Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/December

相撲
Chinese: Why would this be a borrowing from Japanese? The sport existed in China before it was transmitted to Japan. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just for the sumo sense. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 01:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, true. Never mind then. Thanks. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

efflouren
Do we have any evidence that this was formed using a Middle English prefix *? It's the only entry being used to support the existence of that prefix; the ostensible English prefix * was deleted (by me, see Talk:ef-) a while ago because the only (few) ostensible uses were actually borrowings of Latin or French words; compare Talk:sug-. I don't see any mention of such a derivation in any of the (few) pages that pop up when I google this word, including the Middle English Dictionary, which says ef- only occurs in words borrowed from Latin or French. It seems like this word could indeed have been formed by borrowing or blending (with flouren) one of the French or Latin words related to efflorescence (and I can find some older works which use spellings like efflourescence, with a u, in English). , which looks like it would be a descendant of this word, doesn't seem to be attested with the same sense, and derives from a French effl- word, not from being composed with a prefix *ef- in English. - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Although we do not list that sense, can also mean “to remove the flowers (of)”. It is attested in this sense in Old French in the spelling esflourer. So I bet  comes from the same verb, assimilated to efflourer.  --Lambiam 10:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible issues w/ our Germanic entry for Middle-Earth ()
Was wondering about this. None of the forms seems like it would derive from this specific Proto-Germanic form - the initial element *midja- is problematic.


 * The continental WGmc forms (and Middle English) seem to derive from a form in which the first element is.
 * The Old English and Gothic forms have a final -n which is not accounted for by *midja- either and which reminds me more of the Dutch (for which we have no entirely satisfactory derivation either). But I'm not sure where that -n comes from in any case.
 * I can't speak for the Old Norse form; I'm not super familiar with PGmc -> ON developments. It seems to come closest to the PGmc form we currently reconstruct. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * We have an entry . If comes from, I can believe that  comes from *midją. It looks like forms with /-n/ and /-l/ coexisted.  --Lambiam 18:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What would a form with -n- that can yield Gothic midjungards look like in PGmc, though? The combining form looks very un-Gothic; *midjagardaz should just have yielded *midjagards something along those lines (compare ) in Gothic from what I can tell. Or even just *midgards, judging from . — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Old Norse Miðgarðr definitely looks like a direct reflex of *midjagardaz. All the other Germanic counterparts look reformed, with *midla- or (in the case of the forms with -n) apparently some case form(s). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not really seen Gothic words ever use an inflected case form in compounds, though, which is what puzzles me. I am also not sure what case form midjun- is supposed to represent. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the external links at the Wikipedia article is to W. P. Lehmann : J. Slocum (ed.) A Grammar of Proto-Germanic (Online version).  was (according to Wikipedia) an American linguist noted for his work in historical linguistics, particularly Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic. Jonathan Slocum succeeded Lehmann as the director of the . I should think they have some academic credibility. Quoting from that grammar, Section 4.6. Compound Nouns:
 * In addition to their early attestation, assumption of the presence of compounds in Proto-Germanic is supported by distinctive formations in which the first element differs from its simple counterpart. Among examples are Go. ala-mans 'totality of human beings' in contrast with alls 'all', mana-sēþs 'mankind' in contrast with manna < *mans, midjungards 'inhabited world' in contrast with midja-. The second element also may differ from that of the simple form, as in Go. at-aþni 'period of a year' in contrast with aþn 'year' and anda-waírþi 'presence < equivalent worth' beside waírþs 'worth'.
 * (I am just reporting what I found.) --Lambiam 13:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lehmann is absolutely a reliable source. In his etymological dictionary of Gothic, however, he also links the form to (with a change from final -m to -n, with apocope of the -a) or some other suffixed form of midja-, and compares the compound to, which similarly lacks the combining vowel. (However miduma lacks the -j-, which confuses me even more.) I think a suffixed form of midja- makes sense to explain the first part of midjungards, but the details elude me. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

حلوف
RFV of the etymology.


 * Should this get an L2 of Algerian Arabic? How widespread is the use of this term? --Lambiam 10:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Albanian
We seem to have a sizable category for "Albanian terms derived from Proto-Albanian". However, the "proto-Albanian" given in these does not seem to be the common ancestor of the various Albanian dialects. Instead, e.g. defines "proto-Albanian" as the stage of Albanian history starting from contact with Latin in ca. 1st century CE and ending after initial contact with Slavs in ca. 7th century CE. This creates only vague constraints for the reconstruction of "proto-Albanian". Indeed occasional entries such as seem to present "competing" Proto-Albanian forms where the difference looks more like one of which chronological stage is picked, not one of any disagreement over the development of Albanian.

