Talk:adze

Etymology
There is no etymological connection with AXE[1], or from its root. It is also spelled ADDICE[8] in Middle English. No Germanic cognates have been presented so far, so beyond ADESA[8], the origin is unknown[8]. ADESA has been compared as remotely akin to Spanish AZOLAR[2], (to adze), possibly from Basque ZELAITU[6] (to level off, flatten), due to having no Germanic cognates. To AZOLAR, not ADESA, compare Welsh ADEILADU[4] (to build). The potential splitting of the old 'tz' consonant sound virtually rules out any connections with the Spanish and Basque. The Proto-Germanic root represented is a likely root, but it is not necessarily Germanic[1], because ADZE is not[8] a Germanic word.

Etymology
From [9], [9], from [8], [8] (cognate with older [8], )[8], from [1], from [4] or more likely,a cognate with Basque aizto (knife)[4] (compare 🇨🇬)[8]. Andrew H. Gray 17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Andrew

[0] means 'Absolutely not; [1] means 'Exceedingly unlikely'; [2] means 'Very dubious'; [3] means 'Questionable'; [4] means 'Possible'; [5] means 'Probable'; [6] means 'Likely'; [7] means 'Most Likely' or *Unattested; [8] means 'Attested'; [9] means 'Obvious' - only used for close matches within the same language or dialect, at linkable periods.
 * Number codes relate to the antecedent lexeme; for example: [6] against the Basque word or lexeme, does not relate to a likely connection to 'adze' but to the antecedent Spanish 'azolar', unless an unrelated word, such as 'axe', in this case, precedes.

The last numerical code, for example, relates to 'Germanic' for the root; not to the statement as to that root being not necessarily Germanic. Andrew H. Gray 10:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC) The Proto-Germanic form presented in the main page edit is either non-existent or formed from the early Old English "adosa" or early Mercian Old English "eadesa". The Middle English form "nads" is more likely to be from 'an' 'ads', rather than cognate with Welsh "nadd" that would have come from the same root, had most of the Old English forms of ADZE forms begun with "n". The corrupted Late Middle English form "eatch" presents a hint to the extreme antiquity of the lexeme. It was most likely from the name used for that implement and taken on by the invaders, or else formed from a substrate noun[8:51, 10 March 2020]. Compare the Oxford reliable etymological dictionary. Andrew H. Gray 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Andrew (talk)


 * There are two ways of comparison to establish Proto-Germanic status: 1.) with other descendants of Proto-Germanic (in this case: N/A), and 2.) with non-Germanic Indo-European languages (in this case: the Hittite word). So if a word is attested in one of the oldest Germanic languages and also has a regular cognate in a non-Germanic language, then it can be considered Proto-Germanic, because the non-Germanic cognate proves that it must be old, in fact pre-Germanic. The question is whether the Hittite word is really a regular cognate or just "some word that sounds similar". But I can't judge that.


 * That sounds quite scientific and certainly explains the views of modern etymologists; but do you realise that other language families preceded Proto-Germanic in Great Britain and as such, words assimilated into the Old English vocabulary at a relatively early stage are of greater antiguity? Andrew H. Gray 09:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Andrew (talk)

'Adosa' (adze - noun) and 'adosan' (adze - verb) are the oldest known forms[8]; and therefore the proposed Proto-Germanic root[1] is incorrect.

[0] means 'Absolutely not; [1] means 'Exceedingly unlikely'; [2] means 'Very dubious'; [3] means 'Questionable'; [4] means 'Possible'; [5] means 'Probable'; [6] means 'Likely'; [7] means 'Most Likely' or *Unattested; [8] means 'Attested'; [9] means 'Obvious' - only used for close matches within the same language or dialect, at linkable periods. Andrew H. Gray 07:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Andrew talk