The following Eurasian translations of earworm may in a way reflect the historical Eurasian trade that may have been mostly unrecorded, ignored or underestimated in history.
The titular earworm was sheerly mistaken for earwig. As a calque of Ohrwurm(“earwig; earworm”), the former is not too wrong but queerly too impractical in current English. Thus, it would better give way to the latter. (BTW I wonder someone noted that mistake in silence.)
European legend has it that earwigs often pierce the ear of sleeping humans, hence the name and the like, hence the likely false etymology as well. A guide to the perplexed would be to help know more and more rather than explain it away.
Ohr(“ear”) + Wurm(“worm”). In ancient times, dried and ground animals of the order Dermaptera were used to treat ear diseases, which resulted in the Late Latin name auricula. Later the name was in error explained as 'worm that enters the ear'.
The name may be related to the old wives' tale that earwigs burrowed into the brains of humans through the ear and laid their eggs there. Earwigs are predisposed to hiding in warm humid crevices and may indeed occasionally crawl into the human ear canal (much like any other small, crevice-loving organism).
Considering the hard protective covering that is outstanding, the etymology of beetle in terms of "bite + agent" may be simply too wrong, however well-known it may be. --KYPark (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A map of likely calques or more than mere translations
The Ancient Greek legacy on the right suggests that the beetle (1) looks like a small boat (3) upside down, and vice versa. Both have a hard protective bulge, shell, or sheath. Such is also the crustacean (2) such as crabs, crayfish, lobsters, etc.
The current etymology of Käfer(de), kever(nl) and chafer(en) as Nager or gnawer sounds as improper and implausible as that of beetle(en) as biter. It would be better questioned if these are such a calque as is usually the case.
Not in the slightest. Your argument is a haphazard chain of loose associations that reminds me of a silly joke we used to tell as kids. Here's a an example of the same joke from a couple of decades later (the Russians no longer have a Communist/red government, or this joke would still be going around): [3]. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope your link could be highly relevant to this talk. I may read it through carefully and retry to reply later. At the moment, however, let me move to the next agenda #dung beetle, which might interest you much more. Thanks for your continued concern anyway. --KYPark (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1520s, from Middle French caravelle (15c.), from Spanish carabela or Portuguese caravela, diminutive of caravo "small vessel," from Late Latin carabus "small wicker boat covered with leather," from Greek karabos, literally "beetle, lobster" (see scarab).
I wish this could help Chuck Entz reconsider his comment above.
The above maps some Eurasian calques for dung beetle. Korean 말똥구리 (mal-ttong-guri, roughly but strikingly, "mar-dung-gyre"!), since 1463 at latest, is probably the oldest. Note how close the transliteration mal-ttong-guri and my translation "mar-dung-gyre" are in sounding and meaning in triple consilience! So no accident is it?
The fact that scarabs roll balls of dung is by far its most unique and defining characteristic (much more so than the grasshoppers’ jumping around is theirs). I find it surprising when its name in a given language doesn’t refer to that.
But seriously, you’re going too far here. While I do find these discussions interesting, they are just cluttering the Etymology Scriptorium, which should be used for discussions which affect Wiktionary entries. I ask that you start posting them in your talk page (or a subpage or whatever you like). — Ungoliant(Falai)11:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So fair is your first passage.
Not so fair is your second arguing as if I were cluttering anything, while I may be arguing that the etymology of all the above items may be better reconsidered. Such was exactly the case with the previous agenda #beetle; this is an extension thereof, you see.
The redness of the links above may be a measure of modern Eurasian regardlessness of dung beetles, which "are currently the only animal, other than humans, known to navigate and orient themselves using the Milky Way."
Words are deeply rooted in culture in history proper. Therefore, etymology matters likely ahead of semiology and phonology. Sadly, however, it may have been badly obscured by obscurantism, pseudoscience, etc.
You are certainly free to obscure yourself but for others. So shall we "look back in anger" if we do them at all, especially in disguise of "neutral point of view," in attack on "original research," in favor of "peer-reviewed publication"? To me, "peer-review" is nothing but conservatism of invested interests, either better or worse than nothing!
I'd like to call this forum a global pure review, in sharp contrast to limited peer review in practice, that is, poor review in fact or effect, though not evil at all. How sorry I am that a number of users keep asking me to leave this!
We’re not asking you to stop because of some obsession with peer review, but because the purpose of this page is the construction and correction of the etymology-related content of Wiktionary pages. Your recent series of topics are just general etymology discussion. — Ungoliant(Falai)11:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never complain that you prefer "peer review," but that you unfairly ask me to leave this globally open place for "pure review" I prefer to that which is too limited by definition. BTW you sound like your friends conspiring to stop my "general etymology discussion" as totally useless, which is simply untrue.
Etymological "construction and correction" have mattered indeed throughout the series, however neglected so far, though it may take time. For example, Etymology of earthworm and rainworm need note frankly that the pair is exactly parallel to that of 地龍 and 雨龍 as its probable origin. This academic affair is no doubt an honor system.
