have been subject to syncope of the unstressed medial /ŭ/, resulting overall in something like *grôlière /ɡʁoljɛʁ/.

Now that you mention it, however, *grossicula would come close to yielding French groseille. Two issues remain: first, Latin /ss/ yields, nearly always, /s/ in French rather than /z/. Second, the change in gender is suspect (grossulus being masculine in Latin). Still, neither is damning evidence.

(Medieval Latin grosellarius is also interesting, but in all likelihood represents a latinized borrowing from the vernacular.)

On the other hand, I do not see any difficulties with deriving the French term from Germanic, as the TLFi does. Nicodene (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the taxonomic name took the route from groseille rather than a route involving the five botanical authors (3 German, 2 Flemish) Bauhin cited for the plant, ie, directly from scientific Latin, in turn from classical Latin elements. -aria occurs as ending for some plant names in classical Latin (no fewer than 13 in Lewis & Short).DCDuring (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I'd misread the intention of your post.

Modern Latin grossularia indeed does not appear to be derived from French groseille, thought it may have been inspired by it. I agree that it is straightforwardly grossulus + -aria, the latter being a standard ending in taxonyms. Nicodene (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was checking here to make sure I didn't miss something. I never had a problem with the derivation of grosseille and would not be surprised that the 16th and 17th century botanists would have been aware of it and influenced by it. DCDuring (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've deduced from archive.org, that an entry for "gold" in the form of a verb was added to Wiktionary around March 2012. I'm curious where this usage originated. I can find no such use of the word anywhere else online. And no other dictionary seems to consider "gold" a possible verb. I'm not disagreeing with the meaning at all. It seems perfectly logical to me. I just want to understand where it originated. Thanks for any assistance the community can offer. Penman1963 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RFV for it at WT:Requests for verification/English#gold (verb). —Mahāgaja · talk 14:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! —Penman1963 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Translator "DeepL" translates "I gold your food" by "I love your food". Amazing, isn't it? Goggle translates it by "I adorn your food" or "I decorate your food". Gerardgiraud (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

From this Silocoflagella Vallacerta from Vallacertaceae family, I have no idea at all as for its etymology. I don't thing it's an eponym. Here is the first description of the genus => Hanna (1928). Gerardgiraud (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought it might be a place in California, but I find nothing of it on the Web. Maybe valla + certa ("certain") or vallum + lacerta ("lizard")? "Certain" might be some reference to Hanna's goal of finding microfossil species that would serve as a marker for strata of a narrow range of possible age. But I'm just speculating. DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that the organism is a silicoflagellate, I would suggest that the morphemes are vallum 'wall' + acer 'sharp, pointy' + -tus 'provided with, having'. Nicodene (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea since Vallacerta has 5 spine. Literally "wall lined with spines", yes a good hypothesis. Thanks. Gerardgiraud (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. The literal sense would be '(creature/organism) with sharp walls (~spines)'. Nicodene (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. But wouldn't "well-formed" NL. compounds have the adjective (acer) come before the noun? How certain can we be about this? DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It does seem so, now that you mention it, and Vallacerta may turn out to derive from something that we've yet to think of, such as a proper name. At least we know that the first element is not Greek, on account of the /v/, and vallum seems a plausible description of the silica structure. Nicodene (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: you meant that, in proper Latin, the correct name should be Acervallum? Gerardgiraud (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, eg. grandiflora, latifolius, brevicaudis, melanonyx. But mostly I'm not sure about any of the ideas we've had about this. We sometimes include multiple speculative etymologies for an entry, but sometimes relegate such etymologies to the talk page for the entry. DCDuring (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Even the proper-name idea isn't too promising as Google search (whether language set to English, Spanish (Euro or LA), or Italian) turns up only pages about silicoflagellates or stratigraphy: no personal names, no toponyms. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I also tried searches for "valla certa". DCDuring (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Two etymologies have been proposed for Turkish efe:

1. "From Greek έφηβος (éfivos, “adolescent”) from Ancient Greek ἔφηβος (éphēbos, “adolescent”)" (current).
2. A clipping of efendi or efendim used among the Zeybeks and other tribes, and adopted by Turks to refer to tribe members.

{{R:tr:OTK}} gives both. {{R:ota:Kelekian}} mentions only the second. {{R:tr:Nishanyan}} mentions only the first. {{R:tr:NewRedhouse}} mentions the Zeybek connection without giving an etymology. {{R:ota:Redhouse}} does not have the word. {{RQ:Ataturk Nutuk 1927}} page 330 spells the word with a hamza, أفه, as if it were Arabic, but it is not.

Is there a reason to prefer one etymology over the other? My inclination is to consider efe to be a merger of both etymologies, the first yielding the "elder brother" sense and the second yielding the "brave person" sense. {{R:tr:OTK}} goes on to add quite a few more senses. Which etymology yielded sheep dog? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The hamza to me implies jefe (/xefe/, */hefe/), cf. chief, Chef, see further Haupt, capo, ultimately of uncertain origin. ApisAzuli (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

First, why would Turkish efe be borrowed from Spanish at all? All Turkish terms borrowed from Spanish refer to modern things, as one would expect from history. Was there ever a time when Turkish efe was limited to a Spanish context- to refer to commanders such as Álvaro de Bazán, for instance? The answer is almost certainly 'no'. The origin of the word have been obvious if so, and no Greek etyma would have had to be proposed.

Second, supposing we follow this line of inquiry anyway, why would the Turkish efe not begin with some consonant? Cf. Turkish holding, borrowed from English with /h-/. Nicodene (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Habibi, I have not said that it were definitely from Spanish. It simply looks identical. Counter question. Why does Spanish reflect French chief /ˈtʃjeːf/ with j /x/ as if it was from *y, you know, as in *yēgʷeh₂, ἥβη, jēga? Or why would Turkish on the other hand simply drop the better half of the word? ApisAzuli (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The Spanish word was clearly not borrowed at a time when the French pronunciation was /ˈtʃjeːf/. At the time it would have already been, more or less, /ˈʃɛf/, which was taken into Spanish as /ˈʃefe/ ⟨xefe⟩, the addition of /-e/ being a normal means of adapting foreign words ending in consonants which do not natively occur in word-final position in Spanish. Later, /ʃ/ universally turned to /x/ in Spanish, hence modern /ˈxefe/.

Claiming that Spanish somehow inherited *yēgʷeh₂ from Proto-Indo-European is adventurous, to put it lightly, considering the lack of a corresponding Latin word, or any evidence at all for that matter.

Just why the above two etymologies were proposed for efe, both involving clippings of old Greek borrowings, I cannot say. Either still seems more likely than a modern borrowing from Spanish with an inexplicable initial consonant loss. Nicodene (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The other words mentioned are from *káput, though. Wakuran (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Not the Greek ones. As for haupt and capo, they are even less likely etyma.Nicodene (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn’t a clipping of έφηβος have given rise to ^✽efi, like drahmi < δραχμή (drachmí) and hani (the fish) < χάννη (chánni)?  --Lambiam 10:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems to generally be the case, but cf. Niğde, kerkenez < Νίγδη, κερχνηίς. Kulübe < καλύβη as well, if not via Persian. Angela Ralli (The morphology of Asia Minor Greek, p. 149) indicates that some inner Anatolian dialects, though apparently not Silliot, show mid-vowel outcomes of /η/, suggesting that iotacism was not complete there at the time of the Turkish arrival. That would be consistent with the location of the toponym Niğde. Nicodene (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It seem unlikely that Turkish kulübe came from Byzantine καλύβη (kalúbē)/kaˈly.vi/, so Persian کلبه (kolbe) seems more likely. The Persian term is said to be from Middle Persian (kurbag), so perhaps from an unrecorded Koine variant καλύβα /kaˈly.βa/ – note that Modern Greek has καλύβα (kalýva), which is not an obvious candidate for being a descendant of /kaˈly.vi/. The Turkish term is associated with the Aegean region. Nişanyan actually writes that association with έφηβος, while tempting, seems unlikely from a cultural-historical point of view; instead, he favours an explanation as this originally being an infantilism (baby talk).  --Lambiam 13:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. That does seem consistent with the sense of 'elder brother'. Nicodene (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The city of EphesusTurkish Efes is just a stone throw away from the origin of zeybekism (people who called themselves efe or, today modern day roughnecks) in Ayasuluk (now Selcuk). where the ancient city of Ephesus is located. Well actually it is the self same place.

I leave the speak to Berkay koçak, who is a doctor in marmara university institute of turkish researches ataturk's principles and revolutionary history. Flāvidus (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If our entries are correct, Ancient Greek had κάττος (m.) and κάττα (f.), while modern Greek has γάτος and γάτα. The entry for the last form derives it from Ancient Greek κάττα, without explaining why the /k-/ voiced to /ɡ-/. Could it be that the Modern Greek forms were borrowed from Venetian gato and gata? Cf. numerous other Romance cognates with /ɡ-/. Nicodene (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Curiously, the Greek Wiktionary states that γάτος is from Italian gatto, while γάτα is said to be from Koine κάττα.  --Lambiam 09:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That's an odd inconsistency.

I would think that Venetian, rather than (Standard) Italian, is the more likely medium of transmission, given that Venice occupied parts of Greece from 1204 to 1797. Perhaps 'Italian' is being used in a loose sense here.

In general, the Greek Wikipedia is not shy of treating Venetian as a language in it its own right; for example, in writing ”τσόντα < (άμεσο δάνειο) βενετική zonta”. The /ɡ-/ terms may have been borrowed from largely unrecorded Sabir, to which Genoese also contributed.  --Lambiam 00:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

While we're at it, were the Ancient Greek forms borrowed from Latin? -us/a gender alternation in animal names is normal for Latin (cf. equus/equa). Not sure if it's so for Greek. Nicodene (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Both κάττα and κάττος are attested in late Ancient Greek, but feminine κάττα is the usual form. Beekes writes, "Origin unknown, but the word is found in Latin and most other languages of Europe."  --Lambiam 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Nicodene, Lambiam. I tried to add greek ref/sources at etymologies γάτα, γάτος, κάττα, but I am not familiar with etymology-writing. Sorry if I made mistakes.

