Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/October

The entry on "hypocrite" might be improved by reference to this article on the origin of the term hypokrites - can someone who cares take a look and integrate this information into the entry? 71.46.202.18 15:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Inner Focus (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The mainstream etymology for Old East Slavic вьсꙗкъ (vĭsjakŭ) seems to be as given on the entry now, i.e. < PSl. *vьsakъ < PSl. *vьxakъ; However, the natural outcome of *vьsakъ would only be вьсакъ (vĭsakŭ), and there is also the completely different вьсѧкъ (vĭsękŭ), which is attested from the 11th century, so before the nasal loss. Would anyone have any explanation for this strange vowel alteration? Thadh (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t the mainstream view on the *vьx-words that they ended up through progressive palatalization as *vьś- (cf. *vьśь), hence the palatal -ся-? West Slavic reflexes with š point to *ś, and Polish wszak shows no trace of a nasal, nor does any attested Old Polish form, it seems – Słownik staropolski (vol. 10, pp. 372–374) lists only forms like wszak, wszek, wszako, wszeko, szwako, szako and there are occasional examples of wsak (but I’m not sure if it’s not just an ambiguous spelling of sz) – no nasal anywhere. What’s the dating of nasal loss in Old East Slavic? I guess the spelling with -сѧ- instead of -ся- might be a hypercorrection cause /sʲ/ so rarely happens before historical /a/ (some other examples would be words like лось (losĭ) < *olsь with old i-stem noun getting the -a genitive by switching to the o-stem declension).

Also kinda backwards that currently вьсакъ (vĭsakŭ) gives *vьśakъ as the preform while вьсꙗкъ (vĭsjakŭ) gives *vьsakъ // Silmeth ^@talk 13:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also the а ~ ꙗ variation could IMO be explained by very rare occurrence of early native -сꙗ- /sʲa/ (as opposed to -сѧ- ~/sʲɛ̃/) and thus tendency to depalatalize it to -са- /sa/, as well as to being reinterpreted as historical *sę. This IMO fits with all those spellings: вьсꙗкъ, вьсакъ, вьсѧкъ. But I’ve no idea what the actual historical Slavic scholars think about it. // Silmeth ^@talk 13:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Silmethule: AFAIK an eleventh-century translation of an even earlier manuscript is too early for the loss of nasality, not to mention the fact that ɑ(<a)-æ(<ę) didn't completely merge until at least the 15th century - would /ɛ̃/ really be close enough to /ɑ/ to warrant a natural re-interpretation? I guess а ~ ꙗ does make sense as being a depalatalisation due to the are occurrence of -ʲa-. Thadh (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh: Do you have any source on this dating? AFAIK manuscripts of the Primary Chronicle – an early 12th century document (though the earliest ms. from late 14th c.) – generally use ⟨ѧ, ꙗ⟩ pretty interchangeably as well as ⟨ѫ, ѭ⟩ interchangeably with ⟨оу, ю⟩, so I wouldn’t trust Old East Slavic documents with the nasals at all. See eg. Римлѧне, or часть (instead of чѧсть) or ꙗзꙑкъ (transcribed as ӕзыкъ; instead of ѩзꙑкъ), всю землю Болгарьскоу (instead of *вьсѭ землѭ Болгарьскѫ or something like that) etc. in Laurentian Codex and in Hypatian Codex // Silmeth ^@talk 14:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Silmethule: I'm sorry, you're absolutely correct, it's the 9th century when nasals were lost, not the 11th century (IX and XI look very similar, I might have confused the two and remembered incorrectly). I'll just stop before I make this even worse... Thadh (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Our entry for sketch says we get the word—via Dutch schets—from Italian schizzo, which it traces back through Latin schedium to Ancient Greek σχέδιος (skhédios, “made suddenly, off-hand”). That’s all fine… excepting that our entry for schizzo disagrees: there we provide but one origin—“Deverbal of schizzare”—regardless whether we mean the sense of a squirt, a stain, or a sketch.

I’d guess that the contradiction between our two entries arises merely because the latter lumps all three of its senses under its single etymology, so the fix would be to break out the third sense and grant it its roots in σχέδιος. But I’ll leave the means of mending the contradiction to them what knows what they’re doing. All I ask is that the problem be resolved.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on, nobody knows what they are doing with this. You'd need feature length articles to figure it out.

• nl:schets points out that the word meaning "ontwerp" ("design, plan, draft") is securely attested first in 1617, "Als van dit groot heelal de schets beworpen was" (cf. Philippa et al., Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands, via ). Philippa gives both etymologies. Albeit, the exposition prefers imitative "squirt" within Italian: schizzo 'plan, preliminary design' , previously '(paint)spatter' , derived from schizzare 'to splash, to spray' . (g-translate)

Why editors agree that the Italian word is imitative I don't know. Although a semi-learned-borrowing from Ancient Greek would be plausible, I think they usually mean onomatopoeia or, respectively, a native derivation from Greek in Latin.

• schizzare instead admits tentative comparison to Middle High German, from *skeutaną (“to shoot”). This is too early if it denies the High German consonant shift, since later schießen with /s/ won't match Italian /t͡s/.

The abstract sense of the verbal form schetsen, "Hij schetst een wel erg somber beeld van de toekomst", is unmistakably the same as German schätzen (“to estimate, to reckon”), not skizzieren, but schatten (“to estimate, esteem”) is the appropriate cognate in Dutch.

Schatz (“hidden treasure, prized possession”) is unrelated to Schütze (“shooter, Sagittarius”) and Schutz (“protection, cover”). Therefore, *skattaz would be without extra-Germanic parallels (Pfeifer); we give a mechanical reconstruction and scateō etc. for comparison, which see (NB: @Leasnam and @CodeCat discussed the root of *skattaz in 2012, refering to Kluge's law, implying that the root-final could be any alveolar). The idiom "Shoot!", I'll just shoot (give it a try) is as pertinent as is the pun about the triggerhappy panda who eats shoots and leaves.

• In fact, Beekes (s.v. σχίζω) argues that Lat. scheda ʻstroke of papyrusʼ is a loan from *σχίδη (or σχίδα; see A. 1 above ]), also ʻconceptʼ, via influence of schedium ʻunprepared speech, draft, sketchʼ

See schedule, Zettel, etc.; timesheet but confirms the comparison to shoot, mind. Beekes' reference says basically nothing about schizzo, despite misleading advertisement, and assumes luxuria that I'm usually denied, namely that schedium and *schida ("splinter" or a short poem, cf. scida) contaminated each other in a miscarriage of poetic license (vermischt) to make scheda and secondly schidium (“Skizze”), so by confusion of the vowels.

• Beekes further argues (s.v. σχεδόν) that σχεδι-άζω vel sim. ("to improvise, do or make off hand, act thoughtlessly") is Hellenistic, and if I understand Kretschmer correctly, reinforced by Latin. Attic αὺτοσχεδι-άζο goes back at to the Homeric hymn on Hermes (, line 55), compared to αὐτοσχεδόν by Koller, in fact in the context of epic, metric rhapsode battles.

The sense of improvisation could rather be derived from the connotation of πειρώμενος, though.

