 | This is aWiktionary policy, guideline or common practices page. This is adraft proposal. It is unofficial, and it is unknown whether it is widely accepted by Wiktionary editors. |
| Policies – Entries:CFI -EL -NORM -NPOV -QUOTE -REDIR -DELETE. Languages:LT -AXX. Others:BLOCK -BOTS -VOTES. |
Etymology is the study of the origins of words. The vocabularies of modern languages come from a variety of different sources: some have evolved from older words, others have been borrowed from foreign languages, and some have been named from people, developed from initialisms, or even have been deliberately invented by a certain author. Etymology sections in entries of the English-language Wiktionary provide factual information about the way a word has entered the language and usually some sense of its semantic development.
Etymology sections should not be too verbose, particularly because they appear before the definitions; usually a simple list of previous forms is all that is required. They should be based on reliable sources but should not be copied verbatim from another source.
Some words may also benefit fromfurther details, such ascognate words in related languages, or some illustrative comments.
There is currently no standard for longer discussions of etymology.
Include the etymology on the main entry (thelemma), even if historically it derived from another form, such as byback-formation.
Folk etymologies should not usually be discussed in entries. This can however be discussed where the folk etymology is widespread. However priority should be given to the 'correct' etymology, with the folk etymology being kept brief to avoid unnecessarily lengthening the etymology section. Unreasonably long material may be moved to the talk page, where it can be discussed at length.
Etymologies trace thehistorical development of words, not simply an analysis of their current (“surface”) forms. For example,astrology comes from Ancient Greekἀστρολογία(astrología) (via Latin), though its surface form can be analyzed asastro-(“stars”) +-logy(“study of”), as the components are valid English combining forms. Conversely,biology doesnot come from an Ancient Greek term, but is rather aclassical compound, coined c. 1800.
Analyses of surface forms are of value, but do not replace and should not be confused with an account of historical development. For example, the entry forastrology should not read *“Fromastro- +-logy”, but should instead read “From Latinastrologia(“astronomy”), …. Surface analysisastro- +-logy.”
For a term that is composed of base words separated by spaces or hyphens, do not add an etymology that just notes the base words. This can be better shown by wikilinking the term in the inflection line. The English termcomputer language, for instance currently has no etymology, and the base words are automatically linked to with the headword line template{{en-noun}}. Similarly, the etymology of acronyms or abbreviations is simply the definition, and no separate etymology is necessary.
Conversely, for compounds – a single word without spaces or hyphens, such asendgame – a brief etymology section using{{compound}} is useful, as wikilinking the components in the headline of the entry does not distinguish the components (it would just appear to be a single clickable link).
However, if some etymology would prove useful, it should be included – for example, history of usage or coinage, such asSNAFU (coined during WWII for the chaos of war), or explanations ofset phrases oridioms such ashair of the dog (hangover cure, from folk remedy for rabies), or the origin of a proverb or word that can be traced to a particular source or sources such asfortis Fortuna adiuvat(“fortune favors the bold”).
See alsoWiktionary:Compounds.
Some words have conventional usage in etymology:
Etymologies should bereferenced if possible, ideally byinline references, secondarily just by listing references in the “References” section. Thereference templates are useful in this regard.
If a term descends from a common root with other terms in related languages, and a page exists for the reconstructed proto-form, references about the reconstruction are best placed on that page, and not duplicated in the cognate entries.
See furtherWiktionary:References#Etymologies.
There are numeroustypes of word origins, including borrowing andword formation mechanisms, followed by processes oflexical change, notablysound change andsemantic change. These can be formatted in conventional ways, as detailed below.
There are two ways to denote the sequence of derivations in an etymology section. Historically, some editors used the word “from” to separate ancestors, while others used the algebraic “<”. (The symbol “<” implies an arrow that points in the direction of language change.) A 2011 vote did not reach a consensus on a preferred form,[1] but since then, the number of entries using “<” has declined to the point that “from” is Wiktionary'sde facto standard. However, “<” is still found, especially to show the progression of intermediate forms:
A significant category of words in a language are the so-called ‘native’ or ‘inherited’ words; in some languages, but not all, they form the majority of words. This means that they have developed from an earlier form of the language which may or may not have gone by the same name. Some of these ancestor-languages were written down and are well-attested, but others are not. For example, French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian and Portuguese all developed from Latin. The French wordclef, for instance, and the Spanish wordllave both evolved from the Latin wordclāvis(“key”) (they arecognates). They were not borrowed from Latin; the Latin language evolved naturally in different areas into the different forms.
The ancestors ofEnglish are, in order:Middle English,Old English,Proto-West Germanic,Proto-Germanic, andProto-Indo-European, and native words are those that came from these ancestors, without at any stage being borrowed from a different language, nor by being borrowed from an ancestor at a later time.
One should show the complete sequence of ancestors if possible, not just the immediately preceding form.
To specify the source language from which a term was inherited and to link to the original term, use{{inh}}. SeeTemplates, below, for details. If an ancestor had the same meaning as the descendant, it does not require a gloss in{{inh}}, but if the meaning changed, one should gloss the ancestor, showing the earlier meaning.
For native words, you can show the sequence of ancestors as follows, as infather:
===Etymology===From {{inh|en|enm|fader}}, from {{inh|en|ang|fæder}}, from {{inh|en|gem-pro|*fadēr}}, from {{inh|en|ine-pro|*ph₂tḗr}}.The initial ancestor can be prefaced by “From”, assuming it is different from the current form, but some editors prefer not to preface it by “From”.
Even if the current form is identical to an earlier form, the same format should be used, so that identically spelled words in earlier language can be linked. For example,when is identical in spelling to its immediate Middle English ancestor, giving the following format:
===Etymology===From {{inh|en|enm|when}}, from {{inh|en|ang|hwænne}}.In some cases, the ancestor terms were not recorded. The most recent ancestor language to English, German, Swedish and Dutch, which was spoken around the same time as Classical Latin, was not written down. We call itProto-Germanic, because it developed into the various Germanic languages, of which English is one. Many words from this language can be inferred with great confidence by comparing the surviving forms in daughter languages.
Some terms may be unattested in an otherwise known and attested language. For example, many Latin terms were newly developed and came to be used by the common people of the late Roman Empire, yet scribes did not write them down as they were colloquial rather than literary. We call these termsVulgar Latin and they form the basis of the modern Romance languages.
Because reconstructed terms are not attested, there are different rules for them. They must always be preceded by an asterisk * to indicate that they are reconstructed, and entries for reconstructed terms are not allowed in the main namespace. Adding * before a reconstructed term ensures that the links point to the right place.
Some examples:
{{inh|en|gem-pro|*dagaz||day}}yields:
{{der|en|VL.|*interrāre}}yields:
The inclusion of cognate words in related languages is particularly useful for inherited words, since they show how the same original form has developed in different daughter languages.
In the entryhound:
===Etymology==={{inh|en|ang|hund}}, from {{inh|en|gem-pro|*hundaz}}. Cognate with {{cog|nl|hond}}, {{cog|de|Hund}}, {{cog|sv|hund}}.Some words have been borrowed from other languages, either because of a historical occupation or co-existence, or simply through exposure to other languages. For example, the English wordchasm is borrowed from Latinchasma, which itself was borrowed from Ancient Greekχάσμα(khásma,“a cleft, abyss”). Borrowings can be ancient or recent. When words are first borrowed into a language they may still ‘seem’ foreign; examples in English includeschadenfreude orersatz. After a while they become more naturalised—like French borrowings from the last century such asnaïve ordetour. Eventually they seem completely native, such asleg ortable (borrowed from Old Norse and Latin respectively).
Beware to differentiateAncient Greek, using thelanguage codegrc for Ancient Greek, as in{{der|en|grc}}, not the codeel, which is forModern Greek.
Key waves of borrowings into English are fromOld Norse (non),Anglo-Norman (xno), andMiddle French (frm) in the 14th century. SeeEnglish language: Word origins for discussion.
Many words in English are also ultimately ofFrench (fr),Latin (la; seeLatin influence in English), andAncient Greek (grc) origin, but often not directly.
While there are some borrowing from modern French, such asboulevard, many terms are instead from Middle French, or fromOld French (fro) via Anglo-Norman. Many terms of Latin origin entered English via French, while many terms of Ancient Greek origin entered English via Latin or French or both; see alsoStages of Latin, below. Further, many terms with Latin or Ancient Greek etymologies are not borrowings from ancient languages, but instead areclassical compounds – modern coinages based on nativizedcombining forms. For example,biology is not borrowed from Ancient Greek, but is coined frombio- +-logy.
In addition, in modern times especially, English has borrowed from a great many languages.
Further, it is useful to differentiate which stage of Latin a borrowing is from –Classical Latin (la), followed byLate Latin (written;LL. 3rd c.–6th c.) andVulgar Latin (spoken;VL. 3rd c.–9th c.),Medieval Latin (ML. 6th c.–c. 1500), andNew Latin (NL. c.1500–now). These non-ISO codes are used in{{der}} and other etymology templates; for example,apostle contains:
{{der|en|LL.|apostolus}}which yields:
Note also that Vulgar Latin terms are generally not attested, hence the reconstructed terms should be linked to with an asterisk, as inrascal:
{{der|en|VL.|*rasicō|t=to scrape}}which yields:
SeeWiktionary:Dialects for details on these codes.
If the most recent stage in the development of a word is a borrowing, it should be marked as such; in English, any word not inherited from Middle English, from Old English, from Proto-Germanic, from Proto-Indo-European, is at some stage a borrowing.
Languages may borrow from an ancestor at a later date: for example, the two Spanish wordspalabra(“word”) andparábola(“parable”) both come from Latinparabola, but the former was a natural development (hence ‘native’), whereas the latter was borrowed back into Spanish much later (in the fifteenth century in this case).
To flag a borrowing, use{{borrowed}} or the shortcut{{bor}}; for instance, in the entryparábola:
===Etymology===Borrowed from {{bor|es|LL.|parabola}}, from {{der|es|grc|παραβολή}}. Compare {{m|es|palabra}}.{{bor}}/{{borrowed}} should only be used for words from which the word in question could have been borrowed from. It should not be used for subsequent steps in the etymology, which should use{{der}}/{{derived}} instead, as seen in the example above.
A form of a word may be borrowed, in which case one should say “From Xus, form of X”, whereXus is the form, andX is thelemma.
SeeWiktionary:Lemmas for which form of a verb is the lemma in various languages; notably for Latin, the lemma is the firstprincipal part, the first person present indicative, such asportō(“I carry”), rather than the infinitive (such asportāre(“to carry”)), which is the lemma in English.
Beware that a form may be borrowed, and then other forms created by regular formation orback-formation, while in other cases different forms may be borrowed independently, as in the below example:stimulate was borrowed into English from Latinstimulatus, derived from Latinstimulus, while this latter was also borrowed into English asstimulus –stimulus/stimulate are not formed from each other in English by a regular rule or back-formation.
In the entrystimulate:
From {{der|en|la|stimulātus}}, perfect passive participle of {{m|la|stimulō|t=goad on}}, from {{m|la|stimulus|t=goad}}.When listing a borrowing from an old language, it is useful to list the modern inherited cognate in daughter languages of the original language. For example, in Englishthey, one may write:
Borrowings may displace a native word, rather than providing a new word; this may also occur with new coinages. If this is so, one may list the displaced word in the etymology section, provided that this does not make the etymology unnecessarily long. Examples include Englishuncle (replacedeme) and Frenchrenard(“fox”) (replacedgoupil).
For words that are not considered separatelemmas, but rather inflected forms of another word, etymologies are not usually added. This includes plural forms, inflected verb forms, case forms and so on. In such words, the etymology is usually implicit in the definition of the form, and should not be stated separately. However, if the formation is irregular in some way (such asher fromshe), an etymology might be useful. Additionally, the template{{nonlemma}} is often used in entries with multiple etymology sections in which one or more sections is a lemma, to indicate that a more complete etymology is not missing from non-lemma sections.
If a word is formed by a regular rule, such as adding anaffix, it is preferred not to repeat the complete details of the base word’s origin on the page for the derived or inflected form: simply show the rule, and leave the more informative etymology for thelemma of the base word.
The templates{{prefix}} and{{suffix}} (with the argumentst1 andt2 for translation if components are not clear) are useful for this, and place entries into the correct categories (“words prefixed/suffixed with …”), as in the following entry forabstractly:
===Etymology===From {{suffix|en|abstract|ly}}.Acompound word is a word composed of two or more smaller words, but used as a single unit, likescience fiction orwebsite. For these, the etymology can simply be{{compound|en|A|B}}.
