Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2025/June

Can we align the etymology sections of Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ulbanduz, Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/olbandu, Old High German olbenta, Old English olfend, Middle English olfent, Icelandic úlfaldi, Gothic 𐌿𐌻𐌱𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃 (ulbandus), etc?

The Gothic entry is the most extensive, and notably also mentiones alternative etymological possibilities (which I personally prefer, but that’s neither here nor there). Cheers  _hugarheimur 08:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards moving most of what is at Gothic 𐌿𐌻𐌱𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃 (ulbandus) to Proto-Germanic *ulbanduz, unless there are objects (?) Leasnam (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Dutch rommelen is said to be “related to rumoer”. What is the meaning here of “related”?

• Dutch rumoer is borrowed from French rumeur, inherited from Latin rumor which is thought to come from onomatopoeic Proto-Indo-European *h₃rewH- (“to shout, to roar”).
• rommelen itself is also said to be of imitative origin.
• English rumble, which has similar meanings, while said to be a frequentative form of Middle English romen (“to roar”), is additionally claimed to be cognate with Dutch rommelen (“to rumble”), Low German rummeln (“to rumble”), German rumpeln (“to be noisy”), Danish rumle (“to rumble”), all of imitative origin.
• The etymology of roam tells us that romen derives from Proto-Indo-European *h₃reyH- (“to move, lift, flow”).

Methinks this is etymological overload.  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, one thing is that when I added that etyl, the entry for rumoer didn't exist yet. But, it really is simple: the source says "Klanknabootsend woord, verwant met → rumoer." (an onomatopoeic word, related to rumoer). I took the French part out, since that should go on rumoer. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Swedish has råma (to moo), which I suppose might be related. Wakuran (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Both English moo and Russian мыча́ть (myčátʹ) have onomatopeic roots. Does that mean they are related, or does related, in this context, have a deeper meaning?  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw a few speculations on Quora about this, including one where it was said that they were so named because Chicago-style hot dogs which use these peppers were sold in baseball stadiums or something. I'd probably say that that's not true, since Americans generally say "sports" and not "sport". One could even say that Americans defend the "s" in "sports" as much as the Brits defend the "s" in "maths". Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a compound word, though, so possibly the -s could have been dropped for phonological reasons, I guess. Wakuran (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... although it's true that plurals often get singularized in compounds (even pluralia tanta, e.g. pant leg/trouser leg or scissor kick) my native-speaker intuition is that a pepper named after sports would still be called a "sports pepper", like sports drink or sports page. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is a putative explanation:

"... They were called sports because they didn't burn your hand when you picked them. Also, a sport pepper looks like somebody dressed up in a nice, new suit That's just how it looks. ..."

The speaker is reminiscing about how they used to pick tabasco peppers (which burned the pickers' hands) and later instead sports.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The etymology section raises three questions that Orel (and Beekes) doesn't answer, either:

1. How, pray tell, are Albanian upri (“group of peasants helping another peasant with chores in his farm”) and (for that matter) Ancient Greek ὕπερος (húperos, “pestle”) semantically related to “over”? For the life of me I can't think of any way to link these meanings.

2. Where, pray tell, does the inflected form unza come from?

3. How, pray tell, is Albanian uri (“hunger”) (also “mole”, a different etymon not mentioned in Wiktionary, but in Orel) supposed to be "related" to upri? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A pestle is the upper part of a mortar, presumably... Wakuran (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Some languages have different words for upper and lower grindstone, those being concave and convex. ANewUserHasJoined (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It might be utterly irrelevant, but I also got to think of the modern English gay slang terms "top" and "bottom". Wakuran (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've definitely heard "mortar and pestle" used as a sexual metaphor. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about Albanian historical phonology, I suspect unza is a case of suppletion. And as for the semantics, almost anything is possible with enough time. The same root has also given us German Ober (“waiter”), Obers (“cream”), and Oberst (“colonel”). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The etymology for ทุก (túk) compares it to 獨 (*doːɡ, “single, alone”) using {{der}} with the plausible implication that the Tai word is ultimately borrowed from Old Chinese. The Tai word seems to have a restricted distribution - we list it for Thai, Lao, Northern Thai, Khün and Lü. @This, that and the other has changed the template to {{cog}} in the Northern Thai entry ᨴᩩᨠ as though the relationship were less direct. Which one should we be using? At present the Tai cognates are now inconsistent about the relationship with Old Chinese. The comparison with Old Chinese was added anonymously. (Notifying Alifshinobi, Octahedron80, YURi, Judexvivorum, หมวดซาโต้, Atitarev, GinGlaep, Noktonissian): --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I think he just misuse of der template. That's okay to compare to something that might be possibly their long ancestor. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My another theory is that "ทุก" is spreaded from Ayutthaya Old Thai to the north. That's why "ทุก" just exists in this subgroup. --Octahedron80 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My change was based on the fact that the etymology says "Compare...", which does not imply any kind of derivation relation. I don't think the text of the etymology should be so clearly out of sync with the categorisation. This, that and the other (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It's hard to say that ทุก is derived from old Chinese *do:g as the time period for old Chinese is 1000 BC while ทุก is a contemporary Thai word that can be traced back to only around 500 years ago. Also, ทุก means "all" and "every" as opposed to "single" and "one". They are antonyms. I'm not so convinced that the words are related. Noktonissian (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

(Notifying Alifshinobi, Octahedron80, YURi, Judexvivorum, หมวดซาโต้, Atitarev, GinGlaep, Noktonissian): , @This, that and the other: I can see a possible connection through the sense 'each', i.e. 'every single one', but I don't find it very convincing. In cases like this, where 'compare' is mere speculation, I think {{link}} would be better. Or is someone doing something useful with {{der}} or {{cog}} in cases like this? To me, {{temp

@RichardW57 there is {{ncog}} as well. Perhaps that one is a better fit here. {{l}} (= {{link}}) and {{l+}} are not suitable as they don't present the language name as a link to Wikipedia, as is standard in our etymology sections. This, that and the other (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Or just use {{m+}}, which doesn't make any implication at all about whether the term is cognate or not. AFAIK all three are functionally identical, so it's kind of silly to make an issue about something that's only visible in the wikitext. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

A reason for worrying is the prospect that they might start categorising. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I wish someone had the time, money? and ability to add that 500-year old citation. --RichardW57 (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that speculative connections require a separate template, but perhaps saying things like "possibly a cognate of" might not be as misleading. --A.S. (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My dictionaries say that 柄(ひ)杓(しゃく) (hishaku, “ladle”) comes from ひさく (hisaku), from earlier ひさこ (hisako) or ひさご (hisago), which would appear to be a japonic word, making the kanji ateji (phono-semantic matching?), but what about 杓(しゃく) (shaku, “ladle”)? Does anyone know whether this word is Chinese in origin, or possibly an apheresis of hishaku? Horse Battery (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems shaku is a normal Chinede borrowing. (hi- reading of the first kanji, on the other hand, is unexpected.)

