Talk:Vṛddhi

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Cognates are words that have a common origin" - Wikipedia. I do not see how Vrddhi, Weird and Werden can have a common origin simply because they do not mean the same. I can see commonality in words like Father, Vater, Petr, and Petar; also daughter and duhitr (duhitri); Mother and Maatri (Matar); Sound and Savda; Hand and Hasta ; just to name a few.

submitted by PG in Winnipeg April 3, 2006

it's called semantic shift. dab (ᛏ) 09:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to say:

vṛddhi) is a Sanskrit word meaning "growth" (cognate to English weird, Old English wyrd, also German werden, Old English weorðan ("to become"), from PIE *werdh "to grow, to evolve").

These correspondences in Germanic are probably not true. The given Germanic words are assumed to come from another IE root: *wert-, -d- `to turn'. And in fact, the correspondence IE *dh: Germanic/Old English ð (weorðan) would not be ok.--Imz 00:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

damn, you are right; we should name Greek orthos, Slavic roditi. The wyrd association was mistaken. Thanks for paying attention. dab (ᛏ) 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As concerns the Slavic connections, I suppose, they are not quite certain. (At least, there are other suggestions, see the comments at [1], [2] (Trubachev's comments to Vasmer)(in Russian).)--Imz 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are as certain as anything in PIE etymology. There are always fringe theories but we may safely discard them, because this is encyclopaedia and it aims at presenting mainstream views. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, in this case, the mainstream view considers two possibilities. This must be reflected in the encyclopaedia, if the etymology is included.--Imz 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]