Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/July

sõbranna
It isn't really about this word it's just where I noticed it, shouldn't Fortis/Lenis distinction only marked in a narrow transcription? The phonology page says nothing about such phonemic distinction. The length distinctions are enough imo anyway Anatol Rath (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stress on V2 also looks very dubious. --Tropylium (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And is there a reason for the syllabification /sɤbr. /? Anatol Rath (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

τιτρώσκω
I feel tempted to link this to *trewd- but no matter what it comes from, how is reduplication+-sḱe- even possible, being two different aspect markers?
 * Not in early PIE clearly, but there are many enough precedents of reduplicated perfects lexicalizing as new roots (already in late PIE: ). --Tropylium (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

γωνία
"Akin to γόνυ" as well as γόνος I state, an angle being a place where things come to be. I'm pretty sure it's ablautly possible, but the knee connection does make very much sense I admit, especially seeing other cognates with similar meanings. Maybe *ǵónu- from *ǵenh1-? Makes less sense semantically though, except in the sense of the first metaphor up there.

ceresia
Why is English cherry listed twice as a descendant? DTLHS (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Middle English term is a confluence of inherited and borrowed forms, reinforcing each other. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

صد
Anyone have a source for why or when this word got its unusual spelling? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Persian? What's weird about it? -- 03:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you ever seen ص in an inherited Persian word before? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How else should /sad/ be spelled in Persian? -- 04:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought from your work on Indo-Iranian that you'd studied Persian at least briefly. /s/ in inherited vocabulary is usually spelt with س. Maybe someone else will know. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To distinguish from the word “dam”, apparently much used in military contexts, or other words spelled so it is. I remember an IP claiming this on Talk:بط. Well 🇨🇬 is also spelled irregularly so it’s even. The reason why the Arabic is so spelled is to avoid confusion in rasm and because it is a logogram of Aramaic forms. I see the Saudi vandal has removed the explanation from the Arabic. Fay Freak (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Variants
Are Old French and  not the same word? If so, then there should be only one main entry for the word. —Lbdñkundefined, 09:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Le Trésor only has estencele and estincele. Godefroy has estancele, but with a completely different sense. --Lambiam 12:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

scheda
Our article contradicts the articles  (and  itself) as to the origin of scheda "strip of papyrus bark; sheet of paper". There's a variant, in fact. Although is listed in Liddell-Scott (with the general meaning "leaf, page"), a variant  is mentioned there too. Now, Pfeifer says "[...] lat. scheda, scida f. ‘abgerissener Streifen Papyrus, deren mehrere zu einem Bogen zusammengeleimt werden, Streifen, Blatt’, wohl aus gleichbed. griech. *schídē (*σχίδη) oder griech. schída f. (σχίδα) ‘Abgespaltenes, Span’; zu griech. schízein (σχίζειν) ‘spalten, durchschneiden, trennen’", and our article largely follows his explanation. I wonder if perhaps the Greek word is really a loanword (say, from Egyptian?), but Pfeifer's explanation looks reasonable on its face (although it doesn't really account for the variants, hence my suspicion). How to best resolve the situation? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can’t find any plausible Egyptian etyma; the closest is maybe, but that should’ve been pronounced something like /sVxɾə/ (or possibly /səxVɾə/) for some stressed vowel V by the time of most Greek borrowings from Egyptian, which is not very promising. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

