Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2025/March

— 2601:240:8002:E690:D88C:DA3C:A38B:53BC 10:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

From like gangbusters.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Rfv for etymology. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in any cognate list for English nest, Latin nīdus etc. Exarchus (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Etimo as the person who added this.

Are there parallels for the vowel outcome neth < *nisdós?

The semantic development would seem a bit odd (‘sprout’ < ‘nest’).

Nicodene (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Etymology: "Unaccented variant of master".

Why would it be an unaccented version? In modern English I don't detect any difference in accent, or stress. Perhaps this could be explained better. Mihia (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Unaccented, as in not having the primary stress in the sentence. I would assume that "Master so-and-so" as opposed to plain "Master" would draw enough of the focus from "master" that the vowel might be less carefully enunciated by some people. It might be that in some dialects or registers the first vowel might have become more schwa-like (or even have disappeared into the following "s"), and the distance between a schwa and a short "i" isn't that far. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Convincing. So the path would be /ˈmastər/ > unstressed /məstər ˈ.../ > by reapplication of stress /ˈmɪstər/. I agree that this should be made clearer in the entry. 2.202.159.64 02:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In a sentence such as "Can I introduce you to Master/Mister so-and-so", I still don't see any difference in stress. I say that with the primary stress on "so-and-so" in both cases. Mihia (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

That's because today, they're two distinct lexical items with two different meanings. But etymologically, mister started out as a weakened/reduced form of master before taking on a life of its own independent of its etymon. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Dutch meneer developed analogously as an unstressed version of mijnheer, from a univerbation of the address Mijn Heer (“My Lord”).  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the Celtic word cannot be related to the Germanic word nor to Ancient Greek γῦρος (gûros), can it? As far the relation between the latter two is concerned, I don't find it mentioned anywhere either. 2.202.159.64 02:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

They definitely can't be related to the Greek at least. Removed but kept the Celtic for now. The etymology of ker- still strikes me as suspicious in general though. — Ganjabarah (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ganjabarah Thanks :) However, regarding the Celtic: What the entry claims is that English "char (3)" and Irish cor are cognates. I'm not sure how that's possible. Does Germanic *k ever conincide with Celtic *k? Whether English ker- is from the Celtic at all is of course another question. 2.202.159.64 19:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Requesting etymology, especially for sense 2. — Ganjabarah (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In regard to sense 2, according to this, "Each member of the team will shout 'Zero Point' as they cross over the rope. When the whole team has crossed, all will shout 'one point'", i.e. it apparently refers to the game's scoring system and would be "zero points" in standard English. Mihia (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The etymology is given as 'trzić' + -ać, and I've got two questions to do with that:

1. How exactly does 'trzać' become 'ciŏrać'? 🥴
2. Why would an already imperfective verb be suffixed again with an imperfective suffix? That seems counterintuitive unless the end result was a habitual.

vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the same as Polish ciorać, which is sourced. It's likely that originally you had a long a there placed from -ać (which often adds vowels). IIRC, Bańkowski also mentions it was a dialectal realization at first. As to -ać being added, forms in Middle Polish such as wijać are attested, these are often frequentative in nature. Vininn126 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've checked the source, but there is nothing to be found about 'trzeć' there. It just claims that the word was formed the same way 'ziarać' was, but that doesn't explain the initial ciŏr-. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've still addressed your two other points. I'm not curious what other option it could be. Vininn126 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

My question about how 'trzać' became 'ciŏrać' wasn't explained. How did 't' become 'ć', 'rz' become 'r', and where did this random vowel 'ŏ' come from? This is really an abnormal amount of change, I would say. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you look at any of the mutations listed at -ać, which shows numerous vowel inserations and consonant mutations, hardening among others. I did link this in my first comment and even said the fact this suffix causes these things in my first comment. I did address it. Vininn126 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I see now. Thanks, it all makes sense now. vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda) (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Spanish. RFV of the etymology. "From mosca (“fly”) and bada (“bad”). Would also benefit from less encyclopedic content in etymology. Purported definition is also hard to attest. DCDuring (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"unrefined brown sugar" being "excreted by sugarflies" seems like total nonsense to me. The ety used to be longer, including the claim that this substance is "a great alternative to both wood varnish and it has been known to be used as a substitute for blood in an IV drip". Someone made up some nonsense, I would guess. Mihia (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It certainly could be nonsense but some animal (also fungal) excretions are eaten: castoreum (beavers), taxea (badgers), and honeydew (aphids, etc.) are examples, though honeydew is usually converted to honey by bees, not eaten by humans directly. I looked for some mention of moscabada with sugarfly/sugar fly without joy. DCDuring (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't checked but no Spanish translation of bad is bada or has bad as a morpheme AFAICT, so the etymology is highly likely to have been someone's idea of fun. We've had the entry, including this etymology, since 2017. DCDuring (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

