Talk:tuomiokirkko

Not a direct borrowing
A direct borrowing from 🇨🇬 would end in or, depending on the age of the borrowing, and can be safely discounted. The Old Swedish form gets a bit closer, but has another issue: SSA thinks  derives from (Old) Swedish too, but a borrowing from Low German/Saxon is more likely, and SES admits as much.

However, this still leaves the possibility that the word could be a partial calque, in which only the latter part was translated as. This however fails to explain why the word doesn't start or, but instead. There is no apparent reason for this change, except the explanation that the word is indeed a full calque, with both parts translated.

is not a folksy word, but was instead created by the clergy, probably specifically to translate the Swedish term. A Swedish speaker unfamiliar with the etymology could have easily misinterpreted it as +  and translated it accordingly into Finnish. This would not be the only case where a word was translated "wrong"; see e.g. (initial part mistranslated based solely on phonetic similarity) and. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * My point is that neither Kotus nor SSA is infallible. They make mistakes too, and that they imply that is a direct borrowing counts as one, even though it is evident that is phonetically impossible. &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 20:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This Kielikello article seems to get it right, though (but then get wrong...). &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, which is why I defer to experts like kotus. My thinking was "tuomio-" comes from a phonetic matching. This is different from a calque. In fact maybe this is what you mean by "mistaken calque". I am new to wiktionary and don't know if "from" is code for "direct borrowing", I took it to be a bit more vague, to allow for things like phonetic matching. Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A phono-semantic matching is not out of the question ( arguably is one), but the conundrum is that any explanation for why would match  semantically can also be used to bolster the claim that it is in fact a misinterpreted calque. Besides, I don't think we have any infrastructure right now for a partial calque-partial phono-semantic matching. &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it normal on wiktionary for individuals to decide what goes on etymology pages based on their own original research? Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, when something can be well reasoned and argued, such as in this case. But of course one has to be careful when doing so - anyone can think they're an expert when they are not. That is why you have to be able to explain yourself when questioned. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 05:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Having seen some of your other edits, the certainty you arrive at through this Sherlock Holmes-esque process of elimination is unwarranted; you do not recognise unknowns: Even though, of the proposed etymologies, one is "not impossible" by your analysis, the correct etymology could be something we haven't even considered, or can't know. So my problem is with phrasing like suortuva "probably" comes from suoria, or the lack of any qualifiers on the etymology you wrote up for this tuomiokirkko page.
 * I take the time to say this because you are a prolific editor on this website Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The etymology (from, ) is something SSA talks about - I didn't come up with that one. &mdash; S URJECTION  / T / C / L / 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * my mistake, you did add a bit about phono-semantic matching for the tuomiokirkko entry Wikiuser4815162342 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)