So a few questions: --Tropylium (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should this "proto-Albanian" really exist on Wiktionary at all?
 * If yes, should the name remain, or would some other name be more appropriate?
 * Should we have a separate proto-Albanian proper for proto-forms as reconstructed from Albanian dialect variation? (This might be currently not sourcable from anywhere, though.)
 * See Requests_for_deletion/Others. -- 21:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that maybe one minute after posting this… ^^' --Tropylium (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One could have a group of languages including Proto-Albanian and Proto-Armenian that should never link and never categorize, well there would only be Wikipedia links, so perhaps there should not be these codes. I’d say Category:Proto-Armenian language has proven to be not useful. Fay Freak (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This stage of Proto-Albanian is supposed to reflect the stage of the language at the time of the earliest Latin loanwords, c. 1st century AD (or BC). At the time, older *ē and *ā must already have merged into *ā > Mod. Alb. o, hence Orel's reconstruction is probably more accurate. I notice that no source is actually given for the competing, more archaic looking reconstruction. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I support Proto-Albanian being kept here on the whole since the predecessor forms of Gheg and Tosk split just in the 4th century or even later, thus succeeding Early Proto-Albanian as assigned to its period of time by Vladimir Orel. In accordance with the voting rules, at this previous discussion page a link should be provided to this vote, which is based on it. HeliosX (talk)

code for Proto-East-Baltic
I think it's past time we had a code for Proto-East (ern) -Baltic, that is the ancestor of Lithuanian and Latvian. . Thank you. 31.173.85.109 21:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with this. Benwing2 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For what purpose? Who is even reconstructing Proto-Eastern-Baltic? -- 21:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would, if we had a code. And it's needed to clean up the PBS family tree: look at Category:Proto-Balto-Slavic language. 31.173.85.109 21:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If all you care about is cleaning up the tree, what you're looking for is a family code, not a language code. -- 22:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood, thank you. (Pings don't work on IPs, unfortunately.) 31.173.85.109 22:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They do when you type the IP right. (also, go make an account) -- 22:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Proto-Baltic has been removed at some point, I have not read through why but probably because it would only have three descendants plus some rare Trümmer. Apart from that the term Proto-Eastern-Baltic is not even attestable. Fay Freak (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Baltic in the traditional sense (Latvian + Lithuanian + Old Prussian) is not a valid clade. But East Baltic is. 31.173.85.109 21:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not completely certain that it isn't. However, in any case, the differences between Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic would probably be too minute to be worth a separate Proto-Baltic code. Proto-East-Baltic or Proto-Latvian-Lithuanian, on the other hand, is definitely worth considering. Having a code would make sense, even if we may not make regular use of Proto-East-Baltic reconstructions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

. 31.173.85.109 22:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

מרים
RFV of the etymology:


 * Generally thought to be from a root meaning "to be bitter"; if so, a borrowing from an Indo-European language is suggested, note the Indo-European etymon . Compare the Latin . It should be noted that the meaning of this name has been debated for centuries; an alternative explanation is that it relates to mutiny, rebellion, or disobedience, from a root.

This etymology was created by and has been shuffled around between the Aramaic and Hebrew entries by IPs. The PIE angle looks seriously suspect, since the root occurs in multiple branches of Semitic going back a long ways, and we're talking about only one consonant in common with the PIE root. Beyond that, I suspect the matter of other roots in Hebrew is more complicated than this. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article touches on even more proposed etymologies. We can only order them on a scale from “totally impossible” to “who knows”. IMO opinion the theory of an Egyptian origin, mentioned by the Catholic Encyclopedia, is dismissed too lightly as being “only possible, or at best barely probable”.  --Lambiam 13:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Absurd and infuriating theories about substrate with . Because Indo-European words or roots are known, of course according to that US given-name research faction everything is from Proto-Indo-European. Perhaps this was one of the Hebrew is Greek people. I don’t know what that name is related to, but being from does not entail being from Indo-European but excludes it. As Chuck Entz implied, this root occurs all over Semitic and has nothing to do with . Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless the Egyptian origin hypothesis has a concrete etymon to put forward, I think that dismissal sounds pretty fair. 19th-century and earlier scholars had a habit of assuming every word of unclear etymology associated with Egypt had a likely Egyptian origin. Now that we know much more about the Egyptian language, the proposed derivations for which no etyma can be readily found seem less and less likely. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Where the Catholic Encyclopedia has “Meryt (cherished, beloved)”, I assume this is the same as, etymology 2. You can argue that the change from /t/ to /m/ is impossible, but I find the argument that Jewish parents would not have given their daughters a name with an Egyptian origin particularly weak. I find it entirely plausible (1) that the Aramaic female given name comes from the Hebrew female given name ; (2) that the latter name, used in Exodus for the name of a woman born and living in Egypt whose brothers were given Egyptian names, which is not itself readily explainable as a Hebrew name, is also originally an Egyptian name.  --Lambiam 20:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, sorry, I should have clicked through to the source instead of making assumptions. The final -t in Egyptian words would have already been a glottal stop or silent by the time of most contact with Hebrew, so that’s even less of an obstacle, although the appearance of the final -m would still be unexplained. Not sure, though. The Middle Egyptian pronunciation of would be expected to be something like either /ˈmaʔjaʔ/ or /maʔˈjiːwaʔ/ following Loprieno (syllable-final /ɾ/ had also started reducing to a glottal stop and vanishing by the time of Middle Egyptian). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that the suggestion of an Indo-European etymon has no merit. --Lambiam 08:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

