Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2012/April

blend
The etymology says this comes from Old Norse, and explains the vowel 'e' as a case of ablaut. Firstly, it would have been umlaut and not ablaut to change 'a' into 'e'... but more importantly, Gerhard Köbler's dictionary of Old Norse lists this as a class 3 weak verb. This class is special in that it has present singular endings -i(r) but no umlaut. Compare modern Icelandic, which still retains this type of conjugation (our entry has no conjugation table, but Icelandic Wiktionary does). So what doesn't really add up to me is that the etymology explains the 'e' as ablaut/umlaut when grammar predicts it had none. Can anyone find more information on this? 00:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any one grammar or conjugation may not readily predict the different spellings of borrowed or shared words among different languages, say Norse and English. German Balg, from Proto-Germanic *balgiz, is akin to English belly and bellows via OE belg, bylg or bælg, hence the ablaut in point from /a/ to /e/. Another good example may be mar, marsh, mer, mere, mire, mor, moor, morass, muir, and mýri, etc., all apparently rooted in "water." --KYPark (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how that is related to my question. *balgiz becoming belg is not ablaut, it's umlaut. There is quite a large difference between those two. Ablaut is an Indo-European phenomenon, which became almost entirely unproductive in Proto-Germanic, so that words showing ablaut in later Germanic languages are generally holdovers from Indo-European or Pre-Germanic times. Umlaut is partially Germanic, partially post-Germanic, and is conditioned by a following i/j. The reason why this can't be ablaut is because of the following -nd-. The combination -end- became -ind- in later Proto-Germanic, which means that -end- could not have existed (compare verbs such as ). That means that the -e- must have resulted from umlaut. However, according to the Old Norse grammar presented here, class 3 weak verbs such as this one never showed umlaut: the present tense was blandi(r), and not blendi(r) (and etymologically that conclusion is sound). So this leads me to wonder where the -e- in 'blend' came from, if not from the Old Norse verb 'blanda'. 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just dropped in on my way to my part below. And I was foolish to jump into phonology, which is the last of my pride. So forget my naive phonology above. Instead, I would make some extra comments:
 * I suspect Nordic of its etymological root of the southern Germanic, say, the move from ON blanda to OE blandan and blend. Meanwhile,
 * I respect Nordic of its consistency and purity over the southern that must be more blended and corrupted near the busy, crowdy and cloudy, hustle and bustle, cultural center.
 * Not surprisingly, Iceland is marked by both hermitage and heritage of Old Norse.
 * To begin with practically, refer to blend (v.) etymonline. This centers around the PIE root *bhel- "to burn, shine," that is, *bhleg- here, likely akin to Proto-Germanic *blaikaz, *blaikijanan, *blankaz, etc.
 * Unbearably missing here is their prototype noun for fire, whether bæl or pyr. Either blande or blend or many other similars may be rooted in the very bæl, perhaps unfortunately obscured!
 * Summing up, perhaps no fair etymology of blend and so many others without justice to bæl, I fear.


 * Sorry to be late to notice your sincere response. -KYPark (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wonder why blend may be akin to bæl. My italic foolish in the beginning is deliberate to suggest it may be surprisingly akin to bæl via Latin follis "bellows" and English blow that is essential to make fire. The fire is so deeply rooted in culture. I wonder why Old English borrowed fyr from Greek pyr, besides bæl that is so similar. --KYPark (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I found an explanation in Cleasby-Vigfússon: blanda was originally a strong verb, with blend in the present tense (e.g. in the Lokasenna), but it weakened/regularised over time. (The word blendingr, "a blending, a mixture, a mischling" kept the e.) - -sche (discuss) 08:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

risati
I just happened to see this word and I wonder if it derives from Middle High German (modern ). If it did, then it would be cognate to English as well. 11:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They are probably cognates.
 * The Etymolohičes'kyj Slovnyk Ukraïns'koï Movy says that Ukrainian is borrowed from Polish, that there are several Slavic cognates (e.g. Slovene, but no Old Church Slavic or Proto Slavic one), and that it is similar to,  and.
 * The Russische Wortkunde by Eckert/Kirchner/Růžička/Sperber says that Russian is borrowed from Polish, from Middle High German, and cognate to  and.
 * --MaEr (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I wonder why the etymology of risati and the like above would better be discussed here than on each talk page. Surely it is easily noted here. But it is to help note it in each entry at last. The talk page may better link to this section. Or the latter may better, if not best, link to the former where it would be discussed instead of here. --KYPark (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an old loanword from MHG. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)