Unlikely. Variously attributed to Confucius, Laozi, Marx, and several other people. It seems that none of these is true, because I can't find an older or more authoratative version of the quote in Mandarin or German. It appears to have been coined in English and put in someone else's mouth, AFAICT. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. KYPark is a troll. It would be best simply not to engage with him. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
So true, so true. At least he's just discussing it. If he continues to make disruptive edits based on his spurious theories, a block will be in order. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Not really. A troll is someone whose goal is disruption. KYPark's seems to be self-aggrandizement. The former is solely destructive, but the latter can be beneficial at times. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This saying was coined by Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie (1837–1919) in her novel, Mrs. Dymond (1885):
"I don't suppose even Caron could tell you the difference between material and spiritual," said Max, shrugging his shoulders. "He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I suppose the Patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn. But these very elementary principles are apt to clash with the leisure of the cultivated classes. Will Mr. Bagginal now produce his ticket—the result of favour and the unjust sub-division of spiritual environments?" said Du Parc, with a smile.
It is sometimes mistakenly believed to be Chinese in origin.
This entry may show how untidy Wiktionary is, in more than one, etymological, respect.
I'd not say this would be the ultimate but intermediate etymology. Then, the above, present is almost nonsensical. So funny is to deny absolutely the likelihood of oriental origin. Who on earth would deny the likely oriental origin?
Are senses 3 and 4 in fact from the same source as 1 and 2? What is the connection here? Is there a separate etymology? DTLHS (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could a sixteenth century French author derive a word from (then undeciphered) ancient Egyptian? Moreover, Gargantesi is not an Egyptian word, but a demotic transliteration of the Greek κολοκύνθη (Gourd). Furius (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a special kind of sound that developed from the metathesis of -tk- into -kþ-, which is called a "thorn cluster": w:Thorn cluster. I don't think thorn clusters ever appeared in bare roots though, and *tetḱ- (the pre-form of *teḱþ-) is not a valid root because roots can't end in two stop consonants. On the other hand it looks like some kind of reduplication from *teḱ-... —CodeCat22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Watkins' American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots reconstructs this as teks-. The Sanskrit and Latin can come straight from *teks-e/o- and the Greek can come from *teks-neh2. There's no reason to assume a thorn cluster in this root. —Angr22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This way of doing looks too hypersensitive, childish, far from the global standard, esp. in doing with this great global collaboration. This looks like doing evil to pagans, hence greatly endangering such globalism on an egalitarian basis.
The deletion of this very thick thread is such an extreme exception as to require a wide consensus in advance, not to mention the participants' agreements, or otherwise as to acquire a high hand in essence. Wiktionary should avoid shameful and shameless high-handedness or arbitrariness as far as possible.
Absolutely untrue about this deleted thread as a whole is CodeCat's arbitrary, high-handed reason ("Doesn't seem relevant to Wiktionary, mostly monologuing and original research, not a discussion.")
The last, so-called "monologuing" part of this thread may or may not need discussion as it is simply more of hard, objective evidence to be added up to the previous, concerning the likelihood of deeper, synthetic etymology than the analytic Proto-Germanic level at Wiktionary at present that looks like grouping the graphic and phonetic variations of a Germanic word, quite overlapping with "Translations."
In the beginning, all disbelieved in deep etymology out there, but I showed it up indeed, from case to case, perhaps to their dismay, esp. of CodeCat, who might fear it might undermine his/her Proto-Germanic base. Personally, CodeCat could disbelieve in it, and get a research done, peer-reviewed and published to upset it, but should not formally oppose to it until then, imposing an original research ironically.
For a while, I would sit back and watch what steps Wiktionary will take on this queer occasion of sheer injustice.