Many el.wikt pages are very old and need redoing (alas, there are only very few active editors).

I have rewritten the etymology at el.wikt.mediaeval γάτα (also mentioning there the other forms of the word and the phonetic issues, which are regular). The form κάττα is Med, also late Hellenistic, and comes from late latin, or so all dictionaries I have seen say. I do not know what Beekes means by 'unknown'.

In modern greek γάτα is the main lemma (feminine), unlike most words where the masculine is main (perhaps this is not explained very clearly at the lemma).

Yes, venetian is much more often the lending language than italian or other languages, for the reasons explained so nicely above. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 21:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Sarri.greek. I have attempted 'polish' the etymologies; let me know if there are mistakes. Nicodene (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene thank you, Τhe gatta < catta for the Latin etymology, is not discussed in greek dictionaries. The only dictionary discussing the sequence mediaeval γάτα / κάττα / κάτα from Hellenistic κάττα (kátta) is {{R:DSMG}}. The sound change article+word is very frequent. Venetian, which is regularly mentioned in many etymologies, I did not find for γάτα (gáta). ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 09:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A bit strange to have an everyday Greek word derive directly from Medieval Latin, a scholarly language, rather than from a living Romance language that was in frequent contact with Greek. But if that is what the source says, so be it. Nicodene (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In the past, etymologists postulated the existence of a Vulgar Latin *dominiō in order to explain Old French donjon; but is there any other evidence to support the fact that such a term actually existed ? Do we still need it to explain donjon when we have Frankish *dungijā, a much surer explanation ? To my knowledge, no other Romance language inherited a descendant of *dominiō with the meaning of "keep, bower, cellar" so is there any reason to maintain it any further ? The purported sense evolution has always struck me as odd, to say the least. Putting a criminal in the 'lordship' or in the 'rule' doesn't make any sense. Leasnam (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Does any Germanic language have a direct descendant meaning 'cellar, underground chamber'?

Old Occitan did have the corresponding word, and both it and Old French had variants with /ɲ/ (doignon, domnhon), consistent with derivation from *dominiōnem but without affrication. The /m/ in domnhon and other Occitan variants (domnon, domejon, dromnhon) also appears decisive.

The original sense, in any case, was 'keep, main (~commanding) tower of a castle', which is what the modern French word still means. The sense of 'dungeon' developed in English. Nicodene (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Germanic descendants are rife: Old English dung, Middle English dong (“pit of hell, abyss”), Dutch donk, Middle High German tunc (“subterranean chamber”), German Tunk, Icelandic dyngja, although the sense of "underground cellar" seems to have been lost over time in all the descendants, it is clearly evident in earlier stages of those languages. When I called for other Romance examples, I meant non-Gallo-romance languages like Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, not Occitan, the twin sister of French under the same basic influences that French developed. Bringing up Occitan to support French is akin to mentioning Scots as a counterpoint to English - it doesn't add much weight when comparative etymology is concerned. Of course Old Occitan had a corresponding word. That's no surprise. The /m/ in domnhon and other Occitan variants (domnon, domejon, dromnhon) also appears decisive. - if you believe that then I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. This is easily explained by folk etymology applied in retrospect under the false assumption that the word was originally derived from *dominio, a very common practice, even back in those times. Again, Latin dominium never meant "keep", or "command tower", it meant "feast, lordship, ownership". Old Norse dyngja meant "a lady's bower" which is close to what we'd think of as a keep - it's a separate apartment of sorts. Even though Old French was in contact with Old Norse, I'm not suggesting it's from Old Norse, but Old Norse may preserve this sense that was in the original Germanic that was lost in other branches, yet eventually made it to Old French via Frankish. The English meaning is taken from the Old English word dung which meant "prison, dungeon". Leasnam (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Leasnam I asked you whether any Germanic language has a direct descendant, i.e. one of *dungijā, that refers to a cellar or other type of underground chamber. Your answer to that (rhetorical) question should have been 'no', and not a single example that you have provided shows otherwise.

A further question: if a feminine *dungijā is the source of the Romance forms, why does not a single Romance dialect reflect the expected */ˈdondʒa/, not even as a variant? I invite you to look for examples, if only to see for yourself that there are not any.

You asked for an example of *dominiōnem surviving in another Romance language, and that is precisely what you were given. From your reaction, it appears that you have forgotten, or had never learnt, that Occitan was 'subject to relatively little Germanic influence' - John Charles Smith in The Handbook of Language Contact (2020: p. 434). See also Rebecca Posner's comments on Germanic influence underlying the sharp divergence between French and Occitan (The Romance Languages, 1996: pp. 245–246).

Keeping in mind your claim that donjon represents a Germanic lexical penetration into French, the existence of an obvious cognate in early medieval Occitan, a language into which relatively few 'Germanicisms' had penetrated, is relevant counterevidence. So too is the fact that four out of the five Occitan variants cited by the FEW conserve /m/, baseless attempts to dismiss it all as folk-etymology notwithstanding. Per DuCange (see domnio), the /m/ form is even attested in the Chronicon Mosomense, which was written circa 1000 CE in Mouzon, located in the far northeast of France.

Another complication for the Germanic theory is the complete absence of the sense of 'underground chamber, cellar, dungeon' from Romance. No such sense as 'Lady's chamber' is to be found there either, from which a semantic link to 'keep' is, in any case, tenuous at best. A keep, if it even contains a Lady's chamber, can hardly be defined by it.

Finally, that the Latin dominium did not mean 'keep' or 'command tower' is irrelevant. First of all, it did mean 'property (of a lord)'. Second of all, dominium, -i is not the proposed etymon: we are rather working with a reconstructed *dominio, -onis derived from dominus or a corresponding verb. It is not much of a 'reconstruction', actually, considering that the word is attested, albeit in syncopated form. Nicodene (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No such sense as 'Lady's chamber' is to be found there either

That's not quite true, as that is precisely the meaning of Old Norse dyngja. In our entry (and Zoega, where the wording is took from), that is what is obviously denoted by "bower"; it hardly mean "shelter" or "bower-bird nest". This is confirmed by the Dictionary of Old Norse Prose, which defines dyngja as a "(separate) building/room used by the women on a farmstead". Obviously such a room would not exactly be homologous to a French "lady's chamber", but any semantic difference is a relatively superficial function of the differences between medieval France's and medieval Scandinavia's elite residential practices rather than reflective of a fundamental conceptual distinction. This isn't in any way detrimental to the rest of your comment, which is a superb counter to the highly questionable at best idea that Old French donjon is of Germanic origin. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In the part that you've quoted, I'm saying that that meaning is not found in Romance, not that it's not found in Germanic. Nicodene (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Whoops; should've known since you were responding to Leasnam mentioning precisely that sense; will try to read more carefully. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene, ok, I misunderstood your question. No, none directly from *dungijā preserve that meaning, but the others are reflexes of the same base word. We do not know what terms and meanings existed in Frankish as it is largely unattested. We must reconstruct much of it from the loanwords in Old French and inherited words in Old Dutch. Our equivilising of Frankish and Proto-West Germanic does Frankish a disservice in that it assumes no words could exist specific to Frankish and not to Proto-West Germanic, which was likely not the case. Frankish could have had a any number of derivatives that did not match *dungijā in shape, we simply do not know. A further question: if a feminine *dungijā is the source of the Romance forms, why does not a single Romance dialect reflect the expected */ˈdondʒa/, not even as a variant? I invite you to look for examples, if only to see for yourself that there are not any. - this argument is completely irrelevant. Gender is not always maintained from the loaner language, it can be reassigned without rhyme or reason - compare Old French burc which is masculine borrowed from Frankish *burg, a feminine noun. Old French foulc is masculine, but Frankish *folk is neuter. You asked for an example of *dominiōnem surviving in another Romance language, and that is precisely what you were given. - for comparative analysis this does not hold weight. Both Occitan and Oïl languages constitute a single branch of Romance. that would be like using a word found only in Anglic and Old Frisian to reconstruct a Proto-Germanic term. Not a very secure reconstruction. And Old Occitan was influenced by Germanic, and not always the same way as Old French, so Germanic influence there cannot be ruled out either. Finally, that the Latin dominium did not mean 'keep' or 'command tower' is irrelevant. - Wrong, this is the most relevant piece of all. It makes more sense that the person in the keep should be referred to as the donjon, not the place. However, I give it to you in this: Second of all, dominium, -i is not the proposed etymon: we are rather working with a reconstructed *dominio, -onis derived from dominus or a corresponding verb. - this does shed new light on the discussion and is precisely what I am looking for. Can you please elaborate on this ? As stated in my initial chunk, my biggest hurdle was the semantic evolution. Leasnam (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's even possible (and seems likely now that I think of it) that the unattested Vulgar Latin term may have been created by the Franks and passed through Frankish before entering Old French and Old Occitan. So just like aboc, abhoc (> French avec) this may have been a Frankish rendering of a term consisting of Latin, perhaps mingled with a Frankish term related to *dungijā, resulting in a term that is not found in other Romance languages outside of the Gallo-Romance area. Leasnam (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

┌┘ @Leasnam Conveniently, neither of the Frankish borrowings that you have shown were feminines ending in -a, which coincides with the Romance feminine marker, allowing for easy cross-linguistic gender compatibility. If there exists any example of a feminine Frankish word with -a that was borrowed into Romance with no trace of its original gender, then I have yet to find it. Cf. agace, boule, brèche, broigne, canette, clanche, crampe, crèche, crosse, écaille/écale, échauguette, étuve (if Germanic), flèche, fronce, gerbe, guêpe (partially), guette, guigne, hache, haire, harde, hart, honte, huese, houe, latte, lisière, loge, loupe, malle, moue, targe, tette, trappe, and trêve- all of which are feminine.