chiffon
Is it just me or is something wrong with the etymology for [chiffon]] for both English in French. At first it's saying it's from french through Arabic and then suddenly it's tracing it back to Proto-Germanic, it's like two different etymologies have been squashed together. Anyone have any ideas what's going on? 2WR1 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not just you, it's someone with more persistence than sense who returned after being reverted twice and added the same nonsense back again. Someone from the "small, shiny object" school of historical linguistics: you leaf through a dictionary in Language A until you find something that coincidentally resembles something in Language B, then congratulate yourself on finding a Deep, Hidden Truth that all those academics, blinded by common sense and knowledge of how language change actually works, were unable to see Right In Front Of Their Noses!!!!! not counting a slight detour through a rabbit hole and an unbridgeable chasm or two... To top it off, they decided to splice it into the existing etymology- sort of like grafting hooves on a hummingbird. But I digress...
 * At any rate, I undid their edits at chiffon and at moniker. Not that the etymology was perfect to start with: borrowing from Middle English into Old French is certainly possible, but it might be nice to see some actual evidence. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I'm glad I was able to catch that if it was erroneous, I was reading the etymology and suddenly noticed that it didn't make any sense. I totally get what you're saying about false etymologies. Thanks for fixing it up! 2WR1 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * CNRTL has this for, from chiffe + -on. Further at is: Étymol. et Hist. 1. [1564 chifetier « ramasseur, crieur des chiffons » (J. Thierry, Dict. fr.-lat.), terme norm.] 1611 « morceau d'étoffe usée, chiffon » (Cotgr.), d'où 1810 « métier de chiffonnier » (Privat D'Anglemont, Paris Anecdote, 331 ds Quem.); 2. 1710 « étoffe de mauvaise qualité » (Ac.); 3. 1798 fig. « homme de caractère faible », (ibid.). Altération d'apr. chiffre* pris au sens de « chose, personne de peu de valeur » en a. fr. (1223, G. de Coincy ds T.-L.) de l'a. fr. chipe « chiffon » (1306, G. Guiart, Royaux lignages, I, 75, ibid.), terme demeuré en usage dans le Nord-ouest (FEW t. 16, p. 317b), empr. au m. angl. chip « petit morceau » spéc. « petit morceau de bois », ca 1300 ds NED, déverbal de to chip « tailler en petits morceaux ».  Leasnam (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up both etymologies and removed the Proto-Germanic reference. Leasnam (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

חרמן
This is not certain, but I've had the assumption that it was derived from חרמון (Hermon), the highest mountain in Israel (as a metaphor for "the highest peak"/"a high peak" of sexual arousal). Similar to how "horny" also means "having horns" (which are at the top of an animal's head). TheIsraeliSudrian (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Somewhat interestingly, the name of the mountain can also be spelled חרמן, and perhaps the spelling חרמון was occasioned by a perceived need to dissociate the name of the mount from the vulgar slang term.
 * It is generally difficult to research the origins of slang terms, since their early uses tend to be only oral. More evidence is needed than a mere assumption. The slang meaning of is probably related to the older expression “have the horn”, in which  is probably another slang term for  – something that does no grow from the top of one’s head.  --Lambiam 11:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * " perhaps the spelling חרמון was occasioned by a perceived need to dissociate the name of the mount from the vulgar slang term." Not really, this spelling already appears in the Hebrew Bible, where the defective spelling doesn't seem to occur (it's absent from the digital version of the Leningrad Codex on BibleGateway). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

muleskinner
I cannot make any connection between its etymology and its meaning; any help? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's from the whip, not the person. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate a bit --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A (particularly cruel) way of skinning an animal is by excessively flogging it with a whip. --Lambiam 09:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What meaning of the verb skin are you referrring to? "scrape skin: to make the skin on a part of the body red, sore, and broken, especially by falling on it or scraping it"? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

audos
Nama, RFV of the etymology. Said to be from, but influence from modern Dutch rather than Afrikaans is very unlikely; the word auto only appeared in Dutch in the late nineteenth century. Perhaps is a better option, the Afrikaans word for car is. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the etymology? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Borrowing from German seems plausible. This South African Dept. of Bantu Education / Native Language Bureau [//books.google.com/books?id=HsoJAQAAMAAJ Nama-Damara: spelreels] (2), pp. 54-55, lists a number of loanwords in Nama, including at least two which it compares to German terms: "audos - motor, vgl. Auto" and "komi-i - rubber, vgl. Gummi". - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

