Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The fish Mora moro (the "common mora") is the only species in the genus Mora.
According to The ETYFish Project, the genus name Mora was assigned by Risso in 1827 and is most likely derived from Neo-Latin morrhua, a term used historically for cod-like fishes.
The species epithet moro comes directly from Risso’s original specific name, Gadus moro, published in 1810 — again tied to the vernacular/common name for the fish in French or Italian contexts at the time.HeatherMarieKosur (talk)02:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
RFV of the etymology of the character.
It seems implausible that the abstract meaning 'miss' would precede the concrete meanings 'carry in the bosom or the sleeve, wrap, conceal', which are preserved in the modified version 懷 as well as in the Japanese use of the character. Furthermore, the original character has the semantic component 衣 'clothes', which, again, fits in better with original meanings 'carry in the bosom or the sleeve, wrap, conceal' than with 'miss'. I don't see how the concrete meanings 'carry in the bosom or the sleeve, wrap, conceal' could develop from the abstract meaning 'miss', whereas the developmentfrom the concrete meaningsto the abstract one is much more easily conceivable: 'keep (the memory of) something in your heart' -> 'miss something'. This is also the more common direction of development in languages in general. In that case, the supposed semantic contribution of the phonetic component 眔 'an eye with tear under it' is false, too. In general, the etymology entries have recently been filling with claims of semantic contributions of the phonetic components or reclassifications of phono-semantic compounds as primarily ideogrammic ones, which look, more often than not, like learners' mnemonics, folk etymologies and far-fetched products of excessive eagerness to make the structure of the characters be logical for speakers and learners today instead of accepting the cold truth that the logic was historically transient and crucially dependent on the sounds of Old Chinese. Unfortunately, Wiktionary's lack of a policy requiring sourcing makes such proliferation of dubious claims unavoidable.--62.73.72.10110:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks like the glyph origin was added to our entry inthis edit from 12 November 2024 byCicognac (talk •contribs). This glyph origin text appears to be a pretty close match to the ZH Wiktionary text in the entry atzh:褱, which was added to that entry inthis edit from 30 April 2025 byFglffer (talk •contribs).
If I'm not wrong (I did this edit a long time ago), I used the Multi-Function Chinese Character Database. Earlier, I used Ziyuan, which later I stopped using since the MFCCD by Hong Kong University is more accurate. If you find better explanations for glyph origins, especially in the MFCCD, please feel free to improve them. Paleography is constantly evolving, hence I do not pretend to "have the truth in my hands", to express this idea with an idiom (e.g., some of the newest contributions can be found in "Old Chinese" by Baxter and Sagart, 2014).Cicognac (talk)05:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Лакедра(Russian name of Seriola quinqueradiata&Oligoplites)
The first German attestation seems to be the one from 1791 linked in the entry, all earlier results on Books appear wrongly dated. Pfeifer (Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache) also points at 1791 for the first attestation in German.
Etymologiebank also says that Dutch calqued from German, and that "stikstof" was first attested in 1793. Lavoisier and French scientists suggested the name "Azote" in the 1780s. Maybe the "coined in Dutch in 1789" mention in the German entry is a misunderstanding of that (it's an uncited claim, anyway). I haven't been able to find such an early usage on Google Books, at least.
Latest comment:1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've seen two verb formats here in Wiktionary: root only like*-os- and hyphenated like*e-os-i. Which one is preferable (if any)? My thoughts - influenced by how PIE is done - are that *-os- should be categorized as a root and not as a verb (asverbsverb citation forms were - according to the current consensus on this - created by adding "e-" and "-i" to the root, and possibly some extra affixes), while the verb entry, if it's to be included separately (I think I'd include it), shouldn't have hyphens separating affixes from the root, so like *eosi.
