Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2017/August

Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/eni

@CodeCat are you suggesting that it comes from a different PIE root entirely? Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we're even talking about a root. However, the etymology you put there was incorrect, it was missing an explanation for the final -i. —CodeCa t 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So should I use Der instead of Inh? Or is *eni from a word completely unrelated to PIE *h1en? Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 23:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the preposition triggers nasal mutation in both Goidelic and Brythonic, why is it reconstructed with a final i at all? Shouldn't it just be *en? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr, CodeCat Indeed, if it was indeed *eni why do the descendents fail to lenite after the preposition?

@Angr as for "why is it reconstructed with a final i at all?" I think that came from extracting the /i/ from *enigenā and *enistī etc. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 14:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like the prefix was *eni- but the preposition was *en. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

salary from salt

It appears that the usual etymology is not as unproblematic as usually thought, how to present this information in our entry? Crom daba (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the blogger says salarium is definitely derived from salarius and sal. The difficulty is explaining why. The entry currently chooses the interpretation preferred by the blogger: wages used to buy salt. (And that's the one that the OED gives.) It would be worth explaining why the other interpretation, wages consisting of salt, is implausible. — Eru·tuon 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little bit more. Could use refs for works that give the dubious explanation ("money consisting of salt"). — Eru·tuon 19:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIE entry *gleh₁i-

@JohnC5, CodeCat could either of you have a look at *gleh₁i-? I cleaned it up and added several entries that cite it as its root. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be moved to *gleh₁y- at the very least. Roots always show sonorants in their consonantal form. There's also a few cases of l where it should be l̥ in the descendants. —CodeCa t 23:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, moved. Please have at it with the zero-grade l. --Victar (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

polony

Self-referencing etymology:

A corruption of Bologna, possibly influenced by polony.

Unclear what it means ... could it mean "possibly influenced by Polony"? Anyway, if anyone knows ... Mihia (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Germanic *ēsaz

Very blatant neuter. Move it? Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Leasnam (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*ferhwō I highly suspect is a neuter as well. Move it too? Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 17:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ban

I just added a second etymology to the Dutch entry for ban. The first etymology doesn't seem to fit the current use and it's plural form (bannen) makes no sense to me. You can't say:

We hebben meerdere bannen uitgedeeld.

We dole out several bans.

This makes no sense whatsoever. We'd say bans and that seems incompatible with the first etymology.
My theory is that ban re-entered the Dutch language with the introduction of forum software and multiplayer video games in the 90s which, at the time, would often not be available in Dutch or poorly translated. While forum interfaces are now usually available in Dutch, it seems some words like topic and ban stuck. Even thread didn't die out. Thread is sometimes (somewhat jokingly) translated as draadje. (wire)
So I just added this second etymology, I'm fairly sure about it but I can't back it up. You can refer to http://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/ban1 for what I believe to be the first etymology. Anyone who feels like weighing in, please do. W3ird N3rd (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic كُرْكُم (kurkum), Tibetan གུར་ཀུམ (gur kum) and Sanskrit कुङ्कुम (kuṅkuma)

What were the paths of transmission? The Sanskrit term is found in w:Sushruta so I imagine it's the original form, so where did the rhotacism happen? Also does it come from Dravidian? Crom daba (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Cool, something I can help with!) [1] mentions an Akkadian 𒌑𒆪𒄀𒆸𒈾 (kurkanū) that is "related" to Sanskrit कुङ्कुम (kuṅkuma). Perhaps some common local substrate? Akkadian at least clears up the rhotacism. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 14:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I guess Tibetan is not from Sanskrit after all. Crom daba (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations: 1) This is a trade item, and names of trade items tend to follow the items themselves along trade routes. This is a south Asian tropical plant that can be grown in milder parts of western Asia, but isn't really happy there, so one would expect the name to have come from the areas it's native to. On the other hand, 2) There's a great deal of overlap between the terms for turmeric and saffron, which are both used for similar purposes (as a dye/food coloring with a similar hue, and as a spice). For instance, IIRC, any reference to "saffron robes" in east Asian countries isn't referring to robes dyed with actual saffron (Crocus sativus), but with turmeric (Curcuma longa), aka Indian saffron. If you look at the entry for Ancient Greek κρόκος (krókos), you'll see that it's tied in to the same network of names. I suspect that whatever the original form was began as the name for one species, and was transferred to the other in areas where the original species didn't grow well (there are some areas that can grow both, but generally it's either one or the other). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fardo [IT, PT, ES...]: no trace of فَرْد (fard), lots of traces of فَرْض (farḍ)