pasha
RFV of the etymology, specifically the part where it seems to derive an Ottoman Turkish word from a Turkish one. It may perhaps hinge on the definition of Turkish used, otherwise I would expect this to be from something like. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is sourced to Nişanyan, who calls beşe “historical Turkish” (tarihsel Türkçe). I am not sure there is a basis for the translation ”prince”. --Lambiam 10:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On further examination, I think the abbreviation TTü used by Nişanyan stands for “Türkiye Türkçesi” (Turkey Turkish), which appears to take a middle position between ETü (“Eski Türkçe“ = Old Turkish) and YTü (“Yeni Türkçe” = New Turkish, the 20th-century word coinages by the TDK). It probably coincides with what we call “Ottoman Turkish”. --Lambiam 07:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TTü is a term he uses for both Old Anatolian Turkish and Ottoman Turkish. ETü stands for Old Turkic and is not to be understood as an ancestor language of Turkish, genealogically speaking. Ketiga123 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Macedonian затоа што
The etymology looks pretty unlikely to me. It's a parallel formation, sure, but why would Macedonian have calqued such a thing from French? Canonicalization (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How would one calque it anyway, if one even wants to do it, since parce has no meaning? I have removed the patently wrong etymology. Fay Freak (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It does mean something, though: "by the fact [that]". Canonicalization (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

eke
Hi, sorry to bother! I've asked a question about the etymologies of the archaic English word eke in the its Discussion page. If someone knowledgeable of the subject could clarify it there I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance!

Also (or should I say, eke?), as a side note, is there any policy about where discussions about entries should be held and if not in the own talk page (sorry about that) if is there any policy to link discussions held elsewhere in the article talk page so that discussions aren't lost? - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally, the discussion pages of entries in the main namespace are not suitable for signalling problems because people rarely watch these. The best general place for bringing up issues is our Tea room. The header of that page gives an overview of the available discussion rooms, including some more specialized ones. --Lambiam 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the duplicate adverb from Etymology 1, moving the one citation to Etymology 3. Leasnam (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

「にっぽ​ん」
How did the /p/ survive?

Forgive my immense ignorance here. It's just that I had always thought that /p/ → /ɸ/ → /h/ (except before /u/, where it was simply /p/ → /ɸ/). I also thought that the prevalence of /p/ in Modern Japanese was more due to somewhat more recent (compared to the onset of the consonantal shift, I mean) expressive coinages, and also perhaps some later loanwords or something.

But the fact that 「にっぽ​ん」 exists (and is well-known) quite clearly seems to indicate that that is not the case, so would someone explain why 「にっぽ​ん」 exists? Does it have to do with the fact that the /p/ is a geminate in this word? But, then, why 「にほ​ん」? Tharthan (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a linguistic fossil, a holdover pronunciation maintained by some while a majority went with the flow. --Lambiam 13:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of other terms that preserve geminate still floating around, such as, , .  The mystery of Nippon and Nihon isn't so much that the geminate  persisted in Nippon, but more why it vanished from Nihon.
 * According to Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, was originally read as Yamato as a kind of kun'yomi, then some time after the  in the mid-600s, the Nippon reading arose as the on'yomi based on the  readings of the characters.  Over time, the gemination weakened in casual speech.  Although the dictionary entry doesn't explain the details past there, I suspect that the loss of gemination allowed the generally common lenition process to work, resulting in the expected  →  →  shift.
 * See also the 1603 entries for both Nifon and Nippon.
 * ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

PGmc 'go'
Why do we have 🇨🇬 instead of ? I am referring to the stem-vowel. A great many sources reconstruct the vowel as ē rather than ā. Can anyone shed some light on this ? Leasnam (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point however, it seems more likely that there were different versions of the verb than a single one. Proto-Germanic "ē" wouldn't give Old English "ā"; Old High German has two forms and, the former would have come from  the latter I don't know. As far as I know, Old English "ā" comes from Proto-Germanic "ai" but that couldn't be the original stem-vowel since "ai" doesn't give Old High German "ē" nor Old High German "ā". A Proto-Germanic "ā” seems more credible as the source of Old English "ā".
 * The verb is irregular, As far as I can deduce, it’s a combination of the root plus the verbal suffix . 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A separate issue I'd like to bring up is the identity of the past tense forms - the daughter languages disagree vehemently about this one. Old English and Gothic preserve *ijj- while virtually everyone else uses *geng-. How did *geng- spread? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 23:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on this, but I always understood it to be suppletion from the past forms of . Why this occurred is a mystery to me at this point. I will have to research it... Leasnam (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

garenne
Where is the -n(ne) from? It isn't likely that a Germanic verb suffix would carry over to a noun in French. Is it from some conjugated form of a verb? Tharthan (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possibly the same suffix as that seen in 🇨🇬 (Modern 🇨🇬), which comes from 🇨🇬, from 🇨🇬. Also, compare 🇨🇬, from 🇨🇬,, from 🇨🇬. Leasnam (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

rivel “small dumpling”
I think this is actually a German loanword and not closely related in origin to rivel in the first sense (though perhaps reinforced by it). Under the entry Ribbel, Riebel, the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch states: „verbr., auch Auslandspfälzer […]“ – is that explicit enough? Btw: Riebel and Riebel(e)suppe are also known in other Upper German dialects. Cheers hugarheimur 04:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This appears very plausible. I guess the verbs and  are cognates, so the two noun senses would then also be cognates. Should we mention the dialectal form Riwwel given by the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch, which makes this etymology even more plausible?  --Lambiam 07:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree this seems likely; looking around, I can find the word in the English of the Pennsylvania Dutch and similar words in the 'German' of Volga Germans / 'Germans from Russia' ([//library.ndsu.edu/grhc/recipes/dictionary.html 1], [//www.frank-kolb-russia.org/miscellaneous/dictionary-food-terms.shtml 2]), both of whom had significant Palatine roots. I didn't spot any sources claiming that the word was connected to the English root we list. I think we have a basis for at least splitting the dumplings off to a second etymology and saying "possibly..." from the word mentioned above. - -sche (discuss) 17:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What about “likely...”? --Lambiam 17:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure; even "probably" would be fine by me; "possibly" was just the most conservative option. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Φάρος
Regarding the missing Egyptian etymology: This comes from this book by Jablonski, which is from 1804 (so, quite possibly outdated...). The Coptic word he proposes is ⲫⲁⲣⲉϩ, which is ⲁⲣⲉϩ 'guard' with the masculine definite article ⲫ- in front of it. The island may have been called that in ancient times because it was fortified. And then apparently the name of the island was transferred to the particular lighthouse which was built on that island, and eventually became a general word for all lighthouses. I don't know if this is a historical etymology or a folk etymology, but it seems to make sense and seems linguistically-possible (though I'm no linguist). In any case, it's the only Egyptian etymology I've ever come across so I think it's at least worth mentioning. (Possible Greek etymologies seem to derive Φάρος from φῶς 'light' or φαίνω 'to shine'...) 2601:49:8400:FB40:2490:FE18:8FE5:3C3 13:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If an earlier Egyptian name for the island sounding like fareḥ was Hellenized, is a plausible outcome. But is Strabo’s translation Φυλακή the only evidence for this putative Egyptian name? I do not see a shining path from  to  – what happened to the ν, and where did the ρ come from?  --Lambiam 18:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is an etymology in *bhh2-ro-s too far-fetched? That would mean that it is of Greek/PIE origin, but it very neatly adds up with the zero grade -ro- triggers. Anatol Rath (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is *bhh2- the same as ? Interestingly, is feminine, but  is masculine. Why? what does that mean? Questions to which answers would help to interpret the situation: (1) Was the name Φάρος for the island already in use before the lighthouse was built? (2) can the common noun φάρος be attested before the lighthouse was built? (3) Is there any source next to Strabo suggesting an indigenous name for the island meaning something like “the Guard”?  --Lambiam 21:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The word is attested as a name for an island near Egypt well before the lighthouse existed; it’s mentioned in the Odyssey IV.355 as well as Euripides’s Helen. This would perhaps pull the rug out from under the suggested etymologies involving ‘light’, ‘shine’, and such.
 * I haven’t been able to find any mention of it whatsoever in Egyptian-language sources; the Trismegistos database doesn’t have any Egyptian-language attestations either. This is perhaps not too surprising given the sparse attestation of Alexandria in general in Egyptian-language sources (Tallet and Zivie-Coche 2012, “Imported Cults”, notes that »geographical lists from Egyptian temples deliberately ignore Rhakotis-Alexandria«). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not know the etymology of Φάρος, and we do not know the etymology of φάρος. We also do not know if these unknown etymologies are related, and if so how. What appears to be certain is that the island name Φάρος does not derive from a common noun φάρος. Also, as the island name apparently predates Hellenistic times by many centuries, it is very likely the Greek rendering of its Egyptian name. This is consistent with Jablonski’s theory. As to φάρος then, one possibility is that the common noun is unrelated to the proper noun, and that the echo in ὁ φάρος τῆς νήσου τῆς Φάρου is purely coincidental. In that case the noun φάρος has to predate the construction of the Alexandria lighthouse, and is perhaps derived from the PIE root *bʰeh₂-, as suggested above, just like . Here, the issue of the earliest attestations of φάρος becomes impelling. Finally, the common noun could derive from the proper noun, perhaps as an alteration of, which could explain the masculine gender. (Note that, while the island name is feminine, it is ὁ Φάρος τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας). This final theory will be decisively killed by any attestations of the common noun earlier than 280 BCE. --Lambiam 08:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn’t in the sense “lighthouse” also be listed under the L2 “Ancient Greek”?  --Lambiam 13:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