The reason I'm asking about all that is that Wiktionary includes a lot of Trask's reconstructions, but barely any newerEuskaltzaindia's EHHE reconstructions (released in 2019 in Basque only, so it's understandable). I'd like to include them here, but wanted to align on the verb format first.ErdaradunGaztea (talk)14:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the verbs can be reconstructed back to forms that still contain the prefixe-/i-, and that there is no actual evidence that the bare root was once an independent word. That is of course quite likely in some even more distant pre-proto-Basque, but we can't get there from modern Basque:joan andikusi and so on all go back to a complex of root and affixes. This complex is a word and should be the lemma for the proto-stage. --Hiztegilari (talk)15:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it is (with metathesis) from Arabicمُطْرِب(muṭrib), meaning “instrument player” (from the rootط ر ب(ṭ r b); seeطرب), borrowed in Persian asمُطْرِب (motreb) meaning “minstrel” (a traveling musician) and in Kurdish, with a different metathesis,mitirb.Here is an artikel aboutmırtıps that also discusses the etymology. ‑‑Lambiam20:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Turkish and Azerbaijani have an old wordumman orümman depending on longitude. It means ocean in general or the Indian Ocean in particular. According to{{R:tr:NewRedhouse}} this is an Arabic borrowing and was spelledعمّان in the Arabic script. What was the original Arabic word? Is it related toعُمَان(Oman) (without the geminate m) orعَمَّان(ʕammān,“Amman”) (with a different short vowel)?Vox Sciurorum (talk)23:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have no real expertise in Arabic, but when Semitic words connected to water have an "m" in them, it's often not a coincidence. I do notice there's a verbعَامَ(ʕāma,“to swim or to float”) (Etymology 3), which might be connected somehow.Chuck Entz (talk)03:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks like some sort ofminced oath. Probably a substitute for something/someone a Christian would want to avoid swearing by for religious reasons. The whole idea is to substitute something innocuous, and the scenario you're talking about would be the exact opposite of that.Chuck Entz (talk)04:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Another hunch I had, which might also be wrong, was that it could, perhaps secondarily, have some connection to the Vatican smoke signals.Wakuran (talk)21:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
“Shit” begins with sh. Nevertheless, rebracketing from older adjective declension ending -(e)s it would be anyone’s guess what amoke is, andmuk fits the bill, already refers to excrement, also figuratively. A possible etymological connection is conspicuous in the parallel case ofreak andRauch(“smoke”). I have yet to find anything aboutmockern(“to be smelly”), absent from the dictionaries and I actually doubt that it is related. The uncertainty of*mokkus(“pig”) does not instill confidence either, but seego the whole hog,”So, we usually don’t know the origin of any word, if you want to go, as they say, the whole hog, if you want to discuss the beginning of beginning.” (Anatoly Liberman, in Because Language no. 98).Holy demands religious connotations, but it is not required relative towhole/y as a more conservative guess.Cultleaderlich (talk)17:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Does anyone know where the Ulster Irish formgeafta for standard Irishgeata(“gate”) gets itsf from? TheDictionary of the Irish Language reports a formgepta inTadhg Ó Cianáin's diary of theFlight of the Earls (early 17th century), but where does that get itsp from? The only thing that occurs to me is that since Ulster Irish was in contact with Scottish Gaelic, it could actually be a loanword from Scottish Gaelicgeata, pronounced/ˈcɛht̪ə/, and theft of the Irish word is a phonetic approximation of the preaspirated/ht̪/ of the Gaelic word. Is anyone aware of any published explanations of this form? —Mahāgaja ·talk12:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Although the combinationft /ft/ is rare in Irish, it is noteworthy that the cluster does arise in Donegal wheref /f/ seems to strengthent /t/ in words such as:
In Connemara /t/ is retained in such words[…] In Munster on the other hand /t/ is sometimes strengthened to give /xt/, e.g.lota /lotə/ → /loxtə/ 'loft' (M),rata /ratə/ → /raxtə/ (M) 'rafter'.