Meanwhile, I expect the day will come sooner or later when WMF hesitates no more to acknowledge the publicity and authority of its own forums as well as peer-reviewed publications out there.
It is useless if over a long period of time it is continuing without improvement of Wiktionary etymologies, as it has been — and to note that the pair is "exactly parallel" is a misuse of the etymology section and may be considered to be disruptive editing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds23:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What should we build up here and elsewhere? A body of truth for global enlightenment rather than academic invested interests, shouldn't we? We just use them as a likely means to that end, and give it up, if not as such.
The right of silence must sound a sheer ridicule to R. L. Stevenson who noted "the cruelest lies are often told in silence." Such must be the case here as well as in general academia. Worst may be disruptive sabotage as an academic misconduct to keep people from telling and getting the truth.
In this perspective, it is seriously debatable if at all to note that the pair is "exactly parallel" is a misuse of the etymology section and may be considered to be disruptive editing, granted such is simply the fact and truth.
KYPark, sometimes the word or phrase for something has the same structure or makes the same metaphor in several remote and unrelated languages because it's an obvious metaphor to make, or else it is simply a coincidence.
It doesn't help when the historical etymology is being stretched or ignored, depending on what point you're trying to make. "'Beetle' kinda sounds like 'boat' is a curiousity, and may even be interesting, but is not an etymological argument.
If you want to make the case that there was heavy borrowing between English and Korean in the 16C, then please provide the evidence that there was sufficient contact between the two cultures at the time. Otherwise you just sound like the people who thought that the Old Irish name "Eber" sounds like Hebrew "Heber", therefore the Irish language is a dialect of Hebrew.
As far as "the cruelest lies are often told in silence" goes, you can keep something hidden by preventing it being spoken of, and you can keep something hidden by shouting it down. Please consider The Library of Babel, which contains all things which are true... and all things which are false, and no way to tell one from the other. It is possible to say too much on a topic, especially when you are using an ostensibly public space to do so... you are not convincing anyone who is not already convinced, but are instead drowning out and forcing away anyone and everyone else who might want to be heard. This is not scholarship, this is greediness and arrogance. (Greediness in monopolising a commons, and arrogance in assuming that your contributions are so much more important than anyone and everyone else's.)
You are providing lots of coincidences, but no actual evidence that there is a connection, and no demonstrable mechanism by which the connection can have been made.
...please provide the evidence.... Otherwise you just sound like the people who thought that the Old Irish name "Eber" sounds like Hebrew "Heber", therefore the Irish language is a dialect of Hebrew.
This must show how vitally and fatally you reduce the following complexities to be equated to that single simpletonic phonetic coincidence, not to mention the mad inference whence. Such may be a way of telling a lie in eloquence in contrast to silence, I fear.
The consilience of all coherence rather than mere coincidence of earthworm/rainworm with 地龍/雨龍 (the first in series) is quadruple, that is, four times of your helpless, hopeless example!
The transliteration mal-ttong-guri of 말똥구리 and my translation mar-dung-gyre (the last in series), practically coinciding in sounding and meaning, is no less than six times!
That proves nothing whatsoever. What is the mechanism whereby Korean could have calqued this (contrived and frankly unconvincing) phrase from gibberish made up of English words? It's not evidence, it's not etymology, and it's barely a Just So Story. -- Catsidhe(verba, facta)06:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, etymology is not a mere retrieval from recorded history, but a science that follows the scientific method, say, including the very stastical "consilience" in reasoning, esp. in humanized science. Too rigid requests for hard evidence may be a symptom of poor science such as positivism I personally despise so much. As to evidence, I wonder if you've read my response to Eiríkr Útlendi at the end of #grasshopper, the 4th in series.
I see a lot of Wunderkammer, not a lot of Scientific Method.
No-one is saying that you should stop doing it, just that we'd prefer that you stop the equivalent of standing on the street corner and continually yelling at whoever passes. -- Catsidhe(verba, facta)09:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strikingly indeed, I may be exactly "standing on the street corner and continually yelling at whoever passes." Advise me if it is immoral at all. --KYPark (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am so glad you "see a lot of Wunderkammer", though "not a lot of Scientific Method."
You have skipped the next part of his statement: "Posting them to your talk page would be much preferable."
Don't stop doing it. It would be a shame if you were to stop doing it, not least because it obviously gives you such joy. But it would be far more polite to make these extensive speculations in your own user space, leaving this public space for concrete points of specific etymology. -- Catsidhe(verba, facta)03:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just skipped it as you and I should say as concisely as possible.
Many users come to my agendas mostly to blame me as if I were a self-satisfying wizard at worst or embodiment of pseudoetymology, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, or the like speculation, at best, which in fact is a mere strawman they have invented again and again.
They may be quite happy with beetle as "biter" while I am happy to say why it may be wrong or why they may better review it. As boatlet, as it were, the beetle sounds as coherent in culture as both scarab and caravel are jointly. Why am I speculative and impolite at all to talk about that sort of things right here? Why should I better talk to myself in my private space unnoticed by others, to be polite?
