Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2024/February

Is it a SOP or is it worth to have an own entry? Tollef Salemann (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it preferable to simultaneously perform pseudo-Finnish scatting? Wakuran (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In some Swedish and Norwegian miljö, sure, but I guess it will count as some kind of Viking syncretism. I also wonder if this expression is used as some sort of euphemism, because I've heard it before a couple of times used in this way, but can't find no good examples on the Internet. Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the context, but could it be a Jewish equivalent of shake the tailfeather? Wakuran (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Green's Dictionary of Slang relates cooter "vagina" to cooter "freshwater turtle". Wiktionary lists these as separate etymologies. On the third hand is coochie, from hootchy-kootchy, ultimately of unknown origin. I'm not sure whether "vagina" comes from "turtle", but compare for example clam or beaver, or for "penis" anaconda or python. Maybe the best thing would be to leave them as separate etymologies but note that etymology 2 is possibly the same as 1 or possibly from coochie? Cnilep (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this word, but if you mean this as a more general question: Yes, you can either make one etymology where you add a second paragraph saying something like "The sense '...' might alternatively be from XY". Or you make two etymologies where you say: "Possibly identical to etymology 1" and then explain the rest. Depends mainly on (a) how likely you think it that they're identical and (b) how messy and lengthy the first etymology already is. 88.64.225.53 03:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Any ideas, especially about the /k/? Nicodene (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

De Vaan states that “glaciēs cannot be derived from a root *ǵl- ‘to be cold’ in any meaningful way”.  --Lambiam 13:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I always just assumed it was related to gelu, gelo, etc. I'm not sure about the 'c' though. Just speculating here (I am not a linguist or a Latin scholar) but could it maybe be a backformation from the verb glacio which in turn (still speculating) might be a contraction of gelu facio? Obviously this contradicts the etymology listed on the glacio page though. 2601:49:8400:26B:D1A2:319B:A05F:5919 15:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The lemma forms facio and glacio may look similar, but note that they are of different verb classes: facere, glaciare. Compounds of facere remain within its class (as tepefacere). There does exist an -ifico, which is etymologically linked to facere and differs in verb class (as sanctificare). However neither family of verbs contains a member ending in -i-are the way that glaciare does. To the best of my knowledge that is only found in verbs made by suffixing -are to a noun/adj. with stem-final /i/ (anxiare < anxi + -are) or made with the causative -iare.

Also I don't think there are any compounds of facio or -fico without the original /f/. Nicodene (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nicodene: There is credo as a counterexample.

As for the /k/, *dʰh₁-k-yé-ti > facit is a mechanical reconstruction. Obrador-Cursach 2020 refers to Berenguer and Luján. De Vaan doesn't mention any problems with it. Since we know the fhefhaked lost the initial syllable, I don't see why this would not also work for *(ǵi-)ǵl- and I do wonder if it was replaced with conglacio, similar to cogito, cognito, cognosco, gigno, γιγνώσκω (gignṓskō) (the only counter example to the expected loss I could find). Weiss 2020 merely notes the comparison to *gel(u) but does not explain the derivation. I will admit that there are more problems with this than I can count. Kortlandt rekonstructs a PIE k-aorist (FS Lubotsky) but the review is not favourable (in Kratylos 2019). Note that De Vaan does have facies under facio and is uncertain if facetus s.v. fax is related or note but there he bluntly states that *-kʷ / -k cannot be a root extension and that *Dʰ-T would be an atypical root structure. So, nobody knows.

You might believe in Latin ci /k:i/ and no early proto-Romance. So I have to remark that Ugaritic snow (/⁠glṯ⁠/) < *ṯalg- would show a similar sound change just to explain what I mean, though upon closer inspection it is not a straight forward change. Most relevant, assibillation is attested early in epigraphy in Oscan 𐌚𐌀𐌊𐌖𐌌 (fakum), 𐌚𐌀𐌜𐌉𐌀 (façia), 𐌚𐌄𐌉𐌀 (feia), and Umbrian 𐌃𐌄𐌔𐌄𐌌 (desem), 𐌕𐌉𐌜𐌉𐌕 (tiçit), Lepontic ᛞ śan which was likely borrowed as Runic ᛞ dagaz (doubtful). And suadeo, dulcis, glyco- are just, how can I say, the icing on the cake. That goes as far as *-dʰh₁- is concerned. Doesn't really explain the *k though. Hurtmeplenty (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice try, @ApisAzuli.

