Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/September

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

tubarão[edit]

RFV of the etymology. Spanish tiburón is listed as also being a cognate with this word, and yet tubarão comes from Old Tupi whereas tiburón comes from Taíno -- two unrelated languages. There's no way tubarão is both a descendant from Old Tupi and a cognate with the Spanish term... MedK1 (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Tupi word looks very different in form to me. I have my doubts. Wakuran (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Portuguese word might be a conflation of the two, as the Tupi word has the right vowels, but the Taíno word starts with t. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to ascertain what credentials (if any) Guedes has beyond being an author, and hence how reliable this is (but then, it doesn't say much definitively anyway), but FWIW, Maria Helena Guedes, O Tubarão Baleia! (2015), page 45, says:
  • Não se sabe ao certo se foram os espanhóis que tomaram uma palavra caraíba e cunharam o termo tiburón ou se foram os portugueses que criaram tubarão a partir de uma palavra do aruaque. Outras fontes apontam a origem tupi-guarani através do termo uperú (ou iperú) com a aglutinação de t-inicial, originando o português 'tubarão' e posteriormente o espanhol 'tiburón'.
    It is not known for sure if it was the Spaniards who took a Caribbean word and coined the term tiburón or if it was the Portuguese who created tubarão from an Arawak word. Other sources point to the Tupi-Guarani origin through the term uperú (or iperú) with the agglutination of a t-initial, originating the Portuguese 'tubarão' and later the Spanish 'tiburón'.
- -sche (discuss) 18:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make the uncertainty in the etymons and the source of the t- a bit more clear, but more work is needed. Perhaps User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV can help. - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Turkic *tabar[edit]

It is supposed to be the source for Proto-Slavic *tovarъ (“wares”). However, the etymology is ambivalent. See Russian това́рищ (továrišč, “tovarish”) suggests an immediate relation to an Old Turkish noun ("merchant, businessman") from the same substantive ("goods"). How they arrived at the results is not clear. The suffix is ambiguous too.

The lost Turkic or Bulgar form is hypothetical, but there is Chuvash [script needed] (tavraš, “friend, mate”) according to Th. Korsch (1876 [1]).

A different etymology was reviewed and rejected by Korsch, still repeated by Vasmer, which refers to Chuvash [script needed] (tavr, “wenden”), [script needed] (tavra, “im Kreise”), and the same (ambiguous) suffix that is bracketed out in our own etymology:

  • -iš, -yš, from eš, iš (“friend”)

See eş; (Star-ling?) indicates the root *ẹ̄ĺ- (“friend, companion, mate”) (s.v. *ẹ̄ĺ-/eš, ЭСТЯ 1, 313-314). All their comparanda have š. Chuvash jɨš (“family”) stands out from (script needed) "eš" elsewhere. "Zum Suffix -iš, -yš s. Brandt RFV. 25, 31" (Vasmer, [2]), but the dedicated paragraph by Roman Brandt says nothing about Turkic friends, even though I can hardly understand this (through online-translation, what "Russicism"?). Note, Korsch already admitted a perhaps redundant clitic -e in (common) Turkic and refers to a phrasal construction.

Russkij filologičeskij věstnik 25, page 31, R. Brandt [3] (pdf, size: 250 MB)

Tovarištĭ. Нелищним считаю обратить особенное вниманіе на колебанье между окончаніями -ИШЬ (поль. to-warzysz), -ЪИШЬ (чеш. tovaryš), -ИХЬ (одна из словенских форм: товарих) ¹), -ИЩЬ (рус. т о в а р и щ), хотя я не знаю, как его объяснить. М. из этих окончаній пытается устранить послѣднее, насвав его „неисторичным“--- štĭ ist unhistorisch, а зто значит (если я вѣрно понимаю М-ча) что т о в а р и щ только дурное написаніе вмѣсто _т о в а́ р и ш_, с чѣм едвали можно согласиться. Староцерк. tovarištь ь Старослов. лекс. опримѣрено одних русских памятников и может считаться руссизмом.

[...] 1) Насчот зтого tovarih мнъ однако хотълось бы спро-сить , часто ли оно встръчается, и нельзя ли в нём заподо-зръть описку или же опечатку вт. tovarish, гдъ sh=š? Тогда оно совпало бы с обыкновенным словом tovariš (или tóvarš), при котором М. не знаю с какою цълью, ссылается на сло-варь Мегицера (1592 r.). Tovaruš м. б. только ошибочное пра-вописаніе, т. к. безударные і и u могут совпадать в одном глухом звукъ.]

Following the entry at Uzbek ishchi (“worker”) with further reference to Chagatai, the suffix is composed:

  • cp. işçi (“worker”), *īĺč (“work”) and *-či, profession suffix which is "Somehow related to Manchu ...?

This is barely plausible with OCS -ищь: cf. ru:товарищь (= сотоварищ (sotovarišč), "colleague", со- (so-), cp. com-, comes).

Georgian -idze may be of interest (e.g. Gamkrelidze), but there's no need to go beyond the already presented notions.

Overall, the ending is a necessary criterion but not sufficient, so the language in which this was coined is not certain. Chugatai, Chuvash or (older) Turkic would make a big difference.

Korsch further adds Old East Slavic tovar "Altruss. == »Gepäck, Wagenburg«". A semantic drift to imobilia as possessions would be a logic solution, but "storage" (i.e. tower, tour) or "stalls" (i.e. stabulum) does not seem to obtain.

Incidently, Vasmer (s.v. това́р) wanes to derive Turkic, Mongolic and whatever etyma from Armenian tavr (“sheep, herd”)? Remotely similar words I could find in animalia so far are Proto-Slavic *tvȃrь (“creation, creature”); Old Armenian հոտաղ (hotał, “shepherd, ploughman”) (cp. πῶῠ (pôu, “flock of sheep”)); τρᾰ́γος (trágos, “billy-goat, horse-tail”) (cp. արածեմ (aracem)). I mean, if Proto-Indo-European *táwros (“wild bull”) and Proto-Semitic *ṯawr- invite comparison: it could be a legitimate wanderword, for the sake of the argument. At least, Semitic might shed some light between Turkic and Indo-European.

  • Notably though тауар (tauar) amends Proto-Turkic *tabar (“wares, goods, livestock”), thus Middle Armenian տաւար (tawar).

Is that the same? 141.20.6.65 19:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my stars: Gonzalo Rubio refers to 𒁾𒉄 (tibira, “carpenter”) [4] (cp. 𒉄, ܢܓܪܘܬܐ), "metalworker" (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 51 (1999), page 4-5):
  • As Hallo (1996: 69) points out, the meaning "merchant" is secondary, so "craftsman" seems to be the original. tibira is probably a Hurrian loanword in Sumerian: Hurrian tabiri "he who has cast (metal)," a non-finite verbal form from the verbal root tab-/taw- "to cast (metal)" (see Wilhelm 1988: 55-52). Ugaritic tbl "smith" has the same Hurrian etymology (Dietrich and Loretz 1990).
  • Landsberger (1967b: 176-78) tried to show that dam-gàr "commercial agent" was a typica Substratwort (/-ar/ ending and medial consonantal cluster) of the proto-Euphratic stock (Lands-berger [1944] 1974: 12). There can be little doubt however, that it is a loanword from Akkadian tamkaru [...]
... which is related. 141.20.6.65 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, what I understand:
the question remains: Has това́рищ (továrišč) been formed in Slavic or it is rather a Turkic compound in both halves, and if so what is the second half?
Connecting Proto-Indo-European *táwros (“bull”) with Proto-Semitic *ṯawr- (“bull”) and Proto-Turkic *tabar (“wares, goods, livestock”) seems considerable, but too far away for our means.
The according to your exposition Hurrian word which has been borrowed into Sumerian as 𒁾𒉄 (tibira, “carpenter”) hardly belongs here, and Akkadian tamkārum (“merchant”) is yet another hardly related word that is of certain Semitic derivation.´
The similarity of Proto-Slavic *tvȃrь (“creation, creature”) is surely a coincidence, its internal origin within its mentioned related words feels impeccable.
Connecting Ancient Greek τράγος (trágos) to anything here is daring. Fay Freak (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ApisAzuli. Couldn't wait till July? Nicodene (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: 𒁾𒉄 is Logograph for Akk. qurqurrum "to make" (cf. Huehnegard) and I'm thus not convinced that Sem. m-k-r is a basic root rather than sporting an m-prefix, albeit unlikely to connect to Hrrian. More over, how's about *tep- for the metal-worker?

mitome[edit]

The etymology of the suffix -ome (biology sense) says that it comes from mitome. That entry's etymology is incomplete, but it looks like it would be related to μίτος (mítos). But where did the -ome ending come from? Note that the -ome ending of chromosome is from σῶμα (sôma). 98.170.164.88 22:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-ωμα ? ... Wakuran (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, is there a Greek word *μιτωμα (mitōma)? (I omitted tone because I don't know how Greek word formation works.) 98.170.164.88 22:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a μιτωμα (mitōma) with any accent; at least there is no such word in {{R:LSJ}}. More likely was coined in New Latin or a modern European language on the basis of Ancient Greek elements. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So... It would seem to mean something like threading, maybe?... Does that seem to make sense in context? Wakuran (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
μίτωμα n (mítōma, “textile from μίτος, thread”), late Hellenistic Koine, by Eustathius at his scholia at Odyssey H.107.schol(1871) or better here. Briefly at https://logeion.uchicago.edu/μίτωμα In later & modern greek it would mean "the threading", a technique with threads. ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ I 17:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pneumothorax[edit]

Etymonline gives the etymology of pneumothorax as pneumo- + thorax, but in terms of printed sources I found some inconsistency. "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary Of The English Language" says pneumo+thorax but also link it to pnuema as in breath, and the assimilation of pneumo and pneuma is due to folk etymology. "The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia" says it's from pneuma. "A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles" combines pneuma/pneumo into one entry, so they could be linking pneumothorax to either. "A dictionary of terms used in medicine and the collateral sciences" seems to say it's unclear.

Not sure if or how the entry should reflect that inconsistency. Maybe best to say that the etymology is unclear and it could be connected to either pneumo as in πνεύμων or pneuma as in πνεῦμα? Rrhovan (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no entry for pneuma- as a prefix on Wiktionary, as far as I can see. Doesn't seem to have ever been productive. Wakuran (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The assimilation of the Greek word for lung and the Greek word for breath happened thousands of years ago. I would say that for all practical purposes they are the same word now and that the prefix is pneumo-. —Soap— 22:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrhovan, Wakuran, Soap The newLatin pneumo- (@-sche, is the English pneumo- correct?) as in my greek dictionaries, is a shortened form of two possible nouns
hence, sometimes it is unclear if pneumono- or pneumato-
Specifically for the NewLatin pneumothorax, i see 2 different greek sources with: 1) pneum- from expected pneumato- and 2) existing loanword from NewLatin in ModernGreek too, from pneumono- πνευμονοθώρακας (pnevmonothórakas) & πνευμοθώρακας (pnevmothórakas). Thank you ‑‑Sarri.greek ♫ I 15:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

awake, awaken[edit]

Our current usage notes note the common conflation of the two verbs by many contemporary speakers. However, I notice that the Online Etymology Dictionary's entry for "awaken" says that the Old English verbs awacian (modern "awake") and awæcnan (modern "awaken") were being confused even in Anglo-Saxon times.

It says that awæcnan ("awaken") was originally a strong verb, with the original simple past and past participle forms being awoc and awacen respectively, and that the weak past form awæcnede only emerged later on, after confusion with awacian.

@Leasnam, Lambiam, -sche: Is it worth noting any of this in our entries? Tharthan (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What we're dealing with here are 3 verbs: 1). āwacan*~āwæcnan (whose suppleted infinitive is āwæcnan, taken from the full-fledged stand-alone verb 2). āwæcnan, a synonym of āwacan*); and 3). āwacian.
āwacan*~āwæcnan is a strong verb, which is evident in its past forms (e.g. āwōc, āwōcon, etc.). However, verb #2 āwæcnan is also a verb in its own right, a weak verb, and has a complete conjugation system of its own. This is where you might get the notion that āwacan*~āwæcnan was originally strong then turned weak, but that isn't really accurate. Suppletion gave the false illusion that āwæcnan had developed 2 separate paradigms in its verbal conjugation, when in fact it didn't. We know this because in Middle English the infinitive of the strong verb āwacan* was restored as awaken and English awake is still primarily strong today. Weak forms of awake, such as awaked are from the third verb āwacian. Leasnam (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Calque "Plus": New Taipei[edit]

Is 'New Taipei' a partial calque? I think it is not a partial calque. Maybe this word was created within English just for the purpose to match with 新北 (Xīnběi) (Xinbei)? Should New Taipei get a simple treatment, plus a history like Wiktionary has it at: New_York#Etymology?
Best argument for partial calque I can think of:
Appendix:Glossary#partial_calque: "A term which is only in part a calque or loan translation, such that some parts have been translated word-for-word and other parts have been borrowed directly."
(1) "some parts have been translated word-for-word"-- in 新北 (Xīnběi, literally “new Taipei”) (if '北' means 'Taipei' and not 'north'), 新 (literally “new”) was translated as "New".
(2) "other parts have been borrowed directly"-- 新北 (Xīnběi), 北 (běi) Wade–Giles: pei³ was transliterated/romanized as the "pei" in "Taipei" (and if '北' means 'Taipei' and not 'north')
(3) ...or if '北' does means 'north' and not 'Taipei'- Tai comes from Taipei someway.
See also Citations:New Taipei for an interesting quote on the origin of the word.
What is this?--Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a complete calque: 新 (xīn) has been translated as 'new' and 北 (běi) has been translated as 'Taipei'. It would be a partial calque if the English term were "New Bei" or "Xin Taipei", but it isn't. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the character 北 just means "north", and would only be understood as "Taipei" in context, though. Wakuran (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it was translated "Taipei" in this context. In some other context, of course the calque of 新北 would be "New North". —Mahāgaja · talk 06:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

alk-[edit]

We were talking about alkanes, alkyls, alkenes, etc. in my organic chem class and then I wondered what 'alk-' meant and where it came from. The commonality of all those chains are they are strictly hydrocarbons and have no functional groups, so I thought, at least in the context of orgo, that it would mean something along the lines of carbon-based or hyrdocarbon. I asked my professor and he wasn't sure, said he'd look into it.. I didn't wait for him to get back to me and looked here and got a sufficient answer to the meaning of alk-, but I wasn't satisfied with its etymology.

The wiktionary page says "First syllable of alcohol." This raised a number of questions.

  • Who decided to take the first syllable of alcohol?
    • Was this an IUPAC decision?
    • Some early chemist that just coined the term in some paper?
  • Why did the 'c' become a 'k'?
  • Why take the first syllable that word to mean 'acyclic hydrocarbon'?
    • Alcohols do have a functional group, and so do other things like aldehydes or ketones, so why alcohol and not one of those?
  • When did this happen?
  • Alcohol originates from the Arabic al-kuḥl, so the 'al' is just an article, and the 'k' is meaningless without the rest of the word, so why use this?

Without any citations, I had to look elsewhere, but every site I found giving anything about the etymology of alk- said the same thing and cited wiktionary. Then, I couldn't help but wonder who claimed that that's the origin of 'alk-', and on what grounds??

Looking at the revision history of the page, I found that the statement of 'alk-' being taken from the first syllable of 'alcohol' has been there since the page was first created, and there's seemingly no verification that this is true. I'm not here to say that it's false, but I do want to know how that came to be.

I will continue further research later and try to find the oldest publication available using 'alk-', but in the meantime, if anyone has thoughts or ANSWERS please send them my way :) SpaceClouds42 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OED has no entry for this prefix. Equinox ◑ 14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but they do offer this in their word origin for "alkane"
late 19th cent.: from alkyl (German, from Alkohol ‘alcohol’ + -yl) + -ane.
This would explain the k/c difference in alkane/alcohol SpaceClouds42 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Duden also says "Herkunft zu Alkohol und griechisch hýlē = Stoff, Materie" . [5] Wakuran (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to mention that my professor also said in his response that perhaps it was related to the 'alk' in 'alkaline', but this doesn't seem to be related because 'alkaline' originates from the Arabic al-qily. SpaceClouds42 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason for the k instead of c, besides the German influence, may have been the desire to retain the /k/ pronunciation in words like alkyl and alkene; the spellings alcyl and alcene would have encouraged a pronunciation with /s/. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether any of the works on chemical nomenclature, at least the ones that have "etymology" in the title, address such morpheme-origin questions well. The references (vs. textbooks) tend to be expensive ($US 100-400) so a access to a good library would be required for most of us. DCDuring (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nadragulya[edit]

No etymology here or on Hungarian, but one of the translations is the similar-sounding mătrăgună, which may come from μανδραγόρας, though that's a different plant. Is there an etymological connection between nadragulya and mătrăgună? PierreAbbat (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the etymology, but I will say deadly nightshade and mandrake are related and share the same range of powerful alkaloids, as well as association with witches and sorcery in folklore. They have both been used as hallucinogens and poisons, and their alkaloids are still used in medicine for their effects on the nervous system. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Etimológiai Szótár from Zaicz Gábor (link, in PDF format) explains this as a Wanderwort, and that the /n-/ initial is an innovation in Hungarian. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a tentative etymology. Feel free to edit it. PierreAbbat (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

grass widow[edit]

grass widow

Evidence for Old English "ǣl", "awl"[edit]

The entry for this word (ignoring the word"ǣl" meaning "eel") started off by listing "æl" and its meaning without a gender or etymology.

This word is listed in the main Old English dictionaries as being masculine and having a short /æ/. I've found one instance of "mid ānum æle", which confirms the word is not feminine.

Later, a user added an etymology (probably taken from Etymonline) claiming it comes from the Proto-Germanic feminine word *ælo (standard spelling *ēlо̄, having German "Ahle" as a reflex), which would yield "ǣl", not "æl". They also assigned both masculine and feminine genders to the word.

Six years later, a different user changed the form to "ǣl", presumably thinking that if the given etymology was right they must have forgotten to mark the vowel length.

Eight years later, the same user split the entry into a masculine "æl" (probably after realising that it's attested), coming from PG *alaz (having Old Norse "alr" as a reflex) and a feminine "ǣl", coming from PG *ēlо̄. The latter is listed as an alternative form of the former.

Later, a user added a feminine declension table to the masculine "æl", which I've already fixed. This is the current state of affairs.

There's also a masculine word "awel" which doesn't have a page yet. Ringe claims this comes from PG *awalaz.

So,

1. If "ǣl" is indeed an Old English word, phonologically and morphologically distinct from "æl", it probably shouldn't be listed as an alternative form of it.

2. Is there any evidence at all for an Old English feminine "ǣl" coming from *ēlо̄? It's not in the Bosworth-Toller or Clark Hall, and it looks like an unfortunate fabrication based on the given ancestor *ælo. The only attested word seems to be masculine "æl".

3. In the light of Old English "awel", the claim on the "awl" page that it comes from Old English "æl" looks unlikely. Based on other masculine words with the same rhyme, which ended up with a final schwa and later vowel lengthening extended by analogy to all forms in Middle English, like "dæl" and "hwæl", I would expect "æl" to yield **ale. "Awel" would yield the Modern English "awl" and account for the spelling.

AssaultButterKnife (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli Liberman ([[6]], OUP blog) said, "The Old English for “awl” was æl. It occurred only as a translation of or gloss on Latin sūbula. "Awl goes back to Scandinavian al-r, a cognate of æl." and "This is a common situation: an English word competed with its Danish relative and lookalike and was ousted by it."
My 2¢: Alternative forms don't have to be strictly cognate, me thinks. I understand that the window for homophone coocurrances of both is small and more unlimely the smaller it is. 2A00:20:D04A:CBB:78F:62F8:DEC7:B3A8 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a huge suspicion that Liberman is wrong, given how Old English smæl > English small. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would take Liberman's claim with a pinch of salt, because he says "awl" can't go back to "æl" and then claims that it goes back to ON "alr". Whatever the reflexes of these would be, they would be the same, since ON "alr" would be borrowed into OE as "æl".
I've also gone through some dictionaries again and found that Bosworth-Toller does say "æl" is feminine. I find this strange, given "mid ānum æle".
The case of "smæl" is a very interesting one. Considering "hwæl" > "whale" and "dæl" > "dale" are not just by regular sound change but have undergone analogical levelling, maybe the fact that "smæl" is an adjective has something to do with the difference.
Also, Kroonen in his Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic claims "awl" comes from "awel", though he says "awel" is feminine even though the plurals "awelas" and "awlas" are attested. He also says that OE "awel" appears to have merged with *ala- (OE "æl"), though they are both attested.
About the alternative forms, I'm not saying they are not cognates (for all we know they might be, which is what the Proto-Germanic page suggests). For Old English entries it usually means that they are either spelling variants of the exact same form or forms from dialects other than West Saxon.
The main issue still stands, though, which is that Wiktionary counts them as two different words but there doesn't seem to be any evidence for it.
Btw, is the indentation correct? It's my first time doing this.
AssaultButterKnife (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indentation fixed. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing 2 words here for Old English: PGmc *ahwalaz (“fork, hook”) and *ēlō/*ēlaz (“awl”). [There is also another word for awl, *alasnō, which gave rise to English elsen, Dutch els/German Alse, but that is not relevant to this discussion.] Old English awel, awul and Old Norse áll (as in soðáll (“meat-hook”) belong to *ahwalaz (“fork, hook”); and Old English æl/al/eal should be spelt ǣl/ēal/āl since they are strong feminine nouns, and a short stem vowel would cause preservation of the final -u in the nomsg (i.e. ælu/alu/ealu). Besides, the corresponding OHG term is a strong fem, āla, thus pointing to Proto-Germanic *ēlō. Old Norse alr (“awl”) is a mystery to me...it's vowel is short, but my sources show it belongs to *ēlaz. I see the Old Norse page alr has it pointing to *alaz, which looks reasonable to me, except the Old English descendants on that page should be removed - I haven't been able to verify a masc a-stem æl existed yet. Leasnam (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think, based on the attested forms, that the feminine word is the one that doesn't exist. Why is *alaz a mystery? It's where *alasnō comes from anyway.
Both BT and CH agree that it has a short vowel (not sure why), and CH is consistent and says it's masculine. Why BT says /æl/ is feminine is beyond me.
Kroonen claims *alaz and *ēlō go back to the same PIE root. Idk about *ēlaz, but that's some divergent semantics if that's the case.
AssaultButterKnife (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B&T is inconsistent in its gender for æl - in some places it says Fem, in others, Masc. A masc æl is possible. (To your earlier question, alr was a mystery (not *alaz) in that it was tied to *ēlaz - not sure how that could work Leasnam (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Middle English has al(l), eal, el, (h)el, which points to a short vowel from Old English, not Old Norse, so, from æl. There is a feminine noun Old English ǣl (“burning”) which is feminine. I've known B&T to make mistakes from time to time...perhaps they got these two crossed (?) Leasnam (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Old English awel. It presumes that æl is a Related, yet separate term (not an alternative form). Leasnam (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks! I think that's the most sensible solution. I'll add the merger thing to "æl".
AssaultButterKnife (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have difficulties finding attestations of "Norwegian" ale, listed at alr. In both Bokmål and Nynorsk, the main word is syl. So, is this a rare dialectal word, and in that case would it be primarily Bokmål or Nynorsk? Wakuran (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the short vowel would correspond to ell as in elbow. The unit of length is perhaps not descriptive of the usual awl, but bone is a good resource for tool making and ellenschaft (“ansa s. baculus ulnae, ellstecke”) and ellenwaare (“ausschnittware”) (cf. Grimm) might suggest as much. More to the point, cp. अणि (aṇi, “the point of a needle”) (s.v. ulna). 141.20.6.63 08:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

smidgen--Yiddish etymology?[edit]

I came across the definition below in an online Yiddish dictionary for the word סמיטשיק (pronounced 'smitshik'), which is the diminutive form for סמיק ('smik'), the bow of a stringed instrument. Note the second entry in which smitshik is used in a phrase with a meaning very akin to smidgen. I haven't tried to date the original use of this phrase, but curious about whether it might have crossed over into English as smidgen... "סמיטשיק דער (עס) סמיק1 דימ bow (of a stringed instrument) מיט אַ סמיטשיק אַריבער with a hair more, just a little bit over" © 2013 Comprehensive Yiddish-English Dictionary Tshikave (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of "smidgen" is uncertain, so it's possible. Earliest attestation 1845. One would have to check where and in what context to see if it's plausible. 1845 is not particularly early, but still before the main phase of Yiddish influence on English. The Yiddish words are Slavic by the way: Russian смычок, archaic смык. 84.63.31.38 16:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything about the history of smidgen to suggest that it originated in a variety of English in clear contact with Yiddish, e.g. New York slang? Nicodene (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a number of similar words in English dialect and Scots, namely, Scots smitch, smutch (“a small amount”), and smutchin (“fine powder”), dialectal English smit, smite (“a bit, a small portion”), Geordie smiddum, Scots smeddum (“fine dust, ground meal, finely ground lead ore”). It's been suggested that smidgen might be a corruption of *smitching or smitchkin, both diminutives of smitch. Leasnam (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question was rhetorical. Nicodene (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my response was not in response to your final question (sorry about that, yes, that is understood), it is directed at the discussion in general. I agree that based on the history, it's a hard climb to demonstrate a Yiddish connection. Leasnam (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was what I initially said, though, wasn't it? "One would have to check where and in what context" it was first attested "to see if it's plausible". If you know something about this, please enlighten us. 84.63.31.38 16:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Klein on page 667 of his Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language wrote:
shin-mem-tzadi -- a word of uncertain meaning, occurring in the Bible Job 4:12 and usually rendered by ‘particle, a small bit', or by ‘whisper".
The Oxford Hebrew-English Dictionary defines the same word as: scintilla, hint, atom (figurative).
Compare English smithereens. IzzyCohen37 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shitgibbon - Wrong link in the etymology[edit]

In the etymology section of shitgibbon there is a link to a Taylor Jones who is not a linguist but a sportsman. The link is provided by a template so I'm not sure how to properly fix it. 37.11.122.76 02:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link. (I would have substituted it with a corrected one, but the linguist Taylor Jones doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia article.) Thank you for pointing out the mistake! 70.172.194.25 02:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 70.172!! --37.11.122.76 23:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in Persian[edit]

I read in a dictionary that بالا#Etymology 3 is from Persian, but the dictionary does not include the original Persian word. Could you fix it? Thank you. Hahahaha哈 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highly likely it is from بالا (bâlâ) with the meaning of high, upper, top etc. shifting in Uyghur to be a noun referring to something that is high or on top.
The shift from an abstract term to a more specific concrete one is not uncommon or unreasonable. Which dictionary did you use? BassHelal (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The dictionary is ئۇيغۇر تىلىغا چەتتىن كىرگەن سۆزلەرنىڭ ئىزاھلىق لۇغىتى(isbn 7228063880). Hahahaha哈 (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nehalennia[edit]

Nehalennia is a Germanic-Celtic Goddess with evidence featuring on both cultures, although scarce, nobody currently knows a lot about her, though she is theorised to be the goddess of trade, travelling, and transport.

I think a connection can be made with her and the Proto-West Germanic word "*halōn", though as you can tell by the asterisk this is a reconstruction.

The word "*halōn" is said to mean: to fetch, to get, to haul. If that is true then you could draw a connection between this word and Nehalennia as the word and goddess are related to transport.

I believe the etymology of this word could be possible by the other descents of "*halōn" such as "*halian" (Old English: to fetch; hale; haul; drag) or "halōn", "haloian" (Old Saxon: to fetch, get) Though I cannot find why "ne-" would be prefixed as the only prefix I can find for Germanic and Celtic languages that are "ne-" or similar meaning to add "not" which doesn't make sense.

This etymology could tie into the etymology of Helan or Helen, a female given name which is how I discovered this possible connection when looking through the meaning of the name Helen.

The Neh- may be derived from Proto-Germanic *nēhw (“near”). *nēhwahaljaną (“to call near, draw near, summon”) (?) Leasnam (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karotomorpha[edit]

Hello all. Karotomorpha (a parasite of frogs and toads.) is the type genus of the Karotomorphidae family. I understand the suffix -morpha but what does the prefix karoto- mean? Thanks in advance for your answers. Gerardgiraud (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are they carrot-shaped? If so, it could be καρωτόν (karōtón, “carrot”). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea @Mahagaja, as these protists vaguely resemble carrots, as you can see here: Karotomorpha. Thanks for the suggestion. Gerardgiraud (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of ullamh vs urlamh[edit]

@Mellohi! I'm pretty sure that Irish and Scottish Gaelic ullamh is not a descendant of airlam (eDil: airlam; Léamh: urlamh). Rather, the descended form is urlamh, though sharing similar meaning to ullamh (a descendant of ellam/ullam/ollam; eDil: ellam, ullam, ollam; Léamh: ullamh), hence the possible confusion. Manx aarloo is indeed a descendant of airlam while ullee would seem to be a descendant of ellam/ullam/ollam, although it is an interesting reflex as I believe that the expected form of a direct descendant would have been *ulloo. See also the entries for ullamh and urlamh in Dinneen's Foclóir Gaedhilge agus Béarla. Erisceres (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is what happens when my vocabulary isn't big enough at the time to remember that this other similar term existed. Another thing to fix for later. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

buck stuff[edit]

Can anyone help with the etymology for buck hoist and buck spinifex? I can't figure out which "buck" it's supposed to be referring to. Also, in buck#Etymology, the numbers are probably incorrect. Senses 15 & 16 are from Dutch bok (“sawhorse”). We should probably replace that text with sense meaning "foo" are from Dutch... Flackofnubs (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[7] "A portable automatic self-erecting tower, designed for hoisting materials on the job, has been developed by Buck Equipment Corp., 205 Butler St., Cincinnati, Ohio." Assuming that the hoist referred to in the magazine is the same as the one our entry covers, that also explains why "Buck hoist" is often capitalized. Also see various magazine advertisements, in chronological order: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (by this point it seems Buck had become a division of Bil-Jax, but they promised the "hoists will continue to carry the “Buck” name, and to be built to traditional Buck / Bil-Jax standards of quality and service"). What's a bit strange, however, is that there don't seem to be any websites outside of these magazine archives that link the term "buck hoist" to Buck Equipment. Perhaps it can be excused by the facts that Buck was subsumed by another corporation before the Internet existed, and that the history of industrial equipment is a relatively niche topic. 70.172.194.25 23:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

darwaza bund[edit]

Original entry creator made a comment about this Indian term. Can anyone help out? It's possibly derived from bandh, but the entry still needs more Indian. Flackofnubs (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darwaza might possibly derive from Persian دروازه, in some way. Wakuran (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hindi दरवाज़ा बंद है (darvāzā band hai, “the door is closed”), cf. Hobson-Jobson. 70.172.194.25 00:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if the mountain won't come to Muhammad[edit]

RFV of the etymology. An IP has been edit-warring to change this to basically "from a made-up story by Francis Bacon". While I don't think it's right to say it that way, they do have a point: the anecdote in question certainly doesn't seem authentic, and is characteristic of a time when mainstream English discussion of Islam was mostly ignorant and extremely biased. What's the best way to phrase this to avoid both endorsing anti-islamic revisionism and POV oversimplifification. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I notice the definition has been changed from suggesting the point of the proverb is that one admits can't get what one wants, to suggesting that the point is that one finds another way to get what one wants. (Other dictionaries also give different ideas.) - -sche (discuss) 01:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It was me who editted the page. I'm new to editing process on Wikipedia and I didn't mean to edit-war, sorry about that. Now to the main subject. You think saying "a made-up story" is not right, yet in the page it is written "perhaps from an Ottoman Turkish proverb". So if I said "perhaps from a made-up story", it would be okay? Who wrote that perhaps thing on the page, and why is it considered right? I know for sure that there is not such a proverb in Turkish or Ottoman. It IS a big deal, because "if it is a retold proverb, then it is not a big deal.." people would think. That Francis, out of his hate towards Islam, made up such a story, to belittle our Prophet, and whoever wrote that "perhaps a proverb" without a deep research, is being a part of it. In Details, there's some info about the phrase "dağ sana gelmezse, sen dağa gideceksin", and that it has no reference to Muhammed (aleyhisselam). Yes, it has no reference! Would it be alright if we took any real proverb, and then fabricate a story on it to belittle someone? Not everyone reads Details section, and not every one of the readers deduce this saying is based on a hate speech and a lie. Please edit the Main page (Etymology) and remove the "perhaps an Ottoman Turkish proverb" and maybe add something like "based on an unauthentic story by Francis". Whichever words can say the facts the right way.. The whole purpose of the made-up story, the "proverb", and people who are using it knowing the facts, is to belittle our religion. People using it knowingly is another story, but do not make the others be satisfied with a "perhaps". — This unsigned comment was added by 134.19.208.216 (talk) at 17:16, 24 September 2022.

This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, which is a sister project.
The expression is not used with the intent of belittling the Prophet or Islam, except perhaps by some small portion of users. I doubt that Bacon was motivated by hate as well, though he may have relied on poor sources. The normal meaning is not intended to belittle or insult either. I personally always took it that if even a great man like the Prophet would adjust to "hard facts", then so should we, which is far from belittlement. DCDuring (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


You already talk about what should be taken out of the story, like you think such event had really occured. Like you think "even such a great man adjusted to that fact." What fact? This is the problem. That "perhaps a proverb" covers up the need to think "wait, such an event appened? I should check its source". If he made up the story about some other human, who is considered great, it wouldn't be an evil this big. Showing a miracle, is a must and one of the proofs of prophethood. If you say "made the people believe that he would call a hill to him, and from the top of it offer up his prayers, for the observers of his law.", you directly attack to the prophethood and the religion. Look, I'm not here to talk about Francis's wrongdoings, and the mistake people who are falling to his trap are making. Nor will I try to make you contemplate what Francis aims to make people be blind to. I'm just saying, this page is misleading people. The point is, edit the page so that people don't think there's such a proverb. (Even an Ottoman Turkish one!) So that people look for themselves if what Francis told is authentic or not. This is a proverb: "if the mountain won't come to you, you will go the mountain." From this, you can get what you said, "we should adjust to hard facts. Some wise people in the past, said a proverb about it. Perhaps some wise Ottoman Turkish people." But if you relate it to a prophet, and insidiously make up a story about it, well, I said enough about this situation. Your opinion is, Francis is not hateful, my opinion I said above. Who cares? Let the people who are doing a research decide for themselves, after they see those facts. Do not hinder them with that "perhaps a proverb". Delete it, please. There's no such Ottoman or Turkish proverb. — This unsigned comment was added by Ebdqv (talk • contribs) at 13:29, 25 September 2022.
I changed it to say "perhaps from an Ottoman Turkish proverb that makes no reference to Muhammad", which I hope is a minor improvement in clarity. The other thing we could do is to add a usage note mentioning that Muslims could take offense, but I'll leave that decision to someone else. I've checked around and some forum threads discussing the phrase do mention that some Muslims find it offensive, e.g. [14]. 70.172.194.25 13:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems someone else made another change after you, but thanks for the improvement. Here’s another one: “retell a story”, is not what Francis did. Retelling a story, is like telling almost the same thing again. Whoever did the last editing, added parantheses at the end as if it’s a minor detail to be skipped, which I don’t think quite makes a change to the effect of the wrong usage. Does this one with “adapted” include everything you want to add? “from an apocryphal story by Francis Bacon, perhaps adapted from an Ottoman Turkish proverb that makes no reference to Muhammad” Now I’ll do one more edit. Please tell the reason here if you change it. --Ebdqv (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more thing. “Apocryphal” was in the previous edit that I mentioned just above, and I kept it, thinking of its meaning "unsubstantiated". Later I analyzed more, it’s unnececcerily multifaceted for what is meant. Instead, I’ll use this simple synonym, which also emphasises the main point. You can change it back to apocryphal, if any rational reason is given to doubt that the story is unauthentic. --Ebdqv (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

paja[edit]

I found semantic coincidence here with paha in Malay, where they both mean thigh. Just wondering if some etymological relation here is possible or if it's just a coincidence. I am actively looking for similar terms between these two languages (because I am learning them) so I may be biased into finding false patterns. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely just a coincidence. Swahili j is pronounced /d͡ʒ/ (not /x ~ h/ as in Spanish), so the two words don't actually sound much alike. And although both Swahili and Malay have large numbers of Arabic loanwords, this isn't one of them (not least because the Malay word is inherited from Proto-Austronesian, and Arabic has no /p/ anyway). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are similar words in other Bantu languages of Tanzania, e.g. Mbunga and Ndamba lipaja, Ndengereko lipasa, Temi -basha, and (with /h/ in the Ruvu subfamily) Luguru hatza, Kutu haza, Kikami hazha, all meaning "thigh". I had to scour CLLD ([15]) for these (a source that someone got banned for relying on), but I don't know how else to find Bantu cognates. I think the li- prefixes are not part of the base stems, but IDK what they grammatically signify. Probably noun class.
This source seems to connect the Swahili word, as well as these other forms like haza, to Sanskrit पाद (pāda, “foot”), which is the ancestor of terms in other Indian languages that mean "leg, knee". And this source (a different subdomain of CLLD) posits it may be from Persian [script needed] (pāča, “lowest part of leg”), which may be from the same IE root, but also notes "very little evidence for borrowing". I don't know what the Persian word is supposed to be, but maybe they meant پاچه (pâče, “feet of animals; trousers”). Note that this Persian word gave rise to Armenian փաչա (pʻačʻa, “thigh”, among other meanings), and its "č", i.e. /t͡ʃ/, sound does seem capable of yielding the "sh", "tz", "zh", "j" found in the Tanzanian languages.
Meanwhile, the Malay term quite cleanly derives from Proto-Austronesian. So it could be that Swahili paja is distantly related to podiatry and pedometer, but not related to the Malay paha. 70.172.194.25 05:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tokko[edit]

RFV of the etymology: tokko in the sense goby. @Surjection The given explanation feels unlikely to me. The word "tokka" in sense "dry dock" comes from Germanic languages, but how would it turn into a name of fish? The fish have been around long before dry docks. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the age argument. Why does Finnish have monni when Finns have had a word for the same species for millennia? The fact that tokko has the dialectal synonym of tokanpoika clearly shows the root is tokka, which is only natural to connect with tokka (“dry dock”), a word known from coastal dialects for longer than in the standard language (and attested at least since 1863).
Some other notes:
  1. Names for fish, birds, etc. were hazy for a very long time. It's entirely possible that a term was only coined once people realized it was a separate species.
  2. tokko doesn't appear to be an old word in itself, only going back to the 1900s from what I can find.
— SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, rather than "dry dock", here a better fit for tokka is the other meaning it has, "tidal port". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shonicker[edit]

Can anyone track down the original Yiddish word, if it even exists? I'm finding a lot of references to it in English dictionaries and the like, but not in material explicitly dealing with Yiddish (in the original script). It's evidently not *שאָניקער (*shoniker) or *שאַניקער (*shaniker). A few sources even say the word is actually a distortion of schnozz, instead of a borrowing from Yiddish 'shoniker' (pedlar), but that sounds dubious. 70.172.194.25 20:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this source (copied from Google Books snippet for convenience):
Thus folk etymology derives shonicker from Yiddish schnozzle, viz. a large nose. My colleague Avrom Fleishman suggests a derivation from Hanukkah /xánə̌kə̀/ with the palatalization in American English of the unfamiliar velar fricative (/x/ > /š/) and with either a derivational (agentive) suffix /ər/ or simply excrescent /r/.
70.172.194.25 20:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well throw Dutch schunnig (“dirty, obscene”) into the mix, though it's a bit of a stretch. Perhaps it will remind someone of something. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entry schonicker, which I didn't see until now, tries to explain the "peddler" theory: supposedly, peddlers would use the word schön / שיין (sheyn) to describe their wares. Searching for *שייניקער (*sheyniker) does yield some results on Google Books and the Internet Archive, but from what I can gather using Google Translate, the books don't seem to be referring to merchants. The spelling of the actual word could be different, though, again assuming that it indeed means "peddler" in Yiddish. 70.172.194.25 02:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an affricated derivate of Yenish, to me. Corollary, regionally something like schee(n) can be found for German schön. Compare jeune, Vulgar Latin *juvenitia "youth" in lieu of Schönheit "beauty", in this case related to ὑγιής (hugiḗs) and early, cp. schon (“already”).

See Gaunersprache for the connotation, or faring folk, Fahrende "travelers" (not Sephardi but seafare), traveling salesman, etc. for the metonymy. Tausch and täuschen show similar connotation, but the uncertainty of the etyma is less than reliable, unfortunately.
Naturally, then, one would want a goons' word with the same affrication to evidence the correspondance (at best I could think of shiner "Blender", like phony). 185.109.152.71 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came to think of the last name Schumacher, since in English the ach-laut tends to get pronounced like a k. Then, when I look it up, the name appears to be primarily German rather than Yiddish, though. Wakuran (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even more theories at Talk:schonicker. 70.172.194.25 15:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

taiga - from Proto-Turkic *tag?[edit]

It has been suggested here [16] that "taiga" derives from the same root as Turkish daǧ (mountain), from Proto-Turkic *tag. The sense development would be mountain>mountain forest>subalpine forest>subarctic forest. What do you think? Nobody has come up with a better explanation. 24.108.18.81 23:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on Turkic specifically, but the semantic development has parallels. For example, Proto-Slavic *gorà (“mountain”) and Lithuanian girià (“forest”) both derive from Proto-Balto-Slavic *garā́ˀ, which we currently claim originally meant "forest", but that's a little confusing due to Sanskrit गिरि (giri, “mountain”). 70.172.194.25 00:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some content to тайга. The most recent source on the word is Anikin's Этимологический словарь русских диалектов Сибири (2000). Тайга means 'mountain' in some Russian Siberian dialects and several indigenous languages (cf. Ergak-Targak-Taiga (Q4176164) mountain range), and Anikin supports the hypothesis that it was the primary meaning. He also suggests the word may have originated in Chulym basin, and that Yakut тайҕа (tayğa) is a later borrowing from Russian. No internal Turkic etymology is known (you can't form it from *tag, even if it sounds similar), a Mongolic borrowing has been suggested, but np source has been attested, and the reconstruction looks a bit dubious. 5.178.188.143 13:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

brolic[edit]

I was told around ~2005 that this word came from the Dragon Ball Z fan-favorite/cult character Broly and was mostly used by young teenaged African-American males. Broly was the biggest and most powerful of Saiyans, who are already known for being insanely powerful and muscled, and he himself was an even bigger exaggeration of this. So when someone is "brolic" they have large, popping, visible muscles like Broly and are seen as exponentially stronger than everyone else. 2601:40F:4100:FA37:E42D:3135:876B:7D7B 02:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not 'impossible', I guess, considering characters from popular culture have left their marks on the vernacular many times before. It could possibly be a combination with a pun on anabolic. (I mean "anabolic, brolic, swolic" is a pretty decent hip hop line...) Wakuran (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the name Broly itself is apparently from broccoli, since creator Akira Toriyama tended to have vegetable-derived names for the Saiyans, for some reason. I guess it could also possibly be a pun on English brawl, although I'm not sure on whether Toriyama's English would be good enough to make that connection. Wakuran (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chopboat[edit]