por la puerta grande
Rfv of the etymology. The reference to sounds ad hoc to me, because the same expression exists in French (entrer par la grande porte, and the antonymous entrer par la petite porte; both are used with other verbs too:, ), and is simply a figurative use of. Canonicalization (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In this 19th-century dictionary the idiom Entrar por la puerta grande is defined as (freely translated) “to be received in a most respectful and lavishly welcoming way”. (In Spanish: Ser recibido en alguna parte con todo genero de consideraciones y agasajos.) Las Ventas was inaugurated on 17 June 1931. --Lambiam 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have another theory, namely that it comes from a tradition to only open the large central doors of a cathedral for special occasions, such as the arrival of high nobility, or of the archbishop on the occasion of the consecration of a new bishop. There are several hits in older books for the phrase used in this literal sense. --Lambiam 08:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds more plausible. Canonicalization (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

rose
The etymologies of and  are, if not at odds, at least in tension. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I assume that the issue is that the etymology for states without reservation that  derives from, while the etymology for  itself merely offers this as a possibility. In general I am in favour of the more cautious theory, but I do not doubt that one way or another the Latin and Greek are cognates. Sadly, this is not treated by de Vaan. Quite likely a name originating in Asia, where roses were first cultivated, travelled (along with the practice of cultivating roses) to both Ancient Italy and Ancient Greece.  --Lambiam 14:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the issue. Curiously the two recent dictionaries a Etymologiebank are also very cautious with respect to the source language of the Greek and Latin words. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

dcera
How does Czech come from older ? It looks more like it retains the PIE -er element. If not, that's not an obvious suffix like the diminutive in. Same question with Slovak. --80.169.223.146 12:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably by analogical levelling with the oblique cases. Compare 🇨🇬, a borrowing from 🇨🇬, genitive, etc. Canonicalization (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European *ud- and *wed-
*ud- and *wed- are unrelated roots. And here's why:

1. In the East Baltic, the valence of the root is altered by contamination with *we̠d-/*u̟d- (East Baltic contamination, [+]valence > [−]valence) > *u̠d-.

1.1 *we̠d- has a recessive valence ([−]valence).

1.2 Lithuanian ū́dras = Latvian ûdrs ≠ Proto-Slavic vy̋dr-a (acute old) = Lithuanian (ū́dras ~) ū́dr-a = Ancient Greek: ὕδρ-α < PIE *u̟̍d-r-e̟h₂.

2. *u̟d- has a dominant valence ([+]valence), compare: Ancient Greek: u̟̍δ-ρ-o̟ς / Germanic: *u̟̍t-r-a̟z / Indo-Iranian: *u̟dra̟̍s / Proto-Slavic vy̟̋dra̟ < PIE *u̟̍d-r-e̟h₂/-o̟s

3. The etymological relationship of *u̟d- to *we̠d- is probably secondary in light of external comparison, compare: Proto-Turkic *utɨŕ > Chuvash ъʷdъʷr, Yakut ɨtɨ̄, which is not a Proto-Indo-European loanword, nor derived from "water". Gnosandes (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)




 * Erm... Hölderlin2019 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Gothic 𐌰𐌿 from Proto-Germanic *u (in some cases) [cf. 𐌱𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌲𐍃]
Is this evidence that a change similar to one of the ones that would later separately impact English and German was already going on in Gothic? That vaguely sounds familiar, but my brain is probably playing tricks on me.