See the Pronunciation 2 in the Chinese part of the article 杓 (Middle Chinese dzyak), looks like a straightforward source of Japanese shaku.

For similar examples, see 妁 MC dzyak/tsyak > kan-on shaku. In other cases, initial dz- is borrowed as s(h)- (e.g.上 MC dzyangH gave kan-on shou < syau, my understanding is, it's from earlier *syaŋu) and -yak is borrowed as -(y)aku (弱 MC nyak > kan-on jaku). Хтосьці (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Is -man used here instead?

Secondly, how's it pronounced? JMGN (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I just edited the Japanese etymology section, which previously presented two incompatible etymologies in a way that I found confusing, not mentioning until the end that the second one was supposed to be incorrect. I added one source but I'd appreciate anyone who actually knows Japanese etymologies updating it further. I'm not sure exactly what the wording "manuscript kana glosses" means in this case: is the word attested anywhere with a man'yōgana spelling in Old Japanese, or does it just appear with the kanji spelling 紙? When is the first attested spelling of the word in kana? The quotation from 720 cited by the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten seems like it should go in the Old Japanese section. As far as I can tell, the relevant passage in the Nihon Shoki reads 且能作彩色及紙墨, with the word written in kanji; but I can't find much useful information online about the original writing conventions of the Nihon Shoki (is it a form of kanbun, with kana glosses already present in the original? Or are pronunciation glosses generally assumed to belong to a later date?). The note in the Old Japanese entry that talks about "The reconstruction as *KAMI₁ and not **KAMI₂" seems to imply that we have to infer the Old Japanese pronunciation, rather than having direct attestation of it. That makes me wonder how we can be certain it was *KAMI₁ and not *KABI₁ in Old Japanese. Urszag (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Elsewhere the manuscript (https://manuscripta.at/diglit/AT7290-HsA1/0013) clearly has Senlhart. I'm inclined to link this to Proto-Germanic *senaz, but can't find any evidence of any equivalent to *senilaz. A document from Freising, on the other hand, has Snelhart. Griffon77 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Does Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-ukaz come from Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-kos? It would make it a doublet of Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-gaz but it is a similar evolution as with -iko#Ladino and Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/-ъkъ to make a diminutive. Arnerob1234 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The phonetics don't match up. It would require an explanation on why it would be irregular. Wakuran (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I thought maybe as loanword; maybe from Proto-Balto-Slavic, but such loanwords seem to be rare; maybe from Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/-kelos but it's uncertain if that even existed and other examples like -क#Sanskrit seem impossible. Arnerob1234 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe suffixes like that usually aren't borrowed. Wakuran (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems pretty transparent: owíŋža is a flexible thing on a bed, and ská is white. Can any Siouan speakers confirm? PierreAbbat (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Old Sundanese and Old Javanese meaning "magnet/lodestone". Zoetmulder (1982) in his Old Javanese Dictionary compares this word's etymology to Persian خراسانی (“Khorasani”). Any explanation on why? Is there any record that the Persians traded metal like magnets/lodestone in the Maritime Silk Road, especially in the 13-16th century? Udaradingin (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess this might be based on Vladimir Orel's entry for *smauʒjanan, which gives "MHG sich smougen 'to cling'" as a descendant. Orel also lists Old English smēaġan (“consider”) as a descendant, but experts on Old English say that's from *smauhōj-, and the lack of i-umlaut points against derivation from *smaugijan, so I just removed that derivation from these two entries. It seems dubious to keep a Proto-West Germanic reconstruction with only one descendant. But I haven't gone through Orel's bibliography, and I guess sich smougen ought to be listed somewhere, so I'm not sure the entry is ready to be deleted yet. Does anyone have more info to work from? Urszag (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought I'd cleared these - Forstemann's reference work is not a list of Old High German names. His "Altdeutsche" includes multiple languages - Norse, Old English, Old Dutch/Frankish, Old High German, Gothic, Vandal, Middle High German ... and Greek and Latin adaptations. He lists this name as Ags - AngloSaxon. Griffon77 (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to this 2021 edit, we present the noun "A young person who is considered to be over-emotional or stereotypically emo." and adjective "Associated with youth subcultures embodying emotional sensitivity." as having different etymologies. Is that correct? Also, a user just replaced ety 2 with the claim that the adjective was coined by Helen Gurley Brown; as many of the user's other edits have had errors and the book cited for this claim doesn't look to be particularly focused on or reliable for etymologies, it'd be wise to check whether this is correct. - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Both senses go back to the word emotion(al), anyway. And the different words might likely have been conflated on various times. Wakuran (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the more usual sense of the noun, applied to persons, is that of being associated with the emo subculture. Wikipedia writes, “The emo subculture was stereotypically associated with social alienation, sensitivity, misanthropy, introversion, and angst.“ This does not mean (I hope) that this stereotype is automatically assumed to apply to any individual emo kid, many of whom were not actually inflicted by any of this but just liked the music and felt at home in the subculture. Applied to people who are not actually thought to be associated with the emo subculture, it may be a derived meaning, a disapproving term for “someone behaving like the imaginary stereotype”. This needs IMO some unambiguous uses for attestation.

