text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/September

Chinese 林檎, Japanese りんご, Korean 능금 (Middle Korean 니ᇰ금)
Are りんご ringo and 능금 neung-geum (니ᇰ금 ning-geum) vernacular descendants of 林檎?

They are exceedingly similar to the "expected" readings of ringon and lim-geum.

林檎 is vague, as is 능금나무. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the Japanese Wikipedia, originally meant .  still means it. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

one up
I think that we have two different things merged here, as if they were the same.

One is a backformation from one-upsmanship, which is ultimately a derivative of an older "one up", meaning (think in sports, for instance) "one point above one's opponent".

The other is, I would assume, a derivative of 「ワンアップ」. Perhaps it is older than I think, but since I recall "extra man/ship/whatever" being more common ages ago (although "extra life" remains pretty common), I wouldn't think so.

These ought to be under different etymology sections, I think. Tharthan (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

chop, chap, Dutch kappen, German kappen
We need to have our etymology sections be consistent. I haven't found much mention elsewhere of an Old English *ċeappian (although perhaps I am not looking in the right places), and the most that I have found (and not even every source makes this connection, although I agree that it is very plausible indeed) merely supports a link between the English words and Dutch kappen.

Can we straighten out our etymology sections for these words? Tharthan (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kluge/Seebold (23rd edition, s.v. kappen) says the German term is borrowed from dum and the further etym unknown. It then suggests a connection with a Middle Latin cappare (without asterisk, but cf. capar) from cappo ("capon"). Regarding the special sense "to castrate" the Middle Latin word must have had I don´t find this very convincing. --Akletos (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The one thing that's certain about these words' etymologies is that they are uncertain. I know most of this was my doing, but maybe it's best to keep it simple and trace each language's word to its earliest attestation, and then leave it at "of uncertain origin". Then comparisons can be added, similar to how the Middle Dutch shows it (?) Leasnam (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What I find interesting about Middle English ₁ is that it is intransitive ("to split or burst open, chap"), in the way a piece of fruit or one's skin will crack open. Choppen (var. ₂) is transitive: "to strike, slash, hack, cut, mince". I wonder, are they really the same word ? Leasnam (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For ME choppen/chappen to have gotten its initial ch- it must either be inherited from OE (whence *ċeappian = MD cappen) or borrowed from an Old French word beginning with ch-: chapuier ("to cut, strike"), chapuisier ("to tailor, chop [wood]"). Leasnam (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Romanian
Romanian is usually considered a Slavic borrowing: compare the descendants of, to which the by-form  comes especially close. But how can we explain the differences in forms? What about the -t-? Some of the endings look like Slavic. . --Vahag (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , several older Romanian dictionaries provide Slavic *lososĭ as the origin, but they also mention that further information about its morphological development is unclear. I also find the -t- problematic and hard to explain. The diminutive suffix -iță is to some extent Slavic and it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that the origin is lostrut (a regional variant) + -iță. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a hybrid of  (note the short forms 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬) and 🇨🇬. --Vahag (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interdasting. So it might be a blend? Wouldn't be the first time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This book discusses precisely this question, but I have no access to it. --Vahag (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Univerbations
Why aren't univerbations categorised as compounds? --Akletos (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 * There is no sharp line dividing the two categories, but there are some important differences. To start, most linguist consider a term like a compound, more specifically a compound noun. But it is not a univerbation. A univerbation starts its life as a collocation of words having their normal meanings and functions; a sum-of-parts so to say. But then it becomes a fixed expression that detaches itself from its original syntactic analysis and is no longer understood the way it originally was, often also changing its spelling in the process, including being written as a single word. For an example, take Middle English leste, the ancestor of present-day . It was formed as a univerbation of les te; Middle-English speakers understood the first component (meaning “less”), but not the second, a mutated remnant from Old English. Old French des ore mais became ; the original middle component became obsolete, and the final one lost its original meaning, making the original collocation incomprehensible. When an  is sounded, originally from, you probably won’t start looking for your arms, and neither will Italians. Originally an interjection, it has become a noun.  --Lambiam 09:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your detailed answer,, it I didn't want to say that all compounds are univerbations, but thought of univerbations as a special category of compounds. The strongest case for your point of view, I believe, are borrowings across language boundaries (in the end this applies to ME leste, too). We should put aside En "alarm" because it's ultimately a borrowing of (the predecessor of) Italian allarme which should still be transparent to Italians, but one could think of Fr vasistas or Pl wihajster, where a German phrase was borrowed into the neighbouring languages as a single word not analysable in the respective target language. I can understand if we don't want to call those terms "compounds" (although I think one could maintain that those are borrowings of presumed German univerbations (and therefore compounds), not univerbations themselves), but I think we shouldn't make it that complicated to categorise It asciugamano (and other transparent terms) as a compound:  of  Is it possible to make categorising univerbations as compounds the default setting for template:unviverbation and to allow to "turn off" that auto-categorisation in cases where it doesn't seem approbriate? --Akletos (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 * To start with the last point: yes, that is technically possible, but I am not convinced it is desirable. It would put many things automatically and indiscriminately in a “compound” category; are you sure it is reasonable to classify as an Arabic compound word? If anything, the default should be to leave the effect as it is, with an explicit parameter   and an optional   to turn on categorization as a compound. The English word  is not itself a univerbation; it is simply a loanword. But in Italian,, even if perhaps still transparently constituted, definitely is a univerbation: what originally was an interjection turned into a noun, becoming so thoroughly lexicalized that it now has the plural , even though historically  was already plural.  --Lambiam 13:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks again; I don't think that we hold that different positions. I think our definition of compound differs: I'd say: Two or more words put together into one word make a compound; presumably, this definition would be too broad in your view. What you said about alarm is exactly what I was trying to say: allarme is, in Italian (or in a predecessor of it), an univerbation of the prepositional phrase all'arme. I'd say it can therefore be analysed as a compound of alle + arme. Accordingly, I would decribe ME leste as "borrowing" of the OE "compound" les+te; (Let's leave aside the problems that arise with the periodisation of languages.); even if leste didn't exist in OE, the ME speakers assumed it did and used it as such; so I would say the ME speakers formed (without knowing it) an "OE" compound les + te and borrowed it into their "ME". The same with Ar بَاب: At some stage in the history of the Arabic language (I don't know how it is periodicised) speakers assumed that the phrase بَاءَ (bāʾa) بِ (bi) is one word and "borrowed" it as such into their version of Arabic; so, no, it's not an Modern Arabic compound (and no Modern Arabic univerbation, either), but it is (in my opinion) an Old/Middle/Whatever Arabic compound assumed to exist by speakers of another version of Arabic that became a Modern Arabic word. But this interpretation of univerbations as compunds is not that important, I think. What matters to me is to make the use of templates easier, whatever we take as default setting. --Akletos (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Romanian
Hello,

despite accounting the proposed etymologies as partially intriguing about the opinion shift from Proto-Slavic to a substrate language, I sincerely got back to Proto-Slavic. Ensuing, I will reason why I would particularly dismiss the tracing to a substrate language like Thracian, Dacian, Proto-Albanian or, utterly conjectural, Scythian in order to have a complete view.

Firstly, I held that Thracian might actually have possessed a valid etymon for because, according to phonological research, Proto-Indo-European syllabic [m̥] developed into Thracian [un]. The vowel [o] turned into [a]. Also, [ḱ] was fricativized into [s]. Hence, I achieved the Thracian reconstruction from Proto-Indo-European. Now, however, I considered that the consonantal cluster [nt] has always been conserved in Romanian like in from Latin  or  from Latin,. Maybe, it could have been a particular Thracian dialect in which the consonant [n] in would have been nasalized and thus lost. Apart from that, maybe it originated from Thracian but it was influenced by Proto-Slavic and thus the nasal disappeared overall. These concessions, however, make a Thracian root less likely.

I would put to question as well how the numeral of hundred, originating in Latin and Thracian, could have persisted twice from the time of Vulgar Latin on up to the modern Aromanian language. The nowadays terms are, and , thus providing the evidence of the double numeral. It is more probable that was introduced along with Proto-Slavic and thus both numerals were able to endure as at least one numeral dates back to a later time around the Early Middle Ages and, hence,  was less targettable and affectable by disappearance throughout the course of time and its vocabulary changements. The explanation about Aromanian applies as well for Romanian due to there being solely Proto-Romanian as a unified language during that time of borrowing.

A rather hypothetical aspect of this argumentation is as well the lesser influence of Slavic languages on Aromanian. For instance, as Aromanian numeral for twenty persisted whereas its Romanian equivalent must have vanished, being supplanted by, which exactly mirrors the Slavic numeral and counting system by doubling the base number of ten like in Bulgarian. The missing supplantation of, would have to be explained by the borrowing having occurred later on from Proto-Slavic.

