Talk:Danicize

Etymology Scriptorium discussion: February 2017
[Copied from User talk:Smuconlaw.]

Excuse me, but if you’re going to go around reverting substantial edits you at least have to pay attention to the actual content of the edit. Nothing in my edit implied that Danish is borrowed from Latin. Rather, it very clearly indicates that Danicize is derived from Latin danicus and NOT from Danish. Anyway, from the form of the word, Danicize, it can be seen that it cannot be from Danish + -ize; then it would be Danishize. Like most of the -ize words, it is either a learned Latinate construction or borrowed and adapted from Neo-Latin or another language that uses such constructions. The word’s spelling and pronunciation both confirm this. – Krun (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can take this discussion to the Etymology scriptorium. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors' input on the above matter is most welcome. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think it's more from . I don't think these new constructions are actually hearkening back to old Latin forms, but are created on a model now ingrafted into and natural to English. Leasnam (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The OED doesn't list, but it does list , which it states is an “ad&#91;aptation of the&#93; med&#91;iaeval &#93;L&#91;atin&#93; Danic-us, f&#91;rom&#93; Dania Denmark.” It also lists as a derivation of . IMO,  was most probably formed as . FWIW, the OED doesn't list * either. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should we indicate that as the (probable) etymology? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes; I've just done that. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, much obliged. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)