Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2017/April

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← March 2017 · April 2017 · May 2017 → · (current)

---

Hungarian "bátya"

Could it be that Hungarian "bácsi" (uncle) comes from "bátya" (uncle; brother), and that the latter is a Slavic loanword.

• Proto-Slavic: *batę, *batja (uncle/brother/father). Serbo-Croatian: baća/баћа (brother; father; ancestor); Bulgarian: баща (father; ancestor); Czech: báťa (brother; cousin; friend); Russian: батя/батько (father; elderly man); Ukrainian: батьо/батько (father); Belarusian: баця/бацька (father); Old East Slavic: батѧ... etc.

At the first glance, Proto-Slavic reconstruction would be *batę because it's "батѧ" in OES (Old East Slavic), and since "ę" gave "ja" in Russian (compare врѣмѧ and время), it seems to make sense, however, then the rest of the descendants of this Proto-Slavic word would look differently, unless they were all loaned from another Slavic language. Actually, reconstruction *batja makes the most sense, since all of the descendants in Modern Slavic languages seem to correspond. And the OES "батѧ" could be explained by the fact that in OES it was already pronounced as "ja" - and "ꙗ" and "ѧ" were used interchangeably. CHr0mChIk (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. These etymologies for both bácsi and bátya are indeed already recognized by {{R:Zaicz 2006}}. --Tropylium (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

allectivus and -ivus

User:I'm so meta even this acronym claims that allectivus is formed directly by attaching -ivus to allego. But this doesn't make any sense; where did the t come from? I fixed the etymology to point to the past participle allectus instead, but this got reverted. As it stands now, the etymology is not complete, because the t remains unexplained. Is the suffix actually -tivus? —CodeCat 13:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's common, or at least not uncommon, to give the lemma form of the term (here allego) and not another form, see e.g. nominativus and relativus. And besides grammars which could explain the t, there is -ivus which explains it: "Added to the perfect passive participial stem of verbs". That is, allectivus is allect- (cp. the inflection: {{la-conj-3rd|alleg|allēg|allēct}}) + -ivus, where the former belongs allego. -84.161.17.166 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the etymology should be explicit and say something like "From allēct-, the perfect passive participial stem of allegō, + -īvus (verbal adjective–forming suffix)." I recall trying to do this before and having someone revert me. — Eru·tuon 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I added all the words ending in -īvus that I found in L&S early on in my time on Wiktionary. I'm not sure why I chose the verbal lemma as opposed to perfect participle except that the adjectives tend to pertain more to the verbs than their perfect participles. I dunno. —JohnC5 01:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Some people could simply do it the way it's done in dictionaries. E.g. in Gaffiot it is: "nōmĭnātīvus, a, um (nomino)". As printed dictionaries often do not cover participles separately, it makes more sense for them to point to allego, nomino and the like.

As the English wiktionary covers inflected forms and particples, one could link to them and mention allego, nomino etc. too like suggested above. -84.161.17.166 04:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: As I said, “I don’t really mind it if you prefer the derivation from allectus, but let’s at least have a consistent message at -īvus, OK?”. All I want is consistency instead of contradiction. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to get technical, the suffix likely originally was -tivus, probably derived from attaching *-wos to the stem of *-tiH-on-. At some point Latin speakers started to see -tiō and -tivus as if derived from the perfect passive participle, sometimes even detaching the -t- to give -iō and -ivus but these were never productive. Forms like vacivus and nocivus are misleading because they are by all likelihood secondary. Anglom (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Although I can't say with certainty that the *-t- in *-tiH- did not come from the past participle originally; it just seems less than ideal to me because -tiō has almost wholly replaced inherited *-tis in its role. Anglom (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

metamour

This appears to be based on a reanalysis of paramour as composed of para- + amour. (In fact, I was surprised to learn that that is not the correct etymology.) Do you agree? What's the technical term for a formation like metamour or cheeseburger? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Rebracketing? That's apparently the explanation for the second element of each of your examples, but doesn't address the role of the first elements Chuck Entz (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Compare monokini. If the first element is indeed intended to be meta-, then I would say it's a blend of meta- and paramour or meta- and amour, based on a playful or serious(ly mistaken) reanalysis of paramour as para- + amour. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

*skrinkwaną, *(s)ker-

*skrinkwaną (“to shrink, pull together, shrivel”) isn't sourced. The etymology has a link to *sker- (“to wrinkle, wither”), but that article doesn't exist. The editor used ine-pro as template parameter for the mention template, so I suppose it wasn't a seasoned editor.

