Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2021/June

What’s the deal with babysit?

Our article on the English noun babysit says it’s a back-formation from babysitter.

Our article on the English noun babysit also says that a term derived from it is babysitter.

It’s bad enough when two articles disagree, but when a single article disagrees with itself?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the noun babysitter (or baby-sitter) was used in 1914, while babysitting and babysit are from 1946–47. --Lambiam 10:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was first babysitter, baby-sitter, a sitter with babies, then to babysit, then babysit·t·er from it, someone who babysits, an -er (“occupational suffix”) with babysitting. So it is no contradiction, it is just both true, at different times. Fay Freak (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it now. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Affixisation

When an affix is formed by adopting a word of an earlier stage of the language, then should it be considered an inheritance ({{inh}}) or a derivation ({{der}})? For example, Odia -ମାନେ (-māne) (< Prakrit 𑀫𑀸𑀡𑀯 (māṇava)). When the grammatical category changes (as in creole languages), it is still an instance of inheritance; so probably here also the same thing applies? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For creole languages {{inh}} is not appropriate, since they are not descendants of their lexifiers. --Lambiam 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: As regards the usage of {{inh}} for creoles, are you talking about cases where only the grammatical category alters, or the vocabulary in general? Also any suggestion for my original question as to how Odia -ମାନେ (-māne) should be property categorized? Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the vocabulary of a creole in general. See Wiktionary:About Sranan Tongo § Etymology sections; although this is about one specific language, I believe the reasoning applies equally to other creoles. As far as I can judge this, the etymological treatment of -ମାନେ is fine (except that I’d write “plural marker”, just as in the non-gloss def). The cited opus itself remarks that the affixation cannot have been an inheritance from the source dialect. --Lambiam 07:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tariff: ta marbuta?

The various entries for tariff and its equivalent in other languages are undecided about the exact Arabic form it came from. Most of them refer to the type II verbal noun taʕrifah, with short kasra and ta marbuta, which we do not have an entry for. The Ottoman and Persian have the final letter he, and the Persian has /e/ corresponding to the Arabic short /i/.

We do have an entry for تَعْرِيف (taʕrīf), the alternative form of the verbal noun, masculine and with long kasra. Among its descendants are listed Spanish and Catalan tarifa and Swahili taarifa (wouldn't you expect **taarifu if it came from this?). The meanings of the Arabic word include "tariff".

Are the two verbal nouns of type II variants of the same word, or distinct words each with distinct meanings? Did both include the meaning "tariff"? Did the European and other borrowings come through two routes, some from one and some from the other? -- Hiztegilari (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how relevant this is, but the etymology of English tariff derives it via French tarif, Italian tariffa and Ottoman Turkish تعرفه (ta'rife) from Persian (ta'refe). According to Nişanyan, however, the Ottoman term is a Neo-Ottoman word derived from the Arabic root تعريف, whence also Turkish tarif.^[1] TDK also states the term is from Arabic. I don’t know who is right, but at least this explains the modern Turkish spelling (and pronunciation) tarife instead of *tarefe. --Lambiam 16:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As تَعْرِيف (taʕrīf) means “information, making known”, so it means “specification”, and so “specification” in a list of prices or levies, where تَعْرِيفة (taʕrīfa) is a single, particular one, a “fixing a levy”. The measure of the form تَعْرِفَة (taʕrifa) is infrequently used in sound roots, and correspondingly this word seems to me of lesser use, although both have their place now, depending on particular authorities’ choices.

I do not recal either as being a relevant part of Ottoman vocabulary. And indeed we have a whole article Taxation in the Ottoman Empire with a list of terms on the side where neither is mentioned. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like Persian was not an intermediate for the (Neo-)Ottoman term, and neither Ottoman nor Persian were sources for French tarif and Italian tariffa. Le Trésor writes that tarif was borrowed from Italian, which took it from Arabic tar ı f “(and tar ı fa)”.^[2] (Apparently diacritics and suchlike were lost in translation to the web; there are combining macrons in the html source that unsuccessfully try to combine with a line break.) Pianigiani writes that tariffa comes from Arabic ‘TA‘RÎF or ‘TA‘RÎFA.^[3] Note in either case the dual Arabic donorship. --Lambiam 08:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aragón

I just noticed the province of Aragón doesn't yet have a full etymology. It states that the province, after the river, may be from Basque haran. On the other hand, the Spanish wikipedia page for the river has a reconstruction *Ara-k-onem, from PIE "er-", by which I think they mean *h₃er- or *ser-, though I don't have acces to the article they're referencing - Bacuas Bascuas, 2006. Some attempt could be undertaken to make these pages align more. Finally, I would like to propose a third etymology, in the vein of names like 'Saraha dessert'; namely a combination of Basque haran with an Indo-European word of the same meaning. This could be a word related to Proto-Celtic *genwā ("(river) bend"). I don't know if this has been proposed elsewhere, or if it's plausible at all. AntiquatedMan (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara? It seems that usage is called tautological or pleonastic. [4] Wakuran (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see the typo, but yeah that's what I meant. Sahara was the quickest example I could think of when it comes to 'placenames that contain two tautological elements in two different languages'. Apparently there also exists a place called 'Vall d'Aran' i.e. "valley of the valley" AntiquatedMan (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a pleonasm unless the theme meant "river" specifically, which you have not shown. Otherwise it is just a compound from a proper name like London Town or New York City. It's the most likely interpretation in the theory of w:Old European Hydronymy, sure. ApisAzuli (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The author is properly called Bascuas.

The spanish wiki cites *er- "fluo", which has to be ~~LIV~~ IEW #336-338, 866 etc. "to flow" although it does not match any of the forms exactly. Search for reflexes is nigh impossible in utexas' Pokorny Etyma.

~~LIV~~ IEW #64-65, 340 "white, argent, glittering" for example would match nearly as well (cf. Argentina) in thought of the school of bright shiny objects.

*er- would formaly have to be *h₁er- (“earth”) in laryngeal theory. Nevertheless, it just has to equate with *h₁ers- (“to flow”). A PIE root is compatible with a Basque hydronym in any substrate hypothesis. That's frequently denied though, and not being much worked on.

Through mistakes and difficult derivations I have finally checked valley to find it translates Basque haran. This is extremely unsatisfying, because I was trying to find the below mentioned gune, so my approach is entirely backwards. Sorry for the harangue. ApisAzuli (talk)

Thanks for the correction! Yeah, I just went off the list of 'Basque lemmas' on Wiktionary itself, and the mentioned Wikipedia page. I was honestly just spitballing ideas for a placename that had no satisfying etymology listed. Also, I apparently overlooked *h₁ers-.AntiquatedMan (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or the second part may be related to Basque gune ("place; centre"). AntiquatedMan (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged *-onem suffix might be *-h₃onh₂- in our notation, I guess. I didn't find it when looking for suffixes and became confused between aragonaise and Indonesia with νῆσος. ApisAzuli (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

鬼佬

@Justinrleung Do you know if the details of this etymology are correct? I don't feel there's that big of a gap between the skin color of Cantonese and Portuguese people.--Tibidibi (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tibidibi: I'm not sure why it's highlighting Portuguese people in particular. Chinese Wikipedia says 因爲廣府人觀念中認為，東亞人大多一律黃皮膚、黑頭髮，而髮色金黃，膚色多種多樣和藍眼睛的歐美白人，脫離了其對人類的定義，又因為中國傳說中鬼魂大多膚色蒼白，因此稱呼白人為「鬼」。 (Because in the perspective of Cantonese people, East Asians are usually yellow-skinned and black-haired, while Caucasians from Europe and America are blond-haired, have skin of various colours and have blue eyes, which departs from how humans are defined, and because ghosts in Chinese mythology have pale skin, they call Caucasians "ghosts"). No source is given for this sentence though. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinrleung: For quite a while Europeans referred to Cantonese and other Chinese as white people: bianchi como noi "white like us" in Andrea Corsali's report, and of the "white" (albo) race in Alessandro Valignano's classification of humanity along with Japanese and Europeans. So the side that would have been more attuned to skin color did not actually see a difference.

The Ming shi says that the Dutch have deep eyes, long nose, and red hair, but there is nothing about skin color even though the Dutch are paler than the Portuguese.

So if it really does have to do with skin color, I feel it must be a relatively recent coinage.--Tibidibi (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

答臘鼓

@Frigoris This word is attested in 舊唐書·音樂志二. Is it borrowed from Tocharian, Persian or Sanskrit? The Persian word is in the form of /tabūrah/. RcAlex36 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RcAlex36, hello! What is the Persian source word? Do you have any references for the term? --Frigoris (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: It's in p. 565 of The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Chinese Language, but it's not given in the Persian script. RcAlex36 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RcAlex36, There's a word (tabūrāk) in a Persian dictionary: Steingass p. 281 "a kind of drum; tray", which seems to be related to (tafūr), Old Armenian թափուր (tʻapʻur), English tabor / tambourine. Sogdian Dictionary gives [script needed] (tpwk-w /⁠tapuk(u)?⁠/), [script needed] (tpwwq /⁠tapuk⁠/), for "tambourine", but those doesn't seem to easily match 臘 (MC lap). The instrument described in 舊唐書 seems to be a flat hand drum similar to the daf / dap; see etymology for Arabic دَفّ (daff), which matches the 答 (MC top) sound pretty well. --Frigoris (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yoink

An IP removed etymology 2 here with the comment "This word has been around at least since the 1950s, found in numerous Warner Bros. cartoons and newsprint comics. It was not coined by a writer for the Simpsons in the 1990s." If this is true, our etymology needs to be changed. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 12:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a change from "yank" to "yoink" seems pretty trivial, so I guess it might well have occured independently. Wakuran (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics *sekʷ-

Currently, the entry for PIE *sekʷ- has three seperate meanings listed: to follow, to see and to say. There doesn't seem to be a consensus about which meaning is more primary, and the order of derivation . Now, from my limited understanding of developmental psychology, it seems to me that the idea that the primary meaning is 'to follow the gaze' - as mentioned under 'to see' - is pretty convincing. Pre-verbal infants already make use of their own gaze and that of their parents to receive and sent information about objects of interest. This meaning fits so perfectly with all attested meaning (as far as I can tell), so I'd really be interested to hear what objections people have to such a semantic development.

Alternatively, we may explain the meanings 'to see' and 'to say' by assuming some early influence from roots like *h₃ekʷ- and *wekʷ- (all three with oft-lost initial consonants), respectively. Has any such influence been suggested in a sourcable article? AntiquatedMan (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If s-, and s-mobile in particular could occasionally be explained as self-reflexive prefix, I would expect this to be treated under particles, e.g. in Dunkel (Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln, 2014), that is unfortunately not online openaccess. However not online either, the related title is self-suggestive: Dunkel, On the evidence for zero-grades of IE deictic/anaphoric so- and *tó, 2000. Per the abstract it did not corroborate the premisses. More research is needed still, I guess.

See also: ahnen ("vor-aus-seh-en") obsolete reflexive mir ahnt (DWDS), besides idiom. mir schwant (nichts gutes), wähnen (cp. En. ween); cp. reflexive sehnen (“to long”) for the ending.

For an unorthodox counter opinion I suggest instead that *s may be a late reflex of laryngeals, or vice versa, though doublets are difficult to explain in this view. See e.g. sheep (cp. Schaf, historically uncertain) and ewe; Literally a pet-theory.

Alhough first of all, the historic, methodic derivation of the roots should be understood. Maybe someone has predicted you hypothesis, but this stands back in face of phonology. ApisAzuli (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch (pejorative adjective)

From the etymology: "The pejorative sense is said to come from the ingenuity of poor Germanic immigrants settling in the Anglosphere in the 19th and early 20th centuries." This is unreferenced and somewhat surprising as an etymology for all uses of the sense, because for some phrases the adjective is anecdotally linked to nautical and commercial rivalry during the seventeenth century. Etymonline states:

Since c. 1600, Dutch (adj.) has been a "pejorative label pinned by English speakers on almost anything they regard as inferior, irregular, or contrary to 'normal' (i.e., their own) practice" [Rawson]. E.g. ironical Dutch treat, of each person paying for himself (1887), Dutch courage "boldness inspired by intoxicating spirits" (1809), nautical Dutch talent "any piece of work not done in shipshape style (1867), etc. -- probably exceeded in such usage only by Indian and Irish -- reflecting first British commercial and military rivalry and later heavy German immigration to U.S.

Though note that all of their dates are from the nineteenth century. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pejorative in question is specifically "Substitute, inferior, ersatz." Your reference is unable to disqualify that notion. Unless our processes require to let it stand I think the unsourced speculation should be speedily deleted. I'm not familiar with the idiom though, so I'd need to see something going towards RfV first, that it is not just clipped or extracted from a longer phrase which would then be the appropriate gloss, unless the adjective gained wider currency.

The Anlaut looks to be compatible with double, doubt, etc. The prior pejorative meanings might be compatible with täuschen if the phonology were remotely comparable under folk etymology (see also: Swedish tysk). E.g.: Dutch books; double Dutch. ApisAzuli (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "substitute, inferior" cannot predate the nineteenth century, some Dutch ship types like the fluit were notoriously less fancy than the counterparts used by other countries. Whether that meaning is actually attested that early is another matter. Etymonline does mention German immigration, though (there was also German immigration to other English-speaking jurisdictions like Australia, especially to the area around Adelaide), so only "ingenuity" is unaccounted for. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam, Mnemosientje ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that most of the pejorative senses stem from the historical enmity between the Dutch and the British in the 17th century, while they fought the Anglo-Dutch Wars for hegemony on the seas, but there is no reason to assume a shared origin of all or even most pejorative uses. Of the many terms involving Dutch, only a minority are pejorative. Among these only a few have the specific sense of ”substitute, inferior, ersatz”. The alcohol-induced Dutch courage that may lead to a Dutch bargain or a Dutch feast has more to do with Dutch gin than with the ingenuity of poor Germanic immigrants. The disorganized nature of a Dutch concert can likewise be due to the disinhibition occasioned by a liberal intake of jenever. While a Dutch reckoning is inferior, there is also no connection with lack of material wealth. The famous Dutch treat may actually derive from a cultural tradition of the continental Dutch. While the etymology of Dutch nightingale explains it as from the ersatz sense, I doubt that anyone hard-pressed for money would ingeniously substitute a frog for a nightingale; it strikes me as merely a humorous reference to the sound filling many a summer night in the Dutch countryside. Dutch comfort is a poor form of comfort indeed, and a Dutch wife may offer no comfort at all,^[5] but not because of material poverty. In terms of cheap substitute, not much is left beyond Dutch gold. In the theatrical business, a dutchman is a makeshift repair, but originally there was nothing shoddy about the concept. --Lambiam 11:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz: I'm puzzled by your edit at Dutch treat. I'm not sure how you can tell that the "substitute, inferior, ersatz" sense (which I'm tempted to RFV, as it looks like it's been conjured up from various noun phrases and never actually existed as a standalone) is the appropriate one here. See also Dutch date. @Lingo Bingo Dingo, could you shed light on this? 212.224.235.64 14:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Etymologies

Hey all- what order should etymologies be in? Is this somewhere in the style guide? I used Chinese character stroke count here: [6][7][8][9] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unregulated. You can put etymologies in whatever order you like, especially for cases like yours where there isn't one that's blatantly more commonly used than the others. In cases like lake, though, people would be pretty mad if the "inland body of water" sense didn't come first before the obsolete and dialectal terms. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mutilated fish name

A fish in the Kura, the identification and pronunciation of which was left over to determine by Michael Jan de Goeje, editor (1879), Indices, glossarium et addenda et emendanda ad part. I–III (Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum; 7)‎^[10] (in Latin), Leiden: E. J. Brill, published 1879, page 300, second to last paragraph – is it solvable or even solved in 2021? At least posting this might accelerate it.

I have quoted and translated this sentence of M but the fish-name edited as قسبويه is only translated for filling:

a. 1000, المقدسي, edited by Michael Jan de Goeje, أحسن التقاسيم في معرفة الأقاليم [ʾaḥsan at-taqāsīm fī maʿrifa al-ʾaqālīm] (Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum; 3)‎^[11], Leiden: E. J. Brill, published 1877, 1906, web 1/139, pages 380 line 8–10:
ولا نظير لتككهم ومحفوريَّاتهم وقرمزهم وأنماطهم وصبغهم وفاكهة تسمَّى الزُّوقال وقسبويه وسمك يقال له الطِرِّيخ ولهم تين وشاه بلُّوط في غاية الجودة.
There is nothing resembling their waistbands, their streaked rugs, their crimson, their druggets, their dyes, and the fruit called cornel, and their dentexes, and their fish called pearl mullet. And they have figs and chestnuts of finest quality.

While it isn’t exactly clear to be a fish in that quote, one can derive so from I and H, where de Goeje edited عشوبة, noting manuscripts to bear عىسوىه and عسوىه:

a. 957, آبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن محمد الفارسي الإصطخري, edited by Michael Jan de Goeje, كتاب مسالك الممالك وهو معول على كتاب صور الأقاليم [kitāb masālik al-mamālik wa-huwa muʿawwal ʿalā kitāb ṣuwar al-ʾaqālīm] (Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum; 1)‎^[12], Leiden: E. J. Brill, published 1870, page 183 line 6:
977, أبو القاسم بن حوقل, edited by Michael Jan de Goeje, كتاب مسالك والممالك [kitāb masālik wa-l-mamālik] (Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum; 2)‎^[13], Leiden: E. J. Brill, published 1873, page 241 line 10:

Dozy, Reinhart Pieter Anne (1881) “عُشْبُور”, in Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes‎^[14] (in French), volume 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 129b has عُشْبُور (ʕušbūr), عُشْبُورَة (ʕušbūra) from Pedro de Alcalá and this is not easily found elsewhere.

Perchance found in Armenian, @Vahagn Petrosyan, as the texts praise the amenabilities of the area by its own names. Persian or Turkish fish lists did not help on first glance. Fay Freak (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The modern Armenian translator of these passages transliterates the Arabic terms respectively as կասբույա (kasbuya), աշուբա (ašuba), կուշուբա (kušuba). None of these has an Armenian appearance. The first one is similar to the name of the Caspian Sea into which Kur flows. If the explanation as "Caspian fish" is not sufficient, I would seek an Iranian origin. For two other Kur fish mentioned in those passages, namely zarakin and surmahi, an Iranian origin has been proposed. --Vahag (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

忉利天

Pinging @SodhakSH, Bhagadatta,

Please help me understand the original form of the Chinese 忉利天 < 忉利 (MC taw lijH) + 天 (tiān, “heaven”) = the "Trayastriṃśa", the heaven of the "Thirty-Three", in Buddhist literature. Although typically a direct translation of the Buddhist Sanskrit form in Mahayana texts (with known Sanskrit manuscripts, that is), the Middle Chinese pronunciation was not a clear match of the Sanskrit or Pali tāvatiṁsa.

The Chinese form was one of the earliest Buddhist terms that have entered the Middle Chinese lexicon, probably at an early stage of Middle Chinese around the end of the Eastern Han (c. 2nd century), via Central Asian translators such as Lokakṣema.

In the 《道行般若經詞典》(A Glossary of Lokakṣema's Translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā) by 辛嶋靜志 (Seishi Karashima), it is written that "忉利 is a transliteration of a certain Middle Indic form of Skt. Trāyastriṃśa '[the Heaven of] the Thirty-three'". I noticed that we have the Ardhamagadhi 𑀢𑀑 (tao, “three”), which matches the MC pronunciation of 忉 (MC taw) pretty closely. Naturally I wonder what could have been the Prakrit form for "thirty-three" that had given rise to the Chinese form.

I searched the Turner comparative dictionary for triṁśát (6015) and didn't find anything that matches the Middle Chinese reading 利 (MC lijH) closely at the face level. A personal wilder theory is the derivation from the "NiDoc." form triśa ~ some form like *tris > some form of Old Chinese 利 (OC *rids), /*rits/ via metathesis, which was then inherited in later Chinese texts (the consonant final *-s/*-ts in Old Chinese typically became the "departing tone" of Middle Chinese, marked as ^H by convention, as in 利 shown above).

But anyway, what could be the closely comparable Prakrit form for "thirty" that sounds close to 利 (MC lijH)?

Thank you!

--Frigoris (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: No Prakrit reflex of triṃśat is comparable to 利 (MC lijH). However, I did find some similar transformation but I don't know if this will be useful: Skt trayodaśa ("thirteen") -> Bashkarīk lō and Gawar-Bati lowá̃̄š. They are both Dardic (North-western Indo-Aryan) dialects and this development could possibly be compared to triṃśat -> liɪ^H. Could it be possible that Middle Chinese borrowed the term from an unknown Northern/North-western Indo-Aryan dialect where the descendant of triṃśat was comparable to liɪ^H? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 02:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhagadatta, thank you very much. It's very interesting! Also it's almost certain that the early translators of Buddhist text into Chinese were speakers of northern Prakrit languages. Do you know any (historical) Prakrit reflexes with r- initial? That would be something that could lend to the Middle Chinese l- (ell) too.

OTOH I also noticed that the tre/tri appears to be unstable and often gives rise to l (ell) in Middle Chinese translations, especially before y. Examples include

彌勒 (MC mjie lok), see Sanskrit मैत्रेय (Maitreya), Gandhari 𐨨𐨅𐨟𐨿𐨪𐨅𐨩 (Metreya), Mitria etc.
剎帝利 (MC tsrhaet tejH lijH) = earlier 剎利 (MC tsrhaet lijH), see Sanskrit क्षत्रिय (kṣatriya), Gandhari 𐨐𐨿𐨮𐨟𐨿𐨪𐨁𐨩 (kṣatriya) (possibly Sanskritized)

In contrast, with open vowel, such as tra, the Chinese translation is typically done by breaking the tr conjunct and extending by a syllable, into something like *ta la/*tua la, etc.

So there seems to be a pattern perhaps... --Frigoris (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: Well, there are no Prakrit/Middle Indo-Aryan reflexes of triṃśat or trayastriṃśat with an initial [r]. But I also think that this development of Skt triṃśat to 利 (MC lijH) is comparable to the development of Skt. maitreya to 彌勒 (MC mjie lok). -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 00:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhagadatta: yes, provided that we could find an explanation for the -k in Chinese for Maitreya.. possibly a grammatical suffix? --Frigoris (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: The suffix -क (-ka) was very productive throughout Old Indo Aryan (Sanskrit) to Middle Indo-Aryan (Pali, Prakrits, etc). Originally it functioned as a suffix to denote the diminutive of a noun or an adjective but by the time of Middle Indo-Aryan, this suffix had become pleonastic and was freely appended to a lot of nouns and adjectives. It is therefore quite likely that a form like Maitreyaka or Metreyaka existed in Middle Indo-Aryan (and that the -ka suffix was added in the Middle Indo-Aryan stage because it was productive). -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 10:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhagadatta:, indeed Karashima (2010) agrees that the original form for 彌勒 (MC mjie lok) was probably with *-ka, to quote: "e.g. *Metreka; cf. Tocharian Maitrāk, Metrak, Bactrian Mētraga". I've located a Tocharian dictionary entry for this. --Frigoris (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bhagadatta, I've found some fresh sources, namely Ji (1998) on these related matters.

the -k stuff, see my edits to the etymology of 彌勒. Unfortunately the linguistic discussions are in Chinese. To summarize,

the y-k alteration in Prakrit; eg. some Ashokan inscriptions have janiyo -> janiko; Skt. udaka ~ udaẏa ~ Ardhamagadhi daga (the latter is my attempted reading of his citation to something else)
Pāṇini mentions Vāsudeva (name of a deity) -> Vāsudevaka ("one devoted to ~"). Ji asks whether the -k in Tocharian has roots in this -ka suffix on the Indo-Aryan side, in a footnote. My reading of the unsaid: Since Maitreya seems to be rooted in मैत्री (maitrī) and Mitra according to Ji, Metrak / *Metreka might mean "someone devoted to the religious concept of maitrī".

Both may explain the *-ka ending.

tr becoming l, the author gave a reference to H.W. Bailey: Gāndharī, in Opera Minora, vol. 2, 1981, orig. in BSOAS xi - 4 (1946). The examples are almost the same as we've discussed above: Trāyastriṃśa, kṣatriya, etc. I've yet to locate the primary reference, but it seems that there's indeed a pattern for tri/tre -> l --Frigoris (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: Very interesting. I too think that the term Trāyastriṃśa evolved in a similar manner. And yes, there is the ka/ya alteration in Prakrit; some Middle Indo-Aryan dialects retained the -ka whereas some voiced it to -ga and some others altered it further to -ya. So the explanation is plausible. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 02:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malay 'kumandang', Javanese 'kumandhang' and Sundanese 'kamandang'

What do you reckon is the relationship between these three words? Are they cognates that descended from a common ancestor language or a loanword from a foreign language not a part of the Austronesian language family? In case anybody's wondering, the meaning of these three words are all the English 'echo'. — This unsigned comment was added by GinormousBuildings (talk • contribs) at 10:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@GinormousBuildings: Most likely, the Javanese form kumandhang ([kumaɳɖaŋ]) and its variant kemandhang ([kəmaɳɖaŋ]) were borrowed into Malay and Sundanese. The u in the antepenult of the Malay clearly points to borrowing. I have no idea about the etymology of Javanese kumandhang; it might be kandhang (“cage”) plus the verbalizing infix <um>, but a semantic connection between 'cage' and 'echo' appears too far-fetched. –Austronesier (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Arabic سخل (“saχel”)

@Fay Freak and other editors in Arabic, see goat: I am thinking that "saχel" looks alike Assamese ছাগলী (sagoli). Assamese and similar forms are supposed to derive it from Sanskrit छागल (chāgala), छाग (chāga). This etymon is also mentioned along with Marathi sāgā (“flock of sheep”) to account for Proto-Germanic *skēpą (“sheep”) in one hypothesis to reconstruct *sčā́gas < *(s)ḱégos (Mallory and Adams, 2006). This hypothesis competes with the assumption of other wanderwords, comparing for example Ossetian цӕу (cæw) and сӕгъ (sæǧ). Mass comparison however tempting remains baseless for almost all intents and purposes, so I won't stress the point too much. It should be instructive nevertheless to tackle these words one by one. Is there a secure identification for saχel as borrowing from any nearby language? I did not find any comparable Iranic forms. ApisAzuli (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is pre-Islamic already and can be derived from words for “driving”, the same way Proto-Indo-Iranian *Haȷ́ás (“goat”) derives from the Proto-Indo-European root *h₂eǵ- (“to drive, agere”). You would need the Sanskrit word to be created with descendants and tried to be internally explained—@Kutchkutch—, but there are always many words for “goats” so I don’t think there is a relation, especially if phonologically so weakly relatable. Fay Freak (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ApisAzuli, Fay Freak: An entry for छगल (chagala) has been created. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jury-rig/jerry-rig

According to the following link (https://theprioryandthecastironshore.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/jerry-builder-origin-of-the-term/), the OED claims that the word ‘jury-rig’, or at least it’s later variant ‘jerry-rig’, ultimately stems from the French word jour but we claim (in our jury entry) that the word actually derives from the Latin word adiuto. Possibly we have the wrong etymology? Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is conceivable (at least to me) that the first parts of the terms jerry-built and jury-rig have unrelated origins. The nautical term rig reinforces the theory that jury is the nautical adjective also found in other compounds. --Lambiam 15:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems highly possible, if not probable, but I don’t understand the link to adiuto, if there is one. The OED allegedly claims jury, in its nautical sense, is from jour and in my copy of Collins it simply says ‘C17 of unknown origin’ (it’s not even listed in my copy of Chambers) Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to Old or Norman French ajuire, which even the French wiki does apparently not index (). I am not sure if French offers equivalent compounds, but other languages have analogous constructions for a poor substitute of a tool that helps get the job over with. See "emergency" below. On the contrary, I see no explanation for jour either, be it as a "light" as for a lamp-post, or attributive "day" for some temporary contrivance. It's possible, I guess, that the words became confused in French already, if there was a temp to help out in legal, but you'd want a jurry-rig to begin with.

I think there's possibly more than one source that went into the respective outcomes. I have concidered another one, but keep in mind that jerry-built is probably correct: "Unknown; there are many theories."

It should be conceivable that jerry is inherited from the root of yare, gear, etc. For phonology compare jerk where the same root is suggested. The root is ultimately uncertain, so it would explain very little. My idea is not supported by German Gerät, alas, while the similarity to *garwiþō (“gear, harness, garment”) is uncanny.

It should be attractive to look for evidence that nigger-rigged was no ethnic slur and preserved the velar, somehow (same as catch a nigger by the toe was formally a Celtic tigger, or that Irish niggers for (some form of) coals might be akin to nugget and/or *h₁óngʷl̥ (“charcoal”) although modern Celtic forms seem to continue *ǵwelH- (“to burn, shine”)).

Now I that I start wondering about reduplicated participles plus ga-prefix from the root of rig or from *h₃reǵ-, or whatever, maybe you get the idea: Unless the OED has a very good explanation why "day" or "light" should go into things like jury rudder, we won't improve it much beyond uncertainty, which the OED should be pointing out, too. Do they dilliegence to call it uncertain up-front?

Finally, etymonline (cf. jerry-built) as a proxy for the OED surmizes that jerry appeared in Liverpool meaning "bad". This is well in line with the translations at jurry-rig, like German Notlösung and Finnish hätäriki, both building on "emergency"; the Finnish akin to rig, no less. There is also French gréement de fortune, that's not so bad, but relates to the Gerät that I had to mention above. The only bad comparison that comes to mind is *argaz, i.e. "bad", "in disorder" in reflexes, "lazy" in a Spanish borrowing. See ele for phonology (Alternative forms: el, yele, eel, hele). Well, it would also be--surprisingly well--in line with jerk. ApisAzuli (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the derivation of jury-, jerry- from Middle English yare has much to recommend it. The phonological shape is not a good fit; no segment is identical except for the /r/. The semantics aren't much better; note that yar, the modern descendant of yare, means "easily manageable". This is the last thing you'd expect a jury-rigged setup to be. Finally, the fact that Middle English yare is already reflected as yare and yar ought to be troubling. Words very rarely have three clearly semantically and formally separate descendants. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman. I have not come down on a derivation from Middle English. Criticizing the semantics of your own strawman by refering to a much later lexeme is no help either. Nor is the final statement even noteworthy, if relativized with reasonable qualifications like that (which would also have to hold for joure, or first aid). It's simply throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My concern was thus far for reference, how could "eel" have had such yuge variation and where could jerk plausibly reflect ġearc. This doesn't get anywhere close to jury, yet, I don't disagree. ApisAzuli (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of your statements was influenced by the etymology currently given at jury#Etymology 2:

Alternatively, perhaps a variant of Middle English yore, ȝare, from Old English ġeoro, ġearu (“ready, prompt, prepared, quick”)

Having seen such a sloppy etymology, I skimmed over your longwinded discussion, fearing that you considered it kosher. I lacked the wherewithal to carefully read what you said and realise that wasn't what your comment meant. As for your final statement, the variation in ele (which, by the way, should probably be lemmatised at el) is of a predictable kind; pro(s)thetic y- and unetymological h- are both widespread in Middle English. Some of this survived into the developing standard; I believe the Book of Common Prayer has yearth for earth, and even today, yew has a counteretymological y-. This is not commensurable to the variation between jerk and yerk, which is lacking in parallels, probably since the form in /d͡ʒ/ is at heart onomatopoeic. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing etymology at the -ίας page

Hello, I notice that the etymology is missing on the page for the Ancient Greek derivational suffix -ῐ́ᾱς. It seems to me that the etymology is clearly as follows: -ῐος • (-ios) m (feminine -ῐ́ᾱ, neuter -ῐον); first/second declension ,suffix added to nouns or adjectives, forming adjectives meaning pertaining to, belonging to ("of") + -ᾱς • (-ās), The nominative singular ending of masculine first-declension nouns in most dialects, (later replaced by -ης (-ēs) in all cases in Ionic and in most cases in Attic, here forming the masculine proper noun (that is, the male name).) I am wondering what others might think of this hypothesis. Specifically, can anybody discern any problems with this? Thank you in advance. — This unsigned comment was added by 161.77.41.21 (talk) at 21:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It appears that I inadvertently added the contents of this section to the end of the previous section, though I am not sure how I did so. I tried to delete it, but was prevented from so doing by the software. Will an administrator please be a good chap, and delete that for me? — This unsigned comment was added by 161.77.41.21 (talk) at 21:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

For this theory to be plausible, there should be a considerable number of stem + -ῐος adjectives corresponding to stem + -ίας nouns. There are indeed some: δρακοντίας (drakontías) – δρακόντιος (drakóntios); ἐγκρυφίας (enkruphías) – ἐγκρύφιος (enkrúphios) – ἐγκρύφιον (enkrúphion); ἰξίας (ixías) – Ἴξιος (Íxios) – Ἰξίαι (Ixíai); Ἱππίας (Hippías) – ἵππιος (híppios); Κτησίας (Ktēsías) – κτήσιος (ktḗsios); κυπαρισσίας (kuparissías) – κυπαρίσσιος (kuparíssios); Λυσίας (Lusías) – λύσιος (lúsios); Ξενίας (Xenías) – ξένιος (xénios). In most cases, however, there is a lacuna where the theory predicts a donor adjective, so my inclination is to see this at best as a secondary route for the formation of -ίας nouns. --Lambiam 10:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good Lambiam, thanks for the feedback! — This unsigned comment was added by 68.112.86.146 (talk) at 14:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

中共病毒

RFV of the etymology. The current etymology makes it seem like it's a calque from English without being explicit. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Schnitt

Is it from Proto-Germanic *snidaz? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is this not worth mentioning: ‘synchronically a deverbal of [the verb]’? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think German has any synchronic process of deriving nouns from verbs in this way, though of course speakers will be aware of the root connection. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask if Schnitte is possibly reflecting the dual numerus, as for a collective suffix *-eh2, and the duploid nature of a sandwhiching slice of bread? It's not strictly folded, but same as in English I know no word to strictly distinguish an unfolded piece, so I would trivially suppose semantic widening. ApisAzuli (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schnitte is attested since Old High German, see this entry in the DW. The text quoted from Otfrid refers to John 13:26. I don't think that Jesus handed Judas a folded sandwich, so it is originally really just a slice.