It seems to me that this "strengthening" may not be random: it stands out that in all of these cases (except possiblyscata?), there are words in either English, Norse, or Scottish Gaelic which could have influenced things (and in the cases oflochta andrachta, clearly did, as the etyma).- -sche(discuss)20:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
older sources
Among older sources, Nils Magnus Holmer's 1940On Some Relics of the Irish Dialect Spoken in the Glens of Antrim says little useful about thef, only that it is "intrusive", but of interest it glossesraftan as 'rat' instead of 'rafter'. And Alf Sommerfelt's 1922The Dialect of Torr, Co. Donegal, volume 1, page 171, § 519, claims (for whatever a book that old is worth)A curious differentiation of the first element with decreasing tension of a geminated consonant has taken place in some isolated cases. Thus inskaf't'ə 'a multitude, crowd': Di. scata;g'aftə 'gate': Di. geata, geafta, from Engl. gate. The differentiation goes back to the time when the first element of the geminated consonant was on the point of disappearing. A desire to maintain the aspect of the word, probably to avoid collision with other forms, gave rise to a reaction which resulted in a differentiation.- -sche(discuss)21:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Thanks! It seems like all these scholars are finding scholarly-sounding ways of saying "I dunno; it's just kinda spontaneous". If it were a medical condition, they'd be calling itidiopathic. —Mahāgaja ·talk06:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we could use them to write something like "The origin of thef in the Ulster Irish formgeafta is unclear. Several other words have /ft/ in Ulster Irish where some other varieties of Irish have bare /t/; several of these words also have variants with /xt/ in Munster Irish, and derive from etyma which had consonant clusters rather than bare /t/ (e.g.lochta,lofta from Norselopt, perhaps also influenced by Englishloft, andrafta(n),rachta from Englishrafter). Perhaps the use offt rather thant in the Ulster form of this word was influenced by the /-ʰt̪-/ of Scottish Gaelicgeata."- -sche(discuss)01:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Scots hasslairt,slaurt(“to gobble food in a messy way, to eat quickly and gluttonously”), which appears to be related toScotsslair,slare(“to smear, bedaub, cover with (some soft, wet, messy substance), to make a mess at any work”) (perhaps with a formative-t ?) Also similar isScotsslairk,slairg(“to smear, bedaub, bespatter (an object with something wet and dirty)”), andslairk,slarg(“a quantity of any messy semi-liquid substance, a dollop, smear”) (perhaps from the same base verb with formative-k ?); all possibly related toLow GermanSlärke(“a slovenly woman”), dialectalGermanschlarken(“to loaf or lounge about”), and dialectalGermanschlarggen(“to smear, mess”).Leasnam (talk)21:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Interesting! Thank you. I had worded the noun definition that way to cover all the cites, but those various possible relatives suggest that the two distinguishable subsenses the cites show might even have distinct origins, so I've tentatively split the noun in two: one set of cites use and often explicitly gloss the word to mean "leftovers, leavings", and seem to almost always use it together withort(s); the other cite seems to mean "a splash, a sprinkle, a small amount", a sense which is in theEDD but which I've had to move to the citations page because I can only find that one cite. (Intriguingly, theEDD asserts that in Lincolnshire the term could mean a large amount instead of a small amount.) I see that theDSL entry for "slairt" also speculates that its own senses (one related to eating, and one, like our verb, related to dirtiness) may be different words.- -sche(discuss)01:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
As Standard Arabic lacks a /p/ phoneme, I'd assume not. There's a Persian word 'payam' meaning "message, news, tidings", but it seems unlikely. I wonder whether it could be derived from Frenchpays in some manner.Wakuran (talk)01:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion
These words appear somehow related to Proto-Germanic*gudjô. Köbler (2014) writes the following, but doesn't provide the expanded forms of the abbreviations:
goting* 1, ahd., st. M. (a)?: nhd. Priester, Vorsteher, Amtsträger, Beamter mit richterlichen Funktionen, Vertreter Gottes?; ne. priest; ÜG.: lat. tribunus Gl; Q.: Gl (nach 765?); E.: s. germ. *gudjō-, *gudjōn, *gudja-, *gudjan, sw. M. (n), Priester, Rufer, Anrufer; vgl. idg. *g̑ʰū̆to-, Adj., angerufen, Pokorny 413; idg. *g̑ʰau-, *g̑ʰau̯ə-, V., rufen, anrufen, Pokorny 413; L.: Karg-Gasterstädt/Frings 4, 367 (goting), ChWdW8 147a (goting), EWAhd 4, 544
I add dictionaries' abbreviations whenever I come across them (and they meet CFI) to help with precisely this kind of thing, if anyone wants to help by adding some of the missing ones above! (That is, indeed, why we havenhd. andahd.—and nowne.—as well as a lot of English placename abbreviations and some Russian abbreviations.)- -sche(discuss)21:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