More specifically, Wonderfool's idea of fun. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We list an obsolete/dialect sense of of meaning "from", as in, to quote one of the examples, "vapours which ascend forth of the stomach". Is it reasonable that "out of" meaning "(out) from", as in e.g. "Take the chicken out of the freezer", is a modern relic of this sense? Mihia (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

According to our main dictionary here in the Spanish-speaking countries (RAE) -osa doesn't come from "glucosa" as the Wiktionary article on the suffix, but from the French suffix -ose. 31.177.52.129 13:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hitherto, when a Ukrainian adjective ending in -овий begets an adverb ending in -о (e.g. терміновий → терміново), we have analyzed this in the adverb's etymology section as {{af|uk|терміновий|-о}}, {{af|uk|цілодобовий|-о}} (etc.), because such formations are analytically no different from any other adverb formation where the adverbial suffix -о replaces adjectival ending -ий. This is consistent with our established treatment of, for instance, Belarusian -(ов)ы → -(ов)а, Czech -(ov)ý → -(ov)ě, Polish -(ow)y → -(ow)o, Russian -(ов)ый → (ов)о.

78.37.216.35 (talk) (@78.37.216.35) has rebracketed this formation as {{af|uk|термін|-ово}}, {{af|uk|ці́лий|-o-|доба́|-ово}}, etc, i.e. as a noun suffixed with -ово, and yesterday made this change to almost all such Ukrainian adverbs ending in 'ово', thereby categorizing them in Category:Ukrainian terms suffixed with -ово and removing them from Category:Ukrainian terms suffixed with -о.

I propose that these changes be reverted as they are analytically superfluous, are inconsistent with established practices on Wiktionary, and even subtract value from our entries because we end up losing the link to the root adjective in the etymology section of the adverb. As argued above, XXXовий (adjective) → XXXово (adverb) is just -ий → -о and doesn't differ analytically, orthographically, or in any other respect that I can think of.

I am raising this here for discussion because it would be good to get other contributors' thoughts about how this kind of formation should be treated in etymology sections and etymological categories. I also believe that this question has implications for other rebracketings, e.g. -іст (agent-noun suffix) + -ка (feminine suffix) rebracketed as concatenated suffix -істка. Notifying @Eilaiyas, PhoenicianLetters, PUC, Underfell Flowey, Vininn126 who work on Ukrainian/Slavic word formation and/or may be otherwise interested. Voltaigne (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You are being too polite. I think this is obvious and is not even up for debate, considering all the sources on Ukrainian morphology. It's just that 78.37.216.35 (talk) has been making a lot of incompetent unsourced edits, while ignoring all the warnings and criticism, even after getting blocked 3 times. I would just permablock them already. Eilaiyas (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't seem useful. Deriving adverbs from adjectives is the much more straightforward rule, I'm not sure what the point of this would be.

Compound suffixes make sense when they don't necessarily imply the existence of intermediate forms. PhoenicianLetters (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Why did he did it? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing more I can add to this. This IP has added many such bad affixes. Vininn126 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all. I've gone ahead and reverted the edits in question (x19). Voltaigne (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The same applies to -євий + -о. E.g. суттєво = суттєвий + -о, not суть + -єво (see Special:Diff/84402632). Voltaigne (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Voltaigne: Please excuse the necroposting. Re the last substantive sentence of your initial post, namely “I also believe that this question has implications for other rebracketings, e.g. -іст (agent-noun suffix) + -ка (feminine suffix) rebracketed as concatenated suffix -істка.”, what do you make of the suffix -івка (-ivka)? Etymologically, it derives from -ів (-iv) +‎ -ка (-ka), but you'll find plenty of placenames formed with -івка (-ivka) apparently without corresponding terms ending in -ів (-iv). You'll find some examples in Category:Ukrainian terms suffixed with -івка. 0DF (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

In general, by talking with other editors, the preference is to reduce the number of compound suffixes where possible. Some do exist, of course, but we also shouly only apply them on pages where another derivation isn't possible. Vininn126 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. As @PhoenicianLetters says above, "Compound suffixes make sense when they don't necessarily imply the existence of intermediate forms." Placenames formed with -івка which are not derivable from an intermediate form in -ів would be an example of this. Voltaigne (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vininn126, Voltaigne: Thank you for your responses. I agree. 0DF (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