Gotta skid. 141.20.6.69 19:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that Dutch schetsen in the figurative sense is cognate with schatten. "Hij schetst een wel erg somber beeld van de toekomst" can be translated as "he paints an extremely bleak picture of the future". The sentence does not really imply that the subject of the sentence expresses that he himself has a low expectation of the future, but rather that in detailing the future as he envisages it, he paints a picture that is bleak in the eyes of the narrator.  --Lambiam 06:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Schätzen is most likely an umlauted form of German Schatz, so it's probably unrelated, I'd say. (Edit. It's apparently stated in the original post, when I read it through more carefully...) Wakuran (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If ‘’ein Bild zeichnen’’ in analogy stemmed from *deyḱ- (“to point, show”), the metonymy will be secondary and the metaphor derived from lexical aspect as you have illustrated. Hence I think that descent is mediable. 2A00:20:6018:D265:3C7A:EF3A:91F6:D698 21:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Might it be that the two very different senses of schizzo and schizzare have different origins? One schizzare < schizzo < schedium, the other schizzo < schizzare < ... < *(s)kewd- (“to shoot, throw”)?  --Lambiam 06:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think so, except two roots won't cut it. See e.g. sedge. I can barely hint at the segway that got me here before it escalates catastrophically. Note 1. Schatz does match the context of Kretschmer’s analysis of scheda couched in the fairly archaic setting of taxation. I don’t either believe that it’s cognate ‘’in sensu strictu’’ (e.g. in contrast with Ringe’s ‘’unbroken descent’’). 2A00:20:6018:D265:3C7A:EF3A:91F6:D698 19:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Akk. 𒊬 sar /šaṭārum/ "writing; to write"

This covers 20 pages in {{R:akk:CAD}} (vol. 17, pg. 221-24,-41) which I didn't read in full, yet enough to notice collocation with 𒁾 dub /ṭuppum/. ṭupšarrum is indeed borrowed from 𒁾𒊬 dub.sar "scribe", says the article, and I guess that CAD is of agree, but is šaṭārum? 141.20.6.66 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Earlier mump. Is -s contracted from -itis, is it analogy to an inherited pattern, or an uncountable plural, unlike the flu?

Note, I was at first thinking of another illness that rhymes with the previous topic (schizzo)? 2A00:20:6096:2C1E:46AC:3E66:41E3:BADF 08:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It's apparently Germanic in origin, so it's probably just the regular plural -s, as generalized in English and frequent in other West Germanic varieties. Wakuran (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

it's not likely to be from -itis, the long i sound making that difficult to work out. It's probably a plural modelled after measle/measles Leasnam (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Plurality is reasonable for measles and maybe for the runs. I haven't thought of it because I don't see how it would work for mumps. Comparison with Mumpitz may be mum. 2A00:20:6055:790B:2949:12A4:4BCC:1E81 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Plurality doesn't work for the shits ("diarrhoea"), but that doesn't stop it from coming from the runs. Leasnam (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There's already 3; here comes number 4. Farmer address cows as boss or bossy and "co'boss" (come boss) is the traditional call to bring them home. This goes back to Roman times. The Latin word for a cow is "bos" hence "bovine". None of this is addressed in any other section. I don't know how to create so much content myself. Sorry. 70.51.89.9 12:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a big stretch though. The Anglo-Norman French form results in beef. If this is in America it could be from any other Romance language, but then it could be from any other word as well, say, haplology from bulls in the contracted phrase, or from a p-Celtic any Island-Celtic language, compare Proto-Celtic *bāus.

Unless you have a solid reference it may be best to forego the etymology and add the definition where most readers expect. 2A00:20:6055:790B:2949:12A4:4BCC:1E81 15:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Further, "co'boss" as an entry requires three solid quotations but you might simply go along with {{usex|lit=}} or WT:Collocations. 2A00:20:6055:790B:2949:12A4:4BCC:1E81 15:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Skiulinamo reverted me adding a pre-Goidelic byform *betwiy- even though I do not think it's possible to get from *betuyā to the Old Irish descendant directly; there is no sound law combination that produces -e from *-uyos. EDPC even explicitly sets up a byform *betwiyo- to account for the Old Irish form Old Irish beithe. Also asking @Silmethule for input. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see {{R:sga:LEIA|pages=B-28|vol=B}}. It explains how the Brythonic and Irish both derive from *betuyā, with the former from syncopated *betwā and the latter from resyllabized *betwiā. --Skiulinamo (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

and the latter from resyllabized *betwiā

ie. through exactly the indirect form given by Mellohi!, *betwiyā? (though I guess the *-yā → *-iyā change would be later than PCelt.) // Silmeth ^@talk 09:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that these are all regular changes, {{R:cel:Schrijver|page=326}}, and we don't notate regular changes. If it's preferred, we can reconstruct the proto form as *betwyā per {{R:cel:Zair:2012|211}}. --Skiulinamo (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that non-self-explanatory changes like this one should be permitted to be noted. See also the many mentions of dw- > erk- in Armenian etymology sections; it is a regular sound change but notoriously unusual. Also, the Goidelic and Brythonic descendants are of inconsistent genders; and EDPC reconstructs a u-stem for Proto-Celtic anyway. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Then explain it in the etymology of beithe. The descendants section shouldn't be the place for it. --Skiulinamo (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a bold statement in the respective paragraph, that I do not see supported by any tangible evidence. Posting here to draw some reviewers to the matter at hand, before introducing any changes myself. Given the recurring criticism of that paragraph (over many years) as per talk page. More people seem to have been unhappy with the presented "facts". --Chrkl (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've left 2 responses there that I hope resolve the issue. Leasnam (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Could the fishing sense chum and the salmon chum be etymologically related? GreyishWorm (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it. The chum salmon gets its name from a Chinook Jargon word meaning "spotted". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the difficulty comparing this to *ǵenh₁-, is *knōsl perhaps wrongly identified with schwebeablaut in this root?!

A cursory survey suggests that 90 percent of the words from kl- to kn- in Kluge are onomatopoeia. Even if presented with meaningful comparisons like *klagōną vs. गर्हति (garhati) the sound imitative verb still has to be from sound.

You'd have to assume influence from a language where the purpoted metathesis is the regular outcome, and that would be completely crazy, right? Like assuming palatalization assibilation made Schande. After all, there is not a single Slavic reflex from *ǵenh₁- to begin with! 141.20.6.63 16:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The metathesized sonorant is easy to explain, but where is that bilabial stop coming from? --Skiulinamo (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Kluge refers to Knopf, which is how I found this via Knospe. There are three other words that connect to family relations and birth on just the one page in Kluge, hence I'm suspecting a lead. And then there is the irony that Kluge himself misses to see klug as "genius" (mind knoblauch ~ clover), see also clan (wut?!). 2A00:20:6018:D265:3C7A:EF3A:91F6:D698 22:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And the bilabial stop at the end? --Skiulinamo (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, what's the origin of the bilabial in *kleubaną? That's Haarspalterei and Wortklauberei, admittedly, and you could pose the same question for *gen- (whatlinkshere). Otherwise perhaps buccalized in a p/q-type of deal and akin to knight? Or clitic pronomial *-bʰi, cp. σφεῖς (spheîs), or Knospe, Spross? I'll have to ask the Oracle of Delphi. See also Bube ("boy"), Milchbubi ("malakas").