The few apparent exceptions fall apart under closer scrutiny. Flanc derives, via a later back-formation (possibly by analogy with bras~brace), from the original Old French flanche (feminine, and still found regionally), as explained by both the FEW and the TLFi. Orgueil derives, per the FEW, from a substantive based on Frankish *urgōlī 'proud'; cf. also the TLFi's commentary. (Nevertheless, feminine forms such as orgoylle are indeed found in Old French, possibly reflecting *orgōllja.) As for soin, per the FEW, the earliest attestation of such a noun, circa 500 CE in the Lex Salica, has it as unambiguously feminine, with Old French retaining a feminine songne (still found in Walloon as sogne; cf. also sogna and segna in Gallo-Italic, per the FEW entry), not to mention that Standard French to this day retains the feminine besogne, first attested in the twelfth century as ⟨besonge⟩.

Compare any of the above with donjon, for which no feminine variant is attested anywhere at all. Is it impossible for it to have been borrowed from some (otherwise unevidenced) Frankish *dungijā 'cellar' anyway? No. But etymology is, fundamentally, an exercise in probability, and Occam's razor always has to be kept in mind.

From your repeatedly pointing out that Occitan and French are both Gallo-Romance languages, it seems not to have occurred to you that their genetic relation is irrelevant when discussing foreign borrowings. That relatively few Germanic lexical items had penetrated into early medieval Occitan is a relevant factor when evaluating the likelihood of the proposed etyma.

Working with *dominiōnem, the etymological sense would be 'lord's bastion/residence' (from dominus 'lord'), an accurate description of a keep. Even if, following your opinion, *dominiōnem were not the etymon, then the association with 'lord' would still have been strong enough to prompt a folk-etymology, not just in the Occitan area, but also, at a minimum, in northeastern France as well.

I see no reason to suppose that Frankish had anything to do with avec, considering that both elements of the word are Latin in origin. (I do not see how it could even be a calque; that would require Frankish to have had an analogous form meaning 'with' or similar.) All of Gallo-Romance, including Catalan, in which Frankish influence was weakest of all, reflects a loss of Latin cum 'with' in favour of alternatives built on apud. Nicodene (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Our entry for dominion suggests that Medieval Latin dominio is actually attested; should an asterisk be added there? And should dominion and dungeon be listed as {{doublet}}s of each other? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I had noticed that as well. At this point, I am not sure. Leasnam (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The English word comes from French dominion, itself borrowed from Latin dominium. Per the traditional French pronunciation of Latin, final ⟨um⟩ is rendered /ɔm/, still the norm in modern pronunciations of borrowings; cf. album, sérum, or pensum. Before the Renaissance, however, French speakers rendered Ecclesiastical Latin ⟨um⟩ the same way as ⟨on⟩ in native words (Rice's The phonology of Gallic Clerical Latin, p. 48), so approximately /ɔ̃n/. Bearing in mind the age of the French borrowing dominion (attested as early as 1338, per the above TLFi entry), its /ɔ̃/ is consistent with a continuation of the Pre-Renaissance pronunciation. As its spelling suggests, the ending was reinterpreted as -on, inherited in numerous words from Latin -ōnem.

A derivation from Medieval Latin dominio, -onis 'power, rule' is difficult for chronological reasons. The latter is attested at least once, though that citation dates to the year 1573, hence it may simply represent a re-borrowing from French or English, the latter of which acquired the word dominion at least a century earlier, and the former two centuries earlier. I have not been able to find an earlier attestation of the word in Medieval Latin. Nicodene (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are a few more cases of what appear to be uses of dominio: , , . The first appears to be late 15th century; the snippet view makes it tough to be certain, but the text refers to Guillelmus & Nicolaus de Ariotis, “Cives nostri Londonienses”; said gentlemen are reported to have requested Milanese citizenship in 1484. The other uses are from 1658 and 1676.  --Lambiam 10:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

As a caveat, the second book says de acquirendo rerum dominio, '...on obtaining the mastery of affairs' (and so an example of dominium in the ablative). The following num.13. is a separate element; cf. the subsequent num.749./nu.7./num.94./etc., where 'nu(m)' stands for a form of numerus.

For the first text, I have found an article (which I cannot fully access) that describes it as containing ' register of grants for the reigns of Edward V and Richard III', which fits with the date that you have arrived at through other means. Nicodene (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It might hold true that Bugs Bunny popularized the expression, but OED have more than a century older examples of the phrase being used https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/22021/what-are-the-origins-of-whats-up/107664#107664

I've heard that Bugs Bunny was heavily inspired by Clark Gable's character Peter Warne in "That Happened One Night" (1934), I don't know if he would have said anything similar. Wakuran (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology states that this word is borrowed from Old French dungun (that is the redirected term). Yet senses 3, 4, & 5 were not present in the Old French term, unless they are missing from that entry. If that is not the case, where did these senses come from ? Can we not say the term was conflated/merged with Middle English donge, and its etymon Old English dung ? Leasnam (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that this could've happened, but one would be ill-advised to uncritically accept that hypothesis. Speaking against it is the sheer rarity of donge and the its strained resemblance to dongeoun, meaning that it would've had insufficient currency or means to influence the sense of the latter word. More importantly, the sense of "prison, dungeon" could've developed from the first two; compare Georgian ციხე (cixe, “fort, prison”), rendering such a hypothesis unnecessary; this is supported by the fact that dongeoun originally referred specifically to a prison located inside a keep. Even more strikingly, some of the very earliest attestations for the "dungeon" sense refer to prisoners being put "depe in a/my dongeoun"; it is easy to see how this could've originally meant "keep" before later being reinterpreted as referring to a specific part of the keep. As for sense four, it is a natural development of sense 3; compare the "hell" sense of prisoun; the last two senses build on this as well as the preceding three senses. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::It is possible that this could've happened, but one would be ill-advised to uncritically accept that hypothesis. - says who ? donge was a native English word, so it was known by everyone who spoke English. dongeoun would have been the novelty term - and it is very reasonable to assume that it would seem to be the posh or "correct form" to be used in place of donge in writing (reminds me of Modern luncheon vs. lunch). So in speech we would likely have heard donge, but in writing, dongeoun. Everything else you state is conjectured with could've. How we go from donjon "a main tower" to dongeoun "pit of hell" (exactly the same as donge) simply based on natural sense evolution is an obtuse assertion. We have 2 attestations of donge with that meaning. That is 2 more than we have of *dominio. Leasnam (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a non sequitur to assume that donge was "known by everyone" just because it was part of the English native vocabulary, as speakers aren't born with some sort of innate, instinctual grasp of it. Instead, they must learn words of native origin like any other; it is true that native words tend to be more basic and are therefore apprehended by more speakers, but this is only a slight tendency, not a ironclad dictum; it is not difficult to adduce native words that are very rare; e.g. brandreth or mold, mould (“crown of the head”). As donge seems to be one of those "very rare" words, your whole hypothesis about it being some sort of lower-class equivalent to highfalutin dongeoun falls flat. Even if it didn't, you'd still need to provide substantive evidence for your claim beyond a vaguely similar phonological shape and semantics; you are not helping yourself by expanding your claim from "dongeoun could've been influenced by donge" (unlikely, but possible) to "dongeoun was a upper-class equivalent to donge" (incredibly unlikely). As for your jab about me weakening my assertions with "could've", that is me recognising that my theories are potentially open to revision in the light of new information. Would you prefer it if I just made unqualified ipse dixit statements? Finally, you skim over the bulk of my argumentation by baselessly declaring it "obtuse" before making a unfair comparison; apparently, arbitrary formal changes require no explanation, but easily-repeated semantic drift with clear linguistic parallels is somehow impossible. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 16:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am still recovering from COVID, so I'm not 100% myself and yes, I am not following everything you're laying out, so I'll need to postpone the discussion till I have better grasp of my faculties. Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Other than the semantic change, there is also a possible (but questionable) sound-change that could be explained by analogy with the Old English dung. It is mainly in Anglo-Norman that one finds variants of the French word with an apparent /ɡ/ (such as dungun), while continental Old French and Occitan only seem to reflect /dʒ/ or /ɲ/. The only counterexample that I have been able to find is a Picard variant dongon, alongside donjon in the same text, which seems to reflect a hypercorrection, possibly just an orthographic one, judging by the same text's sergant (alongside regular serjant) < Latin servientem, where /ɡ/ cannot be etymological. It is of course possible that /ɡ/ was not pronounced in Anglo-Norman dungun either. One finds other spellings there, such as sargaunt, gumente, or pigun, for words where neither the Latin etyma (servientem, iumentum, pipionem) nor the English derivatives (sergeant, jument, pigeon) are consistent with /ɡ/. Alongside all such spellings are found ones suggestive of the expected /dʒ/, such as (per the same source) sergeaunt, jument, pijun, donjun. Nicodene (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Spellings with <g> for /dʒ/ before orthographic back vowels are also found in ME, such as sergant and pigon (but not jument, but that was quite rare in ME). However, spellings of this type are particularly common for dongeoun; I may be somewhat biased, but I would tend to lean towards the hypothesis that <g> is merely orthographic despite this, given the lack of dialectal or Early Modern orthoepic evidence for such a pronunciation. The hypothesis that such a pronunciation is due to the influence of Old English dung/Middle English donge is problematic in another way; as I mentioned to Leasnam, that word wasn't particularly common, making it hard to see how it could've influenced anything (I believe the usual OE word for "prison" was cweartern). This leaves us bereft of a explanation for the prevalence of ME spellings like dongoun other than chance, but I believe chance to be genuinely the best explanation here. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I was going to ask whether a modern pronunciation with /ɡ/ is found after all, but I see you have already addressed that- thank you.

