text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/December

相撲
Chinese: Why would this be a borrowing from Japanese? The sport existed in China before it was transmitted to Japan. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just for the sumo sense. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, true. Never mind then. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

efflouren
Do we have any evidence that this was formed using a Middle English prefix *? It's the only entry being used to support the existence of that prefix; the ostensible English prefix * was deleted (by me, see Talk:ef-) a while ago because the only (few) ostensible uses were actually borrowings of Latin or French words; compare Talk:sug-. I don't see any mention of such a derivation in any of the (few) pages that pop up when I google this word, including the Middle English Dictionary, which says ef- only occurs in words borrowed from Latin or French. It seems like this word could indeed have been formed by borrowing or blending (with flouren) one of the French or Latin words related to efflorescence (and I can find some older works which use spellings like efflourescence, with a u, in English). , which looks like it would be a descendant of this word, doesn't seem to be attested with the same sense, and derives from a French effl- word, not from being composed with a prefix *ef- in English. - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Although we do not list that sense, can also mean “to remove the flowers (of)”. It is attested in this sense in Old French in the spelling esflourer. So I bet  comes from the same verb, assimilated to efflourer.  --Lambiam 10:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible issues w/ our Germanic entry for Middle-Earth ()
Was wondering about this. None of the forms seems like it would derive from this specific Proto-Germanic form - the initial element *midja- is problematic.

 * The continental WGmc forms (and Middle English) seem to derive from a form in which the first element is.
 * The Old English and Gothic forms have a final -n which is not accounted for by *midja- either and which reminds me more of the Dutch (for which we have no entirely satisfactory derivation either). But I'm not sure where that -n comes from in any case.
 * I can't speak for the Old Norse form; I'm not super familiar with PGmc -> ON developments. It seems to come closest to the PGmc form we currently reconstruct. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 * We have an entry . If comes from, I can believe that  comes from *midją. It looks like forms with /-n/ and /-l/ coexisted.  --Lambiam 18:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What would a form with -n- that can yield Gothic midjungards look like in PGmc, though? The combining form looks very un-Gothic; *midjagardaz should just have yielded *midjagards something along those lines (compare ) in Gothic from what I can tell. Or even just *midgards, judging from . — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Old Norse Miðgarðr definitely looks like a direct reflex of *midjagardaz. All the other Germanic counterparts look reformed, with *midla- or (in the case of the forms with -n) apparently some case form(s). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not really seen Gothic words ever use an inflected case form in compounds, though, which is what puzzles me. I am also not sure what case form midjun- is supposed to represent. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the external links at the Wikipedia article is to W. P. Lehmann : J. Slocum (ed.) A Grammar of Proto-Germanic (Online version).  was (according to Wikipedia) an American linguist noted for his work in historical linguistics, particularly Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic. Jonathan Slocum succeeded Lehmann as the director of the . I should think they have some academic credibility. Quoting from that grammar, Section 4.6. Compound Nouns:
 * In addition to their early attestation, assumption of the presence of compounds in Proto-Germanic is supported by distinctive formations in which the first element differs from its simple counterpart. Among examples are Go. ala-mans 'totality of human beings' in contrast with alls 'all', mana-sēþs 'mankind' in contrast with manna < *mans, midjungards 'inhabited world' in contrast with midja-. The second element also may differ from that of the simple form, as in Go. at-aþni 'period of a year' in contrast with aþn 'year' and anda-waírþi 'presence < equivalent worth' beside waírþs 'worth'.
 * (I am just reporting what I found.) --Lambiam 13:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lehmann is absolutely a reliable source. In his etymological dictionary of Gothic, however, he also links the form to (with a change from final -m to -n, with apocope of the -a) or some other suffixed form of midja-, and compares the compound to, which similarly lacks the combining vowel. (However miduma lacks the -j-, which confuses me even more.) I think a suffixed form of midja- makes sense to explain the first part of midjungards, but the details elude me. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

حلوف
RFV of the etymology.

 * Should this get an L2 of Algerian Arabic? How widespread is the use of this term? --Lambiam 10:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Albanian
We seem to have a sizable category for "Albanian terms derived from Proto-Albanian". However, the "proto-Albanian" given in these does not seem to be the common ancestor of the various Albanian dialects. Instead, e.g. defines "proto-Albanian" as the stage of Albanian history starting from contact with Latin in ca. 1st century CE and ending after initial contact with Slavs in ca. 7th century CE. This creates only vague constraints for the reconstruction of "proto-Albanian". Indeed occasional entries such as seem to present "competing" Proto-Albanian forms where the difference looks more like one of which chronological stage is picked, not one of any disagreement over the development of Albanian.

So a few questions: --Tropylium (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should this "proto-Albanian" really exist on Wiktionary at all?
 * If yes, should the name remain, or would some other name be more appropriate?
 * Should we have a separate proto-Albanian proper for proto-forms as reconstructed from Albanian dialect variation? (This might be currently not sourcable from anywhere, though.)
 * See Requests_for_deletion/Others. -- 21:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that maybe one minute after posting this… ^^' --Tropylium (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One could have a group of languages including Proto-Albanian and Proto-Armenian that should never link and never categorize, well there would only be Wikipedia links, so perhaps there should not be these codes. I’d say Category:Proto-Armenian language has proven to be not useful. Fay Freak (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 * This stage of Proto-Albanian is supposed to reflect the stage of the language at the time of the earliest Latin loanwords, c. 1st century AD (or BC). At the time, older *ē and *ā must already have merged into *ā > Mod. Alb. o, hence Orel's reconstruction is probably more accurate. I notice that no source is actually given for the competing, more archaic looking reconstruction. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I support Proto-Albanian being kept here on the whole since the predecessor forms of Gheg and Tosk split just in the 4th century or even later, thus succeeding Early Proto-Albanian as assigned to its period of time by Vladimir Orel. In accordance with the voting rules, at this previous discussion page a link should be provided to this vote, which is based on it. HeliosX (talk)

code for Proto-East-Baltic
I think it's past time we had a code for Proto-East (ern) -Baltic, that is the ancestor of Lithuanian and Latvian. . Thank you. 31.173.85.109 21:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with this. Benwing2 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For what purpose? Who is even reconstructing Proto-Eastern-Baltic? -- 21:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would, if we had a code. And it's needed to clean up the PBS family tree: look at Category:Proto-Balto-Slavic language. 31.173.85.109 21:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If all you care about is cleaning up the tree, what you're looking for is a family code, not a language code. -- 22:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood, thank you. (Pings don't work on IPs, unfortunately.) 31.173.85.109 22:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They do when you type the IP right. (also, go make an account) -- 22:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Proto-Baltic has been removed at some point, I have not read through why but probably because it would only have three descendants plus some rare Trümmer. Apart from that the term Proto-Eastern-Baltic is not even attestable. Fay Freak (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Baltic in the traditional sense (Latvian + Lithuanian + Old Prussian) is not a valid clade. But East Baltic is. 31.173.85.109 21:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not completely certain that it isn't. However, in any case, the differences between Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic would probably be too minute to be worth a separate Proto-Baltic code. Proto-East-Baltic or Proto-Latvian-Lithuanian, on the other hand, is definitely worth considering. Having a code would make sense, even if we may not make regular use of Proto-East-Baltic reconstructions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

. 31.173.85.109 22:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

מרים
RFV of the etymology:

 * Generally thought to be from a root meaning "to be bitter"; if so, a borrowing from an Indo-European language is suggested, note the Indo-European etymon . Compare the Latin . It should be noted that the meaning of this name has been debated for centuries; an alternative explanation is that it relates to mutiny, rebellion, or disobedience, from a root.

This etymology was created by and has been shuffled around between the Aramaic and Hebrew entries by IPs. The PIE angle looks seriously suspect, since the root occurs in multiple branches of Semitic going back a long ways, and we're talking about only one consonant in common with the PIE root. Beyond that, I suspect the matter of other roots in Hebrew is more complicated than this. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The Wikipedia article touches on even more proposed etymologies. We can only order them on a scale from “totally impossible” to “who knows”. IMO opinion the theory of an Egyptian origin, mentioned by the Catholic Encyclopedia, is dismissed too lightly as being “only possible, or at best barely probable”.  --Lambiam 13:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Absurd and infuriating theories about substrate with . Because Indo-European words or roots are known, of course according to that US given-name research faction everything is from Proto-Indo-European. Perhaps this was one of the Hebrew is Greek people. I don’t know what that name is related to, but being from does not entail being from Indo-European but excludes it. As Chuck Entz implied, this root occurs all over Semitic and has nothing to do with . Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless the Egyptian origin hypothesis has a concrete etymon to put forward, I think that dismissal sounds pretty fair. 19th-century and earlier scholars had a habit of assuming every word of unclear etymology associated with Egypt had a likely Egyptian origin. Now that we know much more about the Egyptian language, the proposed derivations for which no etyma can be readily found seem less and less likely. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Where the Catholic Encyclopedia has “Meryt (cherished, beloved)”, I assume this is the same as, etymology 2. You can argue that the change from /t/ to /m/ is impossible, but I find the argument that Jewish parents would not have given their daughters a name with an Egyptian origin particularly weak. I find it entirely plausible (1) that the Aramaic female given name comes from the Hebrew female given name ; (2) that the latter name, used in Exodus for the name of a woman born and living in Egypt whose brothers were given Egyptian names, which is not itself readily explainable as a Hebrew name, is also originally an Egyptian name.  --Lambiam 20:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, sorry, I should have clicked through to the source instead of making assumptions. The final -t in Egyptian words would have already been a glottal stop or silent by the time of most contact with Hebrew, so that’s even less of an obstacle, although the appearance of the final -m would still be unexplained. Not sure, though. The Middle Egyptian pronunciation of would be expected to be something like either /ˈmaʔjaʔ/ or /maʔˈjiːwaʔ/ following Loprieno (syllable-final /ɾ/ had also started reducing to a glottal stop and vanishing by the time of Middle Egyptian). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that the suggestion of an Indo-European etymon has no merit. --Lambiam 08:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

