View source for Testwiki:Etymology scriptorium/2025/February

{{discussion month}}

== Could've the navajo word [[tłʼízí]] (goat), be derived from the root [[-TŁʼIS]] (to compact, to harden)? ==

Could've the navajo word ''[[tłʼízí]]'' (goat), be derived from the root ''[[-TŁʼIS]]'' (to compact, to harden) with the nominalizer ''{{l|nv|-í}}''? In the sense that a goat's horns are hard to the touch or when they butt you the impact feels hard? ''[[-TŁʼIS]]'' + ''{{l|nv|-í}}''. [[Special:Contributions/38.43.32.97|38.43.32.97]] 18:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:You just asked this last month. It's doubtful you would get any better responses this time. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 21:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::Ok [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:15:1716:0:0:0:9|2600:387:15:1716:0:0:0:9]] 23:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
::But, is it plausible? The s turns into z whenever there are two front vowels surrounding it in Navajo. [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:15:1716:0:0:0:9|2600:387:15:1716:0:0:0:9]] 23:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Maybe. I just put this question out there so I could update the page for that word. [[Special:Contributions/38.43.32.97|38.43.32.97]] 01:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::::it needs to be more than plausible (and i don't think it is). if it is not an already established etymology you need academic sources as support. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

== Suvla ==

Bay in Turkey made famous in WW1. Greek {{l|el|σούβλα}} means [[skewer]], which might refer to the Gallipoli Peninsula - long, thin and pointed. [[w:Suvla]] doesn't seem to mean anything in Turkish, so a Byzantine origin seems reasonable. [[Special:Contributions/24.108.0.44|24.108.0.44]] 01:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{l|txb|Kerdipole}} ==

could this be {{m+|sa|कृति}} + {{m|sa|पालि}} [[Special:Contributions/203.30.15.177|203.30.15.177]] 05:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
: You'd have to look at how other known Sanskrit loanwords came out, though the second part of your derivation looks pretty random to me. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
::I have been looking, this one is not so clear as the other names which Adams provides something like a BHS transliteration, and I'm not an expert in Kuchean or Sanskrit lemmas, hence the question. This is the best I could find but if anyone has a less "random" suggestion I'd like to hear it. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 06:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:Looks similar to greek to me. Pole means town, and Kerdi seems similar to the word for victory. Also pole is always used as a suffix in town names, such as in Constantino-p(o)le.
:I tried to see what Kerdipole means, but the only information I have found is that it is a Tocharian B word, and nothing else. If the meaning was similar, then maybe we could form some kind of conclusion, but without extra information there's not much I can say. [[Special:Contributions/2.218.95.93|2.218.95.93]] 16:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::Douglas Adams says PN in graffito, in {{cite-book|year=1999|title=A dictionary of Tocharian B|url=https://aeb.win.tue.nl/natlang/ie/tochB.html}}. I can't find any given names in -polis, nor any place Kerdipole. If there was a Geco-Bactrian Kerdipole, it may be explained as parochialism in graffiti, but no-one has uploaded it in a searchable form. Perhaps the spelling is sufficiently different. What word for victory do you mean?. While Greek name elements do appear in Kuchean graffiti, so far this doesn't appear to be one of them. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 07:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[union suit]] ==

Is this so named because it's a union of a shirt and pants into one garment? [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 08:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:I’ve only VHO the phrase ‘union suit’ but I suspect so. In any case, I have added it to [[Thesaurus:one-piece suit]] [[User:Overlordnat1|Overlordnat1]] ([[User talk:Overlordnat1|talk]]) 11:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
::What does [[VHO]] mean? Neither we nor Wikipedia has an entry for it. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 14:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
:::It stands for ‘vaguely heard of’, it’s part of the Times crossword blog jargon (it’s used along with NHO (not heard of) at the following website[https://timesforthetimes.co.uk/]). [[User:Overlordnat1|Overlordnat1]] ([[User talk:Overlordnat1|talk]]) 14:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{l|hi|अचकन}} ==

What's the etymology for this word? Thank you. [[User:Duchuyfootball|Duchuyfootball]] ([[User talk:Duchuyfootball|talk]]) 14:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:I looked at McGregor's Hindi dictionary and Platt's Urdu dictionary but they don't give an etymology. [[User:Exarchus|Exarchus]] ([[User talk:Exarchus|talk]]) 15:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

== Latin {{l|la|ustulō}} {{l|la|sēmustulō}} ==

<< {{l|la|uro|uro, ustus}} ; to burn lightly, singe, ...From a diminutive pp participle (*ustulus) ?; see {{l|la|acutulus}}, {{l|la|argutulus}}, {{l|la|pressulus}}. If so, likely through analogy with {{l|la|aemulor}}, {{l|la|postulo}}, {{l|la|modulor}} and co,  though I have not yet found any other verb which shows 'diminutive' meaning with said suffixed ending but *praeustulo ({{l|la|praeuro}}?), of the same cru, see *prustulo {{l|it|brustolare}}, {{l|fr|brûler}}. [[User:Saumache|Saumache]] ([[User talk:Saumache|talk]]) 16:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

== Where does the Hawaiian word "Ke" or Maori word "Te" Come from? ==

Is the word originated from the english word "The" or It's not from English? [[User:วัศย์รุจ ปริญญาวุฒิชัย|วัศย์รุจ ปริญญาวุฒิชัย]] ([[User talk:วัศย์รุจ ปริญญาวุฒิชัย|talk]]) 04:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
: The sound changes that produced {{m+|sm|le}} and {{m+|haw|ke}} would have taken some time, so they aren't from English (the ancestor can be reconstructed to Proto-Polynesian, which means it's been around since before modern English existed). The Polynesian languages have very small consonant inventories and very simple syllable structures, so coincidental resemblance with other languages is even more likely than usual. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 05:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::How do you think this word in Proto-Polynesian looks like?
::It might be "*te", or it's not? [[User:วัศย์รุจ ปริญญาวุฒิชัย|วัศย์รุจ ปริญญาวุฒิชัย]] ([[User talk:วัศย์รุจ ปริญญาวุฒิชัย|talk]]) 05:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::: See [https://pollex.eva.mpg.de/entry/te1/ the POLLEX entry]. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 15:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

== Greek names beginning Ἀγησί- ==

If '''Ἡγησῐπῠ́λη''' [[Wiktionary:Ancient Greek transliteration|•]] (Hēgēsĭpŭ́lē) is from {{af|grc|ἥγησῐς|πῠ́λη|t1=command|t2=gate}}. then aren't all the names beginning Ἀγησί 'Agesi- (e.g. [[Ἀγησίλαος#Ancient Greek|Ἀγησίλαος]] (Agēsílaos)/[[Ἁγησίλαος#Ancient Greek|Ᾱ̔γησῐ́λᾱος]] (Hāgēsĭ́lāos), [[Ἁγησίλας#Ancient Greek|Ᾱ̔γησῐ́λᾱς]] (Hāgēsĭ́lās) —Doric /[[Ἡγησίλεως#Ancient Greek|Ἡγησῐ́λεως]] (Hēgēsĭ́leōs) Attic) logically linked to [[ἥγησις|ἥγησῐς (hḗgēsĭs, “command”)]]  instead of  ''[[ἄγω#Ancient Greek|ἄγω]]'' (ágō, “to lead”) as well? There doesn't seem to be any connection between ago and 'agesi- except a tenuous connection through hegesis. [[Special:Contributions/203.30.15.177|203.30.15.177]] 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, especially if that initial alpha is definitely long, it's far more likely to be from {{m|grc|ἡγέομαι}} than from {{m|grc|ἄγω}}. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 20:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

== Tapchan ==

Is Turkestanian Tapchan related to {{m+|ru|топчан}} and {{m+|uk|тапчан}}? [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 20:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Probably, especially if they mean the same thing, but there's no language called "Turkestanian". Do you mean Turkmen? Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Kazakh, and Uyghur are also Turkic languages spoken in the area vaguely called [[Turkestan]]. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::I mean tapchan used in countries of southern Turkestan according to Wikipedia (I haven’t seen it in real life). Not everywhere they call it tapchan maybe, but the English word for it given in Wikipedia is tapchan. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 12:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::They are not the same thing, but you can sit or sleep on them. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 12:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::Tapchan seems to certainly be Uzbek/Tajik, тўпчон/tupchon may be a southern Uzbek dialect variant according to chat gpt, but it can't provide sources. https://ctild.indiana.edu/Main/Uzbek-EnglishDictionary is the only reliable online reference I can find. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 13:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Can't find it on Google, but I'm sure that there should be some dialectal variations. Tajik is not related to Uzbek, but they share many words, and they surely have dialects. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 18:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Tajik and Uzbek were a diglossia spoken in the same area. Shared words like tapchan are going to vary by region, not whether the user is a primary Tajik or Uzbek speaker. BTW the CTILD dictionary defines it as an earthen platform, not wooden. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:Read the source [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD&diff=83857853&oldid=83852797 I added] to learn the origin. [[User:Vahagn Petrosyan|Vahag]] ([[User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan|talk]]) 10:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you very much for such source! It was very helpful!

== MLK ==

[[brain#translations]] has {{m+|uga|𐎎𐎍𐎋|tr=mlk}} added by {{ping|Rudi Laschenkohl}} in {{diff|59166221}}.

The entry does not say so. The words for brain or marrow with Semitic cognates are {{m|uga|𐎎𐎈}} and {{m|uga|𐎎𐎎𐎓}} ({{temp|R:uga:DUL-3}}). Militarev & Kogan ({{temp|R:sem-pro:SED}} Vol. 1, Anatomy of man and animals) do not have it.