ME ⟨donyon⟩ is also curious. Trying to decide if it's more likely to represent /ndʒ/ or /nj/- if the latter, then a continuation of the Old French variant doignon. Nicodene (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility. However, there are other spellings where <y> almost definitely represents /dʒ/ in ME, such as harbenyowre, variant of herberjour (“host”); this is of course a extension of the variation between <i~j> in the (semi-)vocalic sphere into the consonantal realm. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Could we add an explanation for why so many of irregular developments in the daughter languages?

I hypothesize that *īsarną existed alongside *īzarną > *īRarną, with the latter becoming *īRaną via dissimilation (or *īarną which Old Norse járn may derive from). Then, *īsarną developed into īsaną by analogy.

There are 2 issues with this, however: No intermediate form *īrarną is attested in any descendents. Secondly, a variation of s~z from Verner's law would question whether this really is a loanword from Celtic. RubixLang (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Old Norse also had the rare variant form ísarn in certain compounds. I don't know if there was any Norse impact that led to the English form "iron", or if there was some other development which I just don't understand. Wakuran (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is it rare earths? There is uncertain Ger. Rohr, often explained from "reed", which would match the north sea treatment of the vowel, see Boot. Parts of the meaning could have been subsumed by ore (*aiz) if *s was prone to be rebracketed as a determiner, somehow. --ApisAzuli (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have encountered use of “berton” in 1600s English:

Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 10, 1603-1607.

Nat (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are several uses of the term in the Calendar of State Papers. In the Google scan of what seems to be the original publication there are a number of occurrences referring to a type of sailing ship, this beiing the first. The first thing to point out is that these are papers in the archives of Venice, so they are likely translations from Venetian, Latin or some other non-English language of the era. The other is that all the uses I've looked at so far are in italics, implying that this isn't an English term. My guess is that we're looking at a quote or a gloss by the editor for the Venetian equivalent of Italian bertone. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Venetian often has -on where Italian has -one. For example, aquiłon vs. aquilone, balcon vs. balcone, baston vs. bastone. 70.172.194.25 03:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As do most Romance languages, I believe. Wakuran (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I had the wrong volume: this should be it. is another volume. Although most of the hits I can find in Google Books are in italics, there are a few unitalicized uses in historical works refering to sailing ships of the same period in the Mediterranean. This might pass rfv, especially if someone figures out a better way to filter out all the references to the name. By the way, @Father Ignatius: this is a strange place to post this. As far as I know, this isn't in any etymology. It's refering to the 16th century, but we discuss historical terms all the time in the Tea room. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No idea about the etymology of the genus Pedinella Vysotskii, 1887, this micro-alga of the order of Pedinellales which is now part of the family of Actinomonadaceae. The greek πεδινε / pedine is "flat", but the cells don't seem particularly flat. Gerardgiraud (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that the name is in reference to the single "ribbon-like" flagellum. The ribbon-like nature of the flagellum is not visible in the Commons images. DCDuring (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Could it be a diminutive of Italian pedina? Akletos (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. It may, however, be of a similar origin: Latin pes + -inus converted to a feminine diminutive by using the feminine form of -ellus. Anytime something has "ped", Latin pes should be the first candidate to look at: the genitive singular form pedis shows that the stem has a hidden "d". As for the gender, there's a tendency for new generic names that aren't already Latin nouns with their own gender to be made feminine. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So, "like a small foot", "small foot-like"? Wakuran (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok "like a small foot" it's seem in reference to the shape of the little cell Gerardgiraud (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, DCDuring would'nt "pedinelle" be a simple variant of the well-known word pedicelle"? In this case, the question would be: what meaning did the author want to express by transforming the suffix "celle" into "nelle". Gerardgiraud (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

He might have been trying to come up with a name different from Pedicella (Diptera), possibly if he thought his discovery's name might be governed by the ICZN. BTW, does Pedinella form colonies? (Apparently not) Does it do photosynthesis? (Apparently not) DCDuring (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder: Did Vysotskij believe that the name would be governed by zoological or botanical rules and did he care? DCDuring (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No. the "-cell" in pedicellus is equivalent to the "-ellus" here. For whatever reason, this has two suffixes (see -inus). Also, pedicellus already has its own, different meaning (a stalk), which would be confusing. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, DCDuring Important information about a "name conflict": you have to know that, just yesterday, before I modified the page Pedinella to create Pedinella Vysotskii, 1887 as a Flagellaria, it was a rediction page to Allomengea Strand, 1912, a spider whose former name was Pedinella Dahl, 1909 nec Wyssotzki, 1887. I'm not sure it helps to understand the etymology of Pedinella... Gerardgiraud (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a species Apedinella radians (syn. Apedinella spinifera). It is possible that comparison of type species would give us some insight into what (genus name, specific character of organisms) was being negated by a-. DCDuring (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If we look at this image here you can approximate that "Pseudopedinella" has a "kind of pediculus" and Apedinella seems to have "no pediculus" at all. Gerardgiraud (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Pseudopedinella was named before Apedinella.

I believe that pseudo- could easily indicate the common meaning, that "it looked like a Pedinella, but, all things considered, it turned out not to be" rather than "it looked like it had pedicels, but it turned out they weren't pedicels." Similarly for Apedinella, Parapedinella, and Mesopedinella. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Effectively we have

1. Pedinella, 1887
2. Pseudopedinella, 1937
3. Apedinella, 1971
4. Parapedinella, 1986
5. Mesopedinella, 1996
6. Helicopedinella, 2003 Gerardgiraud (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

But all these genus are declined in relation to the original genus, which brings us back to the first author of the description. Gerardgiraud (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Right. Without an indication of the description author's intention, we are left with multiple speculative etymologies. I didn't find the original description at BHL. At some point you have to put it on the "Later" pile, which happens a lot with taxonomic names, especially newer genera. DCDuring (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring, knowing that a "pedinelle" is literally a "little pedine" I explored this word, and discovere that, in Italian, "un pedina degli scacchi" means "a chess pawn". The Pedinella can indeed looks like a chess pawn. What do you think? Gerardgiraud (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC). It remains to be known whether Vysotskii was a chess player in 1887 (It's a joke!). Gerardgiraud (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Even more speculative. Did the Ukrainian Vysotskii know Italian? DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is of course the most straightforward and most plausible explanation (see above)... Akletos (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the (Bayesian) probability that it is correct? Why is it especially plausible that a 19th century Ukrainian microbiologist use an Italian term for a chess piece to name s single-cell organism he had discovered? It's possible, but so are at least some of the other speculations. If we knew he knew Italian that would increase the probability and if we knew he played chess that would be even better. DCDuring (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the only explanation that makes senese linguistically. Forming pedinella from pedina is no big deal in Italian, all the other etymologies would need unattested words/forms and many convolutions to explain why common terms like pedalis etc. aren't employed. That makes them very improbable. To summarize this: it:pedina (pawn)> pedinella (little pawn): one step, transparent formation, semantics possible. VS la:pes > la:*pedinus (belonging to the foot/feet) > la:*pedina(noun of uncertain meaning) > la:*pedinella (diminutive of this noun): 3 steps, unlikely word formation, unclear semantic development. Which option is more probable? Akletos (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't look very much like a chess pawn to me. DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Remember, please, that this is not like a word in ordinary language. In ordinary language a word gets used with a given meaning because it makes sense because of its previous meanings or the meanings of its morphemes or the memorability of the context of its coinage (a song, a play, a speech, etc). Once a taxonomic name is accepted as the name of a species under the rules of the applicable taxonomic code, it is assured of a certain amount of usage based on the importance of its referent. The use of Pedinella does not depend on whether its referent actually looks like a chess pawn or a pedicel or a small foot. Whether any of those are the etymon for the term entirely depends on the intent of Vysotskii when he gave the species and genus their name. Since we don't have direct evidence we have to make inferences, but the normal logic of linguistic evolution is minimally relevant. DCDuring (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL. You might as well have said that you can't think of any counterarguments against my line of thought. Akletos (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The counterargument is its irrelevance to the problem at hand. Newtonian mechanics is true in its realm, but irrelevant to understanding the power of nuclear fission or quantum mechanics. DCDuring (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what I have done to anger you but I don't think that your behaviour is acceptable in a discussion. Even if you don't understand what someone else is saying it would in my opinion be better to ask questions instead of trying to shut people out of the discussion with childish dominance behaviour.