τραῦμα
Where does the /au/ in τραῦμα hail from? Anatol Rath (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Could the form have been influenced by ? Just like has an Ionic form , so does  have an Ionic form .  --Lambiam 08:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kugel
I think it is almost indisputable that Kugel should come from PGM Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/kōkilaz from *kōkô (from PIE *gōg- (ball-shaped object)) + -*ilaz (diminutive suffix), the k>x avoided by dialectal differences or the like. What do you think? Anatol Rath (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The only concern I would have with this theory would be the semantics: MHG kugel meant "ball" not "little cake", which is specifically what *kōkilaz denoted (< *kōkô "cake"; not "round object, ball, etc.). It's not customary for something meaning "little cake" to then become generalised to mean "anything round, ball". The reverse, however, is a different story Leasnam (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

atmak ≠ atmak?
{Pinging Anylai) Two etymologies are given for the Turkish verb . Is there a sufficient reason to think that their etymologies are not simply the same (to wit, the first of the two)? --Lambiam 10:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Splitting the etymology into two is authored by the EDAL with the only purpose of supporting two different "Altaic" etymons. Ketiga123 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, "Altaic etymology" beside; the main reason behind separating the two is the word showing t-->d shift which is indication of a long wovel in the deriving root. Please see "oghuz voicing" on this topic. The root also seems to be connected to  which should be the frequentative form. --Anylai (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that comes from  + -la/-le, a bound morpheme for turning nouns into verb stems. I still see no reason to assume that the verb atmak in adım atmak has another etymon than that in atık atmak.  --Lambiam 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The horse proposal is very weak. it doesnt make sense, doesnt explain voicing in adım and neither it explains long wovels in Turkmen. Evidence points to *āt- (to press, step) --Anylai (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The horse explanation only pertains to the etymology of the verb, so it need not explain anything related to the unrelated verb . --Lambiam 19:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

xanthochroic & Xanthochroi
These cannot be both right. The root of is χρωτ-, which the autodidact Huxley, who taught himself enough Greek to read Aristotle in the original Greek, would have known. It is not done to abuse a Greek root by such amputation of a vital phoneme like the final τ, so for that reason alone I am already inclined to think the second etymology is wrong. Properly accented, ωχρος becomes ὠχρός, “pale, wan (of complexion)”, while is mainly applied to hair colour. So with the first etymology we get something like “blond hair, pale complexion” (rather than the “yellow skin” of the second etymology, which seems an unlikely choice for giving a name to the Nordic race). --Lambiam 13:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * : “Modern Latin Xanthochroi, apparently based on xantho- + Greek ωχρος ‘pale’.”
 * : “New Latin, coined by T.H. Huxley, from + .”
 * I know nothing about etymology, but if it is of any interest: in greek formal academic taxonomy-terms, ξανθόχρους is frequent, as many -χρους adjectives, of uncontracted ξανθόχροος; also ξανθόχρως. In colloquial greek the -χρους became -χρωμος and the taxonomic name became ξανθόχρωμος (blond colour), as in ξανθόχρωμη φυλή (tribe) of oxen. sarri.greek (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Applying the usual Latinization to the masculine plural ξανθόχροοι – a form seen used here in a medical text as characterizing chaundice – results in xanthochroi. It still seems a strange description for the boreal White Walkers. --Lambiam 23:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

â for Turkish
Question: does the Turkish alphabet have an â with circumflex? Or the transliteration of the Ottoman Turkish alphabet? tr.wiktionary does have an â for Ottoman Turkish as in tr:halâ. Then, is lemma hâlâ Turkish or Ottoman Turkish? sarri.greek (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Turkish alphabet does have â. Ottoman long a:s in borrowed Arabic words are usually transliterated as ā in Western literature. hâlâ is a Turkish lemma, we don't lemmatize Ottoman using Latin script. Ketiga123 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is used to show that the consonant before it is irregularly palatalized., , . This distinction was noted in the Ottoman alphabet by writing instead of , so  but . This meaning of the circumflex is also why one should not just use the circumflexes everywhere to transcribe matres lectionis in the script. Fay Freak (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not considered different letters of the alphabet (unlike e.g. o and ö). They are both instances of an a, one of which goes hatless while the other dons a hat. The circumflex diacritic is used for two different and unrelated purposes: indicating palatization (only for the a) and indicating lengthening of a vowel (only used with a, i and u). TDK writes hâlâ (for the adverb meaning “still”); both a’s are long and the l is palatalized, so the second a deserves two hats. --Lambiam 23:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all,, for explaining. I thought it was just a 'reading aid' and I was astonished to see them lemmatized. I do not know what the printing practice is in Turkey today. I was thinking of redirecting them to the lemma without the diacritics, and discuss the circonflex there. But of course, if tr.wiktionary has them, it is ok. Teşekkürler sarri.greek (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Benin
and give detailed accounts of the etymology of ; however, neither cite any references, and both differ from the etymology postulated here:. I think the Wikipedia etymologies are correct, with deriving from Yoruba rather than Arabic.

So we need a more verifiable or authoritative source for this. —Piparsveinn (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Botswana
does original research to conclude that the etymological origins of are uncertain. Can we get a published source which arrives at the same conclusion for reference? —Piparsveinn (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gives a straightforward etymology: "The country's name means "land of the tswana", referring to the dominant ethnic group in Botswana." Where does it conclude that the etymology is uncertain? DTLHS (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

کم and kaum
I don't have my hopes up but I was wondering if Persian کم (kam, "few, little, small, scarce") could be related to German kaum ("barely, hardly, little"). The Persian goes back to PIE and the German goes back to at least Proto-Germanic according to our entry but I can't find an entry (here or elsewhere) for either. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * makes a connection unlikely, unless the Proto-Germanic is a post-Grimm loanword from some other Indo-European language (which happens; see ). —Mahāgaja · talk 15:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)