text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2014/August

emergency
What is the origin of the word emergency? It appears to consist of emerge and -ency, but I'm not certain what word it was immediately derived from. Davidoko99 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the important question is how it went from its archaic meaning, which is close to the meaning of the Latin from which it seems to have come (emergo) to the current ones. That is the kind of thing that the OED could probably handle well. DCDuring TALK 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This Google N-gram search tells a story which I render as follows:
 * In 1800 emergency was a relatively neutral term, requiring adjectives to characterize the situation as good or bad. It came to be applied more often to bad situations, ie, used with negative adjectives (though MW 2nd International (1934) did not reflect that in their definition). The Great Depression and WWII seem to have caused emergency to be used of adverse situations without any adjective. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I imagine use of "emergency" in reference to crises originated as part of the tendency of people to think and speak of crises and other distracting events as having 'arisen', 'come up', or 'become apparent', etc. ‘We were all set to leave town when something came up.’ ‘They were just about to launch the new product line when a flaw became apparent.’ Distracting problems and events arise, become apparent, emerge, hence they are emergencies. - -sche (discuss) 04:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Let's see how the term has been defined over the centuries.
 * The 1764 New, complete, and universal English dictionary defines "emergence, or emergency" as "the rising of a body out of any fluid, wherein it had been plunged", "the act of rising into view", "the first appearance of the sun or moon after an eclipse", "any sudden occasion, or unexpected casualty".
 * Thomas Sheridan's 1790 Complete Dictionary of the English Language defines emergence and emergency together as "the act of rising out of any fluid by which it is covered", "the act of rising into view", "any sudden occasion, unexpected casualty", "pressing necessity". Samuel Johnson's 1792 Dictionary of the English Language has exactly the same definitions as Sheridan, only with the note that sense 4 ("pressing necessity") is "not proper".
 * The 1914 Century Dictionary defines emergency as (1) emergence, i.e. "the act of rising from or out of that which covers or conceals; a coming forth or into view" (it marks this sense as obsolete and gives a citation that talks about "the emergency of colours"), (2) "a sudden or unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; specifically, a perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances", (3) "a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity" (synonyms: crisis, pinch and strait), (4) "something not calculated upon; an unexpected gain; a casual profit" (this sense is also marked as obsolete, and has a citation talking about "the rents, profits, and emergencies belonging to a Bishop").
 * - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * John Donne used the more general sense " in every emergency and occasion" in a sermon of 1631, and Johnson (1709–84) called the urgency, pressing need usage "A sense not proper", but the most modern sense of crisis seems to have developed gradually, with the word emergence now being used for older senses. The earliest cites in the OED for anything like the modern sense are "In any Case of Emergency, [he] could employ the whole Wealth of his Empire" (Joseph Addison in 1716) and "Relief on sudden emergencies" (R Burn's history of the poor laws in 1764).    D b f  i  r  s   21:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

вонять
Is Old Russian reconstruction correct? I mean the spelling? Vasmer suggests obviously incorrect and the same spelling for Old Church Slavonic. (Quoting Vasmer: др.-русск. воняти "пахнуть", цслав. воняти "olere", сербохорв. во̀њати "вонять", словен. vonjáti, чеш. voněti "пахнуть, благоухать", слвц. voňat', польск. wonieć.) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that if it is reconstructed rather than attested, then the correct entry is . My guess is that if it is attested, the more likely spelling in Old Russian would have been, even if it does not derive from a nasal vowel, and in OCS, it probably would have been spelled . Also, the modern is really just a graphical variant of , so I wouldn't consider Vasmer's spelling "incorrect", but rather simply not conforming to our conventions. --WikiTiki89 13:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have made it clear that I also wish to check if it was "ja" (as per Vasmer) or a nasal sound as well. Yes, seems more likely. I will update the entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But once again, that's a guess. The only real resource for this is manuscripts. --WikiTiki89 14:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I may put "possibly" from... Will that be better? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because we know it is from that word, we just don't know how it was spelled. I would just put an asterisk. --WikiTiki89 14:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Although, it's in this dictionary, which is enough for me for now. --WikiTiki89 14:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that one, good dictionary. Thanks again. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though the citation spells it as, I think it is ok to normalize spellings, which we do for pretty much all old languages. --WikiTiki89 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it may also be possible that "j" was there? Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, etc. all ended up with palatalised [nʲ]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Compare with -> . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that in Old Russian, palatalization had already fully taken place, so ѧ and ѩ were just spelling variants of the same sound. --WikiTiki89 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Palatalisation of consonants before front vowels was a dialectal thing in late Proto-Slavic. It was more prominent in the northern and eastern languages, and seemed to have disappeared very early on in the southern languages, if it existed at all. Consequently, -ne- and -nje- are indistinguishable in the palatalising languages, but are distinct in the languages that did not palatalise. Similar for -nę- and -nję-. So if a non-palatalising language like Serbo-Croatian reflects -nj- then it must be original. —CodeCat 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Proto-Slavic reconstruction should probably be (although that does not explain Czech  and Polish ), but I think that Anatoli was only asking about the spelling in Old Russian. --WikiTiki89 21:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that Czech often raises front vowels before palatal consonants, so ja > je (spelled ě) is a regular change. I don't know about Polish but there may be something similar. —CodeCat 21:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: that does not explain Czech and Polish. In case it's not obvious, Polish and Czech terms both have [nʲ]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the vowel. --WikiTiki89 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic *obrusъ
This entry for lists only Ukrainian, Polish, and Slovak descendants. Is this really enough to reconstruct this all the way back to Proto-Slavic? Especially since these three languages have always been in close contact. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are more descendants, which I added with references. --Vahag (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I'm satisfied. It just seemed like a really strange word to me (I've never heard it in Russian), and the choice of listed languages was suspicious. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Slavic rain, yet again...
has just moved to. Is this justified? --WikiTiki89 16:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A little while ago we established in the ES that there is no discernable difference in any attested Slavic between -šť- and -šč-. So presumably the same applies to its voiced counterpart too? —CodeCat 16:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then we need to standardize to one of them and use it everywhere. --WikiTiki89 16:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was back in may, in a discussion concerning this same word. —CodeCat 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, my bad. I was confused by the fact that we still had links to in etymologies, which is why I must've accidentally created the page there. --WikiTiki89 16:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it was in April. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

семья
Are there any cognates in West or South Slavic? Vasmer does not list any. Is there enough information to reconstruct Proto-Slavic ? --WikiTiki89 14:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Chernykh, also Bulgarian, , . He remarks that in other Slavic languages the word vacat. --Vahag (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I could read that. What's a good in-browser djvu reader? --WikiTiki89 14:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This one is good and official. --Vahag (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It seems your source reconstructs PS instead. This makes much more sense given, which I forgot to consider. I'm going to go ahead and create , and possibly also  and . --WikiTiki89 17:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Latvian grēks
Is this derived from Slavic or a descendant? It's too similar to be coincidence, and borrowing from Slavic seems more likely than common inheritance as Slavic *x normally corresponds to Latvian /s/. Latvian also has no /x/ so it seems plausible that /k/ would be used as a substitute. —CodeCat 20:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Karulis, vol. I, page 312, borrowed from Old East Slavic . --Vahag (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Could you add a reference to the source in the entry? I don't have access to it. —CodeCat 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. --Vahag (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bubby
Until 30 July the etymology section of bubby said "See booby". Every source I've seen (including booby on Wiktionary) suggests that bubby is the older form. I [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=bubby&diff=27881654&oldid=27787514 added] an etymology, "From German bübbi ("teat"). Although some speculate connection to French poupe, this suggestion is dubious." User:-sche asks, [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=bubby&diff=prev&oldid=28365864 "according to whom?"]

This is according to the revised Oxford English Dictionary, among others. Wester's second says, "OF. poupe, a woman's breast." I don't have the OED here – it's at the office – but as I recall it says more or less outright that it's from bübbi and earlier etymologies via poupe are wrong. I don't think OED refers to Webster's 2. My "but that is dubious" was intended as less than outright rejection. As -sche notes, there are various references, many older, that say it is from French poupe (teat) or Latin pupa (girl). Cnilep (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Ah. I don't have access to any full copy of the OED, so that's why I didn't know they were the source of the poo-pooing of the poupe theory. The version I supplied as a reference for the German theory ISBN 0199571120 just happened to turn up on Google Books (though, oddly, it doesn't anymore) and didn't mention French at all. I've since found a snopes page which quotes the OED's etymology in full; from that, I've found that the OED has actually deprecated poupe since the 1887 edition. How's [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=bubby&diff=28377383&oldid=28365877 this]? - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

One can break in online.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/24085
 * † ˈbubby, n.1
 * Etymology: Compare German bübbi teat (Grimm). Connection with French poupe teat of an animal (formerly also of a woman), Provençal popa, Italian poppa teat, is very doubtful.
 * Obs. or dial.
 * A woman's breast.
 * 1690  T. D'Urfey New Poems 206   The Ladies here may without Scandal shew Face or white Bubbies, to each ogling Beau.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/21394
 * booby, n.2
 * = bubby n.1  slang (orig. U.S.).
 * 1934  H. Miller Tropic of Cancer 315   She was lying on the divan with her boobies in her hands.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/21387
 * boob, n.
 * 4. [probably shortening of booby n.2] pl. The breasts. slang (orig. U.S.).
 * 1949  H. Miller Sexus (1969) xiii. 305,   I felt her sloshy boobs joggling me but I was too intent on pursuing the ramifications of Coleridge's amazing mind to let her vegetable appendages disturb me.

OED doesn't say so, but I believe it derives from bob 1 and 2:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/20788
 * bob, n.1
 * Etymology: Of unknown origin: Irish baban tassel, cluster, Gaelic baban, babag , have been compared. Some of the senses are < bob v.1
 * I.
 * 1. A bunch or cluster (of leaves, flowers, fruit, etc.). north. Still in Scotland the name for a bunch, nosegay, or small bouquet of flowers.
 * c1400 (▸?c1390)    Sir Gawain & Green Knight (1940) l. 206   In his on honde he hade a holyn bobbe.
 * c1400  MS. Lincoln A. i. 17. f. 42 (Halliw.),   With wondere grete bobbis of grapes, for a mane myȝte unnethez bere ane of them.