The one that always throws me off when I'm reading Kluge isas. foraltsächsisch; I'm always expecting it to stand forangelsächsisch. Of course, language abbreviations can be confusing in English as well. Morris-Jones'sA Welsh Grammar usesAr. for Proto-Indo-European. It catches me out every time; I always think "What is he talking about? That's not an Arabic word!" But writing in 1913, he used the termAryan to mean Indo-European, andAr. to abbreviate it. —Mahāgaja ·talk08:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. I noted that you added a Carpathian Rusyn descendant on that Hungarian term. Can you show somewhere where that's attested? Since I also found Pannonianциварвань(civarvanʹ,“fire hose”).Insaneguy1083 (talk)19:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Youtuber “RamsesThePigeon”has a recent short discussing this topic and calls the definition used here, a historic myth. According to this author, the “courting candle” name for historic candlesticks with what he calls “ejectors” comes from a 1960s misconception of them being intended for timing, rather than for allowing the entire length of the candle to be used while also expelling melted wax after use. The “rat de cave” candle itself, the poor man's coiled candle according to this video, is historically not related to the coiled candle holder and was mistakenly linked to it because of its shape. It sounds very much like an improvised light source, similar torushlight.
The word is certainly a name for the object by virtue of having become common use; it should not be removed. However, it might be a good idea to research the topic and (if the author is correct) to clarify the etymology and definition.
Incidentally, there are no translations listed on the page which I assume is because of the misconception, since we could link instead to the rat de cave. It is apparently derived from a similar concept from Afrikaans and mentioned in the video, the “opsitkers.” (Literally meaning “courting candle,” which I know from everyday cultural memory as an ordinary and very short candle used to tell the time until a suitor had to leave.)102.64.42.15307:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This edit (summary) raises a valid point, that our existing etymology was unsourced. I suspect the edit tilted things too far in the other direction (it smells of 'it's in the Quran, it can't be a mistake'), and it notably doesn't cite any sourceseither. Can someone bring some sources to bear? I added what I could find, but would prefer more and better sources. Small prior discussion:Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/December#يحيى, which also mentions the claim (currentlycited only to a blog AFAICT) that this spelling occurs in pre-Quranic Mandaeic.- -sche(discuss)18:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fraenkel, Siegmund (1890), “Miscellen”, inWiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (in German), volume 4,pages337–338
Jeffery, Arthur (1938),The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qurʾān (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series;79), Baroda: Oriental Institute,page290
Barth, Jakob (1915), “Studien zur Kritik und Exegese des Qorāns”, inDer Islam[2] (in German), volume 6, number 2,→DOI, page126n
Grimme, Hubert (1895),Mohammed (Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der nichtchristlichen Religionsgeschichte; XI) (in German), volume 2, Münster: Aschendorffsche Buchhandlung,page96 n 8
Now write something about its previous attestation, @-sche. We cannot hope for robust reference works of personal names of Western Asiatic antiquity in the near future.Fay Freak (talk)23:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks; I've tried to present the various theories. It is fascinating that there appear to be 3.5 mutually exclusive theories, where the one-and-a-halfth theory is itself two mutually exclusive theories which cover the same idea but (unless I am misunderstanding something? which is possible) appear to disagree with each other on seemingly all points: whether the inscriptions or graffiti at al-Ula were written by Jews or by Christians, what language they were writing in, and whether the occurrence ofyḥya there means that Jews or Christians had developedYḥya as a dialectal evolution ofYōḥānān and then Muslim/Arab use ofYaḥyā forYōḥānān is based on hearing that al-Ula-et-al form of the name, or conversely shows that Arabs already had the nameYaḥyā and the al-Ula-ans adopted it as a naturalization/Arabization ofYōḥānān. Hopefully more scholars look into this so we can have4.5 mutually exclusive theories...- -sche(discuss)16:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Why? It’s not programming. I would have been much shorter. The name existed as as a minor (in frequency) variant ofYōḥānān or less remote Arabicized forms, but Islam popularized it as the typical Arabic form for John, because as a Holy Scripture the Qurʔān became an authority on language, and onomastics are dedicated to such scriptures particularly notoriously.
