User:KYPark/Toward deep etymology

Toward deep etymology

 * Prelude
 * User:KYPark/2012
 * Etymology scriptorium/likely cognate with cognate

wiegen
wiegen  ("to weigh") wiegen  ("to sway")

These two German verbs, for example, may be not really homonyms but remotely synonyms in fact, being differentiated just for the differential sake, perhaps failing in penetrating into deep etymology. The minimal reason for this is Etymology 2 is void and vague! --KYPark (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting about their Dutch cognates. 17:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How could I? Never ever, Sir! --KYPark (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a sir. And I think you did, either that or you failed to see the significance. Because these verbs have clearly been homonyms only for the past few centuries. They are different in Middle High German, and in Dutch. So how did you not see that? And now that you know, how do you explain that? 17:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by difference, in sound, meaning, etymology, or whatever? Such confusion may be the source of this confusion, I fear. Shall we be more precise? --KYPark (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They were different in sound and meaning. Different words, like any other random pair of words. Why don't you look them up and see for yourself? 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear that CodeCat made a clear difference of those two senses in my terms. Fair enough? --KYPark (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I am trying to explain to you that the two verbs, one meaning "weigh" and the other meaning "sway", have only been pronounced the same in the present tense since early modern German times. Before then, they were pronounced and spelled differently, as they still are in Dutch. So given those facts, how can you motivate the etymological connection that you have just proposed? 17:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm just talking about, confirrming, the fact that you make a complete difference of the two words that I see as oneness etymologically. That is to say, your etymology may be wrong, and so you'd better reconsider your or their claim. Don't you like me saying this way? --KYPark (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that Middle High German is not the ancestor of modern German ?  18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Never ever! But it may be not the only one but a mere temporary variation. Otherwise, no need for Proto-whatever, isn't there? --KYPark (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are saying then. You do not dispute that derives from Middle High German  and has cognates in almost every other Germanic language. Yet you argue that  is related to ? How do you suggest that is possible then if they were separate words in Middle High German, and still are separate words in Dutch?  19:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be obsessed by spellings as given, I guess. Look back the Middle English, if not Dutch, spellings that were too free or uncanonized for you to be sure. Beyond such spelling variations, you'd better read the deep meaning (before the deep etymology), say, the "shared meaning element" between "weigh" and "sway," however mysterious or unbelievable it may look. Etymology scriptorium might help you somehow, I hope. Don't believe experts too much. Steve Jobs famously complained "All experts were wrong." --KYPark (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see the point you are trying to make here so I suggest you make it because I'm getting tired of you beating around the bush. What about the etymology of as it is currently noted in the entry is not clear to you?  19:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * KYPark, are you saying these are ultimately the same source? If so, what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I made it quite clear from the beginning that we miss Etymology 2 on the one hand and we need it not really on the other, because both may share the same semantic and etymological origin. Just one word, not two! I am not depriving you of your chance to find it yourself. Cheers. --KYPark (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) @Mglovesfun: Exactly so suggesting rather than "saying" or insisting. Unfortunately, however, no word manifests itself whose descendant it is so that you have to make best guess or inference from the given state of the art. Are you ready? Good luck! (Sorry but I rather refrain from offering mine to be miserably bullied as usual. Rethinking is what I ask you most.) --KYPark (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added etymology 2 now. Of course they may share the same etymological origin, but all evidence so far speaks against that as the forms have become more similar in the present than they were in the past. You have not offered any concrete evidence in favour of it. Are you going to continue to waste time or are you going to actually be productive for Wiktionary? 20:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I hate anything like your last passage. Your edit of Etymology 2 did prove me to "actually be productive for Wiktionary," isn't it? Do you ask me to be much more productive? I would be should you refrain from such repeated pointed rhetoric as "waste time," etc. Would you? --KYPark (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that I don't feel I or Wiktionary is any better off after this conversation than it was before. If all you wanted is an etymology for you could have just said so. We didn't need all the extra discussion.  20:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * After all you refrain from answering me asking you to refrain from pointed rhetorics (so that Wiktionary would be better off). --KYPark (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You titled this "Toward deep etymology", but this is going nowhere. Yes, one can come up with vague theories about how the two senses might be related, but without evidence, there's no point. The evidence we have shows that the two senses were distinct going back to Old High German, and the Dutch cognates strongly suggest that they were distinct even further back. Whether those distinct words were related, and perhaps derived in term from a single, earlier source, no one knows. Sure, there are things like the Old Norse word for cradle, which seems to be related to English wag, that show such a semantic connection is possible, but that's not evidence that the two German words are related, especially since the vowels don't match, and there's lots of evidence that vowel correspondences aren't random.
 * If you look at what everyone's been saying in this case, no one has actually said you're wrong. What they've said is that you've made a vague suggestion, but that a vague suggestion by itself isn't enough. Do you have evidence? Do you have a coherent theory that explains why your vague suggestion is correct? Do you have anything? Exhorting us to ignore the experts doesn't help, since the experts aren't saying anything about this. Claiming persecution doesn't help, because it doesn't address the issue at hand. Pointing to other assertions you've made doesn't help, since those have their own flaws, and they also don't address the issue at hand. You still haven't given anything that would justify taking up space here. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've said it once, and I'll say it again. KYPark is a troll. It would be best simply not to engage with him. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So true, so true. At least he's just discussing it. If he continues to make disruptive edits based on his spurious theories, a block will be in order. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. A troll is someone whose goal is disruption. KYPark's seems to be self-aggrandizement. The former is solely destructive, but the latter can be beneficial at times. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * While it may be a fair warning to point out what specific is wrong, it may be an unfair threat to say ambiguously "If he continues to make disruptive edits based on his spurious theories, a block will be in order." As such, this is a warning against Metaknowledge who repeatedly threats to block me for uncertain reasons, while no one else has not done so recently. Is he specialized in blocking? Am I insanely trolling with this heavy agenda? I do wonder who is really disruptive here indeed. It is she that makes herself decent or indecent. --KYPark (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