 * †2.
 * a. A rounded mass or lump at the end of a rod or the like; a knob. Obs. in general sense.
 * 1601  P. Holland tr. Pliny Hist. World I. 252   [Lobsters'] hornes..haue a round point or bob at the end.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/20801
 * bob, v.3
 * Etymology: Used since the 16th (? 14th) cent. Apparently onomatopoeic, expressing short jerking or rebounding motion. There is an obvious association with certain senses of bob n.1, especially those of the ball of a pendulum, plummet, tassel, pendant, all of which ‘bob’ when moved; but it is doubtful whether this is original or subsequent. There is also contact with the senses of bob v.2(Show Less)
 * 1.
 * a. intr. To move up and down like a buoyant body in water, or an elastic body on land; hence, to dance; to move to and fro with a similar motion, esp. said of hanging things rebounding from objects lightly struck by them.
 * [1386  Chaucer Manciple's Prol. 2   A litel toun, which that ycleped is Bobbe up and down Vnder the Blee in Caunterbury weye.]
 * 1568  Christis Kirk on Grene in W. T. Ritchie Bannatyne MS (1928) II. 263   Platfute he bobbit vp wt bendis for mald he maid requeist.
 * 1611  T. Coryate Crudities sig. Hv,   Many tassels bobbing about.

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=baban+babag+pab
 * http://www.lexicons.ru/modern/sh/gaelic/gael-eng-p.htm
 * pab shag, refuse of flax, wooly hair, and (M`A.) tassel (= bab), Middle Irish papp, popp, sprig, tuft, Early Irish popp, bunch, which Stokes refers to a Celtic *bobbъ-, *bhobh-nъ-, from *bhobh, *bhabh, Latin faba, bean, Greek @Gpomfуs, blister, pйmfix, bubble, Lettic bamba, ball, Indo-European bhembho-, inflate. English bob, cluster, bunch, appears in the 14th century, and Scottish has bob, bab correspondingly; the Gadelic and English are clearly connected, but which borrowed it is hard to say. the meaning of pab as "shag, flax refuse" appears in the Scottish pab, pob. Borrowing from Latin papula, pimple, root pap, swell, has been suggested.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/137076
 * pap, n.1
 * Etymology: Origin uncertain. Perhaps < classical Latin papilla nipple (see papilla n.), or perhaps < early Scandinavian, though not recorded in Scandinavian languages until much later (compare Swedish regional pappe, papp , Norwegian regional pappe , Danish papa ; compare also North Frisian pap , pape breast; probably of imitative origin; perhaps compare Lithuanian papas (imitative and children's language) nipple), or perhaps an imitative formation within Middle English (compare pap n.2). Compare mama n.1
 * Now arch. and regional (chiefly Sc. and Eng. regional (north.)).
 * 1.
 * a. A woman's breast or (now rare) nipple. Also fig. Now chiefly arch. and Sc., Eng. regional (north.), Irish English, and U.S. (Midland).
 * ?c1200  Ormulum (Burchfield transcript) l. 6441   Hiss moderr..fedde himm wiþþ þatt illke millc Þatt comm off hire pappe.
 * a1250 (▸?a1200)    Ancrene Riwle (Titus) (1963) 117   Eadmodnesse..hailses meaðlesliche..on his moder teares, O þe pappes [c1230 Corpus Cambr. tittes] þat he seac.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/16527
 * bean, n.
 * Etymology: Common Germanic: Old English béan (feminine) = Old High German bôna, modern German bohne, Middle Dutch bone, Dutch boon, Old Norse baun < Germanic *baunâ (strong feminine); conjectured by Fick to be for an earlier babna, cognate with Latin faba, Slavonic bobŭ, Old Prussian babo; but phonetic considerations render this doubtful.
 * 1. A smooth, kidney-shaped, laterally flattened seed, borne in long pods by a leguminous plant, Faba vulgaris.
 * c1000  Sax. Leechd. II. 84   Genim bean mela.

 * 2. The cultivated plant that bears this seed; it has fragrant violet-tinted white flowers, whence the often-mentioned ‘fragrance of the bean-fields’.
 * 940  Chart. Eadmund in Cod. Dipl. V. 265   Of þistelleage to beanleage.

bean
 * Etymology
 * From Middle English bene, from Old English bēan (“bean, pea, legume”), from Proto-Germanic *baunō (“bean”), from Proto-Indo-European *bʰabʰ- (“bean”). Cognate with Scots bene, bein (“bean”), West Frisian bean (“bean”), Dutch boon (“bean”), German Bohne (“bean”), Danish bønne (“bean”), Icelandic baun (“bean”), Latin faba (“bean”), Russian боб (bob, “bean”).

fava

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/24072
 * bubble, v.
 * Etymology: Found (in bubbling n.) a1400. Parallel words are Swedish bubla, Danish boble , modern Dutch and Low German bobbelen , modern German dialect bobbelen , bubbelen ; all of these are modern, and it is doubtful how far they are related to each other, or are merely parallel imitative words, suggested either by the sound of bubbles forming and bursting, or by the action of the lips in making a bubble. The English bubble can hardly be separated from the earlier burble n.1, common in the same sense from 1300; compare gurgle and guggle . In bubble the verb is the source of the noun as a whole, but 5 appears to be derived < bubble n. 3, and in turn to have given rise to bubble n. 5.
 * 1. intr. To form bubbles (as boiling water, a running stream, etc.); to rise in bubbles (as gas through liquid, water from a spring, etc.; often with out or up); to emit the sounds due to the formation and bursting of bubbles.
 * 1398 [implied in: J. Trevisa tr. Bartholomew de Glanville De Proprietatibus Rerum xi. xiv,  And whan þat fyre is queynte in watry cloudes, þe bobelynge..and crakkes of þat quenchynge is clepid þonder. (at bubbling n. 1)].
 * 1477  T. Norton Ordinall of Alchimy in Ashm. iv. (1652) 47   Remember that Water will buble and boyle.

I would see bubo and pubes. These along with bob and papula show reduplication of a root that may be preserved in boil and bowl/boll/bole/bulla, parallel with ball and belly and descendant of bell. So the development goes as boob < booby < bubby < bubble < bob < boll < bell. Lysdexia (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

kakka
In what sense is the Finnish kakka "imitative"? Does it imitate the sound of defecation or what? Similar words in numerous Indo-European languages would suggest that this is an Indo-European loanword. -- Puisque (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Imitative is perhaps not the right word, but it seems to be a very common baby-language word for poo that crosses language family borders, much like mama and papa/dada do. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Baltic (+ general vowel) questions
Could a hypothetical "Proto-Latvian" *kelias have been pronounced with the i as actual i, as in English ad hoc transcription kel-ee-us.

I probably make no sense but I'm trying to understand why "soft" Latvian sounds as in ceļš preclude vowel harmony/umlaut, in celts [tsælts] it is in operation because in *celtas the back -as made the e move further back to æ, why then the so called "palatal element" precludes vowel harmony? And it applies to j as well as in sēja [se:ja] as opposed to sēta [sæ:ta] when j is not even a vowel?

Two phonetics questions:
 * Is there such a thing as a "palatal vowel"? I suspect there should be some connection as front vowels (those who preclude harmony) are exactly the same that cause palatalization in Russian, Lithuanian and some varieties of Portuguese and palatalization even in the presence of a proceeding back vowel seems to preclude harmony as well. In that case all cases of e's not backing to æ could be blamed on "palatal something"

 * Is it meaningful to say that "æ is more back than e"? Vowel charts seem to be trapezoid for a reason with the bottom front back vowels being closer to each other but I don't know where to look for confirmation that æ is indeed more back than e (which is higher up the trapezoid and further away from the back vowels). Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

 * It's been a long time since I looked into this, so I may be remembering this wrong, but I believe that a major difference between Latvian and Lithuanian is that Latvian fixed the mobile accent in one place, which tends to reduce the vowels in syllables after the accent. Looking at cognates in Lithuanian, which still has the mobile accent, may give you clues as to what the non-reduced forms of the vowels were. That's not to say that there are still underlying vowels hidden in final syllables, but that they may have blocked sound changes in an earlier stage of the language before disappearing.
 * As to your first "phonetics" question (I would call it more of a phonology question): palatalization can be described as both bringing the tongue forward and raising the tongue toward the palate. That means that any high vowel that's further forward than the consonant in question or any non-low front vowel is likely to have a palatalizing effect, though the phonological rules of the language will determine under what circumstances, and may induce similar effects from other sounds. If you think about it, the palatal approximant j is basically the semivowel counterpart of the the high front vowel i, so calling i a palatal vowel is not that much of a stretch.
 * As to your second question: I believe it is further back, but there again, a lot of what that means has as much to do with the phonological rules of the language as with the physical position of the tongue. It's not uncommon for a sound to be perceived one way in isolation and another in the neighborhood of other sounds, or to be perceived differently by people of different linguistic backgrounds- even though every physical measurement of its acoustic properties shows that it's exactly the same.
 * You also have to realize that much of what we consider to be a given sound often really comes from the effect it has on other sounds. The most extreme example of this is voiceless, unaspirated stops: they literally have no sound at all. What you hear as an unaspirated p is really the pattern of the frequency associated with the front of the mouth in a preceding vowel lowering as the rounding of the lips increases the size of the resonating chamber, and the same frequency rising in a following vowel as the lips are unrounding. Palatalization has as much to do with the neighboring vowels as it does with the consonants themselves. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it seems there are not so much "palatal vowels" but rather "front consonants" or rather just good ole palatal consonants which have moved closer to where the front vowels are articulated – the palate. So instead of looking for a *kel-EE-us and similar mental acrobatics I could just assume that the place of articulation of soft consonants is close to the place for front vowels which preclude the "broadening" of e in vowel harmony and that's that.