How do you think we should handle it in words like автівка, домівка, вантажівка and so on? You could say they consist of -евий/-овий + -ка. The intermediate words (автовий etc.) do exist, if rarely, and the relational adjective suffix is productive. But I'm not sure if there's some specific semantic nuance to the nouns derived that way. PhoenicianLetters (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@PhoenicianLetters: Are the supposed intermediate adjectives, such as автовий (avtovyj), attested prior to the nouns, such as автівка (avtivka)? Logically, as a matter of diachronic fact, the nouns could only have been derived from the adjectives if the adjectives existed before the nouns. 0DF (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Searching GRAC, the earliest hit for автовий is in 1932 and for автівка in 1986, домовий in 1838 and домівка in 1834 (ok they both probably predate the extent of the corpus), вантажевий 1925 and вантажівка 1900. So the results are inconclusive I guess, especially since I also think the corpus gets a bit thin on the older end. PhoenicianLetters (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

These are almost certainly formed like Polish -ówka. Most -ówka nouns are actually the result of ellipsis: domówka = impereza domowa + -ka. I tend not to derive these from the adjective but rather the noun. Vininn126 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@PhoenicianLetters: I think it's a matter of judgment, but I don't think it would contradict the historical data to infer that автівка derives from автовий or that домівка (domivka) derives from домовий (domovyj), but you would need some extraordinary justification for inferring that вантажівка (vantaživka) derives from вантажевий (vantaževyj). Vininn126's argument from analogy with Polish favours the inference of a derivation of the latter noun directly from ванта́ж (vantáž). 0DF (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Diachronically yes, synchronically most people would argue the opposite. Vininn126 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vininn126: No doubt. I see no harm, in such cases, in providing the most intuitive synchronic derivation through {{surf}}. 0DF (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Could someone take the trouble to clean up the copyvio? Notice has been there since September. See WT:RFC#κάνθαρος for more. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Somebody might pick out the convoluted Egyptian terms from Bernal’s book, which can be disappointing enough. Fay Freak (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Rfv for etymology "Related to the participial form of jam and to eshë (“period of time, span, space”)." Exarchus (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

This is supposedly both inherited from Proto-Slavic and reborrowed from Russian. It's not clear what "reborrowed" means here, because there's no indication of the Russian having anything Bulgarian in its history. On top of that, this is said to be an alternative form of ю́род (júrod). A usage note says:

Inherited form ю́род (júrod) is used predominantly in poetic or ecclesiastical context. Russian loanword у́род (úrod) is used in standard (everyday) speech.

The impression I get is that the part of this etymology about inheritance is referring to Bulgarian ю́род (júrod), and only the part about "reborrowing" is referring to Bulgarian урод (urod). The other alternative is that Bulgarian урод (urod) was replaced by borrowing from Russian урод (urod), or maybe it disappeared before the Russian borrowing came in and picked up where it had left off.

Either way, nothing completely adds up between the two Bulgarian and the single Russian entries, and reading them has just left me confused. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The entry requests a citation for the etymology. Please see “6 Prehistoric layers of loanwords in Old Irish” by David Stifter 2024

“ OIr. sinnach 'fox' is not a substratal loan, but finds a perfectly language-internal explanation in PC *senunako- 'old one', an adjectival formation in

• -ako-from the on-stem *senu, *senon- 'old one', with generalised full grade of the suffix as a morphological marker of high animacy. This is a noa word that replaced the inherited word for the 'fox', probably PC *loperno, for taboo reasons.”

172.56.109.222 17:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Stifter really has a remarkable talent for grasping at straws, doesn't he? —Mahāgaja · talk 21:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

But *senonakos cannot phonetically yield sinnach; there is nothing to raise the *e. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

True, but are there any other examples of a generalized full grade of a suffix being used as a morphological marker of "high animacy", whatever that is? And then there's calling an animal that's known for being energetic and sprightly "the old one", not to mention applying taboo avoidance to an animal no one is afraid of. Taboo avoidance for lions and tigers and bears and wolves, sure, but foxes? I think Stifter is suffering from male answer syndrome, a pathological inability to say "I don't know" when one doesn't know. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

In modern Europe, the phrase "old fox" to refer to someone sly with age seems fairly common, but it might not have been the way the Old Irish saw things. Wakuran (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology.

I was unable to find any reference attached to it which says that it was borrowed from Sanskrit as claimed. Moreover, the dictionary of which links are given into the Reference section says it to be of hindi orgin rather than being of sanskrit origin, Help me understand if I am misunderstanding anything

RFV of the Latin etymology provided for Prishtinë (Albanian name of the capital of Kosovo). A reconciliation and merging with the etymology section of Prishtina (Albanian definite form) is also necessary. – According to Prishtina and Wikipedia: Pristina, the origin is unknown, with several theories coexisting. – Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure I’ve written the etymology for рабінавая ноч correctly, could someone check and improve it?