Nicodene (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It sounds smart, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. Unsourced and unlikely, with no basis provided for reconstruction of a *h₃ewp- root. -saph 🍏 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The template Template:R:ine:LIPP does not use the parameter(s):

chapter=test

Please see Module:checkparams for help with this warning.Dunkel, George E. (2014) Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme (Indogermanische Bibliothek. 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher) (in German), volume 2: Lexikon, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH Heidelberg, →ISBN, pages 746-51: “*súp, *súpo”

The entry would need to be thoroughly reordered. The problem is that the PIE words *úp "above" and *súp "below" are difficult to disentangle (§C). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ideas? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

All suggestions trace back to PIE *h₂weh₁-. 24.108.18.81 07:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Latin. All that's listed for etymology is "extended form of -ia." Possibly *-ih₁-t-i-eh₂, but regularly that would yield *-ītiā. -saph 🍏 04:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've seen this hypothesis about it, but I don't know how reliable it is: "The -itiēs/-itia type seems to be a combinatory variant of the -ia used in derivation of adjectives with a monosyllabic stem (laet-itia “happiness”, iust-itia “justice”, cf. Mikkola 1964: 17, Weiss 2009: 301). However, as noted by Weiss (2009: ibidem) also disyllabic and non-adjective bases are extended with this suffix. Sometimes the reason for a creation of -itiēs lies in metrical issues (cf. Daude 2002: 232). In other forms, where the -itiēs/-itia is not a poetic creation, the -it suffix functions as enlargement of the -iēs/-ia. The origin of this enlargement is the reanalysis of the formations of the type diuit-ia as diu-itia “wealth” (cf. Daude 2002: ibidem)." ("The origin of the Latin -iēs/-ia inflection", Dariusz Piwowarczyk, page 109)--Urszag (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to enter this on the page stuppa as a descendant of Old French estoper. -- Espoo (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

stuppa is a noun and estoper and estop are verbs. The verbs are listed as descendants of the verb stuppo. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would have figured it to be a Germanic borrowing into Romance, at first, but it seems tht it might be a parallel semantic evolution. Wakuran (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

English estop formally looks like Middle English estoppen (“to prevent (conception)”, c.1425, hapax legomenon), but it also looks like the earlier and far more commonly attested Middle English istoppen (“to block, obstruct”), which derives from i- (perfective prefix) + stoppen, with a slight spelling modification of initial i- to e- (compare inough > enough). Leasnam (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

see also talk:sacatos Arlo Barnes (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

could they all be cognates? wanted to check it here after pondering about the Toki Pona "alasa", but was unable to reliably trace them down to a common PIE root. although found a few hints to that in a few entries. 42.116.56.210 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic *x- (*h-) and Proto-Slavic *x- don't appear to be related, from what I can see, unless Proto-Slavic borrowed a Germanic word early on, or both of the proto-languages borrowd a word from a nearby substrate languages. The Toki Pona word only seems to muddle things. Wakuran (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

Both the English and Danish had {{bor|nl|frm|duel}}, probably because someone copied it there from the Dutch entry. Did these two languages get the term from Middle French, like Dutch did, or did they get it directly from Medieval Latin (or by some other route)? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suppose that in the Scandinavian languages, more words have come via French or Italian than directly from Latin. Wakuran (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology for the Sanskrit. The syllabic nasal doesn't look right for the 3s, and while it might match the 1s now added, it doesn't match the 2p.--RichardW57 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't usually give etymologies of nonlemma forms anyway, unless they're suppletive. I'm going to just delete it. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be a coincidence, but why is it that they are so similar? Shoshin000 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Also take a look at խաթուն. Shoshin000 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The Armenian is a borrowing from a Turkic language, so it's not much evidence of anything. If the Proto-Turkic entry is correct that it's a NW Iranian borrowing, it's not inconceivable that the same root was borrowed into Hebrew from Persian (I'm not sure which historical stage, off the top of my head), but there's Hebrew חָתָן (“bridegroom, son-in-law”), which mentions an Arabic term Arabic خَتَن (ḵatan, “son-in-law or brother-in-law”). I'm not knowledgable enough about the historical linguistics of the languages in question to do more than guess. Pinging @Fay Freak, Victar, Mahagaja, who may have something more useful to add. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It dates back to Proto-Semitic *ḫatan- (“son-in-law, groom”), whence also Akkadian (ḫatannu, “bridegroom, son-in-law”) and Aramaic חַתְנָא (hatnā, “son-in-law, bridegroom”), perhaps related to Akkadian (ḫatanu, “to protect”), so most likely a coincidence. --{{victar|talk}} 00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In any case, חתונה was already around in the days of Shir HaShirim. Shoshin000 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

These both refer to the same thing: grasses in the genus Lolium, also known as darnel (and mistranslated from Biblical Greek ζιζάνιον (zizánion) by the King James Version of the Bible as tares). These are botanically related to grain crops such as wheat, barley and rye, but tend to be infected with neurotoxic fungi to the point of being unsafe to eat.