If so, what was it exactly about /u/ that was so unstable amidst so many Germanic language speakers? Was it already diphthongised in some dialects or something? Tharthan (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm woefully unfamiliar with Germanic sound shifts; might this have anything to do with the presence of the ? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, /u/ is lowered to /ɔ/ before /r/ or /h/ in Gothic. —Rua (mew) 10:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And 𐌰𐌿, although transliterated au, doesn't stand for a diphthong in Gothic. It stands for /ɔ/ (when it comes from a *u that's been lowered before /r/ or /h/) or /ɔː/ (when it comes from Proto-Germanic au). —Mahāgaja · talk 10:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And there's also /uː/ > /ɔː/ in hiatus. —Rua (mew) 12:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thank you Rua & Mahagaja. Perhaps it was Crimean Gothic that I recall something about beginning to undergo something similar to the vowel shifts that independently impacted English and German. Although, since I believe the only information that we have on Crimean Gothic is a small word list, I wonder if we could say that definitively. Could it not have been an intermediary stage between the original vowel and the diphthongised version(s). Tharthan (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The German word 'Tadel'
As it means 'blame', I think it may be related to the English word 'tattle', to which it sounds similar.
 * I question the current etymology. The Old High German form begins with z-, which would remain z- in modern German and doesn't magically become t-. The word must either have been borrowed from a northern dialect which kept the t-, or come from another source altogether. —Rua (mew) 16:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The online Etymologische Wörterbuch des Deutschen has essentially the same consideration. Somewhat freely translated:
 * Well attested in Middle High German, especially Central German. If one assumes the term comes from Old Saxon or Middle Low German – although no corresponding form has been attested there (but compare ) – then “lack, need” (ca. 800),,  “lack, deficiency”, can be presented as High German cognate subject to sound change. The origin of the word, however, is unknown for lack of further connecting possibilities.
 * Bosworth–Toller gives for tǣl: “evil speaking, calumny, detraction”. --Lambiam 17:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

mobile accent/fixed accent
Wiktionary:

PIE *snóygʷʰos

PBS *snáigas — fixed accent

Latv. snìegs

Lith. sniẽgas — AP 4

PS *snẹ̑gъ — AP c

PIE *wĺ̥kʷos

PBS *wilkás — mobile accent

Latv. vìlks

Lith. vil̃kas — AP 4

PS *vь̑lkъ — AP c

, Please explain why in *wilkás mobile accent VCV́, and in *snáigas fixed accent? At you the identical data of the Lithuanian language and the Proto-Slavic language: AP 4, AP c - mobile accent; AP 4, AP c - fixed accent? Why in "mobile accent" the accent is on the final syllable? In Proto-Balto-Slavic system there is an AUTOMATIC arrangement of ictus. In forms-enclinomena (mobile accent), ictus on the first syllable. Data of the Old Russian language and Proto-Slavic language et cetera... ‹RO̠OT=SU̠FF› < ‹RO̠OT=SU̠FF=FLE̟X› ~ ‹RO̠OT=SU̠FF=FLE̠X› Gnosandes (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

From the of placed accent in the Proto-Indo-European language, the Proto-Balto-Slavic paradigmatic curve is not derived. To derive a paradigmatic curve, we need two valences of roots and endings, and the placement of accent in word forms according to the "basic rule". Trying to associate accent with ablaut is not an option. It works for 50%, i.e. does not work at all.

Valency theory:

[+]	the dominant valency

[−]	the recessive valency

forms-orthotone consist of dominant valencies:

PIE *snóygʷʰ[+]-os[−]

PBS *snãig[+]-as[−] — with the dominant circumflex

Latv. snìegs

Lith. sniẽgas — AP 4 < AP 2, dialectology data

PS *snệgъ — AP d, data of East Slavic dialects

forms-enclinomena consist solely of recessive valencies:

PIE *wĺ̥kʷ[−]-os[−]

PBS *wȋlk[−]-as[−] — with the recessive circumflex

Latv. vìlks

Lith. vil̃kas — AP 4

PS *vь̑lkъ — AP c

Semantic loans?
& others: are words such as, and , in the sense of "calque/ loan translation", semantic loans  from ?


 * It is the most plausible pathway. Le Trésor states that the French term was used in this sense in 1894 by Louis Duvau, while the OEtymD has the first English use in 1937, although I found a 1926 use. For Italian calco, this source (unfortunately snippet view only) states that the term was coined by Duvau in 1894 and basically implies by omission it was borrowed into Italian. I also get a barrage of snippet views suggesting the same for Spanish, but the views are too snippety-snip to get even one single clear sentence. --Lambiam 23:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So from this do you infer that Italian and Spanish calco are borrowings? Are these not deverbals from and, both of which being native words descending from ? I find it more plausible that the aforesaid words already existed in the respective languages, only the sense of "calque" having been adapted from French.
 * Yes, of course, only the linguistic sense of these terms has been borrowed. That was how the original question was framed, and that was what I responded to. --Lambiam 21:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry! I was confused because your wording was not specific (you simply stated "it was borrowed"); but never mind, you help us so much :).