As for the question about its relation to schneiden, I agree with Mahagaja. The connection is obvious for speakers because of dozens of other noun–verb pairs with the same vocalic pattern, and especially since it is identical to the 1sg/3sg preterite. But it is synchronically non-productive. In German dictionaries, the etymological connection is usually given as "zu: schneiden", short for "gehört zur Wortsippe von schneiden". Is there a standard way to the same thing in Wiktionary? –Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Just the ====Related terms==== section as far as I know. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telemachus

I saw that Τηλέμαχος is etymologized simply as Τηλέ-μαχος 'fighting afar'. However, in Odyssey 9.509, a Τήλεμος Εὐρυμίδης is mentioned. This almost looks like a play on the pair Odysseus-Telemachos. Couldn't Telemachus be explained as this name with the pre-Greek suffix -αχ, as well (or perhaps Τήλεμος was based on Τηλέμαχος)? I know the first explanation is more transparent (though Beekes does not exclude a pre-Greek origin for the root μαχ- itself), but is it at least a possibility? AntiquatedMan (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know a direct argument that definitively rules out this theory as “at least a possibility”, but it strikes me as far-fetched and not explaining anything that seems to ask for an explanation. --Lambiam 09:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink PIE *délkus

Hai, in the process of rewriting the etymology of dulcis I've found that the PIE reconstruction in the title is problematic, unable to reflect any of the attested forms. My reasoning and the reconstruction that makes the most sense to me is described in this revision. Armenian scares me and the supposedly cognate word scares the scares out of my scares. If you can make sense of it and it sheds any light on the issue, please let me know. The PIE entry lacks any references, but tbh neither have I checked any specialised ones myself, only De Vaan, this and a paper by Steriade that mentions the metathesis. The essence of my request is that it appears to me that the PIE entry needs to be renamed and rewritten. Is there any reason it's given as *del- instead of *dul-, and is there any reason the accent is on the e instead of the ending, as in Greek? I don't know much about PIE morphology - were u-stems somehow limited to u-less stems? Or is it that the root ends up having 4 consonants? Then can't k be an adjectival suffix, later extended by another one in Greek? Brutal Russian (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who ordered *délkus – I mean, which source suggested this reconstruction as a lemma form? Is it kosher that *dl̥kú- redirects to *délkus? Beekes presents the PIE etymon *dlku for γλυκύς (glukús) with a question mark. --Lambiam 10:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that @Mahagaja made the e-grade the lemma, as opposed to the zero-grade. De Vaan mentions the explanation of γλυκύς < *dlku as vowel assimilation, but firstly this calls for further examples of the phenomenon, and secondly doesn't explain the non-u-stems in Latin and Greek. Brutal Russian (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the accepted practice on the project to reconstruct u-stems as e-grades. And no, I don't think *dl̥kú- should exist as a redirect. --{{victar|talk}} 06:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources. Given the Mycenaean, I would prefer the entry to be at *dléwkus, but I don't know how that fits with the Armenian. --{{victar|talk}} 07:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahagn Petrosyan Can you speak to the Armenian? What's the outline of steps in Proto-Armenian? --{{victar|talk}} 16:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Victar: The Armenian is hopelessly contaminated and will not help you. One scenario proposed by de Lamberterie is *swādu- + *saldu- giving *swaldu-, then crossing with *dluku- and producing *swaldku- > *swaltku- > քաղցու- (kʻałcʻu-). --Vahag (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahagn Petrosyan: That is helpful though, because that would require *dléwkus (*dlukús) ~ *dlukéws and supporting a move to that entry. Do you think you could clean up the Armenian entry's etymology to better illustrate Lamberterie's explanation, because, as is, it's rather confusing. --{{victar|talk}} 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Lamberterie's is just one scenario and not the most convincing one. It is better to leave the etymology of քաղցր (kʻałcʻr) as it is now, with references to literature for further reading. --Vahag (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahagn Petrosyan: If there are multiple theories, they should be listed. Right now, the etymology makes little to no sense. --{{victar|talk}} 08:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the entry to *dléwkus. Normally, I'm inclined to opt for delete with entries from only two families, but the changes found in each branch, metathesis before #dl > #l in Latin, and #dl > #gl, in Greek, seem point to a PIE origin. --{{victar|talk}} 04:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English bid (beodan and biddan)

Etymology 2, definition 5 (verb) suggests “bid” when meaning “pray” derives from beodan (cognate with German bieten). However, the OED suggests this meaning (specifically to pray, as in “bidding prayer” or “bidding the bedes”) in fact comes from biddan (cognate with German bitten). On the other hand, “bidding the saints' days” comes from beodan, although it seems unclear where “bidding the banns” comes from. I'm not particularly experienced with these kinds of complex etymologies though with two conflated verbs. Perhaps someone could take a look? Steepleman (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: English bid (Etymology 1), bid (Etymology 2); Old English bēodan, biddan; German bieten, bitten. --Lambiam 09:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In current English the phrase we offer our prayers is perfectly normal,^[15][16][17]; this should also be a good interpretation of bidding ones bedes. On the other hand, we pray our prayers is also quite acceptable,^[18][19][20] so the conflation for the naked verb may well extend to the collocation bidding ones bedes. Inflected forms, if found, may occasionally disambiguate – he bad his bedes can only be from bid < bidden. Banns are a public announcement, so the sense of bidding in bidding the banns must be that of “making a proclamation”. Aside: shouldn’t the first two senses of bid (Etymology 2) be unified using (transitive, intransitive)? --Lambiam 10:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that “bidding the banns” could also be “asking the banns”, as banns include a question put to the congregation. See the ,,Taming of the Shrew” , Act 2, Scene 1. Steepleman (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And its late attestation could indicate that by that time, the difference was not clear already. I suppose, was the past tense “bade” or “bid/bidded”?Steepleman (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OED considers the descendant of beodan and bidden under a single headword. Given the conflation of meanings, and further development of senses as a single verb, and the apparent dying out of the distinction in the preterit and participle, perhaps bid 1 and bid 2 ought to be combined?Steepleman (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, we have ga-participles for Gothic, Old Saxon, OE, OHG (cf. *gabiddjan, *gabedōn, *gabed) but the distribution of two different forms is curious and the interpretation as "prayer" is as ambiguous as our definitions at prayer. I mean this probably continues in bid as well, right, or would if it were present in the MED (I haven't checked).

There are some parallels in German grüßen (“greet”), where it is explained in isolated instances and rather unetymological as "bless" (en.WP) or segnen. So I guess that explains bid farewell.