Our entry for ray grass echoes Webster 1913, its source, in saying the etymology is uncertain. There is, however, a MED entry for rai/ray, which mentions Old French ivraie. Our entry for ivraie only has a modern French entry, which says it comes from Late Latin ēbriāca (“drunken”).

Our entry for ryegrass says it comes from rye + grass, with rye coming from "Middle English rie, reighe, from Old English ryġe, from Proto-West Germanic *rugi, from Proto-Germanic *rugiz, from Proto-Indo-European *Hrugʰís ".

I would like to propose that ray grass and ryegrass both came from the Middle English word for darnel, since the Great Vowel Shift would presumably have brought the pronunciations of this and the Middle English word for rye close enough to be mistaken for variants of the same word. After that, folk etymology would substitute the name of the better known grain for the more obscure weed name. It would be nice if we could have an Old French entry for ivraie, but I'm not sure if there's enough evidence (see ebriacus in the FEW, for instance). A Middle English entry for "rai" or "ray" would be much easier.

Thoughts? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This matches my experienced intuition. If the plant is ignored due to being unsafe then its name is also heard with a peculiarly limited frequency, which explains the changes in the Semitic forms. Though compound rye + grass is not a wrong claim either if folk etymology in fact substituted; we will be explicit about the substitution. Fay Freak (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Originally area directly above radar station. Which lack signal. Borrowed into military slang, to mean quiet place, safe from eavesdropping. Popularized, on Get Smart TV show in the 1960s. 2001:558:6033:E0:69B5:E0E3:641E:455D 05:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

https://letterboxd.com/film/cone-of-silence/ 24.108.18.81 02:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Currently, there is no etymological description. Gambeta could come from the Italian word for leg, "gamba," given that the language has had historically a profound influence on Rioplatense Spanish, where the word comes from. Gambeta means to dribble in football (or soccer), and since that is an action that requires the use of the leg, it could make sense. Thoughts? MrPeely (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Spanish even has the word gamba, at least locally. And RAE basically seems to agree. Wakuran (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Italian gambetta per Treccani has a dated sense of "sgambetto", the deverbal of sgambettare "(in sports, especially football) to trip an opponent; (figuratively) to evade". The RAE mention that the Spanish gambeta in Argentina and environs can mean "evasion" and also broadly in Latin America means "regate", which seems to be referring to sense 2 of that word, namely "(in football and other games) a feint made to get past one or more opponents without having one's ball taken". Searching hacer una gambeta on YouTube brings up various videos in Spanish showing precisely that action. The English translation that our entry gives, namely "dribble", appears to be inaccurate. Nicodene (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Spanish drible is mentioned as a synonym in the RAE, but the explanation 'finta' seems to indicate but both word mainly are used for feints. (Or possibly that Spanish doesn't make the same explicit distinction as English.) Wakuran (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There must be some kind of confusion here. My understanding is that the West Germanic masculine for "village" is from Latin vicus, whereas the (also) North Germanic feminine for "inlet" is from *wīkwaną (“to recede”). But even if this were not so, there is definitely something wrong here, because there is conflicting information in both entries and the descendants are mixed up. Finally, I wonder if the form *wīkō isn't wrong to begin with. The Auslautgesetze may be correct for English and Norse (are they?), but at least in Middle Dutch/Low German such a form should yield *wīke, not wīk. 92.218.236.121 14:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The early Middle Dutch wijc was feminine, which later became masculine (still Middle Dutch). In Middle Low German it's a little more complex. There the word wîk is neuter or feminine. However, there is a similar word Middle Low German wī̂ke, wike f that means "inlet, bight" which is of uncertain origin, possibly (if the above is correct (?)) derived from *wīkwaną. The Dutch and Low German terms that ultimately come from vicus appear to have undergone a gender shift at Proto-West Germanic *wīk, from a possible original *wīku (feminine) to *wīk (masculine/neuter). Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what OP means. *wīkō is the term that means "bight, inlet" and is the ancestor of the Old Norse, Middle Low German term mentioned above, and Old English wīc f (“inlet”). Which leaves the Proto-West Germanic *wīk as a separate term. Is this correct ? Our etymology at *wīkō states otherwise. Leasnam (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I thought I was quite clear, but no problem. There are two things:
1.) The two terms are likely not of the same origin. Several dictionaries say so. For example, De Vries in Nederlands Etym. Woordenboek: "te vergelijken met mnd. wīk, oe. wīc, on. vīk ‘bocht’, een afl van wijken."
2.) The form *wīkō should yield *wīke in both Middle Dutch and Middle Low German, but in both languages only e-less forms seem attested. That's a bit problematic, but admittedly less important than point 1. Could it perhaps be **wīkwiz? 92.218.236.121 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They now show different origins (*weyḱ- "village" vs. *weyk- "to bend, curve"). I considered a reconstruction in **wīkwiz also, and wondered why there was no -w- on Proto-Germanic *wīkō, but the downside is that there aren't sufficient early attestations in West Germanic, except for Old English wīc. The only other one we have is Old Norse vík which suggests *wīkō. Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