As much as my interiour intellect would, simply put, adore the permission of pioneering etymologistic inquiry on the entries of this online experiment on volunteer lexicography (which not only bypasses linguistic limitations, but also completely and utterly extirpates the walls posited by the borders of countries, states and other geopolitical subdivisions), so that those who peruse our grandiose lexicon may marvel at the innumerable possibilities and theories for the derivation and evolution of vocables, we, as a community, must confront the issue of any contributor, experienced of not, being able to concoct their own etymologies which agree only with their own expectations, regardless and irrespective of to what degree they are familiarised with the concept of phonetic, phonemic and phonological development of sounds within the words of a lect. This, I’m afraid, is your case, and therefore I must stand by CodeCat’s side in this necessary, though controversial, move. In the opinion of my humble self, the best way of circumnavigating this problematic situation is to have a complete prohibition of original etymological research. But lo! Not all is lost! There is such a website which allows anyone, regardless of their beliefs concerning etymology, to create wikis, and this website is http://wikia.com. All I can do, without jeopardising the high standard of quality we have committed ourselves to, is recommend that you create a wiki at wikia.com, where not only you will be allowed to add whatever etymology as you desire to its entries, unimpeded, but also be able to recruit those share your views on deep etymology and wish to spread its word to the greater public to aid you in the compilation of a “Deep etymology wiki” (or whatever its name be). — Ungoliant(Falai)05:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we ... must confront the issue of any contributor ... being able to concoct their own etymologies which agree only with their own expectations, ... irrespective of to what degree they are familiarised with the concept of ... phonological development of sounds within the words of a lect. This ... is your case ...
This is not my case at all indeed. Thus I wonder if you had really carefully read through the very thread and the one-year long prelude, before you wrote the above.
Notoriously, I used to be so suspected and blamed when I was comparing European with Korean words. The above excerpt from you matches with that case so exactly that I fear you made such a wrong step on this occasion. The very thread was not such a case at all. I was not one of those who "concoct their own etymologies" but one of those out there who in fact connect wiegen(“weigh”) and wiegen(“sway”) with PIE root *wegh-, whether in deliberation or in effect.
This objective connection has been simply ignored or unnoticed here, hence a shame anyway, until this thread showed it up. Doubly shameful and shameless is still to disbelieve in the hard evidence of deeper etymology than "Etymology" at WT at present.
CodeCat and perhaps some others do not end with such disbelief but go on to delete and keep the thread itself from the global readership, hence a triply shameful and shameless injustice at least the world including you need to know.
The etymology here doesn't seem very plausible, and if it is true then it is very incomplete. Why, if Danish Estland is the origin, was it not borrowed directly as "Estland" in English? —CodeCat14:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the modern form of specifically the country that I am referring to. It seems very unlikely that Estonia came from Danish Estland rather than from some other language that already had Estonia as the name. New Latin seems like a possible source, or some Romance language. fr:Estonia says it is from Latin. —CodeCat17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This generic category may well be needed for etymology in parallel with Category:Reduplications by language, which are related but different. The following red links, if clicked, will be found to contain some examples already:
Reduplication is a process of word formation, so it is etymological. But frequentative is a semantic category; it relates to the meaning of the word rather than to the way it was formed. —CodeCat14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I keep supposing that CodeCat may keep opposing me mainly for the opposition's sake. The quotation on the right may be enough to show or back it up.
Etymology should have it that the frequentative verb, say, piddle descends and inherits from its root or origin, say, piss.
English wag, rooted in PIE root *wegh-, in turn gives birth not only to such frequentatives as wiggle and waggle, if not swag, sway and swing, but also to such a reduplication as wigwag.
The table at w: Frequentative #English contains a horde of English frequentatives along with their respective etymological roots, longing or waiting for the proper category.
In a loose or common (rather than technical) sense, the wag itself, together with rock, wave, undulate, vibrate, etc., is a frequentative in itself, making sense of "repeated action," as focally noted by all dictionaries!
Wiktionary defines frequentative so radically, otherwise than most other dictionaries that bear on "repeated action." Hence less neutrality.
My point is that we may have no reason whatsoever for denying the titular category, whether etymologically or not. Should it be not etymological at all, I am to blame for asking for it in the wrong place. But isn't this just a matter of strict formality?
May I ask any expert concerned what a frequentative form of a word, say, wag which indicates frequentative action or "repeated action" in itself should be called, in comparison with "a frequentative form ... of a word is one which indicates repeated action" as quoted (q.v.)?
Reduplication is a process of word formation, so it is etymological. But frequentative is a semantic category; it relates to the meaning of the word rather than to the way it was formed. —CodeCat 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
From the Wikipedian perspective on the right, CodeCat's above reason sounds a mere point of view, even if not false, so that s/he is wanted to get it undone and the categorizing job done as requested, whether etymologically or otherwise. May I take this opportunity to ask who is the admin responsible for quality control and quality assurance of Korean entries? I may have something fatal or vital to report to her, whether etymological or not.