Vaticanologist, Vaticanology
"Coined in analogy to Kremlinologist". Any actual evidence for this? DTLHS (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The term may have been coined by prominent Catholic theologian in an article entitled “Why I left the Roman Catholic Church”, published in The Observer of 1 January 1967, page 21, but circulated earlier. Davis writes: “As for papal documents, I sometimes think there is need for a new science of Vaticanology, in order to discover which pressure groups have succeeded in getting their way and to interpret in the light of the current Roman background the more cryptic references to opinions vaguely reprobated.” (I can only find the article online not behind a paywall here, somewhere down the page, but this version is not quite identical to the one in The Observer; the quoted sentence ends here with “getting their way”.) The analogy with  is not spelled out for the obvious reason that it would have been an insult to the intelligence of the readers.  --Lambiam 11:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

bulla
The latin etymology of Bulla is not in the cited source and does not match what I found here. The editor apparently has a history of that. Does someone have a better source than mine? Tenthkrige (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Our entries are case sensitive, Bulla ≠ bulla. I assume you mean the etymology of, which derives it from , whereas the Pokorny etymon reads “2. b(e)u-, bh(e)ū̆- “to boil, swell, puff up’”. I guess bh here is the same as our bʰ. Wouldn’t that have given rise to /f/? Cf. >? ,  >? ,  > . It looks to me Pokorny’s b(e)u- may be the same root as our . The latter entry shows  via the extension  as a possible descendant; the Texan LRC shows bucca as a co-descendant with bulla.  --Lambiam 10:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed I mean bulla not Bulla, fixed it in the section title. Sorry I'm more an enthusiast than an expert, and I'd really love to know someday whether bʰ gives /f/ of /b/, but here I'll ask for something more prosaic: what's the source on deriving from ? -- Tenthkrige (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess the question would be if 🇨🇬 and are related.  for  is supported by  (p. 202 and 750) as well as Harper's etymonline, though he rarely cites which source he's using and I likely borrowed from that entry for that edit.  Pokorny (p. 365) and Skeat (p. 78) actually support  for, the latter indirectly by connecting it to 🇨🇬.  I suppose both roots should be reflected in the entry. DJ K-Çel (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated the sources. DJ K-Çel (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, PIE *bʰ gives Latin f, not b, so if you find a Latin b corresponding to PIE *bʰ, it would have to be a loanword, probably from Celtic or Germanic. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

middenrif
Said to derive from Old English. Is that etymology more probable than borrowing from Old Low Saxon or Old High German, if it indeed is a borrowing? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Is a form of the term attested in Old Low Saxon or Old High German? --Lambiam 21:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it cites OE as a possible source, the immediate ancestor is more probably Old Dutch . Leasnam (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

like buggery
I surmise this comes from "hurt like buggery", which can be understood literally (certain orifices being more sensitive than others and all that). Thoughts? Canonicalization (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's just the typical use of an vulgarism as an intensifier. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. I still think at least some of those can be etymologised., for example, might have been extracted from , as I wrote on the talk page of that entry some time ago. See also . Canonicalization (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is related to the meaning of meaning “anything” in “I don’t give a bugger”. So the phrasing “it hurts like buggery” can be understood as: “It hurts like anything”, “it hurts like nothing [else]”. (“Nothing” and “anything“ are interchangeable in a hyperbole, if you have not observed it yet.) Fay Freak (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The New Partridge describes buggery as “a substitute of ‘hell’ in strong phrases of rejection, ruination and disapproval” and glosses like buggery as “vigorously”. --Lambiam 00:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian
This is said to be from Finno-Ugric. Is there any relation to the Indo-European ? Or is this just pure coincidence? —Rua (mew) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there other evidence for this reconstruction? If this is a lone descendant, it is too tenuous. Finnic and Samic negations are derived from . --Lambiam 00:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As the entry states, there are cognates of more limited use in Ob-Ugric and also per some sources Udmurt . Most likely some of these are in some fashion akin to IE, but the general morphology of any of these is maybe too poorly known to establish if they're native or loans or even akin at all.
 * (The negative verb is meanwhile well attested everywhere except Hungarian  and was surely the primary negator in PU.) --Tropylium (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

About Old East Slavic
, Let's normalize the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) language? In the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) language the accent has already been reconstructed. Can add accent paradigms to the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) language?
 * Look:.


 * 1) Old East Slavic ъ - */ə/, not ŭ; Proto-Slavic, gen. pl. *-ъ̄ - */əː/
 * 2) Old East Slavic ь - */ɪ/, not ĭ, ɨ. Gnosandes (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The accent in Voc. Sg
, You can add the accent in declension Voc. Sg (AP b)?

It works like this:

*dvor[→]-e̍[−Min] (remarking [peremarkirovka]) > *dvo̍r[−]-e[−], i.e. *dvòre


 * 1) In Proto-Slavic the dominant valency [+] was divided into [↓] "self-shock" [samoudarnost'] and [→] "right-shock" [pravoudarnost']. The Dybo's law...
 * 2) Minus with minusization [−Min] changes left mark [→] right-shock on [−] minus, see example above;
 * 3) Accent at the beginning of the platform.


 * A friendly suggestion: you should probably start by writing a Wikipedia article on this valence theory thing, and perhaps try incorporating its main claims in articles like Proto-Balto-Slavic, instead of trying to hold a lecture in a Wiktionary discussion room. --Tropylium (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Thank you very much. I just wanted to show Rua where to put the accent. Gnosandes (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

beżżula
RFV of the etymology.

flip, fillip
What is the probability that this isn't of imitative origin, if we have any ability to reckon that? Tharthan (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no way to quantify this. All we can say is that it very likely that, and  are all of imitative origin, as are  and , and, ultimately,  and .  --Lambiam 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

ebbenhout
RFV of the etymology, which seems like an ad hoc analysis by Verbo. The word ebbe isn't attested in this sense to my knowledge. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Here the term ebeen is defined as a synonym of ebbenhout. We give the etymology of as: From  + . Without doubt, the Dutch etymology is completely analogous.  --Lambiam 17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides, we have an entry for, which shows this etymology to be a simple case of ad-hoc rebracketing. The original form after borrowing ended with an "n", which is mistaken for (or has merged with) the expected grammatical affix in its descendant. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And here the term ebbe n , with an n, means ebony. It is easy to believe in ebenus > ebben and hard to see how the n would be lost. It seems more plausible to me that ebben is a shortening of ebbenhout (like it is undoubtedly here), rather than analyzing ebbenhout as ebben + hout. --Lambiam 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/wargás
, You ever need to check the etymology? Derksen, probably, erred with the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European form. To postulate Winter's law and Meillet's law no opportunity. Because of this, he has to write a large text and create entities.

*(h₁)uorg-o- > *worʔgós > *vȏrg (AP c)

If so?

1. In the East Polesye dialects: Plekhov dialect vòraɣ; Anisov dialect wôraɣ; In the Pskov-Polotsk dialects replaced by the "враг".

2. Reconstruction PSl. *vôrgъ, gen. *võrga > *vorgà (AP d), сompare Derksen *vȏrgъ (AP c);

PSl. *vôrg[+]-ъ[-]; Lith. var̃gas (AP 4 < AP 2); Latv. vā̀rgs.

3. Reconstruction PBS *wãrg[+]-as[-], respectively (AP 1 or Fixed accent).

4. Reconstruction PIE *worgʰ[+]-os[-], сompare Derksen *(h₁)uorg-o-.

5. Compare PGerm. *wargaz.

In Wiktionary:

PIE *wórgʰos > PBS *wárgas > PSl. *vȏrgъ (AP c [AP d]); Lith. var̃gas (AP 4 < AP 2); Latv. vā̀rgs, compare Derksen *worʔgós;

Compare PBS *baiˀsás > PSl. *bě̑sъ (AP c); Lith. baĩsas (AP 4); compare Derksen *boiʔsós;

Conclusion: PSl. AP b/d = Lith. AP 2; PSl. AP c = Lith. AP 4.

Inconsistencies ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ any comments?

the data of the Old Russian language: во́рогъ – c < [*d]‚ А(во́-) – 2.17, 4.2, МПр 2.9, 3.20 ⇔ Лет. (во́рогъ 103, -а 238б), Изм. (во́роги 45), Нв. (во́рога 576б, -и 509), Мер. Соф. Ал.; — ср. врагъ (p. 456 Zaliznjak 2014) Gnosandes (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Derivation of Albanian from Proto-Indo-European
Hello,