Dacian and Scythian have to be dismissed because syllabic Proto-Indo-European [m̥] turns into [a], also shown for Scythian by Proto-Iranian. The necessary rendering of [a] as [u] in Romanian is not imaginable.

Proto-Albanian needs to be discarded as well because [m̥] developed into [a], probably resulting in Proto-Albanian. Neither [a] could ever be shifted to [u] in a Romanian outcome. Also, Proto-Albanian [dz] would have changed likely into [z] instead of [s].

Adding to that, Old Church Slavonic is phonetically even visibly closer to Romanian  and, for this sake, it may have been a borrowing from Proto-Slavic. HeliosX (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 * You make some good points. However, it's worth pointing out that it's not Wiktionary's aim to become an authority on etymology. Saying that "Theory A is more/less plausible than theory B" can therefore be considered as doing just that. Don't get me wrong, you seem very knowledgeable, but some of the changes you suggest (and some which you have already done, which I unfortunately had to undo) can be considered as controversial by experts who have studied the subject. There's nothing wrong in presenting which theories exist about the origins of specific words, but favouring one over the other is not advisory especially if no secondary sources are provided. For instance we've had a lot of problems with Albanian – some users favour a Proto-Albanian or Illyrian origin, while others believe that a Latin or Slavic source is more plausible. This has resulted in a never-ending edit war.
 * When it comes to the subject of Romanian numerals, I always found it odd that nobody considers a possible Latin influence. Taking into consideration that Latin cardinal numerals ūndecim, duodecim, trēdecim, etc., practically mean "one (and/over) ten", "two (and/over) ten", "three (and/over) ten", why couldn't they be a factor here? Not denying the influence of a Slavic counting system, but I believe it's ill-advised to be too absolutist in this regard. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The origin of the number system is very easy to verify. «Unlike all other Romance languages, Romanian has a consistent way of naming the numbers from 11 to 19. These are obtained by joining three elements: the units, the word spre (derived from Latin super "over", but now meaning "towards" in Romanian), and the word for "ten". For example, fifteen is cincisprezece cinci + spre + zece, which literally means "five over ten".». This mirrors exactly the situation in Slavic languages (unit+over+ten), and not in Romance languages where the "over" element is not present and the order of the unit and "ten" reverses around the number 16 (unit+ten > ten+unit). Of course this does not rule out the possibility of Latin/Greek source of the numbering in Slavic. Modern Greek uses the same scheme as Romance, but reverses after 12. Ancient Greek switched to unit+and+ten around 12. Latin actually did not reverse the order, but used unit+from+twenty for 18 and 19. Sharkb (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Russian бадья is ultimately from Persian بادیه?
Per Vasmer Russian is ultimately from Persian. The Persian spelling can be found here but it seems not very common and we don't have an entry for it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With names of vessels one always has to expect that back in the day there were other vessels and thus names which have since fallen out of use; and for Arabic-script languages terms that have fallen out of use we have only small corpora to check. 🇨🇬 seems also likely not used anymore; the rest of the cognates is extinct languages. It’s also hard to ascertain what kind of vessels where really meant: no usage, no images. Fay Freak (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 * There is, a portable wide and shallow tub. The Turkish Wiktionary states that it comes from Pontian while TDK simply says “Greek”, but according to Nişanyan it is from , which we say is borrowed from Aramaic while Nişanyan derives it from – which phonetically seems a bit of a stretch. We give  and  as cognates.  --Lambiam 15:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Turkish Wiktionary constantly calls words from Greek “from Pontic”, I don’t know why. Dictionaries for Ottoman Turkish already deem this to be from . Nişanyan tends to assume Greek or Latin origins, like Westerners are slanted since yore by reason of their education towards them (with many absurd derivations from Greek or Latin being a sport until the early 20th century), apparently because Nişanyan too is better-informed in them than in Ancient Mesopotamian languages, the forms of which he frequently misses. 🇨🇬 directly corresponds to the Aramaic form bāṭīṯā, because the ṯ is only the feminine ending in Aramaic corresponding to  in Arabic, and the trailing ā is the ending of the emphatic state. Fay Freak (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of slaba
The entry at slaba is lacking etymology information. It suggests it might be related to slobber or to Latinate saliva. What do we know? MGorrone (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There may also be a relation with archaic, “mud, sludge”. --Lambiam 14:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

pleoh
RFV of the etymology. Added by an anon. Tagged but not listed. Not sure if the whole etymology or just part is being requested for. Leasnam (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Old French
I've tried reworking it to incorporate the etymology on, but I don't really have realiable and up-to-date French etymology sources at hand. Can somebody lend a hand? In particular I'm wondering about those o-je etc examples that I couldn't find an interpretation of in the French thesaurus. Also the emphatic pleonasm hypothesis is entirely my own, albeit informed by things like ecce illum >,. Brutal Russian (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - is it correct to list several words under a single template call to avoid having the language name before each one: 🇨🇬? Brutal Russian (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but why not just use instead? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought added some categories, but it don't. Oh well. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is used precisely because it doesn't add categories- who would want categories at the bottom of the page for every language mentioned in a cognate list ("hey, you have a Spanish cognate, but you left out [pick one] Portuguese/Mirandese/Galician/Asturian/Leonese/Ladino/Catalan/Occitan, etc. I'll add it.")? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not correct. You should use for any subsequent ones. Whenever several links appear in a single parameter, they are interpreted as a single term, so  would be construed as an Old French phrase consisting of three words and punctuation, not three individual Old French words. —Rua (mew) 11:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

schildpad
The Nederlands Etymologisch Woordenboek mentioned that schildpad derived via late Middle Dutch (late 15th century) from Middle Low German schildpadde. The more recent Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands omits such a mention, but perhaps that was only done to save space. Does anyone know when the Middle Low German is attested? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  07:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The online Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek at the “Geïntegreerde Taalbank” does not mention Middle Low German at its lemma schiltpadde. According to the Duden, the second component of High comes from Low German padde; perhaps that leads to a trail.  --Lambiam 13:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Schiller & Lübben include it, with a 15th century reference. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now the question is, is the Middle Low German really the origin from which the word moved westwards, or was this a synchronous development, the languages involved being part of the West Germanic dialect continuum? The mere fact that a word is attested slightly earlier at one side of an imaginary border is hardly conclusive evidence that it originated there. --Lambiam 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that in High German the word dates to the late fifteenth century. So the Middle Low German term is apparently the oldest of the three. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added the Middle Low German as a cognate rather than an etymon. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

primum mobile
The term is a calque of an Arabic term al-muḥarrik al-awwal. Could someone kindly provide the Arabic script? Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added Arabic script. I don't see how to hyperlink the components in script form; we should be able to have && &لأوّل. (I don’t know why the pipe is needed either.) --Lambiam 10:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a bit difficult to add the brackets because of the right-to-left nature of the Arabic text, but what I did was to type the brackets first and then cut and paste the Arabic text in them. Also, I copied the versions of the words from their respective entries with the vowel signs added so that the template would provide an automatic transliteration. Have a look and see if what I did was correct. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

gig
Etymology 3: “Clipping of engagement”. Really? --Lambiam 13:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most sources say "unknown". I find this fascinating, yet it's difficult to resolve the change from /ɡeid͡ʒ/ to /ɡɪɡ/ Leasnam (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some sources point to a use in a 1908 book where the term means “job”, but in the context it has the sense of (regular) professional occupation, not the sense of a one-time engagement to play at a particular venue in which it emerged in the twenties among jazz musicians. Others seek to interpret the word as another sense of, etymology 1 (from ), but the sense development remains unexplained. Finally, some insist it is an acronym for “God is Good”, but that looks like a posh backronym. --Lambiam 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This odd etymology was added by anon in .  That edit drastically restructured the entry, and now the caption on the image of the boat incorrectly suggests that the boat sense is somehow related to military demerits.
 * I'm more inclined to view this as hogswallop inflicted by a possibly-well-meaning-but-mistaken, or by a possibly-malicious-and-trolling, anonymous editor, and worthy of a reversion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve gone ahead and reverted the change. Also then it remains unclear if the etymology section is satisfactory, in the absence of a trail connecting or  to Modern .  --Lambiam 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Bedouin (Tent-dwellers) from Beth = House?
I recently heard a talk about Bedouins and realized that the Hebrew word BETH could be part of the etymology for this word. When I looked it up here, it referenced a French etymology. If it is possible that the word came from a semitic word (Arabic or Hebrew) why would the etymology not mention it ? Is it an "obvious" thing that I wasn't aware of? Jawitkien (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then better forget what you realized. The etymology on tells you which Arabic words it comes from. Although  means “tent” amongst Bedouins I don’t see a relation. Fay Freak (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/þeudō
This refers to a German word Diet that isn't in any dictionary i consulted and doesn't refer to the word deutsch. --Espoo (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was extinct mostly everywhere as of 1500. Copiously quoted in the Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, and also a bit in Grimm. Fay Freak (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