I found that the etymology for the three languages in that page derived the word from Arabic فَرْد (fard), which is in every one of its senses unrelated to 'fardo'. I looked it up in the Coromines dictionary and quickly found that thereat was written farḍ (ie, probably somewhere along the chain someone must have transcribed sloppily and ended up with fard).

It is edited now, along with the other common etymological proposal, and I hope you like it more than the old version unsigned comment by User:Gfarnab 13:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of tire1 in English

The 1st etymology of tire in English written in the article seems questionable. The OED states this regarding its etymology:

Old English tēorian ‘fail, come to an end’, also ‘become physically exhausted’, of unknown origin.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tire

Also, the page for the Proto-Germanic word this article asserts it came from, said the origin is uncertain, with the stated Proto-IE word being qualified with "possibly". Will update the entry to reflect this uncertainty.--Beneficii (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lock and load

Etymology section, especially after this edit, is dozens of times longer than the definitions, and now an encyclopedic field of conflict over etym theories. - Amgine/^t·e 21:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've condensed the etymology. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Amgine/^t·e 23:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Siam

No Southeast Asian intermediate? Wyang (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyang: Added. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIE entry *kes-

@JohnC5, CodeCat could either of you again have a look at the new entry *kes- for me? Thanks! --Victar (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English ventouse

From Middle English? Wyang (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the wiki page says the modern instrument was invented in the 1950s, probably not so much. More the point, a Google Book search for ventouse restricted to the 19C doesn't seem to have any hits in English. Lots in French Medical Dictionaries, but when there's something in English, it's always something along the lines of 'The French for cupping-glass is "ventouse."'. I have found only two examples of "the ventouse" in the 19C, and I can't even see one of them. (Maybe someone in another country would have better luck.) The other is in Medical Thermometry and Human Temperature (Edward Séguin, 1876), and even there in the sentence "If the ventouse is partly of glass...", the word is italicised, hinting that it's still considered foreign. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 03:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wyang (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually attested in Middle English as ventose, ventouse, ventuse (“an instrument for drawing blood or other matter out of the body, a cupping glass”). The modern instrument may have been invented recently, but the word is much older. It's just a case of an old word being applied to a new contraption. Leasnam (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collins actually has it coming into English from Old French. It's fuzzy. It may have been borrowed early and remained under the radar, or it's possible the word fell out of use then was reborrowed again later. In cases where that isn't clear, I am inclined to favour the word lived on. That's just my position though. Leasnam (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leasnam Any English citations between ~1500 and 1850? DTLHS (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any in Google Book, no, but that is not necessarily definitive. GBooks has its positives and negatives. The last use in the ME dictionary is from 1475 (a re-use ?). That's only 25 year difference. Can't imagine it could have been forgotten completely in so short a span of time. Leasnam (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked through Google Books, I couldn't find one single cite in English, at all, unless it was in a French/English dictionary, in which case it translating "cupping-glass". And the MED's nearest hit is 'ventuous' adj., "causing flatulence". I can't find any evidence that it was even a Middle English word, but stand to be shown contrary evidence. In any case, the word for the modern medical device, I think we can say safely, was not inherited from Middle English. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 04:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to know how to use wildcard characters correctly. The entry is here. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your replies. Wyang (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