Here is the relevant passage concerning the imputation of Brown as the coiner of the adjective:

Emo is a word invented by Helen Gurley Brown, the grand dame of Cosmopolitan magazine. Emo translated is “Give more emotion!” Once Cosmopolitan asked me to write an article on communicating sensitive matters (most specifically advising young women on how to make their boyfriends more passionate). I interviewed a passel of psychologists, communications experts, and sexologists. My draft came back from Cosmo all marked up with “MORE EMO” scribbled on every page. I called my editor and asked what it meant. She said that was Helen’s way of saying downplay all that factual stuff with the sex therapists and so-called experts. Write about the emotion the young woman feels when her boyfriend isn’t passionate enough, the emotion the accused male feels when confronted, and the emotion the couple feels about discussing their quandary.

This shows several things. To begin, in Brown’s use of EMO in “MORE EMO” it appears to me as a noun, as in “More Cowbell”. Then, it is clearly a clipping of emotion. The writer’s suggested “translation” as “Give more emotion!” is not substitutable: “MORE give more emotion!”?? It is also unlikely that Brown was the first to clip emotion, and use in private scribbled communication is not the same as coinage.

There may be enough attestable uses of emo as just a clipping of emotion or emotional to warrant inclusion, in which case it should have a different etymology than that of the subcultural emo.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As in Category:Bulgarian terms suffixed with -ле. Doesn't seem like a particularly Slavic affix to me. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Was Bulgarian ever significantly in contact with High German languages? It sure seems reminiscent of German -le and Yiddish ־ל (-l). —Mahāgaja · talk 11:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware. When I think of non-Slavic lexical influences in Bulgarian that aren't necessarily found in surrounding Slavic languages, I tend to just think of Greek, and maybe Turkic. I'd argue that Czech, Polish and the surrounding West Slavic languages and dialects were the Slavic languages most influenced by High German. I can see where the argument holds semantically and morphologically, but there's just very little German influence that isn't also found in other South Slavic languages. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

There's also Romanian -el and Greek -ούλης (-oúlis), but they don't look particularly promising morphologically. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The etymology currently on the page for रीछ page reads

"Inherited from Sauraseni Prakrit रिच्छ (riccha), रिक्ख (rikkha), from Sanskrit ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa), from Proto-Indo-Aryan *Hŕ̥ṭṣas, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hŕ̥ćšas, from Proto-Indo-European *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. Turner considers the development ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa) > रिच्छ (riccha) rather than ऋक्ष (ṛkṣa) > रिक्ख (rikkha) > Hindi *रीख (*rīkh), which would be expected, to be a case of taboo deformation (borrowing from a neighboring dialect)."

however this is unnecessary as the Prakrits (and thus the modern Indo-Aryan lanuguages) don't come from Sanskrit but directly from Proto Indo-Aryan and the sound change of Proto Indo-Iranian *Hŕ̥ćšas > Proto Indo-Aryan *Hŕ̥ćšas > Hindi रीछ /ɾiːt͡ʃʰ/ is completely regular. This obviously points towards a wider problem across all of wiktionary for Indo-Aryan languages, where conflating Sanskrit with Proto Indo-Aryan causes the proposing of irregular sound changes where they actually are regular. ChromeBones (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This word has an entry for 3 different Arabic varieties. In Levantine it's listed as a word that comes from Spanish while in Hejazi it's Italian. Which is it? Does anyone know? Jinengi (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

For many centuries, large swaths of especially the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea were under Genoese or Venetian control, and many Levantines were Venetian or Genoese, so borrowing from an Italian language seems a priori far more likely. Compare also Ottoman Turkish بانیو (banyo), generally thought to have been borrowed from Italian. Many Ladino speakers fled to Morocco and the early Ottoman Empire, so a borrowing of Ladino באניו (banyo), from Old Spanish banno, is IMO not implausible for Moroccan Arabic, and a secondary influence on Ottoman Turkish and other languages spoken in the Levant cannot be excluded.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Might it make sense to includ something like "from an unknown Romance language, compare..." and then list various examples like Ladino, Italian, etc. ChromeBones (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a language code for w:Mediterranean Lingua Franca (“... the fact the language is not well attested means only a few hundred words in the language have been recorded to the present-day”)? 185.109.152.115 08:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes; the code is pml, but we call it Sabir rather than Mediterranean Lingua Franca. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

In his entry for sulphur/sulpur, De Vaan writes "The development of *selpos to *solpos would be irregular". Does anyone else understand what he means by this? I'm confused, since before a consonant, *-el- > -ol- > -ul- is regular in Latin, as in pulpa from *pelpa or vult < *welt.

Second, in his entry for fulgō and fulgur, De Vaan seems to assume that Latin fulg- in both of these words must derive from zero-grade *bʰlg-, but wouldn't it be equally regular as the outcome of e-grade *bʰelg-? I'm wondering about this because I wonder whether pre-Latin *folgos could be analogous or even cogate to Proto-Indo-Iranian *bʰárgas > Sanskrit भर्गस् (bhargas). Schrijver 1991:477 seems to discuss both and distinguishes the Latin word as being from *bʰlǵ-, versus the Sanskrit word as being from *bʰelg-/*bʰolg-, but I didn't see an explanation of how we can be confident in either the zero-ablaut grade or the palatovelar behind the Latin form. Don't *-os nouns in PIE usually take the e-grade of the root, like *yéwgos (> Latin iūgera)? Urszag (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I just realized that maybe the idea is that the e-grade would be *bʰle-g-, as in Greek φλέγω (phlégō), but currently we don't show the Latin forms as a descendant of that root formation at *bʰel-. Should they be moved? (I guess this is why De Vaan refers to "schwebe-ablaut" when mentioning the Sanskrit word.)--Urszag (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm this? It was added by an IP known for many erroneous etymologies (though some correct ones, too), then changed from "probably related to" to "probably from" by another IP. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The use of edit summaries in Anglish spelled with obsolete letters by the second IP doesn't exactly inspire confidence... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The English section says this is (from French and) related to chopiner, thus a nickname for a tippler, which I can find references supporting. The French section says it's related to chop and thus a nickname for someone pugnacious. Which is correct? (It could be both, for different bearers...) - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay but I don't think that both are different 41.121.13.193 06:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

It also looks similar to the Spanish chupar, although that might be a coincidence. (And for the record, it's also fairly similar to the English tope.) Wakuran (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

I'm no professional linguist, but the etymology added by Geheimrat Goethe (23) sounds like a bit of truth mixed with complete BS to me. I suspect they read the etymology entry at DWDS here and completely misunderstood it. I'm primarilly confused by these claims:

• "The si/se was originally used to strengthen demonstrative pronouns, which is still preserved today in dieser, diese, dieses."

