text:
dziewiczy

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) maiden, virgin
 * 2)  pristine

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: dziewiczy


text:
dwu-

Etymology
From.

title: dwu-


text:
trój-

Prefix

 * 1) three-, triple-, tri-

title: trój-


text: MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Tea room

title: MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Tea room


text: MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Etymology scriptorium


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/May

knˤnw and Canaan (כנען)
I'm not an etymologist, so I'll ask here - are they cognates? Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not a cognate, since that would mean inheritance from a common ancestor, and Proto-Afro-Asiatic is very, very old. The Egyptian is probably a borrowing, and the Hebrew might be as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Kidney – *neurô et al.
We have two Proto-Germanic reconstructions for “kidney”: and. The former seems to fit better with the Latin and Greek cognates. The latter seems to have been created to explain the -ý- in Old Norse, but it has the wrong ending/declension; it should be an n-stem as well: *niurô. I am not particularly happy with this form, however. It seems to me that PG -iu- does not guarantee ON -ý- (see sjón < *siuniz; its alternate sýn can also be explained as i-mutated from the -iz, as with neyð/nauð). Also, as I understand it, PG forms with -i- (and without a later -ij- causing a mutation) normally derive from zero-grade forms of PIE roots with -y- in them, which can hardly be the case here. A possible solution would be *niurijô (then only for ON nýra and its descendants). Having two PG forms still doesn’t sit well with me because not only would the latter only apply to Old Norse, but only to Western Norse, because Swedish has njure and Old Danish has -iu- (modern Danish has nyre, but iu regularly changes to y in Danish; cf. nyde, tyr, etc.). Personally I’d be content with a single page at *neurô with a note on the unexpected i-mutation in Western Norse and possible explanations. – Krun (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be an alternative explanation. If you look at the declension table of a Proto-Germanic n-stem, you'll see that some endings have -a- while others have -i-. The i-endings would trigger i-mutation but not the a-endings, so there would be an alternation between neuran- and niurin- within the same paradigm, just like in strong verbs. The different Old Norse forms then probably are the result of levelling out these alternations in one direction or the other. 18:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I see it now. Thanks. I think we can be content with *neurô then? – Krun (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

vägnar(sv) vegna(is) wegen(de)
vägnar is related to vegna and wegen, though how I'm not sure. Here's a source from 1922 in Swedish: http://runeberg.org/svetym/1249.html 83.254.136.152 11:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, they're all derivatives of the respective words for "way", in the sense of "by way (=cause) of" Leasnam (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

strategy
RFV of the etymology. Just one bit really, Old French seems not to exist; http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/strategie says it was first recorded in 1808, coined based on Latin strategia and its Greek etymon. But when is it first recorded in English? If pre 1808 then it cannot be from French but coined based on the Latin and the Greek. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's incorrect. Century Dictionary has it from Old French, but coming directly into Modern English...that's not right. No Middle English dictionaries I've checked have it. It should show from (Modern) French, from Greek (per the cite above); OR French, from Old French, from Latin , from Greek. Leasnam (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

שמאָק
RFV of the etymology. Tagged, but not (yet) listed by our new (yay!) Yiddish contributor, :
 * From Polish.

I was under the impression that this was cognate with German, through the idea of someone being so useless as to be "just for show".

 * The word has umlaut in plural (shmek) and diminutive (shmekl). To me it looks like a word that is inherited from Old High German. Or do borrowings from Polish have umlaut in Yiddish? --MaEr (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if Polish borrowings had umlaut in Yiddish, since umlaut is a productive morphological process in Yiddish, and speakers of a language don't stop to ask themselves what the etymology of a word is before applying morphological processes to it. However, I would be surprised if Polish /s/ showed up as /ʃ/ in Yiddish since /sm-/ is a perfectly acceptable word-initial cluster. In short, I agree that this is far more likely to be from the same source as German, though the semantic connection I had heard is that Schmuck came to mean 'penis' (cf. senses 2 and 4 of שמאָק) through the idea that a man's penis is his "jewel" (cf. English ). —Angr 20:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

smok
On a somewhat related note, I'm not so sure about the etymology at. A Polish IP answered an rfe with their only edit ever:
 * From Proto-Slavic

Given that there's already a Proto-Slavic term for dragon:, and given the lack of any gloss or cognates, I wonder if they just guessed. Polish is interesting for being at the geographical intersection of Slavic, Baltic and Germanic. Could there be some connection with Lithuanian or (less likely) a relative of English smoke? Chuck Entz (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought might be the source of the name Smaug, the dragon in The Hobbit, but Smaug says Tolkien says it's from "the past tense of the primitive Germanic verb smugan, to squeeze through a hole: a low philological jest". It is true Tolkien is more likely to go to Germanic than Slavic for his coinages. —Angr 20:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of some italian/latin and albanian words.
I have been able to find recently the etymology of some latin and albanian words. Here's an example (with links in google translate)

Imagine some armed person in a supermarket. Someone notices him and screams "Gun, has a gun, Run!"

eng: gun, run away <-> alb: arm, ik

alb: arm ik => armik

eng: enemy / hostile <-> alb: armik

If some armed person approaches you, you're scared and about to run a way. If this person doesn't have hostile intentions, he might say "don't run away / I'm not hostile / I'm friendly"

eng: don't run away <-> alb: mo ik

alb: mo ik => moik => mik

eng: friend <-> alb: mik

eng: is <-> alb: eshte (Tosk dialect/official) == asht (Gheg dialect/old Albanian)

However people still use 'a' to mean 'is' (in Gheg dialect)

eng: is friend <-> alb: a mik

Albanian appends an 'u' to bring 'mik' in definite form:

eng: the friend <-> alb: miku

Ultimately:

alb: a mik(u) <-> eng: is (the) friend

alb: a mik(u) => amiku == amicu => amicus (latin)

Italians have used 'ne' to mean 'no' originally. This can be attested in the word 'nesuno':

latin: 'ne' <-> ital: no <-> eng: no(t)

ital: uno <-> eng: one

ital: nesuno <-> no one

So back to 'a mik(u)-s':

lat: ne mik(u) <-> eng: no(t) (the) friend

ne mik(u) => nemiku == nemicu => nemicus

However, people never appended 's' - only priests did (to distinguish themselves from the rest). So, the words evolved in present day italian as either:

amic (alb: a mik) => amic+o

nemic (alb: no mik)=> nemic+o

or the last 'u' evolved in 'o'.

My question is, should I break the above analysis and update the entries for each of the above words? I just created an account here, so I'm a beginner.

 * Etymologies need to be researched in reliable sources such as published dictionaries and published books and articles on historical linguistics. One's own personal observations do not belong in etymology sections here. Some of the things you've noticed (such as Latin being the negation of ) can be confirmed by means of reliable sources, but some of the other things you've mentioned probably really can't. Before adding etymologies to words, please go to the library and find out what the experts have said. —Angr 12:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what constitutes "a reliable source"? This is pretty much guess-work. And what if the etymology of some word is guessed wrong, does an online media (such as wiktionary) need to wait until all printed publications are updated, or only some of them? If the later case, then how percent of publications need to be updated before wiktionary considers the new explanation a "reliable" one? And what's the point of being an electronic media, with history, revisions, and undo capabilities if you need to wait for paper publications to be updated first?
 * For etymology purposes, I'd say Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source applies here too. Something that's been published in a peer-reviewed way. Etymology is not mere guess work; you can, and historical linguists do, apply the scientific method to it: hypotheses are formed and tested against the data and either discarded or evolved into theories. All we can do is report on the current state of scholarship, but the advantage to being an electronic medium, and a wiki at that, is that we can update our page quickly as the state of scholarship changes. But this isn't the place to air our own etymological speculations. —Angr 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could tell us where you found these etymologies.   D b f  i  r  s   17:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Christian, Christianity
See the edit histories and User talk:-sche. A user changed the etymology from "Latin Christianus, from Greek Χριστιανός, from Greek Χριστός + Greek -ιανός" to "Latin Christianus, from Greek Χριστιανός, from Greek Χριστός + Latin -anus". I reverted, thinking it improbable that Greek would have formed Χριστιανός by adding a Latin suffix to Χριστός, rather than by adding -ιανός. (Our entry for the suffix eve lists Χριστιανός as a textbook example of its use.) Has anyone got an authoritative reference either way? - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any Ancient Greek suffix -ιανός, and when χριστιανός is the only word in Category:Greek words suffixed with -ιανός, it makes me suspicious of its reality. I think it's just the Latin suffix -(i)ānus written in Greek letters. Most likely Christianus was coined in Latin by adding a Latin suffix to a Greek loanword, and then borrowed back into Greek as χριστιανός with the suffix intact. But I don't have the sources necessary on hand to verify my suspicions. —Angr 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian вор
Good evening,