@Rudi has ben called to attention before. I RfE this because it looks like it would be from *malk "king" and I imagine it could be a metaphor or a transparent construction from something else. I am not sure we do RfV for translations. Perhaps it should be speedied. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 20:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[Tagus]], river of gorges ==

Indecision on this, and none of the present suggestions very convincing. But a source shared with {{cog|cy|tagu||choke}} (referring to the gorges present on much of the river), ie Proto-Celtic {{l|cel-pro|''*taketi''}} is very possible, more so than the one deriving it from the same root as [[stagnum]] (which is difficult semantically, and related Celtic words are borrowed from Latin) or Greek {{l|grc|ταγός||chief}}, which has no Celtic cognates.
Tagus, River of Gorges...thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/24.108.0.44|24.108.0.44]] 03:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{l|grc|Δείναρχος}} ==

The listing says from {{m+|grc|δεινός||terrible; mighty, powerful}}, but the accented ί suggests it might be rather {{m+|grc|δεῖνος||drinking cup}}, analogous with {{m+|sa|पात्र||drinking bowl, patera}} as a  name element [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 06:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Not really. Accent in Ancient Greek compounds is not correlated with the accent of the individual words that make up the compound. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 07:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{l|grc|πειθός}} ==

According to the entry under {{m+|ine-pro|*bʰeydʰ-}} this is a derivative of the stem with {{m|ine-pro|*-ós#Etymology_3}} e-grade adjective suffix, but the entry for {{m+|grc|πειθός}} says its an {{altform|grc|πιθανός}}, with a different etymology. {{m+|ine-pro|*bʰeydʰ-}} also gives a different range of meanings for {{l|grc|πειθός}}. Now I know there are a LOT of these inconsistencies around (there are more in the derivatives of this stem alone), but shouldn't there be some agreement between them? Should this be fixed with something like (from {{m+|grk-pro|*peitʰós}} from {{af|grc|ine-pro:[[*bʰeydʰ-]]|ine-pro:[[*-ós#Etymology_3]]}} e-grade  adjective), or left alone? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 14:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Saying something is an alt form of something else doesn't mean they necessarily have the same etymology. These forms are both from {{m|ine-pro|*bʰeydʰ-}}, but one is an e-grade noun with no suffix and the other is a suffixed zero-grade form. If you prefer, we could call {{m|grc|πειθός}} a {{tl|synonym of}} rather than an {{tl|alt form of}}, but I don't think it's a big deal to leave it as is. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 14:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::should the etymology and different range of meaning be added while leaving the "alt form" then? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 09:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

== Ancient Greek proper nouns ending -φᾰ́νης ==

Shouldn't these be referred to {{af|grc|φᾱνός|-ης#Suffix_2}} which "forms third-declension proper nouns" rather than {{m|grc|-φανής}}, as the accent is on the alpha rather than the epsilon? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 16:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Since they have a short alpha, they're unlikely to be from {{m|grc|φᾱνός}}. I'd say we should move the entry from {{m|grc|-φανής}} to {{m|grc|-φανης}} and give a usage note explaining that proper nouns using this combining form are [[paroxytone]]s while adjectives are [[oxytone]]s. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 18:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::a usage note on {{m+|grc|-φανής}} would be sufficient, and less work. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 05:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

== /kælæb/kælæv/ or /kalb/? ==

/kælæb/kælæv/ or /kalb/ for the biblical pronunciation of [[כלב]]? There were some people edit warring over this, so, who's right? or are they both and they are both dialectal pronunciations? this warring also has been happening with a lot of nouns that start with kaph lamedh/kaph bet. See [[כבש]], which has had it's biblical pronunciation changed repeatedly to /kavʃ/ by IP users that share my IP. [[Special:Contributions/38.43.32.97|38.43.32.97]] 22:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

: Certainly /kælæv/ in its last centuries before dying out. I mean we have copious transcription content of proper nouns and the like. In the {{w|Septuagint}} time it started. We already discussed it few times. {{section link|User talk:Terra-Rywko#Hebrew Pronunciation}} four years ago, there we have it. I am honestly annoyed that we constantly beginn from zero with people equating biblical Hebrew with earliest attested, pre-Mosaic pronunciation. Even though, as a realist, I also prefer Imperial Latin to so-called Classical Latin, this Torahist larp is patently off the wall more than just a preference. [[User:Fay Freak|Fay Freak]] ([[User talk:Fay Freak|talk]]) 22:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
::do like they do for ancient Greek and show a pronunciation progression from Pre-Mosaic to Biblical, Mishnaic and Rabbinic so everyone is satisfied. There's probably a comparable liturgical Cyrenaic/Egyptian dialect represented by the proper nouns in the Septuagint. To be really thorough you can throw in the 1st century Jerusalem area dialect as in some inscriptions and dead sea scrolls. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 05:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

== Is proto turkic {{der|tr|trk-pro|*yaŋïl-}} the causative of {{der|tr|trk-pro|*yan-}}?  ==

I noticed that turkish [[yanılmak]] is [[yanmak]] + the causative suffix

see {{inh|tr|trk-pro|*-l}} [[User:Zbutie3.14|Zbutie3.14]] ([[User talk:Zbutie3.14|talk]]) 00:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:The causative of {{m|tr|yanmak}} is ''[[:tr:yandırmak|yandırmak]]''. The suffix ''-ıl'' suggests a passive sense ({{m|tr|abartmak}} → {{m|tr|abartılmak}}; {{m|tr|boşaltmak}} → {{m|tr|boşaltılmak}}; {{m|tr|canlanmak}} → {{m|tr|canlanılmak}}; ...) But, since ''yanmak'' has only intransitive senses, it has no passive. In fact, it may be viewed itself as a passive, namely of {{m|tr|yakmak}}. Note also the difference between the nasal consonants in {{m+|trk-pro|*yan-}} and {{m|trk-pro|*yaŋïl-}}. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 20:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[Neisse]]~Nysa~Naissus ==

The river [[Neisse]] seems always to have had a sibilant as its second consonant, both in German (Neisse) and Polish (Nysa). An interesting possibility is offered by [[w:Niš#Name|Niš]], formerly Naissus. [[w:Niš#Name]] tells us that this derives from <nowiki>*</nowiki>''Nāviskos'', from *''Nāvia'' ("trough valley"). Compare Proto-Celtic ''{{l|cel-pro|*nāwā||boat,vessel}}''; the Neisse source at [[w:Nová Ves nad Nisou]] is in Bohemia, which was the territory of the Celtic [[w:Boii]], so a Celtic origin is possible. Semantics: ''[[vessel]]'' can apply to landforms, as with Naissus. Neisse=trough...? [[Special:Contributions/24.108.0.44|24.108.0.44]] 23:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:Anna Oczko's discussion of ''Toponymic unity of the Carpathian region'' (Folia Linguistica 2024; 58(3): 729–750) does not mention Celtic and no Neisse. There is Italo-Celtic through the Romanian language. There is one example with the preposition {{m|cs|na}} still visible, "Na grapě," and Slavic *izvorъ "mountain stream", "water spring" is one of the two most common hydrographic terms under discussion. If ''Na'' might be from **''neh₂-'' from the u-stem *''neh₂u-''?  [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 02:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::The Carpathian region is nowhere near where we are taliking about, and neither is the Romaanian language. We are talking (in modern terms) about Czech Republic and [[Silesia]] (SW Poland). The Celtic [[Boii]] tribe inhabited some of this area in ancient times, and left traces in place names eg [[Bohemia]]. [[Special:Contributions/24.108.0.44|24.108.0.44]] 06:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I confused it and comitted because the error margin should be wide enough by the time you concider Celtic hydronyms. The source region called ''Góry Izerskie'' (Lusatian Neisse) in the western Sudetes, some articles claim cognateship with the [[IJssel]]. That sounds at least similar to {{m+|sla-pro|*jьzvorъ}}. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 06:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::No problem, stuff like this can be complicated. I will post this stuff to Wiktionary presently, do you have any suggestions? [[Special:Contributions/24.108.0.44|24.108.0.44]] 17:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::You are missing the caveat of potentially Albanian intermission (according to Matzinger in the Wikipedia article) and you are plainly contradicting yourself when a river in Bulgaria stands model but the northern Carpathian is too far from the Jizera mountains. German Wikipedia is unironically funny about the Jizera, too. It's  not complicated, it's simply uncertain to the point of speculation. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 01:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Asking RfE and comitting with no source when nobody responds is not ''bold'', it's basically ''spam''. Saying "as discussed at Scriptorium" in the edit when there was evidently no discussion to warrant inclusion is delusional, to be frank. Admins passing by adding RfE after the RfE is petty. I would urge you to remove it but I am not going to revert {{ping|Chuck Entz}} and {{ping|Surjection}}. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 21:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I can't speak for Surjection, but my only contribution as far as I'm aware was to fix a language code in one template that was mis-categorizing the entry as a Latin term. I do that all the time, and not just for etymologies I disagree with (for the record, I do disagree with this one, though). [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 22:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{m|grc|Μαυρίκιος}} ==