An article for *(s)ker- does exist, but its article gives "to cut". Other articles linking there give different meanings (e.g. crux, but that's a different discussion), so maybe this is the page *skriwana should link to, too.

*(s)kelh₁- (“to wither, parch”) matches the meaning much better and is close enough to suspect that this is a relevant root. I suspect this is a derivative from *(s)ker-. A change from r to h₁ is not much of a stretch, is it? An l suffix (or infix in a compound word) that moved around or something else would have to be explained, though, I guess. Withering leather on wooden frame is a logical connection.

Slightly related, but more of a stretch: Other articles give "to bend, turn" for *(s)ker-, with source. I still suppose a cross as a scratch mark would somehow inform that formation. To bend on the other hand would be homonym, but not really related, as far as I can see. Can someone chime in on this, what do cutting and bending have in common? 91.66.42.138 19:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The etymology doesn't make much sense. *(s)ker- would lead to *skeraną, which is another verb. *skrinkwaną requires *skrengʷ-. —CodeCat 20:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the links as promised and then some. tanner being a low ranking profession, probably even back then could explain curious colloquial sound changes. Add nasal speech impediment to that to diffuse a clear r to muffled sound becoming a laryngeal. I'm going out on a limp, again. Anyway, *(s)ker- led to many words. If its related to cutting with stone tools, the root might go a long way back. Assuming *skrengʷ- for the sake of the argument might still derive from *(s)k_r-, no? 91.66.42.138 21:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible, but very much ad-hoc. You'd have to explain the identity of the -engʷ- which derives one root from the other. Given the lack of parallel examples that I'm aware of, that's going to be hard. Thus, it's better to treat the two roots as unrelated. Whatever relationship there is between them is beyond current linguistics to retrieve. —CodeCat 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

wrong mentions *wer-, *werǵ- and *wrengʰ- (whence wring). Is that a parallel?

ring mentions *hringaz which mentions *(s)krengʰ- and describes it as extended nasalized form derived from *(s)ker-, but again no sources. 91.66.42.138 10:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing with these "extended" roots is that they are only found in Germanic, so they can't really be reconstructed for PIE. That in turn makes finding a PIE solution difficult. Also, -engʰ- and -engʷ- are different things. —CodeCat 12:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

settle

Older dictionaries and works on etymology, including the 1914 Century Dictionary, consider two verbs to have been conflated in settle to such an extent as to now be inseparable:

• settle (“place or become placed in a fixed position; clarify; calm; subside; colonize”) from Middle English set(t)len from Old English setlan (“fix”) from setl (cognate to Dutch zetelen)
• settle (“determine, decide; dispose of; calm”) from Middle English sahtlen, saughtelen (“reconcile, make peace, calm, subside”) from Old English sahtlian (“reconcile”) (from saht), which also lived on in dialects as sattle

(The Middle English Dictionary has both Middle English words and notes that they may have influenced each other.) Newer dictionaries of modern English that I looked at, however, derive all verb senses from setlan and do not mention (or disclaim) sahtlian. Should our etymology mention sahtlian? - -sche (discuss) 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Loos good. Leasnam (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

隹 vs. 唯

It is asserted at 維#Glyph_origin that 隹 (OC *tjul) once bore the reading *ɢʷi. Is there (primary) evidence for this? I had thought that *ɢʷi was proper to 唯 (and that its construction was to be taken as "the sound that a bird 隹 says 口"). 4pq1injbok (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hanyu Da Zidian: [1]. Wyang (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian чорнобиль

