Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2012/April

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← March 2012 · April 2012 · May 2012 → · (current)

---

blend

The etymology says this comes from Old Norse blanda, and explains the vowel 'e' as a case of ablaut. Firstly, it would have been umlaut and not ablaut to change 'a' into 'e'... but more importantly, Gerhard Köbler's dictionary of Old Norse lists this as a class 3 weak verb. This class is special in that it has present singular endings -i(r) but no umlaut. Compare modern Icelandic vaka, which still retains this type of conjugation (our entry has no conjugation table, but Icelandic Wiktionary does). So what doesn't really add up to me is that the etymology explains the 'e' as ablaut/umlaut when grammar predicts it had none. Can anyone find more information on this? —CodeCat 00:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Any one grammar or conjugation may not readily predict the different spellings of borrowed or shared words among different languages, say Norse and English. German Balg, from Proto-Germanic *balgiz, is akin to English belly and bellows via OE belg, bylg or bælg, hence the ablaut in point from /a/ to /e/. Another good example may be mar#Spanish, marsh, mer#French, mere, mire, mor#Old English, moor, morass, muir#Irish, and mýri#Icelandic, etc., all apparently rooted in "water." --KYPark (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how that is related to my question. *balgiz becoming belg is not ablaut, it's umlaut. There is quite a large difference between those two. Ablaut is an Indo-European phenomenon, which became almost entirely unproductive in Proto-Germanic, so that words showing ablaut in later Germanic languages are generally holdovers from Indo-European or Pre-Germanic times. Umlaut is partially Germanic, partially post-Germanic, and is conditioned by a following i/j. The reason why this can't be ablaut is because of the following -nd-. The combination -end- became -ind- in later Proto-Germanic, which means that -end- could not have existed (compare verbs such as find). That means that the -e- must have resulted from umlaut. However, according to the Old Norse grammar presented here, class 3 weak verbs such as this one never showed umlaut: the present tense was blandi(r), and not blendi(r) (and etymologically that conclusion is sound). So this leads me to wonder where the -e- in 'blend' came from, if not from the Old Norse verb 'blanda'. —CodeCat 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I just dropped in on my way to my part below. And I was foolish to jump into phonology, which is the last of my pride. So forget my naive phonology above. Instead, I would make some extra comments:

1. I suspect Nordic of its etymological root of the southern Germanic, say, the move from ON blanda to OE blandan and blend. Meanwhile,
2. I respect Nordic of its consistency and purity over the southern that must be more blended and corrupted near the busy, crowdy and cloudy, hustle and bustle, cultural center.
3. Not surprisingly, Iceland is marked by both hermitage and heritage of Old Norse.
4. To begin with practically, refer to blend (v.) etymonline. This centers around the PIE root *bhel- "to burn, shine," that is, *bhleg- here, likely akin to Proto-Germanic *blaikaz, *blaikijanan, *blankaz, etc.
5. Unbearably missing here is their prototype noun for fire, whether bæl or pyr. Either blande or blend or many other similars may be rooted in the very bæl, perhaps unfortunately obscured!
6. Summing up, perhaps no fair etymology of blend and so many others without justice to bæl, I fear.

blandan blank, blanc, black, bleach blend blind blink blond blonc blunder blyn

Sorry to be late to notice your sincere response. -KYPark (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You may wonder why blend may be akin to bæl. My italic foolish in the beginning is deliberate to suggest it may be surprisingly akin to bæl via Latin follis "bellows" and English blow that is essential to make fire. The fire is so deeply rooted in culture. I wonder why Old English borrowed fyr from Greek pyr, besides bæl that is so similar. --KYPark (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I found an explanation in Cleasby-Vigfússon: blanda was originally a strong verb, with blend in the present tense (e.g. in the Lokasenna), but it weakened/regularised over time. (The word blendingr, "a blending, a mixture, a mischling" kept the e.) - -sche (discuss) 08:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

risati

I just happened to see this word and I wonder if it derives from Middle High German rīzen (modern reißen). If it did, then it would be cognate to English write as well. —CodeCat 11:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They are probably cognates.

The Etymolohičes'kyj Slovnyk Ukraïns'koï Movy says that Ukrainian риса (rysa) is borrowed from Polish, that there are several Slavic cognates (e.g. Slovene, but no Old Church Slavic or Proto Slavic one), and that it is similar to Riß, Riss and reißen.

The Russische Wortkunde by Eckert/Kirchner/Růžička/Sperber says that Russian рисовать (risovat') is borrowed from Polish, from Middle High German, and cognate to reißen and Riss.

--MaEr (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder why the etymology of risati and the like above would better be discussed here than on each talk page. Surely it is easily noted here. But it is to help note it in each entry at last. The talk page may better link to this section. Or the latter may better, if not best, link to the former where it would be discussed instead of here. --KYPark (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's an old loanword from MHG. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

etymology of cappuccino

There seems to be little disagreement among etymologies that this is named after the order of monks, but I'm not sure that it's the color of their robes, as some dictionaries would have it. I was under the impression that the robes were a much darker shade of brown than the foam on cappuccino. I don't drink coffee myself, so I may be getting things mixed up, but I seem to remember seeing one made with the foam drawn up to a point, which then drooped behind it like the tip at the back of a monk's hood. If this is at all characteristic, then the reference would be to the shape of the hood, not its color.

I know that's the case for the nasturtium, the name of which is a derivative of Capuchin in several European languages: it has a spur at the back of the flower that looks like a very long, straight monk's-hood. If it's the hood that's the point of similarity, than the term may go directly back to the hood (Italian cappuccio), rather than by way of the name for the order, which comes from cappuccio.

As for the capuchin monkey, I may be imagining things, but the pattern on the back of the head of at least some species reminds me of a monastic tonsure.

Am I onto something, stretching it, or totally off-base? Chuck Entz (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I always figured it was just because a cappuccino coffee is "hooded" by having the foam on top -- I had no idea about any link to any specific order.

In fact, I have to wonder if the mention of the Franciscans isn't just because they're also hooded? The difference in color and the lack of resemblance between an actual monk's hood and the dollop of foam on top of a cappuccino coffee makes me think that this Franciscan etymology is a folk etymology. Anyone else know more? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Nocentini, the cappuccino got its name from the colour of the beverage, which reminds of the colour of monks' habit.

Cappuccino is coffee with milk. So it's not the colour of the foam but the colour of the coffee below which looks "franciscan". --MaEr (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's certainly interesting, but there are various other coffee-with-milk beverages where the coffee is essentially the same color, and that are not described as "cappuccino". The main difference between a latte and a cappuccino, for instance, is the foam added to the top of a cappuccino. Perhaps then it's the combination of the color of the coffee and the "hood" of foam on top? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't expect too much system behind the naming of coffee flavours. I'm pretty sure that no ISO committee was involved and no well-designed naming conventions were followed when coining the name cappuccino. There are more unlogical names for coffee variations. For example: latte macchiato — why do they call it maculatum; they pour coffee into the milk, not macula or dirt. Or caffè americano — I'm sure that this type of coffee is common also in large parts of Europe, not only in America. Or caffè corretto — why should coffee be corrected; is it wrong without alcohol? And so on. No, we should not expect too much logic. --MaEr (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the etymology section contradicted to the etymological dictionaries and had no reliable sources. For this reason, I have replaced the contents with a link to the Italian section. The English word cappuccino is borrowed from Italian, and the etymology of the Italian word cappuccino should be discussed in the Italian section, not in the English one. --MaEr (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)