On another note, it is hardly acceptable that Bote (“messenger, clerk”), Botschaft (“message, embassy, evangelium”) and Gebot (“commandment”) (also technically orthogonal to Verbot) and bieten etc. were from a completely differet root. πῠνθάνομαι can hardly come directly from *bʰewdʰ-, by the way. ApisAzuli (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology templates

For word cat I see templates Middle English cat, catte or Scots cat. I understand that before last part is language, last part word, "inh" means that "en" inherits from "enm". But what means "m" or "cog" ? How distinguish between etymology templates and all other templates? Borneq (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The “m” is short for ”mention”. The main function is that the link goes to the appropriate L2 section. For example, {{m|en|abide}} links to abide#English, while {{m|tr|abide}} links to abide#Turkish. Additionally, you can provide transliterations for languages not using a Latin script, as well as translations. For a complete list of the many possibilities, see Template:mention § Parameters. And “cog” is short for ”cognate”. See the section Template:cognate § When to use. --Lambiam 23:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

跋扈

This word seems to have appeared "suddenly" by the end of the Eastern Han era (around 2nd century). The basic meaning is "proud; arrogant; domineering", often glossed as 強梁 or variants in old texts (meaning "hard; oppressive; bullying; etc."). The word can also be used as a verb (or more accurately, predicate) to mean "to become domineering; to become ambitious", especially when said of warlords, powerful princes, etc.

The Middle Chinese reconstruction is 跋扈 (MC bat huX). To me this word doesn't "sound" quite native, and I suspect foreign origin.

Interestingly, a Sanskrit root √बाध् (bādh) matches the meaning quite well, and also the sound of the first syllable. Cf. बाध (bādha), बाधितृ m (bādhitṛ, “tormentor, oppressor”), in the M-W dictionary.

To suspect a Sanskrit origin is a bit too far, I think, but cognates in Iranian languages would be more plausible.

Any sources on the origin of this word? Thanks! --Frigoris (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigoris: May I know which Eastern Han text 跋扈 is found in? Thank! RcAlex36 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RcAlex36: The actual dates of composition were after the fall of the Eastern Han, but the word occurred in records about the era. Attestations in Six-Dynasties eras include

The term became very familiar in the Northern and Southern period.

「虜扈自用」, in the Chinese Dīrghāgama, trans. 413, in 遊行經虜扈 (MC luX huX)
(edit) alternative form 「虜怙自用」in a Chinese translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, trans. 291 虜怙自用虜怙 (MC luX huX) --Frigoris (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
「畔換，強恣之貌，猶言跋扈也。」, in Yan Shigu's annotation to the 漢書. 畔換 (MC banH hwanH) --Frigoris (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

звіря

Was the Ukrainian word звіря́ inherited from Proto-Slavic, borrowed from a West Slavic language, or is it just звір being suffixed with -я? It might also be possible that the one of the meanings was inherited/borrowed and the other one was formed with a suffix. --Underfell Flowey (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think *-ę n is productive in East Slavic after Proto-Slavic; Polish -ę may be analogically restored. Borrowing is difficult for the vocalism, but possible due to the recognition of the base word. Fay Freak (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Underfell Flowey, Fay Freak: However, compare Old East Slavic осля́ (osljá) (accent type F), у́тя (útja) (accent type A), ку́ря (kúrja) (accent type A). Gnosandes (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

五十嵐

RFV on the etymology of the reading for 五十嵐. Currently it says it's from the genitive particle が, but Wikipedia says it comes from 五十日(いか) → 五十(いか). Kalexchu (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there has been a lot of conflation and folk-etymologizing over the years.

The JA WP article at ja:w:50#「五十」の読み cites its ika reading to an article posted online by the Niigata Prefecture Elementary School Principals Association (http://www.niigataken-shokocho.jp/niigata/kyoudo/kfdk012.html). That article makes the claim that the name Igarashi was originally pronounced without voicing as Ikarashi, which would fit the 五十日 (ika, “fifty days”) theory. However, the article also lists the old man'yōgana spellings of 伊賀多良志 and 伊賀良志, claiming the first was read as ikarashi and the second as igarashi. However, there are problems with this, particularly in the first spelling:

The second character in both spellings is 賀, read with the on'yomi of either ga or ka in modern Japanese, but shown unambiguously in man'yōgana lists as only having the reading ga. Perhaps the lists are incorrect?
More problematic, the first spelling includes 多 as the third character, always read as ta in man'yōgana lists -- producing an expected reading of igatarashi.

While there are cases of the name read as Ikarashi and using the spelling 五十嵐, I wonder if this is a separate derivation, which is currently missing from our entry. The phonology of this name does not suggest any clear mechanism for the medial /k/ to shift to a voiced /ɡ/. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This listing (https://aminoapps.com/c/japaneseschool/page/item/manyogana-table-mo-xie-jia-ming-yi-lan/bN8B_EwEFnImN6XYrXYb4853kPrJXB7ELr0) shows 賀 as both か and が. Not sure how reliable that is as a resource, but... 97.120.57.75 21:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verb to bork in the "break" sense

I'm curious if anyone has further info on the following points.

Which came first, bork or borken? Neither entry includes any clear indication of first appearance.
While bork includes a political sense related to Robert Bork, the to break sense seems more closely tied to the Muppets character of the Swedish Chef, as mentioned at Talk:bork#Swedish_Chef. I dimly recall phrasing in the 1990s like, it's all BORK BORK BORK!, to indicate that something was higgledy-piggledy, disorganized and a confusing mess. It's a much closer semantic jump from there to to break than it is from Robert Bork, especially once you factor in various software riffing off of the Swedish Chef, such as the Opera browser messages mentioned in the Talk thread, or Google offering "Swedish Chef" as a localization option.

Looking forward to what insights others might have. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

haste

“Blend of Middle English hasten (verb) […] and Middle English hast (“haste”, noun)”: the reference does not mention it is a blend; e.g., haste (noun) seems to be directly from Middle English hast, haste (noun), not by blending. It was added by 98.24.247.112 in 2009. J3133 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just a justification why we do not split the two POS into two etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like they weren't referring to a blend in the technical sense, but to the word having come from a combination of two different sources. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]