por la puerta grande
Rfv of the etymology. The reference to sounds ad hoc to me, because the same expression exists in French (entrer par la grande porte, and the antonymous entrer par la petite porte; both are used with other verbs too:, ), and is simply a figurative use of. Canonicalization (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 * In this 19th-century dictionary the idiom Entrar por la puerta grande is defined as (freely translated) “to be received in a most respectful and lavishly welcoming way”. (In Spanish: Ser recibido en alguna parte con todo genero de consideraciones y agasajos.) Las Ventas was inaugurated on 17 June 1931. --Lambiam 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have another theory, namely that it comes from a tradition to only open the large central doors of a cathedral for special occasions, such as the arrival of high nobility, or of the archbishop on the occasion of the consecration of a new bishop. There are several hits in older books for the phrase used in this literal sense. --Lambiam 08:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds more plausible. Canonicalization (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

rose
The etymologies of and  are, if not at odds, at least in tension. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I assume that the issue is that the etymology for states without reservation that  derives from, while the etymology for  itself merely offers this as a possibility. In general I am in favour of the more cautious theory, but I do not doubt that one way or another the Latin and Greek are cognates. Sadly, this is not treated by de Vaan. Quite likely a name originating in Asia, where roses were first cultivated, travelled (along with the practice of cultivating roses) to both Ancient Italy and Ancient Greece.  --Lambiam 14:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the issue. Curiously the two recent dictionaries a Etymologiebank are also very cautious with respect to the source language of the Greek and Latin words. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

dcera
How does Czech come from older ? It looks more like it retains the PIE -er element. If not, that's not an obvious suffix like the diminutive in. Same question with Slovak. --80.169.223.146 12:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably by analogical levelling with the oblique cases. Compare 🇨🇬, a borrowing from 🇨🇬, genitive, etc. Canonicalization (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European *ud- and *wed-
*ud- and *wed- are unrelated roots. And here's why:

1. In the East Baltic, the valence of the root is altered by contamination with *we̠d-/*u̟d- (East Baltic contamination, [+]valence > [−]valence) > *u̠d-.

1.1 *we̠d- has a recessive valence ([−]valence).

1.2 Lithuanian ū́dras = Latvian ûdrs ≠ Proto-Slavic vy̋dr-a (acute old) = Lithuanian (ū́dras ~) ū́dr-a = Ancient Greek: ὕδρ-α < PIE *u̟̍d-r-e̟h₂.

2. *u̟d- has a dominant valence ([+]valence), compare: Ancient Greek: u̟̍δ-ρ-o̟ς / Germanic: *u̟̍t-r-a̟z / Indo-Iranian: *u̟dra̟̍s / Proto-Slavic vy̟̋dra̟ < PIE *u̟̍d-r-e̟h₂/-o̟s

3. The etymological relationship of *u̟d- to *we̠d- is probably secondary in light of external comparison, compare: Proto-Turkic *utɨŕ > Chuvash ъʷdъʷr, Yakut ɨtɨ̄, which is not a Proto-Indo-European loanword, nor derived from "water". Gnosandes (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Erm... Hölderlin2019 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Gothic 𐌰𐌿 from Proto-Germanic *u (in some cases) [cf. 𐌱𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌲𐍃]
Is this evidence that a change similar to one of the ones that would later separately impact English and German was already going on in Gothic? That vaguely sounds familiar, but my brain is probably playing tricks on me.

If so, what was it exactly about /u/ that was so unstable amidst so many Germanic language speakers? Was it already diphthongised in some dialects or something? Tharthan (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm woefully unfamiliar with Germanic sound shifts; might this have anything to do with the presence of the ? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, /u/ is lowered to /ɔ/ before /r/ or /h/ in Gothic. —Rua (mew) 10:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And 𐌰𐌿, although transliterated au, doesn't stand for a diphthong in Gothic. It stands for /ɔ/ (when it comes from a *u that's been lowered before /r/ or /h/) or /ɔː/ (when it comes from Proto-Germanic au). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And there's also /uː/ > /ɔː/ in hiatus. —Rua (mew) 12:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thank you Rua & Mahagaja. Perhaps it was Crimean Gothic that I recall something about beginning to undergo something similar to the vowel shifts that independently impacted English and German. Although, since I believe the only information that we have on Crimean Gothic is a small word list, I wonder if we could say that definitively. Could it not have been an intermediary stage between the original vowel and the diphthongised version(s). Tharthan (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The German word 'Tadel'
As it means 'blame', I think it may be related to the English word 'tattle', to which it sounds similar.
 * I question the current etymology. The Old High German form begins with z-, which would remain z- in modern German and doesn't magically become t-. The word must either have been borrowed from a northern dialect which kept the t-, or come from another source altogether. —Rua (mew) 16:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The online Etymologische Wörterbuch des Deutschen has essentially the same consideration. Somewhat freely translated:
 * Well attested in Middle High German, especially Central German. If one assumes the term comes from Old Saxon or Middle Low German – although no corresponding form has been attested there (but compare ) – then “lack, need” (ca. 800),,  “lack, deficiency”, can be presented as High German cognate subject to sound change. The origin of the word, however, is unknown for lack of further connecting possibilities.
 * Bosworth–Toller gives for tǣl: “evil speaking, calumny, detraction”. --Lambiam 17:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

mobile accent/fixed accent
Wiktionary:

PIE *snóygʷʰos

PBS *snáigas — fixed accent

Latv. snìegs

Lith. sniẽgas — AP 4

PS *snẹ̑gъ — AP c

PIE *wĺ̥kʷos

PBS *wilkás — mobile accent

Latv. vìlks

Lith. vil̃kas — AP 4

PS *vь̑lkъ — AP c

, Please explain why in *wilkás mobile accent VCV́, and in *snáigas fixed accent? At you the identical data of the Lithuanian language and the Proto-Slavic language: AP 4, AP c - mobile accent; AP 4, AP c - fixed accent? Why in "mobile accent" the accent is on the final syllable? In Proto-Balto-Slavic system there is an AUTOMATIC arrangement of ictus. In forms-enclinomena (mobile accent), ictus on the first syllable. Data of the Old Russian language and Proto-Slavic language et cetera... ‹RO̠OT=SU̠FF› < ‹RO̠OT=SU̠FF=FLE̟X› ~ ‹RO̠OT=SU̠FF=FLE̠X› Gnosandes (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

From the of placed accent in the Proto-Indo-European language, the Proto-Balto-Slavic paradigmatic curve is not derived. To derive a paradigmatic curve, we need two valences of roots and endings, and the placement of accent in word forms according to the "basic rule". Trying to associate accent with ablaut is not an option. It works for 50%, i.e. does not work at all.

Valency theory:

[+]	the dominant valency

[−]	the recessive valency

forms-orthotone consist of dominant valencies:

PIE *snóygʷʰ[+]-os[−]

PBS *snãig[+]-as[−] — with the dominant circumflex

Latv. snìegs

Lith. sniẽgas — AP 4 < AP 2, dialectology data

PS *snệgъ — AP d, data of East Slavic dialects

forms-enclinomena consist solely of recessive valencies:

PIE *wĺ̥kʷ[−]-os[−]

PBS *wȋlk[−]-as[−] — with the recessive circumflex

Latv. vìlks

Lith. vil̃kas — AP 4

PS *vь̑lkъ — AP c

Semantic loans?
& others: are words such as, and , in the sense of "calque/ loan translation", semantic loans  from ?

 * It is the most plausible pathway. Le Trésor states that the French term was used in this sense in 1894 by Louis Duvau, while the OEtymD has the first English use in 1937, although I found a 1926 use. For Italian calco, this source (unfortunately snippet view only) states that the term was coined by Duvau in 1894 and basically implies by omission it was borrowed into Italian. I also get a barrage of snippet views suggesting the same for Spanish, but the views are too snippety-snip to get even one single clear sentence. --Lambiam 23:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So from this do you infer that Italian and Spanish calco are borrowings? Are these not deverbals from and, both of which being native words descending from ? I find it more plausible that the aforesaid words already existed in the respective languages, only the sense of "calque" having been adapted from French.
 * Yes, of course, only the linguistic sense of these terms has been borrowed. That was how the original question was framed, and that was what I responded to. --Lambiam 21:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry! I was confused because your wording was not specific (you simply stated "it was borrowed"); but never mind, you help us so much :).

Vaticanologist, Vaticanology
"Coined in analogy to Kremlinologist". Any actual evidence for this? DTLHS (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 * The term may have been coined by prominent Catholic theologian in an article entitled “Why I left the Roman Catholic Church”, published in The Observer of 1 January 1967, page 21, but circulated earlier. Davis writes: “As for papal documents, I sometimes think there is need for a new science of Vaticanology, in order to discover which pressure groups have succeeded in getting their way and to interpret in the light of the current Roman background the more cryptic references to opinions vaguely reprobated.” (I can only find the article online not behind a paywall here, somewhere down the page, but this version is not quite identical to the one in The Observer; the quoted sentence ends here with “getting their way”.) The analogy with  is not spelled out for the obvious reason that it would have been an insult to the intelligence of the readers.  --Lambiam 11:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

bulla
The latin etymology of Bulla is not in the cited source and does not match what I found here. The editor apparently has a history of that. Does someone have a better source than mine? Tenthkrige (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Our entries are case sensitive, Bulla ≠ bulla. I assume you mean the etymology of, which derives it from , whereas the Pokorny etymon reads “2. b(e)u-, bh(e)ū̆- “to boil, swell, puff up’”. I guess bh here is the same as our bʰ. Wouldn’t that have given rise to /f/? Cf. >? ,  >? ,  > . It looks to me Pokorny’s b(e)u- may be the same root as our . The latter entry shows  via the extension  as a possible descendant; the Texan LRC shows bucca as a co-descendant with bulla.  --Lambiam 10:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Indeed I mean bulla not Bulla, fixed it in the section title. Sorry I'm more an enthusiast than an expert, and I'd really love to know someday whether bʰ gives /f/ of /b/, but here I'll ask for something more prosaic: what's the source on deriving from ? -- Tenthkrige (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I guess the question would be if 🇨🇬 and are related.  for  is supported by  (p. 202 and 750) as well as Harper's etymonline, though he rarely cites which source he's using and I likely borrowed from that entry for that edit.  Pokorny (p. 365) and Skeat (p. 78) actually support  for, the latter indirectly by connecting it to 🇨🇬.  I suppose both roots should be reflected in the entry. DJ K-Çel (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated the sources. DJ K-Çel (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, PIE *bʰ gives Latin f, not b, so if you find a Latin b corresponding to PIE *bʰ, it would have to be a loanword, probably from Celtic or Germanic. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

middenrif
Said to derive from Old English. Is that etymology more probable than borrowing from Old Low Saxon or Old High German, if it indeed is a borrowing? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Is a form of the term attested in Old Low Saxon or Old High German? --Lambiam 21:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it cites OE as a possible source, the immediate ancestor is more probably Old Dutch . Leasnam (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

like buggery
I surmise this comes from "hurt like buggery", which can be understood literally (certain orifices being more sensitive than others and all that). Thoughts? Canonicalization (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's just the typical use of an vulgarism as an intensifier. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. I still think at least some of those can be etymologised., for example, might have been extracted from , as I wrote on the talk page of that entry some time ago. See also . Canonicalization (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is related to the meaning of meaning “anything” in “I don’t give a bugger”. So the phrasing “it hurts like buggery” can be understood as: “It hurts like anything”, “it hurts like nothing [else]”. (“Nothing” and “anything“ are interchangeable in a hyperbole, if you have not observed it yet.) Fay Freak (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The New Partridge describes buggery as “a substitute of ‘hell’ in strong phrases of rejection, ruination and disapproval” and glosses like buggery as “vigorously”. --Lambiam 00:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian
This is said to be from Finno-Ugric. Is there any relation to the Indo-European ? Or is this just pure coincidence? —Rua (mew) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there other evidence for this reconstruction? If this is a lone descendant, it is too tenuous. Finnic and Samic negations are derived from . --Lambiam 00:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the entry states, there are cognates of more limited use in Ob-Ugric and also per some sources Udmurt . Most likely some of these are in some fashion akin to IE, but the general morphology of any of these is maybe too poorly known to establish if they're native or loans or even akin at all.
 * (The negative verb is meanwhile well attested everywhere except Hungarian  and was surely the primary negator in PU.) --Tropylium (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

About Old East Slavic
, Let's normalize the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) language? In the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) language the accent has already been reconstructed. Can add accent paradigms to the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) language?
 * Look:.

 * 1) Old East Slavic ъ - */ə/, not ŭ; Proto-Slavic, gen. pl. *-ъ̄ - */əː/
 * 2) Old East Slavic ь - */ɪ/, not ĭ, ɨ. Gnosandes (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The accent in Voc. Sg
, You can add the accent in declension Voc. Sg (AP b)?

It works like this:

*dvor[→]-e̍[−Min] (remarking [peremarkirovka]) > *dvo̍r[−]-e[−], i.e. *dvòre

 * 1) In Proto-Slavic the dominant valency [+] was divided into [↓] "self-shock" [samoudarnost'] and [→] "right-shock" [pravoudarnost']. The Dybo's law...
 * 2) Minus with minusization [−Min] changes left mark [→] right-shock on [−] minus, see example above;
 * 3) Accent at the beginning of the platform.

 * A friendly suggestion: you should probably start by writing a Wikipedia article on this valence theory thing, and perhaps try incorporating its main claims in articles like Proto-Balto-Slavic, instead of trying to hold a lecture in a Wiktionary discussion room. --Tropylium (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 * , Thank you very much. I just wanted to show Rua where to put the accent. Gnosandes (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

beżżula
RFV of the etymology.

flip, fillip
What is the probability that this isn't of imitative origin, if we have any ability to reckon that? Tharthan (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 * There is no way to quantify this. All we can say is that it very likely that, and  are all of imitative origin, as are  and , and, ultimately,  and .  --Lambiam 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

ebbenhout
RFV of the etymology, which seems like an ad hoc analysis by Verbo. The word ebbe isn't attested in this sense to my knowledge. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Here the term ebeen is defined as a synonym of ebbenhout. We give the etymology of as: From  + . Without doubt, the Dutch etymology is completely analogous.  --Lambiam 17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides, we have an entry for, which shows this etymology to be a simple case of ad-hoc rebracketing. The original form after borrowing ended with an "n", which is mistaken for (or has merged with) the expected grammatical affix in its descendant. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And here the term ebbe n , with an n, means ebony. It is easy to believe in ebenus > ebben and hard to see how the n would be lost. It seems more plausible to me that ebben is a shortening of ebbenhout (like it is undoubtedly here), rather than analyzing ebbenhout as ebben + hout. --Lambiam 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/wargás
, You ever need to check the etymology? Derksen, probably, erred with the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European form. To postulate Winter's law and Meillet's law no opportunity. Because of this, he has to write a large text and create entities.

*(h₁)uorg-o- > *worʔgós > *vȏrg (AP c)

If so?

1. In the East Polesye dialects: Plekhov dialect vòraɣ; Anisov dialect wôraɣ; In the Pskov-Polotsk dialects replaced by the "враг".

2. Reconstruction PSl. *vôrgъ, gen. *võrga > *vorgà (AP d), сompare Derksen *vȏrgъ (AP c);

PSl. *vôrg[+]-ъ[-]; Lith. var̃gas (AP 4 < AP 2); Latv. vā̀rgs.

3. Reconstruction PBS *wãrg[+]-as[-], respectively (AP 1 or Fixed accent).

4. Reconstruction PIE *worgʰ[+]-os[-], сompare Derksen *(h₁)uorg-o-.

5. Compare PGerm. *wargaz.

In Wiktionary:

PIE *wórgʰos > PBS *wárgas > PSl. *vȏrgъ (AP c [AP d]); Lith. var̃gas (AP 4 < AP 2); Latv. vā̀rgs, compare Derksen *worʔgós;

Compare PBS *baiˀsás > PSl. *bě̑sъ (AP c); Lith. baĩsas (AP 4); compare Derksen *boiʔsós;

Conclusion: PSl. AP b/d = Lith. AP 2; PSl. AP c = Lith. AP 4.

Inconsistencies ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ any comments?

the data of the Old Russian language: во́рогъ – c < [*d]‚ А(во́-) – 2.17, 4.2, МПр 2.9, 3.20 ⇔ Лет. (во́рогъ 103, -а 238б), Изм. (во́роги 45), Нв. (во́рога 576б, -и 509), Мер. Соф. Ал.; — ср. врагъ (p. 456 Zaliznjak 2014) Gnosandes (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Derivation of Albanian from Proto-Indo-European
Hello,

I wondered whether Albanian can be derived from the noun to Proto-Indo-European  as variant of. Only the former root can yield a term with [f] as initial consonant in Late Proto-Albanian or Old Albanian. HeliosX (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Lithuanian
The etymology is currently a mess of nonsense. First, there's no way that the term existed in PBS, because that was spoken long before Latin was. Proto-Germanic didn't exist, the word was independently borrowed into Gothic and West Germanic. So where did the Lithuanian come from? Is it borrowed from Latin, Slavic, a West Germanic language or Gothic? —Rua (mew) 13:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Derksen actually says this, though. Per Kim, PBS likely only started to become differentiated during the last centuries BC (Kortlandt's dating of PBS to 1500 BC or so never made sense to me), so the idea of a loanword from Latin via Germanic to PBS is not necessarily that outlandish, but I agree that given that loanwords from Latin to Germanic are generally thought to not be pre-Christian, a loan into PBS directly is completely implausible. It was probably borrowed from Slavic into West and East Baltic, although a loan from West Germanic to West and then East Baltic, or so, cannot be excluded, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk)

neologisms
I was very surprised that our etymology of the English term perpetuum mobile is deficient. I was even more surprised that a very experienced editor added the two incorrect or at least misleading edits that make the article claim the term was borrowed from Latin and that the original Latin components of the term are not known to the editors of the article although these are obviously exactly the same as the two components of the term as used in English and although the term is probably not borrowed from Latin and is instead a New Latin neologism (perhaps first used in a different language than English).