RFV: PIE pe(i)- / peH2
Can /πᾰ́σχω and LA patior come from the same PIE? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * According to the etymology section of, and  go back on the PIE root , whereas  is derived from , participle of .  --Lambiam 12:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PIE Kw > GRC P? Such a change is what was surprising for me, but I trust you. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 17:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I merely reported what our etymology sections state. But here are some more PIE kʷ > GRC π cases: >  (a.o.);  > ;  > ;  >  (a.o.);  > .  --Lambiam 20:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt, it's in w:Ancient_Greek, with the alternative example of /LA quo, and in w:Proto-Greek_language with *h₁éḱwos > Mycenaean i-qo /íkkʷos/, Attic híppos, Aeolic íkkos, LA equus (unless w:boukólos rule), and in w:Proto-Greek language for general labiovelars ("All remaining labiovelars became labials, original kʷ kʷʰ gʷ becoming p ph b respectively", unless previously or otherwise in dentals, I would add), with the example pémptos "fifth" < *pénkʷtos. Thanks. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Greek words in question could as easily share a root with Skt. bādhá ("pain, grief, annoyance, molestation"), etc. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

market
Might we be able to get a citation for the late Old English term mentioned in the etymology? Tharthan (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not doubting its existence. I'm simply saying that a citation would be good. Tharthan (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the expected places: the Middle English dictionary entry includes an etymology that agrees with this and gives 12th-century quotes from the, which are early Middle English, but might be argued to be late, late, late Old English. Bosworth Toller has an entry for market on page 671, quoting from a charter of - so definitely pre-Conquest. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we ought to put one of those as a reference next to the Old English word, then. Tharthan (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this a loan from German ? The German term was invented first by Tsvet before the English equivalent appeared in Martin et al. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 03:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The 1906 article in which is said to have used the German term is online here, but I was unsuccessful in accessing it. Merriam-Webster concurs that the English term is borrowed from German and was introduced by Tsvet in that article.  --Lambiam 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

RfV: LA (*)wardo
and ? Documented or not, but not both, at least with the same language label. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Documented. After had died, Bishop  punned in his sermon: Edwardus, dum vixit, nos wardavit.
 * Some people assume by default that Vulgar Latin entries are unattested, which is stupid, beginning with the definition of what is Vulgar Latin, which they of course . Move all from the Reconstruction space “Vulgar” entry to the mainspace “Medieval” one!  who created the latter and later. You can then have the label “Vulgar Latin” in that Medieval Latin entry additionally. Fay Freak (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think what happened was that created the attested entry without realizing there was a reconstructed entry. I want to say I started a discussion on it, but I don't recall. -- 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

hogswallop
Regarding the term that this is a variant of (rather than this one):

Which part of the term is in doubt? The first element, or the second? Tharthan (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Where was it said that something related to this term may be in doubt? --Lambiam 19:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I ought to have been more specific.
 * Not this term, but the term that it is a variant of (see the etymology section). Is the first element of that term what is causing the problem for etymologists, or is the latter part truly unknown, too? "wallop" seems pretty straightforward to me, irrespective of which sense (of the same word) is being used. 02:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean, why not link directly to it? Looking at the etymology section over there, I’d say all parts are in doubt. Quoting The Phrase Finder, one of the sources from the references section: “The most likely explanation is that it is a made-up nonsense word that just sounds right for its meaning.” --Lambiam 04:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Huh.
 * So the belief is that it is essentially one of those words that only resembles an actual compound word, and that neither of the two elements are actually what they appear to be?
 * I mean, I could see if someone had said that it was formed on the basis of "swill" and "wallop", with a somewhat coarse-ish notion for its first element (compare other common colloquial words for nonsense). But the thought that it is just one of those nonsense words is somewhat surprising to me. Tharthan (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/skeldaną
skald connects Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/skeldaną with Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/sekʷ-. If this is a possibility at all (regarding the phonological development), can it be sourced? Greetings --Akletos (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. Could be something similar to *skʷ-e-tlo-m found in Celtic languages. --Akletos (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I reworked both pages so that they are sourced. You can take a look if you like. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! That's why I love en:wiktionary. --Akletos (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

gunung and its cognates
The translation for the word mountain in some of the Malayo-Polynesian languages are as follow:
 * Acehnese:
 * Banjarese:
 * Brunei Malay:
 * Central Melanau:
 * Indonesian:
 * Javanese:
 * Malay:
 * Minangkabau:
 * Sundanese:

How to reconstruct the ancestor word from these cognates? Zulfadli51 (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You would have to know the regular sound correspondences between these languages to do it right (I don't). But there a few things about this that make me nervous:

 * 1) These are all in the same geographical area, so common borrowing, a common substrate and/or borrowing between languages would need to be ruled out.
 * 2) There are no references at all in any of the etymologies.
 * 3) No part of this is even mentioned in Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. That work has methodological problems, but is very thorough in its collection of data.
 * 4) Our etymologies include a Proto-Malayo-Polynesian reconstruction. It's true that there's no universally-accepted genetic subgroup that includes all of these, but the geographical proximity muddies the waters too much to make a Proto-Malayo-Polynesian reconstruction safe. It would be nice to have evidence from Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian and the Philippines, if nothing else.
 * The etymologies were added by User:Amir Hamzah 2008, who is familiar with the languages in the area and no doubt had access to local academic sources, but this looks a lot like a best guess. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

prosperus
The etymology section of English prosper states that comes “from  +, ablative of ”. The etymology section of Latin prosperus, on the other hand, states that the term comes “[f]rom, from (whence )”.

At least one of these two theories is not quite right. --Lambiam 23:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there's no sound regular change that could convert Latin "b" to Latin "r". Latin "s" to Latin "r", on the other hand, is well known.   derives from  by that route, and lists  as a derived term.
 * De Vaan gives the verb as a derivative of the adjective. As to a supposed etymon “pro spebus”, apart from the implausible sound change, the syntactic and semantic change from a prepositional phrase meaning “for (the sake of) hopes” to an adjective meaning “prosperous” is hard to explain. --Lambiam 09:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Chleuh
RFV of the etymology. Was added by an IP. – Jberkel 06:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * ⵜⴰⵛⵍⵃⵉⵢⵜ (Tašəlḥiyt) is the endonym of the language, aka Shilha. The autonym of the  is ⵉⵛⵍⵃⵉⵢⵏ (Išəlḥien). The root of these terms is the etymon of (Moroccan) Arabic Šəlḥa, whence both Chleuh and Shilha. Shilha is a Berber language, which is in another language family than Arabic. The non-Latin script is the  abjad.  --Lambiam 10:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

diana#Spanish
RFV of the etymology. Given that Diana is the Roman goddess of the hunt and archery, isn't this word more likely to come from her name than from, which seems to have no semantic connection at all? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC) I couldn't find diana "target". I hope it useful. Imma check Coromines. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * : DRAE (DLE) of Royal Academy says from día. This also, and w:Diana_(mythology) kind of agrees: I would say From día via Diana. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t get this. The Latin proper noun Diana is older than . I also do not see that the Diccionario Etimológico español en línea or the Wikipedia article agree. The latter suggests a relation with, whereas stems from . Certainly in the sense “reveille” , the connection with  is somewhat obvious. Unless diana in the sense of “bullseye” can be shown to have a different etymology, I think the current one is fine.  --Lambiam 13:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot about the "reveille" sense. That does seem likely to come from . Perhaps the two meanings do have different etymologies, but none of the lemmings listed so far says they do, so maybe that's a limb we shouldn't go out on. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * : I don't have it here with me now, but Pastor & Roberts list día, diana, dios and divino under the same PIE dyew- *deiw. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, but both and the goddess's  name come from that root, so that doesn't really help decide the origin of the word meaning "bullseye, archery target". —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * : Now I have it with me. It reads:
 * Coromines speaks only about the meaning "reveille" via IT, under día, not about "bullseye". Incidentally, diana in PT (<SANSCR) is the 7th stage of yoga before samádi (Houaiss). Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

iratus

 * The current etymology contradicts that of irascor.
 * iratus "Perfect active participle of īrāscor."
 * irascor "Back-formation from īrātus, as though it were the participle of a first-conjugation verb, with inchoative -scō added."