this listing has a circular etymology {{m+|grc|Μαυρίκιος}}>>{{m+|la|Mauricius}}>>{{m|grc|Μαυρίκιος}}. the related listing Mauritius (alt form of {{m|la|Mauricius}}) apparently needs to broken up into two language sections with separate etymologies. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 04:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:It actually derives from the Roman name Maurus, from Greek, from [[ἀμαυρός#Ancient Greek|ἀμαυρός]] (dark). The first one I can find is [[wikipedia:Saint_Maurus_of_Parentium|Saint Maurus of Parentium]]  (3rd century). [[Special:Contributions/24.108.0.44|24.108.0.44]] 06:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
::With the Ancient Greek name {{m|grc|Μαῦρος}}, meaning "[[Mauretanian]], "[[Moorish]]", as an intermediate. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Wiktionary says "late" classical for {{m|grc|ἀμαυρός}}, so did no-one realise that it's just the Amazigh word for "land, homeland"? {{m|tzm|ⴰⵎⵓⵔ}} [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 00:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Erm, what? [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 00:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:If we can equate ''Mauricius'' and ''Mauritius'', then, given that the first known bearer of the name, {{w|Saint Maurice}}, was from {{w|Roman Egypt}}, where Koine was the lingua franca, it is IMO more likely that ''Mauricius'' is the Latin adaptation of the Greek name than the other way around. The next known bearer, Byzantine Emperor {{w|Maurice (emperor)|Maurice}}, was even ethnically Greek. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 20:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::The progression ''Maurus'' > ''Mauricus'' (attested) > ''Mauricius'' would be quite ordinary in Latin onomastics, at least. Would it be so in Greek?
::As for the interplay {{m|la||Mauri<u>c</u>ius}}~{{m|la||Mauri<u>t</u>ius}}, that would be due to ongoing [[wikipedia:Palatalization_in_the_Romance_languages#Early_evidence|palatalization]].
::[[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 01:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Μαύρικος is mentioned by Plutarch, so it was used at least once. Mauricius/Μαυρίκιος though is the (at least adopted) nomen gentilis of the emperor, whose regnal name is Caesar Flavius Tiberias Mauricius (or Mauricius Tiberius, as the adopted son of Tiberius). If St Maurice was a Roman general, and not a legendary figure, then it would again most likely be his nomen, not praenomen, but the details of the saints lives are vague and likely apocryphal. The names amount to no more than calling them "St. Moor, or "St. African" [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 07:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::This is an era when a succession of military men of humble or foreign origin rise through the ranks to magister militum or emperor. Many were not Roman in origin and adopted both a Roman praenomen (very often Flavius) and nomen as they rose in the ranks. this emperors original name may have been merely Μαύρικος, turned into a surname Mauricius to go with his new praenomen Flavius. This is just speculation however. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 07:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{m|grc|Μενέσαιχμος}} ==

a variant of {{m|grc|Μέναιχμος}}? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 05:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

== The [[harvestman]] ‘spider’ ==

Harvestmen or harvest spiders are a type of arachnid, popularly called “daddy long-legs”, but reportedly also “shepherd spiders” among many other names in English. The reason for their association with harvesting farmers is not obvious and has generated a plethora of speculation, making its way into the literature where there seems to be little consensus. Whatever the explanation, it has to make sense in the context of the <u>many European languages which also name harvestmen in a similar way</u>; I have already listed some of these at {{l|en|harvestman}}. So, I am not just concerned with the English word here. In addition to those, 
note also:
* The taxonym {{m|mul|Opiliones}} for the biological order to which harvestmen belong, from {{m+|la|ōpiliō||shepherd}}. At first I thought {{m+|en|shepherd spider}} was a calque of this (compare {{m+|pt|opilião}}, {{m+|es|opilión}}, etc.: New Latin borrowings), but, since English naturalist {{w|Martin Lister}} coined the word (it wasn't an original meaning of the Latin word), the New Latin was calqued from English. That begs the question: where did ''shepherd spider'' come from? Based on similar cases below, I'm forced to assume that it's an extension of older ''harvestman'' after the latter had become semantically opaque. This also fits with ''shepherd spider'' containing the additional qualifier of ''spider''. However, it is paralleled by {{m+|nl|koewachter|lit=cowherd}}.
* The taxonym {{m|mul|Laniatores}} (a sub-order of Opiliones), from {{m+|la|laniātor||butcher}}; why was it named this? Probably another calque—was German the source?
* {{m+|sv|lockespindel|lit=lock-spider?}}
I'm unsure if the latter two are even relevant, but the above have ended up being some of the most mysterious parts of all this.

Explanations for the semantics of the English word have included:
* The scythe-like shape of their legs
*: I find this the simplest, most intuitive and most reasonable explanation, and it fits best with the semantics for the greatest number of languages. {{m+|ru|косиножка|коси-ножка}} (= the stem of {{m|ru|косить||to mow, cut}} + {{m|ru|ножка||little leg}}) appears to be a verifying example of the meronymy, and {{m+|hu|kaszáspók|kaszás-pók|t=scyther-spider}} also at least comes close. The Slavic languages fairly consistently derive the name from {{m|sla-pro|*kosà|id=scythe|t=scythe}}, though more often indirectly as deverbal agent nouns via {{m|sla-pro|*kosìti|t=to mow, reap|pos=etc.}}. {{m+|de|Schneider|lit=cutter}}, Swiss {{m+|de|Zimmermann|lit=carpenter}} (coined by analogy with the former?), {{m+|cy|teiliwr|lit=tailor}} and {{ncog|he|קוצר|tr=kotsér|lit=shortener; (''by extension'') reaper}} all corroborate the notion that the central theme is the act of cutting, if not a sharp cutting edge. (Interestingly, ''Schneider'' can also mean “tailor”, like the Welsh.) It is just slightly perplexing that more languages don't call harvestmen spiders “scythe-leg” or *“scythe-spider” as you would therefore expect—just “scyther”, or more generically “reaper”, “harvester”, “haymaker”; Dutch apparently takes it to even greater abstraction with “hay-wagon”, for which I know of no explanation. The overwhelming trend is to refer to them by an agent noun for someone who cuts as part of their profession.
* The observation that they appear during the harvest season
*: This is at least superficially supported by {{m+|es|agostero}}, from {{m|es|agosto||August}}, and {{m+|ga|Pilib an fhómhair|lit=Philip of the harvest/autumn}}. Some sources say this explanation is unlikely because there's no particular reason to encounter the creatures more during this time of year, but this on its own doesn't rule it out. Maybe they're attracted to piles of harvested grain crops and fresh hay (which would provide a humid temporary shelter and hiding spot in which to catch prey), or they feed on other insects which are attracted to the hay (such as detritivores; note that harvestmen are themselves detritivores and will eat fungi, which would thrive in a damp hay pile, as well as dead insects which might have been living on the stalks). This or a number of other factors might make them seem to appear suddenly around harvest time in an agricultural setting, but I admit it's a stretch given the better option above.
*: However, we might expect different names if this etymology is correct: why aren't there more languages that unambiguously name them directly after a word for “harvest” or “harvest season” rather than “harvester” (often etymologically unrelated, as we saw with the latter in Slavic ⇐ “scythe”), such as from {{m+|sla-pro|*(j)esenь}} or {{m+|la|autumnus}}? It thus makes more sense to presume ''agostero'' is based on semantic extension of an earlier word meaning “harvester”, like {{m|es|segador}}, and that the Irish is calqued from English.
* An alleged superstition that killing harvestmen leads to a bad harvest (see {{pedia|Opiliones|section=Etymology}})
*: The existence of such a belief is hard to verify, and, even if did exist, was probably too regional to explain the wide-ranging semantic equivalents (Wikipedia just says “in England”—not a good sign). Also, it doesn't really explain the name; they're not called *“harvest-bringer” or anything that would imply they're the lifeblood of a good harvest, nor are they *“famine-bringer” or anything of the sort with negative/ominous connotation.
* An association with the “{{w|Grim Reaper}}”
*: Probably even less likely than the above, considering that they do no harm to humans and are not otherwise associated with death; and they're not called “grim reaper” or even “reaper” in English.
* That they exhibit a kind of “harvesting” behavior with prey insects
*: Not supported by either semantics (insects are not like crops) or ethology (they aren't known to do anything like this).
* Resemblance to stilt-walkers, which sometimes included shepherds who would use stilts to expand their field of vision (mentioned on Wikipedia at <s>the end of the lead section of</s> {{w|Opiliones}} (edit: moved to [[w:Opiliones#Etymology|§ Etymology]]))
*: For a brief moment this seemed surprisingly promising, as this practice really did exist in southwestern France. But it does not appear that the stilt technique used to be any more widespread than the Landes region or its immediate vicinity, and it's about shepherds, not harvesters. Plus, if stilts used to be a commonplace sight, why not *“stilt-leg” or *“stilt-spider”? Finally, the obvious (and far more widespread, better historically attested) user of stilts is a performer, not a farmer.

Anyway, I hope something will come out of posing the problem here, though I might not have left much to say… but if you have any good etymological sources, or answers to my questions at the top, that would be greatly appreciated and justify this silly post. Maybe someone finds this useful someday. [https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/fpxpt1/etymology_of_harvestman/ A Reddit thread] from the Pandemic era generated some discussion and a handful of comparanda but has been otherwise disappointingly unfruitful. I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't been discussed on Wiktionary before. And I'm annoyed that dictionaries haven't reached a consensus (nor has Wikipedia internally). Surely it can't be such a mystery, when so many languages do it!
— [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 07:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

: Edit: In hindsight, the superstition about killing harvestmen is pretty clearly based on the word itself. And it may have originated as a joke or folk etymology. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 07:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::After you figure this one out, maybe you could turn your attention to the question why [[ladybug]]s/[[ladybird]]s have names associated with the holy or divine in so many languages. Most European languages as well as Japanese name them something associated with God or the Virgin Mary, Hebrew and Yiddish name them after Moses, Korean names them after shamans, etc. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh yeah, that's bugged me for a while… pun unintended. I think the “harvestman” question is solved and it was just a matter of seeing past the pervasive folk etymologies—but there are other words for this arachnid that are much more opaque and interesting, some of them with a similar religious overtone. I'm finding that many words for critters have Biblical names, but I'm guessing it's just because those are the most common names (e.g. English naming lots of plants and animals “John” (more often “Jack”) or “Joe”; Irish doing the same with {{m|ga|Pilib||Philip}}). It could be that the Holy Mary ladybug was originally just a townsfolk-level “Mary”, but that people couldn't help but generate a superstitious narrative given the spiritual importance of the name; I'm not sure. But yes, that is a good suggestion. :) — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 09:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