امرأة

مر What are the root letters of اِمْرَأَة (imraʔa), if it's of Semitic origin? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it, it's {{ar-root|م|ر|ء}} . --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIE entry *-r̥

@JohnC5, CodeCat I created an entry for the heteroclitic r/n-stem noun suffix. That OK with you guys? --Victar (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: Thanks for making this entry. It might be nice to have a usage note about the different declensions. Sorry for the delay; I've been away for a few weeks. —John C5 15:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

اسم

Derived from Proto-Semitic *šim but what are the root letters? In H. Wehr found under two letters س-م (s-m) with no wāw, yāʾ or hamza? Should that be س-ي-م (s-y-m)? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anatoli. In the verbs سَمَّى (sammā) (form II, فَعَّلَ (faʕʕala)) and أَسْمَى (ʔasmā), it is behaving as if the root is s + m + y/w/ء. But I don't know what linguists consider the root to be. I also don't know if there are any further verbs or other words formed from this root. --Z 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z. H. Wehr must have found it difficult to determine as well. s-m-y seems to be the most likely trio. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish oppilas

Is oppilas really from lapsi? There is no etymology under oppilas, but lapsi lists it as a 'derived' term (not a compound). I could understand lapsi reducing to -las in the nominative (though that doesn't seem characteristic of Finnish), but in the inflection this continues as a typical long-vowel suffix -laa-, with no trace of the /p/. --Hiztegilari (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit too fanciful to me, so I've removed it. Does @Tropylium have anything to add? —CodeCa t 10:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such relation precisely, no. It's a modern (19th C.) coinage, not some kind of an old native formation. It could have been motivated as back-formation from the partitive oppilasta (: oppilapsi?), but that would need clear comments to the effect from the source (Lönnrot). --Tropylium (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the irregularity lasta was the only thing that made it even slightly plausible to me. --Hiztegilari (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely wrong. I corrected the entry. We should probably automatically flag all etymologies provided without sources, at least in exotic languages with only few editors. --Espoo (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi इरादतन (irādtan)

Is this from Arabic إِرَادَةً (ʔirādatan), indefinite singular accusative of إِرَادَة (ʔirāda)? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 21:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense; it could be an adverbial accusative that we do not have an entry for yet. — Eru·tuon 21:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erutuon: K, thanks! I don't have my paper Hindi dictionary on me right now, so I had to ask. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 23:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aulic

Is the second etymology from the same Latin source? The senses don't seem similar. DTLHS (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. I bet the ultimate source for the second etymology is αὐλός (aulós, “pipe”), with a remarkably different sense from αὐλή (aulḗ, “courtyard”). — Eru·tuon 06:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

surfeit

Since the Old French infinitive is incorrectly given, i wonder if its meanings are incorrectly given too.

Étymol. et Hist. 1174-78 sorfeire « augmenter le prix » (Etienne de Fougères, Livre des Manières, éd. R. A. Lodge, 826); 1704 fig. « faire trop valoir » (Trév.). Dér. de faire1*; préf. sur-*; cf. en a. fr. le part. passé subst. sorfait « excès » 1155 (Wace, Brut, éd. I. Arnold, 3905) − xiiies. ds Gdf. et T.-L. et le verbe sorfaire « avoir l'avantage sur » (1160-74 (Chron. Ducs Normandie, éd. C. Fahlin, 33413) − xiiies. ds Gdf. et T.-L. Fréq. abs. littér.: 27. Bbg. Quem. DDL t. 30. http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/surfait

Please explain to me how dʰh₁ can evolve into f. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/fakiō

--Espoo (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial PIE dʰ normally turned into F in Latin. dʰ > θ > f. The laryngeal became the short /a/ in facio. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 02:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ἐρυθραία