BTW I take this opportunity to thank User:Wyang so much for creating 말똥구리 nice after this agenda.
Concision does not mean the elision of a statement so as to change its meaning. If so many people are getting annoyed or angry with you, please consider the possibility that the problem is not with them, maybe it's you. -- Catsidhe(verba, facta)05:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider if you are polite yourself if you try to make a mountain out of a molehill that is "concision" this time, which may be just nothing vital and fatal as the point is someone asking me to stop doing it right here, elsewhere than my space, contrary to your "No-one...." And I did link to the full text. Do you insist my concision was deceptive indeed? --KYPark (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Modified a little --KYPark (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "so many people are getting annoyed," yet not so many at all considering the global population. Sampling here may be too wrong, or as wild as voting here, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than getting annoyed, I've stopped reading this page except for the occasional glance. It's certainly getting cluttered with material not relevant to Wiktionary. As I suggested in January, perhaps you could publish your suggestions elsewhere? Dbfirs19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The global population is irrelevant; as far as I can tell, 100% of the other readers here are getting annoyed. If your audience is getting annoyed, it's time to change your tune or find a new audience.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like some editors, I think your pseudoetymological musings should no longer be posted to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium. Posting them to your talk page would be much preferable. Alternatively, instead of inventing crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy, you may choose to expand English Wiktionary with high-quality Korean entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your harsh private talk opposing or denying my freedom of posting to the open forum would sound a threat far more than its public version. Do you mean it? By yourself, your view is your freedom. Otherwise, it should be morally or socially tested.
I think it silly to inform or post those facts to my talk page, as you ask me; I have to do them publicly just for popular reference. They are not speculative "crackpot theories" I invent at all, but just objective observations no one can deny. In this regard, you are simply one of those who have repeatedly invented strawman arguments to harass me. I wonder what the "crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy" are precisely.
It seems more that it's you who's making straw man arguments. This has nothing to do with freedom of posting, and Wiktionary is not an open forum (see WT:NOT). I agree with Dan Polanski that you shouldn't be posting things in ES unless there is something concrete you want to improve about Wiktionary's content. Etymology Scriptorium is not for discussing etymologies, it's for finding ways to improve the etymology sections of Wiktionary entries. In other words, don't insinuate or imply, don't just say "how amazing is it that these two words are so similar" because that isn't of any use to Wiktionary. Suggest a concrete improvement, suggest a change to a specific entry. Anything else has no place on ES and only clutters it up, it should go on your own user page. And don't complain that you're being censored. You ARE being censored, just like everyone else on Wiktionary is being censored. Instead of trying to act like a victim, why don't you actually listen to what people say to you and try to improve your behaviour? Trying to act like you're right and everyone else is suppressing you won't get you anywhere, it will just breed more resentment and people will have no more sympathy for you (they already seem to have lost a lot of it, judging by the reactions I've seen). And as you know, Wiktionary operates by consensus, so I hope for your sake that you don't get people so frustrated about you that there comes a consensus to get you banned. It's up to you. —CodeCat18:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wiktionary is not a battlefield. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly (1), calmly and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult (2), harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or edit entries just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wiktionary, Wiktionarians or the Wikimedia Foundation. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban (3). [my numbering to refer to the following explicitly]
No one has threatened you with any kind of harm or legal action. Even if we did, we have no access to any information on your real identity. As far as we know, you're a very bright and precocious 10-year-old girl in Dubuque, Iowa who's really good at impersonating slightly-eccentric Asian gentlemen online.
Every one of us has lost patience with you at least once or twice, but I'm pretty sure none of us has the slightest intention to take that beyond normal online interactions. The only actual threats have centered around blocking you if you post inappropriate content in entries, which is consistent with our responsibility to protect the integrity of the site.
We've tolerated your posting of huge volumes of unnecessary charts, tables, images and irrelevant data in this space, explained the same things to you over and over again, carefully gone over your arguments point by point, and spent a great deal of effort trying to be fair with you. As I said, we've all fallen short of perfection in keeping the tone free of animosity on occasion, but on the whole I think we've been far more accommodating and reasonable than you could expect anywhere else. If you think we're being rude, try posting this kind of stuff on Usenet, and find out what real harassment and flame-wars are like. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CodeCat, as per WT:NOT, I'll try to remain civil myself. The above reply must be yours without signing. How happy and thankful I would be if an Iowan girl or whoever had talked that way on my behalf, surely from sympathy to me! At least one global friend, isn't it? Meanwhile, how unhappy you would be then, as you may require, whether or not greedily, the world be for you and against me!
Why don't you take this chance to "look back in anger" how unfair you may look to the eyes of an 10-year-old girl, regardless of the global readers in silence, when one of you, Prosfilaes, cries "100% of the other readers here are getting annoyed."
Every sane editor, other than vandals, is responsible for WT:QA (Quality Assurance), as it were, not to mention the admins. Professionally, you may vitally supspect me of the quality and relevance of my edits and talks, and fatally make mistakes and do harm to nothing but WT more often than not. At right, I'd like to suggest some likelihood, just based on your words.