This word, "thief", looks a lot like Latin, which has the same meaning. Might they be cognates? --Fsojic (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Russian v normally corresponds to Latin v. Latin f corresponds to Russian b or d. 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Thanks! --Fsojic (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/December

sinnan
The etymology and cognates don't quite add up. *sinþaną would not give sinnan in OE, it would become sīþan. The only sources for a form sinnan are *sinnaną and *sinjaną. The same applies to the Old High German cognate as well. The relationship to sendan is even more obscure. 19:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what of the etymology of OE, from ? I suppose a relation to would be from the causative.
 * Look at if you have any doubts about the plausibilty of what CodeCat said. A possible explanation: if you look at the etymology you added to the entry at, you'll notice it cites two Proto-Indo-European roots: *pent- and *penth- (the etymology at  analyzes the source of that cognate- corresponding, I suppose, to *penth- in the  etymology- as  *pónt-h₁s, while ,  and   have *pónteh₁s as the source for those- which looks like only a difference in ablaut grade) . That suggests to me that there must also have been a Proto-Germanic form with a *d to correspond to the *dʰ in *penth- / *pen*dʰ . Another part of the etymology seems to support this, saying "Related also to Old High German fendo, fendeo (“pedestrian, footsoldier”), Old Saxon fāþi (“walking”), Old English fēþe (“locomotion, walking, gait, pace”)". The Old Saxon and the Old English would be what one would expect from  as far as the consonants and the vowel length are concerned, given the action of the Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law, though I don't know enough about the sound changes affecting vowels to have any clue beyond that. I wonder if there's a similar dual-form situation, with *sinþaną having a voiced doppelganger (would Verner's Law apply here if the accent were shifted from the first to another syllable?). By the way, the etymology at  says that it's descended from the same *pent- root as above via a borrowing into Proto-Germanic from Scythian (an Indo-Iranian language). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The sound changes still don't really add up though. I'm not sure what *penth- is supposed to signify. What is the th here? If we go with a root *pent- (which is straightforwardly the root of *finþaną) then there is no way that -nþ-, nor its voiced counterpart -nd-, can become -nn- in Old English and Old Saxon. -nþ- must undergo the nasal spirant law, and -nd- simply appears unchanged in both (compare ). So there is no post-Germanic sound law that can account for -nn- which means that it must have been present in Proto-Germanic already, implying the existence of a Proto-Germanic *sinnaną as the direct ancestor of . *sinnaną itself could come from an earlier *sent-na-, in which the -t- would probably have been assimilated away (I think there are other examples of this, but I'm not sure). 03:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also finding some sources having OE sinnan answering to PGmc sinþnan or senþnan. Is this plausible? Leasnam (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I doubt that Proto-Germanic still had -nþn-. 15:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

lay
While I don't doubt the etymology of this word in any way whatsoever, I've always found myself confused when I find words that derive from an Old English word that has a medial cg, yet have a "g" or (even more confusingly) a "y".

I first chalked it up to a word becoming more literary and it being rewritten by partially-bilingual Old English|Anglo-Norman scribes when I saw a resulting word having a "g", but then I find words like "lair" and "lay"--which I would assume were relatively common terms--having an "i" or "y" where a "dg" would be expected.

Can someone explain these conundra to me? Was it a dialectual (I know it's dialectal; force of habit) thing I'm unaware of, some... common change that occurred depending on the placement of a vowel, or does no actual existing explanation exist?

If no actual reason exists, could someone at least present some sort of possible theory as to how this happened? Tharthan (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all of the Old English verb forms have -cg-. Two forms of the present tense have ġ, and so does the entire past tense. So that may be the source of the discrepancy. The same also seems to have happened with and .  02:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * "cg" was the geminate form of "g" (or ġ), and so they alternate in the same way as other geminates. Compare where the geminate "bb" alternates with the non-geminate "f". --WikiTiki89 03:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * CodeCat is right. Many irregular verbs in Old English were normalised when they passed into later Middle English (as opposed to earlier Middle English), and the second and third person singular forms, as well as the past and imperative forms were used to reconstruct the verb stem anew (cf also maken < maca/macast/macaþ). Leasnam (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * What about nouns, like dog? Tharthan (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The spelling -cg- actually represents two different sounds. One is a palatal affricate, the other is just a geminate g. We should really make a habit of writing one as -cġ- (or -ċġ-?) and the other as plain -cg-. 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that the "geminate g" is "cg" and is always pronounced /ddʒ/. --WikiTiki89 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not always. There are also a few rare cases, like docga, where it's /gg/. Palatalisation only occurs when it's derived from Germanic -gj-, which is the usual source of geminates in West Germanic. But whenever -cg- doesn't come from -gj-, there is no palatalisation. 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence for that other than the modern pronunciation of ? (I'm not disputing, just curious.) --WikiTiki89 15:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I can't think of any examples. Like I said it's rare. 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So should we fix the pronunciation at then? --WikiTiki89 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Here is more information if you want, as well as some more examples of geminate [gg]: . 16:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember too that it is usually believed that the -ga in docga represents a suffix, so this may have aided in the solidification of the sound as hard g. earwig:, stag:, and perhaps flag: (if we derive it from flacg) are other examples of this. Leasnam (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that it was in fact pronounced /doddʒa/? --WikiTiki89 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nay, just the opposite: more likely /dok.ga/ Leasnam (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I took "this may have aided in the solidification of the sound as hard g" to mean that it originally wasn't a hard g, but was reanalyzed as such. --WikiTiki89 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my bad. What I originally wrote was confusing. What I meant was the suffixal hard -g would have continued to be seen as a suffix, but written the same way as -ċġ. I corrected what I wrote. Sorry. Leasnam (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

spiel
Can this really be from Scots? I'd like to see a citation for that even being a possibility; every source I can find says it comes directly from German or Yiddish. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's conceivable that the word was first borrowed in Scotland, from where it later spread. --WikiTiki89 23:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a mistake. The word speel is old Scottish and northern English, but with a different meaning (probably from speeler, an acrobat).  I suppose it's possible that the Old English word spel (news) was retained in Scotland and became speil, but I can't find any evidence.  I think several different words have been confused over time, but the modern usage (schpiel) seems to have been a relativlely recent importation from Yiddish.  I don't know any Scottish Yiddish speakers, but I suppose there might be a few.  I'm happy to be proved wrong, but, in the absence of any evidence, I seriously doubt the Scottish origin.  The fact that they have a similar word that has recently  become confused with the modern meaning does not constitute an etymology.    D b f  i  r  s   22:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

valr
The second meaning of the word - "bird of prey", later "gyrfalcon" - seems, according to its plural nominative listed in Cleasby-Vigfússon, to have an i-stem instead of an a-stem, however, this contradicts the etymologies given by the same dictionary, since both and  are a-stems. Can there be any solution (or an alternative etymology) provided to this word, or am I possibly misunderstanding something? - Myndfrea (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

unk (Old Saxon)
The etymology (wet > unk) does not make sense to me. --WikiTiki89 22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * is the nominative form. 22:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well either we shouldn't have etymologies in inflected forms like that, or we should put in a less misleading etymology as I just did. --WikiTiki89 23:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

heaven
There's a bunch of unsourced Proto-Germanic and PIE in the etymology at heaven that the OED doesn't support and (at its shame entry) contradicts. It seems to have come from somewhere: could we get that part of the etymology sourced? and (still better) have someone knowledgeable compare the two sources for probable accuracy? — LlywelynII  10:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection with "shame", but the Germanic reconstructions are correct as far as I can tell. Gothic directly corroborates one of them, and the other can't have been much different. 14:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not saying it's wrong. At least where it ends up looks fine (apart from the *kem- / *kam- issue). I'm saying we should add a source for it. (The OED Online confirms "shame", on the assumption that a derivation from roots related to "pre-Germanic" *kem-, "cover" is correct. It doesn't confirm any of the rest.)

 * It's hard to see how the Gothic could confirm anything: it's a redlink. Are you talking about one of the other ones? or do you have a Gothic source we should use to create the entry for that word? — LlywelynII  01:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Gothic "himins" straightforwardly matches Germanic "himinaz". 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 * FWIW, Gerhard Köbler's dictionary of Old English says the following in the entry for heofon:
 * heo-f-on, ae., st. M. (a): nhd. Himmel; Vw.: s. -bū-en-d, -cyn-ing, -dréa-m, -lic, -līc-e, -rīc-e (1), -stō-l, -wear-d; Hw.: s. heo-f-on-e; vgl. got. himins, an. himinn; E.: germ. *hemina-, *heminaz, st. M. (a), Decke, Himmel; idg. *k̑emen-, *k̑ōmen-, Sb., Stein, Himmel, Pokorny 22; s. idg. *k̑em- (3), V., bedecken, verhüllen, Pokorny 556; vgl. idg. *ak̑- (2), *ok̑-, Adj., Sb., scharf, spitz, kantig, Stein, Pokorny 18; L.: Hh 156, Hall/Meritt 177b, Lehnert 110a
 * - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