Something seems to be missing from the etymology: ἐρῠθρός (eruthrós) +‎ -ῐ́ᾱ (-íā) should give **Ἐρῠθρῐ́ᾱ (**Eruthríā) rather than Ἐρῠθραίᾱ (Eruthraíā). --Wiki Tiki 89 20:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formations with a stem in -αί- are usually derived from forms ending in -ᾱ/η, so more specifically it's derived from ἐρῠθρᾱ́. Anglom (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anglom: Maybe what you mean is that they are derived from first-declension stems (which for this adjective is only the feminine)? In other words, would a masculine first-delension noun also produce -αί- (-aí-)? --Wiki Tiki 89 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I got it. It comes from Ἐρυθρά (Eruthrá, “the Red [Sea]”). --Wiki Tiki 89 17:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIE 'sun'

Why do we reconstruct *sóh₂wl̥ and not *séh₂wl̥? At least Greek and Baltic both point to *ā < *eh₂. Checking a few sources shows generally an e-grade in the literature, too. --Tropylium (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/krāwō

The Germanic reconstruction contains w, but this does not show up in the descendants. Instead, there's a mixture of w, j and h, which points to an original hiatus (compare *sēaną). Moreover, there's a long ā, which was a very rare phoneme in Proto-Germanic. It's much more likely to be ē. So this should probably be renamed to *krēō or *krēǭ. —CodeCa t 15:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes. The associated verb would undoubtedly be *krēaną, so the adjusted form fits nicely ! Leasnam (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think *krēǭ as well...it's a weak fem in OSX, a weak fem & weak masc in OE, yet strong fem in GOH. HOWEVER, there also appears a weak fem in GMH, which might bend back to an unrecorded GOH term (?) Leasnam (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Germanic *dīsiz

How can this be from PIE *dʰēs- (more likely *dʰeh₁s-)? KarikaSlayer (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can't quite simply. Leasnam has a history of adding weird etymologies to Germanic terms. —Rua (mew) 21:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just the messenger, please do not shoot me. Leasnam (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*dīsiz was created in 2012 (the early days...), before *dʰeh₁s- existed (2015), and honestly, I haven't added to or looked at the entry for *dīsiz since then. I'm sure there are plenty more instances like these from me, so... Leasnam (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, where did the i- come from in some of the descendants? --Wiki Tiki 89 22:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kroonen mentions a synonymous s-stem *idis, pl. *idisiz in West Germanic. Either they could be connected through an amphikinetic s-stem *h₁édʰis, oblique *h₁dʰiés-, or the i- (< e-) is just a variant of the Old European a- prefix and we're dealing with a substrate word. KarikaSlayer (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein

I'm unsatisfied with the naive analysis that it means "one stone", partly because that doesn't make much sense as a name, and partly because in Yiddish the name always seems to be pronounced אײַנשטיין (aynshteyn), whereas the word "one" is איין (eyn). There is of course a chance that the Yiddish pronunciation is a less than accurate calque of the German, or a relatively recent modification of a previous Yiddish איינשטיין (eynshteyn), but let's consider the possibility that אײַנשטיין (aynshteyn) represents a correct original form. There is a verb אײַנשטיין (aynshteyn) in Yiddish (i.e. morphologically equivalent to German einstehen), but I'm not sure how that could have become a name. For some reason I have a gut feeling that this is a word for some kind of precious stone, but I haven't yet found any evidence of this. @Kolmiel: Do you have any ideas on what Ein- could mean? --Wiki Tiki 89 15:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any connection with German einsteinen (“to surround or wall in with stone(s); mark out with landmarks”) ? Leasnam (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one source with that theory, and another that mentions both, with the "one stone" interpretation specific to a Jewish context. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I really wish dictionaries like this cited their sources. I'm still having trouble believing that "one stone" would be used as an "ornamental name", so if it really is also an ornamental name, I still have a gut feeling it would refer to a particular precious stone. The "surrounded with stone" sounds plausible to me, however. This is why I'd like to see what their evidence is that it has two separate origins. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persian آهسته (âheste)

Browsing random Stack Exchange links, I came to [this question about the word in the title (or most likely so)]. I tried looking for the etymology of the word to contribute it over there, but to no avail: the entry here at آهسته has none. Is it known? Can we add it?