: Edit 2: I think I had an epiphany about ''shepherd spider'': it could be confusion with the imagery of a {{w|shepherd's crook}}, which can be similar in shape to a scythe. ([[c:File:Opiliones_harvestman.jpg|See here]] for the scythe shape on a harvestman's legs.) So the semantic development could just have been from one type of “farmer holding a long stick with an inward-curving end” to another. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 09:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:: Same goes for {{m+|nl|koewachter||cowherd}}, though it's getting harder to make my case. These semantic shifts must have happened centuries ago. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 10:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:I recall an explanation that "[[lockespindel]]" isn't derived from "[[hairlock|(hair)lock]]" (Swedish has [[lock]] and [[hårlock]]), but that it was an old nickname for the Devil. I can see if I can find a good source. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 11:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::In that case, I guess there could also be a connection to the Swedish verb "[[locka]]" ("lure, tempt"). [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 11:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Looking it up, it was [[Loki]], not the Devil. Loki's name is obscure, itself, but it might refer to knots and tangles. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 00:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Very interesting, thank you! That would surely explain it—they look like a tangle of hair. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 22:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Loki is just one of the theories. Loki Lockaramm, having a spider skin (ramm), flying on its webs (which harvest spiders do not have), made out of magical formulas of fire offering. See more at Sophus Bugge (1909) Danske studier and also Axel Olrik (1908) Loke i nyere folkeoverlevering. Also by Hans Jacob Wille in his travel book from Seljord. Also see Riccardo Ginevra (2018) Old Norse Brokkr, connecting Loki to the fire. Loki having a flying costume is also attested in Norwegian songs from 1800-s, without connection to spiders. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 08:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:The Etymology as it is now gives undue weight to one random folk etymology out of many. The many supporting examples are if anything not enough to support the claim. You have completely missed the obvious cognate {{m+|xcl|սարդ||spider}}, {{m+|ine-pro|*ḱer-||to plait, weave}}. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 06:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::Undue weight how? What I have shown is that, based on evidence from other languages, it's the only explanation that is ''not'' just a folk etymology. I have found no support whatsoever for another explanation, but if you have, please let me know!
::{{m+|xcl|սարդ}} is not an etymological cognate with any of the words above. What are you proposing? — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 22:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::By that messure the Armenian word has no "etymological cognates". The remaining evidence is circumstantial. It's not just one but multiple folk etymologies to distract rather than to explain. These names are passed among children, the folk beliefs tag on and they try to fill gaps: [[woodchuck]] is a good example. I simply do not see an argument, no logic because [[harvest]] does not simply mean scythe, no proof of a common origin, no sources. "Cutter" just doesn't [[cut it]]. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 02:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::What? Name one cognate of the Armenian word that is relevant to this discussion. You're being ridiculous; there's no other Germanic evidence that the "harvest" in "harvestman" is a corruption of some other, much older word and coincidentally got changed due to folk-etymology. It's extremely obvious that "harvest" is just the same English word as in "harvest spider", chosen for the same semantic reasons as in the semantic relatives (etymological non-cognates) I mentioned. Semantics do matter, especially in a case like this where obviously there's no reconstructible PIE term and innovative new names are frequently made to replace older ones. A root ''*ḱer-'' “spider” that somehow narrowed specifically to a word for harvestman arachnids in English—magically without leaving a trace in the history of English or Germanic—doesn't even make sense on its own, because harvestmen don't make webs. That's enough shoehorning in of bad ideas from you. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 05:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Agree to disagree. Setting it straight would need more space. To point out all the flaws in your argumentation is hopeless if you add only more nonsense in response, like you keep calling it a [[spider]] despite the claim that it does not [[spin]] webs–would have to be a [[spinach]] harvester. I'm not even mad, that's a mazing. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 06:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:A minor etymological addition – not directly about the Opiliones. The common German term for “tailor”, ''Schneider'', is not alone in literally meaning “cutter”: the etymon of English ''tailor'', {{m+|fro|taillour}}, also literally means “cutter”. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 19:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::I am aware of that, thank you; that's why the Welsh example (a word borrowed/calqued from {{m+|en|tailor}} with the suffix changed to {{m|cy|-wr}}) is given as evidence for {{m-g|cutter}}. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 22:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

== Regarding Zhengzhang's Reconstruction of 葻、齔 and 掮 ==

I was playing around with OC pronunciation and came across a few character whoses pronunciations are "weird". Today, I had a chance to check the reconstruction in Zhengzhang Shangfang's 上古音系 and I found out two characters that seemed to have a typo on Wiktionary:

葻：*b·uːm > *b·'''r'''uːm

齔：*spʰrins'''?''' > *spʰrins'''ʔ'''

And there is one that, although is written in the book, I don't think belongs to the reconstructed pronunciation.

掮：*ɡren'''*''' > *ɡren

Would anyone mind confirming if the pronunciation should be revised for me? Much appreciated. [[Special:Contributions/140.114.123.101|140.114.123.101]] 11:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[cruz|Cruz]] in Iberian Romance languages ==

The Spanish and Portuguese word for cross is "cruz" and they come from Latin crucem. However, /ŭ/ generally yields /o/ when stressed while /ū/ remains /u/. Was there a Vulgar Latin variant crūcem? [[User:Wikipediæ philosophia|Wikipediæ philosophia]] ([[User talk:Wikipediæ philosophia|talk]]) 21:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:There are sporadic exceptions to the lowering of Latin -ŭ- in Western Romance languages. Sometimes a phonetic conditioning factor can be identified, such as a following palatal sound, but sometimes it's unclear why it failed to lower. The absence of this sound change does not by itself provide strong support for reconstructing a long-vowel variant in Latin.--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 21:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:However, I'm not familiar with the history of this particular word. There might be other evidence that points towards the development of a long vowel. After doing a quick search, I found that Herbert Sauren interprets "crouce" in an inscription he dates to around 100 AD (in what seems to be a Paleohispanic language) as evidence for a pronunciation with long ū. Others may be able to answer your question.--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 22:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know how significant it is (given that it doesn't indicate the quality of the vowel, which is what is important for explaining the Spanish/Portuguese forms), but a search in PedeCerto turns up a couple of examples of crūc- having long scansion in epigraphic poetry, namely "CE CLE 00770, Ī́nsēgnḗm  gĕnĕtū́m  crūcḗs  mūnī́mĕnĕ sḗptum" and "CE CLE 00770, 7[Prǣ́]fīxū́mst  crūcḗs,  Chr(īst)ī́quĕ  uŏcā́uĕtŏr hḗres." Most Christian Latin authors in that corpus observe the vowel's short Classical Latin quantity, which again may not have much significance, since that is the convention for poetry written in hexameter/pentameter. [https://books.google.com/books?id=HZsjAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA230 This book] says the long scansion crūcem can also be found in hymns attributed to Ambrose, but the wording used implies it is just one example of the general tendency to scan CL short vowels as longs in stressed syllables.--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 22:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::FWIW, the Germanic and Slavic borrowings listed at {{m|la|crux}} also seem to have been borrowed from a ''crūc-'' form. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but this is not very significant. The Germanic vowel probably reflects the later pronunciation of Latin with lengthened open syllables. That it cannot be a very early borrowing is already shown by the affrication. The oldest Germanic word for the Christian Cross was that in "[[gallows]]". (You may be aware of this, but I just want to obviate misinterpretation.) [[Special:Contributions/2.201.0.109|2.201.0.109]] 16:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[заняття]] - Questionable origin ==

The citation for the origin only describes its borrowing from Russian as self-evident, but the combining form -йняти is a common feature throughout slavic languages, and a cognate of this word is in common usage in Poland with the same specific usage (zajęciach), whereas the Russian counterpart is a collective noun.

I've only recently started feeling comfortable editing Ukrainian entries, I don't think my doubt alone is enough to justify changing this on my own. Could someone with more linguistics experience weigh in?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%82%D1%8F [[User:Proudlyuseless|Proudlyuseless]] ([[User talk:Proudlyuseless|talk]]) 17:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

: Both are anyway calques of {{m+|fr|occupation}}, maybe through Polish. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 19:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::That would be my guess. [[User:Proudlyuseless|Proudlyuseless]] ([[User talk:Proudlyuseless|talk]]) 21:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::Calque or {{glossary|semantic loan}}? [[User:Voltaigne|Voltaigne]] ([[User talk:Voltaigne|talk]]) 09:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I believe calques are compounds, such as loan-word. the elements may (or may not) exhibit semantic loaning. and a folk etymology is where you think you're making a calque, but completely !@#@$ it up. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 00:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:Oh, I get it now: it is probably because ''заняття'' is directly from Russian, while ''зайняття'' is from {{m+|uk|зайнятий}}. [[User:Tollef Salemann|Tollef Salemann]] ([[User talk:Tollef Salemann|talk]]) 07:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:The Ukrainian combining form {{m|uk|йняти|-йняти|tr=-}} yields {{m|uk|зайня́ти|tr=-}}, whence the verbal noun {{m|uk|зайняття́|tr=-}}, which generically denotes the act of occupying or taking up a space, position, etc.
:The infinitive form {{lang|uk|заняти}} is not regarded as having currency in modern Ukrainian (it's absent from both editions of Словник української мови), although it seems to be well attested in prior centuries (see examples at {{R:zle-ouk:SUM-28|зайняти, заняти, занят, занѧти|44|10}}).
:Given that:
:* {{m|uk|зайняття́|tr=-}} exists as a clearly natively-derived verbal noun of {{m|uk|зайня́ти|tr=-}} (formed in like manner as {{m|uk|вийняття́|tr=-}}, {{m|uk|прийняття́|tr=-}}, {{m|uk|сприйня́ття́|tr=-}}),
:* {{lang|uk|заняти}} is not reckoned to be part of the modern language (unlike, say, {{m|uk|поня́ти|tr=-}} which is given in [[https://sum20ua.com/?page=2615&searchWord=%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B8&wordid=85025 СУМ]] as a dated alt form of {{m|uk|пойня́ти|tr=-}}),
:* and that the meaning of {{m|uk|заня́ття|tr=-}} is limited to senses that relate to 'an activity which occupies a person's time and attention'
:this all probably pointed in Melnychuk's mind to the latter having been borrowed into the language to serve this semantic function.
:Incidentally, this seems to raise an analogous question about {{m|uk|поня́ття|tr=-|t=concept, conception, idea}}, cf. Russian {{m|ru|поня́тие|tr=-}}, but Melnychuk doesn't appear to have addressed this directly. [[User:Voltaigne|Voltaigne]] ([[User talk:Voltaigne|talk]]) 10:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
::P.S. another relevant consideration is the syllable stress. In {{m|uk|відняття́|tr=-}}, {{m|uk|зняття́|tr=-}}, {{m|uk|підняття́|tr=-}} and {{m|uk|розняття́|tr=-}} (derived from {{m|uk|відня́ти|tr=-}}, {{m|uk|зня́ти|tr=-}}, {{m|uk|підня́ти|tr=-}} and {{m|uk|розня́ти|tr=-}} respectively), the stress falls on the final syllable. By contrast, in {{m|uk|заня́ття|tr=-}} and {{m|uk|поня́ття|tr=-}} the standard stress is on the penultimate syllable (according to the 20-volume СУМ), which is suggestive of influence from Russian -ня́тие. [[User:Voltaigne|Voltaigne]] ([[User talk:Voltaigne|talk]]) 14:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
:The Russian meaning was incorrect, you can definitely say занятие in the singular for a class: "проводить занятие", "быть на занятии" etc. [[User:Thadh|Thadh]] ([[User talk:Thadh|talk]]) 10:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