I was even more surprised to run into serious trouble finding and explaining the etymology of this term. Many dictionaries that normally are fairly good sources of etymology like AHD and Etymonline.com don't have the term at all, and those that do don't provide any etymology at all or only partial and thereby misleading info. For example OUP's Lexico.com says "Latin, literally ‘continuously moving (thing)’, on the pattern of primum mobile", which is more helpful and interesting than the Unabridged Merriam Webster's "New Latin, literally, perpetual moving (thing)", but MW is less misleading because no such term probably existed in Latin before it was probably coined in a modern European language using the Latin terms perpetuus and mobilis. These dictionaries and apparently all books scanned into Google Books don't even provide the basic etymological info of the first recorded use of this term in English.

Our Dutch entry uses the template der. Is that correct considering that the term is apparently a New Latin term coined for use in Dutch or most probably first coined for use in another modern European language and borrowed from there into Dutch?

And why does our Category:English neologisms have the misleading or incorrect definition "English terms that have been only recently acknowledged"? Shouldn't this category include all terms purposely coined in English i.e. all terms not derived from earlier terms or consisting of borrowings or loan translations from other languages?

So how do we normally indicate and categorize New Latin terms? I wasn't able to find a category for them.--Espoo (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 * We normally present New Latin terms under an L2 of “Latin” with a label “”; see e.g. the entry . The earliest use of the term perpetuum mobile may have been in reference to ’s barometric clock. The invention was patented in 1598, and I see the term in print in a 1625 book entitled Perpetuum moble; the first use of the term must then be in that range. There may be more information in an essay by Jennifer Drake-Brockman, “The Perpetuum Mobile of Cornelis Drebbel”, in: W. D. Hackmann and A. J. Turner (eds.), Learning, Language and Invention: Essays Presented to Francis Maddison, Astrolabica 6, September 1994, pp. 124–147. Unfortunately, Google Books does not allow me more than a snippet view. --Lambiam 09:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of 百済(くだら)
百済 in Japanese is pronounced as くだら or Kudara, which is quite different from its Korean name 백제(Baekje). But I found a theory from Japanese dictionary about its etymology from https://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/modules/d3ndlcrdentry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000086969

くだら is derived from 居陀羅, And Kudara means Great(Ku) Villages(dara).

 * Done, that's from the KDJ (Kokugo Dai Jiten) that has a reference template here. Added OJP entry and updated shinjitai . Does it need some additional etymological notes? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 * @POKéTalker, I don't think I trust that one source from the anon (here), not least as it doesn't actually list any Korean terms -- just Japanese katakana, stating that "it's explained that tara meant 'village'" but without saying who explains it that way.
 * While the ku- in Japanese could conceivably derive from Korean, there is no corresponding Korean term that I can find for the -dara portion.
 * Korean for is native Korean  or Sino-Korean, but neither have any clear phonetic connection to the sound of -dara.
 * Korean dara might be a conjugation form for verb or adjective intensifier, but neither have any clear semantic connection to the idea of.
 * Even if we assume rendaku for the Japanese for a latter element originally pronounced as -tara, the closest Korean match would be a conjugation form for verb, with various meanings of “to burn (intransitive); to ride; to mix, to dilute; to receive”. But again, none of these have any clear semantic connection to the idea of.
 * That said, I also recognize that our Korean coverage is not exhaustive.
 * Meanwhile, the KDJ entry doesn't say anything about villages, and instead references a possible place name in the territory of the former : 居陁 (Japanese reading Kuta), which could apparently be reconstructed as 居陁羅 (Japanese reading Kutara). I note that 居陁 with a Korean reading of Geota (hangul spelling 거타) shows up in a search of the Korean Wikipedia, such as in this article listing the names of areas in Three-Kingdoms-era Korea.  Geota is listed as (I think) a county in Silla.
 * Does anyone have any further insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic ,
The a-stem form is attested in all three branches, while the u-stem is limited to Old Norse. Are these legitimate alternative forms, or is there some innovation within Old Norse? Either way, the main lemma should probably be at the a-stem. —Rua (mew) 11:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The lexeme is not even mentioned in Kroonen, oddly. I wonder if *warduz (which is limited to North Germanic) might have been influenced by, which may well (per Kroonen) derive from the same root (as *wér-tu-, an agentive noun). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could it be something like sporadic rounding due to the onset with analogical change of declension due to the rounded vowel appearing mostly in u-stems? Not suggesting that this be added, just wanted to share the idea. Crom daba (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

tolero
I was just wondering about the -er- suffix. I quickly got two ideas: I just checked de Vaan. He writes: "To explain tolerāre, Nussbaum 2007b proposes a Latin sā-present built to the root *telh₂-, hence *telh₂-s- > *telasā- > tolerā-." --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A derivation from an s-stem like nsg. *telh₂-s, gsg. *tl̥h₂-és-(o)s (most likely)
 * An extension of a desiderative or some other verbal s-formation like *tl̥h₂-s(e)-, think *tl̥h₂-s-éh₂-(ye-) (*tl̥h₁-és-(e)h₂-(ye-) is only phonologically possible, but morphologically probably unsound) > Proto-Italic *tolasā-e-, which works on a purely formal level, but I'm not sure about the semantics then. (On second thought, *télh₂-s-eh₂- > *telasā- is also possible, and preferrable.)

Swedish
The Old Norse form doesn't make sense to me. If is the origin, why does Swedish not have ? I suspect that the noun was reformed on the basis of the verb, but I'm not sure what's going on here. —Rua (mew) 15:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

duckboard
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duckboard is the only etymology i could find so far. --Espoo (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Another theory that is floated on the Internet is that the safe way for soldiers to walk on these boards in the muddy trenches of WW I was to waddle like ducks. --Lambiam 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I found the following passage in a book, titled Letters from France, published in 1917 and consisting of letters written by, an Australian WW I war correspondent and historian. The letter containing the passage is dated May 1916:
 * I have said before that you do not walk on the bottom of the trench as you did in Gallipoli, but on a narrow wooden causeway not unlike the bridge on which ducks wander down from the henhouse to the yard—colloquially known as the “duck-boards.”
 * This appears to me, thus far, the most plausible explanation of the term. --Lambiam 00:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

仕える
RFV of the etymology: "Conjugation into potential form → つかえる"

万葉集 三九「やまかはも依りて仕ふる神ながら」

It seems 仕える (つかふ) is attested far more earlier than the rise of -e- potentials. The potential form of 使う at that time should be つかはる (-are-). -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Reworked. Please have a look.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is good. But is 使う related to つく? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably certain it is, based on the structure of the verb.
 * We know that, ancient -pu, was a productive auxiliary / verb suffix, indicating repeated or ongoing action, or the end resulting state of an action. This auxiliary attached to the  of a verb stem, which for full-paradigm (i.e. ) verbs ended in -a.  For ancient tukapu, we have that -a- just before the -pu, suggesting that we're looking at verb root tuk- + irrealis -a + auxiliary -pu.  Verb root tuk- as a yodan verb would have terminal or dictionary form tuku, correlating with modern.
 * Considering that one sense of is specific to “utilizing a person for a specific purpose”, this proposed tuk-  + -a + -pu derivation could also make sense semantically, as one sense of, often spelled with kanji as , is “to take a position, to start a job”.   is a momentary or instantaneous-action verb indicating a change in state, and the  auxiliary could be understood to shift the verb's meaning to an ongoing continuous sense.  We see this in other aspects of , such as ; classical  and modern.
 * That said, I cannot find any Japanese dictionary that explores the derivational etymology of beyond just stating that it comes from OJP and has an older kana spelling of つかふ.  JA sources (that I've seen so far) neither corroborate nor contradict a derivation from.
 * If desired, we could add something to the entry postulating a derivation from, so long as we're clear that this is only a possibility, and so long as we don't introduce any confusion that this is listed in JA dictionaries.
 * (Alternatively, should we instead lemmatize at kana spelling ? The previous thread about where to lemmatize kind of fizzled out; I don't recall any clear conclusion.)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No conclusion is reached, as far as I know. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/January

Reconstruction:Latin/desidium
Is the etymology correct? The semantic shift from "idleness" to "wish, desire" is not obvious to me. Looks like a contracted form of instead. Per utramque cavernam 23:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am just right now reading about it. Apparently it is both. Also reconstructed *dēsedium. DRAE derives  just from “desidium” as like an attested word. Others see the verb first, from, but I think from experience that  is denominal.  Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lewis & Short has two entries for with different etymologies: one for the senses “idleness, inactivity, sloth” from, and one for the sense “retiring” from . Likewise in Gaffiot. No hint of a plural desidia that is alleged to insinuate *desidium there.  --Lambiam 08:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What are these occurences of desidium of the if not ”desire”? ? In the other page “desire” fits even more. Should  be moved to the mainspace? Fay Freak (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * desidii is presumed to stand at where the manuscript has desidie. Better to read ingrati nebulae desidii caput circumstant trepidum or ingrati nebulae desidiae caput circumstant trepidum, or something third? The latter I do not understand, but the former more: “Fogs stand around the restless head of ingrate sloth.” Fay Freak (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Engerland
The current etymology is that this is a version of with. However, a possibility that should probably be considered is that represents a survival of the medial vowel in ; forms such as Engelande are attested in Early Modern English (the same explanation could be applied to trisyllabic pronunciations of ). Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? --Hazarasp (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Through what medium might this have survived? International football matches date from the late 19th century, so transmission through football chant cannot have been the medium. We need to bridge several centuries of oral transmission from the latest attested versions having a middle vowel to the trisyllabic practice heard in football chant. --Lambiam 08:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The standardisation of spelling that Early Modern English underwent means that any varieties that retained it wouldn't necessarily use such a form in writing, especially after c. 1650, except in specialised dialect writing (which really should be checked to see if any such forms come up if anyone's interested in finding out more). --Hazarasp (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the specific spelling "Engerland" probably won't be used before c.1800-1850 as rhoticity was still an option in proto-RP before then. --Hazarasp (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any association with ? Leasnam (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Engerlish" seems to be first attested in 1880, but this book seems to say that Shakespeare pronounced "Eng(e)lish" as a trisyllable (I'm not sure if that is still believed by Shakespeare scholars, and I have a feeling it isn't). By the way, this is an attestation of "Engelish" from the 1680s. --Hazarasp (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The EDD and Thomas Darlington's 1887 Folk-speech of South Cheshire (v 21), in explaining the use of suck to mean "ploughshare", quotes one Rob. Nixon's Cheshire Prophecy, "Between the sickle and the suck / All Engeland shall have a pluck." This is the only instance of "Enge(r)land" I spotted, cursorily searching Google Books for books with "dialect", "language", or "speech" in the title to try to find books on English dialects. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

schlepper
Something is missing in it's etymology section.

Is it from + English -er, or from something like  (cp. )? --84.161.58.6 21:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * means “tramp”, as in the Yiddish translation of the film title The Lady and the Tramp. I think the best explanation of sense 1 of  is from the English verb  (which of course is from Yiddish) + the English agent suffix, whereas senses 2 and 3 are almost certainly straight from Yiddish.  --Lambiam 10:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

wyla
Earlier today I created wyla, after finding two quotes in published sources from 1841 (since back-dated to 1826) and 1952. I haven't found the plural attested yet. But in looking for the plural, I found this:

I also found a other sources of various reliability (a grammar of Wathawurrung; an Australian school newsletter; a botanic garden in NSW) mentioning waiila, wailla, or wyla as Awabakal for "black cockatoo" or "yellow-tailed black cockatoo". Is that sufficient to declare that English wyla is borrowed from Awabakal, or should I look for a published work explicitly making that connection? Cnilep (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be on the safe side, just say it's from a Pama-Nyungan language and mention the Awabakal word as a possible source, since it could be from a closely related language. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Machiavelli
The name derives from the feminine suffix machia, meaning "battle, fight" (see -machy) + Latin velli, present passive infinitive of vello "to pull or tear down, demolish." seems a boutade.

 * I read about LA malus 'bad' + LA clavellus from clavus 'mallet'.
 * Also possible IT macchia 'patch/forest' + IT vello 'hairy'.
 * See also IT malo 'bad' + IT chiavello 'key' Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The currently given etymology seems very implausible to me, using an Ancient Greek suffix as a prefix, combining it with a Classical Latin infinitive. The i at the end of Machiavelli is a plural ending, as can be seen from the plural form  in the full name Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli. The French Wiktionary (under Machiavel) cites Émile Littré, Dictionnaire de la langue française, 1872-1877, which explains the name as a professional name meaning stain remover, presumably related to .  --Lambiam 16:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The etymology was by a notoriously unreliable editor. This here says it means "bad nail" (from  and  / ?); so same idea as your options 1) or 3). Per utramque cavernam 23:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Tagging author of the disputed etymology, who may be interested in the discussion.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, late to the conversation; but, yes, regarding that 7-year-old etymology: back then I was as guilty falling for Etymology Online's many fanciful entries as Harper was of writing them (but I swear we're not the same person). He's since removed many of those unsourced suggestions, including Machiavelli.
 * Anyway, it's a tough name to find anything on, but I was able to find a few additional sources supporting the above possible meaning of "bad nails:" (1) The Life and Times of Niccolò Machiavelli, (2) Der Prinz und der Führer: die Machtpolitik Hitlers im Lichte des Machiavellismus, and (3) The story of language. I'll let you guys decide if that's enough to go on.  Djkcel (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to come to your talkpage to apologise for my comment above. I do think your methods have improved since then. Per utramque cavernam 20:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that we don't have better sources though, all these links are quite poor. Per utramque cavernam 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 * This Italian site states that in 11th and 12th-century documents (in Latin) the surnames “Malclavelli” and “Malclavello” are found, which lends credence to the mal- + chiavello theory. --Lambiam 14:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The diminutive from  or  +  is attestable. Late Latin *clavellus is not impossible, but the Classical Latin diminutive is .  --Lambiam 14:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

wetware
Currently " + ", which, I suppose, is technically accurate, but feels like it is missing all of the possibly interesting bits. There is no sense of which indicates it means human brains (which it doesn't as far as I know). - TheDaveRoss  16:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, one can find parallel formations. In German one calls the “gray matter” also . Somehow one thinks that a less operative brain is drier. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As contrasted with hardware (not that "wet" is the opposite of "hard"...), plus software already means something different. DTLHS (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "not that "wet" is the opposite of "hard"...": well... Let's say they're complementary :-) Per utramque cavernam 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m only familiar with the term from SF, as in Rudy Rucker’s 1988 novel ', who uses it more like in sense #2. It was a surprise to read in the Wikipedia article that the term has been around at least since the mid-1950s, especially since the term  is first found in print only in 1958. But I assume that, like for software, the -ware component came from  used in the sense of “computing machinery”, a use that dates back to 1947. In the mid-1950s, the term “electronic brain” was a not uncommon popular term for a computer, which probably contributed to the construction of the neologism wetware. The brain is composed of 73% water (H. H. Mitchell et al. (1945), Journal of Biological Chemistry 158' pp. 625–637), so the choice of the first component is somewhat understandable and more flattering than, say, mushware''.  --Lambiam 18:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Bodies have fluids in them... assassination is wet work. Equinox ◑ 19:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tripoli
The current etymology doesn't mention the Ancient Greek. Can someone who knows the terms add them and an explanation why the city (cities) are named "three cities"? Ultimateria (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gives different etymologies for in Libya and . As to the Libyan capital, the name  originally referred to a region containing three cities: Oea (now Tripoli),  and, the latter two of which are now uninhabited archeological sites. The Greek name Τρίπολις for the Lebanese city is said to be a folk etymology of the earlier Semitic, etymologically unrelated name Derbly. Other sources suggest also a three-city origin, as being set up as a joint venture between the cities of ,  and . That raises the question, though, why the Phoenicians would have chosen a Greek name for the enterprise. They were Persian vassals, and the Persians saw the Greeks as rivals, so that might have been seen as a provocation. Finally, for , the name may be a transmogrification of Ὺδροπολιτσά (Hydropolitsá), itself possibly a transfiguration of a South Slavic name meaning something like “Oak Plain”.  --Lambiam 20:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So how do we clean up the entry then, given that Tripoli, Greece's name is unrelated to the names of the other Tripolis? How do we sort out the American Tripolis? I was thinking of seperating each Old World Tripoli into its own etymology section, and the current section be where the American Tripolis stay. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 01:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to keep the etymologies somewhat concentrated. The parts that are specific to the English name should (of course) be presented at the entry itself, while the parts that are English-language independent can find a place in the etymology section of a new entry: . The English proper noun Tripoli goes back, in all cases, to the Italian proper noun Tripoli – either directly, as in the case of the Libyan capital, or indirectly, by modelling the borrowing of the name of another city after that. And  <  < . The divergence is the origin of the name Τρίπολις: a true compound  or folk etymology (as for the Arcadian capital)? By the way, the relationship to the name Derbly is far from being established with any degree of certainty. The American Tripolis are all named after the (then Tripolitanian, now Libyan) Tripoli named in the : “From the Halls of Montezuma / To the shores of Tripoli”.  --Lambiam 11:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV: orbus and orbo
The same IP (6 edits) included as descendants in Spanish orbo and huerbo, and orbar respectively. Not located in DRAE, I checked: G de Diego doesn't mention them, and Coromines attests only orbedad. We can deduce from this latter contribution, that Spanish huérfano comes from Late Latin or straight from Greek. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

murex
RFV of the etymology. Per De Vaan the word may also be from Latin "mus".

 * Another question: where does the -ex come from? Most of the nouns ending in -ex have a root that ends with a velar or are compounds with a verb that does, such as, , , or . Here we're saying that  or 🇨🇬 has acquired a velar from somewhere. There seem to be other examples, which we don't explain, either:  (>),  (>?),  (>? cf. ),  (>). There are also words of similar and unexplained form (of both Indo-European and unknown origin) such as ,  (insects); , , ,  (mammals); , , ,  (plants); , ,  (general plant terms), etc.

 * If it's of any use, here's a list of all Latin words we have (as of last May's database dump) that end in -ex, excluding ex itself and not listing multi-word derived terms/phrases (like dura lex, sed lex): apex, aruspex, auspex, berbex, biplex, bivertex, carex, caudex, cimex, codex, cortex, culex, decemplex, deex, dentex, duplex, exlex, faex/fex, famex, forfex, forpex, frutex, grex, haruspex, hirpex, ibex, ilex, imbrex, index, interrex, iudex, judex, latex, laurex, lex, multiplex, murex, nex, obex, objex, paelex, pantex, pelex, pellex, persimplex, podex, pollex, prex, pulex, pumex, quadruplex, quinquiplex, ramex, remex, rex, rumex, rupex, seminex, senex, septemplex, septimplex, sex, silex, simplex, sorex, subex, succortex, suffrutex, supellex, supplex, thraex, triplex, ulex, vertex, vervex, vespex, vibex, vicerex, vindex, vitex, vortex; and -fex (aedifex, artifex, aurifex, carnifex, dapifex, mellifex, offex, opifex, panifex, pontifex, retifex, signifex) and Idex, Thraex and Vindex.
 * I can also find mention of ambrex, aulex, halex, and irpex, which at least one very old book compares to ἀμάρη ("ditch, canal"), αὖλαξ, χηλή and ὄρπηξ, respectively, and I also see mention of eimex and varex. I spotted a couple of books, both very old and very recent, discussing -ex as a "suffix", but they may only mean "ending", as several discuss only the etymologies of individual words with that termination, with one saying they are "opaque in etymology, and possibly of some antiquity". And some of those terms with that ending, like some terms in -ax (e.g. anthrax), seem to have been borrowed from Greek rather than formed in Latin.
 * - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Aristotle (Animalia 5:12) uses the term for the snail, a term surviving unchanged in Modern Greek, and the etymon of . To me this raises the question, why should the Romans have adopted, with a strange alteration, the unrelated Greek name for a mussel, a rather different mollusc? Why not use the Greek name, already borrowed for another purpose? When the Latins first entered the Italian Peninsula and ventured there into the sea, they must have encountered these rock snails for the first time. Presumably the pre-Latin (Italic/Ligurian/Sicel) natives had a name for them in a now-lost language. Can it be that the Latins simply borrowed that name from them?  --Lambiam 10:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

hazardo (Esperanto and Ido) - in which language did it originate?
From what I can see: However, Ido is much older than the Kompleta Gramatiko Detaloza, and existed in 1919, which means that the word could very well come from Ido. But myself I'm not sure where to look to find out where it's first attested.
 * The Esperanto word 'hazardo' was added to the Akademia Vortaro in 1919, with the 2-a oficiala aldono.
 * The Ido Kompleta Gramatiko Detaloza has a form of the word, 'hazarde', but it was first published only in 1929.

Of course, this all rests on the assumption that the Esperanto and Ido movements were discrete entities, which isn't entirely true. It could have originated among speakers of both languages, and the line could be very difficult to determine. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: I know it originated in Arabic and came to the languages through French, but I'm asking whether it was first borrowed into Ido or Esperanto. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 * , any insights as to when this word first appeared in Ido? פֿינצטערניש (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I figured out through tekstaro.com that it already existed in Kastelo de Prelongo, so I am going to safely put that the Ido word was borrowed from Esperanto. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The oldest Ido hits on Google Books are from 1908 (Unesma lektolibro, L'Espérantiste, etc.). Google Books dates this to 1903 and this to 1904, so I'd also go with your direction. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I always find the etymology for Esp-Ido hard. I had a quick look through of Progreso, and there doesn’t seem to be any documentation of it’s adoption (which hints at it being indeed taken from Esp.) But on the other hand, it wasn’t an official word in Esp. at the time of Ido’s initial creation (1907). I lean more to it being taken from Esp too. — Algentem (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kurd
Wrong etymology and baseless. It has nothing to do with that Sanskrit name. It's a Middle Persina term: Please fix it. You should look for "kurt" in a Middle Persian dictionary and etymology should be something like this:
 * Kurd
 * From Sanskrit कृति (krti) meaning worker or slave, ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *kʷer-.
 * Regardless of its possible roots in ancient toponymy, the ethnonym Kurd might be derived from a term kwrt- used in Middle Persian as a common noun to refer to "nomads" or "tent-dwellers," which could be applied as an attribute to any Iranian group with such a lifestyle.
 * Source: Karnamak Ardashir Papakan and the Matadakan i Hazar Dastan. G. Asatrian, Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds, Iran and the Caucasus, Vol.13, pp. 1–58, 2009. Excerpt 1: "Generally, the etymons and primary meanings of tribal names or ethnonyms, as well as place names, are often irrecoverable; Kurd is also an obscurity." "It is clear that kurt in all the contexts has a distinct social sense, 'nomad, tent-dweller.' It could equally be an attribute for any Iranian ethnic group having similar characteristics. To look for a particular ethnic sense here would be a futile exercise." P. 24: "The Pahlavi materials clearly show that kurd in pre-Islamic Iran was a social label, still a long way from becoming an ethnonym or a term denoting a distinct group of people."
 * From Persian "کرد", from Middle Persian "kwrt-" )kurt), from... --188.158.105.139 18:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The has an extensive section on the meaning of the name discussing several theories, followed by a section challenging the dominant theory. I am not in a position to evaluate the merits of all this.  --Lambiam 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That article in Persian Wikipedia makes zero sense because it was edited by Kurdish ethnonationalists and they added many ridiculous claims from personal blogs and primary sources to it. For example, they even claimed almost all of Shahnameh characters are Kurd or many other similar nonsense! As I said, use a Middle Persian dictionary like David Neil MacKenzie's book or contact some well-known specialist like Gernot Windfuhr. "Kurd" or "Kurt" appeared during Sasanian era and mentioned in Middle Persian (Pahlavi) sources and it just means "nomad". The other theories are just weak stuff that try relate Kurds to Near Eastern peoples like Sumerians. --188.158.69.6 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "slaves" etymology is from R:pal:Nyberg. If someone wants to list all the theorized etymologies, they're welcome to. For now though, unknown is fine with me. -- 03:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Lowercase kurd, as a Kurdish word, may also need to be looked at (it currently says it's from Sumerian). - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

گرچ
This looks like a misspelling of. , do you have a source for that etymology? -- 08:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a misspelling. it's now an archaic word in persian with different etymology and different meaning however some of none Persian speakers or writers who didn't know persian well merged it with . but you can see that it went into turkish language with its right meaning.(Irman (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Well I find the etymology you give rather baseless and absolutely no mention of is made. I see the Turkish borrowing, but that doesn't rule out the -r- being non-etymological. --  19:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * R:fa:Dehkhoda:1931 says this word is 🇨🇬. -- 00:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

پدواز
, is a reconstruction? Where is *padwād(ag)? coming from? -- 10:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested that etymology by comparision with its alternative forms.(Irman (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC))
 * 1) what are you proposing the origin and meaning of this *padwād(ag) word is, 2) why you would reconstruct a Middle Iranian form with no cognates in the first place, and 3) why are you using und, and not reconstructing a MP form? -- 19:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

کلته
, where is this etymology coming from? It looks very ad hoc. -- 22:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Germanic words for "lion"
Sparked by the extreme size of the descendants section of (I have since 'ed some of the entries where it wouldn't look silly) and my wish to collapse the Germanic section into a see desc template to shorten the descendants section some and make it easier to apply  without it looking weird, I have been wondering about a possible Proto-Germanic form.

 * 1) It seems quite possible that the word was loaned in the (late?) Proto-Germanic stage, but I'm not sure if there are forms which would explain all descendants we currently have listed there.
 * 2) Certainly some of the Germanic forms are just direct borrowings from Latin without Proto-Germanic intermediary, as indicated on the entry already.
 * 3) Pronk-Tiethoff (2013) supposes a "Germanic *le(w)o-" (p. 135), which is quite far from the *laujan that's currently on the Latin entry and e.g. the "germ. *laujō-, *laujōn?, *lauja-, *laujan?" given by Köbler for the supposed Gothic form, which is thought to have existed based on personal names and the Slavic words, which again per Pronk-Tiethoff most likely derive from a Germanic source with i-vocalism.
 * 4) If  is indeed an an-stem, which it does look like, and considering that OHG.  is also from an-stem (per Köbler), I would with my limited knowledge reconstruct something like an an-stem  (but which already means "scythe").

Does anyone have any comments/thoughts here? I don't trust my own knowledge of old Germanic languages other than Gothic enough to move ahead with this. Also wondering about where the -w- is from. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

uproar
This is claimed to be a calque of either Dutch oproer or German Aufruhr. The problem with that is that roeren does not mean "to roar", nor does rühren. So it's only partially a calque. It's kind of like forlorn hope, I guess. I will note that in both cases, the process of "calquing" the source word into English in a way that left the resulting word the way that it did (having part of its makeup be made up of a word that is totally different from the corresponding part of the makeup of its source word) caused a secondary meaning of the word to arise based upon the "unrelated word part". In the case of uproar, the meaning "loud confused noise, especially when coming from several sources" arose, and in the case of forlorn hope, the (now much more commonly-used meaning) "a dangerous or hopeless venture" arose. Personally, I think that, in forlorn hope’s case, this was a boon, because having a literal take on the term expanded it to be less restricted, yet in a positive way. I don't know, I just like it a lot.

In any case, describing uproar simply as a calque of oproer or Aufruhr is inadequate, as it gives the (incorrect) impression to the unknowing reader that roer and *Ruhr (I know that Ruhr exists as a totally different word, but it doesn't exist in the fashion that I am talking about) mean "roar". Tharthan (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Philippa et al. mention an Early Modern English form "uprour" (either from Early Modern Dutch or Middle Low German), which looks like a more straightforward loanword. The -roar would then be a folk-etymological alteration of the earlier form, which was a loanword. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

entail
I have my doubts about the "Old English" part of this etymology. I've seen on Wiktionary before (although it isn't that common) doubtful claims that "Old English" origins are present for this word or that word, when it is quite clear that the word doesn't go back any further than Middle English.

I haven't changed it myself, just on the off chance that this word somehow does go back to Old English (I can't personally see how it could, but, hey, who knows?) Tharthan (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked tand it apparently is first attested in Middle English, so I've changed it appropriately. I think that some of these people are using "Old English" in a loose sense; i.e. "a earlier form of English". ---Hazarasp (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been updating these as I find them, but yes, sometimes Old English was used when they really meant Middle English Leasnam (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

England - Etymology Dating - Citations
Does anyone have any information about when the actual term England, in that spelling, was first used? There is no information about that in either the Etymology or the Citations. Citations of the earliest known usage would be useful. This seems to be a deficiency, which I hope someone can fix. --richardb43 (sorry, forgotten how to do a proper signature)
 * I don't have an exact date, but this might help narrow down your search: it appears perhaps to be sometime in the Modern period. In Middle English we find and, among others, but no . Leasnam (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV: persisto
From per- + sisto. Any doubt? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lewis & Short agrees. --Lambiam 20:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

bishop (chess)
Many terms for the chess piece bishop in various languages fall in similar classes, but in many cases the etymology makes no mention of this, often only giving the etymology of the main sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Läufer, cursor etc. ("runner"; "hunter")
Many continental Germanic languages and Slavic languages beside some others (e.g., , ) have a term that literally translates to "runner". In many of the Germanic and maybe also the Slavic languages this meaning probably was a semantic borrowing or was in another way derived from. Several dictionaries state that MHG loufer was already used in this sense, so this probably predates most of the other languages in this category. Certain South Slavic languages also have a term translating to "hunter", which might be a homophonic rendition of the Germanic. Latin also has for this, beside apparently many other terms. Does anybody know whether this predates the German and whether it is a more likely origin for some term? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

офицер, αξιωματικός, etc. ("officer")
These literally mean "officer", which is also in some other languages used as a non-specific term for rooks, knights and bishops. Any idea whether a borrowing or a language-internal development is more likely? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

alfiere
Does the sense bishop in this derive from similar to or perhaps via ? Perhaps this is also comparable to the "officer" class. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

nebun ("madman")
Has this been influenced by ? The translation table at also has, though this meaning is absent from the entry and the translation was added by a Romanian IP. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm or deny whether has been influenced by ? ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is highly likely that French had some kind of influence. According to this thread, Romanian  (N.B. equivalent to the chess piece and not a translation of  which in Romanian is ) is in fact a calque of the French . --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It turned out that a print dictionary has the same etymology, which has now been added to the entry. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the term in the translation table of  correct? If so, does it have a similar etymology as ? ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The translation is correct. It is included in the Great Dictionary of the Hungarian language, item 7 toward the bottom, but bolond in this sense (as a chess piece) is archaic or obsolete and is no longer used today. The etymologies of bolond and nebun are different. Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for verifying. To clarify, with "similar etymology" I meant whether the old-fashioned meaning "bishop" in some way derives from . ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

isqof, bispur ("bishop")
,, and  all literally mean "bishop", which is rather uncommon among European terms for the bishop in chess. Semantic borrowing from English seems plausible enough for Irish and Maltese. But is it also plausible for Faroese and Icelandic (distane doesn't seem a problem) or is instead based on the appearance of the chess piece? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this goes back to how the game was introduced on these islands, which may be lost in the shrouds of history. But it was quite likely by some traveller, returning home, who themselves had become acquainted with the game in foreign lands. That putative traveller would almost certainly have introduced the pieces to their compatriots with the translated names of how they themselves had been told the pieces were named. So if they were coming back from England or Ireland, they would have called the diagonally-moving piece biskup or whatever the term for an ecclesiastical bishop was in the local vernacular. Semantic borrowing appears considerably more plausible to me than naming based on the appearance. --Lambiam 14:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems can also be used for the chess piece, though it has been labelled as uncommon. I suppose that complicates the etymologies, although a uncommon term is generally not a likely source. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . I’m not so sure that in that line of the quoted poem episcopus is a name for the piece, instead of the ecclesiastical rank. A few lines earlier we read miles et alphinus, roccus, rex, virgo pedesque, which means (in present-day terminology) “knight and bishop, rook, king, queen and pawn”. In this line, alphinus is a Latinization of Old French alphin; see Godefroy (under ). Then, a few lines further, the poet writes, “The King is the Sun, the pawn Saturn, Mars likewise the Knight, the royal queen Venus, the alphin – himself a bishop – Jupiter, and the roaming rook the Moon.” --Lambiam 17:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Mediaeval Latin dictionaries don't seem to have episcopus in that sense either. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could find any literature about how the bishop piece got this name in Icelandic? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the Íslensk orðsifjabók, Icelandic biskup was a C11th borrowing from Old English biscop in the ecclesiastical sense already. According to this article about the history of chess, the game had made it to Iceland by the early C13th at the latest (it was mentioned by Snorri Sturlason, who died in 1241), brought back by monks/clergymen who had studied in England. The article also notes the rarity of bishop for this piece, indicating that it must therefore be a borrowing from (Old) English. In recent years, a couple of Icelandic chess aficionados tried to claim that the borrowing took place the other way around, but I don't think that theory is accepted by anybody else. BigDom 05:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the English is only attested as a chess term in Early Modern English; the OED has a quotation from the sixteenth century and Middle English dictionaries don't seem to have it. And it was apparently also used in older Danish, it is an obsolete sense of in dictionaries of Modern Danish. Do you have any information what the earliest date of attestation is for the chess sense in Icelandic? ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

тэмээ
Does the sense bishop in, literally "camel", directly or ultimately derive from an Indian language, such as ? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Murray, in his 1913 book , considers two possible parentages of the Mongol versian: Persian and directly Indian. Finding arguments for and against either theory, none conclusive, he appears to favour the Persian route (p. 376–7). As to the name of the bishop, he writes: “If we confine our attention to the ordinary chess, we have no instance of the replacement of the Elephant by the Camel in Persian chess. The change has been made in many forms of chess that have been recorded in India, but in every case the Elephant remains upon the chessboard in the place of the Rook. There is no known instance of any Indian game of chess in which the Camels stand on c1 and f1 (c8 and f8), and at the same time the Chariots stand on the corner squares. I conclude, therefore, that we have here an independent Mongol change, in which the typically Indian beast of burden is replaced by the typical Mongol beast, the two-humped or Bactrian camel, which is a native of Central Asia.” --Lambiam 20:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 🇨🇬 comes from Persian, and so does so the Persian hypothesis is far more likely.
 * (Mongolian also has some Indic influence from the transmission of Buddhism, but it seems like Buddhists didn't care much about chess since Tibet doesn't seem to have the chess tradition similar to the Mongolian one) Crom daba (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But the Persian term is (per  and the Persian Wikipedia), which comes from Arabic and literally translates to "elephant". I am also curious how Murray explains  if he sees  as an independent change. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On page 27 Murray describes the original arrangement of the European game (11th to 13th centuries), transmitted through the Persians but directly descending from a 7th-century Indian game, as having in order, from left to right on the squares a1, b1 and c1, the Chariot, the Horse, and the Elephant (and also in reflection by switching left–right or white–black). In a footnote, he elaborates, “In some Indian descriptions the Chariot is replaced by a Boat ; in others the Elephant and Chariot have changed places ; in the modern Indian games the Chariot is often replaced by an Elephant, and the original Elephant by a Camel.” Then, on page 60, in discussing the uncertainty about the positions of the pieces in some older descriptions of the Indian game, he writes: “By the 17th c. generally the piece with the Rook's move had been definitely fixed on the corner squares, but changes were introduced in the nomenclature. To-day three main divisions may be made. The original nomenclature. Chariot a1, Horse b1, Elephant c1, is the usual nomenclature in Northern India and in the Maldive Islands. The inverted nomenclature, Elephant a1, Horse b1, Chariot c1, is the rule in the extreme South of India among the Tamils, Telugus, and Kannadis. A new nomenclature, Elephant a1, Horse b1, Camel c1, is widely spread. It has been noted as far North as Delhi, and is the rule over the greater part of Central India and the Deccan.” The first appearance of camels in the Indian game is in the Bhagavantabhāskara, written by Nīlakaṇṭ·ha about 1600 or 1700, which is several centuries later than Murray’s estimate for the inception of Mongol chess, c. 1300. No specific explanation for these name changes is offered. In same instances he argues that the use of synonyms for camel may reflect that the writer was used to carved pieces recognizably representing these beasts, but presumably the name changes would have preceded the craftsperson’s figurine changes. (Or an unskilled carver attempted to carve an elephant, but the result was such that people identified it as a camel :).) --Lambiam 16:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It does leave me wondering whether the camel piece may have been an influence mediated through the Mughal Empire. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve been wondering the same thing myself. As far as I can see Murray does not mention the Mughal (or Mogul) Empire. I know very little of cultural transmission back from the subcontinent to Central Asia. To rule out some possibilities it would be helpful to know when the name тэмээ for the piece started to be used: already from the inception c. 1300, or may there have been a later name change, replacing an earlier заан? The start date of the Mughal Empire is commonly given as 1526, much later than 1300. --Lambiam 11:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The layout of already includes a camel, although it is a leaper piece in that variant. It is however located near the bishop-like piece. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you know whether the sense "bishop" of could be a semantic loan from Mongol? ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

cerumen
Where does the -umen come from? Our English etymology -and the RAE for that matter- only say "from 🇨🇬". Ultimateria (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Online Etymology Dictionary has this to say:
 * coined by Swiss anatomist Gaspard Bauhin (1560-1624) from Latin cera "wax" (see cero-) on model of albumen; or else from Greek keroumenos "formed of wax."
 * The dual theory indicates that these are guesses; I wouldn’t know why Bauhin’s supposed model was specifically and not velumen or, but in any case, the u in these words comes from the first component: albumen =  + . A regular Latin form would have been *ceramen. Although we find a u in the diminutive cerula (“little piece of wax”), it comes from the diminutive suffix . As far as I can see, the putative Greek word *κηρούμενος is not attested.  --Lambiam 14:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What about caerūmen as a medievalism, which is what WT says is the origin of 🇨🇬? Kevlar67 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, I would use both in Galician cerume and cerame, although the latter sounds romance creation. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 16:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV: NL halsstarrig
From. Any doubt? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 16:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's equivalent to that, but according to Philippa et al it is borrowed from German. I've expanded your etymology. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (For future reference, by the way, http://www.etymologiebank.nl is great for Dutch etymologies: it indexes a host of etymological dictionaries, including the reliable ones.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Unfortunately my Dutch doesn't reach so far, but I'll try. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 20:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of Chinese for rhea
The Chinese word for rhea (the bird) is 鶆䴈. The first character on its own is apparently a bird of prey similar to an eagle (according to a Chinese-Vietnamese dictionary). I was unable to find the meaning of the second character alone.

Rheas are not birds of prey, so is 鶆䴈 descriptive or a phonetic transcription of "rhea"? I am leaning towards the latter but am not sure. (I am not a fluent Chinese speaker, by the way.) Corsicanwarrah (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Our etymology section says, “From English rhea.” I guess that means, “Borrowed from English rhea.” So it should be in the same category as loanwords like 加侖 and 夾克. --Lambiam 01:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Did the Vietnamese for wolf originally mean 'dhole'?
The Vietnamese word for wolf is (chó) sói. As far as I know, true wolves (i.e. grey wolves) are not native to Vietnam or any Southeast Asian country for that matter. However, dholes (which take the niche of wolves in many countries where dholes but not wolves are present) are native to Vietnam. The modern Vietnamese word for 'dhole' is sói lửa, or "fire wolf". Now I'm curious; did sói originally mean "dhole" in Vietnamese?

There's an entry for the Proto-Vietic word for 'wolf'ː k-rɔːrʔ. Now things get even more confusing. Did that word originally mean "dhole"?

See this mapː https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grey_wolf_distribution_with_subdivisions.PNG Southeast Asia has no native wolf population and has never had one.

--Corsicanwarrah (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wolves are definitely dholes. -- 01:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For real, do you know how to respond to my question? --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. P.S. Say "Hi" to Ruffles for me. -- 21:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 * What about chó rừng, chó sói lửa. Can you break down the meaning of each of those words? Kevlar67 (talk) If lửa is 'fire' then cho soi lua means "fire worlf" for dhole and if rừng means "forest", then cho rung is "fire dog" for dhole.  21:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by how, 1., taxonomic genera are often associated with European type species (those first observed by the European naturalists who systematized taxonomy), and 2., how English vernacular names were applied to somewhat similar New World and Austronesian species, it is very plausible that old Vietnamese words now referring to any wolf-like creature originally referred to the native wolf (or wolf-like) species, ie, dhole. OTOH, borrowing from other languages is possible, especially where trade is common (oceans, lakes, rivers).
 * Modifiers of generic vernacular names to get names for kinds focuses on differentiating characteristics of many kinds. Fire is a very good example. Consider:
 * fire salamander (usually unnoticed until driven from a log by fire)
 * fire beetle (light, attraction to fire light)
 * fire cherry (fruit color)
 * fire coral, fire medusa, fire ant, fire eel (sting)
 * fire dog (Dalmatian) (associated with fire engines in US)
 * firefly (light)
 * fire bean, firebush, firethorn (flower color)
 * fire finch, fire lily, fire-tree (color)
 * firefish (sting, venom, color)
 * fire hangbird (wing-patch color)
 * fire-weed, fire fungus, fire lily, fire willow (thriving after forest fires)
 * Judging from the pictures at, color seems the relevant attribute for the dhole. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't write off Canis lupus just yet. First of all, the range of the species has been shrinking since before recorded history, so it's hard to be sure what it was at the time of Proto-Vietic (there are remains from thousands of years ago in Vietnam, although those are apparently dog rather than wolf). Also, it's hard to be sure exactly where the proto-language was spoken, though it was probably somewhere in Southeast Asia. The most common pattern for vernacular names is that they first refer to a specific organism, then similar organisms get named after the original one, but with a qualifier to distinguish them from it. If the term originally referred to Canis lupus, one would expect other wolf-like species to be have it in their names and for them to have a qualifier- such as the word for fire here. Of course, there are all kinds of exceptions, but that's the most common pattern. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

pontianac, pontianak
Are these etymologically related? DTLHS (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite plausible, just based on this from Britannica 1911 (links, synonyms, etc. added):
 * Among the inferior substitutes for gutta percha may be mentioned the evaporated latices derived from Butyrospermum parkii [(syn. Vitellaria paradoxa] (shea butter tree [(shea tree)] of West Africa or karite of the Sudan), Calotropis gigantea (madar tree of India), and Dyera costulata [(jelutong)] of Malaya and Borneo, which furnishes the material known as “Pontianac.”
 * shows that it is the name of a port city in Borneo. Many raw materials are named after the ports from which shipments originated. According to WP the city is named after the supernatural figure. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have added them as related terms at least. DTLHS (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've linked Pontianak, pontianak, and pontianac as best I can. DCDuring (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are three cites using spelled with a c for the placename:, , .  --Lambiam 14:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV: PIE
scant shand Which one (if not both) of the meanings? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From, from , neuter of , from , from.
 * From, , , from , , from , from.

 * Pokorny lists k̑em- “hornless (normally horned) animal” and k̑em- “to wrap, cover, conceal” as homonyms. Only for the first is (s)k̑em- given as an alternative form. --Lambiam 09:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Уладзімер
Is the Belarusian version from A) in which case cognate to 🇨🇬 or B) from, in which case cognate to 🇨🇬? Kevlar67 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article, Володимѣръ and Владимѣръ are cognates, and is called Володимѣръ Свѧтославичь in Old East Slavic. The Russian city of  is called  in Belarusian. Based on the pronunciation, Old Church Slavonic Vladiměr seems a more likely immediate predecessor of Уладзімер than Old East Slavic Volodiměr. Also, it is likely that the process in Russian of replacing the older Old East Slavic name Volodiměr by the Old Church Slavonic version that then turned into Vladimir, worked the same way to yield Belarusian Uladzimyer.  --Lambiam 10:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hybrid ancestry may be a better way of expressing the truth. RichardW57 (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * : Belarusian is borrowed from 🇨🇬, just like the 🇨🇬, unlike the 🇨🇬, inherited from 🇨🇬. The city name  is a doublet, a recent borrowing/transliteration of the Russian city name . There is no 100% consistency in mutual inter-Slavic transliterations, since there are native words, transliterations and native cognates can be used interchangably sometimes. E.g. the Ukrainian new president Volodymyr Zelensky:  is called in Russia  and Ukrainians call Vladimir Putin, using the native word. Does it make sense? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)