The heading to this page does say "This is the place to cogitate on etymological aspects of the Wiktionary entries.", but please note that etymology is "the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time" (Wikipedia) or "the study of the historical development of languages, particularly as manifested in individual words" (Wiktionary), not the study of coincidental similarities between languages. Also, the discussion should be directed towards the improvement of Wiktionary entries, not the promulgation of an esoteric thesis. Why not put your efforts into writing a book on your theories, then it might reach a much wider audience than the few who still read this page? Dbfirs10:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An IP posted on the talk page complaining that the etymology wasn't correct. Their assertion seems to imply that a word can't be both from Sanskrit and from PIE, which of course is a bit silly. On the other hand, the current etymology does seem a bit doubtful. I don't know much about the Indic languages, but as far as I know, Sanskrit -i- can come from either PIE -i- or from a laryngeal between consonants. So it seems rather strange that the diphthong -ēw- that is given in the etymology somehow became -i- in Sanskrit, since that diphthong normally becomes -au-. I am also not sure about the consonant, Sanskrit -th- from PIE -dh-, but I don't know enough about the conditions that brought on voiceless aspirates in Sanskrit so that may be valid after all. Still, I do think this should be looked at more closely by someone who knows more. —CodeCat21:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the Sanskrit word मिथ्या (Mithya) does NOT come from some "Indo European" (invented) "mewd"( "to complain or care about something”) but means in Sanskrit "INCORRECT", "PRETENDING"; "WRONG"... which has nothing to do with the references you are giving.
The transliteration of this Sanskrit word can be done with Slavic (and not greek "mythos") word "motit" (to bother); "ti se motish"(you are wrong), "motnya" (interference - disorder)
Contrary to your view, the anonym may not imply that way and it may be rather you who "of course is a bit silly," which itself sounds quite uncivil to the global co-worker, who must have the right to say his view, right or wrong, without being accused for being silly.
Thanks to his/her concern, how nice it is that we (eg, me) can review the anomalous etymology of मिथ्या, μύθος, myth, etc., which is "of unknown origin" as above as per EtymOnLine!
In contrast, you phonologic analysis sounds almost useless (at least to me) to evaluate the wide-apart IE kinship, however sophisticated or scientific. As far as I know, Southern Asians are little or far less sophisticated in vowels.
I've jumped in not because I am "someone who knows more" but because I fear something may be fatally wrong with you as "our leading proto expert" (Mglovesfun). As such, the first thing you are wanted to do is to make clear that PIE and its descendants. Do you agree?
That was really for the benefit of anyone else who reads this. I've kind of given up on trying to get you to understand it... —CodeCat12:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RFV of the etymology.
Article says "from 5th century Latin, oxymoron." I did not search exhaustively, but every source I found (save for the circular wiki-sourced ones) says it's from the 17th century (1657 to be exact) – and that the Latin word is oxymorum. Grolltech (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perseus has ὀξύμωρον as the neuter (and masc.acc.) form in Liddell & Scott, but the lemma is ὀξύμωρος. Similarly, the lemma in Lewis and Short is oxymōrus, with oxymōrum being the neuter or the masc.acc. case. They don't have sources though.
"capti potvere capi cum felle dictum est: nam si hoc removeas, erit oxymorum."
I'd say it was used by Servius as a borrowing from Greek, and when it was brought into English the Greek origins were obvious, so it was "restored" to that form, rather than to English !"oxymorum". It may well have been a term of art in Greek throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, but I don't read Greek well enough to find out. Maybe an expert in Byzantine studies in rhetoric might be able to answer that.
The etymology is right. It wasn't used in English until the 17th century, but the post-classical Latin word is fifth-century (as above). Oxymorum was a variant form. Ƿidsiþ09:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up, Ƿidsiþ, I was following along just fine, but must have turned left when I should have taken the "etymology is right" leap of faith, and now I simply cannot find that turn.