I wondered whether Albanian can be derived from the noun to Proto-Indo-European  as variant of. Only the former root can yield a term with [f] as initial consonant in Late Proto-Albanian or Old Albanian. HeliosX (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Lithuanian
The etymology is currently a mess of nonsense. First, there's no way that the term existed in PBS, because that was spoken long before Latin was. Proto-Germanic didn't exist, the word was independently borrowed into Gothic and West Germanic. So where did the Lithuanian come from? Is it borrowed from Latin, Slavic, a West Germanic language or Gothic? —Rua (mew) 13:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Derksen actually says this, though. Per Kim, PBS likely only started to become differentiated during the last centuries BC (Kortlandt's dating of PBS to 1500 BC or so never made sense to me), so the idea of a loanword from Latin via Germanic to PBS is not necessarily that outlandish, but I agree that given that loanwords from Latin to Germanic are generally thought to not be pre-Christian, a loan into PBS directly is completely implausible. It was probably borrowed from Slavic into West and East Baltic, although a loan from West Germanic to West and then East Baltic, or so, cannot be excluded, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk)

neologisms
I was very surprised that our etymology of the English term perpetuum mobile is deficient. I was even more surprised that a very experienced editor added the two incorrect or at least misleading edits that make the article claim the term was borrowed from Latin and that the original Latin components of the term are not known to the editors of the article although these are obviously exactly the same as the two components of the term as used in English and although the term is probably not borrowed from Latin and is instead a New Latin neologism (perhaps first used in a different language than English).

I was even more surprised to run into serious trouble finding and explaining the etymology of this term. Many dictionaries that normally are fairly good sources of etymology like AHD and Etymonline.com don't have the term at all, and those that do don't provide any etymology at all or only partial and thereby misleading info. For example OUP's Lexico.com says "Latin, literally ‘continuously moving (thing)’, on the pattern of primum mobile", which is more helpful and interesting than the Unabridged Merriam Webster's "New Latin, literally, perpetual moving (thing)", but MW is less misleading because no such term probably existed in Latin before it was probably coined in a modern European language using the Latin terms perpetuus and mobilis. These dictionaries and apparently all books scanned into Google Books don't even provide the basic etymological info of the first recorded use of this term in English.

Our Dutch entry uses the template der. Is that correct considering that the term is apparently a New Latin term coined for use in Dutch or most probably first coined for use in another modern European language and borrowed from there into Dutch?

And why does our Category:English neologisms have the misleading or incorrect definition "English terms that have been only recently acknowledged"? Shouldn't this category include all terms purposely coined in English i.e. all terms not derived from earlier terms or consisting of borrowings or loan translations from other languages?

So how do we normally indicate and categorize New Latin terms? I wasn't able to find a category for them.--Espoo (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * We normally present New Latin terms under an L2 of “Latin” with a label “”; see e.g. the entry . The earliest use of the term perpetuum mobile may have been in reference to ’s barometric clock. The invention was patented in 1598, and I see the term in print in a 1625 book entitled Perpetuum moble; the first use of the term must then be in that range. There may be more information in an essay by Jennifer Drake-Brockman, “The Perpetuum Mobile of Cornelis Drebbel”, in: W. D. Hackmann and A. J. Turner (eds.), Learning, Language and Invention: Essays Presented to Francis Maddison, Astrolabica 6, September 1994, pp. 124–147. Unfortunately, Google Books does not allow me more than a snippet view. --Lambiam 09:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of 百済(くだら)
百済 in Japanese is pronounced as くだら or Kudara, which is quite different from its Korean name 백제(Baekje). But I found a theory from Japanese dictionary about its etymology from https://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/modules/d3ndlcrdentry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000086969

くだら is derived from 居陀羅, And Kudara means Great(Ku) Villages(dara).


 * Done, that's from the KDJ (Kokugo Dai Jiten) that has a reference template here. Added OJP entry and updated shinjitai . Does it need some additional etymological notes? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @POKéTalker, I don't think I trust that one source from the anon (here), not least as it doesn't actually list any Korean terms -- just Japanese katakana, stating that "it's explained that tara meant 'village'" but without saying who explains it that way.
 * While the ku- in Japanese could conceivably derive from Korean, there is no corresponding Korean term that I can find for the -dara portion.
 * Korean for is native Korean  or Sino-Korean, but neither have any clear phonetic connection to the sound of -dara.
 * Korean dara might be a conjugation form for verb or adjective intensifier, but neither have any clear semantic connection to the idea of.
 * Even if we assume rendaku for the Japanese for a latter element originally pronounced as -tara, the closest Korean match would be a conjugation form for verb, with various meanings of “to burn (intransitive); to ride; to mix, to dilute; to receive”. But again, none of these have any clear semantic connection to the idea of.
 * That said, I also recognize that our Korean coverage is not exhaustive.
 * Meanwhile, the KDJ entry doesn't say anything about villages, and instead references a possible place name in the territory of the former : 居陁 (Japanese reading Kuta), which could apparently be reconstructed as 居陁羅 (Japanese reading Kutara). I note that 居陁 with a Korean reading of Geota (hangul spelling 거타) shows up in a search of the Korean Wikipedia, such as in this article listing the names of areas in Three-Kingdoms-era Korea.  Geota is listed as (I think) a county in Silla.
 * Does anyone have any further insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic ,
The a-stem form is attested in all three branches, while the u-stem is limited to Old Norse. Are these legitimate alternative forms, or is there some innovation within Old Norse? Either way, the main lemma should probably be at the a-stem. —Rua (mew) 11:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The lexeme is not even mentioned in Kroonen, oddly. I wonder if *warduz (which is limited to North Germanic) might have been influenced by, which may well (per Kroonen) derive from the same root (as *wér-tu-, an agentive noun). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could it be something like sporadic rounding due to the onset with analogical change of declension due to the rounded vowel appearing mostly in u-stems? Not suggesting that this be added, just wanted to share the idea. Crom daba (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

