Appendix talk:Romance doublets

and whoever is interested: do you think this might be interesting? This is obviously very ugly, messy and incomplete, but the most important question is: is it useless? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s definitely interesting. It is somewhat useful, as long as it retains information that is not easily found on the doublet categories. (pinging also ).
 * I propose that we add two extra columns: semi-learned borrowings and indirect borrowings (especially the former). — Ungoliant (falai) 00:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It could potentially be useful since it more clearly compares/contrasts them, as opposed to someone having to identify them as part of the long category lists. I made some quick fixes to what was there so far also. Again when it comes to the topic of borrowing, at some point we're going to inevitably run into some words that we're unsure of, so it may be tricky sorting some. The semi-learned category could be useful (I'm unsure about where Portuguese would fit). Also I found out there was a variant of Italian  with a 'v' used in the past, with a different meaning, which raises some questions about the standard form. Either way, it's not something I'm gonna devote too much time to for the moment. Word dewd544 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just took some clean cases to illustrate the idea, but if we want to be exhaustive and accurate, it's going to ask more columns, and a lot more work and musing.
 * I've also created Appendix:French doublets (hopefully Appendix:Italian doublets, Appendix:Portuguese doublets, etc., will follow), where I'm toying with different ideas and ways of looking at things, but as you can see it's a big jumble, and there's a lot to disentangle. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. One thing to consider is how far are we stretching the definition of doublets? There could be quite a few in one language (counting loanwords from sister languages), in which case they wouldn't technically be doublets anymore but rather triplets, quadruplets, etc? Also, if a language has a descendant in either the borrowed category or the inherited one but not both, I'm guessing it shouldn't be listed here? Trying to consider how to handle the case of Romanian, for example, which was taken from French , a specialized use of . Technically it would still be a doublet of , although for some reason it feels a bit odd or awkward to consider it so. Guess that's why Ungoliant mentioned having a separate category for indirect borrowings... Romanian complicates things as many of its neologisms are simultaneously borrowed from French, Italian, and Latin, and adapted partly to existing Romanian rules. But in this case it was clearly taken solely from French. Anyway I added this case but I'm not sure I like it like that (however adding a separate third column for an indirect borrowing just for Romanian would make it look a bit weird wouldn't it?). Then there's also the case of rare or archaic words and the question of whether they should be mentioned/listed here simply because they technically qualify as doublets (for now I just put a qualifier in parentheses after). Feel free to mess around with these and see what you think may work best to make a clear, decipherable presentation overall. Word dewd544 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit- I must say I also like the French doublets page a lot. There's a lot of detail in there that can be quite useful. Word dewd544 (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another question: do you want to limit the languages to the “big 6” or can any Romance language be added? — Ungoliant (falai) 10:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly want to put everything there, not just the big six! I only used those out of convenience: I tend to stay away from lesser known languages, for which we often don't have entries yet (see, there's interesting data there, but lots of red links), and whose orthography isn't always standardised. I'm really not all that knowledgeable anyway; I know Latin, French, a little bit of Italian, and that's it!
 * The big six should perhaps be displayed more prominently than the others, though. Maybe we could always put these first, at the expense of the alphabetical order? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That works. Or we could embolden them. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was originally thinking of just sticking to the big six, but I suppose there's no real good reason to do so. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bolding isn't extremely keen on the eye, but neither are the tables themselves so I don't know :p. But it's definitely strange to have the names of the big six bolded in some tables, and not in others.
 * Does Sardinian have a standardised orthography? Wikipedia says that "Some attempts have been made to introduce a standardized writing system for administrative purposes by combining the two Sardinian varieties, like the LSU and LSC, but they have not been generally acknowledged by native speakers." Does it mean that each of the two varieties has its own standard, or that it's an absolute free-for-all?
 * Also, I'm going back to the Beer_parlour/2017/October convo again: ordering the descendants historically and not simply alphabetically makes it slightly harder to parse when there are doublets. Compare these two versions of : (I'm not sure about the Italian words, nor about Portuguese ) vs. . And of course you don't notice as easily that there are doublets, but maybe that's not a problem if we have these Appendices pages?
 * Perhaps will be interested as well? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I shudder to think how insane it's going to be to handle the case of ... Word dewd544 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I shudder to think how insane it's going to be to handle the case of ... Word dewd544 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration ! You guys are doing an awesome job so far, I'll take a look and see where I can contribute. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference talk on semicultismos

 * User_talk:Word_dewd544 --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, for many if not most cases of "semi-learned" words or semicultismos, the main thing that separates them from the "full" borrowing category here is simply the passage of time within the language... like I suspect with Portuguese espadua. They gradually adapted to some of the changes of the language, but not all, since they entered at a later time than the inherited ones. I mean, technically, can't even French état count as a sort of semi-learned word? It entered in Old French as estat and by modern French lost the 's' (with the final consonant becoming silent; not sure when exactly this development happened in French's timeline), as would also happen to inherited terms. Unlike the other Romance borrowings from Latin status, which either preserve the word intact or add an initial 'e', the French one stands out and is much more "Frenchified"/"Gallicized". Of course there are other semi-learned terms that were purposely adapted to a given Romance language when borrowed, which is a different case. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

To do
,,   , , ,  , , , ,  , , , , , . — Ungoliant (falai) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, , , . — Ungoliant (falai) 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ,,  ,  --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * --2A02:2788:A4:F44:788A:2C1E:651C:944F 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Ultimateria (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was already there :-) -- 2A02:2788:A4:F44:411A:915B:A070:6005 13:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a classic one, Word dewd544 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Ultimateria (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (if 🇨🇬 is legit) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per utramque cavernam 21:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Ultimateria (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , Per utramque cavernam 10:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Ultimateria (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, but I'd like the dewd to review it (not sure these aren't all semi-learned forms). By the way, does 🇨🇬 have a doublet? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding, it seems the only inherited term there is Catalan , and I'm not even 100% sure about that one. The Spanish was borrowed from it, and the Portuguese in turn from the Spanish. So I'm not even sure if we should list it anymore. Also, afaik, there isn't a doublet for Catalan . Word dewd544 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The descendants are duplicated at and . We gotta clear that up. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding, I'm unsure about the Portuguese . Some sources mention it as a borrowing from Spanish. Anyone have any other sources? Word dewd544 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did you find that? My sources do not mention a borrowing from Spanish (except a single sense used in Rio Grande do Sul). — Ungoliant (falai) 00:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's a good source for Portuguese etymologies that is freely accessible? I know I had a decent Brazilian one that went into more depth (had it bookmarked on an old computer) but I can't seem to find it anymore. The one I was talking about was this https://www.infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/lastimar, but I've found that it can occasionally be a bit inaccurate or questionable. Anyway, in general the shift of bl to just l in Ibero-Romance isn't exactly normal, is it? Word dewd544 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , Antenor Nascentes’, Dicionário etimológico da língua portuguesa is by far the best available online (archive.org), and Dicionário Aulete (www.aulete.com.br) is very comprehensive (very rarely I run across an etymology that is a bit iffy; it’s always a good idea to double check with Nascentes if it looks hard to believe). You can also search for articles that discuss individual words at Google Scholar, but you are unlikely to find individual words you’re looking for. I have access to some etymological material at my local library. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to make sure that the borrowings at are actually borrowed from Latin and not from English? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

noverare v. trans. ora non pop., numerare. Annoverare (Dante); annovero (ant.) « conto » (Seneca, Pist.). Da nŭmĕrāre (lat.). Da nŭmĕrus venne nòvero (ora non pop.) « numero » (G. Vill.), mentre, per introduzione letteraria, ne venne número (Giamboni), detto anche dell’armonia del verso e della prosa (Varchi). Numerare da nŭmĕrāre; numeroso da nŭmĕrōsus. nòvero v. s. noverare.
 * ,, , , ,  ,  . — Ungoliant (falai) 00:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding, aside from the main Italian descendant , what could explain the archaic variant forms and ? I'm pretty sure the latter one is due to (Old) French influence (some sites mention it as a 'gallicismo'), but concerning , it's obviously a contraction of the longer form (syncopation)... I just wonder if operare is perhaps more learned, while the contracted form is the more popular one? And regarding , it also seems to be a Gallicism, at least in part. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the deal with Italian -? Does the latter come from a dissimilated ? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Vocabolario etimologico italiano and Vocabolario etimologico della lingua italiana only mention numerus/numero → nòvero. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How do they explain that form? I'm fairly certain there must have been a dissimilation of the two nasals. b > v would be straightforward. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They don’t:
 * and

nòvero Forma varia di NUMERO (= fr nombre) con sostituzione di V a M. Numero. Deriv. Annoveràre.
 * REW doesn’t list any other form with a V, but there are some pretty convoluted developments: embruar, lombrare, orná, drombär, armnär, ... — Ungoliant (falai) 01:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dissimilation between the two nasals makes the most sense to me. I recall some other cases of m > b > v, which isn't that unusual. Also, this brings up another issue: regarding numerare, the Italian seems to be the only significant one with a doublet in this case, most of the others being either borrowings or inherited; the case of Old Spanish is still unclear. Should we mention a Latin word on this appendix where the doublet is only in one language? Word dewd544 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant to answer sooner to that question. What I had in mind with this page was to list only pairs of doublets that are shared by at least two Romance languages. But doublets that are only found in French (–) belong to Appendix:French doublets, in Italian (–) to Appendix:Italian doublets, etc. Otherwise this page would become huge, and redundant with the single language Appendices. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, to answer another part of your question above: I think we should ideally least only true doublets; i.e. one is a borrowing (or semi-borrowing, or semi-learned form) from Latin, and the other the proper inherited form of that language. That would make use exclude the Romanian pair – (not inherited, but borrowed from French) from the table for, or Portuguese – (not inherited, but again borrowed from French). What would be interesting to me would be to see all the cases of independent appearance of doublets. The idea is: "there is no law that says "if Portuguese has a pair of doublets for this word, French must have it too", so it's funny that it's been the case so many times anyway".
 * I don't know if that makes sense? But I'm interested in what you guys think of course. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, about the case of rare or archaic words: I do think they belong here; we have the footnotes and parentheses to introduce the necessary caveats.
 * In Appendix:French doublets, I created a separate table for them ( #6 in the table of contents) because it's true that I don't want to clutter the main list with obscure words (as I explained it on the talk page). I think it's good to keep a list of simple, straightforward and unequivocal examples, which could possibly be useful for students or laymen. (– is a very nice and illuminating example, but let's face it, who's gonna be interested in a pair such as –? I didn't even know those terms before...).
 * But here I don't think we have to put them away; it's truly a comparative list at heart, and what matters is that the words exist, not that they're common, etc. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A little side note — would Latin fit here? I'm mainly thinking of Romanian  vs., but I suspect the situation might be the same for the other Romance languages too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the problem with that is most of the other languages don't have doublets afaik, except for perhaps the case of Old French, but we're not using Old versions of languages are we? As a general rule, I guess we're agreeing to list those that affect at least two languages. Word dewd544 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean . Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest it bothers me a little that we don't display Old French, Old Spanish, etc. But I can't think of a clever layout. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah but it's also a bit inconsistent how some languages have "Old" versions and others don't. Like Spanish, French, and Portuguese do, but Romanian and Italian don't. And I guess Catalan does too, but it's not used often, compared to Old Occitan. So for languages without Old stages, everything will fall under that actual language as just archaic or obsolete, regardless of the dating being on par with that of say Old Spanish. It's true Romanian only started being attested in the early 16th century, by the time other languages were already out of their "Old" phase, so it doesn't apply as much to it, but Italian has been written for considerably longer. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Another good one to add is . I always thought that the forms beginning with 'c' in Romance were borrowings, while those with 'g' were the inherited ones, through a Vulgar Latin, like French and Romanian . But oddly, the TLFi doesn't explicitly mention French as a borrowing... Any thoughts on this? Word dewd544 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could the forms with initial g be analogical with (the obvious problem being that it works only for French... or does it? What's the etymon of ?)?
 * If French is inherited from, or  from , it means there's no sound law for initial voicing, so  could be inherited. A rather hasty reasoning, but what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true. As other languages' dictionaries say, the forms with 'g' are likely due in part to analogy with, which was probably of ultimately Germanic origin. But it was absorbed early enough to affect Romanian as well. Also, maybe the senses of (and Old French ) that had to do with "fat", "thick", "dense" were inherited, but I'm not sure about the more abstract sense of "crass". Oftentimes the meaning changes somewhat in inherited words. Anyway maybe French is unique in this, since the Spanish etymological dictionary I used certainly mentions  as a "cultismo", and with Italian, apparently  was attested as early as the 12th century in the TLIO, while  was not attested until 1357. And in Romanian's case, it was obviously taken from French recently. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit bothered by the TLFi etymology of . Do we really need to reconstruct a Vulgar Latin ? After all, – are attested. TLFi writes that "assimilavit se rattache à similis « semblable » et non à simul", but is itself related to, so that's a bit weak. Is there such a semantic gap between Classical  and Vulgar  that we need to posit a second verb coined entirely anew?
 * Classical : "to make similar" > "to compare, to put side by side" > "to put together, to bring together" doesn't seem extremely far-fetched to me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't know how I feel about making a separate new VL. entry for it, especially as it was attested. But I noticed that has happened with some other words, if the Romance descendants have a somewhat different or specialized meaning. Also, I removed the Ibero-Romance since those were taken from Old French . Word dewd544 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding Italian ... Most Italian dictionaries seem to list it as a borrowing from Old Provençal, and it does look to at least have some kind of Gallo-Romance influence, as the expected form would be something like *artecchio. However a few do just list the Latin source without an intermediate. Perhaps it's one of those odd cases like (which also looks to have foreign influence upon first sight, with an expected *conecchio, but perhaps not?). Whatever the case may be, this would seemingly affect the status of Sicilian  too, which seems a parallel form of the Italian. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * About French, I wonder if we should move it to the "semi-learned borrowing" column. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * About : are you sure that 🇨🇬 is a borrowing from Old Occitan? The TLFi says it's inherited. Also, I can't find quotes for (nvm, there's this, though that's not much), though there is some sparse evidence for a 🇨🇬 (TLFi,, ). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s what the Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch says (well, “prov. aurono (> frz. aurone)”). Feel free to fix it if you can find more recent scholarly work. Note that vrogne is given a different gloss: “”, so vrogne+aurone are not necessarily the best search terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've left everything. I wonder if arose through rebracketing ( > ). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Created entries that need etymology
I'm glad y'all compiled this. But I don't really do etymologies, so here you go! Ultimateria (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Counterparts in English
Nice list. I noticed that several of these had counterparts in English that were not yet marked as doublets, such as and, so I added  to their etymology sections. — Eru·tuon 22:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect English could easily be the language with the most doublets, but I find them a bit less interesting since they often simply reflect the Romance (especially French) situation. What I'd be very interested in would be cases of Germanic doublets. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some Germanic doublets that involve palatalization: and,  and ,  and ,  and ,  and ; to stretch the concept a bit,  and . Unfortunately, these aren't quite as interesting as some of the Romance ones. — Eru·tuon 23:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Technical question
Would you know how to fuse the cells of the lines "See also"? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Like this:

| colspan="3" | See also
 * — Ungoliant (falai) 15:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There are quite a few Portuguese red links in there, if you feel like doing some of them... :p --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Module error
I've no idea why this page appears in CAT:E. Too many links? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mh, sorry, hadn't looked close enough. Too many expensive function calls indeed. We'll have to find a solution, I guess... --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only solution right now is to add the page's title to the list of exceptions in Template:redlink category. — Eru·tuon 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible Romanian doublet at coagulō
Is it appropriate if I add Romanian coagula (borrowed) and închega (inherited, possibly through Vulgar Latin root *inclagāre, from metathesis of *incoāglāre, alternatively, from în- + *clagāre < coāgulāre)? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's tempting, but I would advise against it because of the prefix in închega. You could put a dash for the inherited term and mention închega in a footnote, though. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:788A:2C1E:651C:944F 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to list it. The thing about words prefixed with in Romanian is that in many cases they may very well have been added later, as an internal development in the early language (it's fairly common), rather than being directly from a supposed Vulgar Latin construction. A lot of the entries in the DEX mention a root *incoagulare simply because they see the prefix, which is pretty superficial. I tend not to use the first few entries because I've come to see that they're not always the most accurate; rather I look for the more detailed ones with the source 'Dicționarul etimologic român'. The more in depth etymologies do mention that it could have been a later addition to the base Vulgar Latin derivative of . Word dewd544 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

error in module
I'm not sure why this error came up when I tried adding a new entry for cannabis. Lua error in Module:doublet_table at line 186: No language with name.

The code looks exactly the same format as the preceding and following ones. I don't get it. Did something change when you guys re-arranged the layout of the code? Word dewd544 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ; it had to do with the number of columns. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I got it now. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Error
, your caused an error. Thanks! —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 19:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know but I'm too lazy and can't really be bothered to fix it. Besides whoever wrote the script for that is probably at fault and made a mistake, not me. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded rude there, I was just frustrated with that template not working. Does it not accept five columns? Everything seems right, compared to the other ones. The other reason I said that is because I don't even think that word is a good candidate for this list, given that it doesn't have more than one (if that) inherited descendant. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, I actually thought you were joking! There was one pipe too many: see . But I've removed the table anyway now. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the module will complain if you enter the wrong number of cells, and thus restore my reputation. — Eru·tuon 20:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, right you don't have to end the line with a a pipe. Whoops. And good, that works for both of us; it'll save me a lot of frustration. Nice to know what exactly it is you're doing wrong haha. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)