After still more digging, I agree that the Latin oxymōrum(adj) is the neuter or masc. acc. of the lemma oxymōrus(adj). However, I am still skeptical that "oxymoron" is a Latin form at all. Now, please check me on this, as my feet are firmly planted in quicksand when I start to deal with inflections, but as best as I can tell, we get the following:
Note the absence of a Latin *oxymōron(adjective) in the above. Would the transition to the "noun use" (from the adjective) give rise to the "‑on" suffix in Latin? Or might the English word derive instead directly from either the Ancient Greek *ὀξύμωρον(*oxúmōron), or from its two root words? Grolltech (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just providing an update... With nobody jumping up to defend a Latin *oxymōron(adjective), I've updated the etymology section, so that it now reads:
First attested in the 17th century, noun use of 5th century Latinoxymōrum(adj), neut. nom. form of oxymōrus(adj), from Ancient Greekὀξύμωρος(oxúmōros), compound of ὀξύς(oxús, “sharp, keen”) (English oxy-, as in oxygen) + μωρός(mōrós, “dull, stupid”) (English moron(“stupid person”)).[1][2]
I don't know why you have an asterisk on ὀξύμωρον(oxúmōron, “oksumwron”), since it's right there as section A on the LSJ page for ὀξύμωρος at Perseus. Don't put too much faith in the Word Study Tool, since it's not part of the LSJ, but a separate utility that uses Perseus' massive, but not complete, databases. It's much better as a source for presence than absence: if it says a form exists, I believe it, but if it doesn't have it, sometimes that's an indication that the Word Study Tool's coverage is incomplete, not that the form doesn't exist. I would say that the noun ὀξύμωρον(oxúmōron, “oksumwron”) is a real word in Ancient Greek, and that it's the only word that was used in that language for what we know as an oxymoron, which is a noun. From the L&S entry at Perseus (admittedly only a single source, so maybe not the last word), it looks to me like they borrowed the adjective (which was equivalent to English oxymoronic), but not the noun. My take on the etymology in question is that modern oxymoron is the result of people changing the form of the Latin word to match the Ancient Greek. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of its main paradoxical sense and use, this Greek loanword may also sound a pun for "sour berries," remindful of Aesop's "sour grapes," as I suggested before. This added value may help explain why it is unusually preferred to the usual Latin form. That is, it was possibly influenced by Ancient Greek μόρον(móron) "blackberry."
BTW, why did you delete the inflection table of morus(“mulberry”) I compared and now we may need? Would you kindly restore it?
BTW again, why do you unusually transliterate ὀξύμωρος(oxúmōros) into "oksumwron" instead of "oxumōron" or "oxymoron"? It may make beginners perplexed quite a while.
Except that oxymoron comes from ὀξύμωρος(oxúmōros), based on μωρός(mōrós). The omega and the omicron are quite distinct. I also have my doubts as to whether Aesop used the words in question, but I haven't had time to track down the text. Besides, there's absolutely nothing oxymoronic about "sour" and "grape", but "sharp" and "slow" fit the profile perfectly. Your explanation would require a considerable change in the semantics to arrive at the same place already covered by the obvious derivation. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tracking down a text may not be possible, since it seems that the fables are only attested second-hand in other authors. After looking up μόρον(móron), I have another question: where are you getting the definition of μόρον as grape? It was used interchangeably for blackberry and mulberry, which are very similar in the appearance of the fruit, but grapes are completely different from either of those. Liddell & Scott's lexicon has no mention of the use of the term for grapes. Given that grapes are a very basic part of Greek (and Roman) culture, with widely-used terms for every part of the plant, it seems odd that anyone would use a more obscure term for another fruit to refer to them. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "grape" I'd make archaic, rather than corrupt, sense, hence "cluster or bunch" of either or whether grapes or berries, or the biblical "uvae et mori" you referred me to a year ago. Don't deny grapes are not berries which are quite inclusive and may be best represented by blackberries or moron. Currently and literally, I am wrong. But may I ask you to make best sense of my word? --KYPark (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are the following oxymoronic?
No-one is saying that you should stop doing it, just that we'd prefer that you stop [it]. -- Catsidhe ... 09:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't stop doing it. ... But it would be far more polite to make [it] in your own user space... -- Catsidhe ... 03:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Though you may not know the whole story of mine here, I've so often felt like a prey for witch hunting indeed, as was notorious in the West! --KYPark (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From New Latin from English? A really weird-looking Webster etymology which probably needs to be rewritten, but I just don't know enough about this particular word to rewrite it. Anyone got an OED at hand? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OED does not consider the word to be English (at least that's how I interpret their lack of an entry). I can find it in medical texts, used as a Latin adjective in the same way as dorsale etc. The English equivalent is carpal, of course. There seems to be very limited use in English. Should we relegate the word to a Latin entry (though it's "new Latin", not "proper" Latin)? I've found one modern usage in Hyman's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy - Page 260 and it seems to be used in some palaeontology books, but if I was editing these, I'd remove the "e" to make it English. I suppose the Latin "os carpale" gets shortened by medical people to make an "English" word, but perhaps we could add a note similar to that at os? Dbfirs09:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latin gladius "sword" appears unrelated and irrelevant to OF gleve, German Gleve, French and English glaive, and the like.
These are neither a sword nor a spear, to be precise, but something like a halberd (perhaps best known), bardiche, poleaxe, Chinese guan dao, and the like, which are simply a broad-bladed and long-handled battle axe, a dreadful cleaver of human bodies, remindful of the broad-bladed heavy-weight Chinese chef's knife, also know as "Chinese cleaver"!
Then what about the etymology of the Old French hence Old Germanic gleve? Phonetically and semantically most plausible is that it sounds akin to English cleave rather than Latin clava "club".
For one thing, *ϝειτεϝα would not produce ἰτέα, because the *ει would remain as-is. Perhaps *ϝιτεϝα is meant?
Also, both *wiþjōn and *wiþijōn seem unlikely. By Sievers' Law, only the former should exist, unless what is actually meant by the latter is *wīþijōn, with a long ī in the root. That would also explain better the derivation from both PIE *wit- and *weit-.