Note: This is cross-posted from the Tea Room, where I posted it at first because I forgot this place existed.

MGorrone (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

united we stand, divided we fall

What is the etymology of this proverb? I don't know. --TNMPChannel (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

w:United we stand, divided we fall Шурбур (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shipwreck

Is it fair to say that this came about as an alteration of shipwrack influenced by the word wreck? If so, I will add that to the etymology. Tharthan (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what the majority of other dictionaries also say Leasnam (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I modified the etymology. Tharthan (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

levis, Latin, etymology 2, and etymon/cognate λεῖος

The levis entry, under Latin#Etymology 2, currently states that the sense of "smooth" comes from Ancient Greek λεῖος, and then proceeds to trace it back to PIE. The entry at λεῖος, however, has no etymological info. Now, if we are to take the etymon route, I would expect λεῖος to give *lēus or *līus in Latin. Therefore, that etymon cannot be correct. To keep the Greek as etymon, we would at least have to assume the borrowing happened from a dialect where the adjective had a digamma, and therefore was *λεῖϝος, but I have no source to support this form, and that would still give *lēvus or *līvus, so we'd have to assume an adjective changed declensions across Greek dialects, having something like *λεῦς, *λεϝός in some dialect whereas Attic had λεῖος λείου. This seems decidedly far-fetched. Therefore, I suspect the etymon route is bogus. It could still be a cognate though. The PIE root *ley-w could give both *λεῖϝος>λεῖος and *leywis>lēvis. I do not have anything that justifies the assumption that an earlier form had the digamma: my references (Rocci dictionary and the lexicons at perseus) at most give the PIE etymon, without saying *λεῖϝος is actually attested in any dialect. So it appears that the cognate route is only supported by similarity in meaning. So I was wondering:

What else supports this cognate hypothesis, if anything? Are there other cognates of these two words that support the claim they are indeed cognate?
Is lēvis actually a descendant of λεῖος or just a cognate?
How come the Greek and Latin adjectives belong to different declensions? What was the PIE root's behaviour: thematic or athematic? And how did it change to athematic in Latin or to thematic in Greek?
Is it possible that the Greek word is actually from just *ley-, without the -w, and that the former was a thematic adjective whereas *ley-w- became athematic for some reason?

— This unsigned comment was added by MGorrone (talk • contribs) at 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding whether the Greek word was from *ley-, which I guess means it was something like *ley-os, that doesn't work because ordinarily *y was deleted between vowels (*y → *h → ∅). The expected reflex of such a form would be *λέος (*léos). Between vowels, only geminate *yy survived in Greek (often from assimilation of *wy, as in βαρεῖα (bareîa) from *barew-ya, or of *hy from earlier *sy, as in ἀλήθεια (alḗtheia) from *alātʰeh-ya). A PIE form *leywos might be expected to assimilate to *leyyos, although I can't recall any examples of *yw at the moment, in which case it would yield λεῖος (leîos), without an earlier form *λεῖϝος (*leîwos). — Eru·tuon 22:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search yields οἶος (oîos, “single”), from *óywos. So yes, *yw becomes *yy. — Eru·tuon 22:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erutuon: Then the Rocci dictionary would be mistaken in giving the etymology as "λεῖϝος, ind.e. leiuo", right? MGorrone (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*yw doesn't become *yy. Rather, the w is simply lost, leaving the diphthong in a hiatus. The end result is the same, but it's by a different route. Greek dialects that preserve w would still have it in these words. —Rua (mew) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeCat: Hmm, I guess it is just an assumption on my part that the intermediate stage was *yy. Are there any examples of words attested as having a diphthong and ϝ (w)? — Eru·tuon 04:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I found this that says «Beside the o-stem in *λεῖϜος Latin has in lēvis `smooth' an i-stem, which may have replaced as lĕvis, brevis a. o. an older u-stem; *λεῖϜος too therefore first for *lei-u̯-os? The stemvowel is uncertain; beside lei- also lēi- has been supposed, cf. πλε(ί)ων \< *πληΐων and Schulze KZ 28, 266 n. 1 = Kl. Schr. 434 n 1; cf. W. -Hofmann s. 2. lēvis. Connection with the root of λείμαξ seems probable; s. also 2. λίς and λιτός.». Googling for λεῖϝος seems to suggest the assumption of that digamma is ubiquitous, though no-one says the form is attested. MGorrone (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hernois