The page for Russian чернобыль 'mugwort' says this is derived from a Proto-Slavic *čьrnobylь, which in turn derives it from "*čьrnъ (“black”) + *bylь (< *byti (“to be”) + *-lь)", but the page for Ukrainian Чорнобиль, 'Chernobyl' which in turn comes from Ukrainian чорнoбиль 'mugwort' gives a different etymology, treating it as a later Ukrainian formation "from чoрнe (čórne, “black”, neuter of чoрний (čórnyj)) + билля́ (bylljá, “grass blades or stalks”). I see it as unlikely that two similar words could have different etymologies; is it possible that the Ukrainian etymology is a folk etymology? There is also a similar Czech term: černobýl, which gives a third etymology based on "černý + -o- + bylina", which also seems related to *čьrnobylь. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't černý ("black") + -o- ("about/for") + bylina ("herb") the same as the second one? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The second is Ukrainian, while the third is Czech; in the etymology given for the second, the second component mentioned is билля́ (bylljá, “grass blades or stalks”), while in the third the second component mentioned is bylina "herb". These could be cognate, but that is irrelevant as both чорно́биль and černobýl are presented as, respectively, original Ukrainian and Czech formations. However, it seems to me that both of these, as well as чернобыль, must come from a common source due to their extreme similarity and showing all the expected changes for these languages, namely, Proto-Slavic *čьrnobylь -Hazarasp (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In a sense all three etymologies could be equivalent. The second element is surely equivalent to Serbo-Croatian bilje, biljka (“plant”), it seems like it might be associated with mugwort specifically in North Slavic, see Polish bylica (“mugwort, stalk”), Upper Sorbian balica (“mugwort”). However, the herb etymon is apparently derived from *byti or at least its PIE ancestor *bʰuH "to become, to grow" + -*lь.

I'd advise against reconstructing the word to Proto-Slavic, just list the formations in each other's etymologies. Crom daba (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made some changes, is this acceptable? Crom daba (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I made a few more minor changes. --WikiTiki89 19:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Czech -o- is an interfix (like Russian -о- (-o-) and Ukrainian -о- (-o-)), and is not the preposition meaning "about/for". There is no question that the first part of Russian черно́быль (černóbylʹ), Ukrainian чорно́биль (čornóbylʹ), and Czech černobýl comes from Proto-Slavic *čьrnъ (“black”). The only confusion is about where the last part comes from. And all three of these languages should have the same etymology. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

zocken

I don't know of a Yiddish word that would fit this claimed etymon... Anyone have insight or a better etymological dictionary of German? @Angr, Wikitiki89 —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Pfeiffer says: "aus jidd. zschocken, zachkenen ‘spielen’, hebr. śᵉḥōq ‘lachen, scherzen, spielen’". Kolmiel (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the second spelling is more correct. He also mentions zachkan, zachkener for "gambler". Of course, this would be tsakhkan or so in an English-based transcription. Kolmiel (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that with many of these Dutch and German words that derive from colloquial Yiddish, the Yiddish term is nowadays obscure and not found in any dictionary. That's to be expected I guess since today's Yiddish dictionaries are based mainly on the Eastern Yiddish of the late 19th century on. By this time many older colloquial expressions may have fallen out of use. Furthermore, Dutch and German mainly had contact with Western Yiddish. Anyway, as far as the Hebrew etymon, I think the root צ־ח־ק makes more phonological sense than שׂ־ח־ק, although the latter is not out of the question; their meanings are very similar anyway (and they probably started off as dialectal forms of each other). --WikiTiki89 15:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I didn't even realize that śᵉḥōq would be with ש /s/ rather than צ. Yours is indeed more likely. Or else they might have been merged in the Yiddish word. (I'd thought that zschocken was a misprint for zchocken, but maybe the -s- is intended.) Kolmiel (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Something came to my mind right now. In pubs around here, they play a kind of game of dice, which is called Schocken with /ʃ/. That would be very likely to be the same word. Kolmiel (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well actually both שְׂחוֹק (śəḥōq) and צְחוֹק (ṣəḥōq) exist with similar meanings, but generally ś is used to transcribe שׂ. There is also the word טשאָקען (tshoken) (from Slavic, cf. Russian чо́каться (čókatʹsja)), which means "to clink glasses together", not sure if it's relevant. --WikiTiki89 18:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, de:zocken has a great deal to say on the subject. I suppose I'll just copy over what they say, unless anyone sees a problem with that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • One problem might be lack of attribution violating the Creative Commons license, which can be easily solved by mentioning in either the edit summary or on the talk page where the material came from. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Found it:

• Beinfeld/Bochner:

  צחקן דער (ים) [TSAKhKN – TSAKhKONIM]slang gambler

  צחקע|ן וו (גע–ט) [TSAKhKE/TSKhOKE]slang gamble

• Harkavy, Yiddish-English-Hebrew dictionary:

  צַחקן s. (fl.) gambler מְשַׂחֵק (בקלפים וכד').

  צַחְקען v. n. (fl.) to play שַׂחֵק; to jest, joke בַּדֵּחַ, הִתְלוֹצֵץ.

--WikiTiki89 20:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

gecko

Can we verify the existence of Malay gekok? On this page one dictionary says that the Malay word is totek. And another says "gecko" might be derived from Achehnese gèh-gòh ("busy"). This says that it's unsure if it's Malay and the form they mention is gekop, not gekok. With all of this, I just want to rule out that we're dealing with some made-up dictionary word. Kolmiel (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the etymology, pointing out that the existence of the Malay word is, as yet, not quite sure. Kolmiel (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

pusus

Why in etymology "See putus"? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 10:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's "From puer. See also putus" and in putus ("Etymology 2") it is: "Another form of pūsus, from puer." If that's correct, then the entries should somehow point to each other. -84.161.17.166 04:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

cencerro, cincerro

Our Spanish entry claims that it comes from Basque, the RAE dictionary claims it is onomatopoeic, and the Portuguese entry is silent on the matter. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that a variant of Basque zintzarri ? Leasnam (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Albanian rânë

Can someone verify this etymology for rânë in light of the most recent edit? I get the feeling some Albanian users are trying to avoid having words descended from Latin and look for native roots to them. In some cases, they may be right, but I feel like it's stretching it in this case. Similarly, aftë, tmerr, lirë, shtremb, vepër have also been changed. The edits themselves also look less than neat. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted rânë's edits and added sources. --Vahag (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

頬白鮫

RFV of the etymology. ばかFumiko￥^talk 04:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

speel

I reverted an edit by User:Mountebank1 that made a mess of the entry, but it wasn't entirely their fault: this is obviously a convergence of a number of different etymologies under one spelling. I split it into 5 etymologies based on my best guesses, but I would appreciate it if someone could put everything on a more solid footing and provide etymological details. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

拍拖

RFV of the etymology: park + talk? @Huhu9001. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting but definitely sounds like folk etymology - may be keepable if explained as such. Wyang (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

globin

Is this a backformation from hemoglobin? DTLHS (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the OED, no. I'll fix the entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

bird#Etymology 4

“penis” (in “Asian slang”): Entry explains it as a calque of Malay burung (“bird; penis”). Is there a source for this? Association between “bird” and “penis” is common in East and Southeast Asia; cf. Chinese 鳥, Tagalog ibon. Wyang (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking back in history, the evolution of the section was:

Edit	By	Etymology	What kind of slang
diff (March 2006)	anon	nil	Filipino slang
diff (March 2006)	User:Davilla	Possible literal translation of Chinese slang or other Asian origin	Filipino slang
diff (May 2012)	User:Amir Hamzah 2008	From Malay burung (“bird / penis”).	Asian slang

Wyang (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who called it a calque, just because it was clearly not a straightforward borrowing of burung. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess the question was whether the (sole) Malay origin could be verified - it is apparently a calque from some language(s). Wyang (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The comparison is not that unusual, cf. budgie smugglers. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Or, indeed, cock. There is a fairly natural analogy here that does not necessarily require any calquing in any direction (but, of course, if this use is confined to "Asian slang", that's incidental evidence of a sort). --Tropylium (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Let us not forget pecker ;) Leasnam (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Chaslyn

Where did the rare female given name Chaslyn come from? I suspect it is a feminine form of Chase...? Or am I incorrect? Could someone please elaborate? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Another possibility would be Chas, a nickname for Charles. Just as likely, it may be nothing but a random combination someone thought would sound nice. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Антарктика/Антарктида

What led to the Антарктика - Антарктида divergency? As far as I know, East Slavic languages are the only ones with a -tida ending at all. 78.0.218.54 23:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In German it's called Antarktis, which suggests an Ancient Greek pattern of nominative Ἀνταρκτίς (Antarktís) / genitive Ἀνταρκτίδος (Antarktídos) (compare Ἀτλαντίς, Ἀτλαντίδος (Atlantís, Atlantídos), so maybe there is a byform with "-id-" running around the Middle Ages somewhere. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it must be the Orthodox Connection. Apparently Romanian also has Antarctica/Antarctida. How come I didn't think to check that earlier... (formerly 78.0) 93.139.41.69 16:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You missed more than just that: Italian Antartide, Spanish Antártida, etc. --WikiTiki89 16:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the Duden and other sources, Antarktis is the region and Antarktika is the continent. Антарктида might be coined after the pattern of Atlantis (Атлантида in Russian), which was quite popular since Donnelly's book published in 1882. Шурбур (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really the point here, but what you describe is prescription rather than actual use. Antarktika is very rare in German. There's a searchable corpus of the newspaper Die Zeit from 1946 to 2016 at dwds.de. "Antarktis" has 1690 hits, "Antarktika" has 26 altogether. Just a single one between 1956 and 1981. And another single one between 1996 and 2010. Kolmiel (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Ανταρκτίδα gets some hits in Google Books, although very few. And Ανταρκτίς gets one. --WikiTiki89 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

-ида is just from the Greek stem (ending in -id) plus a feminine ending -а. Pretty common when borrowing from the сlassical languages, hence Themis → Фемида, Nemesis → Немезида and so on. Шурбур (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is the existence of the Greek source word. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the source for the German form Arktis? Greek ἀρκτίς seems to be uncommon. Шурбур (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be chiefly a German backformation. Pfeiffer says: "Im 19. Jh. werden dazu die Substantive Arktis f. und Antarktis f. ‘Gebiet um den Nord- bzw. Südpol’ gebildet." Kolmiel (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

The etymology has become a short essay. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. Starting an etymology with "The general principle..." is never a good sign. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

While we're talking about this: it looks to me like the quote in the etymology has a lot more text than necessary for etymological purposes. Would anyone object to trimming it down to just the part in quotes? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

cagey

Is the etymology really unknown? This looks like a straightforward derivation from cage +‎ -y, and the semantics make more or less sense. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OED Online also gives the etymology as "unknown", for what it's worth. BigDom 09:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

scuttle

The etymologies of the nouns don't look like they're properly sorted out. Etym 1 has "A hatch that provides access to the roof from the interior of a building" and etym 2 has "A small hatch or opening in a boat. Also, small opening in a boat or ship for draining water from open deck." Is that accurate, or do they belong under the same etymology header? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the construction sense to the proper etymology Leasnam (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

femur

Can anyone get a citation? Like De Vaan? Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

De Vaan doesn't know where it comes from, but due to the r/n inflection, he concludes that it must be rather old. —CodeCat 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

bastonnade

The French and Middle French entries have conflicting etymologies. The French simply says it's from baston + -ade, while the Middle French entry says it's from Italian. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

TLFi says it's from Italian bastonata, Spanish bastonada or Provençal bastonada. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have edited the etymologies accordingly. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing gloss(es)

The etymology for confound could use a gloss or two.

hosteler, hostler, ostler

Are they simply alternative forms of one another, or are they doublets? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

China

A contributor has deleted a reference to Latin in the etymology section of China on French Wiktionary. Indeed, it seems to be traced back only to the Portuguese China. The Latin China appeared later than the Portuguese word according to Sinae (regio) on Latin Wikipedia. Can anyone explain a link between the English China and the Latin Sinae? If there is no such a link, it should be removed from our entry. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, is the Portuguese China really from Persian? Isn’t it unlikely for Portugal to have had a direct contact with Persians in the 15th or 16th century? I presume the word was from India, where Portugal had contacts. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Persian was the court and literary language of the Mughal Empire. Шурбур (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, they certainly had direct contacts too, e.g. on Hormuz and elsewhere in the region. Шурбур (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I’ve found a source myself:

