Talk:naked

I notice that neither sense covers the common collocation "naked flame" which to me doesn't feel like a separate sense but rather should be covered by sense 2 here. — Hippietrail 23:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About word origin

I don't think that the origin of the word in indo-european did not contain the /d/ in English /t/, although written with a 'd' following an error of trascription the way "iland" became "island" in modern english influenced by french "isle". In fact this word although having the termination "ed" is not to be interpreted as a past particicle, in fact of course there are cases in english where past particicle become adgective (e.g. armed, married) but this word is not expressing the sense of some "intelligent influence" like the one I cited: armed (by his/her will, or somebody's will) married (by the priest). I think the original english word must have been "nakt", which somehow became "naked", this is confirmed by othe germanic language: dutch "naakt", old norse "nakt". So the original indo-european must have bee something like n, (of course), o (I suppose IE o> ProtoGerm.a), g( became k in germanic languages, desappeared in latin like in "iuuenis" from IE iuuengis), e ( a VOWEL:rarely IE has two consecutive consonants), d (this is the point). Some "noged". So there is, PG "nakt", classical Latin "nudus" maybe from Old latin "nugdus", and this is a clear tendence of latin to eliminate the voiced consonats before other consonants. Anyway it is quite clear the link between english naked, and latin nudus> neo-latin nudo nude etc. So I put the latin word within the "cognates" in Etymology — This unsigned comment was added by 82.59.113.244 (talk) at 00:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

Proto-germanic

PG is wrong how does it explain that PG /d/ became dutch /k/ also old Norse gave a /nakt/. No way Dutch changes germanic /d/ to a /t/ it has not undergone 2nd germanic sound shift, and anyway this is impossible in a dictionary. I change it — This unsigned comment was added by 82.59.113.244 (talk) at 00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

I think you're letting two aberrant examples obscure a much greater number of examples supporting the previous etymology. Look at the examples here, for instance. *naktaz couldn't produce Old English nacod, German nackt, or Old Norse nǫkkviðr. Even assuming a *naktaz form giving rise to the Dutch form, it's obviously not the source of the English term, so it doesn't belong in the etymology for this entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted. *naktaz couldn't have existed in PGmc. anyway, since *kt always became *ht [xt]. It would thus have had to have been *nahtaz, which wouldn't give any of the attested forms. Only a three-syllable form like *nakwadaz can be the origin of OE nacod, and for that matter only a three-syllable form like *nakwadaz can be the origin of Dutch naakt since that's the only way for the k to have not become ch. Later in Dutch and other languages, the vowel between the k and the d got syncopated, and the d changed to t by voicing assimilation (not by the 2nd Gmc. sound shift, which as the anon notes, didn't happen in Dutch). —Angr 06:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Angr's explanation. The change d > t is a matter of assimilation, not the High German consonant shift, because *kt did not exist in Germanic. Just like in the weak verbs, which is why the 't kofschip rule exists! The form naket (stem naked-) is also attested in Middle Dutch, which clearly shows the extra syllable. The -t is because of final devoicing but this is reverted in the inflectional stem. See [1] [2] —CodeCat 12:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

angr, you wrote: I've reverted. *naktaz couldn't have existed in PGmc. anyway, since *kt always became *ht [xt]. It would thus have had to have been *nahtaz. It's very confused what you wrote but I understant that you mean that PG k becomes in all modern germanic languages /ht/ this is true ONLY for old high german descendents and only in rare cases. Anyway dutch does not descenf from old high german. This is, what you write, the change that happens between PIE and PG but not from PG to english or to dutch. Not at all

I see that you wiktionary have left PG k, as of when I'm writing, in fact it doesn't change to h in PG. S o if it remained since when I changed the section yesterday I suppose there is someone who thinks like me, about this topic

No, what Angr meant is that the combination *kt did not exist in Proto-Germanic, it was simply not allowed by the phonology of the language. Similarly, *tt and *pt were disallowed. Whenever the combination *kt did occur, it was automatically converted into *ht (and *tt to *st, *pt to *ft). This is seen in many words. For example, *beuganą - *buhtiz, *seukaną - *suhtiz, *brūkaną - past tense *brūhtē, *þankijaną - past tense *þanhtē, *sōkijaną - past tense *sōhtē. This has nothing to do with the High German consonant shift but it's caused by Grimm's law, which applies to all Germanic languages, English and Dutch included. See also w:Germanic spirant law. —CodeCat 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I just answer, don't take it as a critique, we are in the discussion section to discuss. About what you wrote, I know Grimm's law applies to all germanic languages, in fact I was referring to second vowel shift, that applies to old high german and discendants(German f.e.). Anyway I said i was glad to see they had left the /k/ sound in PG in the ethimology, and you are right by saying that /kt/ sound was unknown in PG, in fact english words that come from PG, and as I said mantained almost unchanged the consonantic structure (the plosive consonants at least), does't have /kt/ sound. That said I originally was talking about the relationship about english word "naked" and latin "nudus". English writers made many errors during english history the most known is iland to island because thay wanted to feel more french-like. I know it's hard to admit, but there was a time when to be english, or even american, was considered to be humiliating and english speakers were considered like"morons". Now it is trendy to speak english and english speakers may feel very proud but history changes. Remember time goes by for ALL entities be it humans or states or gods.

Latin nudus isn't the origin of naked, it's a descendant of the same PIE form, therefore, a cognate. The theory is that the vowel was lost between the *gʷ and the *d, causing the cluster *gʷd to simplify to d. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant it is not the same form but a modified version of the same form. So I guess you can put back latin nudus, even if as a cognate, in the Etymology section. Latin language lost a lot of consonants, in fact it has become the vowel rich language we all know at the time of the migration of the latins from ukraine to latium in Italy in 1st millennium b.c.

Use in foreign languages

On a bottle of soap I saw the word naked in French left untranslated, as if it were a French word. Could it be that it is now a French word, but only with the narrow sense "lacking an ingredient, perceived to be harmful, found in most other products" ? Soap (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Im going to make a list, I think, inspired by http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/sorensen/art_images/cg50841387717ae.jpg which was prophetic as I think the cartoon was drawn before most of the products appeared on the market. In this case though, as Ive realized, since "naked" is the name of the product itself it's not a word in French. Even so, could add as an English sense. Soap (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)