Talk:unverwandt

RFV discussion: November 2019
Rfv-sense- both senses in Etymology 2

These were added by User:Inqvisitor after being challenged on their translation of a passage using the term. The etymology makes no sense, and there's nothing to indicate that this person speaks German well enough to be adding definitions. I was tempted to just revert the edits that added these, but we might as well see what usage has to say. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Inqvisitor (talk)
 * Oh FFS, this never ends, damn Pokorny. Those definitions are taken directly from Cassell's German-English Dictionary for, derived from +  ("change, transform, turn"). Fortunately Cassell's (revised 1978 edition) contains many older dated German words (a common complaint of buyers of copies of the book for basic modern spoken usage on e.g. Amazon reviews but useful for linguistic documentation purposes, such as this recent context when debating the meaning of Julius Pokorny's 1920s-1950s usage of the word unverwandt, the specifics of which I am not re-litigating). Actually that second definition was already listed on the Wiktionary entry ("unblinking") before I made any edits, but didn't make any sense listed as just definition 2 under the same first etymology of "unrelated"; all I did was properly expand that separate definition. Cheers.


 * The screenshot you provided shows the English definition for, with zero reference to any etymology. The meaning is not at issue, although it appears that we disagree on your interpretation of it --  etc. do not often equate to  etc.
 * Your proposed derivation of +  is problematic, and not backed up by any mono- or bilingual sources that I've yet seen.  The participle of  is .  Where does the medial  go in your shift from  to ?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What Cassell's doesn't say, but Duden does (and Wahrig implies) is that is said only of a person's gaze; de-wiktionary's example is also of a person's gaze. That being the case, I don't think we need both senses listed in our entry. Our current sense 2 is probably sufficient. As for the etymology, it's far more likely to contain the root of, so that "unswerving" is the closest etymologico-semantic match. Of course  no longer means "to turn away", but it used to, and that sense is still present in . Interestingly, no dictionary (not even de-wikt) includes our Etymology 1, namely "unrelated", though I can find some examples of that meaning , . —Mahāgaja · talk 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The sense of “(un)related” is retained in modern . --Lambiam 12:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ja this is definitely archaic had to go digging but sources from 1792 and 1873 I found also suggest see "unverwendet" ergo "un-verwenden" (un+ver+wenden) as indeed an irregular source root word, thanks for revising the entry. Both sources say "fixed" as the primary meaning of "unverwandt" derived from core verbal meaning "to stare". So "not moving", "not turning away", having one's eyed fixed upon someone/something, not breaking eye contact, therefore "steadfast, resolute, unwavering, unflinching", etc., "to not turn away"...Cassell's: "verwenden (irregular only, usually negative)", example "er verwandte kein Auge von ihr" ("he never moved or turned his eyes from her").

Inqvisitor (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Duden lists "turn away" as their sense 3, but with no indication that this is archaic or obsolete. Does that suggest that this sense is not archaic or obsolete?  Or does Duden just not do much with usage labels?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The link you provided says "Gebrauch &emsp; gehoben veraltet", i.e. "Usage &emsp; formal obsolete". I'm not sure if that means "formal and obsolete" or "formal or obsolete" though. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! For some reason I didn't even see that line earlier.  Possibly an artifact of odd rendering; I've noticed sometimes that Duden loads strangely over mobile, where the CSS seems to get applied erratically.  Anyway, thanks!  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Duden website is really not well designed. I prefer using my hardback Duden dictionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC) (Incidentally I feel exactly the same way about Merriam-Webster: I love my Merriam-Webster dictionaries, but I despise their website. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC))
 * Peinlich. Fay Freak (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)