Are we certain that this term is from Old Norse? Different sources seem to suggest that such an origin is possible, but not certain. I am well aware that etymology can often be a field of guesses, but is there something inherent in the word that points to the Old Norse word? Tharthan (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one of the things etymologists consider is WHERE a word first appears. I do not know anything specific about this word, but it may be that it shows up in French first in the North, particularly in Normandy...such an occurrence would strongly indicate that the word could be from Old Norse. If the word showed up first along the border with Spain, for instance, that would leave Old Norse an unlikely candidate. Hope this helps Leasnam (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll modify the etymology to make it clear that the precise origin of the term is uncertain, and then I'll see if I can find where and when the term is first attested. Tharthan (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ham

Are we sure that Old French ham comes from Frankish *haim, and not from Old English hām? Tharthan (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It could come from either. It's customary, however, that whenever a word of clear germanic origin appears in Old French, given no other clear indication of exact origin (--which in this case I am not sure exists or not...), to assume it came from Frankish due to the presence of the Franks. Old French ham does appear rather late...12th century, so if it's attested first in Normandy, then that would shore up support for an Old English borrowing. Leasnam (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the 12th century, the English pronunciation was already /hɔːm/, so the borrowing can't be very late either. —Rua (mew) 15:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct (for the SE of England) if it were borrowed 12 c. It's quite possible that it was borrowed earlier and only appears in Fr in 12 c...we simply do not know. I don't see the environment being more favourable to borrowing English terms BEFORE 1066 than after, but you never know. I'm okay with leaving the etymology as is. All sources I've seen point to Frk Leasnam (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/aryos

RFV of the etymology.

This looks like an attempt to resuscitate the supposed relationship of the Celtic terms with Proto-Indo-Iranian *áryas. I don't think anyone has taken this seriously for a number of decades. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matasovic still seems to favor this etymology. --Victar (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The contribs of User:יבריב

Sorry to dump this here, but contributions of יבריב (talk • contribs) are frequently ill-formatted and/or wrong. Some of them I do not have the ability to judge like Ancient North Arabian 𐪑𐪁𐪆𐪕𐪚 (ʾls²dy). @Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Vorziblix. —John C5 01:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have the ability to deal with hardly any of his edits, besides ones that are obviously wrong. Vorziblix can fix up all the Egyptian, but some of the obscure Semitic lects are just incredibly difficult to deal with. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I revert, the more I rue their lack of care for the subtlety in etymology. Hardly anything is correct as is. This user seems quite irascible and hard of understanding. I've never seen someone blocked and nuked, but I'm strongly considering it now. —John C5 04:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out the edit warring in irc and I believe the user was at least briefly blocked. - Amgine/^t·e 04:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The root of the problem is that they don't speak English well enough to understand our standards and policies, but they're convinced they're so advanced that they don't have to. They're basically vacuuming up any source they can find and trying to make entries out of the raw data. I don't think we have to prove that they're wrong on any individual detail if it's obvious that they're being reckless- it's basically the same story as Uther Pendrogn and AwesomeMeos, except we can never be sure that they're getting the message (with those two, you knew they understood what you were saying, even if they were deliberately tuning it out). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the language barrier has anything to do with it. Talking to him in Hebrew does not yield any better results. He does not seem to learn by example, or at least doesn't care to look at examples. And he does not seem to have any desire to improve his edits. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ancient North Arabian 𐪑𐪁𐪆𐪕𐪚 (ʾls²dy), from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article on Ancient North Arabian, the language consists of a number of dialects (Dadanitic, Dumaitic, Hasaitic, Hismaic, Safaitic, Taymanitic, and Thamudic). We have codes for all of them in Module:languages/datax, and unlike Ancient North Arabian (see Module:languages/data3/x), they have actually been assigned scripts and a language family. Maybe that, and the fact that Ancient North Arabian doesn't yet have a category, means that 𐪑𐪁𐪆𐪕𐪚 (ʾls²dy) should be relocated to another language, assuming it is attested. — Eru·tuon 06:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for letting me know he’s started up again; I’ll go through and fix up the Egyptian entries… Anyone know whether Akkadian 𒄭𒆪𒌒𒈭 (added by this user) is really the correct/attested cuneiform rendering of ḫikuptaḫ? In Knudtzon 1915, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, the word is given once as ^aluḫi-ku-up-ta-aḫ(!) and once as ḫi(!)-ku-ta-aḫ(!) (exclamation marks in the original), but I’m not versed in cuneiform and so can’t judge if 𒄭𒆪𒌒𒈭 matches up. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorziblix: So the transcriptions you've mentioned would be 𒄭𒆪𒌒𒋫𒀪 (ḫi-ku-up-ta-aḫ) and 𒄭𒆪𒋫𒀪 (ḫi-ku-ta-aḫ). The user's version is 𒄭𒆪𒌒𒈭 (ḫi-ku-up-taḫ), which is conceivable as a spelling, but I have no idea whether it is attested. —John C5 17:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suspect יבריב has been reverse-transliterating rather than looking for attested cuneiform spellings (and likewise for Egyptian hieroglyphs, and possibly other scripts). --Wiki Tiki 89 17:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnC5: Thanks. Does the ^alu in the first transcription not correspond to any symbol? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorziblix: There is no official policy, but we've currently been omitting determinatives from entry names for Hittite, Akkadian, and Sumerian. —John C5 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is still creating entries in Egyptian that he knows are wrong or problematic, with the expectation that @Vorziblix will fix them. This is not really acceptable behaviour, but what is a reasonable way to regulate this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that Μετάknowledge but I found that he is STILL enganging in childish crass personal attacks something you still accuse me unfairly so. One of them was this one אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשוה־לו גם־אתה which in it he overally says something of this nature " I don't listen to your foolishness fool! " it's in his talkpage. I report him. His ways of operatings seems to be intentional misinformation and vandalism propaganda. — This unsigned comment was added by Hanno the Navigator (talk • contribs) at 03:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

You started the confrontation, even if he did add ridiculous IPA transcriptions to Egyptian entries. A better thing to do would simply have been to fix or revert the IPA, and start a more polite discussion with him directly and/or notify an admin. By the way, that Hebrew is simply quoting Proverbs 26:4, if you want a better translation. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far I don’t mind fixing them too much, as some of these are entries we should have (even if they need to be moved and rewritten from scratch). However, if I miss anything, we’ll probably have some unfortunate errors on our hands. He has said he’ll try to hold back, so maybe that’ll go better.

Unrelatedly, I’m not sure what to do with ḫʾmwꜣst-wꜣẖswtymjmpt-skḫrpꜣtꜣtḫʾ-mnḫpr-tsꜣmsnfrḫpr; it doesn’t technically fall under the given+family name ban in WT:NSE, since none of those five names is a family name or patronymic, but it definitely seems like the same sort of thing. (The transliteration also has lots of glaring errors and entirely skips over the titles between each name.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 21:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

even Homer nods

Could someone please double-check the etymology? I attempted merging it with Homer nods but it could still use some work. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a contented mind is a perpetual feast

What is the source of the etymology?--115.134.2.213 06:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]