I'll try again to explain how I see this: The question at hand is the etymology of "Pedinella". There seems to be no explanation of this genus name in the first description (btw of what? The genus or a species?) so we're left with taking guesses what the etymology could be: From Greek πεδιν- (@Gerardgiraud), from Italian pedina (me) or from Latin pes (@Chuck Entz)? So for now (as long as we don't find the origin in the taxonomic literature) we have to assess the probability of each proposal. That's what I was doing. Perhaps you want to contribute to this discussion and give you're own opinion on this, or propose another possibility? Akletos (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The person that you are talking to has said nothing untoward. 'Childish' would be a better description of your own earlier comment beginning with 'LOL'. Nicodene (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, DCDuring, Akletos, Wakuran, Nicodene : I never imagined that my "pedina" becoming "pedinella", my modest "little chess pawn", which puts us all in check, would trigger such a prolix discussion. Let's not get angry, but let's stay in an interesting and very cordial debate. Thanks to you all. Gerardgiraud (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Despite Akletos's confidence, I see no actual evidence for the chess theory, which would be needed to list it in the entry; it's a just-so story, with no argument in favour of it but one random user's speculations. (As it is, we don't even have an entry to list anything in; how about we create that before arguing over the etymology?) - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I was just trying to help with the question from fr.wikt. Pedinella is nowhere on my list of priorities. DCDuring (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter @DCDuring, don't worry and thanks a lot for helping. As for the "chess theory" @-sche it comes from me and not from @Akletos mea culpa. The most likely hypothesis is that of the Greek πεδινε / pedine, flat. Based on Swale with his "single visible flagellum is conspicuously thick and ribbon-shaped" and Taylor with his "Flagellum, associated with a lateral, ribbon-like flattening, such as Pedinella (and) Apedinella". I don't think we can go any further in the absence of the author's original description (Vysotskii, 1887), assuming he made it clear in his protologue. Thanks to all. Gerardgiraud (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Our entry seems to assign senses to one etymology or the other at random. "A fixture for a light" is reasonably in ety 1 (Old French esconce “lantern”), but we have "circular tube into which the candle is inserted" under ety 2 with the fort (cognate with German Schanze). We assign "head" and "helmet" to ety 1 (perhaps connecting "head" to "poll tax", but then on what basis is that considered ety 1?), whereas Century considers them ety 2, with semantic evolution going "cover, shelter", "work for defense" → "helmet" → "Hence—The head; the skull". (Merriam-Webster assigns head and candlestick holder to the same ety, separate from the fort sense and ety. The old OED has separate ety sections for the light fixture, "head", and fort, but puts the Shakespeare quote under the fort ety as a figurative use.) It is unclear that "helmet" is even attested outside Shakespeare. - -sche (discuss) 09:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the etymological relationship between the two terms, whether either is a calque of the other, or the two developed independently, or what. Clearly, both adjectives—French aigu and Spanish agudo—derive from Latin acutus. But each adjective's entry lists the name of the corresponding diacritic as a derived term. The situation with the French and Spanish entries for grave is perfectly parallel.

So I have two questions:

1. What's the history here? According to Wikipedia, the earliest use of the acute accent was "in the polytonic orthography of Ancient Greek" to indicate a high pitch. The passage goes on to say that the diacritic was called ὀξεῖα, which came from ὀξῠ́ς (oxús, “sharp or pointed”), and that this name was calqued to Latin acutus. And indeed, Wiktionary has an entry for accentus acutus. So isn't this Latin term the actual source of both the French and the Spanish terms, rather than aigu and agudo, respectively? I guess it's possible that the Latin term was not used in the Classical period, and thus is more an uncle than an ancestor of the other two terms.
2. Stepping back from this particular example, do linguists or etymologists have any technical terms for this kind of intertwined history?―PaulTanenbaum (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is found in Italian as well, as accento acuto. We have here multiple Romance borrowings of the Medieval Latin accentus acutus, for which we have a quotation from the thirteenth century, easily predating the French accent aigu, attested since 1690. The Latin term is, in turn, a calque of the Ancient Greek προσῳδία ὀξεῖᾰ (prosodia oxeia). Nicodene (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If there is no historical continuity, then accento acuto &c. < accentus acutus is a (learned) calque, even if accento < accentus and acuto < acutus are derivations.  --Lambiam 08:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. But note that accent/acento/accento are themselves borrowed from Latin as well. Nicodene (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool. So I'll delete the assertions at aigu and agudo that they are, respectively, the sources of accent aigu and acento agudo. And likewise for the corresponding entries under grave.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The entry states that it comes from an s-less variant of PIE *swéḱs, but from my understanding PIE initial *w- always yields *g in Armenian? RubixLang (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Armenian numerals generally look rather exceptional to me. Is there another theory like it being derived from Greek or something? Wakuran (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

To start with, languages don't usually borrow basic vocabulary like single-digit numbers. The numbers that I looked at are quite reqular in their sound correspondances with PIE. Also, looking at etymologies of Old Armenian terms starting with "վ", many of them seem to be from Iranian languages- but the initial consonants look wrong. Still, I don't know more than the barest rudiments of Armenian historical phonology, so I probably shouldn't be speculating (nor should you). Maybe @Vahagn Petrosyan knows. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

See now վեց (vecʻ), with references. Vahag (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

See Beekes' appendix in the Kortlandt volume among the references given. TL;DR *w and *sw would typically yield velars.

So, posit *su(u)eḱs, "the vocalic u before vowel was retained as /w/", like i ver(oy) "upon", *(s)uperi (2003: 165). That's not very lucid to me or maybe a contradiction.

W is retained in final position after vowel, however (p. 164). Beekes remarks only in passing without explicit conjunction in the parahraph on vex that final 'w' holds even in some cases ​followed with an r. Indeed, edge effects in a lexicalized string of onetwofree... are often cited for the forms of some other numbers. In fact, that's how the *s- may quantum tunnel between seven and six? These roots are overall difficult (see previous discussion about Baltic and copious discussion about borrowings).

That's not to be confused with etch effects, which is how you'd go from "VI" to "vec" (cp. oh for "0"). ApisAzuli (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The gloss for the Arabic is wrong. Bright would probably be nayyir or something like that. All the terms related to ف ك ك are about untying/opening or breaking things. 70.172.194.25 00:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it therefore. Whichever etymology it has belongs to the Arabic page الْفَكَّة (al-fakka), a term used now and then. Myself I don’t have the nerves to explain the names of celestial object though, there are some pitfalls. Fay Freak (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Arabic form and transliteration do not match. 70.172.194.25 01:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone has since fixed it. 70.172.194.25 03:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

RFV of the glyph origin. --沈澄心✉ 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Ziyuan (字源), the original glyph for 者 "contains a 木 shape representing roots, stems and branches (leaves); decorative strokes were added later for distinguishability" (作有根、干、枝条（树叶）之木形；后加区别性饰笔). --ItMarki (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a word for a kind of nautical vessel.

The entry says that the Arabic etymon possibly means box. We also have baggala, another Arabic-derived term for a ship, which we say means "she-mule". This agrees with English Wikipedia's "Baghlah" article. I'm not sure if these words are supposed to be related or if their similarity is a coincidence.

I don't know how to type Arabic well, but the Arabic script for baqala is in page 25, column 1 here. 70.172.194.25 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I added the Arabic script, assuming standard transliteration. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• The word does not appear in {{R:ar:Wehr-3}} and does not have an obvious derivation from the root ب ق ل (b q l). Perhaps it came to Arabic from another language. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  These sources treat buggalow and baggala/baghlah as identical: footnote 27, page 139. Maybe the mule word is the actual origin, and the rest (including the form in the Egyptian Arabic dictionary?) is a corruption. I'm not sure where "box" gloss came from, although there is Greek-derived بَقْس (baqs) for boxwood. 70.172.194.25 21:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Of course they are. The positions where English buggalow and baggala differ are homophone at many places, the first due to the foot-strut split in Caribbean pidgins/creoles but anyway a popular Southern English rendering of any language’s /a/ up to the 19th century and the latter everywhere from Tyneside to Scotland both about .

    And in Arabic you only end up with بَغْلَة (baḡla) (search e.g. with سَفِينَة (safīna), still well known it appears). The بَقَلَة (baqala) mentioned at Cameron, Donald Andreas (1892) An Arabic-English vocabulary for the use of English students of modern Egyptian Arabic, London: Bernard Quaritch, page 25a must be a reborrowing or represent a dialectal feature (in Egyptian ق (q) is /ʔ/ in Lower Egypt and /ɡ/ in Upper Egypt; via Persian and Turkish غ and ق could be conflated in any case) but there is certainly no such word meaning “box”, nor is it admissible to be written so in Arabic as a word for ship (if you search that with سَفِينَة (safīna) you only get بِقِلَّة (biqilla, “due to scarcity”) etc.) Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

We give one etymology for this, while Wikipedia gives several competing theories: Camlet#Etymology. Are the others worth noting? 70.172.194.25 22:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No, half of them are the same etymology in varying transcription, the rest fancifully makes up words possibly also mistranscribed (*capellote, *zambelot, supposedly even Arabic in spite of not looking like it). But as Wikipedia ain’t caring about primary sources you can’t tell them. Fay Freak (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. A Parisian IP kept trying to remove the etymology. In all fairness, it did have some real problems, from using the wrong language codes and leaving out the search-term parameter in the AHD template (there's no entry for "فلافل" in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) to giving a book that tries to prove that everything in English comes from Hebrew as a source (yikes!). I always naïvely thought it had something to do with Arabic فُول (fūl), but that just shows I hadn't thought about it since before I learned anything about Arabic. At any rate, the IP is blocked from the entry for a week so we can discuss this in peace. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a tentatively proposed theory for a word whose etymology is unknown. What does it mean to “verify” such a theory? What I do not understand is the labelling of فلفل (filfil) as a plural word.  --Lambiam 08:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of English writes explicitly, “origin from colloquial Egyptian Arabic falāfil, plural of Arabic fulful, filfil ‘pepper’.”  --Lambiam 09:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, four-consonant nouns basically always have the plurals كَلَامِن (kalāmin) or كَلَامِين (kalāmīn) depending on whether the second vowel is long, under some circumstances with an ـَة (-a) added. فُول (fūl) is already collective so wouldn’t use a plural, which would not be this, so at best and formally highly doubtful you would say that it is a “reduplication of” فُول (fūl). So the etymology is manifest, like that manlet is man +‎ -let which someone requested to be sourced and we had to dismiss, although we may wonder whether some other words participated, influenced or reinforced. The rest added by Mahmudmasri was messy as already indicated and does not belong to this page. Just use the Sagan standard for what can be said without source.

