Talk:coral

Etymology
The etymology has long been established as being Greek by the entire bibliography since antiquity.

Unfortunately, here in Wiktionary and Wikipedia one can present a mere single reference no older than a decade as having more authority and validation than the whole of the past bibliography to date.

And by that argument one can edit and add paragraphs for the purpose of propaganda and for serving personal beliefs. That has now happened in the lemma of 'coral' and for the sake of truth I present my argument in this discussion.

I give the following undisputed and accepted references:

1) Ancient writers (Orpheus (undated – archaic Greek), Pliny 1st century AD)

2) Byzantium writers (Archbishop Eustathius – 12th century, Grammarian Choiroboskos 9th century)

3) The worldwide-standard Franz Passow Greek Lexicon (1819)

4) The worldwide-standard Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon (1843)

5) Etymological lexicons of the Ancient Greek Language

Etymologicum Linguae Graecae, Johannes Daniel van Lennep, Everard Scheidius, Paddenburg, 1808.

6) Thesauri of the Greek Language

Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, Henrica Stephano, Publisher: Valpianis, London, 1819-1821.

7) Other Lexicons

Lexicon Manuale Graeco-Latinum & Latinum Graeco, Cornelius Schrevelius. Dresdae et Lipsiae, ex Officina Johannis Nicolai Gerlachii, 1762.

8) Authorities on the subject of stones and gems (C.W. King (1867))

9) Modern authorities on classics (Dr Ingo Gildenhard, University Reader in Classics and the Classical Tradition, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, 2017).

None of the above makes any reference to 'semetic roots’. So, I would very much like to know the reference that can challenge the aforementioned bibliographic establishment.

REFERENCES:

1) The word κοράλλιον (corallion) is first ever found in the Orphic poem Lithica (Λιθικά) in Archaic Greek era, and in the lines 510-610, where Orpheus describes how the Red Coral, which is considered a stone (Λίθος, Lithos), was created. He goes on to describe the myth of Perseus and Medusa. Having beheaded her, her blood fell next to the sea and gave genesis to the red coral. Red due to her blood and 'coral' because the Gorgon Medusa is referred in the poem as a 'κουράλιον' which means 'small maiden' or 'small girl' or 'small daughter'; being the diminutive of κόρα(maiden, girl, daughter), hence κοράλλιον is the small maiden, i.e. the Medusa who slain, and the blood from the small maiden is called 'red coral'.

Note that 'κουράλιον' is from the Ionic ‘κούρα’, whereas ‘κοράλιον’ is from the Doric ‘κόρα’, both meaning ‘daughter’, and we see that whereas some Greek ancient scripts refer to the coral with the Doric ‘κοράλιον’, others use the Ionic ΄κουράλιον΄, and this indicates that the Greek etymology of the word was well known among authors.

2) But C.W. King (The Natural History of Gems or Decorative Stones, p.100, 1867, Bell & Daldy, London) gives the following alternative ancient etymology (From Pliny 1st century AD):

The Greek name for this zoophyte was derived, according to some (Plin. xxxii. 11), from the necessity of cutting off the plant while still living with a sharp steel' (κουρά, shearing), for if touched by the human hand it instantly became petrified."....."this latter tale bearing the true stamp of a Greek theory coined by their fancy to explain the origin of the beads first brought to them by their navigators from Massilia.''

and on p.101:

"Pliny seems to have read the passage of Orpheus above quoted, for he has, under Gorgonia, 'This stone is nothing more than Coral, the reason for the same name being because it is transformed (from a soft plant) into the hardness of a stone."

3) Archbishop Eustathius (12th century) in his work 'A commentary on Dionysius Periegetes' gives the 'small daughter' (κουράλιον) etymology:

''το δε κουράλιον του της Γοργόνος αίματος αποστάξαι μυθεύεται, αφ' ής οια κόρης ούσης ή κλήσις τώ λίθω ενεκάθισεν'',

translated as: the corallion tales the dropping of the blood of the Gorgon, from whom, being a kore (maiden), the name of the stone settled.

4)Dr Ingo Gildenhard, A Classics Expert and Fellow in King's College, Cambridge, comments as follows (Transformative Change in Western Thought: A History of Metamorphosis from Homer to Hollywood, Routledge, 2017, Notes on Chapter 2, Note 70):

'"Some ancient authors explain the word κωράλιον as diminutive of κόρη''. See Eustathius, Commentary on Dionysius the Periegete, 1107, Muller:το δε κουράλιον του της Γοργόνος αίματος αποστάξαι μυθεύεται, αφ' ής οια κόρης ούσης ή κλήσις τώ λίθω ενεκάθισεν ['they say that the coral grows from the blood oozed from the Gorgon, whence the name was given to the stone, because she was a maiden (kore)]." '''

5) Liddel-Scott Lexicon (1843, Clarendon Press at Oxford):

''κοράλλ-ιον, τό, A.Peripl. M.Rubr.28, al., Dsc.5.121, Alciphr.1.39, dub. sens. in Alex. Trall. 1.15; κοράλιον S.E.P.1.119; κουράλιον Thphr.Lap.38, D.P.1103, Luc.Apol.1 (s.v.l.); κωράλλιον or κοραλλ-άλιον, Att. acc to Hdn.Gr.2.537:—coral, esp. red coral, Il. cc.: sts. interpr. as '''Dim. of κόρη''' in Luc. and Alciphr.; cf. κωράλιον.''

6) Greek grammar also testifies in favor of the Greek etymology with the well-known –lion suffix (-λιον) . The suffix -lion is a diminutive form.

Examples: κόρα          (daughter)            κοράλιον  or κοράλλιον      (small daughter) κεράμιον      (ceramic vessel)      κεραμύλλιον  (small ceramic vessel) ἀμυγδάλη      (almond)              ἀμυγδάλιον    (small almond) κύμβαλον      (cymbal)              κυμβάλιον      (small cymbal) σάνδαλον      (sandal)              σανδάλιον      (small sandal) δάμαλις       (heifer)              δαμάλιον         (small heifer) ῥόπαλον       (club)                ῥοπάλιον        (small club) σκύταλον      (cudgel)              σκυτάλιον      (small cudgel) κεφαλή        (head)                κεφάλιον       (small head) νεφέλη        (cloud)               νεφέλιον        (small cloud) εἶδος         (a form, a sight)     εἰδύλλιον        (idyll, short poem)

….to name only a few.

7) Theaurus Graecae Linguae, Henrica Stephano, Publisher: Valpianis, London, 1819-1821. On p. 309 he discusses only two Greek etymologies. est κουράλιον, sive κοράλιον nihil aliud, quam κόρη αλός, Νympha marina, sive Filia maris. Αlii aliter deducunt, de quo Salmas. De deminutivis in αλιον desi nentibus silet Spohnius, qui in libro de Εxtrema Οdysseae Ρarte ceteras omnes deminutivorum formas diligenter collegit, docteque exposuit.

8) Etymologicum linguae graecae by Johannes Daniel van Lennep, Paddenburg, 1808. He gives only the Greek etymology from κόρος & αλός, in which case κόρος means plant, hence ‘plant of the sea’.

From p. 431.: ''Κοράλλιον corallium. Dicitur pro κοράλιον, et hoc κόραλος, quod videtur compofitum ex κόρος et αλός, significant que,, quasi, furculum maris: ut eft corallum. De vocibus autem κόρος, et αλς, αλός, videndum suis locis.''

9) Lexicon Manuale Graeco-Latinum & Latinum Graeco, Cornelius Schrevelius. Dresdae et Lipsiae, ex Officina Johannis Nicolai Gerlachii, 1762.

On p. 506:

“ΚΟΡΑΛΛΙΟΝ, sue κοράλιον, τό, corallium. Et λιθόδενδρον, dicitur q. lapidea arbor. Ducam a κόρη, & αλός, quod est pupilla maris, politur enim ut pupilla.”

10) Byzantium Grammarian George Choiroboskos (9th century).

From Anecdota Graeca, J.A. Cramer, Vol.II, 1835, p. 228:

"Ἴσως τὸ ἅλιον ἔγκειται· ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ταῖς κόραις κόσμος· ποιηταὶ οὖν τὸ αʹ διὰ τοῦ ο· ἡ κοινή τε διὰ τοῦ ο· Ἀττικοὶ δὲ διὰ τοῦ ω."

11) From the world-standard Greek Lexicon ‘Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache’, Franz Passow, Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, Leipzig, 1847, p. 1791:

'' κοραλλιον, το, ion. κουράλιον, Dion. Ρ. Οrph. Αretae. , aber auch Τheophr, lap. 67. Luc: mero. cond. 1., die Κoralle, vorz. die rothe Roralle, Diosc., 2) bei Luc. Ι. Ι. nehmen es Εinige in der Bdtg Puppe, Ρίippchen, als Demin. von κόρη, κούρη, ebenso bei Αίο. 1, 39. in der Form κοράλ λιον. Ηesych. : δαγύς κουράλιον, νύμφη λευκόκη ρος, u. bei dems. κωράλιον παιδάριον, κόριον: dah. wohl auch bei Luc. u. Αlc. κουράλιον od. κοράλιον zu schreiben ist. Daν.''

Ate Nike (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We are not challenging the Greek etymon. We are just pushing the etymology one more step back, proposing an etymology for the Greek etymon, i.e. where the Greek word comes from. The Online Etymological Dictionary suggests that it is ultimately of Semitic origin. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Justinrleung: 1) Why haven't all the above mentioned experts in my references pushed it back and only you have? 2) Why haven't you mentioned the Greek etymology in full (which is different than the semitic) in the first place? 3) You can't push back to a different etymology from what it is, i.e. to a different meaning, if the poet was meant to say 'young daughter' he used the word for daughter and grammar as required to do so. He did not take a different semitic meaning and devised another. 4) The Orphic poems are undated - very old. 5)You have't challenged my references because you can't. 6) You present "online etymological dictionary" in front of my references? Please be serious. Ate Nike (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not reading everything before answering. I see the conflict between the two etymologies now. The Online Etymological Dictionary isn't the only source supporting a Semitic origin. The Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2010) by Robert S. P. Beekes mentions both etymologies. Citing Otto Schrader and Alfons Nehring's Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde (1917), Beekes (2010) writes that it could be "univerbation from κόρη (κούρη) ἀλός 'daughter of the sea', which would be a calque of a similar Indian expression". For the Semitic etymology, it cites Heinrich Lewy's Die semitischen Fremdwörter im griechischen (1895), which has been criticized by Emilia Masson in Recherches sur les plus ancien emprunts semitiques en grec (1967). Nonetheless, Beekes (2010) still considers the Semitic etymology to be convincing. I think the Semitic etymology should be mentioned as an alternative etymology. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your reference (Beekes), which you say it mentions the Semitic origin, mentions the Greek as well. But your argument is null here, because Beekes' book, which I don't have, has as reference the 1917 work Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde which itself does nothing more than mention the following references: 1) The Greek Theophrastus and his work On Stones, which is the first book ever to be written regarding the science of mineralogy, and which anyway I have not mentioned because it does not give an etymology at all, 2) The medical work by the Greek Dioscourides, who describes it and its medical properties but he does not give an etymology 3) The Greek Lexicon by the Greek Hesychios who does not give an etymology (he just mentions Theophrastus) and therefore  I have not mentioned, 4)The Roman Pliny the Elder who gives two Greek etymologies which I have mentioned above; one being directly from the Medusa myth, the other from the Greek verb κουρά, i.e. shearing, which is an alternate Greek etymology given directly by Pliny.


 * Furthermore, in this book (Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde) the author himself admits that the Greek word led to the Semitic and not the opposite, as it was done with the Greek word "κάμηλος", so he says. But it is also obvious why this book was criticised. To conclude, your reference, which is the only one you have presented so far (as I don't consider the Online Encyclopedia valid as a serious reference) not only mentions the Greek etymology, but also invalidates your claim.


 * So you haven't got a valid reference. And I don't know who was the first editor and spreader of this false information but it just shows the lack of validity of such online dictionaries.


 * In addition to the above, the wiktionary entry didn't state the Greek etymology explicitly (i.e. small maiden, or daughter of the sea), until my edit; which means all the valid and well-established references which go back to antiquity and not only were somehow ignored.


 * All the semetic etymology entry must be deleted. You seem to have no references. I'm off to edit Wikipedia.Ate Nike (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As you can probably tell, I'm really not an expert in Greek etymology. I've brought this discussion up at WT:ES, where more people can take a look at it. The first editor to add this etymology seems to be User:Verbo (who added it to koraal; they've changed their account to User:Fastifex, now blocked for disruptive edits). From what I can tell, you seem to have quite a strong case for the Greek etymology, but I'd like to see if there's any more evidence against the Semitic etymology such that we need to dismiss it completely. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 02:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know which etymology is correct in this case, but most of your sources are seriously out of date when it comes to etymology, and your arguments aren't very convincing. To start with, you don't seem to understand how scholarly referencing works: someone like Beekes, who is an expert in his own right and has studied the original texts, doesn't have to provide citations for his theories to be valid. The only reason he would cite others is to give historical background or to avoid taking credit for others' ideas. Also, a source being earlier doesn't make the theories presented more valid. In fact, it's often quite the opposite. Ancient authors didn't have the benefit of the thousands of years of scholarship published since they wrote, and often based their ideas on beliefs that have since been shown to be completely wrong. They may have had knowledge of sources that have since been lost, and have had knowledge of the state of things in their day that never made it into anything accessible to modern scholars, but they also may have had very little information about things before their time or out of their immediate geographical area.
 * Your inability to spell Semitic doesn't exactly inspire confidence, and you've demonstrated elsewhere an inability to accept anything that contradicts your quasi-religious belief that the Greeks were the source of everything, but that's beside the point here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of my sources are out of date? I've given you 11 references which span from antiquity to this day from men of letters, grammarians, lexicographers who are STILL the MAIN reference TODAY, gem experts, AND classic experts from the University of Cambridge (in the year 2017). Which are your references? NONE. I've already discussed Beekes (see above). So before you come here with your 'theories' and personal opinions and start editing the entry and puting the semitic etymology first, you better have some references. I'm not, and neither is anyone else, interested in your personal view of 'outdated' references. The LIDDELL - SCOTT dictionary IS the MAIN reference TODAY as far as GREEK LEXICONS is concerned, and we're talking about WORLD-CLASS LEXICOGRAPHERS, in case you don't know. And their etymology is the original given by Orpheus and Pliny the Elder and backed up since then by all the rest lexicographers and grammarians (see above my references) and which is the DIMINUTIVE etymology, i.e. 'small daughter'. Don't try to put forward the SECONDARY etymology which is the κορη and αλος ('daughter of the sea' etymology). You're not informed and you have not read carefully my initial post. The original etymology is the diminutive κοράλιον.


 * And don't go deleting my references that back-up this original etymology just because you have come here with no references and just talk. I will take this all the way. Don't waste my time if you don't have references. 78.87.51.163 20:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You have a reference from one presumably living person (an expert, no doubt, but not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article). All the rest were contemporaries of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln- or earlier. You ask why none of your references took the etymology back to Semitic. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that cuneiform writing wasn't yet fully deciphered when these gentlemen wrote, nor were many of the other early Semitic languages and texts known. Liddell's and Scott's lexicography has indeed stood the test of time (ignoring the matter of Mycenaean Greek, which nobody knew about until a century later), but their etymologies- not so much. This was, after all, back in the days before electric light bulbs, cars, planes or motion pictures were invented.
 * As far as my "'theories' and personal opinions": I actually took a class at UCLA called "Classical Linguistics" that was on the subject of how to derive etymologies for Greek and Latin words, so I've been professionally trained to do just this sort of thing (in case you're wondering, my professor does have ). What classes have you taken?
 * Also, I notice that you're talking about Orpheus like he was a real person- do you have any evidence for that? After all this is the same who is described as physically going to Hades and returning, and singing a three-headed dog to sleep, among other magical feats. Don't you think it's a bit odd to cite him as a source?
 * I already know you won't accept anything I just said, because your strategy is apparently to preemptively knock down the credibility of everyone else so you can avoid having to actually discuss the merits. My guess is that you know at some level that you're way out of your depth, and are deathly afraid of anyone else finding out. Too bad- it's blindingly obvious. I'm the least knowledgeable on the subject of the people here, but I can still see right through you. 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That living person is a Classics expert at Cambridge and I have as a reference his published book. That's how things work in academics. You can go have a chat with him. He has a name. You are one nameless person who says that you have taken Classical linguistics yet you seem unaware of the Greek etymologies, otherwise you would have included them. You also don't appreciate any of the references which you have deleted but probably were taught on at university. Don't waste my time with your 'professors'. If your 'professors' have written anything about 'coral' put an entry with their reference. That's the civilised way, that's the way universities work (in which you say you have taken classes). I've listed my professors (and well known ones) and you have deleted them. As far as Orpheus is concerned, the fact is that the Greek poem exist, it's very old and noone has questioned it's authencity. The script exists. So yes we do give credit to such scripts. This is what universities do (but you seem a little bit unaware). Your strategy is to come here with no references, delete my references, and post comments with your personal views which noone is interested in. You can't be taken seriously. By the way, you contradict yourself: "I actually took a class at UCLA" and then "I'm the least knowledgeable on the subject of the people here". You're ridiculous. Ate Nike (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to everybody in that comment, just to those who are disagreeing with you. justin(r)leung has admitted he knows very little about Ancient Greek (though he's quite impressive when it comes to Chinese), and I know much more than you do about historical linguistics, but I know of at least one PhD in Linguistics and one graduate student in Indo-European studies participating here (I won't blow their covers), and the others obviously know far more about Ancient Greek and Greek historical linguistics than I do. As to your characterization: you're fond of saying things like "noone is interested" as if you're speaking for anyone but yourself. You're the one who is injecting your personal views, based mostly on sources who couldn't possibly have any knowledge of the subject (that's why I mentioned cuneiform) and scholars who mention, but don't endorse your theory. I didn't revert you because I don't believe your opinion can't possibly be correct, though I would have to see better evidence before I would believe it, but because you were taking a reasoned, impartial discussion and trying to make it present an opinion that you have yet to justify. Your references don't say that a Semitic origin is "unlikely", they just present other theories, often because the evidence at the time they wrote wasn't available. How do you know that their authors wouldn't believe differently if they had the benefit of what we've learned since then (which includes basically everything we know about the Akkadian/Assyrian/Babylonian and Ugaritic languages, and huge chunks of what we know about Aramaic, Canaanite, and any number of other ancient Semitic languages due to archaeological discoveries and decipherments). It's not relevant to this particular discussion, but how can a 19th-century source be the final word on Greek etymology when they had no way to know Mycenaean Greek even existed?
 * Also, not everything is determined by references: you may have all kinds of ancient references that agree with you, but you will get reverted if you state as fact that flies are spontaneously generated by filth. There is something to be said for principles that anyone who knows anything substantial about a subject would agree with nowadays. I'm not talking about what you read in an obscure book by a known crackpot, or when fishing around for quotes to wave in someone's face while you talk trash, but the kind of knowledge that scholarly discussions don't mention because they assume everyone already knows it.
 * Finally, you say I'm some nameless person. It's true that it's not identical to the one on my driver's license and birth certificate ("Chuck" instead of "Charles", and I have a middle name), but Chuck Entz is the name that pretty much all my friends and most of my coworkers know me by. I'm someone people can talk to (just don't call me at work, because that's not what I'm paid to do). You make statements about your references that can be shown to be false by merely looking at your references, you're using a generic ad hominem argument without noticing that it doesn't apply to me, and you've repeatedly misspelled words that are part of the discussion you're replying to. I must say I'm not impressed by your attention to detail.Chuck Entz (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The notion of its being a univerbation of κόρη ἁλός is a classic example of folk etymology. It's utterly implausible that that's the actual etymology, whereas the Semitic origin is highly likely. If the folk etymology is ancient, it's alright to mention it as well, but it needs to be made clear that we don't believe it to be the actual origin of the word. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 07:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The κόρη ἁλός is a secondary etymology. The original etymology is the DIMINUTIVE κοράλιον. Haven't you read my references and the history behing the word? Do I have to repeat myself? The original diminutive etymology is given by Orpheus himself and backed-up since then by Pliny, Byzantine men of letters and grammarians, world-class lexicographers (Passow, Liddell-Scott), mineral experts (King), Classics experts (Gildenhard, Camnridge 2017). Don't try to dismiss the initial etymology backed up by all this people by dismising the univerbation of κόρη ἁλός etymology. You're completely out of context, you haven't read my references and you have come with no references. Ate Nike (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yea, how often are univerbations? We need to collect them, one finds a few by searching “univerbation” in the main namespace (job for ; technical side ). Currently we have only one manual one at Category:Univerbations by language . My impression is that univerbations are more often in mythology than otherwise, for else clippings and short forms are used and what not.
 * And I have phonetic concerns for the notion of a univerbation: Wouldn’t it yield almost certainly a spiritus asper for the rho, i. e. *κοῥάλλιον? And the variance between and  does not give much confidence either. While Heinrich Lewy says that the Semitic first consonant could have yolden the κ. Plus, wouldn’t the accent be at the very last syllable? Whereas the Northwest Semitic accent is at the /al/.  Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 14:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Read my reply above. The univerbation of κόρη ἁλός is NOT the initial Greek Etymology. The DIMINUTIVE κοράλιον IS. See my references and think again. And as far as the breathing is concerned (if univerbation was the subject, which is not), it disappears. Have a look at a lexicon for a change. Ate Nike (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As to the rough breathing, it typically disappears in compounds, unless it causes a voiceless consonant to become aspirated (π, τ, κ &rarr; φ, θ, χ). For example, +  &rarr;, but  +  &rarr; . — Eru·tuon 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By definition a theory (whose root refers to observation) is a proven hýpothesis, must be valid, and cannot be disproven. Lysdexia (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don’t use this definition. It’s not that widespread. “Theory”, “hypothesis” are not well defined as well as it is not even clear where “science” begins and ends. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 19:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we have exhausted the subject. I don't see anyone presenting any references or a serious argument. Any references of mine that are deleted I will re-enter. And please read my initial post before commenting. Ate Nike (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Repetition does not make Greek etymologies more believable. The so-called world-class lexicographers lack evidence and just make claims in lack of knowledge, especially in lack of the view of Semitic cognates. What makes lexicographers world-class is only repeating much what others have said. A Greek etymology of κοράλλιον is a rumor. There is no evidence for “coral” being a Greek formation. There is no evidence for a borrowing either, but surely we cannot just claim that the Greek “κοράλλιον” is originally Greek, because there is no evidence nor strong likelihood.
 * Yes, we have exhausted the subject: It turns out that it is more likely that the word is borrowed from Semitic, because the link between the meaning of and the meaning “coral” is weak and because the Greek form varies between κοράλλιον and κοράλιον, this disproves the notion of a diminutive. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Who decides what is evident or rumor and not? You? I think not. Experts? Yes. The world-class lexicographers (who ARE the world-class reference, not 'so-called' as you say)? Yes. Grammarians? Yes. Scientists? Yes. Classics experts? Yes. Mineral experts? Yes. NOT YOU. Come back with references. I have not come here with 'rumors'. I have come here with FACTS and REFERENCES. It is you who have come here with RUMORS and NO REFERENCES. Noone is interested with your PERSONAL VIEW of the Semitic origin.Ate Nike (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I understand that this is something you care a lot about, but you do not need to make personal attacks to everyone who opposes your view. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 21:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * : Nobody decides. It is not necessary to decide and nobody has decided it expect you, and your personal view of the Greek origin does not matter. If have referenced with Lewy. But your references mostly do not believe in the Greek derivation, as shown below. However it does not matter what Lewy or some bunch of 19th century dictionaries belief, nor what some 21th dictionary proposes. The facts matter, but you have not proferred any. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @Palaestrator verborum: References matter, and please don't lie about my references. I will have to go through them one by one which will only embarass you. Ate Nike (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Go on and find the facts. There are no relevant facts in your references. That some Ancient Greek literati believed that the word is derived from Greek does not make it more credible, especially if they did not knew any Semitic. There is no reason to trust anybody who wasn’t present when the word was devised. We can only apply linguistic methodology, which they did not know – those Greek authors are only entertainers. And linguistic methodology says: The probabilities are that the Greek “coral” is from Semitic. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You're expressing your own opinion. Things don't work that way. Study my references and then go have a chat with Dr Ingo Gildenhard at Cambridge university. And then read "Hebrew is Greek" by Joseph Yahuda, another Cambridgeman by the way. Ate Nike (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They certainly don't work the way you claim they do. There are thousands of Greek experts who have lots of opinions on lots of things. None of them are unassailable just because they are experts. Just about everybody has been wrong about something at least once- you will see that just about every responsible scholar out there has admitted a mistake they made sometime in their career. To say that one scholar mentioning the subject in a note somewhere is proof of anything is just silly. Scholarship involves reading all the sources, weighing their credibility and the knowledge of their authors, and trying to arrive at the truth. Of course, Wikipedia isn't scholarship so much as an aggregator of scholarly opinions and information, but this isn't Wikipedia. By the way: I don't know Dr Ingo Gildenhard, but I suspect that he would be horrified to be equated with Joseph Yahuda, whose book seems to be full of utter, ignorant nonsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For or  to be a diminutive of, there would have to be a diminutive suffix  or . Are there any other words that show such a suffix? The examples above do not show this suffix.  all show the suffix ;  show the suffix . — Eru·tuon 20:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * κοράλιον is the diminutive of κόρα, not κόρη. Different Greek dialect; see κόρη.Ate Nike (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The diminutive suffix is -λιον not -αλιον. Hence all the above words which are examples of diminutives and ARE dimninutives. Do your Ancient Greek homework before you come commenting.Ate Nike (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Do your Ancient Greek homework"? What is the purpose of insulting me? You don't know me. Okay, if the suffix is, then what other words show this suffix? — Eru·tuon 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * From my initial post (which you don't seem to have read carefully)
 * νεφέλη (cloud), νεφέλιον (small cloud), εἶδος (a form, a sight), εἰδύλλιον (idyll, short poem). Ate Nike (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (My name is Erutuon, not Eru.) Please see my post. I already saw those examples. But you are mis-analyzing them. They contain the suffixes, , not : , . The stem of contains ; it is not a part of the diminutive suffix. — Eru·tuon 22:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not analyzing anything. Are you trying to create Ancient Greek grammar as we speak or what? I don't understant your point. All these are diminutives. Do you question that? And again you don't read carefully. εἶδος which hasn't got an 'λ' eventually takes a -λλιον suffix. Why do you overlook that? It messes up your point?Ate Nike (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, of course all are diminutives. But they display the suffixes and, not  or , or   or . (I'm doubtful that the α of the stem of  would be retained when adding the diminutive suffix.) It would strengthen your (and your sources') argument if there are words that do really have the suffixes  and , or better yet  and . Without such evidence,  and  are the only words with these suffixes. Whether that means that the "diminutive of κόρη" etymology is false, I don't know. — Eru·tuon 20:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * κοράλιον is the diminutive of κόρα, not κόρη. Different Greek dialect; see κόρη.Ate Nike (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are words with and . See αμύγδαλον - αμυγδάλιον, κνωδαλον - κνωδάλιον. But most importantly σπάθα - σπαθάλιον, σάκος - σακάλιον, ξύσμα - ξυσμάλιον, and of course κόρα - κοράλιον. Ate Nike (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Erutuon do you invent your grammar stories as you go? Don't you think the world's best Lexicographers (Passow and Liddell-Scott) would have seen if κοράλλιον is diminutive or not? Or did we have to wait for your brilliance? and hyportheses? I don't see any evidence that you or the others have brought so far. Let alone references. Just keep going with your serious-pretending, undermining and ill-meaning. Ate Nike (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not generally the practice on Wiktionary to accept any lexicographers as unquestionable utterers of revelation from the gods. They are capable of error, and their statements have to be verified. If you don't like it, you may not be at home here. — Eru·tuon 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you relaize what you've just said; that here, at an on-line lexicon, you don't accept lexicographers, especially world-class lexicographers. So why should we accept your theories? If you don't like lexicons and lexicographers and Greek etymologies you certainly are not at home here. You may feel more comfortable at the semitic section, in which case I recomend "Hebrew is Greek" by the Cambridge expert Joseph Yahuda, an ethnic Jew. Ate Nike (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lexicographers are fallible, that's all I'm saying. In fact, I rely on Liddell, Scott, and Jones a lot, but not very often for etymology, because that was not their primary focus: many of their entries do not have etymologies, and most etymologies are scant. In this case it's not clear that they believed was the diminutive of, because they say "sometimes interpreted as ...", which leaves the question open. — Eru·tuon 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence here that there is a false and the diminutive etymology is also supported by many others, ancient and contemporary (see my references).Ate Nike (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given my reason for questioning the etymology on the basis of the morphology. You've given your answer, which is that you believe what others have said. I guess there's nothing more to say. — Eru·tuon 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your morphology argument has no basis cause you have not done the proper search. See σπάθα - σπαθάλιον, σάκος - σακάλιον, ξύσμα - ξυσμάλιον, and of course κόρα - κοράλιον. Ate Nike (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm surprised; you actually responded to what I said, and I didn't notice it because of all your superfluous verbal abuse. You should have pointed to these words in your original post, rather than giving words with other diminutive suffixes. — Eru·tuon 19:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * κοράλιον is the diminutive of κόρα, not κόρη. Different Greek dialect; see κόρη. And anyway, if you study my references you will have no doubt. There's no other history on the subject. Ate Nike (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You posted that comment about dialect twice already. I was aware of the dialectal forms of the word. It doesn't matter very much, because the stem is identical in both Attic and Doric:, with the inflectional suffix or  (ignoring the other Doric form ).

I've read the quotes you posted, and, setting aside the question of the suffix, frankly don't find the diminutive etymology particularly convincing, no matter how many books mention it. The meaning "coral" is very different from the expected meaning "little maiden" and the mythological explanation for the difference in meaning is somewhat fanciful; it could have been made up after the fact. On the other hand, the Semitic words appear to be somewhat closer in meaning. And there are several other etymologies that your references mention, relating it to "cutting" and "maiden of the sea"; those may be more dubious.

As for the agreement between the Ionic forms and, that could indicate etymological relation, or it could be that the word for "coral" was actually unrelated and it was modified because the similarity in form led people to believe that it was derived from the word for "maiden". Something similar has happened with words like, the second element of which was originally , not.

In summary, the origin of the word seems to have been long ago and I don't feel the need to stake a position on it. I don't oppose mentioning the other theories even if the Semitic one is regarded by the other editors here as the most likely. — Eru·tuon 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You keep making the same mistakes: 1) You express personal opinions and judgements of the whole thing. Who are you anyway? 2) You dismiss my references but support the semitic version (again as you "see it" proper personally) for which there are no references 3) You keep raising questions (as for example the diminutive grammar) which I solve them for you but you leap onto other excuses "don't find particularly convincing" - who cares what you and Palaestor find convincing. You did not seem to know anything about the history of the subject and I had to educate both of you. "I don't oppose mentioning the other theories" Oh you're so nice. Once more (I have to repeat myself to people like you and Palaestor) I say the only history on the subject revolves around the Greek etymology. There's no other history. You and Palaestor both know that you're making a big mistake and everyone can see it's on purpose. Don't bother replying with your usual empty words. Ate Nike (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the modern sources given here do not even believe in the Greek derivation.
 * I read above: “name for this zoophyte was derived, according to some”
 * “Some ancient authors explain the word κωράλιον as diminutive of κόρη”
 * “interpr. as Dim. of κόρη in Luc. and Alciphr.”
 * “nehmen es Εinige in der Bdtg Puppe, Ρίippchen, als Demin. von κόρη, κούρη”.
 * And if Orpheus calls the coral λίθος, it very much proves the Semitic etymology, because the Semitic word means “stone”. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You're only embarrasing youself. Don't try to make a case out of nothing. Orpheus refers to about 30 different stones in his poem. One is the corallion. I'm only saying that he is including the coral, of organic origin, in his 30-odd 'Stones' poem. Read carefully and do your homework.Ate Nike (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ban Ate Nike
This will never end here. Ate Nike is either here to advertise a religion “everything is Greek” – see where he has just advertised the book Hebrew is Greek (!!!) – by way of lying or a functional illiterate (as seen at the latest when he quotes Ingo Gildenhard where Ingo Gildenhard does not support his claims) and thus it is to be expected that he fills Wiktionary with more non-sequiturs. Everywhere we would need protected pages; he shall learn to read with his head before he writes again about etymologies. , . In case someone has already regarded it. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Hebrew is Greek' was written by a Jewish Cambridge Professor. Why do you dismiss Cambridge professors as you please but then use them as reference when you want to make a case? You should know that there is the other opinion. You seem that you don't even want to know.Ate Nike (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What was Yahuda a professor in? Certainly not Linguistics, Greek or Hebrew. He was self-taught, and all of the extensive research he did was undermined by lack of knowledge about how language change works, and about how to compare languages. He belongs to what I call the Small Shiny Object school of historical linguistics- no amount of study can overcome the basic, fatal methodological flaws in his approach.
 * Any language has tens of thousands of words, so any pair of languages has hundreds of millions of potential comparisons. The law of averages dictates that there will be plenty of coincidences- hundreds of one-in-a-million occurrences are to be expected. You have to be able to show systematic correspondences, preferably in core vocabulary that people learn in childhood from their family rather than from outsiders who may be bringing words from elsewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep lying? Ingo Gildenhard DOES support my claim. BRING FORTH HIS BOOK. NOW.Ate Nike (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A ban seems too harsh to me at that point; I think we should simply ignore him. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was already aware of his obsession with that book, and he's said things on Wikipedia talk pages that are much farther off the deep end than he's espoused here. It hasn't quite reached the level where we would need to do that, but it's definitely headed in that direction. Please note that his edits in entries are what's relevant. His additions to talk pages are beside the point, unless he gets too abusive. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically his case is even when assessing the entry edits weak, considering that he restores exactly the same content that has been cleaned up after it has been examined and agreed upon by everyone that the case for the Greek derivation is weak (which everyone sane would not have done, as the eventual result is clear): What I talked about is the lack of prospect: This of course includes his pronouncements everywhere. But here on this talk page already one could interpret the latest as repeated lying which could be the reference point, if the general impression about competence be not sufficient. Now it’s too late I presume; we can wait well for his behavior confirming every nauseous notion, for, as I said, he does not let it appear like his mind can be put in order. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 23:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't abused anyone. You have banned my edits, deleted my references and continuoued with your propaganda and ignorant edits (you keep proposing the κόρη - αλός version whereas the main greek etymology is the diminutive one, as my reference say). Palaestor wants to devalue the whole thing cause he has no references. You haven't heard the last of me. I'm off to edit Wikipedia now.Ate Nike (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Any serious person who goes through the above talk-page and see my references and examine the whole thing will conclude that Palaestrator is a propaganda pepretrator put in such places to undermine things and promote some kind of state-of-things he has been put to. In this particular case he has come with no references. After I presented my references to everyone and educated them (cause nobody of those had no idea about the greek etymology) he didn't like the truth. It was a crash-landing for him. What does he do next? Find excuses to dismiss my references, deletes them, ban me of editing coral, and the worst of all: puts forth the κόρη - αλός version as the Greek etymology, whereas the main Greek etymology is the diminutive case. He's not only dictating as he pleases but he is also misinforming the public. It doesn't take a university person to see the mess he's made. He and anyone who supports his ideas has to be banned permanently. Ate Nike (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Related RFC discussion

 * See Talk:sphinx.