I took “рѩбинаѩ ночь” from ЭСБМ, but I have the following doubts:

• ЭСБМ says рѩбинаѩ ночь is from Primary Chronicle (written in Chruch Slavonic and not Old East Slavic — although it does say it’s an East Slavic-only word, so I assume it's an Old East Slavic word in Church Slavonic text),
• I'm not sure I'm using the correct ‘normalised’ form of Old East Slavic:
  • Should it be ѩ or ꙗ?
  • I guess it should also have a stress? But I can't put an Old East Slavic stress myself, I don't know the language.
• Also, I'm not sure I can say 'Inherited from Old East Slavic' because there's also Old Belarusian/Ruthenian between them (?)

If someone could check this and fix my mistakes, I would be grateful! Хтосьці (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe the word gizmo comes from the Arabic "shu ismu" which means, literally, 'what's his name', a phrase that is used in the same way as it is in English when you're not sure what something is called; "can you give me the what's its name".

in Spanish they have the word 'chismo' with the same meaning (along with many other words derived from arabic after the moorish occupation). Also note the Maltese word "x'jismu" meaning "what's its name" - with the same usage DavidMCraig (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Apparently Marine/ Navy slang from the 40's. The hypothesis seems unlikely. I don't know about any other 40's Navy slang words from Arabic, and the initial consonant sound shift is unexplained. Wakuran (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have source for chismo being used as a Spanish noun? Borrowing from Spanish is more likely than from Arabic, but the sound change from to remains problematic.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It might be a mixup with Spanish chisme, which apparently is of unknown origin, itself. Wakuran (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this word's origin, I surmised it came from the Basque town of Hernani, though there is no indication of it being a place where textiles were made. Perhaps from the Victor Hugo story Hernani, because the term doesn't seem to predate the play. Maybe a character wore a certain garment? 90.174.3.169 09:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Exarchus All "descendants" of this are extended with extra lexical suffixes (a velar one in most of them). Is it reasonable to reconstruct an unextended form at the PII level? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Skt. जलूका (jalūkā) / 'jalāyukā' is commonly connected to जरायु (jarāyu, “the cast-off skin of a serpent; outer skin of the embryo”), related to जॄ (jṝ, “to grow old”). Lubotsky (IAIL p.248, jarā́yu) says the Iranian terms are probably borrowed from Indo-Aryan (apparently because of the suffix -ūka, see KEWA at 'jalūkā'). For semantic development (similar appearance is suggested), see Hoffmann's 'Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik' p.101 note 16. Exarchus (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

But: Matasovic still suggests the link to Proto-Celtic *gelu- as a possibility. But I'd say this can simply be mentioned at the relevant Indo-Iranian terms, without having to reconstruct a PIIr. term. Exarchus (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology, specifically the purported reinterpretation of "Aussie". I do not see any other sources or references claiming this, and the term "Aussie" is not particularly well-known in Germany to begin with. PhoenicianLetters (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Duden and DWDS don't mention anything about "Aussie", I see. There's also a hypothesis that the corresponding term "Wessi" is the oldest. Wakuran (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but neither of these give actual etymologies, rather just surface analyses. So this doesn't mean much. I've adapted our etymology in such a way that the English connection is now in the form of a hypothesis. As such I think it's justified because the expected form would be *Osti. It is true that the English word isn't widely known (and was much less widely known in past), but in the end all you need is someone who heard it and made a joke about it, and it would've started from there. I've converted the "rfv-etym" into an "rfe", because any information from reliable linguistic sources (first attestation etc.) would be appreciated, not just regarding this particular question. 88.65.40.7 00:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

PS: The word Ösi (“Austrian”) also belongs to this complex of course. I'd guess that it's younger, but that has to be seen. If it were older, it would likely rule out the English connection. (Would it, though?) 88.65.40.7 00:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

"Ami" also belongs to this grouping, I have an attestation for that from 1948, so in use before East and West Germany even existed. So the general concept of clipping with -i was an established pattern - like in "Mutti", which is also older.

I'm having a hard time finding early attestations - until just before the Wende years, basically all the attestations in the DWDS corpus are personal names and nicknames. PhoenicianLetters (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Clipping with -i is extremely widespread in German, and there's no reason to think that Ossi and Wessi have any interesting etymology beyond their surface analyses. There are also plenty of examples of clippings that unexpectedly lose consonants, e.g. Kugel(schreiber) → Kuli and Musk(el) → Mucki. So the loss of the t from Westen and Osten (as well as Österreicher in Ösi) is also nothing to be surprised at. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There are also plenty of examples of clippings that unexpectedly lose consonants

The root is Proto-Indo-European *h₂ews- and the underlying prosodic syllables are /ˈɔsˌtən/. In terms of Olav Hackstein's Iceberg Effects it is lamentable that modern linguistic theories "largely converge in regarding the synchrony and the diachrony of a human language as separate entities" (Studies on Language Change in Honor of Don Ringe, Kim et al. 2024).

there's no reason to think that Ossi and Wessi have any interesting etymology beyond their surface analyses

German Low German Oss or Osse (“ox”), Brandenburg-Berlinisches Wörterbuch (Gansleweit, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: 1994), is cognate to German Ochse and an insult (in my experience). Existing earlier, it could be influential to the offensiveness of Ossi in the 1970's and earlier. If this is correct, the etymology of aurochs has one hypothesis relating the first part to the root of east.

e.g. Kugel(schreiber) → Kuli

The etymology of Kugel and Upper German kūle in relation to Kuhle is uncertain. Kuli is a pathologic corner case.

and Musk(el) → Mucki

Good point! English has muh guns (“bizeps”). How about that?

They say muscle is related to mouse. Mucks is somehow said of mice, mucksmäuschenstill. Muckel is generally a pet name. Ancient Greek μῦς (mûs) + γᾰλέη (găléē) → μυγαλέη (mugaléē, “shrew”) may be quite regular.

Plurale tantum Mäuse and Mücken and singular Moos (“money”) are synonym slang. The latter is apparently Yiddish. Mücke and Latin musca (“mosquito”) pattern in the same way. The differences between *múHs and *mews- and *mew- are one metathesis away from **meHw- such that Cowgill's Law might apply as for Âken ← *néh₂us, but this is controversial. Musculature is part of the motor apparatus, Latin moveo, note German Low German mucksen (“to move”), but that was not the question. This is obviously not a proper argument to suggest that Muckis (“muscles”) derived from a different word, e.g. *maganą, Middle High German mugen (“strong”), when Latin muscula would become German Muschel (mussel, seashell), but it is amusing: Mucke also means music. It remains mysterius as a language myth.

Clipping with -i is extremely widespread in German

Handy is an egregious example of that. Pulli also is an English loan. Schoki is precedented by cacao / cocoa and Alemannic German Schoggi shows the short vowel. Tausi is correctly Taui broken at the syllabary boundary as /z/ marks syllable onset, but it is reminiscent of the English change from -ende to -ing: Early Modern High German Tausing, Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Sozi, plural Sozen, shows that its formation is different from Nazi, plural Nazis. Speaking of nepotism (Sippe, versippt → linksgrünversifft, affricate in Norse sifjar), Old Norse nefi, nephew and diminutive Dutch neefje do resemble Proto-Germanic *-į̄, German Neffe rarely feminine, *-ō recalls vocative, and Neffchen (other than Neffle) like plantje and Pflänzchen may be related by de-/voicing, like -ich / -ig and -y. This is wrong, I guess, but the gist of it is borne out by Schwengel over Schwanni with etymological velar in schwanken against a probably West-Slavic -ek, -ik, Proto-Slavic *-ъkъ, -ak, *-akъ in Schwannek (Hustensaft Jüngling), and perhaps rote Socke (socialist).

TL;DR: I am cherry picking and you surely are not mistaken that -i is productive. I have shown that the etymology has to be probed in each case. The category currently is a waste basket mixing upto three different definitions and clipping is just a minor part of it. SmeaShmea (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

For the last 9 years, this article has said that this name in Portuguese is an unadapted borrowing from English. This seems to be mostly true in Brazil (which is why I didn't replace that etymology), but inaccurate for the rest of the Portuguese speaking world.

David is a biblical name, from the catholic saint and king of Israel. It may be an "unadapted borrowing" because Portuguese doesn't have, in fact, any common noun ending in "d", but I seriously doubt there was any prominent devotion to the king of Wales throughout the history of Portugal, outside of noble environments and international merchants. Surely this name is, in most cases, taken directly from the Hebrew David, possibly through Latin "David". In the early history of Portugal there was a 11th century man called "Sisnando Davidiz" (son of David), a Mozarab ruler and therefore a speaker of an early Iberian Romance language with Arabic influence. Other than that, there are thousands of archives for free in Portugal's digital archives that show lots of people with first name and surname "David" going back to at least the early 1700s, defying the etymology on the entry for "Davi" that implies it has been the global Portugal standard since the Middle Ages.

Literary citation: Os Lusíadas, 1572 (https://pt.wikisource.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Os_Lvsiadas/I)

page 24, I (71) "Tamanho o odio foy, & a mà vontade, Que aos eſtrangeiros ſupito tomou, Sabendo ſer ſequaces da verdade, Que o filho de Dauid nos enſinou, Os ſegredos daquella Eternidade A quem juyzo algum não alcançou." (son of David)

Ortographic Agreement of 1945: "As consoantes finais b, c, d, g e t mantêm-se, quer sejam mudas, quer proferidas, nas formas onomásticas em que o uso as consagrou, nomeadamente antropónimos e topónimos da tradição bíblica: Jacob, Job, Moab; Isaac; David, Gad; Gog, Magog; Bensabat, Josafat." (final consonants are kept in names where recurring use has legitimated them, namely biblical names)

Ortographic Agreement of 1990: "As consoantes finais grafadas b, c, d, g e t mantêm-se, quer sejam mudas quer proferidas nas formas onomásticas em que o uso as consagrou, nomeadamente antropónimos e topónimos a tradição bíblica: Jacob, Job, Moab, Isaac, David, Gad; Gog, Magog; Bensabat, Josafat." (same thing)

Essentially, while "David" pronounced undoubtedly comes from English, it's a relatively recent etymology and exclusive to Brazil, possibly coming from American/British media consumption or 19th/20th century immigration. What Brazilian Portuguese speakers may write as "Davi" or "Davide", in reference to the legendary king of Israel or to derivated terms in other European languages, is written as "David" everywhere else. Therefore, the likely Latin/Hebrew borrowing is the oldest and more established borrowing in the Portuguese language, and due to its portuguese pronounciation the only variant that's legitimized as Portuguese by the Ortographic Agreement of 1990 between all the Portuguese speaking countries. Stylianius1 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

defying the etymology on the entry for "Davi" that implies it has been the global Portugal standard since the Middle Ages.

There is a joke for you, translated from German: In sunday school the preacher asks one after another for their name. I'm Hannes. No it is Johannes. Sepp. No, it is Joseph. And you, my son? Kurt. No, it is Yoghurt. :-) SmeaShmea (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Inasmuch as uses of the name occur in Brazilian Portuguese, other than by code-switching, they can (depending on the particulars) have been an unadopted borrowing from umpteen languages, not only English and Latin, but also Albanian, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Maltese, Norwegian, Spanish and Swedish. Undoubtedly, like in French, European Portuguese David comes from Latin. Etymologically, the main question is whether this form is attested in Galician–Portuguese. If not, it may have been a more learned borrowing.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The Portuguese entry says it's from Latin, while Arabic ها has it as descendant... Exarchus (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Nicodene (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

RFV of the etymology. See בועז — This comment was unsigned.

Is this a serious request? Can there be any doubt the English proper noun comes from the Hebrew proper noun? — This comment was unsigned.

Maybe OP meant to RFV the Hebrew word's etymology instead? A quick search for references (for the English name) finds me the Dictionary of American Family Names confirming that the English surname derives from the English given name which derives from the Hebrew given name, but it says the Hebrew given name is "of uncertain etymology". - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

C'est à la toute fin du XIXe que cette expression est apparue bien qu'elle ait été popularisée au XXe. Elle trouve son origine d'un rapprochement entre le fait de secouer sa cuillère à sucre pour en verser sur les fraises et les tremblements qui agitent les membres d'une personne âgée. 92.184.110.8 11:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Tu peux ajouter ces détails à la page même (en Anglais !), si ton idée était de trouver ici un quelconque assentiment. Saumache (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

one of the novelty -phobia words for which there's probably no hope of tracing back to an original coiner. the makeup is very confusing: people have theorized that this might be a- +‎ Ancient Greek θαζός (thazós, “seated ”) +‎ Ancient Greek ἀγορά (agorá, “place of public gathering”) +‎ -phobia, so "a fear of not being seated in the place of public gathering", which, on top of being very cumbersome, i also find extremely unlikely ragweed theater _{talk, user} 01:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This “looks suspiciously like the sort of thing idle pseudo-intellectuals invent on the internet and which every smarty-pants takes up thereafter”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

In any event smartypants attestably use the term. We don't usually do very well with sense development even between languages, let alone within one. That said, I am not sure how combining a-, thazo-, and agora leads to "fear of being forgotten or ignored". Is a "seat in the 'agora'" simple a metaphor for "place in society" or "seat at the table"? DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Even if the originally intended meaning was "fear of not having a seat in the assembly" (where people in Ancient Greek times would normally have been standing), the pseudo-intellectual who invented this was not a scholar of Ancient Greek. Since θαζός is an adjective, the meaning of ἄθαζος (athazos) would be "unseated" and an ἄθαζη ἀγορά would be an unseated assembly. The meaning of ἄθαζη ἀγορά + -φοβία would be: "fear of unseated assemblies".  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

in any case i think that the proposed derivation from that reddit post is unlikely, that is, i don't really think it could be plausibly linked from θαζός (thazós), so any further discussion along this line might be fruitless. afaik θαζός isn't really a well-known word that neoclassical coiners might immediately resort to. i don't have a better etymology though. our best bet at finding a clue might be if we can locate the original coiner of this term, though i'm not sure if it's worth the effort.

Lambiam is certainly right that the word formation is nonclassical and that the word was probably an idle coinage, but the word probably wouldn't have been directly formed on the phrase ἄθαζη ἀγορά: that's not really how most of the neoclassical compounds in english are formed. thaz- should just be seen as a combining form extracted from θαζός (if it was from θαζός at all) ragweed theater _{talk, user} 09:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I would still remain “fear of un-seated-assembly”, wouldn’t it?  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

not if you choose to assume for whatever reason that thaz- is a verbal stem; then there really isn't anything specifying the theta-role of "assembly" in relation to "seated/sitting" in a compound like this. if the original coiner did derive this word from θαζός (which, again, i'm really dubious about) they could have meant "fear of not-sitting-in-assembly" ragweed theater _{talk, user} 10:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

what is the etymology of θαζός (thazós) anyway? the only information i can find about this word is from Liddell & Scott ragweed theater _{talk, user} 10:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

According to L&S this, as well as a verb θάζω, occur in the Cyropaedia, but I have been unable to spot it.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Translingual Intybus says:

Latin intybus (“endive”), intubus, forms of intĭbus, from intĭbum, intybum, from Ancient Greek ἔντυβον.

Ancient Greek ἔντυβον says:

From Latin intibus (“endive”), itself probably from a Semitic source.

This has the appearance of a circularity.

Beekes has ἔντυβον as a loanword from Latin and writes “The Latin word seems to be a loan from Semitic (see Andre 1956: 170, Hiltbrunner 1958: 174-177, and Hiltbrunner Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen 197 (1960): 22f.).” De Vaan is mum.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

De Vaan doesn't include loanwords, so that isn't surprising. Ernout and Meillet also cites André and says the Greek is probably derived from Latin.--Urszag (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I've changed it so that it now says: “..., forms of intĭbus, a Semitic borrowing”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Rightly so. There were a lot of foreign language forms, distributions and thus relations to gather over the years, from materials likewise not decircularized without expensive intellectual conclusions, especially on ἐντύβιον (entúbion) and هِنْدِبَاء (hindibāʔ) by me, so the translingual entry was missed on my side, though I stress not being responsible for isolated entries being left over wrong either, sketching the general picture. Fay Freak (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I would expect Classical Latin "y" to be used only to represent Ancient Greek υ/Υ. Perhaps there was some sort of reborrowing involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's not clear that the word did have "y" in Classical Latin. Lewis and Short cites "torpenti grata palato intyba" from manuscripts of Columella, but that doesn't prove that this spelling was used in his time.--Urszag (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The Romans, even in the Classical era, were not above Greekifying the spelling of a word they believed to be of Greek origin, even if it wasn't, e.g. pulcher. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The -y- could be a hypercorrection, as in Աքիւլլէս (Akʻiwllēs). Vahag (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

What's the source for the Proto-Malayo-Polynesian reconstruction *a(ŋ)ɡəp? Alfarizi M (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have found it. Alfarizi M (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The current definition of "talk shop" says simply "to discuss one's work, business or profession". I think it is (always, necessarily) narrower than this. If I describe how well my work went today, then as far as I know, I'm not talking shop. I think it isn't even talking shop if I describe my boss's management style. Talking shop is discussing things that are very specific to the kind of work I do, such that people outside my field will not be able to understand. Isn't it? TooManyFingers (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more a matter of talking about work-related matters that others from outside their "work, business, or profession" are unlikely to care about. DCDuring (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I augmented the def to cover it. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Why crape? Comparing some part of the plant to thin pancakes? 🤔 - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Or thin, crinkly silk. Wikipedia says, Flowers are borne in summer and autumn in panicles of crinkled flowers with a crêpe-like texture. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I've changed the image to make the "crinkle" more visible, but clicking to enlarge the image may be neccesary. DCDuring (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we add this as a humorous extension of whom? or does whomst'd've'ly'yaint'nt'ed'ies's'y'es mean something else? 38.43.33.153 01:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Not likely to be attestable. See WT:ATTEST. DCDuring (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Well you can find it in urban dictionary, reddit, facebook, etc., 38.43.33.153 18:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That's insufficient for our purposes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Why? 38.43.33.153 18:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, we generally require "use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year". Websites like Facebook, Reddit, and Urban Dictionary are not regarded as being durably archived media, the first two because they can't be readily archived, and the latter because it is a crowdsourced work that is completely unmoderated (basically, people can make up stuff). Anyway, this "word" has been deleted twice in the past as a "creative invention or protologism". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, we distinguish between use and mention. Mentions in dictionaries do not count as uses.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

According to this article I found, ↀ is borrowed from the Etruscan crosshairs symbol ⨁ or the rotated version ⨂, which represented 1000 at the time. This video also explains the etymology as well as other roman numerals, using said article as a reference (though oddly the creator stated the reference in the comments section but not in the description). HyperAnd (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I've changed the pseudo etymology and added a book source. The book cites Keyser, so it is a secondary source.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

ⅭⅠↃ should also be fixed, because I don't know how to add sources... HyperAnd (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out HyperAnd (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

⊕ is not an Etruscan sign, neither ⨁ nor ⨂. Etruscan is a difficult topic for sure, as Michael Weiss says, there are few good ones in this field and very little is certain. One reason to be sceptical is the Attic numeral Χ(ΙΛΙΟΙ) "1000". If it is borrowed, it is usually difficult to decide who borrowed from whom. Phoenician 𐤈 ⟨ṭ⟩ had a more general meaning "mark" (further references in the Phoenician-Punic dictionary by Krahmalkov). Etruscan 𐌈 derives from it via Euboean Greek. Its meaning "wheel" in Semitic tradition is interesting, because at least Linear B 𐀏 ⟨ka⟩ /k kʰ/. For the sake of the argument it suffices to challenge that theta simplified to a single stroke instead of a cross precisely not in Etruscan, so the development of ↀ is also unlikely to be thought there. Green Greek boxed "window"-ksi (n.b. Wikipedia's Roman Numerals speaks of "a box or circle") and Etruscan 𐌎, as an otherwise unused remnant in abecedaries, against equivalent red Greek, Etruscan and Roman X vis-à-vis blue Greek chi rather supports the precedent of χίλιοι by association. Just my two cents. SmeaShmea (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Huh, seems like it's disputed. It's probably best to import the two theories from Wikipedia along with the references (it also cites Paul Keyser, should've check Wikipedia...). If they are other theories, add them along their references. HyperAnd (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

are there any other turkic languages with words from this root? I do not know of any Zbutie3.14 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

According to Nişanyan this comes from pre-Anatolian Oğuz Turkish yarmak + -an, in which yarmak is a noun meaning “money”, said to be considered (by Gerard Clauson in An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish) possibly a Persian loan. Unfortunately, the candidate Persian etymon is not revealed.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll edit the etymology and add the sources Zbutie3.14 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I bet it's derived from obligo, exploiting the similarity of the German word to the Latin one. — This unsigned comment was added by 2a00:16e0:1013:c45e:5d17:189a:c72e:2aef (talk) at 16:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC).

No, it's from Old High German oba liggan (“to lie on top of”), but it's possible the surface similarity to Latin obligō exerted a certain influence on the semantics. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's actually interesting. As a native speaker I would never have made that connection. It's clear that it is from "liegen" (to lie) because it has that conjugation (oblag, oblegen). But who knows maybe someone did at some point. Pfeifer says, however, that it is in fact a Latin loan translation, but not of "obligere", but rather of "incumbere". 84.57.154.5 13:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

In sense 1. The similarity dumb founded me and I cannot think of obliged in a way that is a good fit to add. Indeed, the entry already has “to be incumbent upon (someone)”, which means “imposed on one as an obligation”. It is problematic, specially in negative statements.

There is a participle-like to be concerned and passive-like it does not concern him. The in- / transitive distinction liegen / legen (lie / lay) seems to be vulnerable. SmeaShmea (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, we have related *uberlagjaną, überlegen (“to concider”) not confirmed by Gothic or Old Norse, but Old English. SmeaShmea (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you're saying and I did read all of it (which you generally cannot expect with such a long edit). No offence intended at all, but you have to be more to the point in these forums. 84.57.154.5 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

If you take the quotations and discussions out of it, as I have now, it is not very long. The conclusion leads to a comparison, but the contrastive grammar in the pre-text does not lead to the pre-determined conclusion. In hindsight, it might need a little help. The argument seems to be able to support a common West-Germanic origin. SmeaShmea (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)