== Does the word [[circle]] have no vowels? ==

One of the phonetic transcriptions of [[circle]] on the page is /ˈsɹ̩.kɫ̩/, which has no vowels. Is this true? [[Special:Contributions/38.43.32.97|38.43.32.97]] 02:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

: It's [[phonetic]] [ˈsɹ̩.kɫ̩] (indicated by the enclosing square brackets), not [[phonemic]] /ˈsɹ̩.kɫ̩/, which is an important difference. The classroom rule that "every English word (or syllable) must contain a vowel" (ignoring the many onomatopoeias, clitics etc. for which it fails) is meant as either phonemic or orthographic. Since [ɹ̩] and [ɫ̩] are just syllabic allophones of (generally) original/underlying vowel-consonant sequences /əɹ/ and /əl/, they can be analyzed as containing vowels. However, linguists may also choose to analyze them as genuinely vowelless, because the aforementioned rule is not really grounded in linguistic theory as understood today. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 04:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:I have yet to hear an American rendition of ''circle'' without [ə]~[ɚ] in the first syllable.
:(I am using ⟨ə⟩ to encompass both ⟦ə⟧ proper and any vowel in its vicinity.)
:[[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 10:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::yes the sonorants ɹ̩ and ɫ̩ take the place of vowels. the audio is an example. various qualities of [r] are almost indistinguishable from [a], some pronunciations of silk [sɫ̩k] will be vowel-less as well. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 23:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::There is a difference- a vowel and an approximant are not phonetically the same. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 09:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::How would you differentiate between English [ɚ] and [ɹ̩] phonetically? What is the physical difference, difference in sound quality or whatever? If English can have [l̩] then it can surely have [ɹ̩]; the two are close parallels and behave the same way in terms of phonotactics, emergence, allophony and so on. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 01:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Approximants, but not vowels, are characterized by a narrowing of the vocal tract at a given point of articulation. By definition [ɹ] involves such a narrowing at the alveolar ridge, and by definition [ɚ] involves no such narrowing.
:::::So long as one takes care not to confuse matters of phonology (English-specific phonotactics and allophony) with matters of phonetics, there is no issue. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 02:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::I disagree. I would say that there is no phonetic difference between {{IPAchar|[ɚ]}} and {{IPAchar|[ɹ̩]}}; they're just two different possible transcriptions of the same sound. Whether you choose to consider that sound an ''r''-colored schwa or a syllabic {{IPAchar|[ɹ]}} is a matter of interpretation. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 07:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You can disagree all you like; the fact remains that [ɚ] is transcribing a vowel, and [ɹ] is transcribing an approximant. The articulatory difference has already been explained above. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 08:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{IPAchar|[ɚ]}} is transcribing a vowel with a rhotic constriction, and {{IPAchar|[ɹ̩]}} is transcribing a syllabic rhotic approximant. Those are exactly the same thing. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You are literally claiming that a vowel and an approximant are the same thing. Kindly refer to a basic introduction to phonetics.
:::::::::ETA: [◌˞] isn’t ‘rhotic constriction’; r-colouring involves (e.g.) partial retroflexion. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 09:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::They are the same in many cases. Do you believe in a [j̩] that is distinct from [i]? — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 22:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Whether serving as the nucleus of a syllable or not, an approximant is still an approximant. Your statement amounts to questioning the distinction between [j] and [i]. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 09:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Absurd. And yes, linguists have every right to question that distinction where they overlap. Your belief in a strict distinction between the two categories shows an unscientific understanding of phonetics. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 22:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Either you have missed the point or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
:::::::::::::You ({{g|p}}) expressed your belief that [ɚ] and [ɹ̩] are nothing but arbitrary IPA allographs, that there exists no such difference in the realm of phonetics.
:::::::::::::I pointed out the existence of an articulatory difference between vowels and approximants, namely the presence or absence of narrowing at a given point of articulation.
:::::::::::::Now you are apparently pretending that the existence of an area of overlap between vowels and approximants, with a partway narrowing that one might represent with [◌̞], supports your earlier-expressed belief that no approximant-vowel difference exists. That is an example of the [[wikipedia:Sorites_paradox#Continuum_fallacy|continuum fallacy]]. It does not seem to have occurred to you that the same reasoning would also ‘prove’ that there is no phonetic difference between [u] and [u̟], and so on.
:::::::::::::[[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 07:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think there is any technical difference between ⟨[ɚ]⟩ and this ⟨[ɹ̩]⟩ in the context of rhotic English dialects. I would imagine the latter is to avoid the use of an extra symbol or to avoid some controversy/implication about its schwa-ness. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 03:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I've unified the transcription, as it's very confusing to use different transcriptions to indicate the same pronunciation. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 08:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Seriously dude, don't remove dialect pronunciation information just because you are confused. Do you understand at all how much variation there is within the US? If someone gives information on a variation in US pronunciation who are you to say there isn't any? at the VERY least there is a difference in length of the phone [ɚ] in one it is short but clear, in the other it has become vanishingly small or completely absent. this is not simply a transcription choice. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 16:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::I am not confused. Listing both {{IPAchar|[ˈsɹ̩.kɫ̩]}} and {{IPAchar|[ˈsɝ.kəɫ]}} as American pronunciations is redundant, because they say the exact same thing. Those are not two different pronunciations, they're the same pronunciation transcribed in two different ways. Sure, there's variation within the U.S. between rhotic and non-rhotic speakers, and among non-rhotic speakers there's variation between those who say {{IPAchar|[ˈsɜːkl̩]}} and those who say {{IPAchar|[ˈsɜɪkl̩]}}, but the two pronunciations listed at the moment are making a distinction without a difference. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 17:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::No, they don't. the fact that you do not hear or understand the difference is immaterial. The articulation is completely different. Your personal opinion is not a valid reason to remove the second pronunciation guide. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 18:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The articulation is exactly identical. That's a fact, not my personal opinion. What is my personal opinion is that listing both transcriptions makes Wiktionary look amateurish, because people will think we don't understand either English phonology or how the IPA works. —[[User:Mahagaja|Mahāgaja]] · [[User talk:Mahagaja|''talk'']] 18:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Apparently you’re under the mistaken belief that even [kɫ̩] and [kəɫ] are the same phonetically, as if the syllabicity diacritic is just a shorthand for ‘preceded by [ə]’. As mentioned, a basic introduction to phonetics would resolve your confusion. This is what happens when you confuse the phonology of your native language (both of the above are ''phonemically'' the same in English) with phonetics. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 18:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] Are these allophones that are specific to this particular word or a class of words? I'm struggling to see what value is added that doesn't just amount to the fact that a schwa followed by an approximant is sometimes articulated as a syllabic approximant, which is a matter of English phonology. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 20:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]]
::::::::::{{tq|Are these allophones that are specific to this particular word or a class of words?}}
::::::::::It’s part of a larger pattern of variation across English dialects, and even idiolects, of the type [CəC]~[CC̩]. Cf. ''cotton'', ''pattern'', ''rhythm'', ''shuffle''.
::::::::::{{tq|I'm struggling to see what value is added that doesn't just amount to the fact that a schwa followed by an approximant is sometimes articulated as a syllabic approximant, which is a matter of English phonology.}}
::::::::::Yes, that’s what it means to say that they’re phonemically identical in English.
::::::::::Mahagaja insists that [kɫ̩] and [kəɫ] are phone<u>t</u>ically identical, which is incorrect. Phonetics is a matter of actual sound, not of language-dependent phonological rules. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 20:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::@[[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] Yes, I understand the difference between phonemes and phonetics, but my question was "is this relevant information?" In other words, does the entry actually benefit from displaying this regular variation? I don't think it does. In actuality, it's a spectrum between the two in most idiolects, but unless there are certain phonetic conditions which predispose speakers one way or the other, I don't think it warrants adding this to every entry, as it conveys nothing useful. [[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] ([[User talk:Theknightwho|talk]]) 21:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::@[[User:Theknightwho|Theknightwho]] I didn’t say it would? I agree that there’s no point. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 21:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::the question wasn't whether it should be added to every entry, but do some people actually say [ˈsɹ̩.kɫ̩] at all as previously listed in the entry. and later whether [ˈsɝ.kəɫ] should have been removed. there was no discussion of it being normal variation within dialects or idiolects. if we remove all phonemic allophones there is no point listing most dialect pronunciations at all (which may be fine, especially without defining the dialect). [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 11:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Would you mind pointing to audio recordings that demonstrate the pronunciation differences that you have been referring to? [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 19:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::especially as one of them also has a second syllable which you completely forgot about [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 18:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::No, it should be clear by now that it is ''only'' your opinion. Can't produce the different articulations? poor you, I can. you want to debate the correct representation with linguistic dialect experts, go ahead, there are many, many such arguments about how things are pronounced and should be represented that are generally only resolvable with wave files and cat scans. these are still two different pronunciations because one is TWO, longer syllables. conflating them in the entry because you disagree about the quality and length of the first syllable is an abuse. You do NOT have a valid reason to change it. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 18:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::While I agree with most of Mahāgaja's points, I disagree that [əl] and [l̩] are the exact same sound, just as [ɚ] (= [ɹ̩]) and [əɹ] are distinct. But I do agree that it's probably silly to make a habit of listing both, since the existence of one is generally inferable from the other and they are pretty close. On the other hand, it may be useful to list both [əɹ] and [ɚ] (despite being phonetically exactly parallel to the case of [əl] and [l̩]), because of how important rhotic differences can be to other aspects of English. Exceptions to the former might be if they affect syllable boundaries or show up in other unexpected places, for example if some people say "aloud" as [ɫ̩ˈaʊd] (I don't know if they do; this is hypothetical). So yes, while there is a pure phonetic-analytical aspect, there is also a defining context in which to discern how we present information, based on the study of English as a whole. If we could do so without confusing readers, we would just show tags like "± schwa diphthong", "± velarized" as independent dialectal features, and that tends to be what serious linguists find more useful. Separate IPA transcriptions just don't make it easy to show the variety of pronunciations in a concise way. Maybe a template could handle alternatives built-in, but I suspect that would be problematic. There is no objective answer to the question of which to do, but for now we should stick mostly to existing habits and be somewhat consistent about it. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 23:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::By the way, I find it odd that we (like so many amateur linguists) make such a big deal about velar /l/ but not about velar /(ə)ɹ/, which is equally if not more prevalent. I believe there is a lot of correlation between velarization of the two: for example, RP-adjacent lects typically velarize neither and other non-rhotic dialects often barely velarize either, whereas in parts of the US such as the Deep South, both tend to be strongly velarized (and even pharyngealized). The phonetics of English ⟨r⟩ are indisputably much richer, so why should it be any less useful/interesting? — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 23:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[chaste tree]] ==