Misreading theories, which when disseminated were ignorant of the attestation situation, yet not losing their suggestive power—bad philology continues to exist and be published—, can be discarded, as well as theological ones, which don't even adhere to anything we know about grammar, which was however apt to support the name’s popularity, after Islam as well as before it when it snuck in with Arabic Jews — or was it Christians? what is the linguistic difference? – who attained some edgy originality with it. +10 references thereunder.Fay Freak (talk)20:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Our entry claims that the use ofdood to mean "camel" derives from someone seeingdudhwallah "milk-man" and misinterpreting the first part as a word meaning "camel" for some unexplained reason. Can this etymology be sourced (and expanded)?- -sche(discuss)20:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
well, maybe we can fiund a word like "utwallah" and just say it was onfused with that rahter than claim reanalsysis. it would be easier for me to search if i could read hte script but its just a list of words to me.Lollipop(an alt account ofSoap) —talk16:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:29 days ago9 comments4 people in discussion
RFV of the etymology.
@Eirikr, youadded this etymology in December 20, 2018. No dictionary supports this etymology (looked in NKD2, DJR, DJS/DDJS). You also put "apparently" as if it was some kind of speculative rumor. Your use of "apparent(ly)" also appears in other speculative etymologies or notes.Chuterix (talk)22:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, in 2018, we were not yet including much by way of references for JA entries in general.
You are certainly correct that the current content athttps://kotobank.jp/word/つぽい-3214200,https://kotobank.jp/word/ぽい-626776,https://www.weblio.jp/content/っぽい, lacks anything much about etymology. From the Weblio content, I see that the JA Wikt entry atja:っぽい includes somewhat similar detail, as in theja:っぽい#語源 section. If anyone has access to the full NKD, hopefully that will shed some light on this. Given the wording, specifically the mention of "Edo period" I strongly suspect that I got this from an earlier iteration of the NKD via Kotobank -- sadly, each successive site redesign has left us with less and less etymological detail in their entries, I suspect due to ever-tighter licensing terms from Shogakukan. I have not yet ponied up for the subscription-based access offered by Japan Knowledge, and life is leading me away from being able to spend as much time as I'd like doing deep-dive etymology work.
Re: "apparently", I have used that in entry etymologies to deliberately express uncertainty, as a rough translation of Japanese references' phrasing like 「XYZという」 or 「XYZの転か」. While I have no direct recollection of entering the etymology forっぽい(ppoi), I expect that my use of "apparently" there was along similar lines. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
we have a circular etymology saying -poi and -ppoi derive from each other. i hope we can fix this, and if not, just say its unknown which came first.Lollipop(an alt account ofSoap) —talk17:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Lollipop I think the senses are different: ぽい originated ("apparently") from 多い in the Edo period as a suffix, then became pronounced っぽい, still as a suffix. Then, ぽい was innovated in recent times by the degrammaticalization as mentioned, and since you can't really pronounce a っ with nothing before it (sometimes it's possible to use the new adjective form at the start of a sentence, even), the っ is dropped. Or, maybe it's dropped for other reasons as well, but either way, the new ぽい ought to be a completely different ぽい than the historical Edo form. That historical form could be listed atぽい as its own alt-form entry, though.Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)22:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
>That historical form could be listed atぽい as its own alt-form entry, though.
