I see Ringe reconstructs this, but is there any other source? (or what is Ringe's source?) Because 1) the Sanskrit present verb 'vartti' turned out to be an augmentless mediopassive aorist 'varti', and 2) for the Germanic and Latin verbs I only find thematic reconstructions. Exarchus (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

German werden is most obvioulsy based on was, war, konjunktiv wäre, konjunktiv II würde. Basing anything on that is daunting: "Lastly, the past forms starting with w- such as was and were are from Proto-Indo-European *h₂wes- (“to reside”)." (was).

Analogicaly fahr, fuhr, Furt or in the name of a high ranking soccer team: w:de:Fürth (q.v. Wikipedia adds fränkisch: Färddⓘ/?, jiddisch פיורדא Fiurda). Alisheva (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why German werden is most obviously based on war, where the r comes from earlier s (see Proto-Germanic *wesaną). Exarchus (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

LIV says it too, but I don't understand how varti is a mediopassive aorist.

Anyway, there can't be a root present if there's already a root aorist. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the term 'mediopassive aorist' is used in current literature for what Whitney calls the 'passive aorist' (3sg. on -i). (It's debatable whether what we give as 'mediopassive' shouldn't simply be called 'middle'.) Exarchus (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

He doesn't say so, but it seems like it hinges entirely on the classification of Sanskrit varti as an athematic present. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If that's all there is to it, then I'd propose to move Latin and Germanic to the thematic present and have *wértti removed. Exarchus (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Italian cocchio looks very much like all the other European words from kocsi and meaning "coach" . . . except . . . why on earth isn't it **coccio? What happened to the consonant? Currently the Hungarian entry gives the Italian as a descendant, but the Italian entry has no etymology.

[I'm on a new computer and can't even find the goddamn tilde button so just imagine I signed this Hiztegilari.] Hiztegilari (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your etymology is correct. I'm fairly sure the consonant shift happened due to mediation of Venetan (or less likely some other northern Italian language) where intervocalic /t͡ʃ/ regularly corresponds to Italian /kkj/. Another occurrence of this phenomenon I encountered is inchiò, regional Italian term used in Venice (which I found only one attestation of and hence can't make an entry) derived from Venetian inciò. I've updated the etymology. Catonif (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very plausible and if correct another great example of two closely related languages artificially reproducing sound shifts by borrowing a word not in the closest phonetic form (Italian could have said *coccio), but according to the usual sound correspondences. This happens a lot, but some people seem to find it hard to understand. I had the discussion recently somewhere up there. 2.201.0.110 05:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's called a hypercorrection. Vahag (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought about that, but I don't like what the term could be interpreted as. It makes it sound like Venetan is "incorrect" Italian, whereas this is a mere sound correspondence. In cases of borrowings through bilingualism between closely related languages, many if not most borrowings work by sound correspondence rather than phonetic similarity. Were this to happen the other way around (Italian /kkj/ > Venetan /t͡ʃ/) I don't think anyone would try to claim "hypercorrection", rather "adaptation". Catonif (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's perhaps remotely related to hypercorrection, but clearly not the same thing. In German dialectology it is called "Einlautung" (literally "in-sounding"). 2.201.0.110 20:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of connection to kuruvinda. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The sense "to praise"? It appears to me that someone confused this with *lubōną. Or is this actually justified? 2.201.0.110 00:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to Koebler it is correct, the PGmc term *laubjan means "allow, praise (V.), believe", as evidenced by its North Germanic descendant Old Norse leyfa which means both to "allow" and "praise". Leasnam (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added "commend" and "laud" to this sense to help put the type of 'praise' in better perspective Leasnam (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Common sense holds, I believe, that there is no formal method for the reconstruction of meaning. This is important with respect to Urlaub, leave, Laub, leafs, and fall, or Herbst and 𐀏𐀡 (q.v.). Actually I'm pulling this out of my pocket but the question stands. Alisheva (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I wasn't aware of the Old Norse sense and just wanted to rule out a mistake :) 2.201.0.110 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recently a change was made to the etymology of niggatry stating that it is a blend of nigga + wizardry, and as previously stated in the etymology was coined by Uncle Ruckus in the Boondocks (which was originally added by myself). However, the meaning of the word implies otherwise, as there is no "magical" connotation to how it's used. Looking further into the term coined by the fictional Uncle Ruckus, the word he actually uses [here] is clearly niggardry (blend of nigga + wizardry; different to our entry at niggardry), despite the title of the video reading as "Powerful Niggatry at work". There was obviously a mistake made on the part of the title writer, mishearing niggardry as "niggatry". I suggest based on the use of the word that it is still a blend of nigga and bigotry, and that the reference to Uncle Ruckus should be removed as erroneous. Thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suspect it's a blend of nigga and faggotry, which (unlike bigotry) also refers to the collection of stereotypical behaviors of a marginalized group. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The old man, not Uncle Ruckus, is widely cited saying nyuka or so, once palatalized, so I'd see fortis t in lieu of d coming from the same place as k for g, with intervocalic lenition on g or progressive assimilation into kt. I do not and cannot hear "niggardry" in your snippet because of Auslautverhärtung. Alisheva (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

On second hearing, I can hear it. Alisheva (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you all ! I will restore it to what it was previously as a blend possibly involving bigotry or faggotry and remove the Ruckus reference. Leasnam (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there is a term niggardry meaning "nigga wizardry" in actual use, I guess it could still warrant an entry, though. Possibly with a "jocular" classifier, or something. Wakuran (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The glacial feature's Wikipedia page claims the word kame comes from the Old Scottish word kame or kaim meaning 'comb', citing the OED (which I personally cannot access to confirm). ——JavaRogers (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kame 24.108.0.44 03:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there an etymological connection there? PUC – 20:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/pęti Vininn126 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

We have nothing remotely like the claimed Hungarian forms for the "hound" part, with the Cyrillic [!] one looking suspiciously like a Bulgarian descendant of the Proto-Slavic ancestor, *xъrtъ. That said, the person who added it is usually pretty reliable, so it may just be a language-code mixup. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be a compound word, *velьjь meaning large, and *rybъ meaning fish. In addition, according to this video, *velьrybъ is a calque of Germanic, with *velь reanalyzed to mean big, instead of the IE root *(s)kʷálos. Tobiascide (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Second part seems to be -ain. First part doubtfully from a derivative of mons or more likely from some other colonial language (spanish morro / french morne, moraine with a nasality I can't explain which gave rise to epenthetic /d/ as in craindre, pondre...). The word is of use from the 1710's in New World and sea travel literature, which is fitting if originating from marine vocabulary. Here are the earliest dictionary entries I could find for it :[1] [2] Tim Utikal (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the second part is rain (“raised edge of a field serving as a boundary”) ? Leasnam (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possible of course, but my intuition is that it's from English baby + Swedish -is. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems probable to me. Svenska Akademien seems to prefer the plural derivation, though. Wakuran (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see it now. I thought only SAOB had an etymology section. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's probably really both: the English word was borrowed in the plural, but at the same time it was reinterpreted as containing the diminutive suffix -is. It's sort of like when Arabic كِتَاب (kitāb) was borrowed into Swahili kitabu and then the first syllable was reinterpreted as the singular noun prefix ki-. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The singular form baby was borrowed more than 60 years, earlier, and would also have been widely known from English language pop songs and such, though. So at least it doesn't seem to be an obvious case of the plural form borrowed and reinterpreted as singular, as some other Swedish loanwords. Personally, I'm okay with the -is as a sidenote mention, anyway. Wakuran (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

-*žegti ← pbs. *degtei ← ie. *dʰégʷʰeti 

-*žegti already has a page: Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/žeťi

etymology of žganci should link to žegti

link to the original žganci page: žganci 89.164.28.244 12:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The correct translation of the word perina from Serbo-Croatian to English is not pillow, as it appears on the page, but 1. mattress. 2. eiderdown. It can be checked in all dictionaries. PeterDorian (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a wiki; you're welcome to fix it yourself! —Mahāgaja · talk 06:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The etymology currently given has been contested. Kroonen says that if it comes from *ǵʰutós, it's from the root *ǵʰew- (“to pour”) and not from *ǵʰewH- (“to call, to invoke”). He proposes a connection with Old Church Slavonic говѣти (gověti, “to revere”) from a root *gʷʰew. And Beekes says it's non-Indo-European... Exarchus (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given the lack of reactions, I took the liberty to rewrite the etymology at *gudą. Feel free to improve. Exarchus (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks good! —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

is there a source for -mans being "[c]ognate with English -ment, French -ment and Italian -mente"? it seems plausible enough, but the OED doesn't make this link at all ("Origin uncertain. Perhaps < man n.¹ + ‑s (‑s suffix² or plural ending ‑s); or perhaps simply a playful distortion of ‑ness suffix"). it feels like we should at least include the OED's suggestions and make clear that the etymology is ultimately uncertain; the present claim should also be sourced if possible.

the etymology section also previously claimed that the suffix is "[f]rom Latin mēns (“mind”)", which seems altogether unlikely (and introduces contradictions— English -ment, etc., ultimately from L. -mentum, is unrelated to L. mēns). i've deleted that line. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's the Pannonian Rusyn word meaning "rice". Any kind of rice. The рис- (ris-) component makes sense (although рис (ris) is listed in the dictionary with only non-rice-related senses), but -каша (-kaša)? Does it literally mean "rice porridge"? And if so, how did it come to mean just rice in general? I'm stumped with this one. And for all I could find, there's no terms in the dictionary where you could build some sort of diminutive or derivative to form the word рискаша (riskaša). Insaneguy1083 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is borrowed from Hungarian rizskása (“rice; rice pudding”) from rizs +‎ kása, whence also Romanian rișcașă, Slovak ryzkaša, Serbo-Croatian riškaša, Carpathian Rusyn рішкаша (riškaša). Vahag (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see! I had suspected it to be a Hungarian borrowing, but I suppose I just looked up the wrong term. I was trying to look for something along the lines of *riszkasa.

I then wonder though - how did the Hungarian term gain the sense of "rice" from "rice pudding"? Doesn't quite add up from a semantic standpoint. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess the pudding/ porridge was the main rice-based dish in the area. Wakuran (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

And also in this case, would rizskása count as a Wanderwort? I suspect not, purely because it's heavily dialectal or even obsolete in most of the mentioned languages bar Romanian and Pannonian Rusyn. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added the Hungarian entry, please feel free to add any appropriate descendants. Einstein2 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose this is not some kind of root noun and hence must be *spōką. However, it seems that it should be moved to West Germanic instead. 2.201.0.110 11:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The Swedish term is from (Middle) Low German. Leasnam (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's been moved to Proto-West Germanic *spōk. Leasnam (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :) 2.201.0.110 06:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology. "mid-1400s Old Frankish (replacing English la)." what? ragweed theater _{talk, user} 20:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess it might just be imitative. Wakuran (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Leasnam (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are the two words related like what etemologiebank.nl claims? What is the proto west Germanic ancestor？ 90.241.180.58 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Kepf" seems to be a very rare or dialectal word in German, all I could find was [3] where it means "Raubvogel" ("Bird of Prey"). The semantics aren't icredibly convincing. Wakuran (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

etemologiebank.nl said something different (i dont remember exactly what it was, not that i speak dutch) but it stated a possible connection. 90.241.180.58 22:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are eight senses listed at etymologiebank.nl, but I couldn't find Kepf listed at either of them; [4] Can you come back when you know where you found the info, so we can see the citations? Wakuran (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe what the OP is referring to is Dutch keep (a type of finch, brambling (Fringilla montifringilla)). You will see it if you do a search for keep, it's the one labelled "keep (vogelsoort (Fringilla montifringilla))" Leasnam (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Wakuran (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

origin though? 90.241.180.58 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be unknown, possibly a birdcall. Wakuran (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

i dont think birds of prey make birdcalls that can be transcribed as 'kip' 90.241.180.58 18:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

chirp, twitter, kvittra, or keifen (cf. "... in a sharp voice"). See also Kiebitz.

Tangentially relatable billy-can, Aussie billy (RfE'd earlier) and obsolete German "Pfeifenkanne", "Schnauzenkanne" (cited as glosses in Altlitauisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch; cf. pipe, pfeifen, piepen; snout, nozzle or schnattern, or schnitzen, notch?) and Schnabeltasse, Schnabel +‎ Tasse, or beaker (if you'll excuse the pun). Alisheva (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure they do- hawks tend to have high-pitched calls, and not all of them are drawn out. Anything that cuts off quickly with a short drop in pitch at the end can sound like it has an unreleased final /p/. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't be the first time a stray letter was added to the end of a bird sound. Tiny Ramsey Island, off the coast of Pembrokeshire in Wales, has an insanely high percentage of all of Britain's (red-billed) choughs (I think it's something like a third or a quarter) and although they're allegedly named after their birdcall, they actually sound as if they're saying either 'chee-ur', 'chee-oh' or 'chee-ow' with a stress on the first syllable. The Old English and Middle English forms of the word listed at our entry seem like better representations of the actual sound of the bird to me. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I interpret the hypothesis, the word seems to be derived from an old Germanic/ Proto-Indo-European root, so although it might still be onomatopoetic, it might not be directly connected to the birds' calls. Wakuran (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origin? if it is only first attested in Middle Dutch then what was the Old Dutch equivilant? 90.241.180.58 19:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be the unattested frosk, according to vors. Wakuran (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, Old Dutch had pūt (> Middle Dutch puut > Dutch puit); but did you intend to ask what the equivalent term was in Middle Dutch being that kikker is only attested in Modern Dutch (from Middle Dutch kikken) ? Leasnam (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also what was the Frankish or proto west Germanic equivalent of the /kɪk.kər/ onematopoea? 90.241.180.58 14:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Onomatopoeia doesn't always have Proto-forms, although you can compare with German quäken, English quack, Swedish kväka. (The latter might be borrowed from Continental West Germanic, though.) Wakuran (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now I see we have entries for Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/kwakōną and Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/kwakōn, though. Wakuran (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Claims etymology From a Hindi word for "yellow". Pls expand P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This file mentions 'peori' and further Devanagari प्यावडी (pyāvḍī) (maybe intended as प्यावड़ी (pyāvṛī)). But I can't find more about it in Hindi dictionaries. Exarchus (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I found पेवड़ी (pevṛī) in McGregor's dictionary and will add it to the page. Exarchus (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The surname Araújo or Araúxo derives from a castle in Galicia, near the Portuguese border, but no-one says what it means. My best guess is from arar (“to plough”), thus ploughland. Any better ideas? 24.108.0.44 01:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does the Norwegian term for muggles have anything to do with the Danaru word for arm? Perhaps the vikings got themselves stuck on the islands of Papua New Guinea and saw tribesmen using it and decided to use it as a insult to non magic people? 90.241.180.58 20:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most unlikely. I read on a message board that it was an Old Norwegian word for nisse (gnome), but the user didn't provide a source. Otherwise, Norwegian has gom/ gomme (palate, gum), gump (bird's tail) and gamp (horse), so thee might have been some kind of conflation there. Wakuran (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In Swedish and Nynorsk, I think "gump" can also mean the buttocks of a person. I believe it's a fairly colloquial word, similar to British/ Canadian bum or American fanny, but an allusion would still make sense for an insult. Wakuran (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where did the Dutch word for muggles come from? Im sure it's dreuze+el but apart from a surname I found dreuze isn't a real word 90.241.180.58 15:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dutch apparently has the words treuzel (slowpoke) and dreutel (small child), it seems. (Although treuzelen seems more common as a verb than as a noun.) There might be a connection. Wakuran (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It may be a completely made-up word, not based on any existing roots but only on connotations of similar words. Dutch dreutel (small child) has a synonym dreumel but can, moreover, also be used to refer to a clumsy person. Rhyming Dutch words with negative connotations are gebeuzel and geneuzel, both meaning “twaddle”, especially used for speech that demands one’s attention but is about irrelevant or insignificant things. BTW, we give an etymology for Muggle as being formed as mug +‎ -le, but AFAICT this stems from an editor’s imagination.  --Lambiam 18:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contribs look like nationalist nonsense; I noticed them due to their edit to dhampir, a persistent target of 'everything-is-native' folk-etymologists, but it'd be good if someone with access to reliable etymological resources could take a look at the others... - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my block message, they've been removing sourced information put there by Albanian editors such as @FierakuiVërtet and @Catonif and claiming it was put there by "Serbian bot accounts". The first part might be justifiable, depending on the facts, but the second part shows either blatant dishonesty or serious delusion, neither of which are conducive to good edits. I'm sure the Albanians don't have any more idiots or nutcases than any other nationality, but they seem to have a higher proportion of such people who end up at Wiktionary, for whatever reason. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does the German surname have any connection with Alemannic German large water pipe? It would be nice to have more info, what with Thomas Tuchel becoming England's men's team soccer manager. Let's say that if he wins England the World Cup, we'll add Tuchel as an English surname on en.wikt. If that's not incentive enough..... P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tuchel is also the German name of Tuchola, a town formerly in Germany and now in Poland. Surnames from place names are very common, of course, but to settle the matter someone would have to do some pretty heavy research to determine whether the surname originated in West Prussia or in Uri (or somewhere else altogether). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would have guessed the German name might have been Tuch (cloth) with diminutive -el-ending. I'm not sure on where the Alemannic German might have come from, possibly some early borrowing of French tube, if I am to hazard a guess. Wakuran (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the Alemannic German Tuchel is connected to Middle High German tūchen (“to submerge”) (>German tauchen) ? Leasnam (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology. Kluge/Seebold. Etym WB der deutschen Sprache; 23. Auffl. 1995. page 185 — This unsigned comment was added by Janwo (talk • contribs) at 08:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Janwo: Evidently the IP before the IP adding the rfv-etym just copied it from the page for mistletoe *mistilaz, though there only, and in its there referenced source, the suffix was told to be identical and the IP transferred its knowledge on the eventual morphemes, which is not dumb as far as I can see, Irene Balles 1999 also accepted the same “to prick, to sting, root” with this suffix, though not evidently the middle morpheme “to sit”; the etymology wasn’t known in Kluge 1995. Fay Freak (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict) Reviewing the entry, a compound with zero-grade from *sed- (beside mistle note also parasit) is not convincing unless there is a cognate with the same root. S-mobile should be doubtful (see the statistical argument about cutting roots and related semantics by Viktor Lewizkij in Nowele 60 (2011)). Since **sd does not surface in syllable onset (Siebs' law, cp. parasit, sedere), it is not simply *teyg- plus s-prefix (pace Kluge).

Regarding the semantics compare thicket reconstructing a different vowel in *þekuz.

In other words, the mechanical reconstruction of PIE *(s)teyg- is indistinguishable from coincidence, thus PG *þistilaz is less than reliable. Attested only in Old Norse and West-Germanic, not Gothic, borrowing is possible from PWG where the vowels of *þistil and *þikkwī eventually agree (for the High German long vowel cf. diesig). Nevertheless, EWAhd agrees with Kluge.[5] Thick on the other hand appears to be chiefly Celtic—Germanic, cf. "Weitere sichere Anschlußmöglichkeiten fehlen." (EWAhd)[6] "eerder zou ik denken aan overname uit een substraattaal." (de Vries), "Gezien de geringe verspreiding gaat het wrsch. om een substraatwoord." (EWNl)[7]. That opens the door to speculation.

As for the color that we show in vivid pictures, the Finnic "thistle; bramble" and Proto-Finic "burdock", from Baltic (supra; Proto-Baltic *dagijas s.v. Proto-Finnic *takijas), should be of interest. 𐍅𐌹𐌲𐌰𐌳𐌴𐌹𐌽𐍉𐌼 (wigadeinōm, “thistle”) agrees very well with the Balto-Slavic evidence of *dyew- (“day; bright, shiny”), PB *deinas/*dinas, while *dagijas (above) reminds of the false cognate *dagaz—NB: ALEW: dãgas, "Außerbsl. wird häufig das germ. Wort für ‘Tag, helle Zeit des Tages’, got. dags, an. dagr, ae. dæg, ahd. tag sm. hier angeschlossen," q.v. also dagilis.[8].

So there's a beaten path. Moreover, Bramble includes "blackberry", Burdock resonates with bur (viz. purple) [citation needed], but I am not familiar with these words. Alisheva (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I deleted above: Finnic has loans in both cases, Finnish takiainen "thistle" derived from a Baltic word (Category:Proto-Baltic is etymology only short-hand) and tykky derived from Old Norse "thick". A presumably earlier loan appears in Proto-Samic, but Wikipedia is awfully quiet on its date. Alisheva (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're quite ... creative ... with consonant voicing. I'll leave it at that. As for burdock: anyone who has every encountered the plant in person is painfully aware that "bur" is the same as English bur, and in that time period purple was an astronomically expensive imported dye used in royal robes- not something people in the wilds of Northern Europe would use to name a common weed. In addition, bramble is from a name for shrubs, sharing its origin with broom. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This page is presumably based on Vladimir Orel (2003) A Handbook of Germanic Etymology‎^[9], Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 468, which is uncredited. If the meaning of Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wīsōną#Etymology_1 is really best glossed as "to visit" then the etymology should, I think, be from Latin vīsō (“to visit”). Otherwise, it should probably be merged with Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wīsōną#Etymology_2 "to show, guide, direct". The meaning "to visit" could then be a loan translation semantic borrowing from Latin. Thoughts? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As both of them seem to have been derived from PIE *weyd-, could they be independent constructions? Wakuran (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean it was derived twice from the same root with the same suffix? Is that possible? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just figured it could be the same suffixes and general thinking behind it, but it was just a general hunch, anyway. Wakuran (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to make the article for Kildin Sami ыгь (yg’) since I saw there was an article for ыгь кэ̄сск (yg’ kēssk), but couldn't find anything related to the etymology of the word. I found on a Sami to Russian dictionary that the word comes from ыгкь (ygk’), but wasn't fully sure if it was true. Anyone know if it's true or not? Aoscf77 (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don't create entries in languages you do not speak. This is most likely an inflected form. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, ygʹ would be the genitive of ygkʹ. --Tropylium (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The name has nothing to do with onions, it first turns up in an Italian Arthurian story, w:La Damigella di Scalot. She is elsewhere referred to as living in a tower, so the name is probably derived from Welsh ysgol (“ladder”) (etymology 2), alternate form ystol. -ot represents a diminutive, thus flight of steps. Some might think the name is purely Italian, but then it would be scaletta.

Thus, The Lady of the Staircase! 24.108.0.44 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old word in Webster 1913. It might be connected to Portuguese berne? P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anyone know the origin of this placename? There's a landform called a letch which has sometimes been spelled and pronounced latch, so hypothetically it could be named for one of those... but while looking for the earliest uses of the name, there was interference from the fact that various things in Essex have iron latches which books found notable enough to mention, so it could just be that, or some other explanation. - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kiitricha is the type genus of the family Kiitrichidae but I have not been able to clarify its etymology. Do you have any idea? Thanks in advance. Gerardgiraud (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The -tricha part looks like the τριχ- (trikh-) that is the stem of θρίξ (thríx, “hair”), but the kii- part looks very un-Greek. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay for the suffix thríx, it's really the prefix kii that poses a (big) problem for me. Gerardgiraud (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A bit of googling reveals that Kii is a Japanese surname (in addition to the place name we have listed). I found an article on E. coli coauthored by a Tsutomu Kii and an article about coral DNA coauthored by a Shin-Ichi Kii. So maybe the Kiitricha is named after a protistologist of the same name? Or maybe even the place name already mentioned in our entry?? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The -trich- morpheme is contained in hypernyms of Kiitricha upto the rank of infraphylum. The protist apparently coexists with corals. The Kii peninsula has reefs. I'd bet on Kii referring to the place. DCDuring (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks all. Gerardgiraud (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

any idea of what the etymology of pookie is? 2001:1BA8:1616:C800:5CA6:3B39:F60D:AD67 16:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’ve no idea. It is possible that pookie and Pookie have different etymologies though, as the meanings are quite different. Overlordnat1 (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CanadianRosbif asked the same question in July; @Wakuran replied, “For pets, English already has the similar pooch/ poochie.” J3133 (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found many hits on Google Books where men, women, cats and dogs are called ‘Pookie’, so that’s certainly possible. There’s also this interesting hit[10] which refers to someone called Pookie, back in the 70s, apparently because of his drug use (thus tying it in to pookie perhaps? Maybe a corruption of PCP?). The word seems to be used more by African Americans. The author Sherman L. Fowler was apparently given the nickname 'Pookie' from birth in 1943[11]. There's also two hits using 'pookie' to refer to a vagina([12] and [13]) and one hit claiming it's short for 'pussy cat'[14]. It's apparently also a term for a bushbaby originating in (what was) Rhodesia, a tank was named after it (see [15] and the various links at w:Pooky. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the pet name, maybe we could write "imitative", poochie, cookie and puppy feel somewhat similar. Wakuran (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean that it might be an attempt to imitate the sound of a cute pet, or baby perhaps? Possibly so but that’s a different hypothesis to saying that it came from blending the words poochie, cookie and puppy together (none of which are themselves of imitative origin). Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first example. Wakuran (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The English etymology and various derived etymologies claim that this is a Germanic calque. I can't find such a claim in any of the standard etymological sources that I have access to. It seems that the univerbation "manuscriptum" is attested since circa 1000, so the Germanic words could actually be calques of the Latin. But the semantics are so obvious that there doesn't even have to be any close relation. Is there any source for this claim? 2.202.159.43 23:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A thousand dollar bill;"a grand" 68Mopar (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have this at G-note, I've just added the etymology there. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pannonian Rusyn word for "stair", i.e. stairs is ґарадичи (garadiči). First instinct is to connect it with парадича (paradiča, “tomato”), but I have no idea how these two could connect. And I couldn't find any Hungarian *garadicsom either. Maybe somehow related to Latin gradus? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This doesn’t answer your question, but it seems like the word also exists in many Slovak dialects: [16]. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Borrowed from Hungarian grádics／garádics. Vahag (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

And I'm guessing this Hungarian word comes from Latin gradus somehow? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any idea what the source of Dose, Döse (“moor”) is, or Dobbe? (Old books variously mention Dobbe as a synonym or suggest that one or both words instead mean "bog pond" and/or a particular peat layer.) Several old books suggest the name relates to the moors' light-coloured peat, but if there is a link (does dösig locally mean light-coloured?) it is currently escaping me. - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dobbe appears it may come from Middle Low German dobbe (“ditch, depression, swamp, low marshy land with overgrown surface”), related to Middle Dutch dobbe (“pit, quarry, water basin”) (modern Dutch dobbe), West Frisian dobbe (“ditch, pit”). Perhaps from Proto-West Germanic *dobbā related to Proto-Germanic *dumpa- (whence English dimple), ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *dʰewb- (“deep, hollow”). Leasnam (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have heard "Dose" once in a compound, cf. "preußische Sanddose", "märkische Sanddose", "Märkische Streusandbüchse", refering to the arid soil. Dose can mean box, hence I remember it inevitably as Sandkasten. I doubt that this is correct, because you would not be asking if δόσις (dósis) derives such a sense. Although it would make sense if Dose "can" derived from dosis "a measured portion" while drug at the same time is related to dry, pill refered in a similar way to mortar, which shows a wide range of semantic drift. On second thought, it may be related to *dūnā, sand dune, see below about diesig. Alisheva (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aha, thank you! - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I found that Fritz Overbeck's 1975 Botanisch-geologische Moorkunde unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Moore Nordwestdeutschlands als Quellen zur Vegetations-, Klima- und Siedlungsgeschichte, page 49, says "7. Dose, nach MENSING (Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wörterbuch) und C. A. WEBER (1900) die alte niedersächsische Bezeichnung für das Hochmoor (z. B. „Esterweger Dose“, [...]). Lebendiger erhalten soll das Wort in der Ableitung „dösig“ sein, dem Adjektiv für einen wenig ergiebigen, schwerfälligen Menschen; auch die Bezeichnung „Torfkopf“ ist für einen solchen Menschen gebräuchlich." (However, I can't say I am convinced of the connection to dösig, since it has such a solid, and non-moor-related, etymology already.)

The Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wörterbuch Overbeck cites in turn says: "Dose, Dös (s. d.) „hellfarbige Moosschicht auf Torfmooren“, als selbständiges Wort in Schl.H. nicht mehr bekannt (erhalten im Ostfriesischen; vgl. nhd. „Dost“, Origanum vulgare L.), nur noch in Ortsnamen fortlebend: Dosen-bȩk Dorf im Gut Bothkamp; Nebenfluß der Schwale bei Groß-Harrie (Neum.), —moor Moor östl. vom Einfelder See (Bordesh.), [...]" and "Dös ² (dös) f. „Niederung“, „Wiese“, „Moor“; vgl. mnd. dose „hellfarbiger Moostorf“. enige Holtbüten un Torfmoor in'e D—en Dtm. 1850; nur bei Groth 3, 104 u. 2, 46 bezeugt. Vgl. Dose S. 778."

It would still be interesting to know the etymology or cognates of the Middle Low German word.

- -sche (discuss) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

On a separate note, Distel would be standard but it certainly does not rhyme with distillery for me. Long 'ie' is easily found, not easily quoted. Hence I pointed out diesig.

We link it to dijzig (RfE). DWDS and Etymologiebank agree tentatively about PIE *tem(ǝ)-, though Philippa is missing. This I thought would be enough as far as the parallel to *(s)teyg- respectively *(s)teg-. We on the other hand have it already as cognate to dizzy (West Frisian dize (“fog”)), but from *dʰewh₂-.

With regards to Dose (@-sche) and my comparison with dune, see also Dunst, aufgedunsen (soggy?), or dösen (“doze, slumber”). Dösig does refer to dizzy, after all. Alisheva (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No idea what you're trying to say. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why sure you do. dijzig is labeled RfE, we disagree with sources and I set up a discussion with topical references. This is to guard my previous comment on the same root, this in response to my previous comments about thistle concerned about vowel length and consonant voicing. Ulterior motives were lost to my browser deciding to reload the page at random, a hazy hazard I should have reckoned with. Words can't express ... Alisheva (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

the etymology section cites the notoriously unreliable/generally bad website 語源由来辞典 (Gogen Yurai Jiten), which has so many unsourced hypotheses for that specific word that I'm starting to think everything there is just speculation. I feel like we should just remove the etymology, and I was going to do that, but I decided to ask here first to see if someone had a more reliable source, like a Proto-Japonic reconstruction or a Ryukyuan cognate or a more reliable etymology than just speculation from GYJ. so, if anyone has that, please weigh in, otherwise I'm just going to remove the etymology, I think. Mati, with a t (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

okay, I removed the dubious etymology from the entry. if anyone for some reason wants to add another more credible source for the etymology, please do — I wasn't able to find anything other than random sites that I wouldn't personally believe with theories like that. Mati, with a t (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Back to Nubia! w:Makuria was a Nubian kingdom which lasted many centuries. I have ransacked my Old Nubian Dictionary for a suggestive word, without luck. But Coptic, which was a prestige language in Nubia, has Coptic ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ (makarios, “blessed”), borrowed from Ancient Greek μακάριος (makários). w:Makuria tells us that the native name was ⲇⲱⲧⲁⲩⲟ (dōtauo), so Makuria was a borrowed "prestige" name. And what more natural than that the kings and priests should call their "blessed" country by a "blessed" language. Thoughts, anyone? 24.108.0.44 01:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the name ⲇⲱⲧⲁⲩⲟ, the Old Nubian Dictionary tells us that ⲇⲱⲩⲧ- translates κοσμήσᾱς ordered, arranged, adorned, of which ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ, blessed, might be a loose translation. So this might be another support for the interpretation. 24.108.0.44 03:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That raises the question of why a deliberate prestigous borrowing would have /u/ instead of /a/.

That there doesn’t exist a Nubian word (at least not in that source) which resembles “Makuria” doesn’t mean the toponym is non-local in origin. The names of most French cities aren’t a good fit for any individual French word either. Nicodene (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The fact that a native name ⲇⲱⲧⲁⲩⲟ exists beside the better-known one implies borrowing, just as the name Australia is in Latin. As to the u, that could be part of converting the adjective into a proper noun. 24.108.0.44 20:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That doesn’t follow. Makuria can simply be based on some other Nubian toponym or ethnonym.

/a/ > /u/ resulting from the conversion of an adjective into a noun, proper or otherwise, is not found in Ancient Greek. Nicodene (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Claude Rilly and Alex de Voogt (2012, The Meroitic Language and Writing System) consider it natively inherited: The ancient Nubians identified themselves differently in their own language, perhaps *Mag-ur ~ *Mag-i, if one trusts the names of Makuria (Kingdom of Dongola); [...] (Rilly & de Voogt 2012:104). 185.238.219.3 15:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wow, this is interesting, could you post the whole paragraph? 24.108.0.44 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You should familiarize yourself with the literature if this is your thing. I can say that it is based on comparisons in three more languages, but I have not read the whole thing and cannot tell what it means in this framework. I will say that it does either intentionally or by oversight not include Mogoreeb, the name of a dialect and a corresponding tribe in the Nara language branch (p. 78). 62.214.191.67 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just made the entry for Pannonian Rusyn -арня (-arnja), and I'm coming up to an issue about its productivity. Fact is, there aren't a whole lot of Pannonian Rusyn words for which the -ар (-ar) form doesn't exist, but that the -арня (-arnja) form does. Combing through the whole 2010 Rusyn-Serbian dictionary, the only one I could reasonably find was машинарня (mašinarnja), and even that's iffy because there's also the synonym машинарнїца (mašinarnjica), and -арнїца (-arnjica) isn't really a thing. The -р- (-r-) in the middle might even just be there to fill the gap between машина (mašina) and -ня (-nja).

Yet, the 1997 Serbian-Rusyn dictionary does in fact treat it as a suffix separate to -ар (-ar) and -ня (-nja), perhaps due to the productivity of unrelated Serbo-Croatian -ара／-ara. So my question is, does an -арня (-arnja) word need to not have an -ар (-ar) form in order to considered a separate formation? Are there for example any Polish words which do have an -arz form, but also have a separate -arnia form that which is considered as actually suffixed with -arnia rather than just -arz + -nia? Does it perhaps depend on the exact semantics? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A cursory search has yielded me Polish owczarz and owczarnia, which are apparently considered separate at least on here. Don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud with this one, but feel free to chime in with your thoughts. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

hi there, I can't seem to find the exact etymology for the word "důstojník", could anybody please help me out with this one? I can't really tell if it's just a blend of "důstojný + -ník" and even then I'm rather looking for its more exact roots. It would be very much appreciated, thank you! Tabberib (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cognate to Polish dostojnik at any rate. If one of them is borrowed or if they're both parallel internal development is another question. Vininn126 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. My question is about changing the etymology.

1) Is it obvious that this Proto-Slavic form cannot be inherited from this Proto-Balto-Slavic form? It seems that this is evident from *aśís > *ȍsь, *déśimtis > *dȅsętь (*weiśinjāˀ > **visьňa, not *višьňa). If the Proto-Indo-European form is correct, then, in my opinion, it would be necessary to inherit the form from *veiśjāˀ [iotation] > *viša > Pskov dial. ви́ша (víša), Nikolaev 1986: 125. Although it can be noted that Nikolaev reconstructs how *vixja [first regressive palatalization] > *viša. According to Anikin 2013: 283, there is a masculine form виш (viš) in dialects, which, as he writes, can be a reverse derivation (< вишня), but does not exclude a non-prefix formation (*višь < [iotation] *veiśjas — my comment, since he means the suffix *-ьňa). Zaliznyak 2004: 266 also proposes the reconstruction *višňa, without ь, although he writes that it may be a misprint in the Old Novgorodian, however, the misprint is in a strong position ь.

2) Accentologically, Zaliznyak does not cite a paradigm, for Nikolaev it is paradigm b, although in the first form he has a typo of tone (which would speak of paradigm a), and in subsequent forms the typos are corrected manually with a pencil. It is quite possible to consider the same action as in wordform such as *vòľa > во́ля (vólja), but *ženà > жена́ (žená).

Are there any other thoughts on this? @Thadh:, @AshFox: - ɶLerman (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latvian: RFV and cleanup of almost the whole etymology, though there is one source cited. Like many Latvian and Lithuanian etymologies on the wiki, it is needlessly long and complex, sloppy, and full of improper notation. More importantly, it overlays several mutually exclusive etymologies without organizing them or explaining which if any are most likely, and it is unclear what the reasons to reconstruct any of the PIE or Proto-Baltic forms are—just a confusing, self-contradictory mess that combines old and new ideas. Same issue at Jūrmala § Norwegian Bokmål, which copied the etymologies from jūra and mala but does not source them. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:5492:574D:9227:5762 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latvian: RFV of the etymology, particularly the PIE reconstruction. Repeated at Jūrmala § Norwegian Bokmål. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:5492:574D:9227:5762 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Etymology is sourced but highly suspect. Neither of the sources are reliable for PIE etymology, both copying from old works like Pokorny without a critical eye, and from a quick glance I can tell this case is no exception. *teh₂- (“to melt, trickle”) seems neither semantically nor phonetically a good match. I doubt there is a better etymology out there, but the entry should reflect that state of things. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:5492:574D:9227:5762 22:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Colluvium is used in geology and comes from collis, hill, and luvium, sediments or what washed there. Therefore, colluvium are sediments that came from uphill at the time of deposition. These sediments (usually? form a jumble of sizes contrary to alluvium that is sorted-the smaller pieces a carried further by the river… 2605:A601:AE5A:7F00:D89A:5714:A36D:C7B9 14:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The col- is from the Latin prefix con- (“together”), not from collis (“hill”). —Mahāgaja · talk 18:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pointing out that this isn't commonly reconstructed for Proto-West Germanic. The -sch in German is said to be influenced by Middle Dutch valsch, where the -sch is said to be analogical. Exarchus (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is absolute nonsense and should be deleted immediately. The word is not attested anywhere before the 12th century. The verb in German "fälschen" is older and may well be PWG, but the adjective clearly isn't. We can even in see how it spread from Dutch and West Central German eastward (namely through Veldeke, cf. Pfeifer). Generally speaking there are lots of dubious PWG entries that should be deleted. 2.207.102.112 03:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree. Which other PWG entries do you think are dubious? Exarchus (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The origin of the the component राष्ट्र in the name महाराष्ट्र is attributed to a tribe called राष्ट्रिक; which later became राष्ट्रकूट; with an original form of Ratta. Such that:

(Unknown origin) Ratta > Sanskritized to राष्ट्र > MIA raṭṭa, raṭṭha etc.

But the origin of the word Ratta is still not known. I think it's a descendant of Hraštás. I have three reasons to posit this:

1. The semantic overlap between the concept of "right(side)" and "south" is well known in PIE, particularly in PIA. The Rattas were an extreme southern tribe in terms of all other Aryan tribes. It makes sense that they may identify as "South(erners)" as well. Other names for the same tribes are laṭṭa, laṭhika etc.
2. The connection in literature with the terms रथ​, रथी, महारथी since they're basically titles and not tribe names, the lack of retroflexion also makes them much less likely as the origin.
3. The word did exist in Proto-Indo-Iranian but has not left a descendant in the Indo-Aryan side. I think this is actually the reason why we've ended up with the sanskritization of Ratta as "Rashtra". People in the early first millenium in India had no idea where it came from and since the word did not leave any known descendants in Sanskrit, everyone jumped to "Rashtra" as the origin of the word.

I also know that the word may possibly be Dravidian; but I did not find any precedence for my hypothesis in the literature and it fits very well.

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, what do you guys think? Varca mumbaikar (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The third point is confusing. Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hraštás has no Vedic descendant and "Ratta" has no Sanskrit etymology, native speakers naturally etymologized the name with "Rashtra", therefore a reflex of *Hraštás must be assumed. This does not explain Ratta and variants, which would be the actual question. Since Proto-Dravidian Proto-Dravidian *mic- may be rendered in Akkadian Meluḫḫa, and we know h from Sindh as well as Sinitic from /c/ it would seem that महा (mahā) only confirms the assumption of a healthy dose of folkmonomology! Sachthepupil (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sachthepupil Thanks for the reply! The third point is more of a supplement from my side to suggest that if *Hraštás had survived, we'd be calling it **महारष्ट or something similar today. Since it did not survive, राष्ट्र became the go-to sanskritized version.

Coming to the second question, a descendant of *Hraštás does explain Ratta and it's variants... to at least a higher extent than राष्ट्र.

1. *Hraštás > **रष्ट > रट्ठ​, रठ (self-explanatory)
2. **रष्ट > **लष्ट (r ~ l are frequently conflated in IA languages) > लट्ट​, लट्ठ, लठिक

Those are all the variants I believe must be explained. Your point about Dravidian *mic is a valid etymon for the "Maha" component, not for "Ratta", which we know were defintely separate components. There is another theory with *mic as the base, as "Marahaṭṭha" is also a later attested MIA name for the region. Normally, it is explained by maharaṭṭha > (metathesis) marahaṭṭha, but it can also explained as *mēluVkku > *malaha-ṭṭha (pleonastic) > marahaṭṭha, but it is too far-fetched for me, and against current concensus that "Ratta" is a name in itself and the "maha" component was added later.

If you're unsure about the validity of ष्ट > ṭṭ, this sound change is seen with इष्टका > iṭṭā, and is apparently more common with Southern IA languages with Old Marathi सेटि (<सेट्टि< श्रेष्ठिन्). Varca mumbaikar (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origin? 84.70.45.226 16:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Under the heading Origin proposals, Wikipedia's article Glagolitic script has "Possibly minuscule Greek nu ν^[60]".  --Lambiam 08:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Protocruzia (protist) is the type genus of the family Protocruziidae. The prefix proto is clear but the suffix cruzia is mysterious. Any ideas? Gerardgiraud (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was dedicated to the memory of w:Oswaldo Cruz: "Genero dedicada á memoria de Oswaldo Cruz" (published in the journal "Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz"). Compare Cruzella. Urszag (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot @Urszag. Gerardgiraud (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This word is said to be inherited from Latin ingenerāre. However, wouldn’t the inherited form in Portuguese be something like *engerar (vide gerar). It seems to me that this word was borrowed or influenced by French engendrer. Is there any other word with the -enerare → -endrar development native to Portuguese? OweOwnAwe (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is this term applied to baygall swamps? I understand the other sense, where bay = body of water, gulf (speaking of the head of a bay makes as much sense as speaking of the head of a river)... Is the swamp sense of bayhead suggesting that baygall swamps are "bay-laurel-y headwaters" of the streams they're near? - -sche (discuss) 05:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Online Etym. Dictionary at "farm" says that the phrase "buy it" (1825) is significantly older than "buy the farm" (mid-20th c.). So the claim of an ellipsis at "buy it" is in all likelihood mistaken. I also think, though this may be wrong, that "buy it" is common in Britain while "buy the farm" is not.
There's also further information in the linked entry that might be used to improve the etymology at "buy the farm" (for example, it could be a blend of "buy it" and "fetch the farm" also mentioned there). Is the military-aircraft-crash thing really a "long-held hypothesis" or just a folk etymology? 2.207.102.112 04:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've adapted the etymology at "buy it". 2.207.102.112 18:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The link to Quinlon's site is well worth following. Online Ety. Dict. certainly uses it. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is its etymology "Compound of 爪 (tsume, “claw”) +‎ 痛い (itai, “painful”)"? I don't understand the connection between claw, painful and "cold". Duchuyfootball (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A biting cold? Hokkaido can be fairly cold during winter time. Wakuran (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It's interesting. My language does not have the concept of relating coldness to physical injuries (biting, claw etc.) like that. Duchuyfootball (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's an understandable metaphor in English, but not a lexicalized one, I think. DCDuring (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I doubt this letter looks like the sign of the cross, also by the time the Glagolitic script was invented the Phoenician alphabet had been absolete for over 500 years so it couldn't come from 'alep too. 84.70.45.226 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I changed the text back to a previous version (with Hebrew alef), which is also what the source gives. Exarchus (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, are you saying the source Diwodh₃rós provided didn't give the Phoenician etymology which Diwodh₃rós cited it as supporting (and instead, it supports the Hebrew etymology)? Misrepresenting sources would (as discussed recently in relation to another user, who I see has even criticized Diwodh₃rós for something similar) be a concerning issue. - -sche (discuss) 02:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origin? What is its normal German cognate? 84.70.45.226 21:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's from hinauf. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Strong disagree. nei can be derived from in or nieder, no need to go through hin. The rest is analogy.

Is there any evidence of contracted hn respectively hr for raus etc.? Is this a case of the front fell off (after Clarke and Dawe)? Howydo (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why you'd expect to see forms where the [h] is retained but the intervening vowel lost. I'd expect either both were lost at the same time, or the [h] first.--Urszag (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Currently listed as descendants at Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/lauhaz and Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/lauh, a lexeme that is supposed to be derived from Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/lewk-. I'm not familiar with sound changes that would turn "au" into "a" in this position, or "h" into "g", whereas the evolution of lauh > Loh is unproblematic. Do Loh, Lah and Lage really all belong to the same root? The etymology section of the latter says that it is instead a derivative of the unrelated root Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/legʰ-. Urszag (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It might presumably be two different Lages. The standard Lage looks similar to the Swedish läge (position). Wakuran (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely zero descendants point to a short *u; the co-occurrence of Old Irish ú with Welsh i and Romance u all point to a long *ū, and the u in Breton/Cornish cannot reflect a short inherited *u (Brittonic vowels spelled u only reflects *ou and oi; old *u became o(u)). The entry name should be reverted to *rūskos to at least be compatible with most of the descendants (but we need an admin to do this). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree for Irish and British. What do the Romance descendants tell us, if anything? Why does an admin need to do the moving? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

An admin needs to do the move because it involves deleting a redirect. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the fact that the Romance descendants of Latin rusca all have u and not o indicates that the Latin was actually Latin rūsca. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have correctly captured my thought process with regards to the Romance terms. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made the move, but I haven't added macrons to the Latin terms. Someone else can do that if they feel confident. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there any particular reason to suppose this was borrowed into a stage of a language that can be called Proto-West-Germanic? I initially got here by looking into the distribution of palatalization in Old English words; in theory, we'd expect original [ˈt͡ʃe] to evolve by palatal diphthongization to [ˈt͡ʃiy] in Early West Saxon, which I think would give us (*?)ċieder rather than ceder as the normalized OE form if it had actually evolved regularly as a fully inherited term. The main thing that concerns me though is that this is one of those reconstructions that seems to have more than one questionable sound correspondence: aside from the not-a-typically-recognized phoneme *c (which I know has already been discussed in regard to krūci), the ending -dr doesn't show the same evolution in High German as in *dodr. The entry for Dutch ceder cites Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands: can anyone check what this says? Urszag (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't make sense to me either Leasnam (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can see the Dutch dictionary here: borrowing from French cedre, or directly from Latin. Exarchus (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Compare English pine ~ Dutch pijn, which were clearly borrowed from the same Latin root and likely at about the same time, but which we list as two separate Latin borrowings rather than reconstructing a common ancestor. —Soap— 18:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

i didnt see this: Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/pīnā. this doesnt rule out what i said above ... it could just be a very tangled etymology, such that it was borrowed into OE, died out, and was reborrowed again in ME, while the same thing happened in Dutch. i note, however, that the supposed OHG cognate does not have the expected pf-, so this may need looking at as well. —Soap— 21:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the other meaning of *pīnā (pain), German doesn't have pf- either. I now see that you actually discussed this a year earlier at the talk page. I'm not sure the reply is that relevant: if German relatinised many words, then you'd expect a pf- variant at least at some point. Kluge suggests Pein was transmitted through Irish.