  According to the entries here on wiktionary the -s- in dieser etc. is from the oblique stem of PG *þat, which was *þes-

• "The sie probably found its way into German primarily via the Old Saxon se, which developed as a plural form of the simple demonstrative thia."

  considering that Proto West Germanic is reconstructed with *sī/si(j)u, I find it unlikely that Old High German loaned it from Old Saxon instead of inheriting it.

So, is there anything to verify these claims? --Kolibri8-II (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/24.108.18.81 (the problematic IP mentioned a few sections up) changed this from "borrowed from Kikuyu kere nyaga (“white mountain”)" to "borrowed from Kikuyu kere nyaga (“ostrich mountain”)"; someone else later changed it to "Kamba kii nyaa (“ostrich mountain”)". Wikipedia says the etymology is uncertain and Etymonline says it's "Kikuyu Kirinyaga, from kere nyaga, literally "white mountain"". I have edited the entry to mention the various possibilities, but if anyone feels like bringing more or better sources to bear and editing it further, please do... - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English#napa & napa cabbage.

Request for reference for etymology 1. While I don't think the 菜(な)っ葉(ぱ) (nappa, “leafy greens”) origin is unlikely, I would prefer if a source was added which documents this. Horse Battery (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Battery: Requests for verification pages are for verifying usage, not etymologies. I've moved your post to the correct page. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for moving it to the correct location. I'm not sure what I was thinking last night, because I've put them in the correct location before.. Horse Battery (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, in a snippet view of a list in a Japanese linguistic journal of what appear to be English plant names borrowed or derived from Japanese, I see “napa ( cabbage ) ”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone with more knowledge of Romanian etymology should probably check the edits of Daniel197801 (talk • contribs) and Peterdi55 (talk • contribs), who (especially the latter) seem to be promoting their own etymological theories on various Romanian entries. (I don't think the users are necessarily related in some other way, though.) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

They are not my theories! Everything I have added is thoroughly argued with quotes from the most important Romanian linguists and, especially, with convincing terms from a large number of Indo-European languages. If you find a single added word that does not exist in the respective languages, please indicate it! The etymologies are based only on the comparative method used in current European etymology. The corrected etymologies were wrong, precisely because they were based on outdated procedures, used by some Romanian linguists 100 years ago. If someone who is good at etymology proves to me with solid and objective arguments that I am wrong, that my arguments are not pertinent, but the obvious exaggerations that I have corrected, I agree to return to the old etymological solutions. But I am sure that I am not wrong, because I am very good at etymology! However, I appreciate your vigilance, the fact that you want everything to be correct, because etymology is a science and no one can afford to deviate from the rigor and objectivity that must characterize any science. I have always been guided by these principles. Peterdi55 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If you find a single added word that does not exist in the respective languages, please indicate it!

You linked spellings not used by the individual languages all the time. Even though the terms have been entered elsewhere on Wiktionary in the correct spellings, in particular on βράθυ (bráthu). The Arabic word does not exist though, in any spelling. This with the exclusive reliance on Indo-European, while you habitually read none of the references, or even our formatting standards, shows that you are too lazy for linguistics. Take a deep breath for a few years and learn some languages before you teach others about etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that you avoid discussing the substance of the problem and are looking for all sorts of trifles, that is, pretexts to reproach me for something. For example, you reproach me for not transcribing a word from ancient Greek in the original, omitting the fact that in etymology linguists do not, in very many cases, give the terms in the original alphabets of the languages ​​in which they are written. At least Wiktionary does this in all cases where words appear in the Tocharian language (A and B), these being transcribed with Latin characters, although there was a specific alphabet. And the words in Avestan are simply not transcribed at all! The Ancient Greek word βράθυ I draw your attention to the fact that it is not transcribed corectly (brathu) as you mistakenly think, but (brathy), because the letter υ did not transcrided the sound u in ancient Greek, but a sound that is represented in the international phonetic alphabet IPA with the symbol y and resembles the ü in German. So before you explain etymology to me, I invite you to study more, because you still have a long way to go before you reach my level! I have university and postgraduate studies in linguistics and have been studying etymology for more than 20 years. Peterdi55 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

And you have not ensconced in the 21st century. Typesetting foreign alphabets had inherent limits, leading to agreement within the publication field to omit them in favour of transcriptions, which we now surmount against dust-ridden linguistics chairs – except the foreign script is not encoded, as in the case of Tocharian. But even thirty years back it did not absolve you from referring to the original dictionaries instead of scraping theories and arguments together from your local authors and letting them argue in circles against each other. No etymology without a bit of philology. How are you getting more material to solve word origins?