The OHG forms don't fit with the others; you'd expect gemination, just as in the other West Germanic languages. Is the root vowel long in these forms? This would explain better the occurrence of the second reconstructed Proto-Germanic form, provided that *wīþijōn (with long ī) was meant.
I can't find wit or withi in my OHG dictionary, but I do find witta(“band, bandage”) with an asterisk indicating that the nominative is unattested, which is the expected outcome of *wiþjōn or *wiþjō (I think OHG geminated consonants are usually devoiced, like modern Brücke). I also found wid(“twig, fetter”), a feminine i-stem which probably comes from *wiþiz and may or may not come from the same root. withi is likely an earlier form of that word, in which the change th > d had not yet occurred, and the analogical removal of the -i hadn't taken place yet. In Old Saxon I found witha(“rope”) as well (< *wiþō probably, because there is no gemination and Old Saxon tends to preserve -j-). I'm not sure what the inflection class of Old Norse við was, but the nominative could come from either *wiþiz, *wiþō (or would the u-umlaut have given *vyð?) or *wiþjō. My dictionary gives conflicting information about it... it suggests *wiþjō as the ancestor but says the word is an i-stem (with an ?). Old Norse viðja can't come from anything but *wiþjōn so that is a direct cognate to the Old English word. —CodeCat15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a phonologist. So I like to be convinced if OE wiþþe was pronounced as "IPA: /ˈwiθːe/" indeed. and how verifiably? To me, it seems too hard to verify it retrospectively with hard evidence.
Those who shared the same (say, Germanic) language neither shared the same set of runes nor alphabets. They began to diverge to make up a nation with vivid identity one way or another, say, nationalism in short!
That is to say, phonologists would better honestly admit their limit and never dishonestly go beyond that. Etymology in itself stems from real human culture rather than unreal reconstructed wholesale phonology. May megalomaniac phonologists be kept under control!
The following discussion has been moved from the page Talk:pentacle.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
M Godefroy's Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue Française et de tous ses dialectes has the following entries:
pentacol, pend a col, s. m., bijou, qui se pendait au cou:
Un pentacol d'un saphir, dedens une bourse, prisié .c. liv. (1328, Inv. de la royne Clem., ap. Laborde, Emaux.)
Un pentacol ou il avoit .xii. perles et .iii. esmeraudes, prisié .vi. escus. (1353, ib.)
Pentacol a ymages, d'un camahieu garny de perles. (1353, Invent. du garde-manger de l'argent., Compt. de l'argent., p. 307, Douët d'Arcq.)
Item, un pentacol d'un camahieu vert. (1380, Inv. de Ch. V, nº 2886, Labarte.)
Un pend a col, d'un camahieu vert, ou il a un ymage. (1400, Pièces relat. au règ. de Ch. VI, t. II, p. 355, Douët d'Arcq.)
pendacol, voir Pentacol.
pentacle, pan., s. m., chandelier à cinq branches:
Ah, j'avois quasi oublié le pentacle. (Jehan de la Taille, le Negrom., I, iii, éd. 1572.)
Je vais pour acheter le pentacle, les cierges, et les gommes pour les encensemens. (Ib., ib., II, iii.)
Leurs cernes (des magiciens), cercles et pantacles. (Pierre le Loyer, Hist. des Spectres, p. 696, éd. 1605.)
To me the French pentacol seems a very likely precursor to English pentacle, especially as pentagrams are quite uncommon among the pentacles of the early (pre-18th century) grimoires. Far more common are hexagrams, squares and equal-armed crosses. Pentacles were typically either worn around the neck or sewn onto the front of one's robe.
Godefroy seems to have utterly misunderstood the word pentacle, defining it as a "five-branched candlestick". The quotes he supplies don't bear this definition out:
"Ah, I had almost forgotten the pentacle."
"I'm going to buy the pentacle, candles, and gums for incenses."
"Their rings (of magicians), circles and pantacles."
Obviously these quotes refer to the usual pentacles employed in ceremonial magic, i.e. small pieces of parchment or other flat material marked with magic symbols. I presume Godefroy was unfamiliar with such outlandish objects. The OED 2nd Ed took him at face value, however, and didn't question his "candlestick" theory. Fuzzypeg (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term pentacol is explained in Londesborough's Miscellanea graphica: representations of ancient, medieval, and renaissance remains in the possession of Lord Londesborough (London, 1857) p. 62:
"It had then become the fashion to hang rich masses of jewelry to the collar, instead of fixing them to the dress, and under this form they were known by such names as pewlants and pentacols. Clemence of Hungary, queen of France, possessed, in 1328, 'a round fermail for a pentacol' (un fermail ront à pentacol) [...]"
I don't really see what's wrong with the etymology we have. Old French pentacol doesn't work in terms of the definition or in terms of the spelling. The thing with the Godefroy dictionary is he doesn't give definitions for words that are the same as in modern French, for example if you look at aigle, it doesn't mention that 99% of the time it simply means eagle as it does in Modern French (aigle). I'd be quite happy to believe this definition (five-branched can candelabra) is just plain wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nowhere near being prepared to start messing around with the etymology given on the entry page. I don't even know how wiktionary establishes reliability in these regards. I'm just doing some research for my own interest and I think it could be useful to wiktionary in future, so I'm posting it here.