To complicate things further, there is also Middle Dutch wike, wijc and Middle Low German wîke, wîk meaning "fleeing, flight" derived from Proto-West Germanic *wīkwan which may have absorbed some of the aforementioned's senses of "shelter, hiding place" (< sense of "harbour, haven" ? - I'm not sure) Leasnam (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Leasnam This question is super confusing because wick, wike, vīc, etc. have so many meanings, spelling variations, and back-and-forth borrowing. I am therefore not certain but am still enclined to think that you are mistaken about Proto-West Germanic *wīku: it is not plausible that Old English vīc (“bay”) would have a Middle English descendant wike (“corner of mouth”), which would have a Modern English and Scots descendants wick (“bay”). The Middle English is clearly from Old Norse vik in munnvik (“corner of mouth”) and augnavik (“corner of eye”) and there is no Middle English *wike (“bay”) or similar in the OED. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've moved the descendants meaning "corner, cleft" to *wīkwaną under the descendants of Old Norse *vik (“bend, angle”). Leasnam (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems better!

Tangential question: I don't think there is a policy for glossing words in desc-trees and der-trees. The natural assumption for a reader then is that all words mean the same. Wouldn't it be sensible to say terms need to be glossed if the meanings have changed in any way? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a good question. Yet I will most often omit glosses even if there is a change in meaning so long as it's clear that the term evolved from the earlier. I think too many glosses can make a page look too busy yet what you've done at *wīkwaną looks good. Leasnam (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It might be useful if there are homonyms from different roots, though. Wakuran (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There are some papers of Norwegian researchers about this stuff, but i'm afraid to touch them. It seems as a big discussion in linguist society, related to origins of the word 'viking'. The Latin origin is very doubtful, but i don't get the rest of what they're talking about. Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In September 2023 an anonymous user added an unsourced etymology for this term as supposedly descending from Old East Slavic "алъчьныи", which in turn goes back to Proto-Slavic *olčьnъ. Isn't it much more likely to be a loan from Old Church Slavonic? There's a lack of liquid metathesis, which according to the page for *olčьnъ didn't happen in OCS and Bulgarian, it seems unlikely for this change to coincidentally also be missing in Russian as well. Moreover, the verb from which this adjective derives, *olkati, is mentioned to reflect in Russian as лакать (lakatʹ), whereas the counterpart without liquid metathesis алкать (alkatʹ) has written in its etymology that it's a loan from OCS. Presumably the same holds for алчный. Kasper486 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is OCS for sure. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

But it may be an OCS borrowing into OES. Maybe mister Zaliznyak has any idea? Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The PWG definition for *welkēn (sense 1) is "to welt, whither." Usage notes on wither and whither explicitly warn that the two words should not be confused with each other. Am I being rash, or is it an error that this word is defined as "whither?" Descendants include Dutch welken and German welken which both mean "wither." Additionally, the etymology for "whither" is completely different, citing *hwadrê as its earliest origin.

I'm ultimately trying to find the correct etymology for German welken and I think the line to *welkēn is correct. Just wanted someone else to check this too. Ethanspradberry (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely just a spelling error; I've fixed it. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering when how the word philander and its closest relatives underwent a gender swap. Ancient Greek φίλανδρος (phílandros, adjective) and φιλανδρία (philandría, noun) are generally applied to women, either in a positive sense meaning "(having) love for one's husband" or in a negative sense meaning "(exhibiting) excessive attraction to males, sluttiness, boy craziness". But in modern English, a philanderer is a man who seduces a lot of women. How and when did that rather startling semantic shift happen? —Mahāgaja · talk 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

According to Etymonline, Philander was used as a name for flirtatious characters in 18th Century stories, perhaps misinterpreted as 'A man of love'. Wakuran (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Φίλανδρος was also the name of the mythological son of of the nymph Acacallis and the god Apollo. The name Philander has been given as a masculine name. Johann Michael Moscherosch used Philander von Sittewald as a pseudonym.  --Lambiam 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've update the etymology accordingly. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, What is the etymology of this word?
-1.In الألفاظ الفارسية المعربة by Addai Scher it says "(الصدی) تعریب سدا"
-2.In Borhan- e. Ghate and Dehkhoda say the same for سدا .
-3.Steingass says "سدا sadā (probably for Ar. صدا, not vice versâ, as the Burhāni qāt̤īʻ says in the text), Echo."
So what is the ultimate etymology for this word? Is it Persian or Arabic? Kamran.nef (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kamran.nef: Arabic. See now how we etymologize the root ص د و (ṣ-d-w). Fay Freak (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Thanks, but what about "الألفاظ الفارسية المعربة" by Addai Scher? Is it reliable in general? Kamran.nef (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kamran.nef: I have not used or read it yet, though the author should be knowledgeable. Normally no book listing lots of Persian words in Arabic is reliable, particularly before our generation, because these books are compiled by gathering terms through chains of mentions, which does not allow respect to frequency and context in which a word appears, to say nothing about the required specialist nature of Iranian studies, which few libraries adequately provide. Long into the 20th century philologist works are in a medieval state and end up stating “Persian” words in Arabic when the Arabic words are more likely from Middle Iranian forms behind the Persian. But since they started under the title “Arabicized Persian words” they sweep together as many as they can get, bending the facts to the favour of the premise! See also User talk:Agamemenon#Armenian etymologies Fay Freak (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

We automatically transliterate Arabic صَدًى, which ends on an alif maqṣūrah, as “ṣadan”. Where does the final ⟨n⟩ come from?  --Lambiam 21:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lambiam: From nunation, as the ى or ا is part of the stem and not significative of feminine. a(y/w)u, a(y/w)a a(y/w)i are illegal sequences. The nunated contraction is also more likely pronounced presently and hence less likely omitted than other nunations, which we do not show in headwords. Fay Freak (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In Japanese version, the etymology of the word is given as:

「好(す)き」を擬人化した「好兵衛（すきべえ）」の変化。江戸時代の上方で使われたのが最初とされる。

山口佳紀編著『暮らしのことば 新 語源辞典』 講談社、2008年、473頁

I’m no translator, but I believe the text says something like:

A variant of 好兵衛（すきべえ）, from the personification of 好き. First attested in the early Edo period.

However, the corresponding section in English version is currently blank. Should we fill it in? 49.229.253.187 15:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Kojien says "という", i.e. it is said that that's the etymology, but is not 100% confirmed, but most others agree, so I agree we should port it over with the caveat of "very likely" or something of that sort. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 17:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a language expert and just curious why the etymology sub heading was empty. Any ideas? 112.134.170.134 16:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Simply because no one who's edited the page knows what the etymology is. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

According to Nicolas Sims-Williams (in his Bactrian Personal Names, 2010, pp.76), -(η)ϸκο is a hypocoristic suffix, the first part of that name is unclear, but he does gave a possibility of connection of element Καν(η)- with Sanskrit कनिष्ठ (kaniṣṭha). And he states that:

• The translation "Kaniṣka- 'The Brilliant'" (MORGENSTIERNE 1927, 107) is unexplained.

Ydcok (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

sankki (“flash pan”) is a confusing word, which almost certainly (on semantic grounds) has to be a relatively recent borrowing from a Germanic language like Swedish or German, but I haven't been able to find a convincing source. Compounds of the word are also used to refer to the touch hole or the gunpowder placed in the flash pan. It shows up in dictionaries, including the main printed monolingual Finnish dictionary (Nykysuomen sanakirja), but no work appears to discuss its etymology.

The Swedish word for the flash pan appears to be fängpanna, and I have been able to find vänkkipannu in some sources, which is clearly from the Swedish term. However, this cannot regularly result in sankki (unless someone somehow really badly misread fänkkipannu or faͤnkkipannu typed in Fraktur?). To muddy the waters further, Estonian seems to have had a word like singiauk (sink? + auk (“hole”)) that shows up in Wiedemann's dictionary; the former part is clearly quite similar to sankki, and the only thing preventing these words from being related directly is the vowel. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Web-search gives three results for "singi-auk", one in German, namely Dr. W. Schlüter's Vortrag gehalten zur Feier des Jahrestages am 18. Januar 1909 in Sitzungsberichte der Gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft, file hosted by University of Tartu. He argues that German sch reflects initially in Estonian k, s and eventually sch, for example kiṅkima, schenken (compare Polish szynk), siṅk, Schinken. He also notes tang, Zange (tongs) as Low German; sigar, Zigarre (cigar) as High German influenced. Next he addresses less stable medials and finals. It is in this view understandable that he likens singi-auk to Zündloch, compare Zünder.

I hope this helps though I have reserved doubts. HerpesDerp (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It does, it gives the phonetic comparisons why the Estonian is from German Zündloch with phono-semantic matching and the Finnish from German Zündpfanne, borrowed separately, so the vowel indeed does not relate “directly”. I mean these are the first words I would identify those words with when learning Finnish or Estonian so as to memorize the technical vocabulary, and to someone back then it probably seemed too obvious to be worth mention. @Surjection. Fay Freak (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't find it very likely. There is nothing "semantic" to match, and a direct borrowing would not give anything like sankki- in Finnish nor even something like sink-/singi- in Estonian, although I'm less sure about the latter than the former. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sankki is maybe from sänka? @Hekaheka @Alla tajders @Gabbe @Christoffre @Wakuran @Mårtensås @Thadh Do you have any idea? Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, see the following entries in SAOB: , . Possible semantic development: "metal ornament". > "flash pan" ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 19:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As Finnish has both and , the vowel shift to seems unexplained, though. Wakuran (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Same Problem with sänky (“bed”), then? SAOB has "figurative" use in Swedish, "Patronhylsan utdrages och lägges på matarelådans öfra säng" (säng in Svenska Akademiens ordbok (SAOB)). Its etymology is uncertain beyond Old Norse.

I believe Swedish slang sagga (“to sag; to seed(?)”) is probable evidence of the vowel change in either case. But the semantics are neither here nor there. Hurtmeplenty (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to check the Finnish Dialect Archives to be sure, but I seem to recall running into sankki as a dialect word for 'sediment', so probably indeed from some reflex of the *sinkwaną family. And maybe with an a from sakka? --Tropylium (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the link between "sediment" and "flash pan", though. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The 精選版 日本国語大辞典 entry at kotobank.jp has this to say about the origin of this term:

• 上代では「かりて」といい、もともとは旅行などの際に仮に携行する臨時の食糧の意であった。中古初期に「かりて」から「かて」への変化が起こったものと思われる。

It's unclear to me whether this is explicitly saying the かり (kari) in this term comes from 仮(かり) (kari, “temporary, provisional”) or not. This would mirror the english term provisions, but I don't want to make any assumptions. It's also unclear what the て (te) in this term means, but I suspect it may be 手(て) (te), either in the sense of 中(なか)手(て) (nakate, “mid-season crops”) and 奥(おく)手(て) (okute, “late-season crops”), or in a different sense having to do with holding things. Horse Battery (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

日本国語大辞典 is a bad source for Japanese etymologies, etymologies in that dictionary was filled with flolk etymologies and pseudo-linguistic gibberish.

According to Martin (1987), かて（かりて） is related to 餉(かれい) (karei), which, as determined by 広辞苑 and 学研国語大辞典, may be:

• 「かれいひ(乾飯)」の約

That is, related to 乾(から) (kara), 涸(か)れ (kare), etc. But I could not understand the second part of that word. Martin tried to say, that kate was from:

• kate < kari (<...) te (<...)

And I don't know what te was. Ydcok (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources claim it is from French or German, but to me it sounds Dutch, because of the uncommon -ея suffix reminiscent of -ij. In the Petrovian era many Dutch words entered Russian.

In Ukrainian, the word is pronounced almost exactly like in West Flemish. Shoshin000 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to know the etymology of dry, but what I saw looks problematic to my non-expert eyes: "from Proto-Germanic *drūgiz, *draugiz (“dry, hard”), from Proto-Indo-European *dʰerǵʰ- (“to strengthen; become hard”), from *dʰer- (“to hold, support”)".

I don't understand how it is possible to get from *dʰerǵʰ- to *drūgiz/*draugiz: where does the u come from? How does the r get before it? It seems like *dʰerǵʰ- should give instead derg- or durg: contrast werǵ- > *wurkijaną (via wr̥ǵ) and *werką (via *wérǵom).

The entry for *draugiz in turn refers to an entirely different extension of the root: "From Proto-Indo-European *dʰrewgʰ- (“to strengthen; become hard or solid”), from *dʰer- (“to hold, hold fast, support”). However, the page *dʰrewgʰ- shows no cognates outside for Germanic for this, only descendants for unrelated senses "to deceive, to mislead" and a sense "to serve one's tribe; loyal".

At first glance, I coudn't see references that clearly support these etymologies. Mallory and Adams 2006:381 is cited on the page for *dʰerǵʰ-, but that page of that reference seems to only mention the Sanskrit descendant of this form. Urszag (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can get *drūgiz/*draugiz from *dʰerǵʰ-, even with some kind of secondary full grade. Old Norse draugr (“dry tree trunk”) seems like a safe cognate. The only possible extra-Germanic support for Proto-Indo-European *dʰrewgʰ- (“dry”) I can find is Sanskrit द्रुहिल (druhila, “rough”) (Kroonen, Mayrhofer, Lubotsky). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Unless someone else has an explanation, I plan to edit the relevant entries. I looked at what Kroonen 2013 says. Kroonen reconstructs -ja-stem adjectives rather than -i-stem adjectives. Per Appendix:Proto-Germanic adjectives, these mostly inflect the same: Is there some reason our entries have the latter? The forms Kroonen gives are *drūgja- > OE drȳge, *drūga- > OFri. drūch, *draugja- > MDu. droge, *drukkna- > OS drocno, OHG trockan.--Urszag (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chernorizets Does BER volume 8 have something to say about this word? Is it just тъждество (tǎždestvo) +‎ -ен (-en), or is there e.g. an OCS equivalent? I see there's тождьство (toždĭstvo) for тъждество́ (tǎždestvó), but I can't find one for тъжде́ствен (tǎždéstven). Thanks, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 02:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kiril kovachev according to BER, both тъждество (tǎždestvo) and тъждествен (tǎždestven) are Russian borrowings, from тождество (toždestvo) and тождественный (toždestvennyj), respectively. Page 491, Vol 8. Chernorizets (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no OCS word тождьство (toždĭstvo) - I've posted on #balto-slavic about it. The Russian entry's etymology is incorrect. Chernorizets (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chernorizets Interesting, I recall looking that OCS up in STBR but I can't remember what I found besides тъжде (tŭžde) or similar. I'll remove the etymology on for starters — should we post the Russian derivation instead? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kiril kovachev yes, please. We should indicate that both BG words are loans from Russian. Chernorizets (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chernorizets Great, I've done it. Please just check whether the references show the correct headword, since I don't know how they've entered it in BER. Good news is, I'll be going home in a few weeks so I'll have my own copy to reference from soon :) Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

++ Just for clarificaiton: Old Church Slavonic тъ-жде, та-жде, то-жде (tŭ-žde, ta-žde, to-žde) are compound pronouns (from earlier *tъ + *žьde) analogous to *kъžьde. Probably they meant “such that” or something of this sort. (Bezimenen)

As an English word isn't this more likely from Yiddish than German? 23.159.136.8 02:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As it's from official Nazi terminology, I'd guess not. Wakuran (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/guinzaglio

Says this:

Etymologyedit According to Treccani it probably derives from the earlier form guinzale, itself from Middle High German wintseil (literally “wind-sail”), equivalent to modern German Wind + Segel. See wint and seil for more

This is obviously wrong. It must be the germanic word for rope, line, cord Standard German Seil, that is cognate to guinzaglio.

The word for sail : « Segel » which reduces to seil or similar in many germanic languages has no semantic link to the Italian word. Treccani does not make any link to Segel. Middle High German Maybe had two homonymes, coming from different roots ?

Entry on Seil (german):

Language Watch Edit See also: seil, Séil, and Séïl Germanedit Etymologyedit From Middle High German seil, from Old High German seil, from Proto-West Germanic *sail, from Proto-Germanic *sailą. Pronunciationedit IPA(key): /zaɪ̯l/ (prescriptive standard) IPA(key): /saɛ̯l/ (Austria) Audio

(file) Rhymes: -aɪ̯l Nounedit Seil n (strong, genitive Seiles or Seils, plural Seile) rope, line, cord Usage notesedit A Seil is thicker than a Schnur (“string”), but thinner than a Tau. 2A04:CEC0:1051:6027:614A:3ACF:69A9:552F 08:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Right or wrong, it doesn't match the Treccani entry's etymology, which says something about wintseil being a rope for tying a greyhound, if Google Translate is to be trusted. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Koebler says MHG wintseil denotes "“Wind rope”, tension rope, rope with which the tent is securely tensioned against the wind". Leasnam (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

German Seil has a separate entry, by the way. Wakuran (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the etymology of guinzaglio to reflect that the second element of the MHG word is the "rope" word, not the "sail" word. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume it's a coincidence, but I just wanted to point out this similarity between Lithuanian (Baltic) and Komi (Finnic), for those who know more about these languages. Shoshin000 (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the first element is Danish, but the term does not occur in Wiktionary entry elle. But I have no knowledge of Danish, - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There might possibly be a relation to/ derivation from Norwegian elf / Swedish älva (female elf/ elven/ fairy), with the -lv-cluster simplified, I guess. I also found two Danish examples of ellefolk considering it a simplification of elverfolk, though; , , so the shift of -lv- to -ll- might have originated in Scandinavia. Anyway, there's a likely connection to elf. Wakuran (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

See Erlkönig for the Danish element eller-, elves, though the Danish etymon is still a redlink. --Hiztegilari (talk) 12:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Two questions. Smoczynski cautions of phonetic difficulties in the derivation from the arktic root, but doesn't explain. What are the problems? From PIE *h₂ŕ̥tḱos descendants: PBS *irśtwā́ˀ (< *h₂r̥tḱ-wéh₂) based only on one word. Perhaps the suffix is why Smozcynski doubted the morpho-phonology. Metathesis as alternative is looking not much better and the semantic extension of šìrtas (“lair, nest, gathering”) from šérti (“to feed”) is difficult to translate. Eugen Hill claims that crēscō (pace Smoczynski) and *kъrmъ and սեր (ser) (...) are not cognate, that no certain cognates are known, though the futur and aorist of κορέννυμι are admitted (“šérti” in Hock et al., Altlitauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch 2.0 (online, 2020–).). This is suggesting to me that it is difficult. Isn't it? Hurtmeplenty (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The etymology section for English term logline currently says that it is attested since the 17th century, and a compound of log and line. Presumably, this concerns the word in its nautical sense. What about the sense "brief summary of a script"? Is that really from the same etymology? If not, what is the origin of the word in that sense? Gabbe (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(@Maas555, @Surjection) Since neither element is otherwise attested in Finnic, and both are from Germanic, is there any reason against reconstructing a Proto-Germanic compound *marhaminþlą and deriving the Finnic term thence? ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, although LÄGLOS says such a compound "is not attested in Germanic". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not, but this type of compound formation was extremely productive in Germanic, and this word was borrowed centuries before the well-attested languages were written. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If indeed neither *marha nor *minta can be reconstructed for Proto-Finnic, I agree. Nicodene (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The ciliate protist Usconophrys is the type genus of Usconophryidae family. But I don't understand what the prefix uscon- means, -ophrys, meaning "eyebrow ⇒ eyelash ⇒ ciliate". Can you help me please ? Gerardgiraud (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

LSJ has an entry οὔσκη (oúskē), apparently a hapax legomenon in a text by Zosimos of Panopolis, glossed in the margin by πῶμα (pôma) κακκάβου (kakkábou), in which κακκάβου (kakkábou) is apparently the genitive of κάκκαβος (kákkabos), an alternative form of κακκάβη (kakkábē). In the (somewhat unlikely) case that this is the etymon of the first component, its meaning would be “cover of a three-legged pot”.  --Lambiam 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if it could be οὐ (ou, “not”) + something starting σκον- or σκων-, but I can't find anything likely looking. There's also nothing promising beginning with ὑσκ- (husk-) (which ought to be romanized hysc-, not usc- anyway, but you never know). —Mahāgaja · talk 20:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikispecies has entries for ~20 genera of chromists that end in (o?)phrys. Most of these were named in the 19th century, meaning they were identified principally by optical microscopy. Images, were they available might have helped.

Usconophrys was apparently erected by Jankowski in 1985 (in Russian) based on Lagenophrys aperta, described in 1889. It may be that the first part of the name is from οὐ (ou, “not”) and relates to some distinction from the 1889 description, quite possibly also in microscopy. J. C. Clamp 1991 "Revision of the family Lagenohryidae " might have more, in English. This makes οὐ (ou, “not”) a more plausible element of the name, but it still leaves the middle portion mysterious. I could not find the fragment "s(k|c|ch)on" anywhere in the 358 pages of Catalogue of the Generic Names of Ciliates, except in direct connection with Usconophrys. DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A possibility might be οὖς (oûs, “ear”) + cono- (“cone, conical”), κῶνος (kônos, “cone”). DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone familiar with the practice of baking Ancient-Greek-based learned neologisms would have used the stem ὠτ- (ōt-) of οὖς, giving us the genus Otoconophrys. Compare e.g. otolith and otopathy.  --Lambiam 23:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)