And, for completeness, that historical (now-obsolete) version ofぽい(poi)should have its own entry. If and when I can track down sourcing, I'll add it in under a new etym section. If anyone can find the source ref before me, by all means please go ahead and add it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
The full unabridged version of NKD2 doesn't have this etymology deriving -(p)poi from ooi (ofo-). The 1988 Kokugo Daijiten Revised Edition (it may have once been available on Sakura Paris before that service was shut down for copyright issues; it was derived from external dictionary files) may have etymologies that even the full NKD2 doesn't have whatsoever. e.g.鈹(kawa,“matte”).Chuterix (talk)16:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wow, so the full NKD2 doesn't have any etym listed for鈹(kawa,“matte, for molten metal, such as appears during smelting”)? That surprises me, I'd always thought that the 1988 edition was a subset of the fuller NKD2.
That gives me renewed motivation to dig out that old copy, and set up a VM somewhere with a network-isolated VM of Win XP or something else capable of running that ancient Microsoft Bookshelf software -- something I got as a freebie for buying a laptop in Japan back in 1998 or so. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've checked the 国語大辞典EPWING (the same one used in Sakura Paris) and it doesn't have any notes for the singular (no duplicate) entry of ぽい besides 「(形容詞型活用。多く上の語との間に促音がはいって、「っぽい」の形で用いる) "Adjectival Conjugation. Many of the aforementioned words are geminated, so the form "-ppoi" is used.")」 Oddly enough, that also doesn't have any etymology for 鈹, but has the etymological notes at the beginning in words such as無駄(muda,“useless”),胸(mune,“chest”),河原(kawara,“dried riverbed”),籬(mase,“fence that has been lowly woven with bamboo”). Things may be outdated or incorrect though, so don't 100% count on it.Chuterix (talk)00:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix However, Daijisen does say: 「…を多く含んでいるという意を表す」, which wording is very apropos to the etymology written by @Eirikr. Unfortunately, no direct confirmation. My own copy of Nikkoku abridged is evidently the same as yours, since I got the same content verbatim for ぽい, so sadly no lead there.Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)01:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There's currently no etymology given for this expression, other than a literal translation "strike with your rod while you beg to God". The definition says it's a proverb equivalent to "God helps those who help themselves" and "to preach water and drink wine".
I have no proof or reference for what follows:
Spain has a considerable religious history including Judaism and Christianity, and in the first few verses of Exodus 17 there's a very well-known story in which Moses begs God for help, and God directs Moses to use his rod to strike a rock in order to get water from it. Thus, Moses literally does what the proverb describes. The proportion of people who consider themselves religious is much lower than it once was, but I suspect that in an earlier time, this would have been immediately recognized as a scriptural reference by almost all who heard it.TooManyFingers (talk)16:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The etymology given here lists, among several reasonable cognates,Thracianβόλινθος(“wild bull”), which contains the classic morpheme belonging to a supposed pre-IE Mediterranean/Eteocretansubstratum,-nθa-/-ssa- or-nθos-/-ssos-/-mpos- (e.g.Ζάκυνθος,Ὄλυμπος,Παρνασσός,θάλασσα/θάλαθθα/θάλαττα,ἀσάμινθος,καλαμίνθη,Ἁλικαρνασσός,Κνωσσός, etc, etc—though some ascribe the additional-sos occurring in placenames to a separate, Pelasgian substratum).
The entry forβόλινθος even mentions its likely pre-Greek origin.