 * I'm trying to wrap up/go over some passages I've written on en.wiki and let's say it's not the most yielding subject as Latvian linguists seem to be absolutely obsessed and jealous of Lithuanian while Latvian phonology (I would say at this point) seems to be wholesale imported from Uralic even down to vowel harmony (disappeared in standard (Northern) Estonian and Livonian but still present in Võro spoken right along Latvian border.

 * I guess this is easy to understand as Lithuanian saw a Cinderella story in the formative years of modern comparative linguistics from this tiny languages no one GAF about it turned into a celebrity overnight, all the archaic features, Sanskrit cognates, etc. It's easy to understand why lv's where so jelly. The glamour of "ancient eastern wisdom" extended well into 20. century (Hitler's Aryans anyone?) Hunger for eastern goods was the reason Americas were discovered to begin with...

 * So, now I'm trying to deal with some of this crazy Lithuanian jealousy in my lv phonology write ups, just now I read a passage by Endzelīns where he'd managed to dig up some tiny Lithuanian dialect (spoken near Latvian border from what I understand) that also exhibits (Uralic-inspired according to more "impartial" English language sources) vowel harmony, goes without saying he doesn't attempt to explain it in a more in-depth manner...

 * Thankfully "aerial linguistics" seem to be coming en vogue in English academia and with Latvian being one of the more heavily "creolized" languages outside of Balkans this is good news. Finno-Ugristics also seem to be becoming more fashionable in Latvia so I'm really looking forward to some less sh*tty lv linguistics in the future (i.e. people who are actually able to pin-point the processes in lv based on their fiu knowledge instead of trying to somehow sweep them under the rug not to depart from the usual party line "hey we are just like Lithuanians, look we have Sanskrit cognates too! Guys, guys?")

 * So, that's my back story, in case you were interested :D Neitrāls vārds (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 * On en.wiki's article for palatalization there has appeared a sentence the term palatalized vowel is also sometimes used, to refer to a vowel that has become fronter or closer, now, if I could find some external references for this then I would be all set. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I-mutation. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I didn't know it included /j/ (which is exactly what I'm looking for) I would only need to flip it upside down as in lv back vowels are causing backing of e's (to æ's) and i's and j's are those that preclude it and make e's stay e's (more front). Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 * My personal theory is that it's the mobile accent that makes Lithuanian so archaic: it's harder to simplify the morphology if any part of the word might be accented. There are plenty of consonant and vowel changes, but the overall structure is maintained, which allows for morpheme-by-morpheme comparison of the sounds with other branches of Indo-European. I don't think it's a coincidence that other archaic Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit and Greek have some version of the original PIE mobile accent as well.
 * That's not to say that Latvian is of no interest to students of PIE: it preserves some things that Lithuanian doesn't- it's just harder to see them because of the changes Latvian went through. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A very striking archaism in Latvian is its "broken tone". This feature is a direct continuation of vowels lengthened by laryngeals, at least in most cases. —CodeCat 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz, yes, moving stress to first syl. sets off an entire chain reaction yet again a Uralic influence (although I recently read Endzelīns going on a mental acrobatics stint trying to claim that Latvians themselves decided to do this and that Livonians provided only "coincidental, side-inspiration." One word: lol) If I could choose I'd rather have Latvian be completely ignored by Ide. linguistics if this would mean that its phonology would be explained in a more appropriate manner, i.e., by fiu trained linguists instead of desperate scrambling for some tiny Lithuanian dialects near Latvian border when you have to look for the source of the phenomenon in question north(!) of Latvian border.
 * @CC, yeah, that's what I've heard. lv linguists identify broken tones in non-stressed (not first) syllables as well (although personally I'm not sure if I hear them, of course my motivations are very utilitarian, level is the default and broken tone (in the stressed syllable) in some rare cases helps distinguish near homophones.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 * This is a board for specific issues involving Wiktionary etymologies, not general questions like this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic *svirěpъ
There are two things that confuse me about the descendants: the seemingly random dispersion of svi- and sve-, and the lack of Serbo-Croatian Ijekavian svirjep (having svirep instead). --WikiTiki89 18:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ivan answered my second question in this edit. --WikiTiki89 14:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Goídel
Other editors' input is requested at Talk:Goídel. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic *ogǫnь
Most Slavic languages inserted an epenthetic into, making. But, is it possible that Proto-Bulgarian inserted an epenthetic instead, making ? Although and  merged in modern Bulgarian, the word was written  in the old orthography, and they did not merge in Macedonian, which has  ( would have produced ). This would also explain why the in  is not dropped in the definite form. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * *ǫ was essentially the nasal variant of *ъ. As there was an immediately following *n here, it's possible that this caused some fluctuation between a nasal and non-nasal vowel. There are a few attested examples of denasalisation in OCS, but I don't know if it could happen in reverse. It seems like a rather sporadic change in any case. —CodeCat 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But was also a long vowel, while  was short or even ultrashort. --WikiTiki89 20:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That only applies up to Middle Common Slavic. By Late Common Slavic, accentual changes had disrupted the distribution of original vowel lengths so that there was no correspondence anymore. —CodeCat 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet it was only the yers, not the yuses, that were dropped, so there must have been some difference other than nasalization. By the way, where can I read in detail about all these accentual changes? --WikiTiki89 20:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * History of Proto-Slavic has a lot of information. And yes, there definitely was a difference but it was dialectal as they show different outcomes in different languages. —CodeCat 20:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But the yers were dropped in all languages, while the yuses were kept in all languages. --WikiTiki89 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 * огѫнь seems to be some kind of made-up non-etymological spelling and not listed in the dictionaries. Where did you find it? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * «Френско-Български Рѣчникъ» s.v. Feu (p. 185). But after investigating further, it does seem that that dictionary overuses the letter . I think that it should probably be moved to . --WikiTiki89 01:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an old spelling. Bulgarian used both ѣ and ѫ in normal writing until 1945. —CodeCat 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They are both old spellings, the difference being that does not seem to exist outside of this one French-Bulgarian dictionary. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Trice
I know the OED does not agree with me on this, but I am sure that the word 'trice' in the sense of 'an instant' is just a transposition of 'tierce', meaning 'a sixtieth of a second'. There might have been some influence from 'trice' meaning 'tug', but it seems unlikely, given that it has no connotation of speed. It is more likely that the prefix 'tri-' meaning 'three-' was the cause, given that it was the third sub-category of 'hour'. Any thoughts? OsmNacht (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Has tierce ever been used as trice is in the sense of "an instant"? DCDuring TALK 12:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The OED makes a good argument, with cites going back to 1440 (though tierce is equally ancient). Tierce is really a third part, not a tertiary division unit.  When did this derived sense of a sixtieth of a second appear?  (My guess is that it's relatively recent, though, of course, the Babylonian unit is over 3000 years old.)  The usage from a "brief tug" goes back 500 years.  Compare Spanish en un tris and French tout d'un coup (parallel developments, not origins).    D b f  i  r  s   21:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't help much with this, but I can say that the second and tierce/third as units of time are surprisingly old - older than clocks capable of measuring these time periods accurately, in fact, since the ability to work with very small units of time was needed for astronomical calculations. In 1267, Roger Bacon calculated the time of the full moon right down to the "quarta" of a second (i.e. a sixtieth of a tierce), according to Wikipedia. He used the Latin equivalents in writing, of course - I'm not sure whether the English equivalents were used in speech. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Both prefix and suffix
If for example, you have a word with both a prefix and a suffix, like "disestablishment". And you want to show both the prefix "dis-" and the suffix "-ment" in the etymology. How do you do that? It seems that you're only allowed to put either prefix or suffix. I'm asking this for a word in another language, you see. Because in English, you can just like use "disestablish" as the etymological root word and add the suffix "-ment", but in the word of another language I'm editing, just placing the prefix to the root word is a non-existent word. So, is it possible to put both prefix and suffix in the etymology at the same time? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * You are looking for confix. Equinox ◑ 03:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Personally, I prefer something like this:  :    --WikiTiki89 11:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what does though. —CodeCat 15:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, and I prefer not to use it. --WikiTiki89 15:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason, Bartleby? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's easier to read on the code side. I've even been thinking about proposing that single prefixes and suffixes be used like this as well:  +  : . It's not like the "+" is so hard to type, and additionally it makes it easier to add transliterations and other annotations and even to mix languages when necessary. Also, most people don't know what a  is. --WikiTiki89 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Germanic/argaz
Anyone have any clue why Kroonen reconstructs the root with *h₃-? (Some proposed Anatolian cognate perhaps?) The cited Russian cognate has e-, which points to *h₁-, and the obvious root is *h₁erǵʰ-, which LIV glosses as "besteigen, i. e., to climb, mount, ascend", and adds that per Watkins, it can (besides its neutral meaning "steigen, i. e., to rise, ascend", hence "gehen, kommen, i. e., to go, come") refer to copulation in animals (just like besteigen and mount) and is the source of *h₁orǵʰi- "Hode, i. e., testicle". I happen to find that explanation completely plausible and fail to see the need for the proposal of an additional root starting in *h₃-, especially in view of the Russian cognate, which also points towards *h₁-, even if the Lithuanian variant starting in e- can easily be explained away differently. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hittite, , Ancient Greek , Middle Irish , Armenian , Albanian . The latter seems to be the source of the reconstruction as *h₃-, according to Matasovic, who suggests that the h- could be secondary. Kroonen, Beekes and Kloekhorst all list *h₃-, and Martirosyan prefers it to *h₁-, so that's what I went with. If you like, I could list the other reconstruction as an alternative. Anglom (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

κατά and Appendix:Proto-Germanic/gadōną
Are these cognate? Lysdexia (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Greek initial k- and Germanic initial g- can't be cognates. According to Grimm's law, k becomes h. —CodeCat 11:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If that were so, there should be almost no voiced stops in Germanic. But co- and ge- disprove Grimm's law. Lysdexia (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Grimm's law has stood the test of time over centuries- lack of understanding on your part doesn't prove anything. Please read up on Grimm's law before you embarrass yourself any more: it's a chain shift, so aspirates became voiced in German, voiced became voiceless, and voiceless became fricatives. There's also voicing via Verner's law, but that only happened after unaccented syllables in the same word. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The lack of understanding and embarrassment are on your end. Grimm's law was where I went earlier today and months ago and still it has no solution for my case. Your Wiktionary disagrees with you also:

ge-
 * From Old High German ga-, gi-, from Proto-Germanic *ga-, from Proto-Indo-European *ḱóm. Cognate with Low German ge-, e-, Dutch ge-, Old English ġe- (obsolete English y-, i-, a-), Gothic 𐌲𐌰- (ga-).