tolero
I was just wondering about the -er- suffix. I quickly got two ideas: I just checked de Vaan. He writes: "To explain tolerāre, Nussbaum 2007b proposes a Latin sā-present built to the root *telh₂-, hence *telh₂-s- > *telasā- > tolerā-." --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A derivation from an s-stem like nsg. *telh₂-s, gsg. *tl̥h₂-és-(o)s (most likely)
 * An extension of a desiderative or some other verbal s-formation like *tl̥h₂-s(e)-, think *tl̥h₂-s-éh₂-(ye-) (*tl̥h₁-és-(e)h₂-(ye-) is only phonologically possible, but morphologically probably unsound) > Proto-Italic *tolasā-e-, which works on a purely formal level, but I'm not sure about the semantics then. (On second thought, *télh₂-s-eh₂- > *telasā- is also possible, and preferrable.)

Swedish
The Old Norse form doesn't make sense to me. If is the origin, why does Swedish not have ? I suspect that the noun was reformed on the basis of the verb, but I'm not sure what's going on here. —Rua (mew) 15:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

duckboard
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duckboard is the only etymology i could find so far. --Espoo (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Another theory that is floated on the Internet is that the safe way for soldiers to walk on these boards in the muddy trenches of WW I was to waddle like ducks. --Lambiam 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I found the following passage in a book, titled Letters from France, published in 1917 and consisting of letters written by, an Australian WW I war correspondent and historian. The letter containing the passage is dated May 1916:
 * I have said before that you do not walk on the bottom of the trench as you did in Gallipoli, but on a narrow wooden causeway not unlike the bridge on which ducks wander down from the henhouse to the yard—colloquially known as the “duck-boards.”
 * This appears to me, thus far, the most plausible explanation of the term. --Lambiam 00:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

仕える
RFV of the etymology: "Conjugation into potential form → つかえる"

万葉集 三九「やまかはも依りて仕ふる神ながら」

It seems 仕える (つかふ) is attested far more earlier than the rise of -e- potentials. The potential form of 使う at that time should be つかはる (-are-). -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Reworked. Please have a look.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is good. But is 使う related to つく? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably certain it is, based on the structure of the verb.
 * We know that, ancient -pu, was a productive auxiliary / verb suffix, indicating repeated or ongoing action, or the end resulting state of an action. This auxiliary attached to the  of a verb stem, which for full-paradigm (i.e. ) verbs ended in -a.  For ancient tukapu, we have that -a- just before the -pu, suggesting that we're looking at verb root tuk- + irrealis -a + auxiliary -pu.  Verb root tuk- as a yodan verb would have terminal or dictionary form tuku, correlating with modern.
 * Considering that one sense of is specific to “utilizing a person for a specific purpose”, this proposed tuk-  + -a + -pu derivation could also make sense semantically, as one sense of, often spelled with kanji as , is “to take a position, to start a job”.   is a momentary or instantaneous-action verb indicating a change in state, and the  auxiliary could be understood to shift the verb's meaning to an ongoing continuous sense.  We see this in other aspects of , such as ; classical  and modern.
 * That said, I cannot find any Japanese dictionary that explores the derivational etymology of beyond just stating that it comes from OJP and has an older kana spelling of つかふ.  JA sources (that I've seen so far) neither corroborate nor contradict a derivation from.
 * If desired, we could add something to the entry postulating a derivation from, so long as we're clear that this is only a possibility, and so long as we don't introduce any confusion that this is listed in JA dictionaries.
 * (Alternatively, should we instead lemmatize at kana spelling ? The previous thread about where to lemmatize kind of fizzled out; I don't recall any clear conclusion.)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No conclusion is reached, as far as I know. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)