It was added inthis 2010 edit by someone known for sloppiness and inconsistant quality of sourcing. The obvious question: where does Thracianβ fit in as far asGrimm's law? The PIE root is a voiced aspirate, so one might expect something like *b only in Germanic, unless Thracian has lost the aspiration distinction (though I notice Baltic descendants of the PIE root with "b", and Thracian has been linked to Baltic by some).Chuck Entz (talk)14:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the removal because Proto-Slavic*vòlъ is another possible comparison, albeit of unknown origin. I do not agree so much with "pre-Greek" as an argument against Thracian, that's like trying to nail pudding to the wall.Cultleaderlich (talk)18:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
If from Romance, its source would be what we classify as Old French, in light of the -s.
It would be somewhat unusual (though not impossible by any means) to ‘graft’ a borrowed inflection on to a native word. Is no other explanation available?Nicodene (talk)18:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't speak Breton myself, so I can't say, but the Breton Wiktionary (presumably written by native or at least fluent speakers) just calls it an alternative plural ofki. Surely the Breton Wiktionarians would have defined it as "a group of dogs" if it were a separate collective noun. —Mahāgaja ·talk21:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
It may be analogous to e.g.murder in English, which is, loosely speaking, the plural of the concept of a crow but not, linguistically speaking, the plural form of the nouncrow.
The majority of Wiktionarians don’t have specialist training, so this sort of misclassification would not come as a surprise.
Yun labels themself br-4 in their Babel box; maybe they can help us further. Another possible English analogy ispeople, which functions straightforwardly as a suppletive plural ofperson (in addition to its collective meaning which has a plural of its own). —Mahāgaja ·talk21:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the plural "chas" - attested in 1519 - replaced the old plural "kon" in everyday language. This comes from the fact that dogs were used for hunting (French "chasse" = English "hunt").
@Yun: Are there any grammatical tests to prove whetherchas is a true plural or a collective meaning "group of dogs"? I know such tests are difficult in Welsh, because nouns appear in the singular after numbers ("three dog", "four dog" etc.), and verbs appear in the singular after plural subjects ("the dogs is barking"). Welsh does inflect some adjectives for number, so the presence of a plural adjective can show that a noun is plural, but apparently Breton doesn't even do that. So is there any behavior that allows us to say "chas is definitely plural because it does X; if it were singular it would do Y"? —Mahāgaja ·talk07:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja: Yes, it's definitely plural. For example, in these sentences:
Chas disparint, a lavare o mestr. "They are great dogs, said their owner." (breton wikisource), the verb is in the plural form:int="are" (the singular would beeo).
Ar chas neoant ket pell, ha santeto doa c’houez. "The dogs were not far away, and they had smelled the scent." (breton wikisource), the verbs are still plural:oant="were" ando doa="had" (the singular would beoa anden doa (masculine) orhe doa (feminine)).
« Va chas mat, » eme ar roñfl, « kit da gerc’hat an tremeniad d’in d’am lein. » "My good dogs," said the ogre, "go and fetch me the passer-by for my lunch." (breton wikisource), the verbkit (="go") is in the plural form (the singular would bekae).
Ar chas a ve great guelloc’hd’hezo. "The dogs are treated better." (breton wikisource),d’hezo (modern spelling:dezho) means "to them", not "to it" (the singular would bedezhañ (masculine) ordezhi (feminine)).
It had to do with whetherchas is an inflection ofki rather than whether it functions as a plural. Would a speaker count ‘oneki, twochas’, for instance? Some other test may be needed if counting works as in Welsh.Nicodene (talk)10:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
The wordchas is not an inflection ofki: they are two different words with different origins.Ki is used in the singular and onlychas in the plural;kon, which is an inflection ofki, has long since disappeared from everyday speech. Like Welsh and the Sami languages, Breton uses the singular after a number: oneki, twoki, threeki, etc. --Yun (talk)17:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Potential variant علیزے as inw:ur:علیزے اقبال حیدر (transl. Alizeh). Does not appear to be Arabic? Speculations: FrenchAlizé, Hebreww:en:Aliza, clipping ofعلیزاده (seeمیرزا). The name of a popular actress at some point? Written with the 'ayn might throw away borrowings from English/French. