User:KYPark/withy

withy

 * Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wiþjōn
 * 27-28 March 2013 Leasnam

Etymology
From, , from. Cognate with Latin, Lithuanian , Russian , Polish , Old Irish.

Noun

 * 1) cord, rope, thong

Declension
(erased)

Descendants

 * Old English:
 * Middle English:, ,
 * Scots:, , ,
 * English: ;
 * Old Frisian:
 * Old Saxon:
 * Middle Low German:
 * Old Norse:
 * Icelandic:
 * Norwegian:
 * Swedish:
 * Danish:


 * Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wiþiz
 * 28 March 2013 Leasnam, CodeCat

Etymology
From, from. Cognate with Latin, Lithuanian , Russian , Polish , Old Irish.

Noun

 * 1) cord, rope, thong

Declension
(erased)

Related terms

 * *wiþjǭ

Descendants

 * Old English: (in compounds)
 * Middle English:, ,
 * English: ,
 * Old Saxon: ,
 * Middle Low German:
 * Old High German:
 * Middle High German:
 * German:
 * Old Norse:
 * Icelandic:


 * 1) How are both related at all?
 * 2) Whether or not related, which is earlier at all?
 * 3) Which better relates to  in question at all?

--KYPark (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They probably both come from the same root, PIE *wey-. *wéytis is a productive formation within PIE, so that is probably the older of the two. *wiþjōn may have been derived from it, although I'm not sure about the extra details (like why the -þ- was kept when it was clearly part of a derivational suffix). 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Whose "probably, probably"? Yours or the third party's? And, is either the origin of at issue after all?  --KYPark (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

See also: User:KYPark/withe to which User:CodeCat moved Etymology scriptorium for the simple reason "Not appropriate" in his or her opinion?

--KYPark (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * wiþig
 * From wiþ ("?") + -ig ("-like"). Cognates may include:


 * , German ("willow twig")
 * ("side by side"), Swedish ("wide, beside"), and perhaps
 * , German ("wide"),  ("pasture")
 * , Old English
 * , Latin ("to divide, separate")
 * Italian ("comb, reed")

I wish the latter part of likelihood would not excite hotheads too much but help coolheads, as it were, break through the deadlock, if any.

--KYPark (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read up on Grimm's law and the High German consonant shift before posting lists like this. The languages in your area (aside from the Sinitic languages) are isolates, so you don't have much exposure to sound correspondences between related languages. This is obvious enough that it's been pretty much universally accepted for at least the past century and a half, with the disputes centering on some of the details and finer points, but not on the basics. The Italian example comes from Latin pecten, which is even less plausible as a cognate. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No phonetic dispute seems to arise from those Germanic examples. Otherwise, if any, please kindly show us such wise views of yours. Latin of dividere: cf. discern: ("sift, separate") also looks safe. Most unlikely and ignorable is Italian  I'd use because of its senses "comb and reed esp. of a loom" of parallelity and similarity that seem to shed light on the weeping willow looking like raining! But this last should not be the weakest link of a chain but the tail of a lizard.


 * --KYPark (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as sound correspondences (ignoring the vowels):
 * withe:/German, wide:/German /Swedish match.
 * with: doesn't match anything you're comparing it with
 * Weid: also doesn't match anything you're comparing it with
 * wood:, Old English isn't compared with anything, but that's OK, because it has no matches in the other Germanic examples.
 * widow:/Latin is kind of an odd case: at the beginning of words you get pairings like deer/Latin, and often you get pairings like red/Latin  and word/Latin  away from the front of the word- but now that I think about it, those non-initial cases are more due to the presence of r. English d is usually from an aspirated Proto-Indo-European sound, and Latin lost the aspiration, merging the aspirated with the voiced sounds- but with weird results in some cases.
 * To sum it all up, what looked at first glance like a case of problems with sound correspondences weren't, really. Instead, you were just matching up words within languages that don't belong: with and wide are as different as apples and oranges. The th and the d are enough to invalidate the comparison, but the semantics are wrong, too. The Old English preposition had more of a connotation of towards or against: the idea of things being together came from the idea of them being up against each other/close to each other. Wide has more of an outward than inward direction- they just don't go together. Wood and withe don't go together, either. The Proto-Indo-European from which withe and withy came has more to do with flexibility and twisting than with anything associated with wood. I should also mention that the Weeping Willow is an East Asian plant that was unknown in most of Europe until after the Middle Ages. It got the name from biblical translations of a Hebrew word for a riparian tree that probably wasn't a willow. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me move leftmost...

Refer to "English: withy:; (withe:, with:)" under Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/wiþjōn at left on top. Note with:.

Refer also to EtymOnLine at right relating divide: to (widow: and with:. Note with: again.

Both references are related by with: that replaced OE mid: mysteriously.

Now you have wide:, wood:, Weid: ("pasture"), hence three out of ten, left yet unrelated, while reduced to ablaut only!

At first you asked me to "read up on Grimm's law," suggesting (as if) the consonants of my examples had fatally violated that. At last you explain them away (from it) as above.

So I ask you again to do them clearly in his wise terms. Otherwise, you must have aimed to accuse or expose my phonologic ignorance for the sake of false accusation or exposition! Did you mean it ill and evil?

Soon after you (09:00), whether or not influenced, Dan Polansky (09:30) blamed me for User talk:KYPark as (if) "inventing crackpot theories" again. He should say why reasonably; otherwise nothing but something like witch hunt. I advise him to stop it and behave himself.

First of all, you would've civilly thanked me for bringing OE wiþig: first to your attention as a likely clue whence to infer or review the anomalous etymology. Your critique would sound more reasonable and civil after that. You and Dan are just no-men keeping saying no! Saying yes, instead, you'd better review the etymology of wiþig: in mystery(hence "?" above) from many angles, even "speculative."

I never insist that my view for your review includes neither speculation nor error at all. Contrary to God's eye view, every human view is more or less speculative in itself. So we should not too easily hate and avoid but review it again and again very carefully.

Refer to PGM at right
 * *wīdaz ("wide") from PIE for "apart, asunder, in two",
 * *widuz ("wood") from PIE for "divide, separate", as compared with OE :
 * wiþ: ("against, opposite; along, towards; with").

Thus the PIE for "divide, separate" (parallel twigs, at first) looks like competing with that for "bend, twist" (flexible twigs, at last), aiming at the most likely origin. You are welcome and free to review them in this regard, as far as you like or dislike.

--KYPark (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you have not ceased posting implausible etymological speculation to Etymology scriptorium. Recently, you have posted the following, in :
 * User talk:KYPark

withy


 * From wiþ ("?") + -ig ("-like"). Cognates may include:


 * withe:, German ("willow twig")
 * with: ("side by side"), Swedish ("wide, beside"), and perhaps
 * wide:, German ("wide"), Weid: ("pasture")
 * wood:, Old English
 * widow:, Latin ("to divide, separate")
 * Italian ("comb, reed")

This is what I meant when I spoke of your inventing crackpot theories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You have now posted this: "Contrary to God's eye view, every human view is more or less speculative in itself." in . This is what I referred to as relativistic and anything-goes-istic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relativism goes so far as neither one thing (absolutist, monist) nor "anything goes" but our karma or culture goes. Then, your favorite phrase "relativistic and anything-goes-istic" is quite an oxymoron. Should you be unconvinced, you might be a helpless hence hopeless crackpot yourself, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste --KYPark (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * User talk:Chuck Entz
 * == WT:ES ==

Do you agree CodeCat moved that aggenda to User:KYPark/withy? --KYPark (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that it came to that, but, yes. Four screenfuls of text, including wholesale duplication of large parts of entries, lists of "possible cognates" that have little in common but superficially similar consonants, and long discussions about why you think everyone else is biased, wrongheaded, and out to get you. Maybe a couple of sentences out of all that has any relevance to Wiktionary, making it about 90% wasted space. It's bad enough that you bring up irrelevant topics, but then you add voluminous and elaborately formatted supporting material (most of it just for show), and no matter how anyone responds, you just keep going on and on about a given subject until your attention shifts to something else. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By that unfair move, CodeCat in effect freed you from answering in the blind alley. Otherwise, why don't you respond to my last, most critical, conclusive talk at User:KYPark/withy? Simply I win if you give it up. --KYPark (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that Chuck failed to respond because even on April fool's day he had more productive things to do. Please step back and evaluate the function and mission of Wt (and don't bother to tell us your evaluation; some of us have already done that and are doing very nicely thank you) then if you find your evaluation incompatible with what all the other idiots opposing you seem to think, then favour a more deserving enterprise with your talents. You will win and they will have learnt a lesson, and serve them right. Have a nice day. JonRichfield (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your nice advice indeed. --KYPark (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste --KYPark (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)