As for knob, an aorist of *bew- would suffice for Kluge's view, cp. bubble, perhaps also seen in bundle, cp. knüpfen "to knot", whatever. I just doubt that the familiolectal words would be less archaic, even if bobby ideophones stand to reason.

Wife's Auslaut is unexplained, too; wify is obviously affectionate. Compare perhaps nearest wiht (“creature”), Irrwicht (“a demon”), wicht (“girl”) or otherwise *benā; see also Slavic accusative *vъ(n), Latin innūbō (if ancient, Schneewitchen "blanche neige" shows this in collocation). 141.20.6.61 15:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The bilabial stop in PIE *glewbʰ-, whence *kleubaną, is part of the root. --Skiulinamo (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a pretty probable explanation, partly due to it being attested so late, but there are a bunch of PIE concepts with affixed roots, so I guess you could find some affixed root starting with *bʰ that would make sense, if you're looking for it... Wakuran (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I found Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bō-, for instance, although I assume it'd still be guesswork that wouldn't survive further scrutiny. Wakuran (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A pro pos scrutiny. Let's take a step back. I'm seeing a lot of roots like Kugel < *gewgʰ- (“swelling, bow”), from Proto-Indo-European *gew-, *gū- (“to bow, bend, arch, curve”) and that's all methodical and disciplined, but were the methods valid?

*bō- or even instrumental *-bhi (cf. ubi, but see otherwise stabulum, baculum, *-dhlom) are kind of arbitrary and knob is clearly a by-form of clavus. Hackstein on the one hand makes a compelling case for ancient composita, but I'm not aware of any ancient geno- etc., though kindred stands to reason. Knan simply goes to *ḱóm, instead. But *ǵemH (PBS *źénˀtas (“son-in-law”)) or conversely *ǵen-, *gen- and *gem- (“to press (together)”) as presented in several pages are arbitrary, right?

Finally (if you'll excuse the pun), I have to double down on *b < *h in comparison to knight (older daughter /ɸ/ representing a later stage) to derive */h/ < *h₁ because it's just it is part of the root. That's similar to laryngeal hardening in context of n (however debatabel). The present /x/ (knecht) in contrast may be secondary; evidence of /f/ is ultimately scanty. After all, the vowel of *kneht does match the e-coloring laryngeal slightly better than *knabō, but see e.g. Old High German sāmō, from *sēmô, from *séh₁mn̥, and assume that the laryngeal may have been conditioned by phonotactics that would usually predicted it (a pro pos *H). 141.20.6.62 21:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Our Spanish etymology at bonito#Etymology_2_2 says that the word is from Arabic and thither from Akkadian. The Catalan etymology at bonítol#Etymology has it from Latin and thither from Greek. According to these two, the two very similar words in two highly associated and interborrowing languages for the same fish are just a coincidence, which seems unlikely. Simplificationalizer (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the OED, the Spanish is from Etymology 1, "pretty", and the Catalan is from the Spanish with an excrescent l; although it predates the Spanish.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Real Academia Española claims Vulgar Latin boniton, although it doesn't elaborate from where Vulgar Latin got the word. Wakuran (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The RAE are a dubious source for etymologies- I would favour Coromines & Pascual over them every time. Per the latter, bonito (the fish) probably derives from bonito (the adjective), and there are 'no other reasonable etymologies'. The purported 'Vulgar Latin boniton' is found in a single document by an Occitan writer from the end of the Middle Ages (the Tractatus de Piscibus). Nicodene (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Podargus(w:Frogmouth) is a genus of birds, after which the family Podargidae and the order Podargiformes were named. But its etymology is not clear to me, because I cannot find the reference which mentioned this genus name first. I guess it maybe has something to do with the Greek word βάτραχος (bátrakhos, "frog"), for their similarity of pronunciation and sort of semantic connection. Is my guess correct? Ryncke (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems unlikely. I'd suspect a compound of πούς (poús, “foot”) + one of the Ancient Greek lemmas starting with αργ. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, πούς (poús, “foot”) + ᾰ̓ργός (argós, “swift; white, bright”) has some superficial plausibility. Apparently Homer named a horse in the Iliad "Podargus", which most sources interpret as "swift-foot" or "white-foot", and a couple sources give the same explanation for the bird, "on account of its swift and silent flight". However, various other sources claim the bird name is from ποδαγρός (podagrós, “gouty”), referring to the shortness of their legs and their awkward gait. This book even explicitly rejects the "swift-foot" meaning. 98.170.164.88 15:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the French Wiktionary entry comes to the opposite conclusion, favoring "swift-foot" over "gouty". They cite Vieillot (1818) , who doesn't seem to say anything that would particularly support the "swift-foot" interpretation. They also cite Cuvier's 1798 Tableau élémentaire de l’histoire naturelle des animaux . I searched the OCR'd text for many variations of "podarge(s)", "Podargus", "Podagrus", "podagre(s)", etc., and found nothing. I even skimmed the entire section on birds and didn't notice the word, although it's quite possible I missed it, especially if it wasn't italicized. Pet peeve: when people cite a book and don't give either a page number or a passage. 98.170.164.88 17:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names, James A. Jobling (1991), page 186, has:

French name podarge given to the frogmouths by Cuvier in 1798 with ref. to their short, weak legs (Gr. podargos, a gouty man)

DCDuring (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That was one of the sources I had seen before. AFAICT, the Greek word is actually podagros, as noted above, so there's unexplained metathesis. And I still can't find the page in Tableau élémentaire de l’histoire naturelle des animaux to check whether Cuvier gave a derivation for the name. Cuvier tends to give the geographical range of species, and uses "Nouvelle-Guinée" and "Nouvelle-Hollande" (Australia) elsewhere in the book, but searching for those didn't help either. (Maybe it's from another work of his from that year? Not sure how likely, since that's Cuvier's only major work from 1798.) 98.170.164.88 22:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The taxonomic databases say the name is Podargus Viellot 1818. Here is the BHL reference, which has both the French and Latin names and also credits Cuvier, though later authors give credit to Viellot's description and name. DCDuring (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I actually linked to that exact page above. :) There's nothing conclusive there about the origin of the name. I also checked all the BHL uses of "podarge" that are tagged as being by Georges Cuvier, the earliest of which is apparently only from 1817 (?), and none of them seemed to explain it. I'm currently leaning toward "gouty", contra fr.wikt and despite the metathesis issue, just because it seems to better describe the animal (as e.g. argued here), but I'm still not sure it's right. 98.170.164.88 23:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT, Viellot's description is of physical characters, not behavior (eg, running, flying), and does not mention white feet. Some Commons images of the Australian species show feet, which are sometimes white. There is no video at Commons to support "gouty" or "swift" movement. BTW, I did get a good photo from Commons, now at frogmouth, that supports that vernacular name. DCDuring (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I like the picture! Here are some YouTube videos that show the movement of tawny frogmouths (the type species): , , . I was looking for a video that showed them walking from point A to point B, but didn't really find that. Nonetheless, based on this limited evidence, I would probably say "awkward" is a better fit than "swift", no offense intended to the little guys. For comparison, here is a video on "how to walk with gout" (no idea if it's representative): . 98.170.164.88 01:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

To give you an idea: one of the related orders, the swifts, are called the Apodiformes because the type genus' feet are so insignificant, some thought there weren't any. These are birds that live on branches and tree trunks when they're not flying around in search of insects. Their main survival skill is blending in flawlessly with their background during the day. I doubt you will ever find footage of their making more than a few steps. As for the origin of the generic name: my impression is that this description of this plate is the first occurrence of the name in print- note that it's the French word podarge, not the Latin name. I think the reference to Cuvier's 1798 work is in error. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That point about their behavior would seem to point against the "swift-foot" etymology; but, on the other hand, those related birds are literally called swifts in reference to their flight, which is a close match for ᾰ̓ργός (argós, “swift”), although "swift-wing" would probably make more sense than "swift-foot". I also agree that the 1798 reference is probably wrong.

One other point that hasn't been brought up until now in the discussion (but fr.wikt mentions) is that Ποδάργη (Podárgē) is the name of a harpy in Greek mythology; see English Wikipedia: Podarge. I previously failed to appreciate this because I'm not that well-versed in Greek myth. We define a harpy (with a depiction) as "A mythological creature generally depicted as a bird-of-prey ". So it's also possible that the genus was named after the legendary bird chimera, whose name means "swift-foot", but not after the literal phrase "swift-foot". That explanation would avoid the metathesis, too. Vieillot must have been aware that the Greek word for "gouty" was "podagros", considering that on the same page where he introduces Podargus he explains the meaning of the name Podagra-lini (literally "gout of flax"), the name of a parasitic plant. I'm now pretty confused. 98.170.164.88 02:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

All of this goes onto Talk:Podargus, so the confusion will become a nano-meme. We can also insert various references in the Etymology (or under See also) to harpy, swift, w:Mares of Diomedes, and all the other terms that dwell in this rabbit-hole. DCDuring (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster supports the "swift-footed/white-footed" etymology. Einstein2 (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

What Burmese word is the alleged source of this word? What does Shorto actually say? All SEAlang presents is "Ety: Burmese", and it will be several weeks before I get my copy of the book. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe the source of the loan is Burmese မ (ma.), which is generally used in Burmese with the sense of 'lifting up' or more broadly, 'assisting' (especially in compound words). This term has also been borrowed into Shan မႃႉ (mâ̰a). The entries are attested in respective Sealang dictionaries.-Hintha (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hintha: If you could put that information into Wiktionary, that would clear up the doubts. It would be a good idea to use sense IDs to direct the links to the right entry. I forget the precise method; I've only done it a very few times. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Notifying @Hintha, Octahedron80. Also, I've set up a working group "mnw" for Mon, as there is a lot of clean-up to be done after Dr Intobesa. Please join it. (Octahedron80 and I have been asked to review his contributions.) --RichardW57 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've tried to begin cleaning up after him, at least his more recent contributions and entries. It's a lot of work. Some entries are riddled with inaccurate or non-verifiable references. For instance တဳတိတ္ထိ points to page 61 of a self-uploaded PDF, which does not contain a page 61 (၆၁). Further, several usage examples I've come across are written with a clear ideological tilt.-Hintha (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, he is one angry ethnic Mon. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

References

The etymology of the Turkish word köken (“origin”) is given as “kök (“root”) +‎ en (“width”)”. I find this dubious for two reasons. One is semantic: there is nothing in the meaning of the term that implies some sense of width — depth would be a more appropriate dimension. The second is syntactic: Turkish compounds are not formed this way. The second component (the head) of a compound noun takes the genitive singular suffix. For example, zeytin (“olive”) + yağ (“oil”) becomes zeytinyağı. And ay (“moon”) + çiçek (“flower”) becomes ayçiçeği (“sunflower”). So kök + en should have resulted in kökeni.  --Lambiam 20:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

idk. I have learned only this weak about Serbo-Croatian kukùruz, Ottoman Turkish قوقوروز (kukuruz, “maize”), from Albanian kokërrëz, and that unë (“1psg.”) (Tosk /ˈun/) is markedly silent. With that I conclude that *kökeni should be found to the north in more archaic dialects which don't show this loss. Does that make sense?

I don't know where to look, so I have Proto-Germanic *kakǭ (cp. (wheat) cake) of unknown origin, for start: "a root cannot have two (or more) voiced consonants" (Proto-Indo-European_phonology#Roots), so *gag- is at best pre-(proto)-Germanic or is entirely out the wahzoo. I'm seeking feverishly for more. Then there are cicer (thus qiq) and cicca, κόκκος (?), and most interestingly faba to κύαμος (cp. *tep-) or κῦμα like faber to καῦμα(?), because f, b < * dh in Latin does then make a paradoxical comparison to dhen < *ǵenh₁-, which is remarkable because Akkadian had a change of s < d, and we do see forms like Hungarian csicseriborsó, Old Armenian սիսեռն (siseṙn) , which are moreover fairly close to sesame. Cp. *ǵénh₁mn̥ (“seed”), germ, reduplicated gignere, Old Latin gegnere (“to beget, produce”}}, eclesiastic genesis (“origin, beginning”). 141.20.6.66 16:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

None of thus makes any sense whatsoever to me. You make comparisons to etymologically completely unrelated languages referencing mostly quite unsimilar words, as if one would seek to explain the English word ma’am from Algonquin mahìgan. The standard (Istanbulian) form of Turkish did not loose the genitive suffix; in fact, it is the syllable that carries the stress.  --Lambiam 16:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ottoman Turkish I thought was at least related to köken, by any means. The implied metaphor from "seed" to "origin" or "dough" was kinda obvious and anything else arbitrary beyond that. The diffuse contact zone of the south seas across an unspecified time is immense, so please excuse me if I have anything mixed up (at least the links should be fixed now).

• I have to double down because *dʰoHnéh₂ (“grain”) reinforces my prior, very well, and I remain curious in unrelated matters about tahini roll as I'm told it refers specifically to sesamy bread. So I suspect *dʰeyǵʰ- (“to knead”) or possibly Armenian h < *p if therefrom derived Turkish haq "portion, right", Armenian հաց "bread", albeit sans doubt-serieux.

To be perfectly clear, if this is difficult to follow, that's perhaps because I am more interested in the changes between the reading of 𒈪 (giggi, g̃i, mer), 𒂂 (dugu(d), zu), 𒄃, 𒍼 (gig, kib), 𒃻 (gar, ninda) ("bread") etc. etc. (my notation is random, sorry). It's complete coincidence that 𒍼 does in one sense mean "wheat", of course, because I was more concerned with the otherworldly, here associated with 𒈪. On that front, I can barely offer Egy. nnw (“Nu, the primeval waters”) for an original idea. I know it's a lot of bad juju, thanks for pointing it out. 141.20.6.62 21:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is purely and solely the etymology of the component en. Is it the noun?  --Lambiam 09:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't mind him, it's just @ApisAzuli dodging the block. Nicodene (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, “kök (“root”) +‎ en (“width”)”. I also find this dubious. How does width fit in with other Nouns dikdörtgen", "rectangle", "akademisyen", "academician", "eleştirmen" (critic), "göçmen" (immmigrant, migratory ) , "gökdelen" (skyscraper) benzeşen via "benzemek" "lookalike" etc.
Isn't it "one who does or is " ? It looks like in Turkish neutral 3rd objects can do something. My impression it is:

1. plural of root as in

   Jazz has its roots in blues. If you have time please take a look at https://www.kelimetre.com/en-ile-biten-kelimeler in Turkish 678 words ending in "en" some are nouns + adjectives and adverbs Flāvidus (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The word 'different' is typically listed as rooted from PIE -bher "to carry". However, could it be that 'different' is based on latin 'ferrum'? referring particualry to its magnetic attraction, and the repulsion when magnetic poles are opposite? Thus a 'different' or "dis-ferrous" object is one repulsed by the norm. 206.108.24.106 19:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Latin verb is differō, and it also has the sense "I carry different ways, spread, scatter, disperse, separate.", which makes more sense if the latter morpheme comes from ferō (“I bear, carry”). There are several other prefixed verbs deriving from ferō, such as offerō, īnferō, and cōnferō, all conjugated in the same irregular way. For example, the present active of differō is distulī, and the supine is dīlātum; this is what you'd expect given the corresponding forms of ferō (tulī, lātum), but not what you'd expect from a random denominative verb. Not to mention that it lacks the geminate r of ferrum. 98.170.164.88 19:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Burmese and Mon: Burmese sense: 'worthless' Mon: 'cheap': These words might have a common origin. The direction of borrowing might be either way.

Burmese 'worthy':

Burmese 'to stop':

Burmese 'classifier for leg of a journey'. Might be related to the verb 'to stop' - compare English 'stop' as in 'How many stops on this journey'.

Mon 'bamboo rat': Shorto gives the spelling တုန် --RichardW57 (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Mon 'to stand': Resolved; it's an alternative form of the unetymological looking သ္တန်. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Mon (curretly #5) "to recur": This and the next appear to be connected, with an older spelling တုန်. --RichardW57 (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Provisionally ascribed to တူန်, both this and the next. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Mon 'mark of change of subject': RichardW57m (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

idk. :"stand" seems to be the most basic sense. For analogy, stations can be the stops on a trip without stay and as a true ppi, steady can also be derived for example. Just if the autoantonyms of တန်, vb. "to be worth" (ie. steady, trusty?) and adj. "worthless" (stale, stout?), were contrastive and even related I can not say. There seems to be no reason to split up or guess the sections as long as it's in RfE. 141.20.6.66 14:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Which dab meaning does this term derive from? GreyishWorm (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"3. To strike by a thrust; to hit with a sudden blow or thrust.", I'd hazard a guess. Wakuran (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The 5th of vb. daub. 2A00:20:6095:E9A4:C6EE:65B4:7727:3BD4 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't care at all about Proto-language crap, but clearly there's something wrong with the name of Category:Romanian terms derived from a pre-Roman substrate of the Balkans is just wrong. GreyishWorm (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine; there's also Category:Latin terms derived from a pre-Roman substrate of Iberia. It's because these are different, but unknown, substrates. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit problematic because we don't have a definite proof there was such a substrate, so it's just one of the possible explanations. The words that are thought to be from the substrate can be mostly be explained through other ways, mostly through a regular lanuage contact with Albanian speakers. The substrates of Romanian seem to be Old Church Slavonic (in most of Romania) and Old East Slavic (in Moldavia). Bogdan (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bogdan: In other words, the substrate may well be pre-Albanian, or 'Moesian'. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

• from Mandarin 臺灣／台湾 (Táiwān) from Dutch Tayouan, from Siraya taywan.

This etymology was propagated verbatim just about everywhere by an IP, so this really is a stand-in for a dozen or more identical etymologies.

There are a couple of things about it that make me nervous: first of all, the origin from Siraya is certainly plausible, but is it certain enough to copy everywhere without qualifiers? Second, it looks to me like the Dutch term is independent evidence to some term being in use on the island, but the Chinese could very easily have gotten it directly from the same source that the Dutch got it from without borrowing it from Dutch.

There's also the issue about whether every single language borrowed it directly from Mandarin without any other steps in between, but that would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Very dubious. The Siraya word for 'person, people' is tau, not tayw. Siraya spelling was not standardized, but tau is among the words that never fluctuate in spelling. Also, **tayw doesn't confirm to the Syllable structure of Siraya; it looks like something misread or even made up. So it can't be spurious **tayw plus suffix -an (the suffix does exist). –Austronesier (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how does Taivoan fit into this? Apparently some sources treat it as Siraya, and the first syllable of the name is pretty close to the alleged Siraya word. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a source used on w:zh:臺灣 for the etymology, which roughly says there are two theories: 1) corruption of Hokkien 大灣 (tāi-oan, “big bay (in reference to the lagoon later known as w:zh:臺江內海)”) (unrelated to another 大灣／大湾 which is also on Taiwan but somewhere else) into Hokkien 臺灣／台湾 (tâi-oân), which is unlikely;

or more plausibly 2) from Siraya Tavoan "meeting place" or "convergence" (tavo "meeting; converge", an "place"). Another source on zh.wp suggests Taiouwang (probably transcribed as 臺窩灣 in Chinese) a subgroup of the w:Taivoan people.

I'm also pretty certain that the word first entered Chinese via Hokkien due to the fact that the early Chinese settlers of the island are of Hokkien descent. Any source that suggests directly from Formosan languages into Mandarin is extremely dubious. – Wpi31 (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The Tayouan–Taivoan connection is superficially quite attractive and is mentioned in several sources. I'm not sure if it is correct. The Taivuan/Taivoan people lived inland and spoke what Adelaar considers to be a dialect of Siraya. Tayouan is located along the coast in the speech area of Siraya proper. –Austronesier (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Add In any case, the current etymology based on a "derivation" from a hoax entry and should be removed as a hoax as well. –Austronesier (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

For "engrail." Suggest: Engrail, from grail, from French graal, from Latin gradalis for "shallow dish." Heraldry - En - to apply, and grail(s) - shallow-curve forms. To apply or border (edge) by a continuous connected series of shallow curves (grails). — This unsigned comment was added by 107.3.174.172 (talk) at 05:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC).

I found it more plausible that English engrail derives from French engrêler not just for Etymology 2 but for all cases. The senses in our current two Etymology sections seem related.  --Lambiam 18:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. Or at least evidence that it is a formal match. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but a relationship at least with Tibetan ལ (la, “hillside, mountain pass”) seems awfully likely. What's the reason for your skepticism? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a development of initial /l/ > /y/ (or /l/ > /j if you prefer proper IPA) in the development of Burmese from Sino-Tibetan*, but I am aware of such a development for medials. My ignorance of Sino-Tibetan correspondences is quite profound. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

*To me, that term says nothing of the internal structure of the group.

I added {{m|la|casus}} to this etymology for what i thought would be a neat detail. Feel free to revert. Strike that, User:Nicodene took the crown. The entry now again gives the apparance that it's either PIE *kewh2-, or Etruscan.

An interesting question remains if *hōrǭ and cuckold can inform the etymology. From as little as I understand it is well possible to relate *kewh₂- to *keh₂w- (coward), *keh₂- (whore), *ḱens- or *ḱem-, *ḱems- (censor), *ḱh₂d- (accuso), 𒋻, *ḱey-, *ḱom, *welh₁-, *wenh₁-, *h₂welh₁- and *h₁weh₂-, *h₂ew-, *h₁wésus, *h₁su-, *swe-, of which I mentioned three plus *keh₂n- (barcarolo). This isn't my fault: there are so many incongruent pages like *kewh₂- *ḱens > *hazjaną < *ḱeh₁s-, besides *haisaną and *hatjaną . The slight haplology demands an explanation, granted. The simple matter is, *h₂welh₁- is not well supported. *h₂ew- might be a likely source in Hittite, the others are moot. Ergo:

*h₂welh₁- should be the perfect analogy to *h₂ph₃elh₁né (*fallaną), cp. German Auswahl (“elite”). That's simple stuff, unlike the fact that Hittite u- does not show *h₂.

De Vaan argues based on -ss-, but I'm not sure. Doesn't explicitly say that -ns- is out of the question and i don't know any better?

Κασσάνδρᾱ (Kassándrā), etymology unclear: Connected to Latin censeō (“to honour”) ... That should be enough to cast aspersions on the geminate in Old Latin, but then it's probably pre-Greek. 141.20.6.69 17:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

waw

I added an image to Venus to illustrate the possibly Etruscan broadly phoenician influence on ♀ but I could not find one Waw with a full bulb for reference. Whoever gave me the hint, come again?. 141.20.6.66 20:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ There it is already at ♀. Albeit, the presentation of ancient alphabets is in a catastrophic state. This image for example is described as the neutre symbol, UTF-8 ⚲. That's not acceptable. 141.20.6.69 17:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The etymology section of columbium (outdated name for niobium) claims columbium is named after columbite (without linking!), but the etymology for columbite says it is named after columbium. 73.220.13.34 01:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed per the citation at Wikipedia:Columbite. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

1.) The claim that it comes from the Arabic preposition فِي (fī, “in”) is in Kélékian's Ottoman dictionary (see the Ottoman entry). We have the advanced version that it comes from the dialectal Arabic adverb "there is" (which is from said preposition).

2.) Turkish wiktionary claims it's from an unglossed Arabic fiyya, of which I'm not aware. There is, however, فِئة (fiʔa, literally “class, group”). This word has, in Modern Arabic, the sense "tax class, tax, tariff, price". This is obviously the sense we want and the easiest solution would be to derive the Turkish words from it. However, I can't say how old these Arabic senses are and if they couldn't be borrowings (or phonosemantic matchings) from the Ottoman word.

3.) There is another (I think unrelated) Arabic word فَيْء (fayʔ, “booty, tribute”), which is also a fairly good semantic match. Our Persian entry for فی clearly merges the two words. And Dehkhoda says that fî and fey are variant pronunciations in Persian. (For such variation between î and ey in Arabic words cf. Persian eyd, qeymat < Arabic عِيد (ʕīd), قِيمة (qīma).)

In light of points 2 and 3, I find point 1 highly doubtful, if not implausible. Is there any more reliable source for it than that dictionary note from 1911? And who can perhaps solve the riddle? Thanks a lot in advance! 88.64.247.18 03:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Point 2. and 3. do nothing to diminish 1. I can relate that I have a similar problem with enayi (with respect to en (“width”) further above), from Arabic 1sg أنا, the main problem being that I have only rudimentary, passive knowledge of these languages. If I have to argue from semantics, actually, we have income (cp. "tax revenue") and idiot (from a privative pronoun) to match. I can hardly recognize -at as feminine—the entry confirms it. The etymon fī, “there is (scilicet: it costs, it makes)” as per FayFreak's entry is reasonable in sum. I don't think that's controversial, but a morphological account would help. "artificial" (@FayFreak) sounds too normative, by the way. Tax regulation is the epitome of Byzantine beaurocracy, so a little doubt is warranted. venire "come, arrive" (revenue) more than come should support the notion of فيء from "return" very well! 2A00:20:608D:BFDD:11DD:1E02:6A74:B58D 08:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The entry kapab points to w: Saint Dominican Creole French, which doesn't exist. Should it actually be Dominican Creole French? I don't know how to change it as it's under layers of crazy template. GreyishWorm (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@GreyishWorm: No. Saint Dominican Creole French is the Creole French spoken by the Saint Dominicans; it can be considered an early form of Haitian. I'll make a redirect at Wikipedia now. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A seemingly odd form (you would expect *nōbilitātō, *dēbilitātō), but after a fairly extensive search the only piece (or paragraph) I can find on these () affirms their denominative derivation from nōbilitās and dēbilitās, along with a *cupiditō < cupiditās, now reconstructed for Vulgar Latin as *cupidietō and mentioned at convoiter, so I've added that derivation to their etymologies. I suppose this would basically be a euphonic syncopation to avoid forms like *dēbilitātātus? Are there any other verbs from nouns in -tās? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there's also mōbilitō (which we don't have at the moment, L&S) < mōbilitās. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

For years (since February 2016), we have listed both Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱley- and Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlew- as extensions for Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱel-, the "incline" version of the root. However, last week, this was challenged by User:Skiulinamo who removed the etymology section without explanation on the ḱlew- page. I restored it on Friday, only for that same user to undo my edit again with the summary "um wut" (which means "um, what?") Even though Skiulinamo is partially blocked until November 4th, I decided to see if I could verify the connections between the three roots. I could find plenty of support for ḱley- as an extension of ḱel-, but I struggled to find support for the other extension (ḱlew-). I could find only one, and I'll link it below.

https://www.aidanem.com/word-family-loud.html

Even though I could find only that one source, the overview page of the Aidanem site shows that this page is part of a long-running series, and the page contains the statement, "If a relationship can't be confirmed to my usual standard of evidence, but it's either likely enough or interesting enough to include, then the edge is dotted and labelled with a "?"." Note the words "my usual standard of evidence", which shows that the person does their research when making these lists. Maybe that person knows something I don't about how to research etymology trees extending to PIE roots?

Most of the citations we give for these roots are books, so I can't even check the sources from my browser to verify it myself.

Thanks in advance. Inner Focus (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

AidanEM may or may not do their research, but they certainly don't cite any sources that I can see. Unless a respected Indo-Europeanist has said in a peer-reviewed publication that *ḱlew- (“to hear”) is somehow an extension of *ḱel- (“incline”), then I'm not inclined (get it?) to make that claim in our Reconstruction entry. Despite the idiom "to incline one's ear", the semantics feel very handwavy to me. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Inner Focus: when you reverted me, you didn't just restore the etymology, but also all the other edits I made in prep for creating entries Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱléwseti and Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlews-. You included no explanation so I had no idea what you were objecting to.

The semantics of *ḱel- (“to incline”) > *ḱlew- (“to hear”) are untenable and not supported by modern scholars. --Skiulinamo (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hear hear! It is in Pokorny. That is notable per se! If aidanem could have it from us, it is not notable. Nor is it durable, use the internet archive.

The pragmatic side of the semantics is acceptable, cf. German hör auf "shut up, shut off", not "listen up", Tocharian B lyak (“thief”), literally “one who lies in wait” (Adams), lo and behold! You must mean the morpho-syntactic paradigms. If this needs explained and refered to or if it's trivial could be a judgement call depending on your target audience.

The Baltic forms with *k from *ḱlews aren't super reliable either (“klausýti” in Hock et al., Altlitauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 2.0 (online, 2020–).). They don't connect *ḱel-, but don't outright deny it.

This is about the Slav etymology, isn't it? 141.20.6.69 18:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are there two etymologies on this entry? Aren't the etymologies exactly the same? Or are they doublets from different stages of French (despite both having the same orthographic change from ⟨l⟩ to ⟨ll⟩, which we'd have to assume ad hoc was either analogical or an improbable coincidence)? — 24.45.25.54 00:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Curious. One thing I notice is that the listed pronunciations seem to be a bit different. 98.170.164.88 00:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

They are doublets from different stages of French, yes, and often distinguished by pronunciation. Etymology 2 is 17th century per OED. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Both Japanese 何 (nani, “what”) and 謎 (nazo, “mystery”) appear to have an interrogative sense derived from Old Japanese root na, but this root is not used outside of Old Japanese particles に (ni, “case particle, special interrogative particle, in (a noun’s state, ?), this forms 何 (nani, “what, all interrogative terms”)”)} and ぞ (zo, “focus particle, special interrogative (supposition) particle, this forms 謎 (nazo, “mystery”)”).

However this na root appears to be cognate with several Ryukyuan terms, and used on their own:

• Kunigami 何 (nū)

• Miyako 何 (nō)

• Okinawan 何 (nū)

• Yaeyama 何 (nō)

• Yonaguni 何 (nū)

All of these terms mean “what”.

Therefore I have several questions:

• Why was Old Japanese root na only used for those aforementioned particles に and ぞ?

• Why is this root able to come on it’s own through Ryukyuan’s language?

• With the 2 aforementioned questions, could this come from a reconstructed Proto-Japonic *na and/or Proto-Ryukyuan *na (cognate)?

• Is this distinct from 那 (na, “what, only in on'yomi compounds”), which is from Middle Chinese 那?

A question regarding 謎:

• Is 謎 derived from Modern Japanese 何ぞ (nanzo, “something, whatever”, noun, adverb), or from the Old Japanese compounds na +‎ zo?

Chuterix (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

From Vovin (2003)'s A Reference Grammar of Classical Japanese Prose:

"nazo, nado, nadote 'why'

All these interrogative pronouns are historically derived from nani 'what'. Nazo is a contraction of nani 'what' and the particle so: nani so > nanso > nazo . Nazo does not occur in Taketori monogatari or in Ise monogatari, and there is just one example of it from Hamamatsu chūnagon monogatari. Etymologically nado and nadote are combinations of nani 'what' and two different forms of the defective verb to 'to say': the infinitive form to and the gerund form to-te: nani to > nan to > nado ; nani to-te > nan tote > nadote . Nadote occurs only in the poetry in Ise monogatari and is not attested in Taketori monogatari. Nado and nadote may be followed by the question particle ka without any change in meaning."

So it is the often seen contraction/reduction of the medial syllable with nasal element in compounds, causing nasalization in the process, remember that in Western Old Jpanaese, the chief contrast was not really in voicing, but in nasalization (plain stops are allophonically voiced in intervocalic position, prenasalized stops are voiced and prenasalized) or tenues vs. medae per Frellesvig (2010). You can see more examples seeing Vovin (2020)'s A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese and Kupchik (2012)'s Morpheme-based Rendaku as a rhythmic stabilizer in Eastern Old Japanese poetry. PhanAnh123 (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see that all interrogative pronouns seem to derive from 何 (nani, “what”).

Something happened in the Ryukyuan (Proto-Ryukyuan?) languages that caused the ni in nani to fall out.

For the など (nado, “something, why”), there’s actually an Old Japanese entry (from Oxford NINJAL Corpus of Old Japanese) for など being listed as a compound of nani and to.

Also since nani was discovered in the Fudoki before contracted na following zo (only found in a later part of Man’yōshu), it would appear certain that interogative terms all derive from Old Japanese nani.

ONCOJ results of nani used in Old Japanese poetry

EDIT: It seems that Vovin (2010) reconstructs formation of interrogative pronouns prefixed with na-, including 何 (nani, “what”). It seems that など (nado, “something, why”) comes from just Old Japanese as a compound of 何 (nani, “what”) +‎ と (to, “case particle”). The shift from nani to → nanto → nado sounds about right. Chuterix (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, hello nanori moto, my name is what in Riuku?! RfE'd for a while now and not posted. 141.20.6.69 15:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

???

Some japanese terms are also names of people. for example, 夏 (natsu, “summer”) is a female given name, and a surname

You can't just translate a person called Natsu to "Summer"

(coincidentally a similar surname exists called "Summers" but you can't call japanese person surname "Natsu" by that)

This topic talks about Japanese 何 (nani, “what”). nani is not a name of any way as far as I know.

I'm assuming Riuku = Ryukyuan language. Chuterix (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• This thread is a bit confusing, but I think the initial questions have been resolved. Some summarization and additional notes:

• Nani is just nani. This is not some putative morpheme *na ("what") + particle ni.
• There are various derivatives of nani, generally manifesting voicing on the second mora as a consequence of older contraction of the -ni causing nasalization.
• I am not aware of any derivational connection between Middle Chinese-derived Japanese 那 (na) and native morpheme nani. The Chinese term includes indefinite and interrogative meanings. The use of Japanese 那 (na) with a sense of "what" only in on'yomi compounds is a hint that this is being used in a Chinese fashion, as on'yomi is pretty much by definition Chinese-derived (with a few exceptions, of which this is not one).
• No idea what the anon is on about. Nanori is wholly unrelated to nani. The na in nanori is 名 (na, “name”), totally separate from 何 (nani, “what”).
• Not all interrogative pronouns derive from nani. Consider also だれ (dare, “who”), どれ (dore, “which”), どなた (donata, “which direction; who”), どち (dochi, “which, which direction”), どこ (doko, “where”), どう (dō, “how, in what manner”). Some of the ones beginning with do- are traced directly to older idu-, as in (now either archaic or formal) いずれ (izure, “which”), いずち (izuchi, “which, which direction”), いずこ (izuko, “where”). We've also got いくら (ikura, “how much”) and いくつ (ikutsu, “how many”), and (now mostly obsolete) 幾日(いくか) (ikuka, “however many days”), 幾重(いくえ) (ikue, “however many layers”), etc.
• I haven't encountered any other mention of particle と (to) as any kind of defective verb meaning "to say". I have encountered mention of this in a theory of a dual copula in ancient Japonic, one marked by /t/ and related to conclusive / resultative aspect verb suffix つ (tsu) (and particle と (to), and from which we also got conjunctive suffix て (-te) and then past-tense suffix た (-ta)), and the other marked by /n/ and related to alternative conclusive / resultative aspect verb suffix ぬ (-nu) (and particles に (ni) and の (no)).