ᾨδή (talk)
 * DeVaan, Etymological dictionary..., p.309: "The adj. īrātus was formed directly from īrā [sic]; the verb īrāsci, on the other hand, cannot be derived from the noun, and must be a backformation to īrātus." That iratus is ppart of irascor is not totally wrong, though; but it is not correct as its etymology. --Akletos (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * (Partim) mea culpa. I think I have now ✅ this. --Lambiam

incorrect link generation and incorrect auto-redirect
The template (on Küken) produces the incorrect link https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kuken#Middle_Low_German, which is blue, instead of the correct link https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/küken#Middle_Low_German, which should be red and shouldn't auto-redirect to Küken. --Espoo (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not have a single Middle Low German lemma that has an umlaut. Obviously there is no standard MLG orthography; the closest may be the orthography used by in her 1914 Mittelniederdeutsche grammatik, where she writes: Der umlaut ist nur da bezeichnet, wo er, möglichst durch belege, gesichert erschien. (Vorwort, Seite VII). So perhaps the link should be to .  --Lambiam 11:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

chicken
Can someone please explain what "By regular sound changes it should have become Modern English *chichen; the reason it didn't is unknown." on https://www.etymonline.com/word/chicken means? Is this an indication that *kukkīną is more likely than *kiukīną as the origin? --Espoo (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what they mean. My guess would be that it's possible that what they mean is that this word was not inherited from either *kukkīną or *kiukīną, because the first would have produced OE *cyċċen (compare ) and the latter *ċīeċċen/*ċȳċċen. But perhaps what they mean instead is that it may have developed later from Proto-OE // + (= OE / + ), and because it was a later formation may have escaped the palatisation which typically occurs in OE when going from PGmc to OE (?). Leasnam (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of “unknown“ applied to “reason” means that the author does not aim to imply a “because”. The article states that the etymon of the Modern English word is . So then, one would wonder, why did this not regularly develop into *chichen? Good question. Why indeed? We don’t know. Your theory is as good as anyone else’s. --Lambiam 11:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OE cicen would have already been one or the other: it would have already been /ˈt͡ʃiken/ or /ˈt͡ʃit͡ʃen/. The author implies that OE cicen was somehow /ˈkiken/ and in the process of becoming Middle then Modern English should have turned into /ˈt͡ʃit͡ʃen/ but for some unknown reason did not. Palatisation of /k/ before i/j was not regularly taking place in Old to Middle English, but much earlier from PGmc to Old English. Leasnam (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And if the source really is, then we would expect the Old English to be (i.e. ) and the modern English reflex to be . —Mahāgaja · talk 19:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is correct. Which is why this word is an enigma. Cross contamination between the two PGmc words cannot fully be ruled out either (compare and ). Leasnam (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps developing into  kept  from occupying the same phonetic spot. Kind of like the Pauli exclusion principle.  --Lambiam 23:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's conceivable, but the usual response when a language is at risk of generating potentially ambiguous homophones is to replace one of them with an entirely different word. Consider Gascon Occitan, where and  became homophones. "One can well imagine the ambiguities that this merger must have brought about, especially in a farming context where it makes a considerable difference whether it is the cat or the rooster that has entered the hen house."  As a result, various different words for "rooster" replaced the original word. Thus I suspect English would have simply replaced either "kitchen" or "chicken" with a different word rather than keeping them separate by irregular implementation of phonological rules. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For an example of an expected sound change being resisted to avoid homonymy, observed in a major Japanese dialect that formed the basis for Standard Japanese, see here. --Lambiam 19:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

karnemelk
One recent etymological dictionary states this form derives from dialectal Hollandic karnde melk, with a dialectal past participle. I don't see why that would be very likely given the Middle Dutch form, but does anyone have any opinions on it? The WNT says karn + melk, while our entry previously gave karnen + melk. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our entry explains it as a, where the absence of ge- “may indicate a West Frisian or North Hollandic origin”. So perhaps karnemelk arose as a , with elision of the /d/. But it seems more plausible to me that karndemelk, if attested, was a parallel North Hollandic form. The Bouc vanden ambachten (ca. 1340 to 1370) from Bruges in Flanders contains the sentence Ende soe vercoopt soete melc ende kernemelc, die soe keerent. .  --Lambiam 12:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

gold in them thar hills
Our entry identifies “there’s gold in them thar hills” as a catchphrase of one of the characters in Twain’s novel . Problem is, I can’t seem to spot any occurrences of the phrase in the alleged source; only one occurrence of “there’s millions in it”. So what is the real origin? --Lambiam 16:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Persian سبز (sabz)
Desperately need info about this one. Anybody got any leads: Avestan cognate? Any relation to PIE *ǵʰelh₃-? Kielbasa1 (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See for the origin. --Vahag (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Χείρων
According to the English Wiktionary, related to κακός (kakós, “bad, evil”). Is there a source for this? What could be the reason for this etymology or, more logically, does this indicate he wasn't originally a positive figure? According to the Greek Wiktionary, from χείρ (kheír, "hand"). --Espoo (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our entry with a lower-case χ says: “Irregular comparative of, from χερ- + comparative suffix -yων”. See LSJ. It seems implausible (to me) that this is related to the name of the centaur. The usual suspects say: “unknown”. This article seems to argue that we have a folk-etymological adaptation to , but I cannot quite figure out what it is trying to say.  --Lambiam 17:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

κακός
The German Wiktionary says: seit der Ilias bezeugt; die Etymologie ist nicht geklärt; vielleicht besteht eine etymologische Verwandtschaft zu altawestisch kasu- ‚klein‘, woraus sich eine indogermanische Wurzel *kaḱ- oder *knḱ- herleiten ließe; anderseits könnte auch eine Verwandtschaft zu litauisch  ‚schmerzen‘ und gotisch ‚Hunger‘ bestehen; schließlich könnte es sich um eine Entlehnung aus dem Vorgriechischen handeln  --Espoo (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC) - -
 * Attempting to use the equivalent templates here:
 * The invisible Lithuanian and Gothic terms are and .  --Lambiam 10:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The invisible Lithuanian and Gothic terms are and .  --Lambiam 10:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The invisible Lithuanian and Gothic terms are and .  --Lambiam 10:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/October

nociceptive - no etymology on page
from Latin nocēre, prefixed to receptor, with the standard -or/ive ending: elector - elective; descriptor - descriptive, ...
 * Contrary to the "no etymology on page" added to the header, there is actually an etymology on the page (recently added after the rfe), but it doesn't match the above:
 * Latin nocēre + English (abbrev.) (re)ceptive
 * The one above seems to be modified from the etymology at nociceptor
 * From + contracted form of (re)ceptor
 * There are problems with all of these. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I edit that page? I recall looking for Latin etymology, but not finding any. Was an edit of mine that I don't remember rolled back? DCDuring (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. I put wikilink brackets around nociceptive on this page in this diff]. I didn't think I'd made any other changes. DCDuring (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake- that wording was in the original header as added by the anon. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The term was coined by, who spelled this and analogous terms with a hyphen: noci-ceptive. This is just one of quite a few of his coinages formed with the triad of suffixes ,  and , which he applied to , , , , , , and . It looks like proprio-ceptive may have been the first one published, but I cannot check this.  --Lambiam 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

police state
Could this be a calque of ? The German apparently dates to the first part of the 19th century, but became particularly prominent during the revolutions of 1848. I can't find anything in English that clearly predates 1848 (all the earlier hits are either misdated or things like "X of (the) police, state(s)"). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The oldest ones I found, not counting duplicates, were: 1852 (spelled “police-state” with a hyphen; translated from German ), 1853 (spelled “police State” with a capital “S”; translated from German ), 1874 (spelled again with a hyphen; translated from German ). This evidence supports the thesis. --Lambiam 00:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I know about how Germans make up words and how English made up words, it is likely. Germany is where one has systematized, and the English systems of philosophy were largely an of the German one, compare only , particularly in making comprehensive pictures of society. Both the concept of the night watchman state is calqued from German and communism has been most notoriously described in German, just to sketch a bit. But from the start of the World War I the  rather swept the extensive dependence of British thought upon Germany under the carpet, rebranding herself by relabelling the past “”. There are surely many known and established terms buried in the English dictionaries from the hundred years before 1914 that have yet to be uncovered as calques from German. It is a neglected discipline since unlike with what we commonly know as borrowing and which bewrays its history by its phonological shape one needs to be a kind of a historian of ideas to discover the calques. Fay Freak (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

دين
RFV of the etymology. More specifically to an obscure side point that's really about /, not :

The last part was changed by a Canadian IP (who's also edited a couple of entries) from:
 * The sense of religious creed or a system of religious rules is borrowed directly from, which is from which underwent influence from 🇨🇬 when the  incorporated its Semitic kingdoms; the term already having a predecessor with a religious sense in ,akin to 🇨🇬(dhyāna)
 * , which is possibly from, itself potentially developing from the 🇨🇬 legal sense; religious obligation to deities, the system or conduct of the priesthood regarding divinities.

I reverted it before I realized that it wasn't talking about the Semitic part of the derivation. I know very little about etymology, so I thought it would be a good idea to check whether this is at all plausible, since my revert marked it as patrolled and took it off the radar. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The derivation from Middle Persian from Avestan and even from Elamite is already sourced, below with Arthur Jeffery, who also cites other scholars. And again with Johnny Cheung. Note that almost every foreign word in the Qurʾān is treated by Arthur Jeffery’s 1938 book (with but obscure additions by Margoliouth 1939). The IP’s addition that 🇨🇬 is akin to 🇨🇬 is a good point and worth mention. It does not rule out influence by, in which form ever – but nothing as far back as the second millenium BC is that clear. I will formulate the paragraph shrewdly, both should be mentioned. Fay Freak (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks, all, for dealing with this. -- 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

将棋
Possibly related to Chinese 象戯? The Japanese term can be also written as kanji 象戯, which is a homophone of 将棋 using on'yomi readings. This can be seen especially in early works, like 象戯図式. ᾨδή (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The Kotobank page has many relevant entries. The Japanese Wikipedia article also has a section on the history of shogi.  And there's also the Gogen-Allguide entry.
 * The broad consensus, inasmuch as there is one, is that chess originated in India, made it to China (possibly via Persia, where apparently they've found flat chess pieces?) where it was called some variation of or, then either it came to Japan and eventually was relabeled , or came via Korea where that spelling may have first appeared and then made it to Japan.
 * HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Interesting. This means that 将棋 could have been ateji, and that shogi have taken the name of pieces from a Persian branch chess but the movement of pieces from the Southeast Asian branch. ᾨδή (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

durst
how does the form durst come about from dare + -est? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. It is the Modern English descendant of Old English dorste, which was one past tense form of Old English durran. Tharthan (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I.e. like  is actually the past of . Fay Freak (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

tangle, entangle
Merriam-Webster claims that tangle was originally a shortened form of entangle, which it claims is derived from Anglo-French (vague phrasing, there) entagler ["to implicate, to prosecute (for)"].

Does this have any merit? Tharthan (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I see something else: “,, probably short for , from Anglo-French , to prosecute (for), implicate“.  --Lambiam 21:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what merit it has. I cannot find a reference to Middle French entangler or entagler in the Dictionnaire du Moyen Français located here [], neither in Old French here []. Would this term have originally come into Anglo-French and Middle English near the same time, from the same Scandinavian source ? Leasnam (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry Lambiam. "entanble" was a typo. I meant to say "entangle". Notice how close "G" and "B" are on a QWERTY keyboard. I have now fixed that unintended error. Tharthan (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

nudge
I noticed a curious etymology for this word elsewhere:

"1665–75; variant of dial. (k)nidge, akin to Old English cnucian, cnocian to knock"

It seems that there is a good bit of disagreement about the etymology of this word. Might this be worth looking into? Tharthan (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 * We do have an entry for, with descendant . We also have an entry for (Modern) , “to dress the face of (a stone) with a sharp-pointed hammer”, without etymological info. Finally, we have , “to rub, squeeze, press with the knee“, again without etymological info (but presumably related to ). --Lambiam 17:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think, then, that it is worth mentioning in nudge’s etymology section? Tharthan (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle we mention all credible or widespread popular etymologies, preferably referencing sources for theories that are not well known, but IMO we should refrain from publicizing fringe theories by amateur would-be etymologists. --Lambiam 15:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a good, prudential judgement. My thought after having seeing that there is disagreement about the etymology of this word, and also seeing the proposed "variant of (k)nidge" origin in one location, was that perhaps we ought to look into how probable our own given etymology is for this word. Tharthan (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

wiz
Due to the prevalence of wine-whine merging dialects, this is often written as "wiz" or "whiz". As such, I have to wonder: could this be partially from whizbang (sense 3)? Tharthan (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which sense/meaning of are you inquiring about ? Leasnam (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Etymology 1, sense 1.
 * And, again, I'm not suggesting that our etymology is erroneous. I am suggesting that the usage of "whiz" for "whizbang" (sense 3) may well have contributed to the current word. Tharthan (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No further thought on this?
 * It seems probable, no? Tharthan (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some connection seems plausible, but directionality is hard to tell; it might also be that sense 3 of is rather due to . --Tropylium (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the odds of that? Tharthan (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A glance at Google NGram tells an interesting story: []. Most dictionaries cite c. 1902 as the first recorded use of wiz in its current sense, but whizbang doesn't appear till 1915 with the sense of "something conspicuous for noise, speed, excellence, or a startling effect". Similarity in form and meaning might simply be coincidental. Leasnam (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Vietnamese female name Đào
Currently, the page on gives "from 陶" as the etymology. For the family name sense that makes sense. But isn't the female name sense more likely to come from 桃? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who added the etymology in the first place. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

nasty
We somewhat recently evaluated the etymology, and as a result added several alternative theories. HOWEVER, it is very clear that the word descends from 🇨🇬, being attested since the late 14c (c. 1390), and with that being said I believe the following theories should be removed: Leasnam (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . - "Dutch" didn't exist at the time.
 * Other suggestions include, hardening of , or alteration of . - Just...No.
 * Modern use of the word is sometimes attributed to the popular and often derogatory 19th century American political cartoons of, but the word predates him. - word existed before Thomas Nast was born.
 * The modern Dutch word occurs with the spelling nestich in Middle Dutch; the Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek states that the term is probably cognate with English nasty. The OED supports the Dutch etymon. So this theory should not be discarded lightly. Furthermore, if we remove well-documented theories put forward by respectable sources, users are certain to keep adding them. If any such theories have convincingly been discredited, I think it is better to mention this rather than remove them. --Lambiam 11:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Middle Dutch nestig, nistich doesn't seem (to me) to derive from the word for "nest", as it doesn't mean "like a nest" but rather "nasty, dirty, ugly, bad", which nests are not...birds usually keep them fairly tidy. The word might actually be cognate with the Middle English word. I've updated the entry. I'm fine with leaving the others for their informative value. Leasnam (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the Middelnederlandisch Woordenboek also doesn't derive this from . From the link provided by Lambiam:

 Waarschijnlijk heeft het woord niets met nest, vogelnest, te maken, maar is het één in oorsprong met eng. nasty, vuil, smerig, ook onaangenaam. Daarnaast ''oeng. nast'', vuiligheid, slik (Hall.). The word probably has nothing to do with nest, "bird's nest", but has the same origin as English nasty, "foul, grubby, also unpleasant". In addition Old English nast, "filth, mud" (Hall.).
 * So our Dutch reference traces both the Middle Dutch term and the English term to 🇨🇬. I'm not that up on 🇨🇬, but perhaps this provides a useful clue?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eirikr ! though I wasn't able to find nast (or nāst, næst, etc.) in Old or Middle English with that meaning. I'll keep looking. Leasnam (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Poking around in Duden for any likely cognates, I did stumble across 🇨🇬 and then English relative . Both refer to something soft, which could fit the purported older nast sense of "mud".  But then again, both the DE and EN terms point to older forms with medial, not .  How likely is any such  →  shift?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but it looks on the surface to me that the root might be 🇨🇬, which possibly gave rise to =>  (?) I would consider naschen and nesh to be unrelated to anything from *nataz, as those roots have an initial *hn-  Leasnam (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

sexy time
I thought sexy time ~ sexytime or sexy times ~ sexytimes originates from the Borat film. Am I wrong? I can't find any evidence against: all the citations we have, and all the relevant Urban Dictionary entries I've found, (usually well) postdate the film, or even credit it directly. Oh wait: I've found a 2006 entry on Urban Dictionary that precedes the film but credits the Borat character, and a 2005 entry that precedes the film but not the character's appearance on US television ... hm ... so I think the term is strongly associated with the Borat character, and was at least popularised if not coined by him. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The term was apparently used in an 18 June 2003 post on a site dedicated to the Borat character. --Lambiam 08:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That seems to confirm that the term goes back to the Borat character and was popularised by the film. Shouldn't we note that? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that in general we should identify the coiner of a term when known, for which the etymology section is the appropriate spot. We even have a newly minted coin for that. The fact that all older uses of “sexy time” are associated with Borat makes it a virtual certainty that indeed Baron Cohen (in his incarnation as Borat Sagdiyev) coined the term already in his appearances in Da Ali G Show. --Lambiam 23:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is used in this sketch around 6:40, that according to Wikipedia was aired on 21 February 2003. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  06:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've edited the entry accordingly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

West Frisian duit
Several etymological dictionaries mention West Frisian duit (easily attestable) as a cognate of 🇨🇬, strongly suggesting that it wasn't borrowed from (modern) Dutch. It is also often mentioned as conjecture that the words in both languages may have been borrowed from Old Norse during the Early Middle Ages. Does anyone know whether the West Frisian term can be traced to Old Frisian? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It contains a phoneme that occurs only in terms borrowed from Dutch, so if it's not borrowed, there needs to be an explanation for the non-native phoneme. —Rua (mew) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Pfeifer, Middle Dutch duit is merely cognate with Old Norse þveiti, not borrowed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

-eroo
Do we have any idea where this comes from?

Is it simply an expressive coinage, or similar? Tharthan (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I don’t know if this contributed in any form, but is an old-fashioned spelling of “”, and there are monkey species referred to as . As an obvious addition, an old word is, used by Kipling in his 1897 novel  (see also the supplement to the 1910 Century Dictionary); however, this was a verb, not a noun, and the suffix was actually -oo here. I may be mistaken, but I think that, next to  (described here as Australian slang for “something especially good”, “a sure winner” – not “a little bite”),  was one of the first -eroo nouns. In this 1965 SF story (unfortunately snippet view only) one of the characters does not know what a “switcheroo” is.  --Lambiam 21:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Our entry gives 1889 for first attestation of buckaroo (alt. buckeroo), which we say is from Spanish vaquero. DCDuring (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

selderij/selderie
From the RFE banner in : Where did the /d/ come from? It's a good question. All etymological dictionaries state that it is a borrowing from 17th century French, but did /d/ epenthesis between /l/ and /r/ operate that late or is its presence the result of analogy? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From Middle Dutch and Middle Low German to Dutch and Low German one swayed between -ld- and -ll- in general, like became, and when everything became -ll- one corrected up some of these to -ld- even if they did not have it originally. Typical for Low German/Dutch. Fay Freak (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The form heller for is attested as late as 1657. It seems that Middle Dutch mulre “miller” only solidified into  with its epenthetic /d/ in Modern Dutch; Kiliaan (1599) still lists the form moller. Likewise, the form solre for Modern  is reportedly still occasionally found in the 16th century. And the transition from  to  also took place in the 16th century.  --Lambiam 10:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The ultimate origin of this epenthetic -d-, a well-known phenomenon, is thought to be in oblique forms where -lr- > -ldr- is a quite unremarkable development, though mulre indicates that this -d- was not yet there in Middle Dutch. See, however, Wikipedia.
 * By the way, I wonder why is not covered by us at all. The only mention I can find is in the etymology section of . --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mulder nowadays isn't the main term for "miller" anymore, though it is still present in many dialects. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, the question was about the end date of d epenthesis. But I think the current etymology more or less works. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

cerulean, hoar
The etymology at cerulean says "cognate to 🇨🇬. More at ", but none of those entries link to a common ancestor. Ultimateria (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An earlier version said “from, from . Cognate with ...”, so at that time there was a connection. This was inconsistent with the etymology later provided at , and so an editor changed this a few months ago to “from , from . Cognate with ...” – thereby breaking the alleged PIE connection. --Lambiam 21:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So it was wrong before and now it's right? We can remove the English/Old English connection? Ultimateria (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There can be little doubt that derives from the noun  meaning “sky”. The etymology we have now for the latter allows no cognacy with har/hoar and is in line with the etymology preferred by De Vaan, although he presents it together with other theories and hedges it with words like “may” and “possibly” – nothing sounding as definitive as how we present it. But nothing hoary to be found there, also not as an alternative theory.  --Lambiam 22:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

calm
I looked in a few dictionaries and lexica and didn't find a reference to a Doric Greek form corresponding to Attic Greek  in the LSJ, or an indication that Latin  was derived from it. It's improbable because the Doric would probably have a long vowel, which disagrees with the Latin short vowel. That part of the etymology was added. Still, I'm curious if this etymology has any source whatsoever. — Eru·tuon 18:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from phonetic considerations, it is also unlikely that the verb caleō (“to be hot”) was a borrowing of a noun. There is a verb (“to beguile, especially by music” – like Orpheus), which is an unlikely etymon for semantic reasons.  --Lambiam 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

walrus (Dutch)
Are there any references available for the apparent theory that could also be from wal + reus? It isn't in any of the etymological dictionaries here and seems rather fanciful. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  07:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Looks like a too-clever-by-half paraetymology.
 * I just checked; it was inserted in this edit by User:Morgengave. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

-h- instead of -g- in Gothic -ags
So on the page for Gothic “-𐌰𐌷𐍃“ this is displayed: (This etymology is missing. Please add to it, or discuss it at the Etymology scriptorium. Particularly: “why -h-?”)

The reason is known but I am not totally sure how best to word it for the etymology section of this page.

The reason is as follows: -𐌰𐌷𐍃 is of course a variant of -(𐌰)𐌲𐍃 and it is a matter of stress in the PIE word. It can be summed as working just like Verner’s Law, where -𐌰𐌲𐍃 < PGmc *-agaz < PIE *-kós/ḱos and -𐌰𐌷𐍃 < PGmc *-ahaz < PIE *-kos.
 * You are right, Verner alternants always throw me off for some reason. Thank you, I have fixed it. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

jabón
The descendants list in this Spanish entry has at least a couple misplaced Portuguese loans, though there are some cases where it's not at all clear which language they came from. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

倗
Related to ? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

a little bird told me
The etymology is awfully long. Canonicalization (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

白左
RFV of the etymology: Blend of 白痴 + 左派. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 16:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 白左 is restricted to white people. Apparently 白種人 or 白人 is involved. Also those who say 白左 do not necessarily mean 白左 are idiots (白痴), but sometimes rather hypocrites. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Arabic letters
Can someone clean up the writing style of 's Arabic etymology? Personally I'm unable to parse the whole thing properly, and I'm also not too clear myself on the history involved, so I don't want to accidentally trim necessary info.

Additionally, the following letters all previously had etymologies written by the same user, using a single sentence and substituting in the pertinent letters mad-libs-style.

Using as an example, I changed the overall template from...
 * distinguished by a point, written with that sign before the invention of such points (in rasm) because the scribes understood that Arabic /x/ is represented in Nabataean words that are by their lineage related to the Arabic words that have /x/ in them by /ħ/ written by the Nabataean, from which the Arabic for /ħ/ descends.

...to:
 * Derived from, and originally written as such (in ) by analogy with Nabatean tradition, as Nabatean cognates of Arabic words with /x/ were indiscriminately spelled using.

Can I get a double-check confirming that I preserved the original meaning well enough? Is it necessary to re-add the note at the end that Arabic itself descends from ? M. I. Wright (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You have preserved the original meaning. I should know since I have written the etymologies. You are doing great in preserving content. I focussed somewhat strongly on the mental states the scribes where in, trying to make it clear how aware they were about the relations of the Arabic language and script to the Aramaic language and script, on which there is this excellent piece by Werner Diem basically explaining the same thing but much more profuse. The is special – the etymology explains why samekh (ס) died out in Arabic and shin (ש) is used for /s/ – and I needed many runs to formulate it as it is in order to incorporate all information explicitly (as well as to understand what Diem wrote about it, which I essentially made as concise as I could, and people can’t imagine how complicated that article was, and I have read it being a German natively). I see room for improvement, Imma try a bit. Fay Freak (talk)
 * Done. Fay Freak (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I put the extra explanation in a collapsable table (do we have a basic, non-section-specific table?), since I think it is interesting, but is a bit overwhelming on first sight. Hopefully that's alright with you. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, the rewrite is a lot clearer to follow, and the table looks like a clean solution to me! Thanks, both! M. I. Wright (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of 'ruction'
I was curious about the word 'ruction', Wiktionary has no etymology. I have no formal training in the field, but it occurs to me it could simply be from the same root as eruct, to belch or burp.
 * I moved your discussion here. We typically don't use the talk pages of community discussion pages to talk about entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis would be that was formed from the Latin verb, or by apheresis from *eruction, a noun corresponding to . However, the corresponding Latin nouns are  and , giving rise to English  and . So this seems unlikely.  --Lambiam 08:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Chirag
RFV of the etymology.

attempted to tag this for deletion with a Wikipedia template on the grounds "False content, origin of word not Sanskrit, questionable IPA. Better source already on Wiktionary (چراغ)". Since Wiktionary is organized by spelling and language rather than topic, and this is an English, rather than Urdu entry, we can't do that. We should, however, verify the etymology and otherwise clean up this old, fossilized interwiki. I wasn't able to find the supposed Sanskrit etymon in Monier-Williams, but my Sanskrit is a bit rusty after three decades... Chuck Entz (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see the name is used in India, but is there any evidence it is used by “many ... Pacific Ocean persons”? BTW, “Chirag” is apparently also the name of a . --Lambiam 10:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Leong
RFV of the etymology. In Hokkien, 梁 is not usually read as Liông when it's a surname. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

sloep (Dutch)
The etymology of differs drastically from the EWN, who strongly argue for a borrowing from  (which must be Middle French). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I see that the corresponding Dutch Wiktionary entry at nl:sloep gives a different source the Chronologisch woordenboek, but ultimately the same date of 1588 as the ENW entry. (NB: The C.w. source might also be the source for the ENW, can't tell for certain.)
 * Meanwhile, our entry has no sources, and derives noun from verb  -- which term we don't have, and ultimately neither does the Dutch Wiktionary, nor the Chronologisch woodenboek, nor the Dutch Language Union's official Dutch dictionary, nor the ENW.  The most these other sources show is  as the plural of, which we do have.
 * It looks to me like our etym for is bogus, and predicated on a non-existent word.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 * According to the etymology section for, the Dutch etymological dictionaries of De Vries relate the noun sloep to the verb , not *sloepen. Our entry mentions  as a possible etymon, something Le Trésor considers unlikely, not only because sloep is attested only considerably later, but also on phonetic grounds. The figurative use of a dialectal form chalope meaning “nutshell” seems perfectly plausible to me; compare the figurative use of Dutch notendop and German Nussschale. Given the closeness, both in form and in meaning, between Dutch sloep and French chaloupe, it appears unlikely these are unrelated, and then, for a variety of reasons (dating, phonetics, etymon), the transfer from French to Dutch is the far more likely direction.  --Lambiam 09:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

chagrin
Hello ! I've made extensive modifications to the etymology at, bringing it in line with what it says in CNRTL here []. I've looked at the Century etymology, and I have some issues with it. I can only find a single use of Old French (as  1389) where it is an adjective. Otherwise, the noun doesn't appear till the Middle French period (so I'm not sure which Old French changin Century is seeing). The CNRTL seems to distinguish the two senses as different words, a chagrin¹ for the "shagreen" sense, and a chagrin³ for the "distress" sense. I have left ours under a single etymology for the time being. Leasnam (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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


text:
Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/November

zelfingenomen
The etymology reads: "possibly a calque of English self-absorbed." Though the chronology fits, I'm sceptical about this. Ingenomen and absorbed are not really good analogies, and the Dutch phrase met zichzelf ingenomen, from ingenomen zijn met X, is attested as early as the mid 18th century (though the main text is a translation from English, the extremely long biographical foreword is mostly absent in the English version). Any thoughts? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Does really mean “self-absorbed“? I think it is related to the adjective innemend, “charming” (not listed as an adjective here), from the verb, “to conquer” – specifically by breaking through the defences, hence figuratively “to conquer by charm”. People who are zelfingenomen are charmed by themselves.  --Lambiam 07:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The formation of the word appears to fit a pattern:
 * door zichzelf benoemd → zelfbenoemd
 * van zichzelf bewust → zelfbewust
 * met zichzelf ingenomen → zelfingenomen
 * door zichzelf uitgeroepen → zelfuitgeroepen
 * door zichzelf verklaard → zelfverklaard
 * door zichzelf verkozen → zelfverkozen
 * van zichzelf verzekerd → zelfverzekerd
 * van zichzelf voldaan → zelfvoldaan
 * --Lambiam 06:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 * I have changed the definition to “self-complacent, self-satisfied, smug” and removed the calque theory. --Lambiam 16:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

𢳂
RFV of the etymology. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

open
For this word did the noun really come from the verb? Is there a source that supports this? The etymologies were divided back in March 2017 by, and before that they were just all under the first etymology. Century lumps the adjective and noun together under one etymology. Also, the MEC says the noun comes from the adjective. (I don't know how authoritative their etymologies are.) If those are correct I would think etym 3 should be recombined with etym 1. -Mike (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that some current noun uses come from the Middle English noun (to bring into the open) and some others from the modern English adjective (the open championship → the open). We currently only list a Middle English adjective open (as well as an Old English one), but no such noun or verb. I see no reason to doubt the Middle English Compendium. Etymologically, in Proto-Germanic, the verb is derived from the adjective. --Lambiam 06:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

缽
“Glyph origin: – a basic (humble) pot.” Tagged since October 17, 2016, but not listed. --Lambiam 07:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Looks like folk etymology to me. 本 is acting as a phonetic component according to Zhengzhang Shangfang. I've revised the glyph origin. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RFV: LA rhonch- < GRC ῥέγχος/ῥόγχος
Is the different vowel a mark of PoS? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * RO râncheza, LA rhonchus & CA/ES/IT/GL/PT ronco (and LA !!!) say from GRC
 * CA/ES/GL/PT roncar & LA rhoncho/rhonchare say from GRC
 * L&S and Bailly only have as a variant of, but give the verb  (ῥογκιῶ) as a Dorian variant of . Also,  is given as a synonym of . Unless stated otherwise, the POS is Noun for all variants.  --Lambiam 10:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are different grades. The best known example of ablaut is in inflection, where different parts of the paradigm in many Indo-European languages sometimes use different ablaut grades. In English we have sing (present), sang (simple past) and sung (past participle). I don't know why the ablaut grades are different between the different Ancient Greek dialects, but the dialects that colonized parts of Italy were mostly different from the Attic dialect that became dominant in Greece itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Κρότων from κροτών
City https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD

Plant https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%84%CF%8E%CE%BD

pleoh
RFV of the etymology.

tagged but not listed Leasnam (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've edited it since the tag was added. Leasnam (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hebrew גּוֹיָה as feminine of גוי
I'm aware that the use of to mean non-Jew, often assumed to be a semantic loan from Yiddish, was in fact used as early as Maimonides as well as by the Sephardi Joseph Karo.

However, I am less sure about the origin of the feminine equivalent, whether it originated in Rabbinic Hebrew or whether it first appeared in Yiddish. My guess is that it's obvious enough to have originated independently of Yiddish, and that even Yiddish speakers forming the feminine with -e would have had a Hebrew prototype in mind (otherwise you would expect a more Yiddish feminine form, as in ), but I am going to be searching for textual evidence in rabbinic literature as well as in the non-rabbinic literature of Muslim and Christian Spain, and would appreciate help with this. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

active shooter
1. Are etymologies like that allowed in the first place and what is it exactly supposed to convey? 2. In any case, I think this sense is early 2000s at the latest, probably becoming current in the wake of the Columbine shooting. Perhaps a 1999 cite can be found in a media corpus. Google results before 2000 are completely unreliable however. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 * It creates the incorrect suggestion that the term was coined in the October 2008 booklet. Here is a police use from May 2007. --Lambiam 22:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This Word document, which uses the term in the first paragraph of the Introduction, is from March 2004. --Lambiam 11:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And here we see a use in a 2000 issue of Soldiers of Fortune, probably the April issue. (Quote: ‘The term “Active Shooter” is defined in a recent Illinois Tactical Officers Association newsletter as, “one or more subjects who participate in a random or systematic shooting spree, demonstrating their intent to continuously harm others. Their overriding objective appears to be that of mass murder, rather than other criminal conduct such as robbery, hostage taking, etc.”’.) --Lambiam 12:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Annona
RFV of the etymology: As an IP has pointed out on the talk page, Wikipedia, citing a book called "Florida Ethnobotany", traces it to a Taino word, annon or anón, which we have as a Spanish entry. The DRAE entry for anón says "De or. caribe", which complicates things: "caribe" could mean either "Caribbean" or "Carib". If the latter is meant, that conflicts with Wikipedia, since Taino is an Arawakan language unrelated to Carib. Taxonomicaly, the name traces back to, in his 1753 edition of Species Plantarum. It's interesting to note that the names he cites are all with one "n". Perhaps he changed the spelling on the assumption that the word originally came from Latin. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 * The Spanish term has (according to the DRAE), next to the sense of a tree (or its fruit) in the family Annonaceae, also the obsolete sense of “provision of victuals”. There can be little doubt that the latter sense descends from, as does ; see  on Wikipedia. It seems plausible to me that Linnaeus “corrected” the Spanish spelling in coming up with his Neo-Latin Annona. It seems somewhat less plausible – although not entirely unthinkable – that he thought the botanical sense came from the other sense, what with the rather considerable semantic distance between “provision of victuals” and “sugar-apple”. Curiously, the 1911 Century Dictionary has the spelling Anona.  --Lambiam 11:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Script hybrid
How do you think about these characters if they were going to exist in Unicode: my tweet with 3 pics. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

lose face
A calque of Chinese? Why? Canonicalization (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not ? Leasnam (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But why specifically from and not (also) from ?  --Lambiam 06:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Quiambao
RFV of the etymology. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 18:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

🇨🇬
RFE for this entry and. A lot of sources 1234 (ish) seem to think that this is from 🇨🇬. I noticed someone tried to add this etymology but it was quickly reverted. Does it not work? Or maybe it was because that editor was just an IP and didn't cite a source...

Further confusing things is the relationship between and  (are they alternate forms?) but that's a different question I suppose. DJ K-Çel (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was reverted because the IPA put a Proto-Indo-European form as an Ancient Greek word and used, well and maybe the formal explanation wasn’t really there either. Connecting to random roots is easy. Fay Freak (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've moved to, since the West Germanic descendants are weak. I've also added the descendants of  to . I think we can delete . Leasnam (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

خي
The Levantine interjection, verbalizing a sigh of relief. Is it by any chance related to ? (I'm thinking of elongation along the lines of perhaps leading to eventual apocope of the .) M. I. Wright (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Arabic جوا and برا
I'm thinking specifically of the dialectal terms juwwa "inside" (currently recorded for Hijazi Arabic under ) and barra "outside". Wiktionary seems to prefer to derive them as pure-Arabic adverbial accusatives of and, but this seems a little bit dubious of a semantic leap... in contrast, consider the Syriac lemmas  and , which match the dialectal Arabic forms in pronunciation and seem to already have the relevant meanings. Now, crackpot nationalists in Lebanon like to use these two terms in particular to help prove that Lebanese is totally not Arabic!!!1, and while that's obviously BS for more reasons than I can count, I wonder if it's not too out-there to propose a serious Aramaic origin for the Arabic words. The sheer spread of the pair (it literally exists all the way from the Peninsula to Malta) would indicate quite an early borrowing, I think, but I'm not well-versed in this history at all, so I don't know what more to look for. Thoughts? M. I. Wright (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

baggi
Do we have any idea where Old Norse gets this word from? Tharthan (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The etymology section at presents a guess.  --Lambiam 09:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm going to need to look more into it. Does bǫggr have any modern, Scandinavian descendants? Tharthan (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nynorsk is said to be connected to . Leasnam (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the Swedish Etymological Dictionary appears to claim that the odds are that the medial "gg" is of hypocoristic origin, but I don't know what to make of that. Is the word somehow expressive in origin?