• 1688, Gabriel Magalhaens, A New History of China, Containing a Description of the Most Considerable Particulars of that Vast Empire (italics as the original):

  The Eastern Tartars moreover in derision call’d China, Nica Corum, or the Kingdom of the Barbarians, tho’ at present, now they are setled therein, and are become Masters of it, they call it Tulimpa Corum, or the Kingdom of the Middle. The Kingdoms of the Indians, as Canara, Bengala, and others call it Chin, as I was inform’d in the Province of Sù Chuen by two Jogues, of which the one had been at Goa, and had learnt some Portugal Words; and, as I understood at Pekim, by some Merchants of the Country. This name of Chin seems to have been given to China by the Indians, because of the Family of Chin, who reign’d a Hundred sixty nine Years after Christ; though I find more probability to believe that it comes from the Family of Cin, who reign’d two Hundred forty six before Christ, the chief of which Family was Master of all China, and among the rest of the Province of Yûn nân, which is not far distant from Bengala, because the Chineses pronouncing strongly, and whistling the Word Cin through the Teeth, the Indians that cannot imitate them, pronounce it Chin, and the Portugals, who took this word from the Indians, not having any word in their Language that ends in N, have added an A at the latter End. The Italians write China like the Portugheses; but they pronounce it Kina; and so they ought to write it Cina, to give it the same sound as the Germans who write Schina.

According to the author, the English China is from the Portuguese China, which is from the Indian language (probably Hindi) Chin, which is from 秦. Persian and Latin seem to have nothing to do with it here. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

глава

I don't like the way the Ukrainian entry is formatted. There is obviously a single etymology/word, which just happens to have different inflectional patterns according to its meaning. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• The 3rd meaning may be a calque. Шурбур (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

ゴキブリ

RFV of the etymology. ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take: It seems to be a translation of ゴキブリ#名称. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

οἴσω

Nobody has any idea where this suppleted form is from? Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's said to be from Proto-Indo-European *h₃eyt-, which is also the source of Latin ūtor and thus of English use. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

liber#Etymology 2

Vowel fails to make sense, ew/ow/u > i??? Would only work if the vowel dissimilated the exact same way as Etymology 1. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 05:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and actually Etymology 1 is odd too: I would expect lūber. I feel like Old Latin phonology must have been odder than the restricted repertoire of five vowel letters suggests. — Eru·tuon 06:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eruton: The first etymology is considered fairly sound. De Vaan describes the progression as PIt. *louðeros > Proto-Italo-Faliscan *louβeros > *loiβeros (dissimilation of *ou > *oi before a labial) > Old Latin loeber > Latin līber and Faliscan 𐌋𐌏𐌉𐌚𐌉𐌓𐌕𐌀 (loifirta). De Vaan also supports the second etymology, again appealing to dissimilation of *u before a labial. PIt. *luβēt > Latin libet further demonstrates that this change was fairly robust in the environment *l_β. —JohnC5 06:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, okay, but does Old Latin oe typically change to ī? I recall it changing to ū in ūnus and pūniō. Or hm, actually the vowel in those words is oe, which must be different from oi. (This is an odd sound change too; I have wondered if oe was actually pronounced in some odd way, like maybe /øː/. Similarly for the other Old Latin diphthongs. Sadly, there's no actual data to base this on; one would have to theorize about what phonetic values or phonological features would be most plausible based on the spelling and the attested sound changes.) — Eru·tuon 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

But oe remained in foedus for some reason. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon, Hillcrest98: I forgot to mention, but y'all may find this helpful. —JohnC5 15:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

English loof ("palm of the hand"), glove

The entry "loof" reconstructs an Old English etymon, but the word seems only attested in Old Norse and Gothic, not in West Germanic. It is also a chiefly northern word within English. This looks like the typical situation of a Norse loan to me. And if this is so, the derivative "glove" may also be borrowed. There seems to be an Old English attestation, but it might have been rare or late. Does anyone know more? Kolmiel (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

lōf (“palm of the hand”) is attested at least once (and possibly glossed once as well), in the West Saxon dialect of OE (making the possibility of ot being a Norse loan unlikely). It is a strong-a stem masc, so it is a byform of the reconstructed form *lōfa. I have added it to the PGmc entry. Leasnam (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. This doesn't rule out my Norse theory, but makes it difficult to prove. Thanks. Kolmiel (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:HJJHolm and their etymologies

Now that I have been accused twice of exercising "god-like" overreach in editing etymologies, I'd like to bring the discussion here. HJJHolm has been calling our etymologies "phantasy", making debatable claims about PIE, and adding generally rude comments:

• Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kʷékʷlos
• Talk:rreth
• Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/raþą
• diff
• Talk:ρόδα
• Talk:bronzo
• Talk:silver

Can someone sort through these? I'm getting tired of reading so many exclamation points!!!1!1! —JohnC5 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't feed the wheel trolling. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 16:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This "behaving like God"-thing is his standard phrase. He's said the same thing about Leasnam and myself. It's a bit strange. Still, I think his objections are sometimes worth considering, not totally made-up stuff. Kolmiel (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh some of them have merit, which is why I brought them here. Some of them, however, are not at all. —JohnC5 20:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I went back to his page now. I'd forgotten about those strange theories of his. So these do qualify as "made-up stuff". But not everything he says is based on them. Kolmiel (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Tone questions aside, much of what's linked here seems to be basically legitimate as questions.

One problem may be that, >90% of the time, we only give etymologies "ex cathedra" from some source, without explaining the actual reasoning behind them. Issues like finer details of historical phonology get brushed aside in this process, and so you can very easily end up with e.g. e in rreth looking just plain irregular. As per e.g. {{R:sq:Orel:2000}} though, there was a late Proto-Albanian umlaut process *a > e before a lost unstressed *i, which is probably what is at work here (esp. given the reference to this being a "plural formation of rrath"). I cannot tell though if the trigger is supposed to have been the *i in the posited diminutive *róth₂iḱom, or some later Albanian-internal derivation.

It's hard to say what should be done in cases like these. Urge more people to work on writing things like w:Albanian historical phonology (thus far unwritten)?

As far as sourcing goes, we maybe just need to have a citation needed for this etymology type template and slap it on things, until someone is willing to go through a specialized monograph on e.g. Romance loans in Greek to fill them in. --Tropylium (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tropylium: Could you update rreth? I wonder, if we fix up these entries slightly, whether this user will calm down slightly. —JohnC5 05:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Simply give scientific sources and spare all this useless sentences. Thank you.HJJHolm (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. People here put a lot of effort into typing up etymologies for Wiktionary, and just because they don't provide sources for every etymology that they type up doesn't mean that those etymologies are false. Tharthan (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspect I see what the problem is. Your (HJJHolm's) userpage states you're coming in from Wikipedia; you may be used to the policies that unsourced material needs to be sourced when challenged, and that original research is disallowed. We have no such policies on Wiktionary (see WT:WFW). Already all our lexicographic work is, in a sense, original research.

We have not strictly codified how much editor freedom we allow on etymology, but roughly the practice seem to be that

1. etymologies can be freely proposed as long as they link closely related languages, follow established sound laws and do not stray far afield with semantic changes;
2. editors may exercise their own judgement in ranking or choosing to include competing published etymologies;
3. published etymologies normally outrank any "Wiktionary-native" ones.

Disputes can happen of course, which is what this forum is for. You're even free to propose new policies, though you will probably need to present an actual argument to get anywhere with that. --Tropylium (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's actually good that Wiktionary doesn't have the same standards as Wikipedia, because an encyclopaedia is not a dictionary; a dictionary is formed differently than an encyclopaedia is. I don't think that I would be very active at all on Wiktionary if we had to follow the same stringent policies and rules that Wikipedia has. That's the reason that I'm not very active on Wikipedia (well that and the political nonsense going on on Wikipedia). Tharthan (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Latin suffixes as intermediate steps

Should any Latin suffix for which a page exists on Wiktionary be considered a valid step in the etymology of a Latin word, or are some just presented for explanation to help people understand the root of the word? In particular, for monstriger the etymology is currently given [minus the glosses, etc.] as "monstrum + -iger". However an old Latin dictionary like Harpers Latin Dictionary or the older one by White & Riddle gives the etymology as "monstrum; gero", implying we should maybe be using "monstrum + gero". The Latin-English Dictionary For the Use of Junior Students (derived from White & Riddle) doesn't include this word, but for the similar monstrifer it gives it in the form "monstr-um; (i); fer-o", which might be displayed here as "monstrum + -i- + fero". This is the form I have used on a few etymologies because as I try to get more familiar with Latin I like to see all of the pieces forming the words. In this case I see Wiktionary has a page for -iger, but not -ger, however it has pages for both -ifer and -fer. Are these included for merely explanatory reasons or are these considered intermediate steps in their own right? Should the etymology for monstriger really be "monstrum + -iger, -i- + gero", or even "monstrum + -iger, -i- + -ger, gero"? (Not having a copy of the OLD, I don't have a clue what form they use.) -Mike (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing these etymologies, I'd wonder why the combination "monstrum + -i- + fero" is not "monstrifero" and why it's not a verb. In truth, the -i- is superfluous, the change of the final ending to -i- is a process common to all nouns and adjectives in Latin and is simply the thematic vowel (Proto-Italic -o-) that has been weakened by Latin's regular treatment of unstressed vowels. I do think -fer and -ger should have their own entries though, and -ifer and -iger should not exist. —CodeCat 22:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to point out that just because a morpheme is part of the surface analysis, doesn't mean that it is part of the actual derivation. --WikiTiki89 14:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

North Levantine Arabic سكربينه (skarbīni, “pump, high-heeled shoe”)

I take it that the origin of this is some kind of a dimunutive of Italian scarpa. Does anyone know what form it is? scarpino or scarpina or something? And is it common in Italian and in what sense? Googling "lo scarpino" yields a lot of pictures of football shoes. Kolmiel (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out through French escarpin. Kolmiel (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

廟街

RFV of the etymology (taken from Chinese Wikipedia). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Roots such as PIE *weh₁-

This entry currently gives no evidence for the reconstruction of a root: the only derived term seems to be the adjective *weh₁ros. Checking thru a number of sources ({{R:Derksen 2008}}, {{R:De Vaan 2008}}, {{R:gem:Kroonen 2013}} and the abridged free version of {{R:cel:Matasovic 2009}}) reveals no such evidence either, though at least a few indeed claim derivation from a root. This leads to two questions:

1. do we intend to reconstruct roots behind every PIE term, no matter if a root is required by the data or not? (Would we create a root *mewh₂- just to house *muh₂s?)
2. why would we reconstruct the root as *weh₁- and not *weh₁r-? This smells of circular logic applied to root structure ("well roots can't end in *-Hr, so the *r must be a suffix, therefore there are no roots ending in *-Hr"), especially when we already have Category:Proto-Indo-European CeHR-shape roots.

--Tropylium (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

outsmart

Was this word modelled on outwit, or was it an entirely separate coinage? Tharthan (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine it's no more than definition 3 of out- + smart. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

dragane

Does anyone here know the Mediaeval Latin etymon of the Manx dragane (“tarragon”)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary says the ML. etymon of the English word is tragonia, which is doubtless the source of the Manx word as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: OK, I've recorded that as the etymon. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

soffrance

Does the Old French soffrance (“suffering”) just derive from the Classical Latin sufferentia, or would a Vulgar Latin etymon differ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The only difference would be that Classical Latin /ʊ/ became Vulgar Latin /o/ as usual, but I don't see any need to posit a specific VL form between soffrance and sufferentia as the former derives quite regularly from the latter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: Lovely. Is this correct? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I guess, but showing the VL. is really unnecessary. Also, if we're going to show VL., we should show the difference between close mid and open mid vowels somehow, so either sọffęręntia or soffɛrɛntia or something like that. But personally, I wouldn't show the VL. at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Angr: OK. Removed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)