The transcription is irrelevant, the Greek transcription here is even automatically provided by the template {{m}}, not me, so your whole argument breaks apart and brings us back to the major complaint about your contributions that you don't give a damn on following Wiktionary's formatting or engaging in any pertinent research. I reproach you for the culmination of more than twenty years of laziness, and your following linguists just in its support, as if to drag everyone down to sluggard levels that would be impressive only to the clueless lay, by its academic sound, is merely indicative of it. Just citing everyone – which even you did poorly, for someone with postgraduate studies in linguistics – does not exhaust science, it is antics vaguely similar to linguistics. Your university teachers should be ashamed of the futility of their workfarce. Fay Freak (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You give yourself such an air of superiority as if you were some kind of linguist, but in reality you are nothing more than a dilettante who doesn't have even the vaguest idea of ​​etymology! I'm sure you don't have any philological studies, and if you did, they wouldn't have been of any use to you! Because, if you had, you wouldn't accept more than embarrassing, embarrassing, totally unscientific etymologies, such as that of the word "zmeură", which is not based on any valid argument, or that of the Romanian "brad", in which the so-called arguments contradict each other! In fact, the second part of this so-called etymology, which is nothing more than a sophistical tangle, has no place in an attempt to deduce the origin of a word, but in a grammar work (and a bad one at that), because it doesn't reach any etymological conclusion! Simply put, it's a sterile discussion around the phonetic alternations that occur when switching from the singular to the plural number of a word. And in the first part of the etymology, the possibility of borrowing a basic Romanian word from Albanian is ridiculously discussed, as if Romanians and Albanians had ever lived together. Historians have clearly established that this did not happen, but there are still absurd linguists who base their etymologies on such an hypothesis. And you, who have no connection with etymology, believe such lucubrations. And you also give yourself an air of superiority, like a dilettante who has come to deal with things that are clearly beyond him! Peterdi55 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This has gotten totally out of hand. No need for namecalling- either of you. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you say, but it's easy to see that those insults were not initiated by me. I just responded to his. No one has the right to question my competence, which no honest person can deny! For someone who does not have these competences to come and assume an air of superiority is very annoying! And that's exactly what he did. And in very rude terms. I'm the most polite person possible, but I can't stand people who don't respect me. And I have every right to do so. Peterdi55 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, @Fay Freak, Just a heads-up about this user: they recently made similar changes on the Romanian Wiktionary. Although their initial contributions were mostly harmless, things quickly went south when I reverted some of their edits. We strongly discourage adding fringe theories that contradict the established scholarly consensus – especially since Dacian theories are problematic given that the language remains unattested. After the reverts, the user escalated the situation by calling me "semi-learned", "illiterate", and saying that "my Wiktionary isn't even worth two cents". Unsurprisingly, they were blocked for three days due to this unacceptable conduct. While I hope we won't face any similar issues here, I encourage everyone to keep an eye on their contributions. If any dubious changes pop up, please ping @Bogdan and @PUC, as they are well-versed in Romanian and have already reverted some questionable edits. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, any attempt to connect Romanian words with Dacian ones is spurious because (apart from a few medicinal plants in a glossary) we don't know any Dacian words, so it's always like "we don't know (or I don't like) the etymology of this word, so it might as well be Dacian" rather than serious scholarship. Bogdan (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Could someone elaborate on the etymology? @Mahagaja? PUC – 16:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's pretty self-explanatory. It might be due to me being Swedish and used to the Swedish calqued version of the same word, but still. The spirit seeks or searches for something it cannot find, so it basically dwells and lingers in the place. Wakuran (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a discussion of heimsuchen in “Heim” in Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm, 16 vols., Leipzig 1854–1961. The basic meaning is 'to seek out and visit someone at their home'. This could be a visit from evil spirits, as well as from God (whether in wrathful or gracious mood), harassers, investigators, etc. Voltaigne (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a link between toora loora#English and ture, lure ! https://fr.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/turelure ? 194.207.86.26 17:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

They're onomatopoetic, anyway. You can even compare with tra-la-la. Wakuran (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if onomatopoetic is the right term here.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

See also Too-Ra-Loo-Ra-Loo-Ral.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lambiam: it's scat singing. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This is obviously popoca plus something, but what? I don't think Nahuatl words begin with "lq". And if it's a noun, why doesn't it end with -tl or -lli? PierreAbbat (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@PierreAbbat. Re: the "lq": First of all, Nahuatl is basically spelled phonetically using archaic Spanish orthography (with a few additions like "tl"). That means "qu" is just a "k" sound before a front vowel. Also, it's entirely possibly that there's some morpheme after "popoca".

Re: the ending: not every Nahuatl noun ends in -tl or -lli. Uto-Aztecan and European languages handle possession in quite different ways: European languages add a genitive ending to show the possessor, while Uto-Aztecan languages have absolutive suffixes to show something isn't possessed. A noun without -tl would be read as if there was an "of" in front of it.

I'm not exactly an expert on Nahuatl morphology, but my best guess is that were looking at a form or derivation of the verb popoca (to smoke) + a form or derivation of the verb quiza (to emerge) with maybe another morpheme or two. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable: "that which smoke comes out of". PierreAbbat (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

What is this suffix "-iš" in the context of Slovak? How is this not a direct borrowing from Hungarian kocsis? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems obvious that it's just a borrowing from Hungarian. According to the first version of the kočiš entry, "-iš" supposedly corresponds to "-man", but in the Reverse Dictionary of Modern Slovak the only other animate masculine nouns ending in -iš are tovariš (“comrade”) (borrowed), derviš (“dervish”) (borrowed) and poliš (“cop”) (slang). Voltaigne (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw that the definition of "luch" I added was removed after failing RFV, and it seems like this is the right spot to ask about that?

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:luch

Is this reference good enough to reinstate the definition meaning "hovel"?

https://yiddish.english-dictionary.help/english-to-yiddish-meaning-hovel

The page lists several synonyms for hovel, including "6. hole :: לאָך". Is it enough that the author described the usage as meaning hovel and a dictionary lists it as a synonym for hovel? GudSpeller (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not. We need examples of usage, where someone uses the word in its intended meaning, not a mere mention, where someone discusses the word as a word. The one quote at Citations:luch is a usage; if two more usages like that can be found, the word can be reinstated. But if and when that happens, the info you provided will certainly be useful for the Etymology section. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, "6. hole :: לאָך" only tells us something about Yiddish (specifically, it hints at the possibility that our entry לאָך (lokh) is lacking a sense – although this could be deemed to be covered by the range of senses of English hole). It does not say anything about the English lexicon.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The very familiar etymology of this bird is that it's from the Malagasy name - and all our English, Romanian etc. entries point to this. But we haven't got an entry for Malagasy. And get this, the voluminous Malagasy Wiktionary hasn't either! My first 'wait a minute' thought was that although Malagasy has the affricates /tr dr/, they never begin words. Okay, a check on our lemmas shows there are plenty for initial /tr/, but those few for initial /dr/ are sound-symbolic/onomatopoeic. Hm, possible for a bird, from its call. Is, in fact, drongo a real Malagasy word? Can anyone find it in a dictionary more reliable than Malagasy Wiktionary? Hiztegilari (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