Looks like a calque of {{m+|grc|ἄγνος||chaste tree}}, which is associated with {{m|grc|ἁγνός||holy, pure, chaste}}, or maybe a Latin / New Latin term itself calqued from the Greek. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 04:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
: {{ping|Ganjabarah}} Well, it certainly had a reputation in Mediaeval Europe as an [[anaphrodisiac]] (hence the name [[monk's pepper]]), and it was known in Latin as {{m|la|agnus castus}}. It's a kind of chicken-and-egg puzzle: did the name come from the beliefs about its properties, or did the beliefs come from folk etymologies about the origin of the name? [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 04:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:: Yup, I was hoping you would have the answer (lol). We may never know with regard to the Greek word's origin, but at least I can say it's unlikely that English speakers came up with this semantic construction of the name independently. I'm not sure that the tree is native to the British Isles; if not, it would of course be even less likely. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 04:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::Beekes calls the connection of the tree with the notion of chastity ({{m|grc|ἁγνότης||purity, chastity}}) “folk-etymological”, implying that {{m|grc||ἄγνος|tr=-}} and {{m|grc|ἁγνός|tr=-}} are not etymologically related. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 12:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Indeed and that is what I meant by "associated". We don't know whether they are related or not. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 02:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::With all due respect I think you and Chuck are missing my point, in that I made this post about the English word. Whether or not we follow Beekes and start with the (plausible, logical) assumption that the cultural associations with chastity came about by folk etymology (as {{diff|83938378||I had already added}} to the Ancient Greek entry), this cultural association is real and must be the source of both {{m+|la-new||agnus castus}} and {{m+|en|chaste tree}}. But rather than an indirect, cultural relationship of the semantic parallelism, I'm wondering if there was a direct calque involved. Calquing can absolutely be based on folk etymology or misinterpretation, and the Ancient Greeks themselves certainly regarded their word as analyzable with the semantics required for such a calque to be even a “correct” interpretation. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 03:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
: While we're on the subject, I need help verifying the noun use of {{m|grc|ἄγονος}} mentioned by Beekes; only the adjective seems to be cited in every other source. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 05:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da)%2Fgonos LSJ] has “<span style="font-family:serif;font-size:111%;">'''IV.''' '''ἄγονον''' , τό, = μυρσίνη ἀγρία, Ps.-''Dsc.4.144''; '''ἄγονος''' , = ἄγνος, ''Id.1.103'', Sch.''Nic.<u>Th.</u>71''.</span>” &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 12:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Embarrassingly I did check LSJ but overlooked it. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 02:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{m|goh|Fusca}} and related names ==
Forstemann, in {{cite-book|en|title=Altdeutsches Namenbuch|year=1900|url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_doEFT5vbo2kC/page/n299/mode/2up}}, suggests {{m|la|fuscus||dark, swarthy}}, "or an as yet unknown German stem?" 100 years later I can't find anything better, but I don't access to much more recent research. Anything better? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 02:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:Mostly throwing out guesses here, but might it be a metathesis of PWG [[Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/fuhs|*fuhs]] (as in fox, Fuchs)? Although metatheses might be more common in English than in German, and then rather the other way around, with [sk] -> [ks]. I guess -sc- is to be read [sk] rather than [ʃ] ~ [sx]. Might -ca be a diminutive ending, or is that unlikely for the period? [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 11:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::I considered fuhs, but I don't think the morphology works, and a diminutive still leaves us with an obscure stem *fus- or *fu [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 15:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Was she a princess and talked to birds? I have looked up [[Aschenputtel]] and now I am just confused. {{m+|goh||*fus-}} should be expected from {{m|gem-pro|*putōną}}, that requires a different stem perhaps. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 00:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Shouldn't that be *pf- rather than *f-? [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 00:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::At least {{m+|gmw-pro|*palancijā}} and {{m|gmw-pro|*puti}} are giving Old High German f: ''falenza'', ''fuzze''. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 11:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::There are about ten different dialectal variants for the roots you are listing. I don't see why the *f- examples should be singled out. It's apparently near universal in Yiddish, but in German, it's just dialectal. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 11:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Or, ''if'' the name was found in one dialectal area where it was a common phonetic shift, I guess it could be a viable theory. I don't know if the source would provide information of regional occurrence. And if so, I guess it would probably be loaned, anyway, since *p- was such a rare native phoneme in the early Germanic languages. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 12:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::And there are several attestations with ph-, although since ph read as [f] basically is a marker of etymological Greek spelling, I somewhat doubt it is supposed to be read [f-] here. I'm far from an expert on Old High German phonology and orthography, but I would suppose something like [p-], [pʰ-] or [pf-] would be more likely. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 12:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, it seems Forstemann was being a bit over eager. These are primarily Latin names from 9th C. Paris, and Medieval Italy. Italian Wikipedia has a section dedicated to them. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosco [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 17:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The only certain exception is Fuscildis, which can be explained as a Latin version of Funs-hildi (-ns to -s is a thing in medieval Latin as well) [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 17:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::What would "Funs" mean? Fire? [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 17:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::quick, ready, eager {{m+|gmw-pro|*funs}}, althopugh i only know it as a deuterotheme, in Alfonso, Sigifuns, Garifus, Ricifus [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 18:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::FYI, Seibicke's Vornamenbuch has names from the 14th century and later: ''Fischel'' m. Jewish, literally "fish" seems unlikely. ''Fisse'' f., from ''Fried-''. ''Foske, -ēa, Fosse'' f., from ''Folk-'', also once glossed "ein Fuchs" but nothing like it for ''Fulk-''. '''''Fuchs''''' m. with hedging and further references "soll über ''Faiox'' aus ''Fiacrus'' entstanden sein", here perhaps ''Fuscus [?]'' (Seibicke refers to Stadler/Heim, Volksheiligenlexikon III: 333). Fiacrus appears to be some Irish saint. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 19:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::In any case none of them are Old High German, as the attestations referenced by Forstemann (who never claims they are OHG) are all in Latin from France. Fuscildis possibly has a basis in West Frankish (Old Dutch/Proto West Germanic dialect), but the first part may still be Latin Fuscus. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 03:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[विवेक]] etymology missing ==

The etymology for the word विवेक is missing. Please add it. [[Special:Contributions/2601:2C7:4400:5210:A570:D134:1826:F96A|2601:2C7:4400:5210:A570:D134:1826:F96A]] 05:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:[[विवेक्ति]] (vivekti, “to sift”) is listed [[Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/weyk-|here]]. Likely related. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 11:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::I've edited the etymology (older sources seem to interpret it as prefix [[वि-]] + वेक, but Mayrhofer doesn't use a hyphen). Note that [[विवेक्ति]] (vivekti, “to sift”) probably doesn't exist, see my edits at {{m|ine-pro|*weyk-}}. [[User:Exarchus|Exarchus]] ([[User talk:Exarchus|talk]]) 16:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

== Sundanese [[awi]] ==

Meaning "bamboo". Attested in Old Sundanese in Naskah Bujangga Manik (c. 14th-mid 15th century). Is it possibly a doublet of {{m|su|haur}} ("bamboo") through changes from *R to y (as seen in [[palay]] or [[lini]], hypothesized: *qauR > *qauy > *a(w)uy > ''awi).'' However, this wouldn't explain the elision of h (or perhaps this phenomenon is common?). Any comments/corrections/opinions on this one?  [[User:Udaradingin|Udaradingin]] ([[User talk:Udaradingin|talk]]) 03:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:loss of both /q/ and /R/ in this root (unavoidable double entendre) are both common in Malay-Polynesian, but since both are contemporary and compounded in "awi haur" you'd need to explain why one is affected and the other is not, such as by borrowing from another branch (where h and R are kept or not) or derivation from a particular inflection or position in a clause. Austronesian does love to repeat lexemes to alter the meaning (and then get lazy and drop the repetition), but usually they're in harmony. The morphology of the second isn't usually affected or protected by the first. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 15:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Udaradingin}} Loss of initial *q is rare in Sundanese but not entirely unseen. It is however odd that the *q is preserved in the loan from Malay (''haur'') while it is lost in the directly inherited lexeme.
::Otherwise, your proposed sequence of sound changes makes perfect sense, including the resyllabification of the high diphthong. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 19:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{m|goh|Ingeida}} ==

checked the reference and whoever created this page clearly misread Ingelda as Ingeida. How do we fix this? 