The etymology currently states:

chop (“sort, quality - from Chinese”) +‎ boat

As someone who doesn't speak Chinese, I can't figure out what word is being referenced. There are various sources that claim chop comes from Cantonese [script needed] (chă tan, “to give a bill or agreement”). The first link shows the Han character, but I don't know how to type it. It's also unclear to me whether this is the same word that means "sort, quality". There's also English chop (“an official stamp or seal”), which comes from Hindi छाप (chāp, “stamp”). 70.172.194.25 22:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the same chop as in chopstick, which is not Chinese but Chinese Pidgin English and means "quick"? —Mahāgaja · talk 07:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the precise ety of chopper anyway? It seems to refer to more than one type of motorized machine. The helicopter is supposedly onom. and I'm not going to look for languages where -co-pter would be loaned as chop'er, though I do note Jarawa čokogere for example. 2A00:20:6049:ACE5:5901:7A9B:150:5C81 10:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "sort, quality" gloss is from the 1913 Websters and is indeed probably a garbled reference to Chinese Pidgin English chop. This is not, however, the chop in "chopstick", which Mahagaja pointed out, but chop meaning "stamp", which is ultimately from Hindi rather than Chinese (Etymology 4 at chop) and picked up in Chinese Pidgin English thanks to the British Empire. A recent dictionary of Hong Kong English expicitly traces chop-boat to that chop. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

metagrobologist[edit]

Hi! David Singmaster explains the etymology (is a corruption of a word found in Rabelais and Kipling) at the first page of [17], which should be readable from the extract. Since I am not confident in my skills in following en:wikt rules (and besides, these days I must use a mobile device) could someone add the proper reference? --.mau. (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference template that can be copied onto the entry:
David Singmaster (2016) Problems For Metagrobologists, New Jersey: World Scientific, →ISBN, page ix
70.172.194.25 07:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic? etymon of tót[edit]

The etymology now at tót appears to be taken from w:hu:Tótok, which in turn cites Györffy György: István király és műve. 2. kiadás. Budapest: Gondolat. 1983. →ISBN. It's believable at the level of root cognation but this "Gothic" thuat isn't Wulfila's biblical Gothic 𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰 (þiuda): ua is a distinctly poor match for iu. What's the precise source variety and form? 4pq1injbok (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about Gothic, but FWIW this was argued recently to be rather from an otherwise lost Slavic cognate. Conference proceedings are under work, we will see if a citable version comes out there. --Tropylium (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish snarka from Middle High German?[edit]

The article for the Swedish verb snarka (“to snore”) currently claims that it is borrowed from Middle High German (MHG). This surprised me. Swedish words tend to be borrowed from Middle Low German. Only very rarely will they be borrowed from MHG. The sources I know of, added to the "references" section of that article, claim that snarka is either derived from a common source (such as Proto-West Germanic *snarkōn) or possibly onomatopoeic (unrelated to the other Germanic ones).

Are there any sources supporting a borrowing from MHG? Was that added in error? Gabbe (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably just a mistake. The entry for Proto-West Germanic *snarkōn says the Old Swedish word was borrowed from Middle Low German, not Middle High. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If snark (“snide remark”) is from the same source, wonder if the MLG word is closely related to Dutch sneer (“id.”). 2A00:20:608C:B541:7EEA:35F2:9732:2F17 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch word is a loan from English sneer, apparently. Otherwise, there are a a bunch of Germanic words starting with sn- that are related to either the nose or its various functions. Wakuran (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed unlikely that the North Germanic languages borrowed anything directly from Middle High German. There are of course dozens, if not hundreds, of words in these languages that are from Middle High German, but 99.9% of the time they will have passed through either Middle Low German (until 16th c.) or Modern German (from 17th c. onward). There are also a couple of borrowings from Modern Low German (past 1600), but the latter's influence soon dwindled. 178.1.250.125 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean, Middle High German words passing through Modern German? Didn't Middle High German evolve into Modern German? Wakuran (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; they mean that more recent Swedish terms derived from Middle High German are loanwords into Swedish from Modern German that German in turn inherited from MHG. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, it mainly seems to be a Wiktionary categorization thing... Wakuran (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about it, being derived from a term also means being derived from all the ancestors of that term. I said "derived"- "borrowed" is another matter, as is "inherited". "Borrowed" in our etymologies only refers to the actual term in another language that entered the language of the entry. All of its ancestors are "derived". Likewise, "inherited" only refers to direct ancestors of the language of the entry. An English word inherited from a Middle English word borrowed from an Old French word inherited from a Latin word borrowed from Ancient Greek which inherited it from Proto-Indo-European is said to be inherited from the Middle English word, and all the other words are said to be derived. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's of course what I meant. It may be mainly a categorization thing, but it also means that you're on the safe side by tracing a North Germanic word back to either Modern German or Middle Low German; there's not the third option of direct borrowing from MHG. It's different with Dutch and Polish, for example, where all kinds of paths are possible because these languages had direct contact with both "forms" of German at all times. 178.1.250.125 23:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "bunch" Wakuran means because its not limited to *sn, cf. nap, snore, snare, and I'd prefer to understand the variation as dialectal, substratal, e.g. ῥέγκω (rhénkō), or some microvariation including but not limited to egghorns, mondegreens and onomatopoeia because sleep is clearly a private matter at home in familiolects. sneer would be from Frisian sneere (etymonline), but schnarren already disagrees with snare and I'm not sure if the -l is excrescent in snarl or what. A counter example is schnappen (where I've messed it up with the colo. Luft schnappen and didn't get around to fix it since it could easily belong to sniff etc. rather than snap, although rasten, ratzen, ratschen prove a comparable wordfield. Ratsche (viz. Schnarre, Knarre) next to Ritzel (“sprocket”) can hardly be sound imitative ab origines if ratchet, or wrench and rocchetto (cp. rocket) stand to reason. I'd be particularly interested in pre-glottalization, eg. *ksnew- or *pnew- since I heard Schnauze! (“shut up!”) once pronounced /ˈʃəˌnaʊ̯tsə/ for affection. Its just that imitative is a thought terminating cliche, though incompatible with the uniformitarian principle unless it can be shown that different symbols were evolved. 2A00:20:6092:E270:1064:C563:BDC6:E65E 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still half-asleep it occures to me that snooze must point at Low-German and Norse and no leter than rhotacism. 2A00:20:6094:7452:8878:AFFA:F696:A08 02:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cant hook and cant strip[edit]

Which defn of cant do they come from? GreyishWorm (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the first; 'side, edge'. Wakuran (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2022/September&oldid=73267672"