Conversely, words that look like a regular formation can have the formation reversed (especially, removing apparent affixes), yielding a new word. This is calledback-formation, and the template{{back-form}} helps here.
Not to be confused withclipping, which is just a shortening of a word, not the undoing of a formation, and does not change the meaning or part of speech.
Note that back-formations are generally thelemma entry, and should have the more informative etymology, rather than relegating the earlier etymology to the etymon.
In the entrygreed:
===Etymology==={{back-form|greedy}}Ablend orportmanteau word is a word which was originally formed by combining two other words. For example,brunch is a blend ofbreakfast andlunch.
In the entrybrunch:
===Etymology==={{blend|en|breakfast|lunch}}.In some historically recent cases where words have been deliberately created, we may be able to give details of where and by whom this was done. Where possible, the reasoning behind the coinage should be suggested, however note that this will properly be conjectural unless it has been documented by the word’s original creator.
If the original coinage is attested, common practice is to include the relevant quotation in the etymology, and link to a source, if possible, as inserendipity orportmanteau word.
In the entryhobbit:
===Etymology==={{coinage|en|w=J. R. R. Tolkien|J.R.R. Tolkien|in=1937}}.Ostensibly from {{der|en|ang|holbytla||hole-builder}}.
In the entrychortle:
===Etymology==={{coinage|en|Lewis Carroll}} in''[[w:Jabberwocky|Jabberwocky]]'',apparently as a {{blend|en|chuckle|snort|nocap=1}}
For calques or loan translations it is necessary to provide the source language out of which the lexeme, compound or a phrase has been calqued. Sometimes the exact source of calque cannot be established due to its spread among several languages, in which case several notable examples should be listed. The template{{calque}} should be used, which automatically categorizes the term as [[Category:<Language-name> calques]]
In the entryantibody:
===Etymology==={{affix|en|anti-|body}}, a {{calque|en|de|Antikörper|nocap=1}}.For acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations that have a foreign origin, such asqv orcf, an etymology section should describe the foreign expansion. For native acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations (including single letters used symbolically), the definitions are simply the expanded terms. A separate etymological section for each meaning is therefore unnecessary, and multiple senses should be grouped together under the same L3 header. A generic etymology section can be used to separate abbreviation definitions from non-abbreviated definitions. SeeA for an example.
For phrases, which are terms that consist of several words, no special etymology is normally needed. For convenience, the individual terms in the headword are often linked to their respective entries, like so:
{{en-verb|gives up|giving up|gave up|given up|head=[[give]] [[up]]}}Note that if a phrase is actually a compound word, an etymology with{{compound}} (see above) should also be provided to show that the term is a compound, and to add the term to the appropriate category.
For phrases that have more complicated origins, an etymology may be useful. This applies in particular to idiomatic phrases that cannot be interpreted literally by the sum of their parts, such asrain cats and dogs. For idiomatic phrases in languages other than English, the etymology can be used to provide the literal translation of the phrase.
In addition to etymology, one may provide years and location of origin, cognates, and glosses in the etymology section.
In addition towhich etymon a word comes from, it is useful to statewhen andwhere the word came into use – specifically when it is first attested, and location of origin, if known (e.g., US vs. UK, region). For example,palooka is of US 1920s origin. This can and should be brief – “US 1920s” is preferred to “First attested in the United States in the 1920s period”. Further, one should state (briefly) when (and how) other senses came into use, if they differ from earlier meanings.
Cognates are not strictly part of the etymology of a word, but can provide useful context, as well as serve as a mnemonic device.
The inclusion of cognate words is allowed only for inherited words, deriving from the same etymon in the ancestor languages, since they show how the same original form has developed in different daughter languages. This is especially useful for words whose ancestor form is not attested, and where regular sound correspondences can be observed.
For borrowed words, one may instead list the modern form (inherited cognate) in daughter languages of the original language. For example, in Englishthey, one may write: “From Old Norseþeir (Icelandicþeir, Swedishde, Danishde, Norwegian Bokmålde, Norwegian Nynorskdei)”.
Cognates can be listed at the end of the etymology as: “Cognate to lang.term.” One may use the template{{cog|lang|term}}.
Care should be taken however:
These are general guidelines and individual language/language-family policies take precedence over them.
Additional notes for the Indo-European languages:
In some cases where the semantic development is not obvious, some explanatory comments may be useful. The more concise and efficient, the better.
In the entrytrilby:
===Etymology===From the stage adaptation of[[w:George du Maurier|George du Maurier]]’s novel''[[w:Trilby (novel)|Trilby]]'', in which such hats were worn.
In the entrysybarite:
Borrowed from {{bor|en|la|Sybarita}}, from {{der|en|grc|Συβαρίτης||inhabitant of Subaris}}, from {{m|grc|Σύβαρις||Sybaris}}, an ancient Greek city in southeasternItaly noted for the luxurious, pleasure-seeking habits of many of its inhabitants.Complementary to etymology (going backwards) is descent and derivation (going forwards): as perWT:ELE, please link back descended terms in the “Descendants” L4 heading of the ancestor term, and likewise for derived terms is the “Derived terms” L4 heading: descendants are terms either inherited or borrowed intoanother language, while derived terms are terms in thesame language which derive from a given term.
Closely etymologically related terms in thesame language should be listed instead at “Related terms”, and there should be links both ways, as this is asibling relationship; related terms inother languages are instead handled as cognates in the etymology section, or as descendants of a common ancestor term.
Proposals for the format of the descendants section are discussed atWiktionary talk:Descendants, and a specific format policy is atWiktionary:Latin entry guidelines#Descendants, but as of this writing, there is no detailed general policy. You may use{{l}} to create a link to the correct language.Narrowly, you may wish to distinguish inherited terms from borrowings by suffixing the latter with “(borrowed)”, and list descendants at the form from which they are descended (rather than the lemma), but this is at discretion.
There are several templates commonly used for etymologies. All templates use the two- or three-letterlanguage codes listed inWiktionary:List of languages.
The templates{{der}} (short for{{derived}}),{{inh}} (short for{{inherited}}), and{{bor}} (short for{{borrowed}}) should be used whenever possible. The target language comes first, then the source language and the term. For instance,{{inh|en|ang|fæder}}.
{{inh}} is used when a word is inherited from an ancestor language with regular sound changes and no change in form;{{bor}} is used for words borrowed from a language that is not an ancestor; and{{der}} is used in all other cases. These templates categorize a term in the proper category: for instance,Category:English terms inherited from Old English.
A comprehensive example for a native English word isfather; the language codesenm andang represent Middle English and Old English:
===Etymology===From {{inh|en|enm|fader}}, from {{inh|en|ang|fæder}},from {{inh|en|gem-pro|*fadēr}}, from {{inh|en|ine-pro|*ph₂tḗr}}.For cognates, one can use{{cog}}, which takes the same parameters as{{m}}, but displays the language name.
Other useful templates are{{rfe}}, and{{etystub}}, for flagging stubs or disputes.As many entries lack etymology, this is most useful if there is apartial etymology; including it for all entries lacking etymology would be distracting.
Where a term originates in a foreign, but undetermined language, use{{der|XX|und}}. In cases where an etymology is reliably identified as unknown,{{unk}} may be used (note this can be used for native-born terms unlike the previous template).
Following the Wiktionary convention for parts of speech categories, each language has its own root etymology category. For example, the root etymology category forScots language isCategory:Scots terms by etymology.
Similarly, for each of the derivations categories (e.g.Category:Terms derived from Old English) the corresponding category for example forScots language would beCategory:Scots terms derived from Old English. The template{{topic cat}} should be included for all of these categories, and an appropriate subpage created (if necessary). (The previous template,{{dercatboiler}}, is deprecated.)
The etymology categories are inclusive: they include all terms that trace their roots to the source language, however the root. Finer distinctions can be made (such as derivations versus borrowings, or direct ancestors versus distant), but these have not been found useful and currently only the general categories exist.
We do not categorize when the etymon is in the same language (e.g. "Category:English terms derived from English" and the like should not exist nor contain any terms). Therefore, either do not use{{der}} (or any of the other etymology templates) in these cases or use "-" as the second parameter to suppress categorization. When both languages are the same, the template{{der}} treats this as a special case automatically and categorises in "twice-borrowed terms":{{der|en|en|XYZ}} puts an entry inEnglish terms borrowed back into English. The assumption is that if a language borrowed a term from itself, it must have been borrowed into another language in between.
The most common source of these is forgetting that an etymology is about the language of the entry:
|nocat=1 to the appropriate templates.
Etymology on Wikipedia.Wikipedia