wiegen "weigh" cf. "weigh" wiegen "swing" cf. "swing"

Allegedly, English balance, etc., stemmed from French "scales, balance" (12c.), which also gave rise to the following ideas:

There is no theory whatsoever here. But the following inference around the above factual reference may help you more.

The weight is such a physical resistance to wayfaring or "moving" along the way that both may be most likely to be made cognates when fusing the idea of swaying up and down with that of turning port and starboard, rather than simply moving or carrying.

Ancient ways were not running straightforward like American highways, but ever turning this and that ways in turn. As ways sway, so do wagons, where wayfarers enjoy sways as seafarers do waves.

--KYPark (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * May I cordially ask the Wiktionary authority concerned if the above simple but maybe critical comparison between German wiegen and Romanic (Spanish-French) counterpart is aimed to troll anything, as suspected by some community members? If not, may I cordially ask it again to block or disable such unjustly disruptive ones forever for the benefit of Wiktionary? Many thanks in advance!
 * --KYPark (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * KYPark, could you just say what you mean? At the start of this thread it was almost like you had this great hypothesis but you weren't prepared to tell us what it was. In the end I guess it and you confirmed it, but I don't see the point of a thread like this if you're not going to tell us what you're on about. I find it a bit like being a schoolchild and someone coming up to you and saying "I have a secret but I won't tell you what it is". The anger doesn't seem to be about what you've said in terms of theory, but beating about the bush (or as we say in Yorkshire, fucking about). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "I guess it and you confirmed it." -- Splendid! That's exactly what I wished you. But I regret I confirmed it before you may have reported it. This would better be no one-man show. I ask for constructive participation or collaboration. But few used to talk to me constructively, I suspect. To me, they used to enjoy talking to me destructively, bullyingly, rather than really critically.


 * As I said the very "secret" in reply to Chuck Entz, I would have done so in reply to you, should I not have been struggling against CodeCat, who used to deny me absolutely. I said:
 * "Do you ask me to be much more productive? I would be should you refrain from such repeated pointed rhetoric as "waste time," etc. Would you?"


 * CodeCat refused to promise it to me, most likely because s/he was willing to deny whatever I'd talk about. Our views are to collide headon! Mine is not really a "great hypothesis" but little more than a mere observation as you could make soon yourself. You may be angry at me fucking about apparently, while others at me talking about anything between "great hypothesis" and "mere observation" perhaps to their disadvantage. CodeCat must be at last angry at me pointing out that Appendix:Proto-Germanic/swinganan is a helpless island. At worst, there may be no reasonable, expressable reason for bullying.
 * --KYPark (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lexical cluster
The following cluster appears to bear on the deep semantic base "to bend, move to and fro". [*] Likely frequentative morphology. --KYPark (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok? Again, your point is? Please take note that Wiktionary is not a forum. 14:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary is not, but Etymology scriptorium used to be one, I quess. I wish this cluster could help view deep etymology. Interest and interpretation therein is up to the reader, none of my business. Not interested, you just forget, waste no time. But please don't dare to declare it is wholly rubbish, however opposing it may be to your theory, say, *swinganan looking like an island instead of likely deeply relating to its /sw*/ morphemes such as above. This cluster is partly to respond to Chuck Entz who asked me to give evidence to support the title deep etymology.


 * By the way, I am afraid to keep talking with you any longer (00:12 local time). Very sorry. But the other day, I went to bed at six thirty local time, entirely tired out the next day. Such is now too much for my age. --KYPark (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So as I understand it, you're just dumping your own hypotheses here for the "benefit" of "enlightening" other users? Sorry, that's not how it works. Unless you can clearly show that this discussion is somehow going to benefit the etymologies in Wiktionary's entries in a way that is scientifically sound, I am going to move this to your user page. However, keep in mind that some editors here are in the habit of deleting the user pages of editors who don't do any useful editing on Wiktionary's entries, so this may happen to you too if you keep it up. 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify this: In the past 10 days you made over 50 edits, but no edits whatsoever that were not either reverted or just trivial/technical fixes like adding a missing parenthesis. The last edit that was not in a discussion room or your user page - that is, your last edit that actually improved Wiktionary directly - was to lozenge on 24 December, in which you added a Korean translation. Your last editing of an entry's content was at 烙 on the 22nd, your last full entry on the 19th. Looking further back at your edits it seems that well over half of your edits on Wiktionary in the last few months were either in the etymology scriptorium or on your user page. 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I prefer it when KYPark doesn't edit the main namespace, would rather have him/her here. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

All experts were wrong indeed!
Most, if not all, small fish died while being moved from the East Coast to the West Coast of Canada. Experts had no more answer after all. Then, an old humble fisherman suggested that the eel be shipped together! They all laughed a scornful laugh. But the officer, having no more scientific idea, followed his advice at last. Hurrah, most fish surprisingly survived. [I was told sic many decades ago. So I like being informed of anything about that event.]

The old fisherman knew that the natural enemy does good indeed. This sounds a great lesson as well as irony. Such is how nature works anyway. And such may be the scientific world of criticism. But such may not be Wiktionary, I fear. Anyway I wish you all a happy new year and to always survive all constructive critiques, say, toward deep etymology!

--KYPark (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We keep learning

 * http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sway&allowed_in_frame=0 sway

--KYPark (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * weigh (v.)
 * Old English wegan "find the weight of, have weight, lift, carry," from P.Gmc. *weganan (cf. Old Saxon wegan, Old Frisian wega, Dutch wegen "to weigh," Old Norse vega, Old High German wegan "to move, carry, weigh," German wiegen "to weigh"), from PIE *wegh- "to move"


 * wiggle (v.)
 * early 13c., perhaps from Middle Dutch or Middle Flemish wigelen, frequentative of wiegen "to rock," from wiege "cradle" (cf. O.H.G. wiga, Ger. Wiege, O.Fris. widze), from PIE root *wegh- "to move" (see weigh).