Reduplication is not always but mostly a frequentative of interest. The former is narrow, while the latter is broad. The former always takes the explicitly repetitive form, while the latter does not. It is frequentative to wiggle and waggle without any obvious sign of reduplication. Frequentness may be implicit, while reduplicateness is explicit by definition. --KYPark (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People have been posting etymologies deriving these directly from Latin verbs like repleō or plenare (the latter seems to be a bad guess). Judging by the etymology at replenish, it looks more likely to be from re- + a more recent verb formed from plenus or a descendant. Is there any evidence for a Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance development of this verb, or did it emerge independently in more than one of the daughter languages? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the initial ll- shows that it can't be a reborrowing, at least. So either it was inherited, or it was formed from another word that itself was inherited. —CodeCat22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I cordially ask the community members, especially concerned with etymological frequentatives and reduplications, to vote here if they agree or disagree with the above quoted deletion from the Appendix namespace? Thanks a lot in advance.
Well, I would sure welcome information about Korean frequentatives in the appendix (though probably as a subsection Appendix:Korean verbs), but your page was written more like a personal essay or analysis thanks to sentences like “Should every of the above, say, 35 differenes be worth an entity at all?” and the use of Wiktionary terminology like “Related terms” and “Derived terms”. The appendix should explain to the user how Korean frequentatives work, not question whether it’s worth an entity or talk about how they should be regarded in entries (this WT:AKO’s job). — Ungoliant(Falai)06:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your generally welcoming stance. While that page is evolving anywhere anyway, we could discuss anything in the Talk page, including yours as said above! --KYPark (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a reason as "Not Appendix material" is presupposed implicitly for deletion from the Appendix, hence needless to say explicitly. It is not really informative but maybe deceptive, I fear, not to leave it blank, not to be suspected of no reasonable reason. It should be suspected, convinced, and formally accused of doing perhaps such evil injustice as quoted on the right. --KYPark (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this column may look somewhat tricky between two aims:
One is to show the well-established, ablauted or, more precisely, high-low voweled reduplication such as 싱숭생숭 (singsung-saengsung) remindful of English sing & sang.
The other is to show the high voweled form (in front in black color) of the low voweled entry stem. Both may fail to make up an idiom, but are closely related.
Just ignore the same as the (high-voweled) entry stem, which is technically needed for sorting and grouping of related words.
I wish such things could be discussed in the Talk page when the removed page at issue gets back to the Appendix namespace. --KYPark (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC) -- marginally modified --KYPark (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experiment with the following (to know if I'm really joking here, as strongly suggested here by some maybe unfair people):
A definitely mischievous one, the very one who deleted that Appendix, cut in and broke the right links. So experiment with the following links instead:
I support keeping this in the appendix, but I'd like to suggest some revamping to be done. The list should be sorted by the hypothetical *roots (etymons) on which the ablaut, tense/lax forms are based, eg. 까닥 (작은말) ~ 끄덕 (큰말) ~ 까딱 (센말), 꾸물 ~ 구물 ~ 고물(?) ~ 꼬물, each variant having its own (-ida, -hada, -georida, -daeda, reduplicated) derivatives. The roots like 싱글 (cf. zh:싱글) should instead be non-redirects, categorised into a separate category (probably interwiki-links to ko:분류:어근). 129.78.32.2105:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anonymous 129.78.32.21 for your support. But I'm not sure, so advise me, which is the root(etymon), 구물or고물 of 꾸물and꼬물. Meanwhile, you may be happy, I hope, to have 구물and고물, and 고물 and 꼬물nearby by clicking on the Ablauted and Tensed columns, respectively. --KYPark (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) --KYPark (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a place for talking about Korean entries in the main namespace, but for voting for or against formally having a list of Korean frequentative stems and their etymological derivatives in the Appendix namespace instead of an informal userpage. To show their formal usefulness, I just offered some REDIRECT's to the listed items, just as a shift, just in case the main entry is yet unavailable. Such should be better than nothing!
This lists 29,015 candidates for Korean frequentative or imitative entry. Wiktionary must go a long way to make 1% of it, I bet, regardless of relatedness among them. Meanwhile, my sortable relational database, simply table, could be built up very easily and used very usefully, I hope. I cannot help but wonder why this job should belong to my personal page at all. --KYPark (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