The Reference Forstemann cites is Traditiones Corbeienses, Wigand, Paul. - Leipzig (1843) http://sammlungen.ulb.uni-muenster.de/hd/content/titleinfo/596668[[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 10:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:As [[Ingelda]] lacks an entry, yet, is it possible to move the entry to a new title, as on Wikipedia? Any relation to the Swedish name [[Ingela]]? [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 11:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::false alarm, he's put in the wrong column reference, probably copied from another entry, Ingeida is on a different page. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_LeuhuxTk2CEC/page/n411/mode/2up. I'll fix the reference. Ingela is a diminutive of a large number of names which could include Ingeida. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 16:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Forstemann references the Polyptyque de l'abbaye de Saint-Remi de Reims for Ingeida, so I'm checking a copy of that at the library of congress: "Mansum ingenuilem tenet Tetmarus ingenuus; uxor ejus Ermengardis aneilla; infantes eorum Teudrada, Ermhildis, Ingeida, Tethildis, Tetlindis. Ermherus." If there's an error it's Guerard's, however, this is a record of the tenants of the Abbey in Reims, and so Latinised West Frankish (Old Low Franconian) names, not Old High German [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The 18th. C manuscript copy at the BNF (one of three) has Iringardis, which Guerard corrects to Ermengardis, but does appear to read "Ingeida". I'd take it as a copyists error for Ingelda, but that is what it says. He also expands the Latin abbreviations, mostly reasonably, although for aneilla it should probably be ancille. [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 19:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::getting off topic, but it should probably be read as "Free-born Tetmarus unbendingly holds the manse; his wife is Iringard the handmaid; their children are..." [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 19:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is an Inguaid listed by Forstemann from Bavaria (thus OHG), so this corroborates the reading Ingeida, with loss of initial [h] in the second element, Eastern (high) and Western (low) forms of Frankish "Ingu" + "haiþi" [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 04:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[injectif]] ==

etymology [[User:Krania1130|Krania1130]] ([[User talk:Krania1130|talk]]) 12:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

== Bilitteral roots in Hebrew ==

What are they? I have heard that they could be primitive hebrew roots from which hebrew triliteral roots stem from, but is this plausible? If so, should we include them in the etymology of descended triliteral roots and the descended triliteral roots in the derivatives of the bilitteral roots? [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:15:1714:0:0:0:8|2600:387:15:1714:0:0:0:8]] 22:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:You are asking the wrong question. To be something "from which hebrew triliteral roots stem from" is backwards. ... The current best practice in Proto-Semitic is to make lemmas from reconstructed words or stems rather than roots. Roots are a grammatical abstraction. [[User:Fifofunn-išmell|Fifofunn-išmell]] ([[User talk:Fifofunn-išmell|talk]]) 23:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
: It depends on the root. Of the Semitic triliteral roots that have a known (or suspected) {{ncog|afa-pro|-}} precursor, most of the latter were themselves triliteral, but a few were extended from a possibly biliteral root. In other cases we do know of triliteral roots extended from biliteral ones within Semitic or Hebrew itself. When it comes to an attested language like Hebrew, we can say that many roots are back-formed (reanalyzed) from inflected or cliticized words, and many of those terms are borrowed from other languages. Your question suggests a universal answer, but these occurrences are best understood on a case-by-case basis. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 04:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[rip-roaring]] ==

&mdash;  [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:142C:3910:185D:F61:8CD5:28|2605:59C8:142C:3910:185D:F61:8CD5:28]] 00:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
: added [[User:Leasnam|Leasnam]] ([[User talk:Leasnam|talk]]) 00:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[mahogany]] ==

RFV of the first part of the etymology. — [[User:Ganjabarah|Ganjabarah]] ([[User talk:Ganjabarah|talk]]) 03:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{m|goh|Foldulf}} ==

More problems from Forstermann. This is plausibly OHG for a change, and his citations would place it in the right time and place, but they don't pan out, at least when searched in the MDZ the texts he cites have no mention of Foldulf, and the only texts searchable there or on Google that do all reference Forstemann. I don't think I'm reading his citations incorrectly, and the MDZ is superb for searching of scanned texts. If it was mentioned I'm sure they'd find it. Any ideas? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 03:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[благодаря]] ==

[[:ru:благодаря|Russian Wiktionary]] says it's a calque from {{m+|grc|εὐχαριστέω|t=to give thanks}}, but neither page provides proper sources to verify the etymology. [[User:JimiYoru|<b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b>]][[User talk:JimiYoru|<b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y<span style="font-size:80%">☽</span>ru</b>]] 09:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:This is likely an "internationalism-semantic loan", a few such as exist, including "international" itself. I think it's likely Russian loaned it from a few languages. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think the semantics fully match up, though. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 12:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I am not arguing for it being from Ancient Greek at all, though? [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 12:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::We still need references to back this up [[User:JimiYoru|<b style="color:crimson;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Jimi</b>]][[User talk:JimiYoru|<b style="color:#333;font:small-caps bold 15px 'Reem Kufi', sans-serif">Y<span style="font-size:80%">☽</span>ru</b>]] 05:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
:::That is true. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 08:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

== First Etymology of Banh incorrect  ==

The word banh for ball in Vietnamese is not borrowed from French. Not anywhere close to the phonology of balle. [[Special:Contributions/174.112.26.104|174.112.26.104]] 17:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

== Proto-Athabaskan ==
what is the proto-athabaskan word for dog? All the descendant languages have the word for dog but not Proto-athabaskan. why is that? [[Special:Contributions/38.43.33.127|38.43.33.127]] 19:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe it's just that there are so few editors here having deeper knowledge of Athabaskan languages, that no one has gotten around to create an entry. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 03:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
: You have a vivid imagination- where are all of those entries? We have good coverage of a couple of Southern Athabaskan languages, but the vast majority of other Athabaskan languages have only a few entries- and most of those languages don't have the translation for "dog" (for instance, [[:Category:Hupa nouns]] contains just 3 words). The indigenous languages of northwestern North America tend to be very hard for non-natives to work with, so it's probably better that there haven't been a lot of entries created.
: On top of that, proto-languages are a '''''LOT''''' harder than regular languages to work with, Regular languages come from recorded usage by speakers, but proto-languages have to be reconstructed by people who know what they're doing: first you have to have accurate lists of cognates in the daughter language, then you have to learn the sound correspondences between the daughter languages, and finally you have to apply those sound correspondences, taking into account all kinds of irregularities and missing information in your data. That means there just aren't as many words published for proto-languages.
: Of course, dogs are important to all of these cultures as the only truly domesticated animal from before European contact, and are well represented in word lists due to being familiar to everyone compiling the lists. I'm sure the raw material is out there for good comparative work, and it's quite likely that one or more Proto-Athabaskan words for dog have been published ... somewhere. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 05:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::Ok thanks! [[User:Gallus lafayettii|Gallus lafayettii]] ([[User talk:Gallus lafayettii|talk]]) 18:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::i was going to answer IP's question but you said what I was going to say but better. [[User:Gallus lafayettii|Gallus lafayettii]] ([[User talk:Gallus lafayettii|talk]]) 18:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

== Origin of persian and turkic intro to folk tales ==

Folk tales in persian and some turkic languages start with the phrase "biri varmış, biri yokmuş" 
(in persian "یکی بود، یکی نبود"). Can the origin of this expression be traced to either language? [[User:Krister torneke|Krister torneke]] ([[User talk:Krister torneke|talk]]) 22:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
: See the translations at [[once upon a time]] for the entries we have for several terms along those lines. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 23:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::What with the Ottoman Empire and other Turkic dynasties being {{w|Persianate society|Persianate societies}}, it is plausible that the Turkish intro {{m|tr|bir varmış, bir yokmuş}} is a calque of {{m+|fa|یکی بود یکی نبود}}, while the literal sense of {{m+|el||μια φορά ήταν δεν ήταν}} seems to blend the literal Turkish sense – plausibly copied from Ottoman Turkish – with the “once”, “at some time” literal sense of {{m+|grc|[[:el:ἦν γάρ ποτε χρόνος|ἦν γάρ ποτε χρόνος]]}}. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

== STAND   as in military courage ==

"They look good but will they stand?"   
--- Cornwell's Richard Sharpe, speaking of new troops.

I don't know where this usage would fit. If someone can figure this out it would be useful to have an example such as the above. [[User:Humphrey Tribble|Humphrey Tribble]] ([[User talk:Humphrey Tribble|talk]]) 05:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:A qualified guess is that it would be short for the phrase [[stand one's ground]]. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 13:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::Or sense 2.4, “To maintain an invincible or permanent attitude; to be fixed, steady, or firm; to take a position in resistance or opposition.” &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 16:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

== Accuracy of the etymology of Silesian 'przŏć'. ==

I'm not confident in the particular Old Polish form this word is purported to have descended from - 'przyjajać'. If anything, it would be 'przyjać'.

However, the problem with 'przyjać' is that its conjugation pattern is inconsistent with what we see in Silesian. 'przyjać' conjugates to 'przyjam', 'przyjasz', 'przyja', etc., meanwhile in Silesian we see 'przajã', 'przajesz', 'przaje'. This isn't a big deal-breaker because we also have 'trzimać' that conjugates to 'trzimiã' instead of 'trzimōm', which is also [https://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/zatrzymiemy;12343.html something that happens in Polish].

On the other hand, Czech 'přát' looks interesting. The infinitive 'przŏć' corresponds nicely with 'přát', but unfortunately the further conjugations aren't quite right - Czech 'přeju', Silesian 'przajã' (notice e <-> a). It's possible that the infinitive was influenced, but I'm not confident enough in this theory to claim that.

[[User:Vxern|vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda)]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 02:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:https://spjs.ijp.pan.pl/haslo/index/13243 [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 17:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::I'm aware, but this form is inconsistent with what the Silesian form is. [[User:Vxern|vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda)]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Not sure that it is. Words of frequent use often undergo irregular changes. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 18:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Sure, and this makes sense with 'przyjać' -> 'przáć' -> 'przŏć', but what about that 'ja' there in 'przyjajać'? Do we just write that up to this irregularity of certain change? [[User:Vxern|vxern (Dorian M. Oszczęda)]] ([[User talk:Vxern|talk]]) 20:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Old Polish przyjać is unattested. Contraction here on the -aja- would be effective though. [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 10:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{m|goh|Ingudis}} ==

doing some minor housekeeping of references (adding links, ids and additional source info), but can't find this name listed in Forstemann at all. could be an error in the column number originally given, but MDZ is down and the less reliable OCR in the internet archive copy can't find it. anyone else have more luck finding it? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 08:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:In column 785 we find {{m|goh|Ingundis|Ingu<u>n</u>dis}},<sup>[https://archive.org/details/altdeutschesnam00frgoog/page/786/mode/1up]</sup> created by the same editor as ''Ingudis'', ten minutes later. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 16:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
::so you think it's an error that should have been requested for deletion? [[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 18:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[every so often]] ==

Do we have an etymology for this? [[User:PUC|P]][[User talk:PUC|U]][[Special:Contributions/PUC|C]] – 20:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:Probably a fossilized use of an adjective as a noun, as for example "all of a sudden". [[User:Vininn126|Vininn126]] ([[User talk:Vininn126|talk]]) 09:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
:The template that this follows is ‘every X’, where X indicates the frequency with which something happens. Options for X include:
:* ''day'', ''month'', ''year''
:* ''time that she sings'', ''moment that I stay''
:* ''once in a blue moon''
:(etc.)
:For the phrase ''every so often'', you can think of ''so often'' as having its basic sum-of-parts meaning (‘so frequently’, ‘with this frequency’) but with an added sense of approximation. A bit like saying ‘the fish I caught was yea big’, except that there aren’t any suitable hand-gestures for it. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 17:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
::Shouldn't that be 'yay big' rather than 'yea big'? But maybe your dialect doesn't distinguish between them? [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 21:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
:::⟨{{m|en|yea}}⟩ /jeɪ/ ‘so, this’ [+adj.] versus ⟨{{m|en|yeah}}⟩ /jæ/ ‘yes’ for me. [[User:Nicodene|Nicodene]] ([[User talk:Nicodene|talk]]) 21:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

== [[fly window]] ==

Which sense of [[fly]] does this derive from? [[User:Father of minus 2|Father of minus 2]] ([[User talk:Father of minus 2|talk]]) 09:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:I assume it's based on airplane windows. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 12:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::Another suspect is “5. A piece of canvas that covers the [[opening#English|opening]] at the front of a [[tent#English|tent]]”. The 1933 OED has a generic sense “something attached by the edge”,<sup>[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.271841/page/n371/mode/1up]</sup> of which the tent sense is an instance. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 20:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Such as fly meaning zipper? [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 00:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

==[[fan-in]]==
Which sense of [[fan]]  does this derive from? [[User:Father of minus 2|Father of minus 2]] ([[User talk:Father of minus 2|talk]]) 09:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:"3. To move or spread in multiple directions from one point, in the shape of a hand-held fan." Same as [[fan out]], [[fan-out]]. [[User:Hftf|Hftf]] ([[User talk:Hftf|talk]]) 18:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[spatial computing]] ==

According to the beginning of [[wikipedia:Spatial computing#History]]:

<blockquote>The term apparently originated in the field of GIS around 1985 or earlier to describe computations on large-scale geospatial information. This is somewhat related to the modern use, but on the scale of continents, cities, and neighborhoods. Modern spatial computing is more centered on the human scale of interaction, around the size of a living room or smaller. But it is not limited to that scale in the aggregate.</blockquote>

Said article is also in [[wikipedia:Category:1985 neologisms]]. [[Special:Contributions/67.209.130.155|67.209.130.155]] 08:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

== Corallomyxa (protist) ==

Hello all. ''Corallomyxa'' was the original type genus of the family [[w:fr:Corallomyxidae|Corallomyxidae]], although this genus has been removed from this family. The name seems to mean "coral mucus", but I don't understand what this "coral" refers to. Do you have any other explanations on this "Corall" - "myxa". Thank you. [[User:Gerardgiraud|Gerardgiraud]] ([[User talk:Gerardgiraud|talk]]) 12:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Is it known in which habitat members of the genus were first identified? Could it have been on coral reefs? &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
::Not at all, ''Corallomyxa'' is a parasite of the Malpighian tubules of several species of insects of the genus ''Melanoplus'', notably ''Melanoplus differentialis''. [[User:Gerardgiraud|Gerardgiraud]] ([[User talk:Gerardgiraud|talk]]) 06:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

== What's the deal with [[φ]] and [[ϕ]]? ==

Is [[φ]] some kind of cursive variant, or is it the original and [[ϕ]] was created later to match to uppercase [[Φ]]? [[User:Ioaxxere|Ioaxxere]] ([[User talk:Ioaxxere|talk]]) 01:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell, the Greek alphabet has never really had any widespread alternative to [[φ]]. [[User:Wakuran|Wakuran]] ([[User talk:Wakuran|talk]]) 02:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
:In the context of Greek as a language, they're just variant forms of the letter, like "one-story" and "two-story" a. The code point φ, which represents the Greek letter, can have either form depending on the font. Apparently, mathematicians prefer to use specifically the version with a straight vertical line, and [http://unicode.org/reports/tr25/#_Toc231 Unicode decreed] that the code point ϕ should be used to represent that symbol in mathematical contexts where that specific variant form is required.--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 05:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
::For lower-case Greek letters, the mathematical convention is to use italics. I am not aware of a clear preference for <math>\phi</math> over <math>\varphi.</math> In some contexts, depending on the typeface, the former may create confusion with <math>\empty</math> (also rendered as ∅) for the empty set, or the symbol ⌀ for diameter. For uses of <math>\varphi</math> in mathematical texts, see for example [https://books.google.com/books?id=v64_DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA119&dq=?&hl=en here] or [https://books.google.com/books?id=JcJniBQ2dD4C&pg=PA279&dq=œÜ&hl=en here]. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 19:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I am not very familiar with the usage in mathematics, and after looking into it more, it seems like there may not be any common established use where the straight-line variant form is particularly established as mandatory. Considering some fonts don't observe the distinction, or distinguish the codepoints in the opposite direction, it seems like having separate encodings for these variants did not turn out to be a very useful or necessary situation.--[[User:Urszag|Urszag]] ([[User talk:Urszag|talk]]) 19:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
:Like Roman inscriptions, Ancient Greek inscriptions use only one case, whose forms became what we now call majuscules or upper case. The minuscules arose later in writing with pen and ink (compare the “written” form <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:111%;">ξ</span> with its original, engraved or chiseled form Ξ). As is to be expected for writing, various variant forms developed, some more cursive than others, such as <math>\varpi</math> next to <math>\pi,</math> still seen today in Modern Greek cursive writing. &nbsp;&ZeroWidthSpace;‑‑[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 20:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[亂龍#rfv-etymology-notice-zh|亂龍]] ==

RFV of the etymology: 龍 (lung4) is a corruption of 弄 (lung6). —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 16:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{l|uk|барити}} - to chat or to delay ==

One of the linked references in this entry attests that this word comes from Proto-Slavic {{l|sla-pro|*bariti|lit=to chat}},([[link]]), which is its current etymology. However, a presumed cognate, {{l|uk|незабаром}}, is attested as from {{l|sla-pro|*baviti|lit=to delay}}. I'm assuming that both of these share the same root so it seems like the question is whether the semantic shift happened in Proto-Slavic with a subsequent phonetic division, or if both of these words shifted meaning independently. The former seems more likely to me. [[User:Proudlyuseless|Proudlyuseless]] ([[User talk:Proudlyuseless|talk]]) 20:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

== {{m|goh|Mindah}} ==

Germanic etymologies have been created for this name, but I believe it's actually Jewish. The sources say it's a variant of {{m|en|middah}}, and no erarlier than 16th C.

This whole tree seems to be spurious - the cited reference for Mendach, quoting Zoder, Rudolf (1968): Familiennamen in Ostfalen. B. 2. says only Mindach, patronymic of a variant of Meindag, which he then proceeds to completely ignore.  https://www.google.com/books/edition/Familiennamen_aus_Rufnamen/m34oDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA397[[User:Griffon77|Griffon77]] ([[User talk:Griffon77|talk]]) 10:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)