There are of course some semantic details omitted/unsaid, why it is specifically “pepper”; there are some frequently used food items which and whose designations had generic function especially in Middle Eastern cuisine, e.g. بَسْبَاس (basbās) can be something very specific as well as something generic, تَابِل (tābil, “spice”) means “coriander” specifically in Tunisia only, etc., but we here we can see why فِلْفِل (filfil) was more eligible for such developments than فُول (fūl). Fay Freak (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Don't forget to also update falafel.) - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As you say, falâfil is the expected and entirely regular plural of filfil. However, that does not in the least make the etymology "manifest". Because what you call a "semantic detail" is of course the decisive point. Why would falafel be called "peppers"? I've been trying to find an explanation for years and haven't found one. Some sources explicitly said that the reason was obscure. So that leaves the possibility (not more, not less) that the real origin is something else entirely. 84.57.154.13 01:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: German wiktionary has something elaborate at "Falafel", but again it only comes down to "well, they contain pepper", which is meaningless in my opinion. 84.57.154.13 01:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I found the source of the "Aramaic word for round thing" reference here, though I have yet to find the PLL root mentioned. The Complete Aramaic Lexicon entry that links to it, however, only has the "pepper" part, with PLL meaning "sprinkle". The Jastrow reference's "PLL" may be from a phenomenon I've seen in old reference works on Hebrew: the need to derive everything from a triliteral root, even borrowings from non-Semitic sources.

At any rate, I think the common semantic thread between pepper and falafel is that peppercorns are round, and so are falafel. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems a bit ambiguous if the term would originally refer to peppercorns or pepper plants. Just a general observation. Wakuran (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Guys, falafel originates from the sense "to curl", "to roll", not pepper. It is now left claiming it is plural of فلفل which is an uncountable word, which is obviously wrong! Falafel does not contain pepper as an ingredient. In case the word فلفل needs to be singularized, it is singularized to فلفلة /felˈfelæ/, while فلافل to فلافلاية /fælæfˈlæːjæ/, but these are very colloquial words. Both of فلافل and طعمية (its synonym) originate from the Egyptian speech for يفلفل "to curl" and طِعمة "tasty", respectively, rather than فلفل "pepper" and طعام "food". I've seen lexical Literary Arabic معجم books, not from Egypt, claiming فلافل is a plural of فلفل, but this is laughable, after the discussed points. BTW, Egyptians never ever say fulful (prescribed by Arabic purists) on pepper, but felfel, and فول is another thing; bisbas is word restricted to Arabia, particularly the southwest near Yemen, meaning "hot sauce", like the one from Tabasco, unknown to, e.g. Egyptians and is not used as a generic term for food or good food. Thanks all. Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Arabic purists prescribe فِلْفِل (filfil), فُلْفُل (fulful) is a dialectal form, particularly known from Egypt (maybe with regional differences, since فِلْفِل (filfil) is also used there).

Plurals, that is collectives in Arabic, which are unmarked forms, can be pluralized, we call them “plural of variety” on Wiktionary. بَطِّيخ (baṭṭīḵ, “plural”, collective) → بَطَاطِيخ (baṭāṭīḵ, plural of variety). In this case my suspicion is, I repeat myself, that this pluralization had augmentative meaning: falafel are figuratively “large peppercorns”, which is about the same as “rolled things”. Fay Freak (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Note just how similar this is to Bread roll, Tahini roll (apparently a pleonasm like nan bread), boulette (“dumpling”), Bulette (“Frikadelle”) etc. Foods are obviously subject to folk etymology, as I argue is the case for Berliner (“Pfannkuchen, sweet bun (with filling)”) in face of beigne (“doughnut”) like Pommes Fritz’ for Pommes frites. ApisAzuli (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Fay, are you kidding? As an Egyptian, it's the first time to realize(!) that that /fulful/ pronunciation is used there at all! Arabic purists convert words to the Classical Arabic structures, particularly in official speeches, and /filfil/ does not conform to them. Have a listen. Another example is the word for Lebanon لِبنان normally pronounced L-i-B-N-A-N, even by the natives of the country, but L-u-B-N-A-N seems to be another case of classicizing its pronunciation to fit the classical ("pure") Arabic syllable structures (e.g. لب "kernel" L-i-B vs L-u-B). And why couldn't falafel have been created from the verb falfel (classicized to falfal) which means "to curl"? It seems that بطاطيخ is included on Wiktionary as "standard" Arabic, but, whatever! It is dialectal, apparently in South Levantine Arabic in Jordan. There are also زهرة زهور أزهار, but the broken plural is not used outside of Literary Arabic, while falafel did not originate of any Literary Arabic form that might have "theoretically" had another plural for فلفل. Second, it is not a word of Semitic origin, therefore Semitic rules don't apply. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Philortyx: a combind name of Gk. Φίλος/philos meaning loving or friendly, plus Gk. ὄρτυξ /ortux meaning quail possibly because they like accumulate in small flocks/coveys. Genus name author: John Gould (1844). — This unsigned comment was added by 86.129.57.187 (talk) at 16:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC).

Consistent with w:Banded quail. DCDuring (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Spanish entry for fardo gives the Arabic etymon with a dad but the English uses a dal. Which is correct? 70.172.194.25 23:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

dal. The sense “a unit, one of a pair” of فَرْدَة (farda), فَرْد (fard) applies to one of a pair of saddlebags, i.e. hippopēra, one of a bisaccium, خرجین (xurjīn) etc., from which Romance derived fardel again to denote the doubled saddlebags. فَرْض (farḍ), a colloquial فَرْضَة (farḍa), has also been borrowed, as farda, alfarda. The etymological writing is hence disturbed, the Coromines dictionary overrated. It is all laid out unconfused in Corriente, Federico, Pereira, Christophe, Vicente, Angeles, editors (2019), Dictionnaire des emprunts ibéro-romans. Emprunts à l’arabe et aux langues du Monde Islamique (in French), Berlin: De Gruyter, →ISBN, pages 335–336. Please clean up the mess yourself accordingly, or somebody else. Fay Freak (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to fix the Romance ones listed on fardo per your suggestion. Feel free to revert if I made it worse. Then I ran into French farde, which already has the etymon you favor, but a differing semantic evolution. I don't have access to the Corriente source but I assume the development would be the same in all Romance languages (was it borrowed separately, or first into one and then into the others, or is it just too hard to trace out?). 70.172.194.25 03:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No, you improved it. It is generally much to guess where a borrowing in the Romance Middle Ages trailed, attestations being but spotwise. Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it probable that the Hungarian noun csavar derives from Old Church Slavonic завора? Compare Romanian zăvor and Russian затвор. — This unsigned comment was added by Shattering Crystal (talk • contribs) at 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC).

The similarity is tempting, but why would the initial consonant change from /z/ to /t͡ʃ/? Hungarian has no dearth of words starting with /z/. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is considered a Turkic borrowing, from the family of Turkish çevirmek, Chuvash ҫавӑр (śavăr, “to turn”). Thus, a doublet of shawarma. --Vahag (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri, Chuck Entz, Fay Freak. He is once again adding imaginary "sources" that contains nothing to support the etymology of the word. He keeps reverting me without any reason and have no clue what the etymology section should contain. (+ many formatting issues in their editing even after 12+ years.) --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:9975:3A03:7829:4300 19:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well @Mahmudmasri, stop the imagination. “It is listed under X” does not tell us where a term is from, but puts it just where people who use a print dictionary seek the word: for Semitic languages it is the root instead of the alphabet by which words are sorted, for most dictionaries and most words there. Nonetheless we can all agree by Occam's razor that the root is also etymologically and not only superficially ط ع م (ṭ-ʕ-m); the second step is to know which exact word it is most likely from. My first guess would be طَعَام (ṭaʕām, “wheat; grains; snack?”), with the long vowel shortened as is usual in Egyptian Arabic unstressed /aː/, and after that ـَعَ (-aʕa) and ـَعْ (-aʕ) are little phonetically distinct. But it could also be ex nihilo from the whole root with the suffix ـِيَّة (-iyya), which, I note, is used more extensively in Egyptian Arabic specifically than in standard Arabic; @Roger.M.Williams knows these things better. It is of course not wrong to say that it is related to طَعْم (ṭaʕm), but so is everything else within the root, and it appears questionable why a term for a particular food would be from the abstract concept of “taste”, if that is what طَعْم (ṭaʕm) is supposed to mean there. IP is right that the addition was messy and meaningless. Fay Freak (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the word طعام does not violate any Egyptian Arabic syllable structures, as the long vowel is in the stressed syllable and the whole word has one long vowel. As it is, is a Literary Arabic loanword that has no place in the spoken language; the word أكل /ʔækl/ is used instead. The word طعمية is most likely stemming from طعمة /ˈtˤeʕ(e)mɑ/ which means tasty/cute (f.), the masculine form is /ˈtˤeʕem/, and طعمية seems like a diminutive of /ˈtˤeʕ(e)mɑ/ which originates from /tˤɑʕm/ "taste". Expressions like مالوش طعم /mæˈluːʃ tˤɑʕm/ mean bad tasting, literally "has no taste", but that is very normal in the "Egyptian logic". Even people in Lebanon have another related term بلا طعمة /bala tˤɑʕme/ which translates to unnecessary, literally "without a taste". English has the words tasteless and distasteful which could have a connotation of "boring", "hateful", or even "vulgar". Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: Well then write something like this, to be explicit. Even with this your exposure, I have a further inquiry: How exactly does this diminutive formation work? Does one, to form diminutives of these adjectives, take the related noun instead and merely adding ـِيَّة (-iyya) makes a diminutive? Would you add an Egyptian Arabic entry for this suffix defining that it forms diminutives? How is the general scheme? I ask because grammars are gappy in describing all possible ways of forming diminutives. You even wrote some parts of the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia article which has a specific section on noun morphology yet the term “diminutive” falls not. Fay Freak (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: He is not wrong about how ـِيَّة (-iyya) occurs diminutively in Egyptian. Off the top of my head, I can think of a pair like عُمَر (“Omar”) and عُمَرِيَّة (“little Omar”) (though it might be equally common to say عَمُّور, comparably to the (non-Egyptian) حَمُّود. Still, I suspect that this (using ـِيَّة (-iyya) as a diminutive in Egyptian) occurs chiefly in proper names (as a pet name), not like, for instance, -chen or -ulus or the diminutive patterns in Classical Arabic. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: I suspect here that the IP, understandably, took your explanation to be a link to a hazy concept of flavor, not taste. That would imply that طعمية arose from some vague, unspecified sensation ("It has a flavor, it tastes"). Your understanding of it, as put forth above, is very insightful synchronically, but, as I see it, there should be some mention of طِعِم (roughly "flavory; tasty"), meaning that طعمية is linkable as a derivation to toothsomeness, not to the quality of having a flavor. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Roger. You got it right. طِعِم is in that direction: tasty, flavory, toothsomeness, also distantly as "dear" and "hearty".