At Wikipedia's High German consonant shift I find: "Latin loanwords adopted into the language prior to the 6th century display the shift, whereas those adopted from the 8th century onward do not." So giving *pīnā as PWG seems very doubtful. Exarchus (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Exarchus, Leasnam, Victar: I just noticed the linked entry Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/cedrubaum does have one reference. I can't read German: can anyone tell me whether Köbler 2014 actually supports that term existing in Proto-West-Germanic? (I don't think the descendants by themselves convincingly prove a single common origin, since adding "tree" to the end of a tree name is an obvious type of collocation.) Should we have some kind of more general discussion about whether the practice mentioned at the "pīnā" talk page, of treating "Proto-West Germanic" as a catch-all for terms borrowed from Latin at some point that eventually had descendants in multiple West Germanic languages, makes sense? I'm not really convinced this is a good idea. I assume that primarily Christian terms would have been borrowed into Old English only after Old English speakers became Christianized, which is usually dated as starting around 600 CE or so.---Urszag (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Köbler doesn't say anything about Proto-(West-)Germanic. Exarchus (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old High German pīna (as the tree) simply doesn't seem to exist (there's 'pīnboum', and related spellings). Exarchus (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out, Latin borrowings into Germanic often underwent later readjustments, whether through Ecclesiastical Latin in Old Germanic, or French in Middle Germanic, making it difficult to determine their age. For what it's worth, Old English -bēam largely fell out of productive use in favor of -trēow.

Regarding the use of Proto-West Germanic as a catch-all, it might be equally speculative to assume that each branch borrowed from Latin independently. For later borrowings, it is more likely that a borrowing entered one branch and subsequently spread to the others, though identifying the exact source would be challenging.

--{{victar|talk}} 21:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I feel like the current entry implies that Proto-West-Germanic speakers borrowed a word for a tree that didn’t exist in their part of the world, starting with a phoneme that didn’t normally exist in their language. This word was then taken with West Germanic speakers when they crossed the sea to Britain, and kept for a century or two until Old English speakers converted from paganism to Christianity and found they conveniently already had a word to use to translate “cedrus” in the Latin Bible. That seems unlikely to me versus the alternative: that having no native word for the species, Old English speakers adapted the Latin word “cedrus” as “ċeder”. I don't follow the argument for why this kind of word is more likely to have been borrowed indirectly via another West Germanic language, and if it was, that still wouldn’t really be a case of this being a “Proto-West-Germanic” lexeme.--Urszag (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A few points to consider: Borrowing between dialects of Proto-West-Germanic, such as Proto-Anglo-Frisian from Frankish, still qualifies as the word being borrowed into Proto-West-Germanic. Secondly, just because a tree wasn't native to the West-Germanic world doesn't preclude it from being borrowed, if not from the tree itself, then objects made from its wood. Lastly, Christianity was already familiar to West-Germanic speakers, even amongst pagans, and we have solid evidence of early loanwords, such as *diubul. @Mnemosientje--{{victar|talk}} 07:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To address vowel breaking in Old English, ċeodorbēam is also attested. Seeing as OE ċeder is apparently an ō-stem, I'm thinking ō-stem *cedru might be a better reconstruction. --{{victar|talk}} 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I pulled the trigger and moved the entry to RC:Proto-West Germanic/cedru. I should have put it there to begin with. --{{victar|talk}} 00:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got it. That seems consistent with the Old English form, with a similar evolution as in *feþru. I'm still a bit skeptical though whether all of the listed forms constitute a genuine cognate set that can be traced back to some common borrowing, given the seeming lack of any forms with -t- in High German. Also, it looks like there are only 2 other examples (*airu, *skuldru) of masculine ō-stem PWG nouns, vs. hundreds of feminine ones, so that seems a bit unusual.--Urszag (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed *skuldru too. I changed it to feminine, which is supported by Orel. --{{victar|talk}} 03:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can someone check the etymology - I think तीखुर is right, as it transliterates OKish Whalespotcha (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

तीखुर looks correct, I gave the Sanskrit etymology based on McGregor. Exarchus (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Afrikaans "hoeka" means "exactly" in English Izakkie (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

[Faliscan] calque of Faliscan 𐌄𐌅𐌉𐌔 (efis).

How can a language calque from itself? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think they're trying to say it's a calque of Latin aedilis using Faliscan efis as a translation of Latin aedes, i.e. aedes + -ilis got calqued as efis + -ile. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure about this reconstruction. I cannot find *amalaz as a reconstructed word for "brave". At w:Amal dynasty, the derivation is suggested to be from the Gothic Amal people - and w:Amalric was indeed a Gothic royal. Fences and windows (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

When I edited English Amalia I only found this Proto-Germanic word mentioned in Max Gottschald (1932) Deutsche Namenkunde (in German), 6th edition, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, published 2006, →ISBN, page 87. It's a stem of unknown meaning, because it is only found in names. It could countain a Proto-Germanic root *am- (“work”) if this is the base of German emsig (“industrious”), but that's speculative. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Under Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ammōną#Related terms, we find that amalaz is a noun derived from Proto-Germanic *ammōną (“to bother”), hence connoting aggression. It occurs in other names, like w:Amalasuintha 24.108.0.44 05:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As long as the evidence is limited to names it's very difficult to pin down its meaning. I don't know why @Burgundaz placed it in *ammōną. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pokorny supports this, root 1416. 24.108.0.44 22:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good find! That corresponds to LIV's *h₂emh₃- "to grasp, to swear". That could work. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/amalaz 24.108.0.44 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

First thing to say: the 'Further reading' section is really impressive. But there are several issues:
- this is supposed to be a reduplicated present verb, but the descendants are perfect forms, shown by the accent on जग्रसान (jagrasāná) (and probably also by the meaning)
- the derived terms (basically the present verb ग्रसते (grásate)) have no reduplication
- it is suggested to be from an "s-enlarged e-reduplicated athematic present of *gʷerh₃-", but unless there would be cognates with this s-enlarged form, such a formation seems very speculative
- the proposed PIE reconstruction *gʷé-gʷorh₃-s-tor ~ *gʷe-gʷr̥h₃-s-n̥tór is impossible as there is no ablaut in middle forms, so the 3sg. should be *gʷé-gʷr̥h₃-s-tor, where I think the *r̥h₃ would have resulted in Sanksrit 'īr' Exarchus (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Completely agree. This is reminiscent of Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Reconstruction#Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Háȷ́ʰāȷ́ʰaršt. A present doesn't randomly become a perfect, just like an aorist doesn't randomly become a perfect.

I can see how it's unsatisfactory to posit a root *gres- only for Greek and Sanskrit and how it's tempting to derive the forms from an established root with the same meaning. There are of course parallels for an extension of a root by *s via an s-aorist or a desiderative, but it's hard to see how this could have worked in this case. You need an o-grade to get rid of the laryngeal via Saussure's law, but there are no forms where an o-grade coincides with an s-suffix. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

Alternatively, {{sanskritism|mr|गोठी}}, from {{der|mr|pra|𑀕𑁄𑀝𑁆𑀞𑀺}}; see discussion.

I believe this is a misuse of the {{sanskritism}} template because it categorizes this as a Sanskrit term derived from Marathi, which doesn't make sense in the etymology of a Marathi entry. Was the new Sanskrit form then borrowed back into Marathi? Or is it saying that the Marathi form was changed to make it more like Sanskrit, which produced the current Marathi form. Either way, this isn't a Sanskrit entry- so at the very least the categorization of the {{sanskritism}} template should be turned off. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would assume there is some Neo-Sanskrit vocabulary, just as there is Neo-Latin, used among certain religious Indian groups and such. But maybe that is not relevant, here. Wakuran (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So the correct answer is Marathri'ism?

I am sure that Chuck understands the Latin situation. E.g. televisorium is hybrid Greek-Latin formed in an Average European Dialect continuum later extended to neo-Latin. telephonum is proper pseudo-Greek! I do not think that is the point. Rather, if I am bilingual and I slip in a couple Teutonisms, there are so many different rules of word formation involved it may be debatable what sort of mistake or error I comitted, if any, which is difficult to tease apart if both languages have shared heritage from different origins on which they disagree on a case by case basis. My contribution being that bilingual has positive connotations (which is why it's difficult to get credit for that). Howydo (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure on how to inflect borrowings from languages ending in -i, although I suspect there would be quite a few from Hindi or Farsi... Wakuran (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey! It's me who did that. I am new to wiktionary and did not know how to treat this right. There are a few words in Marathi that are written and spoken as if they supposed to be phonetically sanskrit. I believe the correct term is a "hypercorrection" (?) in terms of sanskritizing it? I'm not entirely sure (I am a native speaker). Another example could be स्वस्त, but conveniently, it isn't from a Sanskrit word with a similar form, thus it's spared the confusion. Varca mumbaikar (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

• From geo- +‎ -phagism.

This was changed from:

• From geo- +‎ -phage +‎ -ism.

At the same time a useless stub entry was created at -phagism, which had just an etymology, a Wikipedia template (why would Wikipedia have an entry for a suffix?) and {{suffixsee}}, but no headword or definition. That's not to say that I'm totally happy with the original etymology: it could be from geophage or geophagy + -ism.

I would add that there is an entry for phagism, but that refers to where an organism lies in the continuum from monophagy to oligophagy and to polyphagy. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: It is the etymology in the OED. J3133 (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Estonian sott for 100 is probably not from Russian счёт, but rather from сто (or its Old Russian equivalent)? Tollef Salemann (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Through metathesis, then? Otherwise, there apparently are Slavic languages with a form like sŭto, which I guess could have been shortened. Wakuran (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thats why i ask. Also, the Finno-Ugric Estonian name for 100 is sada, but it is also different from sott. Tollef Salemann (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd suspect the '100' sense to be contamination of 'business' with some earlier native slang term along the lines of *satt, though I don't know enough of Estonian slang formations to be highly confident. Regardless, pretty much no way to get sott by direct loaning from any stage of Slavic *sъto. --Tropylium (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The genitive plural of Russian сто (sto) is сот. For example пятьсот (pjatʹsot, “500”). Or the usage example with несколько сот. Exarchus (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I changed the etymology as I think this is fairly obvious. Exarchus (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah right, thats why am asking! It may be obvious, but are you 100% sure??? Any concrete proofs? Tollef Salemann (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, but concrete proofs are fairly rare in etymology. It would be good to have a reference for it. Exarchus (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are probably some historical examples and etymological explantions, but am sure that they are in Estonian. Luckily, we have some people here who know Estonian better than me and maybe can help to solve this. Tollef Salemann (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wondering if the following proposed etymological relationship (proposed by me) seems plausible or otherwise runs into issues, or merely is too speculative:

Possibly related to Akkadian 𒂖𒆷𒈬𒌋𒀀 (/⁠ellamu, illamu⁠/, “front, before; both temporally and in location; coming before your time or being currently physically before you now”) via a sense development of "(in) front" <-> "in plain view, clearly discernable, prominent" <-> "known, recognizable" <-> "to know, recognize".

Alternatively, the Akkadian word may specifically be related to the Arabic noun عَلَم (ʕalam) "footstep, trace, impression, mark" via the notion of "before" <-> "what was or came before" <-> "remnants" <-> "traces, footprints", or perhaps "front" <-> "to be in front, to be preceding" <-> "to leave traces, footprints" <-> "trace, footprint" (somewhat akin to how the root خ ل ف (ḵ-l-f) in some Semitic languages means "to pass by/through", "to go forward" while in Arabic, it includes meanings of "to come after", "to leave behind", "remnants"). In that case, other meanings of the root would be denominative from this noun via a sense development such as "mark" <-> "prominent mark, sign, or location by which one recognizes or knows)" -> "to know, recognize, distinguish; to be familiar" as well as other various words within the root related to prominence or distinction. Isatuwarx (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Forgot to mention)

For additional context, from what I can see, the few clear cognates in Semitic seem to mainly revolve around the "sign" meaning: Sabaean 𐩲𐩡𐩣 (ʿlm) "to acknowledge", "sign, mark"; Qatabanian 𐩲𐩡𐩣 (ʿlm) "to sign". Ge'ez has a cognate too, but apparently some believe it to be borrowed from Arabic. Isatuwarx (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Isatuwarx: Yes, most of this should be added to Hebrew ע־ל־ם (ʕ-l-m), even more, with its meanings related to “disappearance, hiding”, as also Fox, Joshua (2003) Semitic Noun Patterns (Harvard Semitic Studies; 52), 1st edition, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, →ISBN, pages 289–290 notes, paralleling again خ ل ف (ḵ-l-f) in its senses of “to stay away; to be detained”. Of course, all depends on whether you can formulate the relations of the ideas without trouble to the reader.

The explanation of this frequent Arabic term for “to wit” is nice. Compare the reverse meaning development in قِيَافَة (qiyāfa, “inference from external signs, prognostication from the face → pursuit of a track → appearance, resemblance, imitation → apparel, garb”), قَيَّفَ (qayyafa, “to follow the tracks of; to investigate, to get to know”), قَافَ (qāfa, “to trace, to follow the spoors of, to track; to know the state or the relationships of by external signs”), in fact a development many language take for terms meaning “footprint” or “trace”, and here we see it can even occur through ideas of face-marks rather than more common ideas of foot-marks, both being in-your-face phenomenologically and hence cognition.

Beside the meanings of disappearence and hiding, the meanings of youngness and rebelling are also clearly from idea of someone confronting, corresponding to my explanation of ح ب ب (ḥ-b-b) which you partially deleted and فَتًى (fatan), all about something going in front. It is interesting that it ends up غُلَام (ḡulām) in Arabic; I now think I was wrong to believe غُلَام (ḡulām) from غَلِمَ (ḡalima, “to be in rut”), rather this verb is denominal from another noun secondary to غُلَام (ḡulām, “boy”), غُلْمَة (ḡulma, “lust”) apparently, compare غُنْج (ḡunj, “female copulatory vocalization”), and غُلُم (ḡulum, adjective plural form) also means “confined, restricted” acc. to Lane, maybe this idea of “hiding, confining” developed the meaning of being horny or randy in the same fashion that German Druck haben (literally “to have pressure”) is an equivocation, native English speakers know better examples.

ع (ʕ) is the original as opposed to غ (ḡ) if it is right to assume derivation from ع ل و (ʕ-l-w) (at the Proto-Semitic stage), as Corriente, Federico, Pereira, Christophe, Vicente, Angeles, editors (2017), “ع ل م”, in Dictionnaire du faisceau dialectal arabe andalou. Perspectives phraséologiques et étymologiques (in French), Berlin: De Gruyter, →ISBN, page 887 does. So غ (ḡ) could be one of the so-called pseudo-corrections in some Semitic languages (this sold-out 1970 book by the erudite Joshua Blau is put up scanned, I see). Fay Freak (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I, in effect, put up three variations of a connection to the Akkadian word. I take it that the "front" <-> "to be in front, to be preceding" <-> "to leave traces, footprints" <-> "trace, footprint" <-> "mark, sign" -> "prominent mark, sign, or location by which one recognizes or knows)" -> "to know, recognize, distinguish; to be familiar" is the one you feel is most likely, given the analagous examples you gave? Or should I include all three possibilities?

I confess, I do not immediately see how the “disappearance, hiding” would relate to the notion of “confronting”. I could potentially see a relation between “disappearance, hiding” and “front” via a sense chain of “front” <-> “to be in front of" ~ "to put in front of" <-> “to obscure, hide, conceal, disappear” though, if that seems plausible. If that's not it, can you explain your thinking on the connection?

Regarding غ ل م (ḡ-l-m), I agree that the verb seems more likely to be denominal from the noun غُلَام (ḡulām). But given how languages that distinguish غ (ḡ) from ع (ʕ) such as Arabic and Ugaritic seem to consistently use ġ - including most notably the existence of East Semitic Eblaite <ḫa-la-mi-im> "boy" (Fronzaroli 1984 – P. Fronzaroli. Materiali per il lessico eblaita. 1.), where the ḫ seems to be a reflex of ġ (and may still have even been pronounced that way) - it seems to point to غ (ḡ) as the etymological sound in Proto-Semitic. And if the noun meaning "boy, young man" is considered primary, from which the "youth", "rebelling", "physical aggression", "lust", etc senses secondarily derive (which to me is likely, since the "boy, young man" sense is the most widely attested meaning for this root, even existing in languages that don't use ġ-l-m as a verbal root), deriving it from another word, especially one at appears to have an ع (ʕ), seems more difficult in my eyes. To me, the ġ-l-m word meaning "boy, young man" seems to have already existed in Proto-Semitic already with a ġ. That's my thoughts on it anyways. Isatuwarx (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Isatuwarx: The ‘boy’ word having existed in Proto-Semitic with a ġ is sensible. We don’t actually need to know the relation to the ʕ root, I fear it to become speculative.

The idea which you rightly enquired about, insufficiently expressed as it was by me, is that the meaning “to leave behind” can come to mean something “disappearing, being absconded, becoming hidden” and even “detained”, with the double-entendre it has in English. Marks or traces can of course be in front as well as behind. The part of the “boy” word relating via the idea of confrontation is the speculative end, in spite of the ostensible evidence I provided. At least we have answered all concerned roots and words in the individual Semitic languages up to the Proto-Semitic level, this is grand enough. Fay Freak (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am looking to add to the Hebrew ע־ל־ם (ʕ-l-m) entry as per your suggestion, but I wanted to check about something. In the عالم page, a connection between the "world; eternity" meanings and this Akkadian word for "front" is made. Assuming you find this feasible, what would the connection be, as it isn't immediately clear to me? The only thing I could conceive, which perhaps could have also created a connection with the “disappearance, hiding” meanings, was something like "front" <-> "to go forward" <-> "to proceed beyond one's sight" -> "eternity" (and also maybe "to vanish"). Was this the idea, or was something else in mind?

(Also, as a matter of formatting on the Hebrew page, do I just add everything under the Etymology section, or do I make "Etymology 1", "Etymology 2", "Etymology 3"? If the latter, heads up that there is a decent chance I might not initially position everything how it aught to be.) Isatuwarx (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Isatuwarx: The basic idea of the Aramaic term עָלְמָא / ܥܳܠܡܳܐ (ʿāləmā) seems to be “environment”. It is easy to see how this is “what is in front”. For temporal meanings compare how Proto-Germanic *weraldiz (“world”), according to its transparent derivation, also seems to have had the meaning of “lifetime”, then “what one experiences in life”. But you may also consider what Joshua Fox or anyone else said about those words, I don’t know how much you are into it. Fay Freak (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the origins of a root are twofold, or because they are in this Hebrew case, of course it is preferable to have two etymology headers, at least if you can assign all individual words. (Sometimes one can’t and there are multiple confounded origins, or it is at least easier to understand if you don’t create too many sections: examples ن ج ر (n-j-r), د م س (d-m-s), ع ر ب (ʕ-r-b)).) Fay Freak (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origin? 84.68.212.92 22:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please link the words in the future. Louw has been connected to Proto-Germanic *līmaz (glue, lime), referring to its slimy skin, and zeelt has been connected with Old Norse sïld (herring), although considered uncertain. Wakuran (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Write a article about sïld. 84.68.212.92 22:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have Old Norse síld.  --Lambiam 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, the wrong accent. Wakuran (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origin? 84.68.212.92 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wonder whether it could be related to the verb gooi (to throw), similar to the English weaving term warp. Wakuran (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I notice that Dutch zorg (“care, worry”) is used in Guyana and Surinam place names, specifically of former plantations. It seems it is being used as an equivalent of English concern in the sense of "business, enterprise". Could some Dutch speaker or Surinamese clarify? Is so, this meaning should be added. 24.108.0.44 04:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is purely Dutch Dutch; these names were given to the plantations by the Dutch colonists. Compare also the Dutch colonial-era name Buitenzorg for what is now Bogor on Java.  --Lambiam 16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Buitenzorg is simply a translation of w:Sanssouci, without a care, the name of a famous Prussian palace. Surinamese -zorg turns up independently in many different combinations eg w:Meerzorg, and I think the explanation is as I have stated. 24.108.0.44 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are further names that were given to plantations: Anna’s Zorg, Bitterzorg, Buckerszorg, Daphina’s Zorg, Huwelijkszorg, Mijnzorg, Nieuwe Zorg, Nieuwzorg, Nieuw Zorg, Ouderzorg, Pieterszorg, Spieringszorg, Vaderzorg, Vaderszorg-en-Carelsdeel, Visserszorg, Voorzorg, Vriendsbeleid & Ouderszorg, Wederzorg, Zorg en Hoop, Zorg en Rust, Zorg en Vrij, Zorgvliet.

 

In Zorg en Hoop, Zorg en Rust, Zorg en Vrij and Zorgvliet, the meaning is obviously not that of “enterprise”. Used as the last component of a name, there are often further indications that this is a use of the usual Dutch term zorg. For example, next to Daphina’s Zorg, there was also a plantation by the name of Daphina’s Hoop. And next to Anna’s Zorg, so named by Anna Maria Thomas, there were also Anna’s Burg, Anna’s Lust, Anna’s Rust and even Anna’s Rust en Haast u langzaam (!).

 

Next to names using zorg, another even more common last component is hoop: Abigaëlshoop, Aitnoch en Groot Elizabethshoop, Bentshoop, Bergershoop, Bleyenhoop, Blijenhoop en Blijenrust, Braamshoop, Broedershoop, Cabo de goede Hoop, Daphina's Hoop, De Goede Hoop, De Hoop, De Nieuwe Hoop, De Oude Hoop, Dinas Mariashoop, Dirkshoop, Eikenhoop, Elisabethshoop, Elizabetshoop, Fakkershoop, Fredrikshoop, Goede Hoop, Gratia's Hoop, Hoop, IJvershoop, Isaäcs-hoop, Johannes-Hoop, Johanneshoop, Klein Westphalenshoop, Kleine Hoop, Kleinhoop, Labadieshoop, Langenhoop, Lemmershoop, Leyenhoop, Liefdeshoop, Limeshoop, Lydenshoop, Marrashoop, Meyershoop, Meyndershoop, Mijn Hoop, Mijnhoop, Molhoop, Myn Hoop, Nieuw Goedenshoop, Nieuw-Wederhoop, Nieuwe Hoop, Rachelshoop, Sylershoop, Vrieshoop, Weeder Hoop, Willemshoop, Zonhoop, Zorg en Hoop. This is IMO not an indication that the Dutch colonists used hoop in the sense of “business”, and all considered I maintain there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of a new sense of zorg.  --Lambiam 12:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wonder to what extent the sense of "penis" might be a semantic loan from English member. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

More likely a semantic loan from Latin membrum, perhaps via French membre and/or German Glied, which (like English member) are themselves semantic loans from Latin. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doubtlessly not from English. It came about during the translation of anatomic terminology, so we have му́жескій членъ (múžeskij člen, literally “male member”) in a 1827 practical anatomy book, though this is a translation from German. Fay Freak (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current German word for "member of an organization" appears to be Mitglied, which was calqued into Scandinavian as medlem. Wakuran (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So what? männliches Glied (“male member”) is also current as well as historical German. Fay Freak (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You also say e.g. ein nützliches Glied der Gesellschaft ("a productive member of society"), so the simplex Glied does have this meaning. (Not that it has anything to do with this discussion, which is about a whole other sense.) 2.207.102.112 18:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not think this word came from Finnic as there are very little Norse loans that came from Finnish AFAIK. I also couldn't find anything on Chuvash пике too, if it is a real Chuvash word then, what is it's proto Turkic root? I also do not buy the Uralo-Altaic family making this even more inplausible. 84.68.212.92 22:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Words with initial p- are very rare in Norse and older Germanic languages, though. SAOB think it has come via Finnish or Estonian from an Eastern language. Elof Hellquist mentions a few possibilities, but finds the Finnish origin the most probable. Bokmålsordboka and Den Danske Ordbog mentions the Finnish origin, as well, although just about all of them find it somewhat uncertain. Still seems to be the most mainstream hypothesis, though. Wakuran (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it is of Finnish origin then, what is its Hungarian cognate? And what is the Turkish cognate of Chuvash пике (pik̬e)? 84.68.212.92 16:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, for a North Germanic word, it lacks likely West Germanic cognates, and is only attested comparably late. SAOB thinks it might have come from the East via Finnish, ultimately related to Turkish bey. [17] Wakuran (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

And since pojke is generally assumed to be a borrowing from Finnish, I guess piga could be, as well. Wakuran (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found indeed пике in some Chuvash dictionary, but what has it to do with Finnish? LOL Tollef Salemann (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

PIE cognate of PU pojka? 84.68.212.92 20:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

PU is a bit far to take. Where are the cognates in Erzya or Zyrian or Udmurtian? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mean, how the PU term *pojka is related to pike? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I meant the proto indo european cognate of proto uralic pojka 84.68.212.92 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the PIE cognate then? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ur meant to answer 84.68.212.92 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello? 84.68.212.92 13:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like, Erzya term is there, but how exactly it is related? By which sound correspondances? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I might be lost here, but I meant that if such a basic term as "pojke" could be borrowed from Finnish, despite there being very few borrowings from Finnish or Finnic, overall, "piga" could also have been borrowed. Wakuran (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No one thinks piika is native Uralic (it has no cognates outside Finnic; Erzya пийо (pijo) is rather a cognate of poika). The Chuvash word is most probably just an unrelated red herring, even though e.g. {{R:LÄGLOS}} still mentions a proposal by Räsänen for a Volga Bulgar Wanderwort into Finnic; which seems to me quite implausible if it hasn't made it to any Volga region Uralic languages. Regardless it is well possible it's older in (North) Finnic than in North Germanic, where it first appears only in medieval Old Swedish, while in Finnish it even comes with native-looking derivatives like piikuus (“girlhood, maidhood”), piikoa (“serve as a maid”). Estonian piiga I however think might be instead still from Swedish, as natively this should have been **piig. So my best guess is that we can track this maybe back to Proto-Finnish-Karelian at best, but have still no idea of ultimate origin. --Tropylium (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there any sources or readings that have *handa in their reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian words? Riswija (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

愛大華 is phono-semantic matching of Ayer Tawar or not? Or is it just a purely phonetic? Cchww1384 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Malay meaning "Fresh water", Chinese meaning "Lovingly big flourishing", seems to be only phonetic to me. Wakuran (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Didymos means twin, it does not mean testicle in Greek. 89ermis (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it does, though it's certainly not the main meaning. Look at the references linked to at the bottom of the δίδυμος page. They occur in identical pairs, so the metaphor is quite understandable. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Essentially, I already described the timing issue of the word in the etymology section vis-a-vis Polish możliwy. I've emailed an actual Rusyn professor at the University of Novi Sad asking about this (and other personal enquiries about Rusyn), but in the meantime, any thoughts? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's safe to say it was borrowed, considered all the other languages that borrowed it, which are listed on możliwy#Descendants. Vininn126 (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I came across the page for herx, a shortening of the Jarish-Herxheimer reaction. What puzzled me was how herx seems to have no etymology. I could assume that the final -heimer is "residence of..." (as in Oppenheimer), but perhaps the Herx- is from the hamlet of Herxen in the Netherlands?

Any help would be appreciated. Seraphinanewt (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

x probably represents k's ie a possessive. w:nl:Herxen says the place is probably named after "Haarke", possibly a diminutive of Henrik. There is also a w:de:Herkheim named after "Herich", probably the same explanation. 24.108.0.44 17:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Herxheim is a place in Germany: "The Franks often named their new home after their leader so it is assumed a Franconian leader name Hari or Heri who settled here with his clan" Exarchus (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would the name be related to PWG *hari (army) / *harjōn (ravage)? Wakuran (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see several derived given names at Proto-Germanic *harjaz, so presumably yes. Exarchus (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origin? 84.68.212.92 15:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be from tíð (time) and -sk- (-ish), referring to the flux of fashion. [18] Edit: Maybe rather "habit, habitual behavior", when I scrutinize it further. Wakuran (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The island is said to be named after a Phoenician prince, but there does not seem to be a Phoenician (or similar) word to explain the name. A more likely cognate is Ancient Greek θέσῐς (thésis, “a setting, placement”), ie the island is set within the sea. Any thoughts? Any Phoenician scholars have anything to suggest? 24.108.0.44 04:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know any Phoenician, but a connection with θέσῐς (thésis) is impossible. Maybe someone who knows more about Semitic languages than I do will find something plausible in Phoenician or a near relative of it. Otherwise we can always rely on the classicist's favorite way of saying "I dunno", namely "Pre-Greek". —Mahāgaja · talk 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same PIE *dʰeh₁- root also yields Greek θωμός, so a variation in vowels is possible in divergent dialects. 24.108.0.44 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No amount of playing with the vowels of *dʰeh₁- will yield a. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Zero grade *dʰeh₁- wouldn't do much to condition a vowel. The ethnikon attests to ε anyhow. The Phoenician hypothesis can be traced to Herodotus, see Lópes-Ruiz in the Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion for example, Lipiński, Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, too. However, none of the references I checked corroborate an eponymous founder. 185.238.219.102 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply