Talk:low

I am perplexed about the claim that there is allegedly an Old English word lah, let alone the claim concerning the origin. Two great dictionaries do not find anything similar about this mysterious lah(first, second). Please, provide this claim with sources, so that it ceases to seem rootless. The ODS leaves no doubt about the Norse root of "low". Bogorm 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That Old English falderol was inserted by User:Drago, who spoke only Hungarian but who edited in every language except Hungarian. Most of his edits have been shown to be nonsense. Whenever you see his name, just assume that it is wrong. —Stephen 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The OED gives both the Old Mediaeval English, and the Old Norse etymologies, but the two probably have an earlier common origin in a Teutonic source.   D b f  i  r  s   10:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (... but Webster's (1913) says "OE")  D b f  i  r  s   10:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the American Heritage Dictionary of English says ON as do the Online Etymology Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster, therefore the Old Norse origin becomes much more reasonable. Bogorm 10:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
I wonder if you can take a look at the PIE etymology. Both Derksen and ESSJa distinguish two PIE roots *legʰ- "to lie" and *leh₁ǵʰ- "to crawl on the ground; low" (given as *lēǵʰ- in ESSJa), and derive low and Old Norse lágr from the latter, not the former. They may have been confused in Germanic but they are distinct in Slavic, where the former produces Russian лежать, ложить and the latter produces лезть. Benwing2 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Philippa gives this as well, while Kroonen sticks with . —CodeCat 20:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–March 2021
Apparently has a Jonathan Swift quote in there somewhere - the last remaining one... I searched for it but got frustrated by the false positive. Oxlade2000 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Finding the Swift cite looks like a job for the OED. But we need two more. DCDuring (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The OED doesn't have a quote from Swift, but it has many others (and 2 definitions, broken into 7 subsenses, 5 of which they attest according to our standards). Here's some cites I found with their help:
 * Note, the original is dated a.1722 by the OED, and uses more archaic spellings (like "designe"), but I couldn't find it on Google Books.
 * I suspect this one is also lower than the date given by Google Books...
 * The OED dates the original quote to 1523.
 * Hope that helps. I would add the other senses, but I don't have time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Gentleman's Magazine passage is definitely not from 1998 (maybe 1798), the text has been scrambled by the splicing of two columns into single lines of text, and long "ſ"es aren't all being recognized by the OCR. Here's my best attempt at rendering what's really there:
 * The OED dates the original quote to 1523.
 * Hope that helps. I would add the other senses, but I don't have time. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Gentleman's Magazine passage is definitely not from 1998 (maybe 1798), the text has been scrambled by the splicing of two columns into single lines of text, and long "ſ"es aren't all being recognized by the OCR. Here's my best attempt at rendering what's really there:


 * [...]In the
 * conclusion of the ſecond commandment, god ſhows himself,
 * ſay they, in the former part, as a powerful and jealous god,
 * but ſince the diſcovery of the Circulation,
 * by which the doctrine of Evacuation, Derivation, and Revul-
 * ſion (which ſee), is more clearly known, phyſiscians have
 * rarely order'd it in any other part than the arm, foot, neck,
 * and tongue [...]
 * rarely order'd it in any other part than the arm, foot, neck,
 * and tongue [...]


 * Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the Vansittart text: he's quoting from sources that were already centuries old in his day, so 1523 sounds right- just barely modern English. This particular passage is an oath to be said by an affeerer, which seems to be someone with the authority to set the amounts of fines. It looks to me like the oath is to not [set the fine] high out of hate, nor [low] out of love. In other words, the high and low refers to the fine, not the person. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I added some more citations tracked down through pointers in either the EDD or the (out-of-copyright) NED. Shirrefs may actually be Scots (it is often hard to tell from just a sentence). - -sche (discuss) 05:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyway, this is cited (though Shirrefs and perhaps the Shetland cite might be better in a Scots section). - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)