tanьcь
Proto-Slavic word tanьc is a all Slavic borrowing from Proto-Germanic, and not a German borrowing as commonly understood, thus we should include tanьc. Duh (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems possible, but do you have a source? --WikiTiki89 16:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reasoning at all. It can't be borrowed from Proto-Germanic because it has the High German consonant shift. Secondly, Proto-Slavic words can't end in a consonant. And thirdly, where does the ь come from? It's not in the German word. If the word was really borrowed in Proto-Slavic times, it would be *tǫcь or *tǫsъ instead. Something like Proto-Slavic *tanьc makes no sense on many levels, and I don't know why you think it does. 16:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, is it impossible that it was a borrowing from Old High German into Common Slavic? That is, after the and after the nasalization of Slavic vowels. Secondly, it presumably would have been tanьcь. And thirdly, the ь could have been inserted to maintain the CV syllable structure. It makes perfect sense to me and I'd believe it if a source were given. --WikiTiki89 16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's not a single example that I know of that inserts an extra vowel in such situations. For example, compare, which was borrowed from High German no earlier than the 9th century. 17:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well or/er/ol/el seem to have been treated more or less like vowels in Proto-Slavic. Are there any other words we can compare? --WikiTiki89 17:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Or if you prefer, it could have been tancь with the epenthetic vowels inserted later in each language. --WikiTiki89 17:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes I aree with Wikitiki89 *tanьcь is correct form (my mistake "Tippfehler"). It is impossible that it would look as *tǫcь or *tǫsъ because a wouldn't change, and perhaps the root would be only *dan- thus d shifted to t as common in Slavic languages with suffix . Also it is impassible that word came from German, because of Old Dubrovnik literature which language had non German influence, and word tanac, or verb tačati is very common. Perhaps even *tanьcь isn't derived from Proto-Germanic at all, but from Proto-Indo-European *tens-. All of that has perfect sense. Duh (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which descendants does *tanьcь actually have in Slavic? So far we've talked about borrowing but not about the reconstruction. 17:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These:
 * East Slavic:
 * Belarusian:
 * Russian:
 * Ukrainian:
 * South Slavic:
 * Bulgarian:
 * Macedonian:
 * Serbo-Croatian: /
 * Slovene:
 * West Slavic:
 * Czech:
 * Polish:
 * Slovak:
 * Feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes. --WikiTiki89 17:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I think we can include as a borrowing from Old High German. This is the only way to account for the -an- (rather than -ǫ- as in earlier borrowings) and the t-.  17:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can only conclude that it was not borrowed earlier than that. We cannot yet conclude that it was not borrowed later. --WikiTiki89 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was probably a late borrowing, but it wasn't so late that the word only spread to a few Slavic languages. What we do know is that the (word-final) cluster -nc was not permitted, and needed a vowel to break it up. So it was borrowed as *tanc-, but this became *tanьc in the nominative singular. We can't be sure if the other forms ever had a yer in them too, because it would have disappeared even if it had existed, and the forms you listed don't have any trace of it (as expected). We might be able to set an upper boundary if we can find later borrowings that leave final -nc without an epenthetic vowel. This word must have then been borrowed before that. It would also be helpful to know the earliest attestations of this word in the Slavic languages. 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what happened to the ь in Bulgarian and Macedonian? Or could it have been a later re-borrowing? --WikiTiki89 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Ukrainian has, which is puzzling. It could be a back-formation, but I don't know of any other back-formations of this kind. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened in Bulgarian and Macedonian, this could be a later re-borrowing similar to tanc and tenc in some Slovenian dialects, or tanc in some Croatian dialects, which all have had a significant German influence. If so, they should not be included. Also Ukrainian is a different form of tanec, it is made from suffix  similar to Czech tanek, Polish tanok, Croatian tanak, tančak, tančić, tančac or Slovenian tanek, tanček all with roughly the same meaning only made from different suffices, which indeed indicates of  Proto-Slavic origin. Duh (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what happened to the c when the ъkъ was added? The c should have come out as a č rather than disappearing. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also indicates that original word is tan and the latter are suffices (there is also word tan in Old Croatian, with meaning "fun", "party"), but this indicates a native Proto-Slavic word, which mixed with Proto-Germanic one. Duh (talk)

 * is one of the sockpuppets of who has a history of deliberately fabricating etymologies. Don't waste time on this guy. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an idea worth looking into, regardless of who proposed it. As I said, though, we still need more evidence. --WikiTiki89 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

These words are not derived from CSl. Polish borrowed MHD tanz (→ taniec, with pseudoetymological -iec). From Polish it entered Russian (and Ukrainian and Belarusian) and Czech (and Slovak). In BCS and Slovene it's a Bohemianism; i.e. borrowed during the Illyrian movement. In Bulgarian it's a Russianism: Bulgarian has танц which is a respelling based on NHG Tanz, while the older variant танец is now obsolete. Macedonian has both танец and танц, reflecting the different transmitter languages. It's absent in Church Slavonic which uses ликовати, играти and плѧсати (and others) when translating 'to dance'. --58.7.112.243 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly know a lot about this word, but do you have citations to back that up? And by the way, no one mentioned Church Slavonic. Church Slavonic is not the ancestor of most Slavic languages. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that Church Slavonic was the ancestor of any modern Slavic language but, rather, that—if this word was indeed derived from Common Slavic—we might reasonably expect *таньць (and a denominal verb) to occur in at least some Bible translations given that the words 'n. dance' and 'v. to dance' occur in a total of about forty passages. Max Vasmer's etymological dictionary (for Russian, and widely available online) states that it entered Russian through Polish (oldest recorded use is by Grigory Kotoshikhin), and from Middle High German to Polish. Skok's dictionary (for BCS) lists it as a "[p]an-Slavic borrowing from MHG Tanz". --124.149.93.161 03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, "pan-Slavic borrowing" is exactly what we said it was. It could have been a colloquial term, which would explain it's late attestation in Russian and why it wasn't used in Church Slavonic. --WikiTiki89 03:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Skok uses "svesl[avenski]" to broadly mean 'pertaining to all modern Slavic languages'; i.e. not necessarily a (Proto-)/Common Slavic origin. --124.149.93.161 04:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then how could all of the Slavic languages have borrowed the term exactly the same way so as to fit Proto-Slavic *tanьcь? --WikiTiki89 04:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much in the same way that BCS kuhinja, Belarusian кухня, Bulgarian кухня, Czech kuchyně, Macedonian кујна, Polish kuchnia, Russian кухня, Slovak kuchyňa, Slovene kuhinja and Ukrainian кухня are not from CSl. --124.149.93.161 05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And how exactly is that? By the way, it would help if you didn't use ambiguous abbreviations. I thought that "CSl" meant "Church Slavonic"; now I realize it means "Common Slavic". --WikiTiki89 05:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But that is more believable anyway, because the words you just listed are all a bit different, some implying *kuxynja and others *kuxъnja, and one of them even *kujna. Therefore, it is more likely that they came from somewhere else. --WikiTiki89 05:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

dolor descendants
Maybe this isn't the best place for this, but I've noticed a user keeps reverting the Romanian descendant for this Latin word to something that is incorrect. The actual etymological descendant for it in Romanian is 'duroare', an archaic word that is no longer used, but still identified in older speech and documents and found in the etymological dictionary, and thus the one that belongs there in the list. It follows the expected transformation and sound shifts in Ro. Instead, the users (who do not have a username or account but just IP addresses 213.233.104.28 and 78.96.154.234), place the terms 'durere' and 'dor' under it, which are not descendants of the term. Durere, also meaning pain, is simply a construction made from the verb 'durea' with the "long infinitive" suffix '-re', changing it to a noun based on or resulting from the action of the verb, as happens with most verbs in Romanian, such as 'putea' > 'putere', 'mânca' > 'mâncare', etc. And 'dor' is most likely descended from Latin 'dolus' instead, which is related but not the same term as 'dolor'. I just didn't want to have to keep monitoring the page all the time for changes so I thought I'd mention it. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Slovene words
Does someone knows the etymology of Slovene words hrepeneti, jokati, še, kot and word ve, all of them are Serbo-Croatian Kajkavian as well, if so please share. 5.43.160.128 15:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of "dug" meaning "udder".
"Dug" meaning "udder" seems to derive from the Indo-European root *dheugh "to milk" (cf. Sanskrit dogdhi "milks"), yet I can find nothing in the usual places (e.g. American Heritage). If someone could look into this (for example look up the root in Pokorny) that would be great. If this etymology turns out to be correct, it would be an example of the well-known fact that Grassman's Law (which applies in Greek and Indo-Iranian) is not Indo-European. 78.29.206.28 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Etymonline suspects a borrowing from Scandinavian, citing Old Swedish dæggia "to suckle", but that verb is from a different root, namely *dʰeh₁(i̯)- "to suck (mother's milk)". However, the ablaut involved would be quite unexpected, although analogy can certainly lead to strange ablauts.
 * Also, I suspect that your suggestion doesn't work. First, the semantics of *dʰeu̯gʰ- are more complicated, and the LIV reconstructs "to hit" as the primary meaning of the root and its aorist. I can't go into all the detail right here, and you could check the book yourself if you can read German. Second, and more immediately damning, I'm pretty sure the sound laws don't work out. Something like Proto-Germanic *dugu-, *dugi- or *duga- would never have become dug, but something like *dow or *die I think. I also suspect that's why Etymonline thinks it's from Scandinavian – many words of this shape, ending in a short vowel plus /g/, are. It would have to go back to a form with gg or so, certainly not a simple /g/ because Old English didn't have one. Even different suffixes wouldn't change that. And with a suffix starting with n, Kluge's law would apply and you'd get Proto-Germanic *dukk-. I just see no way to make the connection work. It seems to be an udder impossibility (pardon the gratuitous pun). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