How about drongo in Malagasy dictionaries at malagasyword.org? Malagasy words beginning with dr- are listed here. Voltaigne (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Haven't made the entry yet, but it means "skull" or "cranium". No "lopov" in the Old Slovak dictionary. Serbo-Croatian lopov means thief, and its etymon Hungarian lopó means stealing. Slovak uses lebka for skull, for which I was not able to find a *lob- variant to even begin with. The only other lead I've got is that лопов (lopov) is also the word for "skull" in Carpathian Rusyn, but no further clues beyond that. Any ideas? Is there some Hungarian dialectal word that I haven't been looking out for? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Old Slovak lopovček is a borrowing from Hungarian lopótök, which means calabash. tök is a round shape, I guess that's the closest I can get. Chihunglu83 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Since Pannonian Rusyn лоповик (lopovik) means both "skull" and "calabash", the ultimate origin is indeed the above Hungarian word. See {{R:zlw-osk:Rocchi|page=14|vol=II}} on Slovak lopov (“koštýř”) for the materials, without the Pannonian Rusyn. The Pannonian Rusyn лоповик (lopovik) is connected to Slovak lopov by Kálal (the view should open in few days, until then use a US-American proxy). Vahag (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

So is it like хвиля (xvilja) and хвилька (xvilʹka) where the original primary meaning of the noun (in this case, calabash) was transferred to its diminutive, and then the original noun lost that primary meaning? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Slavs like diminutives, like children. Vahag (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083 pay attention to Ukrainian dialectal ESUM, “лоповка” (лопов + -ка) where mentioned Hungarian lopótök (bot.) "type of pumpkin" (pumpkin > skull?). Also in Slovak there are (Dictionary of Slovak Dialects): https://slovnik.juls.savba.sk/?w=lopov what was mentioned in Ukrainian Etymological Dictionary. AshFox (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Masonry term; probably from Swedish, German or some other Germanic language, but I couldn't find a match. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The fuck did the Middle Chinese sound like? (Something like ngengk I guess.) 90.246.94.189 17:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Cantonese, and Mandarin+Japanese forms can be reconciled. Probably two different words written with same hanzi. Both Mandarin and Sino-Japanese reading seem to imply MC nang. Cantonese seems to be from a different source, or had some unique sound changes, or was re-borrowed from a different Chinese variety. Хтосьці (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn’t asking about Japanese kun readings. 90.246.94.189 12:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

You were asking about Middle Chinese, and Sino-Xenic readings (including Sino-Japanese) are a valid source for reconstructing earlier stages of Chinese, including Middle Chinese.

(Also, I was talking about on-readings.

Kun-readings are, indeed, irrelevant, and I haven't said anything about kun-readings.) Хтосьці (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It might not actually existed in Middle Chinese I guess: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2025/April#乪 Ydcok (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

What Hakka term is it? 90.246.94.189 12:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe 曲? Хтосьці (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the modern French version of old French version that was borrowed into Dutch? What was its Latin ancestor? 90.246.94.189 17:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems as if the French word has been replaced by a synonym. By the way, according to the French Wikipedia, the Old French variant was goherel. Wakuran (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the modern French word? 90.246.94.189 20:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The Modern French word is harnais, akin to English harness. The Old French word goherel has become obsolete. Wakuran (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

What Latin root did goherel come from? 90.246.94.189 12:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The Dutch Wiktionary defines gareel as “yoke for draught animals”. So a plausible Latin etymon is iugum.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Page 8 of this PDF mentions that the etymology is unknown, although to me a Germanic borrowing looks likely. By the way, I was apparently wrong when I said the word has become obsolete. There exists a dialectal French word goria, and some rare surnames derived from the root. Wakuran (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

This page puts forward two etymologies, one is that it's derived from Old French gorre (ribbon, cloth band), although it doesn't delve any further. Alternatively, that it is somehow derived from Proto-Germanic *garwijaną (prepare). Wakuran (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

But basically, all Old French words cannot be derived from Latin, some might have been borrowed from Germanic or Celtic languages, or might have been spontaneous coinages. And all Old French words haven't survived into Modern French. Some have died out. Wakuran (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Why does the German term for Punjabi listed in the translation of King Kong? Every German piece of media about I could find about this Hollywood ape simply called him, well King Kong or kong for short, with little to no difference in pronunciation. 90.246.94.189 17:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It was added by an anonymous editor some months ago. It's likely just racist nonsense vandalism that other editors failed to catch. Wakuran (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

Unsourced and doesn't match Etymology 2 in Latin lātus. Not sure if it's an oversight or some alternative theory. Trooper57 (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology in the Norwegian Bokmål entry Specifically, the Proto-Hellenic ancestor given: Proto-Hellenic *θᾱϝέομαι. It may be correct, but Wiktionary uses the Latin script. Perhaps this is really "*tʰāwéomai"

As above

As above, but in an Ancient Greek entry This time it's "From Proto-Hellenic *ϝῑρᾱξ". Perhaps "*wīrāks"?

Chuck Entz (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I converted the Ancient Greek entry to Latin script. The Norwegian Bokmål entries don't need to be taken all the way back to Proto-Hellenic anyway. I've greatly simplified them. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Etymology 5. I also suspect that some senses of Etymology 1, in particular "the reverse (or tails) of a coin" and maybe the heraldry sense, were borrowed directly from French and so would belong in Etymology 5; can we trace the history of the heraldry term through Middle English and into Old French? Also, the etymology at atomic pile explains that the similarity to French pile (“battery”) is a coincidence, but is it? English also has pile (“battery”) as I have added for Etymology 5, and the structural overlap between this technology and a voltaic pile (a primitive battery) is remarkable. I have listed it as a derived term under Etymology 1 only because the sense "atomic pile" is already listed there. — 2600:4808:9C30:C500:E889:2AA5:70BA:578F 00:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW re the heraldic sense, the MED has a 1486 use ("now folowyth of certan armys in the wich iij pilis mete to gedyr in oon coone") and considers it to be the same ultimately-Old-English-derived word as the "pointed missile; large stake" senses. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

(This was discussed at Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2024/November#buy_it_+_buy_the_farm but that didn't broach this point.)

I recently heard a US professor, , use this in a YouTube video which I have unfortunately lost the URL of, but his usage, relating to the compensation given to families of Russian soldiers killed in battle in the Russia-Ukraine War, showed he thought the phrase related exactly to that, ie the compensation for death in action being used to secure the lifestyles of relatives by allowing them to buy a farm or whatever. Neither of our present etymologies allows for that, though one speaks of a soldier dreaming of buying a farm. TBH, I didn't even realise that other countries gave compensation to families of those KIA, unless the death was due to their country's negligence. Has anyone else heard that explanation?

BTW, as was commented previously, I too associated it solely with air force deaths until recently, and only in WWII or later fiction, ie I've never heard anyone use it or seen it used in news or current affairs, though I forget if it was initially US usage only in my reading/watching. --Enginear 06:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have a question, how do you guys find etymology of words I can see my baby swimming (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Lots of different places. Many general dictionaries list etymology. There are also specific etymological dictionaries. Sometimes articles in linguistics journals. Some words, like doghouse and garage door opener have etymologies so obvious we don't even have to look them up. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Carpathian and Pannonian Rusyn word for "eyelash".

1. Who borrowed it from who?
2. What's the ultimate etymology of the word? Could it be related to павучина (pavučina, “spiderweb”)?

Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Aeon Flux opening. Wakuran (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably connected with Belarusian паве́ка (pavjéka), Ukrainian паві́ко (pavíko), Polish powieko, Slovak paveko (“eyelid”) Vahag (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

RFE for this term? Many websites suggest an origin in the 唐音 reading of 火榻 or 火榻子, but I don't have access to very many reputable sources. Horse Battery (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I found the etymology on Daijirin, which Apple devices have as a built-in dictionary — they say it's 「火榻」の唐音から. as for 榻子 vs. just 榻, this is the same problem we have at きゃたつ. despite what the Daijirin says, I feel like the etymon is *火榻子 if anything, because it'd be really weird to get tatsu as a reading from a character with MC -p, especially in tō-on. there are examples of this, like 立 and 雑 (these all get the -tsu from analogy with words where they're contracted to りっ, ざっ, etc.).

but tō-on is notably irregular and "weird", so I don't really know. it'd be very nice if the Chinese words that kotatsu and kyatatsu come from were attested somewhere though... mati ★ (talk · contribs) 12:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Etymonline says these (and their Latin and Greek etyma) are related; we (and Beekes?) say they're not. What is correct? - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Etymonline drives me crazy because while they have a site-wide bibliography, they provide no way to find out what claims come from what sources. I occasionally use them as a research starting-point, but because of the the sourcing issue I personally avoid using them as a lone reference.

As to your query, there appears to be some debate over the relationship between urina and οὖρον (oûron). One view is that they are indeed cognate, while another holds that they are not cognate but that urina's meaning was potentially influenced by οὖρον.

de Vaan goes into detail on this subject in an Etymological Dictionary of Latin (p. 644):

"ūrīna 'urine' ... The meaning of the verb shows that 'urine' is a secondary development; the older word for 'to piss' is meiiо̄ , mingо̄ , apart from onomatopoeia like *pissо̄. According to WH, the meaning 'urine' of ūrīna may have been influenced by Gr. οὖρον 'urine'. The original meaning must then have been 'water' vel sim. Leumann 1977: 552 and 328 regards ūrīna as a back-formation to the verb, which would be a latinization of Gr. οὐρεῖν 'to piss'. Yet this does not explain the meaning ‘to dive’ which the Latin verb has. Oleson 1976 points out that divers typically suffer diuresis (they produce more urine) while diving, and that this may explain the meaning 'diver' of urinator. In that case, 'urine' is indeed the oldest meaning of ūrīna. Oleson surmises that the Greek verb was borrowed into Latin via Etruscan, where it lost its original *w-. But if the verb was borrowed after the fifth century from Attic, this is not necessary. If ūrīna ‘water’ is old, it presupposes an adj. *ūr-īno- ‘watery’ formed from a noun *ūr(o)- 'water'."

Pangur Bán & I (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The article on "zero" says it is derived from an Arabic word calqued from Sanskrit "śūnyá" (शून्य). It cites the online OED entry as the reference for this. However, the OED entry doesn't mention it at all. Seems fishy, but I suppose the online entry could have been updated. I'm not an experienced editor at all, so please let me know what to do — or, you know, do it! I won't complain. Jajobi (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• The mention of the Arabic term refers to the entry for cipher, where OED notes "The Arabic was simply a translation of the Sanskrit name śūnya, literally ‘empty’." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

What should be added as the etymology? J3133 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

OED states an alteration of popsy (“girl, girlfriend”), perhaps by influence of tootsie. Leasnam (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, I can see it also being a clipping of nincompoop + -sy, where nincompoop is used in an endearing way, i.e. "a fool in love". Leasnam (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Added as I did not know the OED had an entry. J3133 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Found on w:fr:Sex (rocher). Please verify the etymology and add it to sex if it is correct. 2402:3A80:1985:553D:72B5:62F4:E6AA:83CD 17:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

We have this coming from the Aramaic word quoted in the Bible. But there is an Etruscan word taliθa (“girl?”), and a Greek word τᾶλις (tâlis, “maiden”). there is some literature linked from Wikipedia here and following. None of these mention Aramaic. If Wikipedia is correct about that and we are correct about this, then Etruscan taliθa and Latin talitha are completely unrelated. If this is the case, we should at least mention it. But I wonder if we are mistaken, or if it's possible that Aramaic loaned a word from early Greek that also got around to Etruscan and then into Latin. —Soap— 02:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Soap: Don't forget that the "tha" in the Aramaic phrase quoted in Mark is just a feminine nominal ending with a suffixed article. See Proto-West Semitic *ṭalay- for the real etymon: a word for a sheep or a goat that got applied to children in the same way as kid in English. Without the feminine ending it's usually translated as "boy". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Talitha transliterates Aramaic טליתא as ṭalyəṯāʾ, but talitha has ṭalītā’. Which is correct? Exarchus (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound crabby, but I have variously heard that this word ultimately has its roots A. in some substrate language, B. in an onomatopoeic formation C. in a derivative of a Proto-Indo-European *grobʰeh₂yéti|t=scratch, claw at}}.

Is the ultimate origin uncertain or unclear, or not? Tharthan (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

According to the Wiktionary entries, it might rather be the similar term *krabitaz (crayfish) that is borrowed. Both the terms have had some semantic span/ drift between related crustaceans, such as crab, crayfish and lobster, though. Wakuran (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Wakuran: There is some inconsistency across our entries on this. Our entry for the German word Krabbe suggests that the word (Krabbe/crab) might be from a substrate language, but that the ultimate origin is "unknown." Meanwhile, at the end of the etymology section in our entry for Persian خرچنگ (xarčang), is the line "These wide-spread, phonetically similar terms (compare Proto-Germanic *krabbô) suggest an ideophonic origin - sound symbolism imitating the scratchy movement of crustaceans and similar creatures" which is akin to the suggestion that I have seen in some sources that Proto-Germanic *krabbô might have been somehow imitative of the sound made by a crab's claws. Our entry for خرچنگ points to words like Avestan 𐬐𐬵𐬀𐬭𐬞𐬎 (kharpu, “crab”) and Ancient Greek κᾱ́ρᾰβος (kā́răbos) ("crayfish, beetle"). Tharthan (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

1. "Some substrate language" is baseless without clear indentification. 2. "wide-spread" is no argument if variation from borrowing could be older. 3. I am not sure if *grebʰ- is uncertain per se, but *(s)ker- also works, for example if *(s)k was rebracketed after the processing of Grimm's law for unknown reasons. NoldUsedJoint (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's baseless per se, as most of the pre-IE European languages seem to have vanished without a trace. It might be (at least partially) an explanation for unexpected or otherwise unexplained phonetics, I guess. Wakuran (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If there is a genuine possibility that there may be more than meets the eye re: the etymology of crab, then that should probably be noted in the etymology sections of relevant entries. As I said earlier, that's already been the case at Krabbe, but it's been inconsistent across other entries. Tharthan (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Oof, good catch, a lot of inconsistent information is indeed spread around multiple entries. For now I have tried to consolidate the information to a smaller number of places, and harmonize those to acknowledge each other (crab, Krabbe, κάραβος, carabus, քարբ). More work is needed. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you miss Krebs vis-a-vis crabs, or cancer. NoldUsedJoint (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Is Indonesian/Malay word pasrah ("to surrender, resign oneself, to accept something (usually negative) without resistance") a Sanskrit loanword? Please Yuliadhi (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Dutch navenant (“accordingly”) is explained as being from Old French à l’avenant, which is IMO phonetically implausible. The explanation continues, “Equivalent to a rebracketing of in avenant.” (I think “contraction” may be a better term here than “rebracketing”.) This requires avenant to have been a noun. What would have been the meaning of that noun?

Is it possible (perhaps even plausible) that navenantt was formed as a contraction of Old French en avenant? Here is a sentence from a letter dated 1574:

Mesmes j’entendz que la pluspart de la Flandre dyminuent tous les jours d’affection et se veullent tenir fortz d’hommes d’eux mesmes pour s’en servir et se deffendre en avenant l’occasion.

The meaning of en avenant in this sentence appears to be “as required by”, “in accordance with”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Etymologiebank derives from 'in avenante' Exarchus (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

"This requires avenant to have been a noun. What would have been the meaning of that noun?"

See VMNW Exarchus (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That explains this second explanation, But then, why would we write as a first “explanation”,

“From Middle Dutch navenant, from Old French a l'avenant ”?

 ​‑‑Lambiam 07:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sloppiness? Exarchus (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve said farewell to the Old French; the text is now

From Middle Dutch navenant, a contraction of in avenant.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, maybe what EWN is saying is that 'in avenant' is partly translated from French 'a l'avenant'. Exarchus (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

You mean a partial calque? Since Middle Dutch avenant is attested from 1280 in the sense of “proportional share”, and in avenant(e) enters the scene in 1370, it would be a full calque – but meaningwise it appears to be an honest SOP of in + avenant, so we do not need a theory of Old French à l'avenant having served as a model.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The 1280 attestation also has "in avenant" Exarchus (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

We give the etymology of λάμπα as from Italian lampa. But the Triantafyllidis Dictionary reports this as an adapted borrowing from French lampe. Apart from the appeal to authority, is there an argument for preferring one over the other?  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

For Armenian as spoken in Constantinople and Smyrna {{R:hy:Ačaṙean:1951}} reports that the European loanwords are mostly from Italian up until the 19th century. Those are usually oral borrowings, used by the common folk. Starting from the 19th century Italian is replaced by French. French borrowings are mostly learned borrowings. If Greek follows the same pattern, then one should look at the date of attestation of λάμπα (lámpa) and determine its philological status — is it recorded in dialects or is it a learned borrowing. If it is an old, vulgar word, then the source is Italian. If it is a newer, bookish word, then the source is French. Vahag (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The plot thickens. Consider the etymology of Turkish lamba, which we say is from Ottoman Turkish لامبه (lamba), لامپه (lampa); the latter is said to be borrowed from Italian. However, according to Nişanyan, it is a loan from French, found in an 1876 Ottoman Turkish dictionary as lampa (glossed as “European-style lamp”) and in an 1892 French–Ottoman Turkish dictionary', as lamba, translating French lampe. Turkish tends to preserve the pronunciation of loanwords (like kontrplak from /kɔ̃.tʁə.plak/); the -mb- strongly suggests Greek influence, and the ending on -a argues against a direct borrowing from French.

If GBS can be trusted, the Greek word begins to appear (other than as a proper noun for a Cretan city) in the second half of the 19th century. (There are many 18th-century ghits, but these appear to be scannos.) Interestingly, the earliest manifestation is in 1835 as part of a refrain

λάμπα σκάμπα, τσιμπιριμπιτὸ, συνταγματάκι σᾶς ζητῶ,

about which the (German) author of the text quoting this says that it is a refrain whose particular meaning he has not been able to discern. (The words σκάμπα and τσιμπιριμπιτό are only found in this refrain.) An Italian–Greek dictionary from 1927 marks the word λάμπα with an asterisk as paróla del‘uso comúne, which I suppose means the same as our informal or colloquial.  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

don't know if this is the right place to ask, but: can someone who's better than me at template code write the etymology here? the classical form is 掲ぐ kakagu, and the word itself comes from 掻き上げる kaki-ageru. (see the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here). mati ★ (talk · contribs) 07:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Added; still needs a little work though. Horse Battery (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

thank you! (by the way, is your username on here a reference to the correct horse battery staple xkcd?) mati ★ (talk · contribs) 18:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Following the J-Pop naming school, presumably. Wakuran (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That's right! I chose those two words specifically because they felt the most natural to combine, as if related to the term horsepower. Horse Battery (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)