Hello, Fay. The adjective طِعِم can be used as a noun: الطِعِم; the value of (the) tastiness/cuteness/dearness is (الطَعامة (طَعامة /tˁɑˈʕɑːmɑ/. I initially wished to hint that it is not derived from طعام "food" which shares the same triliteral root and might have other meanings in other dialects, but not in Egyptian Arabic. The same also applies to falafel which originated in Egypt from the meaning of "rolled" things, like مفلفل in the sense of rolled/twisted, also شعر مفلفل "curly hair", not a fictitiously pluralized uncountable word to Egyptians, فلفل, from which another uncountable word has been derived, even though falafel contains no pepper as an ingredient. فلفل could rarely be singularized to فلفلة, but that is rather very colloquial. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I know that the distinction between adjectives and nouns has little relevance in Arabic and Egyptian Arabic. You have told us now that طَعَام (ṭaʕām) is probably not the origin (I was reserved about it due to not being certain that the labels for the senses of this word are historically complete: at some point in the past the word must have been used in the colloquial of Egypt in one or more senses), but it is still open which exact word it may be and how it would end up طَعْمِيَّة (ṭaʕmiyya).

It is dubious that مفلفل ‘rolled, twisted’ would have this plural pattern, participles only rarely having broken plurals in Arabic and its dialects (unlike in Old South Arabian, where the participles too are affected by the innovation of broken plurals). Chuck Entz’s explanation in the above discussion that “peppercorns are round, and so are falafel” is most satisfying; it is possible that the plural here has augmentative meaning. Fay Freak (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Broken plurals in Arabic are ubiquitous, it seems; ملعقة "a licked thing" is pluralized to ملاعق, used to mean spoon(s); منقوشة "an incised thing"/a name of food, مناقيش "incised things". The abjective mentioned is مفلفل "a curled/rolled thing", by extension فلافل could easily be "curled/rolled things", and the verb, /ˈfælfel/. Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

“Curled/rolled things” or figurative “peppercorns”, I think we harmonize now about فَلَافِل (falāfil). Fay Freak (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): Any idea where this comes from / which sense of Stock it uses? Grimm has this interesting bit: "aus der überlieferung der schwestersprachen ist noch hervorzuheben die interessante ags. glosse bêma vel stocc tuba Bosworth-Toller 923b, und ndl. stoc 'mörser', die beide im folgenden keine entsprechung haben." (emphasis mine) Would make total sense if it were that; the only issue is, this is a Dutch word and Kartoffelstock is a Swiss term. Schweizerisches Idiotikon (10:1674) has a plethora of senses for Stock but none of which makes me go "that must be it!"; most importantly, they lack a sense for mortar but they have the compound Stockmörsel that I, however, cannot attest anywhere on the internet (just google it and look, lol). Schweizerisches Idiotikon (10:1718) defines Ërdöpfelstock but doesn't share many insights into etymology. Thoughts? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd compare to stake out and Versteck like Verschlag vs. einschlagen (which see in Grimm, cp. Wurzeln schlagen), see also Grundstück ("claim"), stockmarket, Bergstock, first of all. See also Steckrübe or alternatively, presuming semantic transfer, Rebstock, like Stachelbeere, maybe Stechapfel vel sim. ApisAzuli (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I should pay more attention to the meaning in question. ApisAzuli (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Pfeifer for Stock, in particular Grundstock: “Masse, Menge”. A parallel development to the English, figurative from the sense of a tree-stump as something that remains as a basis if the things above (being in this case the potato masher) are removed. Fay Freak (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good find, that makes sense. I'm still thinking about how to best document this; not sure whether a new sense for Stock as "Masse, Menge" would survive RFV or whether it only exists in these compounds. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It is nonsense. Stuck ("Masse aus Gips" ) through Lombardic should be from the same root and thus independent of 16th century reformation touwabohu. ApisAzuli (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Compare also Frühstück, cf. Idiotikon: Mues "Brei" in that sense. ApisAzuli (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering *stukkaz > chuck (q.v.), the translations for mashed potatoes have at least champers, which is lacking in etymology ("immitative"). The coda might be compatible under the nasal spirant law of zacht, sanft, soft (cp. stochern "to prod"). I have argued before that it belong with jam and that this reflects *ga(m)-, cp. jam packed, gepackt. Yet, if the bespoke sound changes invite comparison to stomp, this is also evident in Kartoffelstampf ~ Stampfkartoffeln and, correct me if I'm wrong, also evident in potetstappe; Welsh stwnsh I don't know.

It is therefore all the more remarkable when "tree trunk" is synonym with Baumstumpf.

Virtually every other language borrows puré for (potatoe) mash. Hence I wonder if (chom)pers too was influenced by it, inasmuch as "immitative" can be understood different from "onomatopoeic". ApisAzuli (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone feel like expending some shoe leather? The above proverb, or some form of it, apparently appears in John Clavell's The Soddered Citizen (first performed 1630; manuscript lost and then rediscovered in the 20th century, first published 1936): see Wolfgang Mieder, editor, A Dictionary of American Proverbs (1992). I've not been able to locate an online version of the work, but perhaps someone can track it down in a library. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have placed some requests with Google to release this copy and this copy as public domain (which I believe are the same, notwithstanding the volume numbers). My understanding is that under UK copyright law, for works published before 1989 published more than 20 years after the death of the author, copyright only subsists for 50 years from that point. I've never had a request turned down so far after making a few hundred to Google over the years, so fingers crossed. Am I right in thinking that this is the quote?

Hee sett Promethius, on a merrye pynn,
Whoe dranke soe devillishly, that there hee gott
A terrible heartburninge, (had hee tane
An apple then to beddwards, hee had been cur'd,
But hee cryed out, oh ffriends, this drink's vnwholesome, ...

I can't see any more from snippet view, but that seems to be on the right lines. Apples aren't mentioned anywhere else (unless there's a scanning error, of course). Theknightwho (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: wow, thanks. I had no idea it was possible to request that Google make works visible. If that’s the correct passage, it only seems to be a precursor of the modern proverb in a rather marginal sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Success! Theknightwho (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: great! Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Words like honour, valour, and favour do not have Us in their Latin origins (honor, valor, favor) and the Us have been removed from other dialects of English. So why were they put there in the first place? --107.77.192.122 03:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is since they were borrowed via French, likely. Wakuran (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a spelling found in Anglo Norman (Old French).  --Lambiam 18:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Found more broadly in other Old French varieties as well, reflecting a pronunciation /ou̯/ (from earlier /oː/), which subsequently dissimilated to /eu̯/ in central dialects, whence the modern French spelling ⟨eu⟩ in honneur, valeur, faveur. Nicodene (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's discuss the meaning of root word "Anax" as used in many Greek names, like Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Anaxander and so on. My 2 cents: Andre often means a man, a warrior. Also this word is of Greek origin; Anax perhaps based on the name of some river or some place?? trying to get more clarity around it's actual origin. — This unsigned comment was added by 122.161.64.205 (talk) at 03:50, 23 February 2022.

It's from ἄνᾰξ (ánax, “lord, king; master, owner”). See the entry for more. The further etymology is unclear. 70.172.194.25 03:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The entry says Coptic ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ is from Ancient Greek ὄφις, but I take it that this is speculative? The ὄφ → ⲟⲃ looks reasonable (I'm not a linguist), but what's up with the ending, -ις to -ⲓⲟⲛ? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me, and I'd think it's more probably just a native Egyptian word which happens to resemble the Greek.

In fact, (just speculating here,) it seems that this could be the word that Horapollo alludes to in chapter 1 of his Hieroglyphics. The usual text reads: Αἰῶνα δ’ ἑτέϱως γϱάψαι βουλόμενοι, ὄφιν ζωγϱαφοῦσιν, ἔχοντα τῆν οὐϱάν ὑπὸ τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα ϰϱυπτομένην, ὃν ϰαλοῦσιν Αἰγύπτιοι οὐϱαῖον, ὅ ἐστιν ἑλληνιστὶ βασιλίσϰον. ("But when they would represent Eternity differently, they delineate a SERPENT with its tail covered by the rest of its body: the Egyptians call this Ouraius, which in the Greek language signifies Basilisk.") However, some copies have a textual variant, οὐβαῖον instead of οὐϱαῖον. Which I think could be Horapollo's attempt at transcribing the word ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ back into Greek (maybe he needed to add the extra vowels for phonetic reasons? No idea). Doesn't prove that it's not a loanword, but Horapollo himself doesn't make any explicit connection between ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ and ὄφις. 73.133.224.40 23:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The Coptic word is very obscure and barely attested. As far as I can tell it was only recorded by Athanasius Kircher in his 1643 Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta as a word for ‘serpent’ (ⲡⲓⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ (obion) = Latin serpens on page 172, and later ⲛⲓⲟⲫⲓⲟⲛ (ophion) = Latin serpentes on page 378) and nowhere else. For the sources of the etymology discussion, see first of all here, where Stern, under the entry for āpnent (= ꜥpnn.t in modern transcription), writes ‘cf. ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ?’; and second of all here, where Ebers responds to the suggestion by saying ‘Das ꜥapnnt thier ward bereits besprochen Abth. I S. 158 (26). Stern’s allerdings mit dem ? begleiteten Vorschlag, es mit ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ zusammenzubringen, ist unannehmbar, weil dies gewiss auf das griechische ὄφις zurückzuführen ist.’ (‘The ꜥapnnt-animal has already been discussed in section I S. 158 (26). However, Stern’s proposal, accompanied by a question mark, to connect it with ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ is unacceptable, because the latter can certainly be traced back to Greek ὄφις.’) Chassinat agrees with Ebers here.

We can gather a couple of things. Firstly, ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ (obion) is also recorded in the variant form ⲟⲫⲓⲟⲛ (ophion) (by Kircher). Secondly, this word is only attested in very late Coptic; Kircher’s ultimate source for most of his lexicon is Ibn Kabar, writing in the 1300s. This leaves us with a gap of over a thousand years between the last attestation of Demotic ꜥpnn.t and the first attestation of Coptic ⲟⲃⲓⲟⲛ (obion) / ⲟⲫⲓⲟⲛ (ophion). Thirdly, in the form ⲟⲫⲓⲟⲛ (ophion), the word is a near-perfect match for Ancient Greek Ὀφίων (Ophíōn), which exists as the name of a serpent titan (see Ophion), as well as for the accusative of Byzantine Greek ὄφιος (óphios, “serpent”), a variant form of ὄφις (óphis). Fourthly, no one is quite sure what the Egyptian word ꜥpnn.t was supposed to refer to, so it doesn’t provide much in the way of a semantic match. Taking all this together, I’d agree with Ebers and Chassinat that a Greek origin seems a good deal more likely than an Egyptian one. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. Thank you very much! 73.133.224.40 13:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we have an etymology-only language code for medical Latin? Or should I instead use NL.? See German Suizid and Scharlachfieber where Pfeifer calls the donor language "medizinisch-lateinisch". — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say NL., though Translingual/mul is a possibility in cases where it's only used in non-Latin contexts (both of these seem to be attested in Latin texts). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

How do we handle Early Modern English? I have come across misseinterpretacion ("misinterpretation", of course), dating from 1557. It feels a bit strange to just say that it's an obsolete spelling, as it's a lot closer to Middle English than modern English, but doesn't seem to fit into either. Theknightwho (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think "obsolete spelling" is fine. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

For misseinterpretacion specifically, I am wondering if it actually means the same thing as misinterpretation or if it has a broader meaning. (If the latter, I think that should be noted.) 73.133.224.40 01:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The attested use is:

I have put every Statute in the tonge that it was first written in. For those that were first written in latin or in frenche dare I not presume to translate into English for fear of misseinterpretacion. For many wordes and termes be there in divers Statutes, both in latin and in frenche, which be very hard to translate aptly into English.

So I don't think so? Theknightwho (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There are items on that entry for derivatives such as "uncle", but none for the direct derivatives of avunculus such as "abuelo", "avô", "aïeul" etc. Why not? — This unsigned comment was added by 216.21.212.239 (talk) at 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC).

Spanish abuelo, Portuguese avô and French aïeul (all meaning “grandfather”) are from Vulgar Latin *aviolus (diminutive of Classical Latin avus; “grandfather”), not from Latin avunculus (“maternal uncle, mother’s brother; mother’s sister’s husband; great uncle”). J3133 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A number of Romanian language placenames ending in -ăuți (in Romania, Ukraine and Moldova) have an East Slavic origin, but I am not sure from which phase of the Ukrainian language they are.

For instance, Cernăuți is likely from a *Черновці (in which presumably the "v" was pronounced /w/), whereas the modern Ukrainian is Чернівці. Should it say it's borrowed from Ukrainian, Old Ukrainian or Old East Slavic?

Bogdan (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bogdan: In Russian, it's Черновцы́ (Černovcý, “Chernivtsi”) but syllable-final "в" (v) by Russians in Ukraine is often pronounced the same way as Ukrainian, e.g. . Not sure if it helps. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Thanks, that means that it was likely from Old East Slavic. The timeframe of Romanian colonization of the area did fit with this (probably in 11th-13th century), but the pronounciation seemed to be somewhere in the middle between modern Ukrainian and Russian. Bogdan (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bogdan: Yes, the o/i alteration is relatively recent and mostly ascribed to modern or early modern Ukrainian. Old East Slavic or Ruthenian didn’t have it. If you’re talking about 11-13th century - it was even before the definite split into Russian on one side and Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian and Old Belarusian) on the other side in the 15th century. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

So should the etymologies say that Romanian Cernăuți and Ukrainian Чернівці (Černivci) come from Old East Slavic *Чьрновьцꙑ (*Čĭrnovĭcy)? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mahagaja, Bogdan: I think it makes sense and yes, make it a reconstructed feels like the right way. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Editing ilahi was far from my mind. I was searching for some other words for chant, then I remembered Proto-Semitic *ʾil- which I'd indexed some time ago, which brought me back to long forgotten ilahi. I'd ask if ilahi and Proto-Semitic *ʾil- are sitting on the same family tree yet, Wiktionary itself says it does.
Take a look Allah Turkish entry it reads: From Arabic اَللّٰه (allāh); ultimately from Proto-Semitic *ʾil-. Same goes in Tajik, Ottoman Turkish, Pashto, Persian, Zazaki, they all source back to Proto-Semitic *ʾil- There's even a Category:Turkish terms derived from Proto-Semitic on this wiki. It may sound paganistic, yet what about the double standard of rolling back the etymology to Arabic إِلٰهِي (ʾilāhī) without any further ado, and leaving the Turkish etymology like an orphan.
Appropos, the inhabitants of modern day Turkey came in close contact with, say Phoenicians from the 12th century BC to the 2nd century AD, and with Ugarit which had close connections to the Hittite Empire. Why? because they're long before Arab infuluence, and they are direct descandants of Proto-Semitic *ʾil-. By the way, everyone in Turkey once spoke Ottoman Turkish, and send their children to Kindergardens to learn Ottoman Turkish is a urban myth too. Flāvidus (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at, but there was indeed a slight mistake. The word is from Arabic ilāhiyy (nisba) not ilāhī (possessed noun form). These are of course now mostly pronounced the same, but we distinguish them. 178.4.151.86 14:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ 178.4.151.86 What I'm getting at is the pipe: is there and smoking. There is an etymological discrepancy between those two above given words in Turkish. It was created by user:Fay Freak deletion.
I'd be tempted to discuss the etymology, and if the word (which word ?) derives from one or the other from Arabic, or through any earlier contact with any other proto-semitic descendant, but I'm not.
I'm not even convicted that those discrepancies, and double standards intrinsicaly or explicitly are bad. Much use for someone else who pay attention to these things.

I've only one theory, but it hardly does.

I have a mind myself and recognize

Mind when I meet with it in any guise. — This unsigned comment was added by Flāvidus (talk • contribs) at 04:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC).

@Flāvidus, Fytcha, Roger.M.Williams: The nisba adjective إِلٰهِيّ (ʔilāhiyy) indeed was intended. It would have been originally used as an attribute of a noun which was to be omitted later, although conversion between noun and adjective is relatively easy in Turkish. One may imagine it with a possessed form though, a hocus-pocus-style derivation. If many of these chants charted with “my God” then this would have gone on to stand for religious singing as a genus. Technically this is, to fit the vocalism, already the different word إِلٰه (ʔilāh, “god not God”), which is also more likely to be possessed than an already definite proper noun (اللّٰه (allāh)), though this usage would appear to belong to very early centuries of Islam, as mentioned continued paganistic usage: I mean, who would say إِلٰهِي (ʔilāhī) in the 16th to 19th centuries of our reckoning? In the 7th they surely did, and some time thereafter. But in singing and music much may be preserved that is lost to technical approaches (also it is a specialist field of very secluded academies in the West, and a can of worms, I would rather succeed with cloud rap, to underline my distance). Fay Freak (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak's picture of the process thereof is flawless, but I should add also that even in Arabic the use of the nominalized إِلهِيّ in the plural (as إِلهِيَّات, meaning "divine things or matters", hence "divine rituals or services") would likewise roughly capture the sense of "hymn". A Google search for رُوحَانِيَّات (rūḥāniyyāt, “spirtualities”) shows results with motley meanings. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak:

Thank you for taking time, and for analysing and/or synthesizing it, and for talking turkey in Arabic (اللّٰه (allāh)) or in Turkish ilahi. That's encouraging. I guess my problem was to accept etymological studies as an exact science. yet like as any other so called "exact science ", etymological studies are based upon comparative evidences. You're doing it well. Don't be discouraged by anyone who challenges you with an occam's razor, or in cloud rap with an "rabbit and turtle" story. Flāvidus (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Chapeau for the kind words. My analysis of language relations is well integrated into epistemological theory of science. Indeed it would have served innumerous researchers in their capacity better to consider the ideas of Vico more than Cartesius, who warned in his speech about the approach of studies that there is much more verisimile than obviously true, and by suppressing circumstantial phantasy with it one loses the acuity and validity of reasoning in practice at large. Much of what one reads in etymological works is systematically contrary to reason and evasive of the best options, undertaking but to signal science, but some long windup is required to outline why and dispel the myths. Fay Freak (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)