*korěnь
Where is the source? I found *kory in "Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon". Which is correct, or are they both correct, if so where is a source or any kind of reference? 5.43.190.207 03:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * *-y might work if the word were an n-stem like . But n-stems have -en- and not -ěn- like this word has, so that seems to disqualify it. There's also nothing listed among the descendants that would corroborate *-y, so I don't know what that dictionary is basing its reconstruction on, I'm skeptical of it. Does this ending appear in OCS? 03:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is корень in OCS, this would also suggest a dual reconstruction as *korenь, *korěnь. Should we put that? Gorska vila (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also where is the evidence for ě in *korěnь. Maybe correct reconstruction would be only *korenь. Gorska vila (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what about the Serbo-Croatian and Ukrainian descendants, which explicitly reflect ě? 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian has a natural change like in камінь (gen. каменя) so this is not a ě reflection. Serbo-Croatian case is little more complex; this could be a quasi-ijekavian invention like podrijeklo, but there is also ě reflex in old literature so case isn't so clear. Anyhow we should put *korenь in. Gorska vila (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But why? You said yourself that ě is clearly attested in SC. You're contradicting yourself now. 19:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't attested, not clearly at all, 19th century linguistic works like "Ilirska Slovnica" from Věkoslav Babukić a leading linguist at that time puts ě everywhere like lěpo, pěvati, něšto... but always koren. Another example is modern Croatian linguist Bulcsú László who holds extreme views on jekavization and writes prjetočiti, nješto, prjetila, prjedstava... all extreme unnatural jekavization of language, but he always writes koren. The ě reflection could be found in Marino Darsa where he writes korien and Bartholomeo Cassio who writes korin. So again it isn't clear at all. Another explanation can be that korěn is a later, and koren is a primer form. Gorska vila (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Since apart from Serbo-Croatian, there is absolutely no evidence for ě, I would reconstruct it as . Ukrainian clearly does not support the ě because the "і" alternates with "е" in the declension, which would not be the case if the original vowel were ě. Serbo-Croation could be considered an anomaly in this case, as can be Russian as well, since Russian seemingly supports . --WikiTiki89 20:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't just brush away the anomalies though. They show that the reconstruction is not as straightforward as just *korenь either. When different descendants disagree in cases like this, it's often evidence of a post-Proto-Slavic origin (newly coined or borrowed), or a productive change/alternation of some kind. 21:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Or it could be an innovation. The Russian case of confusion between etymological e/o and ь/ъ is actually quite common, although I can't remember any examples off the top of my head. In Serbo-Croatian, you would have to draw a timeline of the attested evidence of ě, but without further evidence, I think an innovation is the most likely scenario. --WikiTiki89 21:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I remembered one example of Russian treating etymological "e" as if it were etymological "ь": from . --WikiTiki89 03:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know for sure that in Serbo-Croatian korien and korin is first seen in 16th century, whilst before only form koren exists. Also Croatian language portal states *korenь as etymology . Gorska vila (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is enough evidence for to be moved to . The dictionary that Gorska vila linked to also mentions Lithuanian  as a cognate. --WikiTiki89 23:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the page (after accidentally moving it to Appendix:Proto-Slavic/korеnь, with a Cyrillic е). If we find more evidence of, then we can consider moving it there. --WikiTiki89 00:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I found an interesting passage in a Russian newsletter from 1888 (Русскій филологическій вѣстникъ):
 * Во второй половинѣ 41 стр. примѣры смѣшенія ѣ и е не убѣдительны: они приводятся изъ сѣверныхъ памятниковъ, гдѣ ѣ и е мѣнялись безъ разбору. Примѣчаніе къ 41 стр., касательно вліянія сербскаго языка въ словѣ корѣнь, крайне наивно. Современное сербское коријень — сербская особенность, неизвѣстная ни въ одномъ изъ другихъ славянскихъ языковъ, ни въ древнерусскихъ памятникахъ, за ислюченіемъ галицко-волынскихъ (при конечномъ ь), гдѣ оно имѣетъ ѣ въ именит. и винит. корѣнь, а въ другихъ, гдѣ нѣтъ въ концѣ ь, напр. е—корене, въ сербскомъ вездѣ ѣ = ије.
 * Vo vtoroj polovině 41 str. priměry směšenija jě i je ne uběditelʹny: oni privodjatsja iz sěvernyx pamjatnikov, gdě jě i je měnjalisʹ bez razboru. Priměčanije k 41 str., kasatelʹno vlijanija serbskago jazyka v slově korěnʹ, krajne naivno. Sovremennoje serbskoje koriјenʹ — serbskaja osobennostʹ, neizvěstnaja ni v odnom iz drugix slavjanskix jazykov, ni v drevnerusskix pamjatnikax, za isljučenijem galicko-volynskix (pri konečnom ʹ), gdě ono imějet jě v imenit. i vinit. korěnʹ, a v drugix, gdě nět v koncě ʹ, napr. je—korene, v serbskom vezdě jě = ije.
 * In the second half of the page 41, examples of the mixing of ѣ and е are not convincing: they originate from northern monuments, where ѣ and е interchange without distinction. Note on page 41, concerning the influence of the Serbian lanuage in the word корѣнь, very naively. The modern Serbian коријень is a Serbian peculiarity, unknown in any other of the Slavic languages, nor in Old Russian monuments, excluding Galicio-Volyn ones (with final ь), where it has ѣ in the nominative and accusative корѣнь, but in other cases, without ь at the end, for example е, it is корене. In Serbian always ѣ = ије.
 * The only thing I failed to understand is which text it is referring to (when it says "page 41"). --WikiTiki89 02:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This actually reminds me of a class of PIE words with a nominative in -ēn (contracted from earlier -en-s), direct cases with -en-, oblique cases with -n-. For example . The alternation between ě and e in this Slavic word somewhat resembles this, and I wonder if they could be related. 03:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the alternation there is the same as that in Ukrainian, as Galicia and Volyn are in modern-day Ukraine. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But where did it come from? 04:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The ordinary Ukrainian alternation of о/е with і, but with the і spelled ѣ, since it is pronounced the same and the modern Ukrainian orthographic distinction between і and и did not yet exist. This is all pure speculation on my part, as I do not know where to look for the text of these "monuments". --WikiTiki89 04:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My speculation is confirmed by the second paragraph of Yat. --WikiTiki89 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I believe that korijen is a poetic invention, similar to other ě inventions in Dubrovnik literature. Like cvijel common Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian word cvil from *kvil, also cviljeti and cvjeljeti when common word in Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian is cviliti form *kviliti, also word ćutjeti when common non ě word is ćutiti from *tjutiti and other similar words that came to being by necessitas metrica. Gorska vila (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's like in *uksḗn: *korę < PIE *korēn, accusative *korenь < PIE *korenm̥. The form *korěnь (from SC and OESl.) is secondary from *korenь. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So are you saying it should be moved to ? --WikiTiki89 18:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

σῦκον
RFV of the etymology:
 * "From 🇨🇬. Cognates include Latin  and Old Armenian "

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to derive σ from *bʰ (or թ from *bʰ, for that matter): even with palatization, I would expect *πτ, not σ. About the only thing that it has going for it is a possibility of a Semitic source or borrowing, as exemplified by Hebrew.

The etymology at Latin raises the possibility of an aspirated dental via a "Mediterranean substrate form such as *thuiko-", which looks like it might very well work for all three. I suppose there's also, perhaps, the off chance of borrowing from something along the lines of Hebrew.

I was tempted to just get rid of the PIE and use the etymology from, but I thought I would run it by you folks first, just in case. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Armeno-Greek borrowings from substrates is Hrach Martirosyan's favourite topic. And he has some recent publications about it. I'll add his views shortly. --Vahag (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 * It's generally considered a non-IE Mediterranean substratum word (possibly Minoan or Tyrsenian or the like – something like tʰwiːk- or θyːk- would make phonetic sense), although I don't know if there is a good intra-Semitic etymology. Are you sure that the Hebrew word is not itself a borrowing from (Medieval?) Greek? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and go back at least to Biblical Hebrew, though the first is more solidly attested in the older parts.  is only found in the Song of Songs, which most scholars consider fairly late- but it still has to be at least a couple centuries BCE. That's not to say it couldn't be a common borrowing from some unknown third source- but the time frame is considerably earlier. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


text: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/archives


text:
Haarwaschmittel

Noun

 * 1) shampoo (for washing the hair)

title: Haarwaschmittel


text:
Haarverlust

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) hair loss

title: Haarverlust


text:
wstręt

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) disgust, aversion

title: wstręt


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/November

veillance
This is sort of an etymology question, I think. Apologies if it isnt.

sousveillance was clearly created from surveillance (the latter links to a #French section that doesnt exist).

uberveillance says it is a blend of uber- and surveillance, and the meaning is strongly linked to surveillance

Is dataveillance also a blend?

I think superveillance means almost the same as surveillance, but can have a stronger sense of pervasiveness of the watching, and is not in common use any more.(google books)

How do we describe surveillant as being derived (with -ant) from surveil or surveillance?

My main question is whether it is appropriate to say that data- and uber- have spawned a new postfix -veillance, and/or word veillance which now has grown its own legs (veillance). e.g. Teaching ICT Ethics Using Wearable Computing: the Social Implications of the New 'Veillance'. Are there other derived words? (off topic: bienveillance is unrelated.) John Vandenberg (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 * If it's a suffix, then uber would have to be the "main word", but uber- is a prefix. Data is less clear-cut but I'd call it a blend. Suffixes are not usually that long! Equinox ◑ 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Latin restauro
Would you know something about the etymology of this word? --Fsojic (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at for starters. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

üzeri
Heads-up to etymologically inclined users, the contributor who added this entry has been adding other Altaic theories, too. It's my understanding that we usually try to qualify any mention of Altaic theories, e.g. "Schmidt, a proponent of the [controversial] Altaic theory, connects this word to Japanese foo". - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They also seem to be unaware of the fact that categorizes, so their etymologies are putting things into all kinds of bogus categories. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

yulan
Can an editor familiar with Mandarin Chinese check/format the etymology I added to yulan? I referenced several dictionaries but I have no way of knowing whether the characters or the transliteration I copied are actually correct. — E | talk 20:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 * It was correct, I just added the traditional Chinese form. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Appendix talk:Proto-Slavic/kǫpusъ
Can anyone shed light on these? Vasmer thinks that Russian (and a few other languages)  are also derivatives of. An IP user has added Latvian with a source. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they are all derivations of composita, just not via Proto-Slavic but later borrowings from other languages. So delete. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just some notes:
 * I didn't add kāposti (User:Pereru did)
 * as I read Pereru the word isn't just a derivation of composita, but a derivation from a merger of and  (though Pereru writes lang=lv, not lang=la). As far as I can tell Vasmer also says it's a merger (контаминация)
 * I'm not so sure about languages, it can also be a Wanderwort which spread before it could become adopted by the alleged intermediary languages. --80.114.178.7 10:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, Old East Slavic cannot reflect Proto-Slavic *kǫpusъ. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a reason to delete капуста from *kǫpusъ, but by itself it's not a reason to delete Appendix:Proto-Slavic/kǫpusъ. As an example Dutch has loaned pronounced as both  and /ˈɹaʊtɚ/, both written as, probably only one of the pronunciations will survive, but 20th century Dutch had both. --80.114.178.7 12:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Detail: "lang=lv" in the etymology section of for compositum and caputium was an oversight; I've already corrected them to "lang=la". --Pereru (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 * This is not RFD, there's nothing to delete. I only linked to the page, which has a discussion and seeking further etymology info for Old East Slavic, Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian капуста, Polish kapusta, Latvian kāposti, Lithuanian kopūstas. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These are all independent borrowings and not cognate words, so there is no reason to have the appendix. Even Serbo-Croatian kupus cannot derive from it, because it's attested late and a result of conflating two different words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Orphaned and deleted. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You were rather in a hurry, weren't you? --80.114.178.7 20:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no evidence presented to keep the page, wouldn't you agree? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would that be a reason to orphan the page during the discussion? --80.114.178.7 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, asked another way, why couldn't you wait? --80.114.178.7 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Page was orphaned due to the fact that better etymologies were provided for the supposed descendants. I don't understand your second question - wait for what exactly? If you can present evidence and sources for the reconstruction we can always restore it.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you don't understand [my] second question. Why couldn't you wait? Once you know why you couldn't wait, you'll understand my first question. --80.114.178.7 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I did check several etymological dictionaries (for sh, ru, pl, cs, and two Proto-Slavic) and they didn't have *kǫpusъ in them, so I assumed that we're dealing with a really bad reconstruction. Even if we waited months from now I doubt that more evidence would surface in favor of *kǫpusъ. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't explain why you couldn't wait, say, a week. --80.114.178.7 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait for WHAT? What would happen in a week? Or one month? If you have a source for *kǫpusъ, recreate it any time. --Vahag (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

knowledge
I don't understand the doubt regarding the second element. As far as I understand, ME knowleche is the regular result of OE cnāwelǣċ; I can't see a difficulty there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the difficulty is that OE ‘cnawelæc’ doesn't exist – the only recorded spelling of this unusual short form is ‘cnawlec’, and it's not at all clear that this -lec is supposed to be a variant of -læcan. The OED suggests that -lec in this case is “apparently an alteration of either -lāc -lock suffix or -laik suffix (or the early Scandinavian etymon of the latter; compare Old Icelandic -leikr), after Old English -lǣcan”, which seems a good explanation of the possibilities. Ƿidsiþ 17:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why do we have an article on cnāwelǣċ? --WikiTiki89 17:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

vampire, dhampir
Hi, all. The input of anyone with references as to the etymologies of these words would be appreciated at Talk:vampire and User talk:-sche. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/October

shaman
Can anyone provide references for the suggestion that shaman derives from Chinese and/or Persian? - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the OED notes that it might be from Chinese 沙門/沙门 (shāmén, "Buddhist monk"). —Stephen (Talk) 06:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 * All of the suggested sources are words for Buddhist monks. Given that the original language of Buddhism was Pali (with many early texts in Sanskrit), it's quite plausible that the word was borrowed, along with Buddhist teachings, into a great many other languages. That would mean that whichever language gave the word to the Evenks was only an intermediary, not the source itself. It then becomes a historical/geographical question as to which is the most likely route from Pali to Evenki. Geographically, Chinese makes the most sense, but Tokharian would work, too. I think Persian is the least likely link in the chain, given the other languages in between. It was shoehorned in by, who probably wasn't looking at it from a geographical or historical perspecive. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm aware of two possible paths that have been suggested for this word: either Pali – Tocharian – Chinese – Tungusic – Russian – German (– English), or Pali – Persian – French – German(/English), if I remember correctly. Those who read German might wish to check Mayrhofer, Manfred, Kleines Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Indoarischen, vol. III, pp. 387f. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, the second path via New Persian šaman "idolatrous" (which was mentioned in shaman but was removed by -sche) is much less likely and I don't remember where it was advocated.
 * As for the path from Sanskrit/Pali to Chinese, Khotanese Saka ṣamanä "ascetic" is a conceivable alternative to Tocharian ṣamāne "monk" as the missing link, and Sogdian is also a possible intermediate. That the word was directly borrowed from Tocharian into Tungusic without a Chinese intermediate, as now suggested in shaman, sounds implausible to me, however. Any of the languages used in the Tarim Basin (Tocharian, Khotanese Saka, Sogdian, Middle Persian) could be the immediate source of the Chinese word, but I don't know which of them Chinese was in direct contact with, and whether there are Chinese words that are clearly borrowed from a specific candidate language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

tan
How do you get from Celtic t- to PIE dʰ-? And how does the Latin word for "thigh" fit in semantically? I am not aware of any etymology for femur (its origin is apparently obscure), but the connection with *dʰonu- does not work on any level, as far as I can see. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * does seem to be of PIE origin because it preserves a very archaic stem alternation. I think that it goes back to Old Latin, genitive , from PIE , genitive . This matches all the sound changes known for Latin as far as I can see, only the medial -i- in the oblique stem is analogical (with the n-stems like ). The initial consonant in PIE could also be *bʰ. 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And you're right, Celtic t can't come from PIE dʰ- (unless it's a loanword from High German, Hittite or Tocharian). There seems to be a lot of highly questionable material at tan. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably another case of mindless excerption of outdated sources.
 * Walde actually considers the variant nominative femen to be older rather than a later analogical transformation (which makes sense because it is attested early and not continued later); in fact he thinks that the transformation was from femen to femur in analogy with iecur, gen. *iecinis. Doesn't really help, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

-ka- as an "onomatopoeic" suffix in Slavic?
I've noticed now that several Slavic languages have a suffix -ka- that seems to mean something like "say". It's found in Russian, Slovene , the Serbo-Croatian term , Russian and similar words. Is this a common Slavic phenomenon? Some kind of common Slavic suffix for making verbs out of pronounced sounds? 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These all ultimately stem from . --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic word for ‘hair’
We seem to have two competing theories as to the Proto-Slavic word for ‘(an individual) hair’: these entries say it was with a front yer, while these entries say it was  with a back yer. Lower Sorbian can be either masculine or feminine, and while the masculine can come from either proto-form, the feminine can come only from a form with a front yer. Is there any communis opinio about which form is the right reconstruction? Or were they both present in the proto-language? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more than just the frontness or backness of the yer. A back yer could be an o-stem or u-stem, while a front yer would represent an i-stem. So which paradigms are found in the descendants? 16:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Russian волос seems to be declined as an o-stem, but for all I know that's a later analogy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible that this was a masculine i-stem or consonant stem. This was a rare class in Slavic and most languages eliminated them almost entirely by replacing the inflection. That might explain why it also appears as an o-stem. Maybe we should just start by making an inventory of all the forms that are found in the different Slavic languages, along with their gender and inflectional class. I'll start a list here and others can add to it, ok? 17:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 * East Slavic:
 * Russian: - m, regular o-stem
 * South Slavic:
 * Slovene: - m, o-stem with accentual alternation, many irregular plural forms: nom., gen. , dat. , loc. , instr.  (see  for regular endings)
 * West Slavic:

 * Ivan has just started Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/volsъ, so I'd say Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/volsъ is the better place for such a list than here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's premature, we should keep the discussion here until there is consensus. Judging from Slovene alone, this is a masculine i-stem. While Slovene lost masculine i-stems as a class, all of the Slovene plural endings match the Old Church Slavonic masculine i-stem plurals exactly. 17:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It turns out the Lower Sorbian probably really is only masculine. One dictionary claimed it was feminine as well, but apparently only because a plural would be irregular coming from a masculine  but regular coming from a feminine . But if it came down straight from sla-pro as a plurale tantum it could have retained its -y ending despite being masculine. (The regular plural  is also attested.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Proto-Slavic masculine i-stem plurals are nom., acc. , while those of o-stems are and . How does that work out with Sorbian?  17:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The i-stem accusative plural and the o-stem nominative and accusative plural could all definitely yield dsb włosy. I'm not sure what *volsьje would give. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give a regular o-stem in Lower Sorbian and Polish, for comparison? Also, I noticed that Serbo-Croatian has an i-stem, but it's feminine. So I think that confirms that this was one of the rare masculine i-stems, which was converted into an o-stem in most languages (in Slovene only the singular and dual), but the gender was changed in SC instead. 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A regular o-stem ending in -s is głos (both dsb and pl); its plural is głose in dsb and głosy in pl. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So the noun is irregular only in Lower Sorbian but seems regular in Polish. What other Lower Sorbian declensions are there that have -y in the nominative/accusative plural? Are any of them masculine? Slovene -je doesn't appear in any regular declension at all, but some irregular nouns that are otherwise masculine o-stems have it. So its presence alone makes the noun irregular and therefore the -je is probably an archaism. It also matches the Slavic masculine i-stem ending exactly, whereas the feminine i-stems (which are well preserved in Slovene) have  in the nominative plural. I don't know if all Slovene plurals in -je originate in i-stems. Some may also come from consonant stems (which had a plural in nom. ), which shared most of their endings with i-stems and probably merged with the i-stems before themselves being mostly eliminated as a class.  18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

whelp
RFV of the etymology, which traces Proto-Germanic from pre-Germanic *kʷelbos and that from Proto-Indo-European. No explanation as to how this and could share basically the same PIE root but have different voicing of the consonants. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way this etymology would work is if it had undergone Grimm's Law twice, once to convert *gʷelbhos to *kʷelbos, and once again to change *kʷelbos to *hwelpaz. Seems pretty impossible. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, the consonants just don't fit. And it's not only the Germanic word: in fact, most of the words listed in whelp as presumably descending from *gʷelbhos are off with regard to historical phonology. They are apparently (almost?) all unrelated. Real descendants of *gʷelbhos include those listed under calf (see also dolphin). I suspect whoever created these entries relied on outdated compilations such as Buck or Pokorny, and either does not know about or care for sound laws. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing impossible
Hello, I have noticed lately that if I want to edit a term in the Albanian section the page shuts down as it is deleted automatically. Can anyone tell me why it behaves like that? Thank you Etimo (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 * What are some examples? I have noticed that you sometimes delete all of the content of a page, and I have assumed that you meant that the word was a mistake. If you empty the content of an Albanian word, somebody is probably going to delete the word. I have deleted a number of Albanian words where you have removed all of the content. —Stephen (Talk) 06:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This is strange. I usually only revise entries, adding additional information or etymology, when I find it's the case, I don't delete it completely. Actually, there's some kind of "tag-war" going on with the user Torvalu4, he deletes my referenced etymology to put his own. He doesn't add just an alternative etymology, he deletes it completely to put his favorite author, V. Orel, in all his entries. This is becoming a nuisance, as I think this is counter-productive and t's just a waste of time for everybody. Now when I try to adjust an entry, this gets deleted altogether. I think this might happen because the term has been already changed and cannot be changed many times in a certain time span. Or the User Torvalu4 found a way to prevent me from editing. The last "incident" happened with the term 'shtalb', but I think this is irrelevant. I really have no idea what is going on, but I'd appreciate if someone could fix this situation. Thanks Etimo (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case of shtalb, I don't know what you intended to do, but what you succeeded in doing [ here] was to delete the entire entry, and Torvalu4 (quite rightly) reverted you. However, he's not an admin so he can't block you from editing, and indeed [ your block log] shows you've never been blocked from editing. There's no restriction on the number of times an entry can be edited within a certain timespan, though if someone else edits the page between the time when you open it for editing and the time when you click "Save page", then you'll get an edit conflict notice. But that won't blank the page unless you explicitly confirm that's what you want to do. So I don't know what's going on either. Do you always click "Show preview" before you click "Save page"? Try that for a while, and see if that helps, as it will presumably show you when what you're about to do is delete all content. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete his entry, only a portion of it, as he had deleted important etymollogical reference from my previous entry so I tried to inserted it again. The user Torvalu4 keeps deleting my referenced entries in their entireness, while I only delete his/hers when I see an obvious conflict or an unjustified deletion of my contributions, replaced using always the same author (V.Orel), when no author at all!!. He's probably trying to give the impression that's actually the other way round. Anyway, I don't know why the system tells you I'm deleting the entire page, I'm not doing this. But when I try to edit, everything shuts down. I don't know why. I'll try your way. Thanks Etimo (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that you didn't intend to delete the entire entry, but if you look at [ the diff] of your edit, you'll see that you did delete the entire entry, even if that wasn't your intention. And there have been other pages where you've deleted all content from the page, leading admins to believe you were saying they were unfixably wrong, so that the pages were deleted. As a result, Tiranë (for example) is now a red link. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I replaced some terms with another template, maybe this was recognized as deleting. But in the last case, with the term "shtalb", I only edited the etymology part, trying to add some information, and still it behaved like I was deleting everything. Perhaps is there anything specific I should do or shouldn't do when editing? Thanks Etimo (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At any case, please undo such bad edits when you make them in the future. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Try clicking "Show changes" and "Show preview" before saving; they will show you what changes you're about to make and what the page will look like when you're done. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but I can't undo things if I don't know what I am doing wrong. When I click show preview everything goes blank. The entries are simply uneditable. Not that I want to go paranoid or accuse anybody, but this began happening since I started a debate with the user Torvalu4, still going on. I haven't been able to edit my entries ever since. I kindly request you to investigate on this thing since I'm pretty sure it is part of the problem!! Thanks Etimo (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * If you click on preview and everything goes blank, it means that you have emptied the page. If you save it, you will be saving an empty page. You can always undo things by clicking cancel instead of save. If you have saved and the page is empty, you can click on the HISTORY tab at the top, then click on the page version prior to your edit, open it and save it.
 * I cannot imagine what you are doing that empties a page without your knowledge. —Stephen (Talk) 11:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Here are some other pages that you emptied and which were then deleted: sulm, trikё, bjeshkë, heqë. Do you want those pages to be restored, or were they really incorrect? —Stephen (Talk) 12:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever is happening with your edits, I'm certain it has nothing to do with your debate with Torvalu4. There's simply nothing he (or anyone else here, for that matter) could be doing to cause this. Yet it doesn't seem to be happening on this page—you haven't blanked the Etymology Scriptorium once in this whole discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Latin quaero
Any idea about the etymology of ? --Fsojic (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the attested verb forms and the related forms with -s-, I think it's fairly certain that an earlier form of the root was . It may be from the same stem as, which was a general Indo-European interrogative stem. It was not a verbal root, so I don't think it can be traced back to PIE, it's likely a later formation with some suffix -s- that I don't know. 19:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what the Online Etymology Dictionary thinks too. Partridge says it might go with (cf. querulous) but that seems a little far-fetched. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can read at least a little German, check LIV and the Addenda and Corrigenda to it (available online), which analyse it as a hidden compound. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ton < OHG tonus?
German Ton (2) "tone" is given as coming from Old High German tonus, which I presume is a mistake for Latin - there is no OHG entry under tonus - but I'd like an expert to check. 95.131.110.108 13:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've double-checked Kluge and corrected the etymology. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

marline
The etymology here is questionable both Collins and OED give Dutch/German (marlijn/marren/marlinc/...) - I hope that someone more familiar with format might edit here. thanks — Saltmarshαπάντηση 10:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The ety I entered came from Webster 1913. I can see a little possible support for the French verb in Google Books ("merliner une voile", "merliné") but I don't have personal knowledge. Equinox ◑ 15:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple equally valid reconstructions, how to lemmatize
Typical problems: Possible remedies: Naming scheme must be neutral because of NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Proto-language has multiple reconstructions, not mutually compatible and both equally "valid" since there is no generally established consensus in the linguistic community. E.g. Proto-Balto-Slavic.
 * Proto-form is uncertain, e.g. the PIE word for "name" which has various reconstructions *h₁nómn̥ *h₁néh₃mn̥, h₃nómn̥
 * Include all of the forms in the page title, e.g. PBSl..
 * Lemmatize using cover symbols and parentheses, e.g. *CVmbVs for both *źombos and *źombos, or PIE *HnV(H)mn̥ for the abovementioned proto-forms (H=unknown laryngeal, V=any vowel).

Alligator
(Multilingual: “A taxonomic genus within the family Alligatoridae — the alligators.”)

Any evidence this is from Latin ? Surely it must be from the English name. — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tauber
(2) is described as
 * From a Celtic (likely Gothic) word meaning "water."

Well, I would be surprised if Gothic was shown to be a Celtic language.

Seeing that, I looked at Tauber (1)
 * Variant of Taube.

Most words aren't a variant of a word including a full stop, but anyway if Tauber would be related to 🇨🇬, I would rather expect a "Tauber" to be a or a. --80.114.178.7 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The connection with makes sense if we assume an Old High German form, from a (post-)Germanic , which can then be connected to the Latin form . It's interesting that the vowel was lengthened in the borrowing, though.  01:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Compare also Old Irish . --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up and expanded the entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant "Gaulic", not "Gothic." I was tired from a long day's work. Sorry about the confusion. Tharthan (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's called Gaulish at Wiktionary, though, which is its most common name in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll remember that in the future. Tharthan (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even then, why would one assume Gaulish, at a place so close to Hallstatt and La Tène? --80.114.178.7 00:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My entry was denied because it was identified as harmful
I tried to add to the discussion of puttana some additional information. I received the following error message:

 * This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: New user adding external link

First of all, I'm not a new user to Wiki, although most of what I have posted has been posted to Wikipedia. Second, the "external links" are a link to Wikipedia and the url to a Wiktionary entry. Is Wikipedia really considered external and automatically forbidden.

Since it didn't say how to contact an administrator, I am posting it here as I figure there must be several administrators here.

If possible, would you please add my entry to the discussion page for puttana?

P.S. It wouldn't let me add the link here either and flagged them as harmful, so I removed the Wikipedia article's url and turned the second url into an internal reference.

Proposed Entry:

 * There's also a Hindu goddess named Putana. (See Wikipedia article Putana) This may possibly precede use of the word in Greece and Rome, although that depends upon how much contact the latter had with the Indian subcontinent in classical times. In addition, the entry for πουτάνα attributes the origins to the Classical Latin word "putidus (“dirty”)." So did the name for girl (puta) also arise out of the word for dirty (putidus)? Is there any etymological connection at all?

 * The Greek πουτάνα may also precede the Latin since the Greek language came first and Romans were taught by Greeks. This is just speculation, as I don't know Greek. Did the Romans create a new language or is Latin derived from Greek? Ileanadu (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The abuse filter has no access to Wikipedia records. It strictly goes by Wiktionary edits. It's not a terribly strict filter, anyway- as I understand it, a couple of edits to pages that aren't deleted should be enough (one more would have done it). As for the "external" links, all you need to do is wikilink rather than use the complete url, as you've done with this post. Wikilinks to Wikipedia are prefixed with w:, as in Putana. So, really, there's no much to worry about, but you had no way of knowing that. We need to figure out how to inform people better. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Try the opposite for a week: long term users can only edit if they give an online source. In my opinion that would be a less capricious filter. --80.114.178.7 00:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The filter does perfectly what it's supposed to do, which is blocking spambots. The hard part is keeping it from causing too much collateral damage of this sort without letting the bots bury us in search-engine spam. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Special:AbuseLog shows what all filters are doing, I wouldn't call it perfect. I can't check the disallowed contributions, but Special:Contributions/2.222.98.201 and Special:Contributions/Rotlink seem OK, Special:Contributions/MargaritaOrr don't. --80.114.178.7 17:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Allowing people who have passed the captcha to edit, would help a lot. That would include all IP contributors. --80.114.178.7 17:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * About "collateral damage": like I said, imagine being the victim of damage caused by your compatriots/co-admins, before you tell the victims that the damage is "collateral". --80.114.178.7 17:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it means unregistered users can't post links, that's fine with me. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose you missed Special:Contributions/Rotlink and their edits stopped by this filter . --80.114.178.7 18:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's funny, let's try to add "their edits stopped by this filter". --80.114.178.7 18:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

sausage
I do not agree with the etymology of this word. It is far more likely to have come from medieval Latin, sal + siccus, salsiccus, which also sounds like sal + sic + que, salsicce, meaning salted and dried. The proof would be in monastic records, but I have no access to these in Australia. Monasteries kept detailed records of payment in kind and actions taken to preserve and store food.
 * Hi Hayshiv,
 * As far as I can tell you doubt the step from 🇨🇬 to 🇨🇬, I think that's a reasonable step
 * OTOH, I know droge worst, dreuge worst, and droëwors, which support "siccus". --80.114.178.7 19:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But sic does not mean "dried" in Latin; it only means "so, thus, like this".
 * If you doubt the derivation from salsus and are certain there is proof in some monastic records somewhere, find the proof, publish it in an academic journal, and we will add your conclusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You omitted a step: find the proof, publish it in an academic journal, gain the consensus of the academic community, and we will add your conclusion. We don't usually include etymologies that aren't believed by anyone but their proposer, even if published. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (@Florian Blaschke), siccus does mean "dry". --80.114.178.7 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He never denied that. But the OP's comment that salsiccus "also sounds like sal + sic + que, salsicce, meaning salted and dried" won't work because sic by itself doesn't mean "dry". Nor, for that matter, does sal mean "salted". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Florian said ' sic does not mean "dried" in Latin', but it does, see siccus. --80.114.178.7 22:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between sic and siccus. The latter means "dry" (not "dried") in Latin, the first doesn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are almost no sausages which are dry, but not dried. For the etymology of "sausage", it's rather useless to state the only "siccus", but not "sic" means 'dry", the stem of "siccus" is "sic". --80.114.178.7 23:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The stem of siccus isn't sic, it's sicco-, and it doesn't matter whether sausages are dry or dried because the word doesn't contain that stem anyway (note the long vowel and the single -c-). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Some Arabic-Hebrew particle correspondences
There several pairs of Arabic-Hebrew particle correspondences that I am unsure about (note I give the scholarly Hebrew transliteration, which we do not use in entries, to show the similarities more clearly): If anyone can help with any of these questions, I'd appreciate it. --WikiTiki89 15:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Arabic related to Hebrew ? If so, what explains the /n/ versus /m/? This phoneme correspondence is common only due to Arabic's nunation versus Hebrew's mimation, which does not apply here.
 * Is Arabic related to Hebrew ? These terms have similar meanings and usage in both languages, and the initial /ʔ/ and /h/ correspondence is normal. If so, why the Arabic a-vowel ending versus the Hebrew i-vowel ending?
 * Is either or both of the following Arabic interrogative particles related to the Hebrew interrogative particle ? If both, why did two different forms arise?
 * ? The initial /ʔ/ and /h/ correspondence is normal, so this seems very likely.
 * ? If so, what happened to the /l/ in Hebrew (or where did it come from in Arabic)?
 * Is Arabic related to Hebrew ? If so, why the large difference in meaning?
 * Is Arabic (and its forms) related to Hebrew ? If so why does Arabic have an i-vowel, while Hebrew has an a-vowel? The Arabic /ð/ versus Hebrew /z/ is normal.

 * The emphatic particles and  are related; I've added references stating as much to both entries.
 * has a cognate in Hebrew, but it doesn't seem to be . The 1910 Journal of Biblical Literature, volumes 29-30, says on page 104: "In lakhen, not at all, by no means, we have this adverb ken, thus; but here the prefixed la represents the negative, so that lakhen means originally not so (= lo khen, Gen. 48:18). In Arabic this [Hebrew] lakhen appears as the adversative particle lakinna."
 * T. Muraoka's 1985 Emphatics Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew, on page 163, likewise says that the word lōʾ ki ("not so") which the angel in Genesis 18:15 uses "is most probably to be identified with the Arb. lākin or lākinna, which 'rectifies or amends the preceding statement' (Wright, Arab. Gram, ii, 334C).
 * - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! I guess that means that is cognate to, but not to . --WikiTiki89 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 * and are discussed extensively in Meir Moshe Bravmann's Studies in Semitic Phonology. He derives "the Common-West-Semitic conditional conjunction ʾim, ʾin,  "if"  from an original yawma" which is in turn derived from the noun . He adds: "The structural development may be described as follows: yawma > ʾama > ʾam > ʾim, ʾin . The semantic-functional shift "[on the day] when" > "when" > "if" (cf. German wenn = "if"), [...] is the basis of the morpho-phonemic shift of yawma to ʾim, ʾin (etc.)."
 * Arab Linguistics: An Introductory Classical Text (1981, ISBN 9027245061 is more concise: "The [Arabic] particle ʾin "if" is generally held to be cognate with those of similar form and meaning in other Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew ʾim), but see Brockelmann, Grundriss II, 635 for other possibilities."
 * On the other hand, Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and Biblical Exegesis (1973, ISBN 9004037853 considers that and  (the latter of which it considers "nothing but an extended form of הן") "developed in a parallel way from an original deictic interjection "behold" to their secondary meaning "when", "if", "even if", etc. [... and] are etymologically related with other original deictic forms in Hebrew, such as the definite article ה, the interrogative particle ה, and with the conjunction אם, and with [...] Arabic ʾinna and ʾin."
 * So, the word for "if" either came from the word "day" or the word "behold"? (!)
 * - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I can see both of those happening, they still seem a bit speculative. Unless there are any attestations of intermediate forms, I'm gonna just put that they are cognates on the entries without giving the origin. --WikiTiki89 03:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 * John Elwolde mentions in passing in The Mahberet of Menahem: Proposals for a Lexicographic Theory (included in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer on page 468) that and  are cognate. Specifically, Elwolde says that when Menahem uses the phrase "the meaning of its cognate" in regard to אָז, the cognate he is referring to is إِذْ.
 * Also, in Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting by A. Murtonen, on page 479, there is the following apparently-relevant but nigh-incomprehensible patch of Abkürzungsdschungel: ʾZ(Y): PTa then. Hbr: aPal /ʾz/. Q =, (Mur 42:5) /ʾzy/. Sam /ʾaz/, /ʾãz/, /(mîyy)az/. Pal /ʾaz/ vi I etc., /ʾa2z/ GS 4 45 etc. Bab /ʾaz/ Ant 795 Gn 13:7 etc. Ug /ʾid/ when, /ʾidk/ then. Aram /ʾ(ä)dayin/ = . Arab /ʾiδ/ = ; when, since. ESA /ʾδ/ when. G&z /yʾze/ now. Te /ʾäze/ = . Pal /ʾdayyin/ Ed 19 20 is a loan from Aram (Dn 7:19). The entry is apparently cognate with the PNd sg. for the nearer object. With PTpr /min/ it functions occasionally as a conjunction of preposition.
 * δ not ð sic. Also, "Ge'ez" abbreviated "G&z" sic! - -sche (discuss) 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

apolide
Changed in diff from "" to "from hypothetical (unattested) Greek α-πολις stateless". I would have expected it to be a third option: a- + something, with the component parts coming from Greek. So, which is it? - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ancient Greek is attested, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2013/September

revenge
This does not currently have an entry. Some etymologies have this coming from OF 'revanchier' which they claim is ultimately from Latin 'vindicare'.

This seems tortuous considering that in langue d'oc the word 'revènge' simply means revenge or comeback (coming again, gerund of 'revenir'). It seems much more likely that both the OF and the ME come directly from langue d'oc (called Old Provençal on Wiktionary), the OF noun 'revanche' coming first and 'revanchier' a back formation from that rather than the other way round. There is no need to posit an OF route into ME since ME and langue d'oc had direct contact between the late 12th to 15th centuries due to England owning large chunks of Occitania (the Angevin Empire), military and trade links, and (langue d'oc) vernacular poetry being popular in English and other Western European courts at that time. Flet (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 * On what is this reasoning based? If it's all just your personal "common sense" I'm sceptical, especially when you use your "common sense" as justification to reject the established etymology. The seemingly more simple solution isn't always the correct one – Occam's Razor often misleads (the more simple explanation is only to be preferred all other things being equal, and usually they are not – history is full of amazingly complicated and frankly crazy sounding developments). Coincidental similarities are the bane of the etymologist. I have given the standard account now. However, as a courtesy, I have retained your suggestion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

bandy
The current entry says that this comes from MF 'bander' which means to join, bandage, or tauten. This makes little sense in the context of the usage of the word bandy, which means to propel an object (or idea) to and fro. A much more likely candidate is langue d'oc (Old Provençal) 'bandir', one of the meanings of which is to throw, including e.g. volleying in tennis or badminton. Flet (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

tuck
Etymology 1 of tuck currently has an entry with a completely different meaning: "snack food", which has nothing to do with pleats or curls.

I propose that this meaning comes from langue d'oc 'tuc' which means uncooked. Tuck shop, tuck box, etc, derive from this sense. It should be a separate etymology (not related to OE 'tucian' at all) and a separate entry. Flet (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

rugged
The current entry has this coming from Swedish 'rug' meaning shaggy hair. Unfortunately rugged doesn't have anything to do with shaggy hair.

I propose that rugged comes from langue d'oc 'rugat' meaning creased or wrinkled, from 'ruga' a crease or wrinkle. Hence 'rugged' which means creased or wrinkled (in the sense of a mountain range or of a weatherbeaten face). Flet (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

punch
The current entry has this coming from MF 'ponchonner' and ultimately from Latin 'punctus' which has the sense of a point or pointy object. While this kind of makes sense if you're thinking about it from the point of view of a hole punch, it makes little sense in the original pugilistic sense.

It seems much more likely that this comes from langue d'oc 'punh' meaning a fist or a punch with a fist (compare MF 'poign', 'poignée', 'coup de poign'), possibly from or related to Latin 'punire' to punish. Flet (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

patch
The current entry for patch says ME origin unknown. However in langue d'oc 'petaç' means patch and predates the ME usage, so it seems probable that the ME came from the langue d'oc. Flet (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 * That does not sound likely to me. Online Etymology Dictionary says: late 14c., of obscure origin, perhaps a variant of pece, pieche, from Old North French pieche "piece," from Vulgar Latin *pettia, probably from Gaulish *pettsi (cf. Welsh "thing," Breton  "piece, a little"), perhaps from an Old Celtic base *kwezd-i-, from PIE root *kwezd- "a part, piece" (cf. Russian  "part"). —Stephen (Talk) 08:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Possible that 'petaç' also came from 'pettsi' so they are cognates? 86.2.171.90 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

gammy
The current entry has this coming from Irish 'cam' meaning bent. However gammy doesn't mean bent, it means injured specifically of a leg. I propose that this comes from langue d'oc 'gambi' meaning lame or limping, from 'gamba' or 'camba' a leg (cf. MF 'jambe'). Flet (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

squish
The current entry says that this is onomatopoeic. However note langue d'oc 'esquichar' to squeeze or squish. It seems probable that squeeze itself was also at least fortified by this route. Flet (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

crutch
There is no etymology entry for this currently. I propose this is from langue d'oc 'cròça' which means a crutch. Flet (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * that etymology is not correct. Old English crycce is the predessesor of our word crutch. Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * fixed Leasnam (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

cauliflower
There is no etymology entry for this currently. I propose that this is from langue d'oc 'caulet-flòri' meaning a cauliflower (from 'caulet' cabbage and 'flòri' with flowers). Flet (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For this and all your above suggestions: we need to list etymologies that can be supported by what other dictionaries have already said. Wiktionary is not here for us to air our own personal etymological speculations. —Angr 12:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that Old Occitan would give the word directly to English? The ultimate root, of course, is Latin cole, and, in the absence of any evidence, one might guess that many Romance languages derived the word independently.  (Possibly also Old English cawel from Saxon times?)  Early versions of the word appeared in English in the late 1500s.    D b f  i  r  s   09:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

blag
The etymology here says that it is from F 'blague'. This word itself is slang that came from langue d'oc 'blagar' to chat. Flet (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This entry needs to be split; I'm pretty sure the sense of "hotel" comes from Greek. Some vowel markings and a general cleanup/expansion would also be nice. --334a (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

haereo
Does someone have etymological information on Latin ? --Fsojic (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Online Etymology Dictionary says the following (under hesitation): PIE *ghais-e (cf. Lithuanian gaistu "to delay, tarry"), from root *ghais- "to adhere; hesitate." — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

chaulafán
Of Cantonese origin, I assume, but I don't know the etymon. The alternative forms (only a couple of which are listed on the page) vary greatly; do some of them have different etyma? By the way, chow fun could also use a look-over to be sure that it's right. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be Cantonese, could be Mandarin, might be some other dialect. We have an entry for Mandarin, from + , but Cantonese has (had? Palatal and non-palatal consonants seem to be merged in modern pronunciation, according to Cantonese phonology) similar consonants, and it's basic enough that one would expect a similar construction in other dialects. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me add that chow fun isn't the same thing: it's fried noodles, not fried rice, and uses a different word/character for the second part. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a confusing mess, what with chow fun sounding so similar after it gets compressed into European phonology. 炒飯 must be it, and it would explain the alt-forms well, but where on earth did the la come from? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/peyk-
On the talk page of this entry we have gotten a bit stuck with this entry. The Balto-Slavic languages reflect a palatovelar *ḱ, while the Indo-Iranian descendants seem to require plain *k. Is anyone else able to help? 21:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)