 * This is a stretch, but (also, ) could there perhaps be some sort of relation with Proto-Germanic *būdilaz? Could the medial consonant have shifted in a descendant in a daughter language, and then that descendant was borrowed into Old Norse?

 * Also, I would imagine that Icelandic böggull (which we give no etymology for at the moment) is related to one of those two Old Norse etyma. No? Tharthan (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * böggull (Old Norse ) is simply a diminutive of baggi. As for the origin, it has been proposed that baggi might somehow be tied somehow to 🇨🇬, although I would see several difficulties with that proposal. Leasnam (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 * There is also Icelandic böggur, which, like bǫggr, seems to have two senses (“bag” and “harm”). It is unclear to me if these are non-cognate homonyms, or strongly divergent senses with a common origin. See also the treatment here (pdf) under the lemma *bøggvir on p. 1398; it looks to me as if the author does not think these homonyms are cognates, and apparently believes that bǫggr in the “harm” sense has an uncertain origin. I do not quite see how the sense of would have developed into “clumsy person” or “bundle” – several of its descendants mean “executioner”. Also, the required consonant shift is not a common one, although, once you are in hypocoristic territory (not in Kansas anymore) much is possible.  --Lambiam 21:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 * I fnd the etymology of intriguing, especially the part about conflation with, which appears cognate to . Could something similar have happened in Scandinavia?  --Lambiam 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 * >I see that the Swedish Etymological Dictionary appears to claim that the odds are that the medial "gg" is of hypocoristic origin, but I don't know what to make of that. Is the word somehow expressive in origin?<
 * It's referring to its use as a nickname. I wonder if the -gi on baggi might not be a suffix, related in some way to Old English . Leasnam (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some digging. There is a similar word in ON,, which appears to be formed from + . I wonder if baggi could have originated from something like *bakgi (bak + -gi), derived from bak "back", meaning "small back, mini-back" or "something small worn on one's back" = "bag" (?). Only pure speculation, of course, as I'm not sure how the combination k + g works out in ON, if it becomes kk or gg Leasnam (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant, not.
 * > I wonder if baggi could have originated from something like *bakgi (bak + -gi), derived from bak'' "back", meaning "small back, mini-back" or "something small worn on one's back" = "bag" (?).
 * That's an interesting thought, Leasnam. Tharthan (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In Old Norse, X + means “not X”.  --Lambiam 11:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are possibly 2 suffixes being discussed here: the one I am referring to (which is theoretical and probably a relic by the time of ON (not sure)) is the same one found in, which would come from 🇨🇬. I apologise for not making that clearer. Leasnam (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, when referring to 🇨🇬, Kroonen says "Even within Germanic itself, the word corresponds irregularly to 🇨🇬, which points to 🇨🇬 next to ." do we have a corresponding reconstruction? DJ K-Çel (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * to my knowledge we do not Leasnam (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

hawker
Ought sense two under etymology one (the kind of dragonfly) be under etymology two, or is it indeed related to sense one under etymology one? Tharthan (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

cras
The current explanation given at is not particularly satisfactory. Like, what's with the -r-? Does de Vaan have a more precise account? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That etymology comes from Lewis & Short (1879), who write, without further elucidation, “crās, adv. root ka-, ku-, to lighten, burn; Gr. καίω; cf. Sanscr. cvas, the same”. De Vaan has something completely different:
 * PIt. *krās? It. cognates: Fal. cra [adv.] ‘tomorrow’.
 * PIE *ḱer-h2 [nom.], *ḱr-h2-os [gen.], *ḱr-éh2 [loc.], *ḱr-ḗh2 [coll.] ‘head’?, IE cognates: Hit. ketkar [adv.] ‘at the head (of), on top’ < PIE *ḱed + *ḱr(h2), Gr. ἐπὶ κάρ ‘head down‘, ἁνὰ κάρ ‘upwards‘ < *ḱr; κάρᾱ [n.], κάρη (ep.) ‘head’ < *ḱr-eh2-.
 * --Lambiam 11:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes a lot more sense and should be used instead. We really shouldn't be relying on a general Latin dictionary from 1879 when a far more current and (on etymology) far superior book (that is, moreover, specifically an etymological dictionary of Italic, and therefore used just about everywhere else in Wiktionary) is available. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean seriously, can you imagine relying on a 140-year-old work in any other field of science? I've now replaced the L&S explanation with de Vaan's. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Abib

 * I reformatted and corrected the etymology at Abib as well as I could, but I am still uncertain. With the original etymology saying "The month was so called from barley being at that time in ear" and the definitions at as they are, the literal translation clearly was not "an ear of corn," but I am uncertain whether "an ear of barley" is a missing translation at  or incorrect. I am also uncertain whether the use of "literally" is proper or not. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Original etymology: From Hebrew (abhībh), literally an ear of corn. The month was so called from barley being at that time in ear.
 * Current etymology: From Hebrew (avív, literally “an ear of barley”); so-called because barley is planted at that time of year.
 * Definitely not in the US sense of “maize”, but note the very first sense given: “ The main cereal plant grown for its grain in a given region, such as oats in parts of Scotland and Ireland, and wheat or barley in England and Wales”. The KJV translates the word in Leviticus 2:14 as “green ears of corn”.  is more specific, but emmer wheat was also cultivated early in the Fertile Crescent – can we be sure how specific the Biblical term  was?  --Lambiam 11:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Triscuit
In [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Triscuit&type=revision&diff=58068221&oldid=50910518], the claim was added that the name comes from "triple" + "biscuit", from the triple ingredients of wheat, oil, and salt. However, I have heard the claim that the name originates from the fact that they were, as an early marketing slogan said, "baked with electricity", and I notice that (according to Wikipedia) oil and salt were only added to Triscuits several decades after they were first made. I can't actually find any authoritative evidence for either of the supposed etymologies. - -sche (discuss) 08:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The right-hand page of an advertising pamphlet seen here, as well as this ad from 1903, state clearly that the product was composed of whole wheat, nothing else . So the current etymology must be wrong. While the early ads make a great deal of the product being æmade and baked by electricity”, I see nothing specifically confirming that this influenced the choice of name, and any association triggered by the name may have been fortuitous. It may also have been chosen as suggesting the next thing after, as naturally follows . The editors of the Edinburg Medical Journal in 1903 took the name to literally mean “thrice-cooked”, as did the editors of The Medical Press and Circular weekly.  --Lambiam 10:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wheat, water, electricity make 3 "ingredients".
 * What seems a better conjecture is that the element tri is from the three-step baking process. Biscuits are (1) baked; then (2) dried in a slow oven. The wheat for Triscuits is (1) cooked in water, the result having 50% moisture content; (2) "tempered" to make sure the remaining water is evenly distributed; and (3) baked to reduce moisture content to 5%. The mechanical layering steps are ignored in this reckoning. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

comedy, comoedus
According to comoedus, κωμῳδός comes from κωμῳδία, but according to https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=comedy and https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/comedy and https://www.dwds.de/wb/Kom%C3%B6die, it's the other way round. And https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comedy and comedy don't even mention κωμῳδός.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/comedy talks about komodios but is apparently not a reliable website. --Espoo (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Liddell & Scott suggest that is derived from  but are mum about the relationship between  and  – and likewise for  and . I am tempted to think that  =, and  = , making the whole issue moot.  --Lambiam 10:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

inofficial
Is borrowed from, or is simply an independent formation from en?

 * Yet another possibility is that this was borrowed from Old French, like, or from with adaptation to official. The oldest occurrence in English I found with GBS is in a book from 1803, while  is seen in a book from 1676 (line 5 on the page). Webster 1831 explains the word as en. I’m afraid there is no way to determine with any degree of certainty to what extent this is a borrowing or an independent but analogous formation.  --Lambiam 21:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


text:
नुसते

Etymology
,, from. Compare 🇨🇬,.

Adjective

 * 1) mere, plain, simple

Adverb

 * 1)  merely

title: नुसते