Talk:mango

Requests for verification - kept
Kept. See archived discussion of June 2008. 07:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Verb definition for mango
Are we sure mangoed is a verb? I can't find another reference (academic or reputable) that has mangoed as a verb. Ntlhui (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV 2
I can't find any reputable source (dictionary at current) that reference mango as a verb, nor do I know of it commonly used as a verb. Ntlhui (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a second citation to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How can we have a four-part definition for a word that only has 3 citations? DAVilla 10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the definition to "to stuff and pickle (a fruit)". If desired, it could be pared even further to "to pickle (usually after stuffing)". - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

=🇨🇬 etymology=

This page says

''«No doubt the Greek m£ggnon, ‘means of bewtching and deceiving’, etc., magganeÚein, ‘deceive by artificial means’, ‘play tricks’, maggane…a, ‘trickery’, ‘witchcraft’, ‘deception’, are of the same origin. One is apt to believe that mango is simply a Greek loanword m£ggwn. This word has not, however, been found, but can be presupposed. The meaning of the whole word-group clearly indicates that the word, when introduced into Latin, had the function ‘merchant who polishes up his goods by artificial means’»; L. Deicke, v. Mango, cit., col. 300.''

Just about every entry on this page on Etymologiebank mentions that Greek word too,

and finally your old favorite, Harper:

so it's just not Buck. Are they all morons chasing a false carrot too? DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 19:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Follow the sources -- where does the etymology originate? -- because these are obviously all derivative of it. --Skiulinamo (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Latin mangō
If such a verb as is attested, or at least reconstructed as such by scholars, please cite a source for it.

Supposing for the moment that such a verb did exist, to derive Classical Latin mangō from it would require both intervocalic lenition of /k/ (a Western Romance sound change) and Classical or pre-Classical syncope of the /i/ in /-icō/ (of which there appear to be zero examples). The form predicted by your etymology would have been.

The semantics of 'handle' > 'trade' are, while not implausible, not on the same level as the connection between 'trick out, dress artificially' (a sense found in the Greek verb) and 'adorn to give the false appearance of greater value' (found in mangō and its derivatives).

I don't see why a modern source should be removed either, just because someone else proposed the theory first. Bodel's work is modern, informative, and- usefully enough- downloadable for free on Academia.edu, unlike the nineteenth-century source. Nicodene (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * is usually whats cited as the ancestor of OF . I'm not sure if it's truly attested or not ( doesn't seem to believe it is), but I see you have it under . It could also belong under , which would be an easier explanation for . The Greek definition for 🇨🇬 of sounds like a wishful revisionism to me -- what do the actual Greek sources say? I've seen mangō defined also as , which indeed fits well with a hand movement.  --Skiulinamo (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also see 61 for suggested deverbal forms from *manigō/cō. --Skiulinamo (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skiulinamo It is not attested per any Latin dictionary, or otherwise. (The closest that one finds is manicare 'make a sleeve' < .) The standard source that we use for French etymologies, the TLFi, breaks down manier (also found in Old French, crucially, as maneier and manoier) into + the suffix, which as indicated on that entry (and, in more detail, on ) comes from . The FEW cites Italian  as the direct equivalent to the French verb (and on the next page also Catalan ), thereby endorsing the origin in.
 * The -idiāre etymology for manier is also provided by the source cited on, and corroborated by the Romance forms indicated there- all lacking a velar stop and showing typical outcomes for.
 * 'Furbisher, polisher' is consistent with the general sense of improving the outward appearance of wares. A link to hand motion is possible but doesn't seem more compelling.
 * I do not see on what basis the definition for μαγγανεύω is 'wishful revisionism', considering that it is supported by standard sources for Ancient Greek, moreover ones that do not use it to explain the Latin word. Nicodene (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OF can also derive from, see chastoyer. Catalan  is also the expected form from , compare , as is  in Spanish per . So, correct me if I'm wrong, really  is only based on Italian.
 * P.S. Spanish could just as well be borrowed from Catalan. P.P.S. The Five Sources of Epenthetic /J/ in Western Hispano-Romance: A Study in Multiple Causation is an interesting read.
 * I don't have a ton of Greek publications in my library, so if someone could direct me to a usage of with the meaning, I'd be much obliged.
 * --Skiulinamo (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skiulinamo Catalan never, to the best of my knowledge, reflects a native outcome of /, which is the expected . Cf., , . Conversely, for outcomes of , cf. , ,.
 * Structurally, Catalan fumejar reflects *[fūmus + -idiāre], which also seems to be the case for Spanish, considering the Old Spanish fumeyar with /-j-/. Coromines describes the suffix contamination that appears to have occurred here. Cf. also Italian , in light of which it is tempting to make an actual entry.
 * Incidentally, -igāre/-icāre can yield Catalan -jar (without the preceding e) when syncope causes a collision of the velar stop with a preceding consonant. So, for instance, <, similar to the collision in  > Catalan . Note however that  is not an example of this, as the preceding vowel wasn't syncopated.
 * Returning to, that form is upheld not only by Catalan and Italian (as well as French- described below) but also by, at minimum, Ibero-Romance as well, where *manegar (the expected outcome of a supposed *manicāre) appears to be lacking. To be fair, the Iberian forms do not necessarily rule out *manigāre (loss of Latin /ɡ/ in this environment being fairly common), so long as we assume that Portuguese is a borrowing from the Italian, or perhaps Catalan, reflex of *manidiāre.
 * For French, the expected result of *manicāre or *manigāre would actually be *mancher or *manger, as with manica > . That is because, in the order of sound-changes leading to French, the deletion of original short Latin /ǐ/ in 'weak' positions (roughly speaking, word-internal unstressed syllables, where it was preceded by a consonant) applied at a relatively early stage. This syncope brought the velar stop in contact with the preceding consonant and made it ineligible for the later 'extreme' stages of intervocalic stop lenition. Hence the stop remains, undergoing affrication (+ fronting):
 * > (Old Fr.)
 * *expand(ǐ)cāre >
 * > (Old Fr.)
 * *grān(ǐ)ca > (also Old Fr. )
 * > (with secondary, but still pre-literary, loss of /v/)
 * > (Old Fr.)
 * Syncope did not apply when /ǐ/ was found in a non-'weak' position, hence the velar remains intervocalic and fully lenites:
 * Syncope also did not apply to long /ī/, so the velar again remains intervocalic:
 * > (Old Fr.)
 * In theory, one could resort to *manīcāre to account for French manier. However the long /ī/ would be awkward to explain, inconsistent with the short /ǐ/ of *manǐcus (> French, Italian , Spanish ), and contradicted by the cognate verbs in Italian, etc.
 * As for the sense of 'trick out, dress artificially', it is found in Plutarch per Liddell & Scott (1940), cited on our entry for μαγγανεύω.
 * Nicodene (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought-through reply -- much appreciated.
 * Certainly is the stronger theory. FWIW, Catalan  is a borrowing, as I understand it, and I would venture to argue that all -g- forms are (semi-)learned borrowings. Latin  brings up the possiblity that  contamination of  might have been somewhat common.
 * Right, I see Liddell & Scott's translation, but I don't see a quotation attached to it.
 * --Skiulinamo (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skiulinamo I'd be a bit surprised by the /e/, then, and the early attestation. For comparison, Coromines gives Spanish navegar as an inherited form, found in medieval times alongside navear (also naveyar, another case of contamination). It's conceivable that the variant with /ɡ/ kept or regained it thanks to some kind of learned influence.
 * As for as Greek is concerned, I'm afraid that's as far as I can go. Perhaps one of our resident hellenists can elucidate things. Nicodene (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Occitan also has and OF, . Contamination? 🤷 --Skiulinamo (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skiulinamo I suspect these reflect *nāvigi-āre < > Old Fr., ; Old Oc. ,.
 * Phonologically though they can just as well reflect *nāv-idiāre (as do Italian, Old Spanish ). Nicodene (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought-through reply -- much appreciated.
 * Certainly is the stronger theory. FWIW, Catalan  is a borrowing, as I understand it, and I would venture to argue that all -g- forms are (semi-)learned borrowings. Latin  brings up the possiblity that  contamination of  might have been somewhat common.
 * Right, I see Liddell & Scott's translation, but I don't see a quotation attached to it.
 * --Skiulinamo (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skiulinamo I'd be a bit surprised by the /e/, then, and the early attestation. For comparison, Coromines gives Spanish navegar as an inherited form, found in medieval times alongside navear (also naveyar, another case of contamination). It's conceivable that the variant with /ɡ/ kept or regained it thanks to some kind of learned influence.
 * As for as Greek is concerned, I'm afraid that's as far as I can go. Perhaps one of our resident hellenists can elucidate things. Nicodene (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Occitan also has and OF, . Contamination? 🤷 --Skiulinamo (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skiulinamo I suspect these reflect *nāvigi-āre < > Old Fr., ; Old Oc. ,.
 * Phonologically though they can just as well reflect *nāv-idiāre (as do Italian, Old Spanish ). Nicodene (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and created Reconstruction:Latin/fumidio, tho I'm not sure how best to format it. Latin could also use this treatment, as OF  is clearly from, and we even find , a hyper-correction to. -- Skiulinamo (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

is interesting because the word is attested in Latin, but as. --Skiulinamo (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And back to the classical syncopation verbs,  to  is such an example. --Skiulinamo (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)