As you can see, though, I do think something's wrong with the existing etymology. My reasoning is that "pentacle" is a specialist term in ritual magic, and until relatively recently it has referred to talismans suspended round the neck and typically not of five-point star design. A few grimoires from the 18th century onwards started making pentagrams more prominent in pentacle designs, but the real turning point came with the publication of E.A. Waite's and Pamela Coleman Smith's version of the tarot, in which the traditional suit of coins was renamed "pentacles", and these pentacles were depicted as metal discs with pentagrams on them. Even after that, scholarly sources for ceremonial magic continued to maintain that a pentacle was a talisman having any manner of design, and that it was not to be confused with a pentagram. The Theosophical dictionary, for instance, gives to the "pend a col" etymology. The Golden Dawn's pentacle design was a hexagram. And Aleister Crowley's "pantacle" was to be designed according to the magician's individual ingenuity. But the influence of the Waite-Smith tarot deck has been overwhelming, and nowadays people argue whether a pentacle is a pentagram, or a circled pentagram, whether it needs to have one point upwards, etc., etc. All spurious, to my mind. I've observed the new usage firming up quite a lot even in the last fifteen years, as a mass of poorly-researched books on magic have flooded the market.
Anyway, I'm not about to jump in and change the etymology currently given on the entry page. It's great to find someone who can comment on what I've found and point out potential problems. When I first visited this page wiktionary seemed like a ghost town, but it's really growing now and turning into a superb resource! Fuzzypeg (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know why "Old French pentacol doesn't work in terms of the definition or in terms of the spelling". The definition seems to fit: a bauble hung on a collar around the neck. The spelling seems close enough to me that it could be latinised as pentaculum, and I had presumed that its entry to English was via a latinised intermediary. But I'm not a linguist, so I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say. Fuzzypeg (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the proposition is that Old French pentacol gave Medieval Latin pentaculum, which was linked back to penta- because of the spelling, which is where the modern meaning of pentacle of a five-pointed star comes from. As you can see, the older meaning of pentacle means 'a charm' which as far as I can tell, is the same one found in Middle French. FWIW I found a 1547 citation for Middle French pentacle which actually predates the Trésor de langue française informatisé's 'before 1555' one. Depends how long before 1555 their one is, I suppose (link). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I found an Old Italian citation of pentacol from 1478, in a specifically magical context. I don't know how this relates to the Old French, but I can guess how it relates to the English pentacle. Fuzzypeg (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian term (pentacolo) does seem to have two etymologies - either via the French "pendacle" or somesuch (for the amulet), or from Latin or maybe modern English for the five-pointed symbol. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pent-a-col. Bijoux qui comme nos médaillons se portaient au cou, et s'attachaient aux colliers dont ils devenaient la pièce principale.
[Then he lists some citations: 1328, 1353, 1380, all familiar from the above discussion. Then:]
Lorsque le pent-à-col représentait une devise, un blason, une image religieuse, politique ou autre, on lui donnait le nom d'affiche et d'enseigne. D'ordinaire, ce genre de médaillon se portait dans les cheveux ou au chapeau. Ceux qui suivent sont du genre pent-à-col.
1560. ― Une enseigne d'or où il y a plusieurs figures dedens, garnie alentour de petites roses (Inventaire de la vaisselle et des bijoux de Henri II).
― Une enseigne d'or, le fond de lappis, et une figure dessus d'une Lucrèce (Idem).
― Une enseigne garnie d'or où il y a une Cérès appliquée sur une agathe, le corps d'argent et l'habillement d'or (Idem).
― Un enseigne d'ung David sur ung Goliat, la teste, les bras et les jambes d'agathe (Idem).
Here are some examples of pentacles from various versions of the Clavicula Salomonis or Key of Solomon, the most famous of all grimoires. Notice that few of these designs are based on a pentagram. The earliest reference I've found to pentaculum uses it for this figure: A hexagram-based design is typical for pentacles in the earlier grimoires. Fuzzypeg (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French pentacol sounds such a pun of pentacle as to make sense of "necklace" (easily ignorant of the number of points) and even "five necks, heads" (easily contrasted with pentagon). Then, its influence on Latin pentaculum could or should be denied in spite of some favorable temporal attests.
BTW, I wonder why talk is still red. Is that newbie as unwelcome as this knowbie, myself, perhaps because of the old age, talkativeness, or what else in common?
Huh? I don't follow what you're trying to say, KYPark. Why do you call pentacol a "pun" of pentacle? In what way does pentacol "make sense of" necklace and five necks/heads? Who is "ignorant of the number of points"? In what way are you suggesting pentacol can or should be contrasted with pentagon? How does all this lead you to the conclusion that its influence on pentaculum should be "denied"? I presume that by attest you mean attestation. You've expressed your thoughts in such a shorthand form that I really have no idea what you're talking about. Fuzzypeg (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, I make a point that "French pentacol sounds ... a pun of pentacle," as far as my judgment goes, whether you or others agree or not. It would be good enough to help rethink your point of view. You have to listen to others until you are absolutely sure of yours, or until everything is cleared. Is that fair enough, my friend? --KYPark (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pun is a wordplay on unrelated words of similar sound. But words often sound similar because they are closely related. Why do you think pentacle and pentacol are unrelated? Fuzzypeg (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say I think pentacle and pentacol are unrelated?
You ask without say I and I'd ask in turn with say I.
I never said or suggested that sort of thing, hence perhaps your strawman argument.
The "unrelatedness" sounds your own taking, if not making, for circular argument in addition to that strawman argument I am so sick and tired of that I'd not respond!
@ KYPark presumably because he/she has read what you wrote: "Then, its influence on Latin pentaculum could or should be denied in spite of some favorable temporal attests." Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably not because of that. Just ahead of that, I said "French pentacol sounds ... a pun of pentacle" from pentaculum. As such, both are essentially related! Simply, the pun sounds similar to, but means different from, the origin. The more different, likely the more fun of the pun. In isolation, puns make no exciting sense or difference. A word and its puns should remain closely related to make such sense.
I apologise for any offence taken. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying (unsuccessfully) to understand what you mean. There is clearly a language barrier here, and it would help if you explain very carefully what you mean, rather than assuming bad faith on my part. Fuzzypeg (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need you apologise to me but agree with me that pentacolcould sound a pun in practice, in reallife anyway. Otherwise, no need I have to say any more to you anyway, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The said `language barrier`, etc.
The language barrier in general is everywhere, needless to say, in the light of language as use (Wittgenstein 1953) in triple context (Ogden & Richards 1923). The `psychological context` would be hardest to expose or explain, followed by the situational, environmental, or `external context`. This is mainly why I personally despise artificial intelligence, grammarians, phonologists, and so on, doing without such contexts as the main language barriers.
Both contextualist views must share a great deal. One must influence the other. But few would confirm that, hence a sort of confirmation bias as well as language barrier they suffer so much!
Such cognitive biases appear far more widespread than commonly known. In general, the older, the more stubborn, the tougher biased, the tighter closed, the narrower minded, the shorter sighted, the stiffer necked, the poorer in learning and adapting, ...! Then the native may be not always a better speaker-cum-listener than foreingers, doing without any language barrier.
The dictionary is to help overcome it, resolve the ambiguity or anomaly inevitable of language. Such is language. Then, lexicologists would be proud indeed to help found the sounder society, would they do that!
Suppose there were neither oxymoron nor pentacol. Then, should either be suddenly newly pronounced, you would try to make best sense and use of it, as far as your knowledge goes. The one would probably make sense of `sour berry` perhaps remindful of sour grapes, while the other of `pentacle` or `necklace`. This would be where a pun may come in when there are already oxymoron, pentacol, and the like.
The pun in itself makes sense different from, hence relative to, its origin. Difference is relativity, in essence! As such, I would better have mentioned the pun as relative or related to, as evolving from, the orgin. To say pentacol sounds a pun of pentacle is to say both are essentially relative or related.
It may be well said in this respect or geneologically that: The pun is a cognate to its origin! Then, to say, in the manner of circular reasoning, "Why do you think pentacol and pentacle are unrelated?" is to say simply, "You are fatally wrong!" To say that to me is to make a strawman of my unreal view so as to be unreasonably scathed or cut down.
If pentaculum were intended to mean pentagram, why is a separate term employed, distinct from pentagone which clearly does mean pentagram? Why the curious usage of pentaculum and the design based on six rather than five points? Do we assume that the author couldn't count or didn't know what "five" was in Greek, even though ritual magic of this variety was very much the province of the intellectual elite, not the ignorant or unread?
The OED's etymology seems largely premised on trying to match seventeenth-century references to a "pentacle of Solomon" with the fourteenth-century pentangle attributed in Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight as "a syngne þat salamon set sumquyle in bytoknyng of trawþe". There are many legendary objects and symbols associated with Solomon, especially in the realm of magic. In the magical literature objects such as the ring of Solomon, the seal of Solomon and the various pentacles of Solomon are often treated as quite separate things (see, e.g., the 17th-century Legemeton, which lists a "sexangled ffigure", a "pentagonall ffigure", a ring and a "secret seal"). Solomon is such a ubiquitous character that we need not assume that Gawain's pentangle and the magician's pentacle are the same, just because Solomon gets a mention in both contexts. Fuzzypeg (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pair of pincers
A pair of iron scissors dating from the Han Dynasty
A pair of scissors from the 2nd century Asia Minor
Regardless of its main paradoxical sense and use, this Greek loanword may also sound a pun for "sour berries," remindful of Aesop's "sour grapes," as I suggested before. This added value may help explain why it is unusually preferred to the usual Latin form. That is, it was possibly influenced by Ancient Greek μόρον (móron) "blackberry."
.jpg)
A hexagram-based design is typical for pentacles in the earlier grimoires. Fuzzypeg (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The said `language barrier`, etc.