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

To reply to your great details/facts (Wiktionary doesn't let me reply normally to your comment):

• I'd like to think nani is it's original form. Western Old Japanese being that nani, turning to Modern nani we have today.
• Yes, theories do exist. Also the reason I initially split it because (also) initially I thought the -ni part was from an unknown suffix. (n-)
• That's what I thought, 何 having ZERO relation to 那に. on'yomi is mostly compounds. only on'yomi i see deriving from native japanese is 芥子 (karashi, “mustard”), but I think it's a jukujikun (but at same time conflicts with 子 of on'yomi reading)
• Of course, 名乗り does not relate to 何. Completely separate term, even the Ryukyuan variants are different.
• I'm focusing on the interrogative pronouns derived from 何 (nani, “what”). Other interrogative pronouns I'll do later (if I can). For instance ど (do, “locative interrogative”), comes from older Old Japanese いづ (idu, “id.”). I put in いづ that it's identical to related to Middle Korean. According to Vovin (2010)
• When reading the defective と (to) statement, notably the theory statement, I'd say I'm not sure if this would turn to って (tte, “said...”). Daijiten puts the って entry as from てふ (tefu, “variant of と言う (toiu, “said...”)”). The fu became n before falling out. Digital Daijisen lists the current etymology in wiktionary, from compound from と (to) +‎ て (te). Kotobank

Forgot to mention:

Also this discussion was made simply (?) to talk about the etymology of 何(なに) (nani), but then after reading Vovin (2020) Western Old Japanese grammar (reading influenced from Vovin 2010 as Proto-Japonic *n-anu- as a citing was there) I found etymological root.

--Chuterix (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Any of our Indian-language editors have a guess as to the etymology, or pronunciation? (Surprisingly, it does indeed seem to almost always be capitalized despite being a common rather than proper noun, but perhaps some attention should be paid to whether this is only due to the age of the books it's in, all important Nouns being given Capitalization at that Time.) - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the first element is almost certainly Proto-Dravidian *nīr (which was also borrowed into Sanskrit). The second element could be related to Kannada ಗಂಟು (gaṇṭu, “knot”) if you lend credence to these sources. 98.170.164.88 01:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This source says it's from Telugu, with the same first element, but with a second element related to the verb "confine". They even give the original script. Sadly, the quality isn't good enough for me to reproduce it, but maybe someone who actually knows Telugu could.

By searching for the form "niruganti" online, I found Kannada ನೀರುಗಂಟಿ (nīrugaṇṭi). The Telugu might be నీరుగంటి (nīrugaṇṭi), but I'd be more confident if there were more hits and it came from a more reliable source than bab.la.

BTW, I added a bunch of alt forms I came across while researching this. Some of them probably don't pass CFI. If you're interested feel free to sort through them and check which are worth listing (and add any I missed). If not, I'll try to get around to this someday. 98.170.164.88 01:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the etymon? Presumably Arabic. Related to mut'ah / مُتْعَة (mutʕa)? - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it's related. In fact it's the same word. See Hans Wehr 4th ed., page 1045 (emphasis mine):

متعة mutʿa pl. متع mutaʿ enjoyment, pleasure, delight, gratification; recreation; compensation paid to a divorced woman (Isl. Law); (also نكاح المتعة) muta, temporary marriage, usufruct marriage contracted for a specified time and exclusively for the purpose of sexual pleasure (Isl. Law)

By the way, the final -t in mutat reflects the Arabic spelling which ends in tāʾ marbūṭa, i.e. ة. The /t/ was historically pronounced in Arabic, and is preserved in the construct state (and inflected forms), but not otherwise. Some other English words transliterated from Arabic also preserve it, e.g. salat and ayat. 98.170.164.88 07:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it really the case that mutat is only used for the divorce payment and that mut'ah is only used for an usufruct marriage, and not vice versa? If so, that is curious. 98.170.164.88 19:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are some sources using mut'ah for divorce payment: , , , (italicized in all of those), ("Give a proper mut'ah to his ex-wife), ("Allah orders the rich man to give a gift (Mut'ah) to the woman whom he has divorced according to his means")

On the other hand, in a few targeted searches I wasn't able to find a single source using mutat to refer to a temporary/usufruct marriage, except as part of longer transliterated phrases like mutat al-nisa. The explanation for this is beyond my knowledge of Arabic grammar/phonology, but I suspect it may have something to do with rules for when the tāʾ marbūṭa is pronounced. 98.170.164.88 20:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we verify the Chinook etymology of this??? GreyishWorm (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Several sources support the existence of Chinook Jargon cultus, kultus (“worthless, etc.”), itself derived from Chinook kaltas (“in vain, only”) e.g. , , , .

For the specific term cultus cod, see this work by George Brown Goode, as well as a bunch of English dictionaries like OED, Webster, World Book. 98.170.164.88 15:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It also appears as káltas in this dictionary (look for "worthless" in the English section). The accent is probably a stress marker and not part of the orthography. —Soap— 15:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the Chinook word is given as ka'ltas with an apostrophe, such as in this word list and this interlinear text. 98.170.164.88 15:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Re the {{attn}}, I'm sure the most immediate etymon it entered English through is Chinook Jargon, like also with cultus coolee, with Chinook then the (probably) source of the Jargon term (although Dictionary.com wonders if the full sequence is English "cultus cod" ← Chinook Jargon "worthless" ← Chinook "only" ← some Chinook Jargon root). - -sche (discuss) 18:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Also known as Q#Chinese. Dennis Dartman (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We give the etymology of Latin bacar (“wine vessel with a long handle”) as “probably” from Ancient Greek βῖκος (bîkos, “vase with handles, amphora”). I find it hard to grasp that the borrowing process might transmogrify Ancient Greek /bîː.kos/ into Latin /ˈbaː.kar/. de Vaan considers bacar and its semi-synonym bacriō derivatives of bāca (fruit, nut), and at bāca § Derived terms we follow this judgement – so we have an internal inconsistency.  --Lambiam 18:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A lot of sources 1 2 3 appear to point to Ancient Greek βῖκος (bîkos) as the source, BUT: they're all assuming the Late Latin form bicarium. We don't seem to have an entry for that form... DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 18:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam, Djkcel: The OLD (1st ed.) accepts Festus implying < bacriō < bāca, unknown further etymology. Ernout/Meillet Dictionnaire étymologique 2001 similarly tentatively derives it from bāca, which it calls ancien, usuel, et classique, cf., from Celtic, Breton bagad (“band”), Irish bagaid (“cluster”). The Greek etymon seems to be a side influence. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary from 1913 has

  Beak·er ... — all fr. LL. bicarium, prob. fr. Gr. bîkos wine jar, or perh. L. bacar wine vessel.

• The Century Dictionary has this interesting theory:

  beaker ... < ML. bīcārium ... < Gr. as if *βικάριον, dim. of βῖκος

So while English beaker deriving from Ancient Greek βῖκος (bîkos) has its supporters, there appear to be no sources that support bacar < βῖκος (bîkos).  --Lambiam 01:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Niermeyer's Medieval Latin lexicon also has "bicarius (< gr. βῖκος)". The Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch lists it under bicaria, from same root, but notably one of their citations (a chronicle for the year 1196) has it as bacariis. It looks like bicarium (/-ius/-ia) has been conflated with, but is etymologically distinct from, bacar < bāca. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve transferred the descendants listed at bacar to a new entry bicarium.  --Lambiam 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)