 * Conclusion
 * German wiegen  and wiegen  stem from PIE root *wegh-. (QED)

--KYPark (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * non sequitur (if we're going to use Latin catchphrases). On what is your conclusion based? 15:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Decisively, the above two Etymonline etymologies. Examine carefully, and you will agree. Cheers. --KYPark (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok let me see. The first says wiegen 1 is from PIE, which I agree with because it's scientific consensus and well established. But the second only says perhaps from , which means that it's only a hypothesis and doesn't have any conclusive evidence. Therefore, you can't conclude that the two are related, only that they are maybe related. 15:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh come on! Don't you see "wiegen "to rock," from wiege "cradle" ... Ger. Wiege ... from PIE root *wegh-"? --KYPark (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I and etymonline said it may be related, but it is not certain at all. I don't see how you can conclude otherwise. 15:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your uncertain degree of belief "perhaps" applies between wiggle and wigelen, but not between wiegen/Wiege and PIE. This latter kinship holds unless it is positively denied. That's how most etymology is established. May I stop here? Thanks in advance. --KYPark (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I read it wrong. But even then, accepting Wiege as a descendant of the same PIE root gives problems. In particular the origin of the -ie-, which can only have three Germanic sources: -i- in open syllable, -eu-, or -ē₂-. -i- and -eu- can both be discounted because they would require -y- or -w- in the PIE root, e.g. *weyǵʰ- or wewǵʰ- which are obviously not right because they don't match all the other descendants (including ). That leaves ē₂ as the only option, but that vowel is rare in Germanic and doesn't have any conclusive etymologies established for it (it did not descend from any single PIE sound). So if Wiege comes from a Germanic form with ē₂, that leaves open the question where it came from. 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

coni

 * See coni


 * Questions
 * 1) coni, cony, conny, coney, cunny (Variants?)
 * 2) cony-catching, connyfogle (Rabbit chasing or woman cheating in essence?)
 * 3) cunni-lingus, cuni-culus, as it were (From cunnus or cunus?)
 * 4) cunt cf. hunt, coney cf. honey (Accidental rhymes?)


 * pica: cf. cunny:, pussy:


 * Split etymology

cunny (Variant of cony) "rabbit" cunny (Diminutive of cunt) "cunt"

This split, analytic etymology may be overdone or ill done.

--KYPark (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See : cunny @ "Archived revision by KYPark [...] as of 13:16, 9 January 2013." 

--KYPark (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

beaver 1 aquatic rodent 2 vulva, pubic hair bunny 1 rabbit 2 bunny girl cunny #1 rabbit #2 cunt chatte 1 female cat 2 pussy, vagina kitty 1 kitten 2 vulva micia 1 puss, pussy-cat 2 pussy, cunt minou 1 pussycat 2 pussy muff 1 fur 2 pubic hair, vulva muff 1 muff (handwarmer) 2 vagina 3 woman mus 1 mouse 2 pussy, cunt mus 1 mouse 2 pussy, cunt Muschi 1 house cat 2 pussy, vulva passera 1 hedge sparrow, dunnock 2 pussy (pubic hair) poes 1 cat 2 vagina 3 woman pussy 1 cat 2 vulva, vagina 3 woman 4 sexual intercourse

--KYPark (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

bow
bow (bow bending) bow (head bending) bow (head of a boat)

These split, analytic etymologies 1, 2, 3, stem from the same origin that makes sense of bending.

--KYPark (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

--KYPark (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) --KYPark (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC) --KYPark (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See also
 * 1 ship bow 2 aircraft nose 3 shoulder joint
 * bough
 * Proto-Germanic *būkaz "belly"