A palatal stop became a voiced stop or fricative g or ɣ. There was no voiced aspirate stop *gʰo- to show of. Lysdexia (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being rude: I overreacted to the "disprove Grimm's law" bit, which makes it look like you're saying that Grimm's law is completely wrong- at most, we're talking about a possible exception or complication, not the complete overturning of centuries' worth of scholarship about the relationship between Germanic and Indo-European. If you have evidence besides Wiktionary's etymology of a single morpheme, and it turns out you're right, I'm quite prepared to admit being wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unstressed affixes and function words often undergo spontaneous voicing in various languages; normally PIE *kom- should have become *xa- (also spelled *ha-) in Proto-Germanic, but it underwent spontaneous voicing to *ɣa- (also spelled *ga-). Other examples include the change from Old Irish to Modern Irish, and all the English function words starting with /ð/ such as the, this, that, there, then, etc., all of which had /θ/ in Old English; as well as the function words ending in voiced fricatives like is, was, of and so on. But since PG *gadōną isn't a function word it couldn't have undergone this spontaneous voicing, so it must come from something along the line of *gʰodʰ- or *gʰadʰ- and be unrelated to κατά. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a Germanic cognate to Greek κατά; it is (English: behind, hinder, hind-, asf.) Leasnam (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2014/September

Finnish, Estonian on and related forms
All Finnic languages inherited the Proto-Finnic copula, which also has cognates outside Finnic. But in all the Finnic languages, the third-person singular form is irregular. The regular form would be, but no descendant form of that is attested in any language (the regular descendant would be Finnish , Estonian ). Instead, forms appear like Finnish, Estonian , Karelian , Livonian , Veps , Votic , Võro /. Although unsourced, we also have an entry for Finnish, which seems to be an older form.

What is curious about the attested forms is that they don't seem to come from the same root that the rest of the verb descends from. Finnish instead reflects a bare root  or  plus the third-person singular ending, which has otherwise evolved into a copy of the preceding vowel in Finnish (but not most other Finnic languages). Võro must reflect a root  with no ending, as Võro does not use the same third-person singular ending  that the other Finnic languages do. What is striking about some of the forms is that they have final -m, which normally becomes -n in Finnic. It's possible that this change only applied in multisyllable words; Finnic has very few monosyllabic words that could have escaped analogical changes to endings, so that's hard to check.

So the question is where did this irregular form come from? Is a root actually reconstructable? —CodeCat 20:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Proto-Finnic form must have indeed been *om, apparently from earlier *omi, per the Veps interrogative form omik 'is there?'. The Finnish dialectal forms olee, olevat.
 * Lauri Hakulinen suggests that *om(i) is perhaps originally from *oma 'own' (< *wo-ma?). It may in turn be an old infinitive or infinitive of the copula (much like the other 3rd person forms being originally participles), though this would require that PU *wolə- (or, *walə-, as most non-Finnic languages point to) is actually originally a derivative *wo-lə-.
 * The 3PP can be reconstructed as *omak or *omat (Veps oma, South Estonian ommaq). In Finnish/Karelian/Ingrian and, IIRC, Votic this has been contaminated with the regular 3PP -vat to produce ovat.
 * --Tropylium (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

,
Can we get etymologies for these two terms? Kephir has expressed doubt that they are unrelated. DTLHS (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * is a native Hebrew word. I very much doubt that is related. Where/when did User:Kephir express this doubt? --WikiTiki89 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Foreign_Word_of_the_Day/Focus_weeks DTLHS (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew word is from the Bible, i.e. before even Proto-Slavic existed. According to Słownik Etymologiczny Języka Polskiego, is from the verb, which is from Proto-Slavic , from  (> ), although I am doubtful of the last step because I am unaware of any alternation of  and . Although, Old East Slavic had , so maybe it is the reconstruction  that is wrong. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Length alternations were actually productive in Proto-Balto-Slavic and early Slavic. So the e~ě alternation is not unusual at all. There are also words with o~a, ь~i and ъ~y alternations. —CodeCat 20:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does Ancient Greek θυγάτηρ have penultimate stress?
The middle -a- in this word stems from a PIE laryngeal. But laryngeals were not semivowels, and could never be stressed, so it's odd that this syllable bears stress in Ancient Greek. Does anyone know why it does not have final stress like the PIE reconstruction does? —CodeCat 18:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would guess that it had the accent on the initial syllable at some point, but the "η" is a long vowel, and that forces the accent forward to the penult. If I read the L & S entry at Perseus correctly, there were, indeed, forms in the Iliad with an initial accent. Why there was this variation, and why it didn't keep the accent from PIE, I'll leave to someone who knows more than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Or it's the PIE reconstruction that's wrong/incomplete. I did find one source that reconstructed an ablauting *dʰwégh₂tr̥ ~ *dʰugh₂tér- based on Anatolian evidence and corroborated by Greek. —CodeCat 01:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Relevant paper: The accentuation of the PIE word for 'daughter'. Anatolian forms reflect an earlier stage - Proto-Indo-Hittite and technically shouldn't even be listed at . --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that's the source I was referring to. But that's just one source; is there more about it? —CodeCat 19:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

dhe
Can anyone confirm or deny the accuracy of [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=dhe&curid=882171&diff=28985825&oldid=27161346 diff]? (Note that it used "el" where it meant "sq".) Also [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pauso&diff=28975055&oldid=28505990 diff] while you're at it. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The first looks like utter bullshit. I don't have a feel for the bullshit level of the second one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, the first is bs. The second seems likely. —Stephen (Talk) 11:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

rhyme
RFV of the etymology.

I was under the impression that this was derived from Old French via Middle English, with which the New Oxford American Dictionary on my computer and etymonline agree. The derivation from Old English in our etymology is certainly plausible, but what is it based on? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't answer your question, but I'd reckon that it was probably more of a conflation than anything else. Rīm gave the word presence in the language, but its original meaning of "number" didn't last very long into the Modern English period. On the other hand, the current meaning of rhyme is well and sound, which begs the question: After the Norman Conquest, was "rhyme" constantly under the influence of its French cognate? Tharthan (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some dictionaries, namely Century, have the Old English derivation; which I believe, they have it picking up some influence from the Old French word, and then through attrition loss of the older original sense. Leasnam (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

-wad
The entry for the suffix -wad contains no etymology, but the etymology of tightwad says, "From tight + wad. Unrelated to -wad." It is likely, though, that -wad is a back-formation from tightwad or something similar. OED suggests that the wad in both tightwad and dickwad / fuckwad come from the same headword, glossed as "a bundle" (inter alia). OED gives three other headwords for wad, all obsolete: a straight line (in surveying), black lead, or danger (attested only in the idiom "there lyeth a wad").

By the way, while I'm here, although "blow/shoot one's wad" is used to mean ejaculate, the phrase in its original usage is, I believe, related to "have shot one's bolt". In this case "wad" is may refer to part of a bullet cartridge, paralleling bolt "a short, stout arrow". Cnilep (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 * The firearms etymology would make sense, inasmuch as muzzle-loading firearms would be loaded as a single shot, finishing with the wadding to hold everything in the barrel. Having, the firearm would require time-consuming reloading before being functional again.  The analogy to male genitalia is pretty straightforward.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

moonrunes
Is this actually derived from Tolkien's work or something? I saw something on b.g.c that is connected to The Hobbit discussing "moon runes", an Elvish writing system. This seems plausible, and much better than the silly 'moon' + 'runes' etym we have atm. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 01:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * More to the point: does the current definition exist at all? Everything I see in Books and Groups looks like something from Tolkien's legendarium, with no trace of "An incomprehensible writing script. Usually used to refer to Chinese characters, Hiragana, Katakana or any other East Asian writing script." The one exception is a book called "Remembering the Kanji", but the word isn't visible to the preview, so I can only guess at the context. There seems to be some web usage, but not durably-archived. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it used ironically (i.e. the person wasn't actually a or w/e you would call them, or anything similar...almost the opposite in fact) at least once in the past on a Facebook "community page" not that can be taken as a source per CFI, unfortunately.
 * EDIT: Perhaps it might be citable in some online "CFI-worthy" source? User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 10:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought "moon speak" came from an old anime that had a group of people on the moon that had their own language or something like that. I could be wrong, though. Tharthan (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien used "moon-letters" in The Hobbit as the name of a kind of hidden writing (p. 49 of the 1966 3rd ed.: "Moon-letters are rune-letters, but you cannot see them"), but some derivative works use moon-runes (e.g. Rateliffe 2011, The History of the Hobbit, "...the first draft of both the visible message on the map and what became the moon-runes passage..."). The "moonrunes = Japanese script" usage can be found on the Internets, often accompanied by one of two speculative etymologies: the Japanese comic Turn-A-Gundam features people living on the moon, ergo Japanese is "moonspeak" (e.g. Moonspeak at Know Your Meme); or less commonly the metaphorical distance between Japan and the US or UK makes "moonland" apt slang for Japan (e.g. Moonland at Urban Dictionary). I know of no reliable sources that support either etymology, though. Nor am I convinced that moonrunes is attested over a sufficient period to satisfy CFI. Cnilep (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 * This discussion may have gotten lost with the change of months. I've taken it on myself to create moon rune; the singular form with the space seems to have as many or more attestations as the run-together form. I can only find the sense given at moonrunes going back a year or two, but older uses appear in fantasy novels and video games where the word means either "magic objects" or "writing" associated with the moon. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2014/October

craic/crack wise/wisecrack/crack a joke
Is the word "crack" in the senses of "craic", "crack wise", "wisecrack" and "crack a joke" ultimately from Old English cracian? The reason that I need to know this is because I am putting together a wordbook of "Native English" (Germanic English and Latinates that were present in Old English. Also, "faith", because it probably was in Old English as well, just not attested.).

So, anyways...

Is "craic" ultimately from Old English cracian, or is it not? Tharthan (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the same word from Old English . Sense evolution: to crack>make a breaking sound>sharp sudden noise, snap>breaking news, explosive sound or report>chat, conversation>enjoyable conversation, fun. Leasnam (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. That's great! Thanks much. Tharthan (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

faith
I have updated the etymology at to include the possibility that "faith" could also be from. Leasnam (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Latin Germānus
The etymology as currently given suggests a Celtic origin, which seems odd as the name for a Germanic tribal federation. I've read in a few different sources that the roots are instead Germanic, deriving from the roots of modern German +, paralleling the derivation of Latin , from the roots of modern German  +.

Does anyone have more details about this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that odd for a name for a people to originate from another people altogether. The Slavic name for the Romans is Germanic in origin, while the Germans took it from a Celtic tribe themselves.
 * As for the derivation, you have to consider sound changes. At the time period we're considering, the Germanic dialects were essentially still dialects of a common Germanic language, and most of the characteristic sound changes had not happened yet. This includes both z > r and ai > ei. So a compound of these two words would still have had the form at the time. Romans would have likely borrowed this as  or similar. —CodeCat 19:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the phenomenon of exonyms; perhaps the oddness that struck me is more that the Celtic roots seem speculative and uncertain, while the Germanic roots seem more straightforward. There's also the example of the similar term imported from Germanic, raising the question of how and why the Romans would use an exonym in one case and an autonym in another.
 * Re: sound changes, do you have any information on when the changes took place? I did note this section of the article on Verner's law and further down the page, suggesting that the PIE /s/ → Proto-Germanic /z/ might have been earlier than previously thought. About the PrGer /z/ → West Germanic /r/ shift, I don't have a clear idea when that might have happened; if the /s/ → /z/ shift was earlier, it seems to open up the possibility that the northwest /z/ → /r/ shift might have been earlier too. It bears noting that West Germanic would be the right speech group for the tribes east of the Rhine, to which the moniker apparently applied. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * z > r appeared earliest in West Germanic, and took centuries to spread north, affecting West Norse before East Norse. I don't think there are any native texts that show unshifted z in West Germanic. On the other hand, the shift occurred not only after Gothic split off, but also when the continuum between North and West Germanic was much weaker. In particular it postdates the loss of final -z, which never happened in North Germanic and has slight dialectal variation even within West Germanic (English versus German  < ). This suggests a date centuries after the end of Proto-Germanic, towards the end of Roman imperial times. So we can be sure that all Germanic loans from early imperial times would have still had z. —CodeCat 21:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting that these changes happen slowly over a period of time. It is conceivable that some speakers already had /r/, while others even in the same dialect group, still retained /z/. --WikiTiki89 21:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, there are other features of Germānus which do not fit: like the vowel e, vowel ā, and the single n. Leasnam (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Folk-etymological influence from the homonymic does not seem impossible. --Tropylium (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Wolfgang Krause (1971), Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften, p. 45, in Latin and Greek renderings of West Germanic names with *gaiza- (exactly our lexeme in question here!) until the 6th century, the etymological */z/ is still rendered using s and ζ respectively. The same is true, of course, for East Germanic names.
 * Similarly, he suggests that */z/ remained a sibilant as late as the beginning of the Early Proto-Norse period (which spans the 2nd to the end of the 6th century), and he argues that only by the 6th century, there is a concrete indication that it could be identified with /r/ by Latin scribes (Fervir in Jordanes ca. 551, with the plural ending reconstructed as *-iz), while the Opedal Runestone (c. 425) with his meʀ for *miz might provide an indication that */z/ had already become R-like, causing the lowering of the preceding vowel, but this is a more indirect argument. However, the reflex of */z/ remained disticnt from /r/, perhaps pronounced something like [ɹ], for much longer, and in any case this meant that even in Scandinavia, */z/ remained a sibilant until at least the 2nd century. Direct contact with Scandinavia is, however, improbable for the early period when Germanī is first attested.
 * In conclusion, there is no chance in hell that Germanī in the 1st century BC could contain or have any connection to the Proto-Germanic word *gaiza-, for the missing sibilant alone; and that does not even begin to address the other problems: no diphthong ai (still present in East, West and North Germanic at the time), and no trace of a connecting stem vowel -a-. That it contains the lexeme *mann- is also dubious: no gemination (which would at least be unusual, as it is usually faithfully reflected, as Latin has geminated consonants just like Early Germanic), and the wrong stem class (*mann- being a consonant stem, not an a-stem), although these problems are not equally unsurmountable problems as the obstacles for the identification of *gaiza- in Germanī. It is extremely implausible that there would be a dialect of which we have no other traces that would be many centuries more progressive phonetically in several points than all the known or reconstructible forms of Germanic (which must still have been extremely similar to each other in the 1st century BC, given that the earliest attestations of Germanic material resemble reconstructed Proto-Germanic quite closely). That's just too much ad hoc speculation, and looks like a desperate attempt to save a cute old folk etymology.
 * That the etymology of the name is Celtic rather than Germanic looks like an entirely reasonable possibility to me, but I cannot think of any known Ancient Celtic lexemes that would fit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per our etymology of slogan, Old Irish gairm goes back to a Proto-Celtic noun *gar(r)man- "a call, shout". This connection has been made by others and sounds workable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Florian, this is exactly the kind of dating information I was hoping for, regarding when the sound changes took place. Poking around, I ran across the Latvian entry, which contains some details that should probably be copied over to the Latin entry. The Latvian term's etymology similarly mentions the Old Irish possibility, presumably thus cognate with , and also a possible alternate origin related to Old Irish , which fits a bit better phonetically. However, the Old Irish entry we have for gairm gives definitions more like "shout", and we don't have any entry for garim, leading me to think the Latvian etymology has some things potentially backwards... Could someone more qualified look into that? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ebola
Can we provide any information about which language / language group the Ebola river got its name? DTLHS (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ebola is a French corruption of the Ngbandi name Legbala, meaning white water. I found some online claims that it is Lingala for "black river", but no proof to back it up (despite 'ebale'=river). πr2  ( talk  •   changes ) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? And could you add a Ngbandi translation to water? (we appear to have different codes for Northern and Southern Ngbandi). DTLHS (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dunno if it passes muster, but here. It's also apparently in "Tanghe et Vangele 1939", and Tanghe's book from 1929, but I couldn't find a copy of either online. You might be able to find it in a library near you on worldcat if you really want to check. πr2  ( talk  •   changes ) 21:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The ultimate source of the "black river" translation seems to be Peter Piot, who was part of the group that named the virus in the first place (see here). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * which one sounds more likely to you? I'm not a professional etymologist or linguist. πr2  ( talk  •   changes ) 02:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lingala seems unlikely to me because there's nothing related to the color black in the word (apparently -yindo / ndombe), which makes the rest of the etymology suspicious to me. But I'm really just guessing. DTLHS (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I added two paragraphs to the Ebola River article on wikipedia concerning the etymology of the word ebola. They have been reverted by another user with the remark speculation. The approach taken was to use the Igbo language as used as a proxy for the ur-language that existed before the Bantu expansion. For ebola, this approach does give correct results regarding: syntactics, semantics and pathetics. --Ibolachi (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The following quote is commonly attributed to the German philosopher Schopenhauer but is apparently not exactly what he said.

“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident.” --Ibolachi (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Pathetics? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that's an autocorrect goof for ? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: [pathetic] 3 In pl. The branch of knowledge that deals with human emotions. rare. L19. There are actually courses on the subject. --Ibolachi (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your methodology is massively flawed:
 * There's no reason to bring Igbo into this- it's just one of hundreds of Niger-Congo languages, and has no more claim to showing ancient forms than any of them. Whatever the languages that were spoken before the Bantu expansion were like, they almost certainly were entirely different from any living descendant- including Igbo.
 * Even if Igbo somehow magically preserved ancestral forms, the changes that split the ancestral Proto-Bantu language into hundreds of separate Bantu languages would have likely obliterated any trace of those forms by the time the Ngbandi language emerged.
 * You're assuming that the name of the Ebola River is related to the features of the Ebola virus, which is almost certainly wrong. There's no evidence that anyone had ever heard of the disease in the area until the outbreak at Yambuku, and no reason why that river would be named after it, rather than the dozens of other rivers or the innumerable other place names in the area where the virus seems to occur naturally (the current outbreak started quite a distance away in Guinea). The only reason the virus and the disease is named "Ebola" is due to an arbitrary choice not to name it after the village where the outbreak actually started- it could just as easily have been called "Yambuku".
 * Even if, by some bizarre coincidence, your guesses turned out to be true, it would still be necessary to remove your edits because of Wikipedia's rules against Original research. We don't have the same rules here, but we try to follow reliable sources wherever possible, and (nothing personal, but... ) you're not even remotely a reliable source. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing this difficult issue. I will try to address all your points.
 * (1) “Igbo ... just one of hundreds”: The idea that the Igbo language has an important role in African linguistics has now gone beyond the late Prof. Catherine Obianuju Acholonu. There is no shortage of sources for this concept.
 * (2) “languages ... before the Bantu expansion ... entirely different from any living descendant”: The attempt to find the etymology of a single word is insignificant compared to the claims of Prof. Acholonu; and also Igbo had a theocentric core culture Kingdom of Nri and a writing system Nsibidi which would have made a huge difference.
 * (3) “Igbo ... magically preserved”: I did not need to go as far back as Ogam stone inscriptions.
 * (4) “changes ... obliterated ... by the time the w:Ngbandi language emerged”: I will need to know if you think Ebola or Legbala is what the Africans gave the first Europeans to arrive in the area in the 19th century as the name of the river. The source says Ebola.
 * (5) “You're assuming ... wrong”. I had two words which appeared to have the same pronunciation. In one case the word was being used as the name of a river in a place that is associated with the concept the word refers to in the second case. You are saying it is just a coincidence. It would be remiss of me not to bring forward for consideration any ideas that might be useful in combating the current crisis in Africa.
 * (6) “There's no evidence ... outbreak at Yambuku”: Are you saying that no one in Africa had ever been infected by the ebola virus before 1976. I should not have to give sources for this.
 * (7) “No reason why that river ...”: An explanation could be that there is a particularly significant reservoir of the ebola virus in that area and an outbreak had occurred in the past.
 * (8) “The disease is named "Ebola" due to an arbitrary ... easily have been called "Yambuku": The first documented case occurred as a result of a trip taken to the ebola river. In 1976 “The first person infected with the disease ... Mabalo Lokela ... visited the Ebola River between 12 and 22 August”.
 * (9) “Even if by some bizarre coincidence ...”: I was also concerned about this issue of sources. This is not a new problem; it arises all the time in Africa with regard to the question of oral history. However, it is extremely difficult to get a four-way match: syntactics, semantics, pathetics and also pronunciation by accident. Try it! --Ibolachi (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) There is no shortage of sources for all kinds of nonsense. You just linked to an article that claims Ogham inscriptions haven't been deciphered. They have. They're mostly in a very early form of Old Irish. I see nothing that indicates Catherine Obianuju Acholonu has any expertise whatsoever beyond Nigerian culture. There are lots of cases of accomplished artists and scholars who are absolute idiots outside of their own field- from what you've presented, it looks like we've found another one.
 * (2) Professor Acholonu's claims are nonsense. Igbo may be a wonderful language, but to claim that it alone is the source of all other languages would require detailed categorical proof of something that goes against a huge body of scholarship based on mountains of evidence. The website you linked to gives vague assertions that the topic has been studied extensively, and says things such as the claim that Ogham was undeciphered that are simply wrong.
 * (5) Solving the etymology of a word will have no effect on the Ebola crisis in western Africa.
 * (6) I'm sure there have been many outbreaks in the past, but they seem to pop up randomly according to no geographical pattern. The virus seems to be fairly widespread in some unknown host (probably fruit bats), but its spread to humans seems to be due to very rare accidental factors that can happen anywhere.
 * (9) It happens all the time: Persian is the classic example cited in the literature, but there are many others. With thousands of words in any given language, the chance that a few of them are going to match by random chance is pretty good.
 * All language changes over time, and there's no evidence whatsoever that Igbo is any different. The Bantu languages have been extensively studied, and Proto-Bantu has been reconstructed, and it bears little similarity to Igbo. There's no reason to believe that there was ever a link between the Ebola river and the disease named after it before the 1976 Yambuku outbreak. Your whole line of reasoning depends on a series of wrong assumptions and flies against everything we know about language change and the spread of language. The fact that you cited such a crackpot website as proof tells me that I wasted my time trying to educate you. At any rate, if you try to enter any of this hogwash in any Wiktionary entry, you will be reverted, and if you persist, you will be blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What I said with regard to Ogam was that it was an issue I was NOT going to deal with!!! I was hinting at the extreme difficulty of this whole topic. Here is a reference to Catherine Obianuju Acholonu on the subject. Prof. Acholonu died this year, the tributes were heartfelt. However, you can listen to her yourself; she lives on on Youtube. Don't forget that before the 19th century Nigeria was not an African reality so African scholarship can not be limited in that way.
 * Thanks for commenting on the key issue: “(5) Solving the etymology of a word will have no effect on the Ebola crisis in western Africa.” Let me ask the following question: before 1976 was the ebola virus hiding from Africans or were Africans hiding from the ebola virus.
 * However, let's try to agree on something. The discussion above has this: “Ebola is a French corruption of the Ngbandi name Legbala, meaning white water”. Is the name of the river Ebola or Legbala. The primary source is the 1939 article (in French) by Tanghe & Vangele, I have transcribed the first paragraph so people can use a translation engine if necessary to I understand it.
 * "REGION DE LA HAUTE EBOLA.
 * Notes d'histoire ( 1890 – 1900 )
 * Ebola est le nom d'une rivière qui prend sa source au même plateau que la Likati, la première roulant ses eaux dans la direction Ouest (Ubangi), et la seconde dans la région de l'Est (Uele). Dans la bouche des indigènes de la contrée, le nom de l'Ebola se prononce Legbala; dans le langage géographique on l'appelle Ebola et aussi Eau Blanche. Le eaux blanches et claires de l'Ebola rencontrent près de Businga les eaux noires de la Dua, appelée pour ce motif par les Blancs Eau Noire, et forme avec elles la rivière Mongala débouchant à la rive droite du fleuve Congo, à Mobeka." --Ibolachi (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

puss
RFV of the etymology. I wrote that The 'vulva' sense is a clipping of. Cnilep removed this, though according to my talk page, he/she doesn't dispute it (but removed it anyway. I don't understand either). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I do dispute it. Both puss and pussy appear in the sense of "vulva" during the seventeenth century. Although puss seems to appear first, it's exceedingly likely that both were used in speech before either appeared in print. It is therefore impossible to know and irresponsible to say that one was the source of the other.

 * Copied from User talk:Renard Migrant
 * The slang usage of puss appears by 1630 (Thomas Dekker, The Honest Whore: "This Shee-cat will haue more liues then your last Pusse had"), around the same time as pussy (e.g. "Puss in a corner" in Thomas D'Urfey 1699, A Choice Collection of New Songs: "Johnny who many Times Pussey had fed"). It's not obvious that pussy is earlier. Indeed, on the basis of these poems puss seems to appear first, but it's not prudent to rely on a few appearances in print when dealing with slang. Forms of pussy had already been used to mean "woman" or "wife" before 1630 (e.g. Philip Stubbes 1583, The Anatomie of Abuses: "So he haue his pretie pussie to huggle withall, it forceth not"), so it's hard to know if one form is earlier than the other.
 * "Fed pussy pap", for example, is a double entendre for giving a cat porridge and for ejaculating in a vagina, and the poem's title uses puss. In other words, both puss and pussy were being used as slang terms for "vulva" in the seventeenth century. Likewise "your last puss" is a reference to prostitutes, suggesting that the word may have been used in the relevant sense even earlier than pussy was. It might be the case that puss is a clipped version of pussy, or it might be that the latter is an embellished form of the former (as is the case for the literal "cat" usage), or they may have developed more or less independently from the two words meaning "cat" (or "young woman"). It is, in my opinion, inappropriate to assert the clipping etymology on the basis of common knowledge – that is, without citing authoritative sources. Sauce for the gander: I'd better cite at least one secondary source for my assertion. See Gordon Williams (1994) A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature, in particular his discussions of D'Urfey at "pap" and at "whiskers", inter alia.
 * Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I concede the point, I suppose someone else might want to chip in so I won't strike out the title. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I concede the point, I suppose someone else might want to chip in so I won't strike out the title. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Slavic *-ostь
I'm wondering where the suffix came from and whether it has cognates outside Slavic. A possible candidate is Old Irish, both could derive from a hypothetical PIE. The difficulty is only that the Irish suffix is an ā-stem while Slavic has an i-stem. —CodeCat 01:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to some, from a compound PIE suffix and cognate with Old Armenian  and Hittite -ašti. The discussion should be on page 95 of Émile Benveniste, Hittite et indo-européen. Études comparatives, 1962, but I don't have access to this. --Vahag (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I wonder if it is also related to and/or . --WikiTiki89 10:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

hut
RFV of the etymology. Does anyone have proof that this word was taken from French, since it seems more likely that it was either a continuation of an earlier Germanic word, or borrowed from German at some time, as Grimm's dictionary states. There is a possible use in the early version of the Wycliffe Bible, but I think this might just be from the 2001 modern spelling version by T. Noble. 75.121.177.156 05:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the t shows the High German Consonant Shift, so it can't be inherited from Old English or borrowed from any neighboring Germanic languages. That makes French a good candidate for the source, since it has a good bit of Frankish High German vocabulary. The only question is which stage of French, and when the borrowing occurred. This would seem to show that hotte was present in Middle English as a borrowing from Old French hute, which (according to this came from Old High German hutta. It's just a question of whether you believe that Middle English hotte changed into English hut, or was replaced by French hutte. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The OED gives "First in 17th cent.; < French hutte (16–17th cent. D'Aubigné in Hatzfeld & Darmesteter, 1611 in Cotgrave), < Middle High German, German hütte ". I don't know exactly what the parenthetical note after the French means, but it seems that it could point to this "evidence" you are looking for. Otherwise, I also see no reason to why it could not have come directly from MHG (but the question is not what could have happened, but what did happen). --WikiTiki89 08:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

nv:Ásáí
Hi. I was wondering what the etymology of the Navajo word Ásáí (meaning "Arab(ic)") means. It seems to be the only translation of "Arab" that is not derived from "Arab" or عَرَّبَ. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging Stephen. He might know. --WikiTiki89 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure. It seems like I heard that it is related to (pot, kettle) + nominalizer, but I don’t remember where I heard that. —Stephen (Talk) 16:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like even Navajo speakers are not familiar with the word, Ásáí, and there is no other sources. I believe it is not too wrong for us to coin a neologism but it should not be a groundless random word. Do you think we should keep this word, Stephen? --JeongAhn (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many words that have been repurposed during the past century or so (such as tééhoołtsódii), and since a lot of these refer to things that are not part of Diné culture and everyday life, and since there is so little Navajo literature in existence and since the BIA and other government agencies have worked hard for a long time to make sure that Navajos would not be taught to read or write their language, many people are simply not familiar with the terms. The NVwiki has been careful to avoid neologisms, and we remove them if we find them. For example, the list at Kéyah_Daʼnaaznilígíí includes a number of words that we have been trying to translate into Navajo for a long time already ... some of them may never be answered in a way that we can accept. The situation with Navajo spelling and the Navajo lexicon is unnatural and not in a healthy state, due to the climate of political, religious, cultural and racial distaste for Native American peoples. Navajo is mainly used for farming and sheep husbandry and its use for topics of international interest, such as Arabs and Persians, is severely lacking. I encounter many Navajo words every day that cannot be found in any dictionary. Navajo language has a huge vocabulary, but no one has ever attempted to write down and define every word. Two things I am sure of: (1) Ásáí, though little used, is not a neologism, and (2) non-Navajos coming in and removing words that they cannot find in the limited printed resources would result in the exit of everyone involved with building the Navajo Wikipedia. There is a great deal of work still to be done by way of correcting misspellings and adding information, but the Navajo Wikipedia is stringently self-policing and linguistically conservative. —Stephen (Talk) 23:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

brujería
The entry at brujería for etymology mentions a Celtic origin, but this word seems awfully similar to "Braucherei". Perhaps they are related, or it could have a Gothic etymology? Not sure about that, but it's worth discussing. --Shikku27316 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That presumes Braucherei is of Germanic origin, to start with. Is there any usage outside of the Pennsylvania Dutch? How do we know it isn't a borrowing from Portuguese or Spanish that's been changed to its current form by folk etymology? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What does mean? At any rate, it hardly seems contestable that  is from, so the real question is about the origin of . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See Pow-wow (folk magic). It's basically Pennsylvania Dutch folk-magic, and its practitioners are called Brauchers. The obvious source would be Brauch or whatever the cognate is in Pennsylvania German- assuming it's not a loan-word altered by folk etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Brauch goes back to Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European, if that helps any. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Germanic /x/ and /k/ did not result in Spanish /x/. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

jaggery

 * The wiktionary article as of now states that it is derived from the Indo-Portuguese which in turn comes from the Kannada word . However, the etymtree for शर्करा states that the Indo-Portuguese derives from the Malayalam word . Which one of these is correct, if even either is? DerekWinters (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hobson-Jobson states that it derives from Malayalam as well. http://books.google.com/books?id=6Z5iAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA446&lpg=PA446&dq=jaggery+jagara&source=bl&ots=ktNamlxGrp&sig=C3Jvv6uZxBlgCLMI_hIp73WeOUE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DW1QVLOAE7eMsQTtjYHoBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=jaggery%20jagara&f=false DerekWinters (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dialecto Indo-Português de Ceylão says jagra is from “Prakrit” सकर (sâkar) or शकर (śâkar). — Ungoliant (falai) 04:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's impossible, as the Prakrits were spoken about a 1000 years (literally) prior to the Portuguese arrival to India. What would be reasonable would be some intermediates between the unidentified Prakrit and Portuguese. DerekWinters (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The author defines it as “Konkani, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Sinhala, Hindustani, etc.”. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you present the link? Based on the literal definition of Prakrit, any descendant of Sanskrit would fit. However, the standard definition is only the direct descendants of Sanskrit, and not the descendants of those languages. सकर (sâkar) would probably only fit Hindi, Gujarati, or perhaps Konkani. Marathi has aspiration, a very distinctive feature in Indic languages. Bengali would be something else altogether, considering its highly divergent phonology. And Sinhala begins with an 'h'. DerekWinters (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the file, but I don’t remember where I got it from. The full text of the relevant bit is:

"Jagra, jagra, assucar bru- to. «E a este [assucar de pal- meira] se chama na India iagra». Ethiop. Or. Comm. T. em indo- ingl. (jaggery, jagry, jagghe- ry, jaggory).— Prak. सकर ou शकर (sâkar ou śâkar), etc., sansk. शर्करा (śarkarâ)."
 * Jagra, jagra, raw sugar. «And this [raw palm sugar] is called iagra in India». Eastern Ethiopia, common [to all Indo-Portuguese dialects], also in Indo-English (jaggery, jagry, jagghery, jaggory).— Prakrit सकर or शकर (sâkar or śâkar), etc., Sanskrit शर्करा (śarkarâ). — Ungoliant (falai) 05:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Sorry, but I am unsure of what to make of this. DerekWinters (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Germanic *þahsuz
Proto-Germanic claims to be derived from a PIE root meaning 'to weave, to build'. This is no doubt due to the great skill by which badgers weave their nests together from branches, grasses, and purloined garden hoses…

I.e. what? If this is not just an error, then whatever the semantic development here is thought to have been, there should be some comment on it. --Tropylium (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it does also mean "build, construct" (the last syllable of comes from the same root), and badgers are known for building extensive underground burrows. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2014/November

ciabatta, zapato, сабата... лапоть?
These entries say it's ultimately from Persian (via "[Ottoman] Turkish zabata"), which is probably incorrect as far as I can tell. I found Russian лапоть, is it also a loanword? --Z 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Russian is inherited from Proto-Slavic  /  and is probably unrelated to those other words; see ЭССЯ. --Vahag (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the garbage finally, after a Turk complained on Talk:zapato in 2009 already. The Turkish word given in etymological dictionaries of romanists is a ghost word, as one must see in 2019, the Romance word is of unknown origin. Fay Freak (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not too late to mention that I am seriously unamused that you readded the garbage from popular trash dictionaries just in August 2019, duplicating those multiple wrongs spellings on multiple pages, the more so that as a Turk you should recognize that there is zero evidence for the alleged Turkish word **zabata (which is not a formal fit either if it had existed). Corriente already mentioned in “it appears never to have existed”. Don’t do this again; moreover you should feel obliged to revert if anyone has the same misreading and reintroduces the like. Realize that many standard references have many errors. They copy dictionary compilators like you 😡 Fay Freak (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

crimini
RFV of the etymology.

We have no Italian entry for the mushroom sense, none of the easily accessible online sources I checked gives an etymology, and Italian Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention it (though it's hard to be sure, given that it's widely used as the word for "crimes" in Italian). There's one source in Google Books here] that says it came from an Italian mushroom grower's name, but it doesn't say whether this happened in Italian or English. There's also the possibility of folk etymology of the sort that happened with broccoli, which I've seen attributed to an Italian family name as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither form is listed in my Italian etymology sources. It may derive from the plural of which is a type of chocolate truffle. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See here for an etymology. I too do not find the mushroom sense in my standard Italian dictionaries. --Vahag (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the change from /e/ to /i/ is not a phenomenon somehow internal to English, the most obvious possibility is that it is some kind of dialectal influence, either metaphony or simply borrowed from an Italo-Romance variety where a change like that took place in general, with Sicilian the most obvious candidate. Derivations from proper names (as from acronyms) are generally suspect of being false etymology prior to the 20th century. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Halloween
Since it's this time of the year again, I wondered about the details of this etymology. Wikipedia (which also interestingly gives the alternative form Allhalloween) states that the origin of the word is Scots, which sounds possible and not implausible but is not obvious (nothing specifically Scots about the phonology or morphology), while we here at Wiktionary don't. But then, the OED is a source that must be taken seriously. Anybody who can add to this?

I also see that e'en gives Hallowe'en as a derivation. This is a bit awkward: the entry is for the adverb, and the word Hallowe'en is obviously not derived from the adverb e'en < even, but the noun. Not sure how to solve this one best; there should be two different sections, one for the adverb and one for the noun sense, but two identical definitions look a bit stupid. It seems that there isn't even a good way to solidly link to a specific homonym; in this case, an obvious way out is provided by the different word classes, but in case we want to link, say, to one of several homonymous nouns, how do we do this here? What's the standard practice? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How are PIE words notated?
I am new to Wiktionary, and I was wondering what for example the numbers under individual Latin letters meant, as of course these words were meant to be visible in their fluidity, since nobody actually has seen anybody say these things. I hope I have made myself clear, if not, please tell me, and thank you for your help. þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ so many thorns, its getting spiky.
 * See WT:AINE for the system of representation we use. You may also need to read Proto-Indo-European for an explanation of some of the concepts involved. Proto-languages such as Proto-Indo-European are theoretical constructs used to show our best guess as to what the language that gave rise to all of the descendant languages may have been like. In the case of laryngeals, we have a very general idea of what they must have sounded like, but not enough to use a normal phonetic symbol. Instead, we use capital H, with a subscripted number to show which type of laryngeal it was. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, we use a lower-case h with a subscripted number. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

притча во языцех
Apparently this Russian expression is borrowed directly from Old Church Slavonic, using its grammar, roughly meaning "talk of the town". What would be the original OCS spelling? Not sure if it's ? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably . --WikiTiki89 05:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)--WikiTiki89 05:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that. I don't agree with your edit in, though. Here's why: 1. It's definitely idiomatic. Why did you remove the tag? 2. Linking to Russian doesn't seem right, it's only used in this set expression and is grammatically and semantically incorrect from the modern Russian point of view. The term "язык" only means "tongue" or "language", not "people" as in OCS and Russian has the form "в языка́х" in the locative/prepositional case, not "во язы́цех". Cf. "exempli gratia" where "exempli" probably doesn't mean anything in English. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The idiomatic tag is redundant; if it wasn't idiomatic, it wouldn't be included in the dictionary. I remove this tag everywhere I see it, and there are others who agree with me. If we don't link or, then we shouldn't link  either because it is also OCS, even though it happens to coincide with the Russian word as well. --WikiTiki89 16:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

-izn- infix
Just a thought. Could the infix -izn- as in shiznit have arisen through (probably humorous) reanalysis of business /bɪznɪs/ as derived from the shortening biz /bɪz/, in AAVE possibly with devoicing /bɪs/ (does AAVE devoice word-final fricatives too?), according to the schema /b-/ + /ɪzn/ + /-ɪs/? After all, there aren't many English words including the sequence /ɪzn/, are there?

As for the -iz- infix, an analogous derivation might also be found, but I can't think of any right now. In any case, it is clear that the infix in shiznit is -izn-, not -iz-, as the article illogically claims. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Blend of and ? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I believe it’s a blend of and . —Stephen (Talk) 05:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

یلدا
RFV of the etymology.

See the talk page for explanation. First one IP added some nonsense which was reverted, then another IP added what they claim is sourced, but seems unnecessary, and it's been going back and forth a bit. Can someone settle this? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Derivation from Syriac "nativity"/Christmas is in black and white in the first source listed on the Citations tab. Both sources listed there are from the Encyclopedia Iranica.
 * Note: for the etymology I initially just had "Loanword (with accompanying change of meaning) from Nestorian Christian word for Christmas: Syriac ܝܠܕܐ (yaldā, “nativity”), i.e. of Christ." On second thoughts, that should probably read "...Church of the East technical term...".
 * Either way, without the bridge "winter solstice", this simple etymology causes onomastic problems since the average reader will not understand how a technical term for Christmas should become the name for another (non-Christian) festival. Which is why I initially had an additional definition that exposed a progression.
 * As to whether its necessary or not to indicate that both festivals occurred on the winter solstice: The original entry had a ridiculous definition related to Mithra being born of a rock. The Internet is littered with that nonsense, all of which seems to derive from a fanciful transplanting of a certain Roman belief to the Iranosphere, and then associating the Syriac word for "birth" with that. As such, to explain the connection (i.e. because both festivals occurred on the winter solstice, and *not* simply leaving an association with "birth") is sensible, and not doing so would be negligent.
 * And, besides its useful. (At least as useful as going back to the dawn of time with an etymology that has nothing to do with what the word was borrowed for).
 * (rest of this post is a cross post) ---
 * Re: etymology... From the first source cited on the Citations tab:
 * "In Islamic Persia, the night of the winter solstice (the last night of autumn) was known under its Syriac name of Šab-e Yaldā (the night of nativity)"
 * "Being the longest and the darkest night of the year, additionally connected with Christianity, Šab-e Yaldā usually has negative connotations in Persian poetry".
 * For Syriac Yalda = nativity/Christmas:
 * take your pick.
 * Like this one (first hit, was for the fa term): "Yalda -- the longest night of winter; from Syr. Yalda "Christmas". This word corresponds to Arab. ___ Milād and is derived from the same Semitic root YLD (or WLD) -- to give birth or to be born."
 * -- 95.116.181.209 17:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

marcher
RFV of the etymology. It's the same as march, but that doesn't explain the final -er which is I think what the tagger is concerned with. Change to ? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * hmm, not so sure ... Looks like Etym1 uses the demonym suffix -er whilst the other uses the agent suffix Leasnam (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

на́ледь
Does anyone know the etymology of this Russian word? Also, while we're on the subject, can anyone confirm that this and this are both called на́ледь in Russian? Ru.WP says they are, but they seem to form in two different ways, and look different. - -sche (discuss) 23:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the na- part is the same as the preposition, so that leaves only the second part. —CodeCat 23:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And it looks like the second part must be connected to somehow. —CodeCat 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Checked and fixed the entry. Re: attention tag. The three senses in the Russian wiki can be compressed into two, which I have done. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you both! :) - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 * It's likely this was formed before Modern Russian, so I'm going to change it to "equivalent to". --WikiTiki89 01:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

 * See also ЭССЯ, reconstructing Proto-Slavic, but saying that the "Proto-Slavic antiquity is questionable". --Vahag (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But at the same time, the fact that it's an i-stem is interesting. I don't think i-stems were productive much beyond Proto-Slavic (I'm not sure if they were even productive in by late Proto-Slavic times), and as far as I know they've not been productive at all for most of Russian's separate history. So if it's not Proto-Slavic, it's very nearly so at least. —CodeCat 13:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


text: урчуудын

title: урчуудын


text:
pler

Adverb

 * 1) much, many

title: pler


text:
ᠰᠤᠮᠤ

Etymology
From, compare 🇨🇬.

The sense 'district' arose during the Qing dynasty as a calque of.

Noun

 * 1) arrow, projectile, bullet
 * 2) sum (sometimes somon, sumon or sumu)

title: ᠰᠤᠮᠤ


text:
barruf

Etymology
Possibly a regression from

Noun

 * 1) vision, mirage, imagination

title: barruf


text:
carpeau

Etymology
From. .

Noun

 * 1) young carp

title: carpeau


text: carpeaux

title: carpeaux


text:
schooier

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) a wandering or roaming beggar; a vagabond

title: schooier


text: эхчүүд

title: эхчүүд


text:
эрчүүд

Noun

 * "Эрчүүд шаргал үст бүсгүйчүүдэд дуртай" киноны хэсэг
 * "Эрчүүд шаргал үст бүсгүйчүүдэд дуртай" киноны хэсэг

title: эрчүүд


text:
эрчүүдийн

Noun

 * Эрчүүдийн олонхи нь гартаа зэвсэг барьж.
 * Эрчүүдийн олонхи нь гартаа зэвсэг барьж.

title: эрчүүдийн


text:
эрэгтэйчүүдийн

Noun

 * Хүн амын дундаж наслалт нь эрэгтэйчүүдийн хувьд 66, эмэгтэйчүүдийн хувьд 70 байна.
 * Хүн амын дундаж наслалт нь эрэгтэйчүүдийн хувьд 66, эмэгтэйчүүдийн хувьд 70 байна.

title: эрэгтэйчүүдийн


text:
Template:Heteropterygidae Hypernyms

 * Pterygota - subclass; Neoptera - infraclass; Polyneoptera - superorder; Phasmida - order; Verophasmatodea - suborder; Areolatae - infraorder; - superfamily; Heteropterygidae - family

title: Template:Heteropterygidae Hypernyms


text:
энэтхэгчүүд

Noun

 * 1398 онд Энэтхэгт нэвтэрч энэтхэгчүүд ялагдашгvй гэж үзэж байсан Мератх хотыг бүсэлж газар доогуур нүх ухаж эхлэсэн нь удаашрахад залгамал шат ашиглан хотод нэвтэрч бүх иргэнийг нь хядсаны дараа цайзын хэрмийг нураав.
 * 1398 онд Энэтхэгт нэвтэрч энэтхэгчүүд ялагдашгvй гэж үзэж байсан Мератх хотыг бүсэлж газар доогуур нүх ухаж эхлэсэн нь удаашрахад залгамал шат ашиглан хотод нэвтэрч бүх иргэнийг нь хядсаны дараа цайзын хэрмийг нураав.

title: энэтхэгчүүд


text: julepresangen

title: julepresangen


text: julepresanger

title: julepresanger


text:
Template:discussion recent months

| July 2024

title: Template:discussion recent months


text:
Template:Phylliidae Hypernyms

 * Pterygota - subclass; Neoptera - infraclass; Polyneoptera - superorder; Phasmida - order; Verophasmatodea - suborder; Areolatae - infraorder; Phyllioidea - superfamily; Phylliidae - family

title: Template:Phylliidae Hypernyms


text: julepresangene

title: julepresangene


text:
Template:Phylliidae Hypernyms/documentation

This is a typing shortcut intended for use under the Hypernyms header of taxa under Phylliidae. It can also be used with subst:.


text: julepresangar

title: julepresangar


text: julepresangane

title: julepresangane


text: Wiktionary:Tea room/archives

title: Wiktionary:Tea room/archives


text: julegåva

title: julegåva


text:
ハイカラ

Etymology
Shortened from, from ,  referring to the high collars of Japanese men imitating the Western fashion of the late 19th century.

Adjective

 * 1)  trendy and Western
 * 2)  fashionable, stylish
 * 3)  modern, new
 * 4)  Westernized
 * 5) of a style characteristic of the Western influence in the Meiji and Taishō periods

Usage notes
Originally coined as a derisive term for Japanese people who imitated Western trends and fashions, the word then gained positive connotations of stylishness and modernity by those who saw Westernization as the way forward for Japanese society. In modern Japanese the term is somewhat dated and evokes an earlier time when everything Western was still exotic and progressive.

title: ハイカラ


text: julegåver

title: julegåver


text: julegåvene

title: julegåvene


text:
Talk:spree

Etymology
The etymology added in 2010 by User:Leasnam is very specific but unsourced, and has been quoted and critiqued at Language Log. It should probably say Scottish Gaelic gd rather than Irish Gaelic ga, and with a big perhaps at the start. User:Rwxrwxrwx in 2012 changed the etymon from spré to spraoi, possibly swayed by Daniel Cassidy's crankings. Jnestorius (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My reasoning was detailed in the edit summary. Feel free to revert, anybody who has better info. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:spree


text:
đáng yêu

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) cute; adorable

Usage notes

 * Not to be confused with.

title: đáng yêu


text:
User talk:Kiyoweap

pokker
If you find yourself adding "m." and Category:Danish nouns, you might as well just use which does that for you. Of course, would be better, but you would have to know what parameters to give it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I updated the word with the option. Since the word means "the devil" I couldn't confirm usage in the plural form, so I hestitated using .  Did the same for the section as Norwegain word. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

header levels and context templates
Hi! thanks for adding Norwegian entries. Note that "Synonyms" is (usually) a level-4 header, nested inside a part of speech header, like this. Also, notice that context labels like "archaic" go inside (shortcut: ), with lang= specifying what language the entry is; this causes the entry to be sorted into Category:Norwegian Nynorsk archaic terms. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kiyoweap