Talk:vestigium

Latin - etymology

The etymology "vestigo" of "vestigium" is given by Lewis & Short, 1879. However, a couple of modern English dictionaries trace the etymology of "vestige" to "vestigium", and end it with that rather than tracing it further to "vestigo". One English dictionary says that the origin of "vestigium" is unknown[1]. --Dan Polansky 07:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here comes a hyperlink to the etymology given by An Etymological Dictionary of the Latin Language by Francis Edward Jackson Valpy, 1828: [2]. I post it for interest, as the source is rather old. --Dan Polansky 09:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A recent edit added the etymology "From ve- +‎ Proto-Indo-European *steigh- cognate with German steigen, Ancient Greek στίχος", from Michel Bréal & Anatole Bailly, Dictionnaire étymologique latin, Hachette, Paris, 1885. I have removed the etymology, as the claim that the etymology is unknown is sourced from two modern dictionaries: Online Etymology Dictionary and Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1968, both entered as references in the entry. --Dan Polansky 09:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted an unsourced etymology. The current etymology that is stated as unknown is sourced from modern sources. Any replacement of that should be sourced. --Dan Polansky 10:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Where by "modern source" you mean "online source". A source is not better because it is "modern". I am very grateful for etymonline.com, and let's face it, it is much better to be able to cite this website than to cite nothing at all, but it is not a real "source". I have now given what is apparently the first suggestion of this classic although disputed etymology. It seems to date to 1839. I would maintain that it is preferable to cite a 19th-century reference that is academic than a 2001 reference that was just pulled of the internet. Nay, I would suggest that it is in every case desirable to track an etymological suggestion to its first publication, regardless of how it was assessed later. After citing Pott (1839), the page should then of course give a discussion of the reception of this suggestion, and of possible alternative views. Such an expansion would be an improvement of this lemma. Just claiming "unknown" because etymonline.com said so, ignoring a full 170 years of scholarly discussion, in my view does not quite produce the same effect. --Dbachmann 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am editing Wikipedia too much, but stating an opinion as fact is seen as bad practice over there. Perhaps wiktionary is different. "Of unknown origin" is an opinion held by those not convinced by various suggestions, made by people, of course, who are of the opinion that they have uncovered the word's origin. It is perfectly fair to state that such and such a source does not accept any of the suggestions given. In such a case, it can also be given as a fact that the word's origin is "uncertain", simply because there is no communis opinio. Saying "of unknown origin, here's a couple of footnotes" otoh is stating an opinion in Wiktionary's voice, as it were. --Dbachmann 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)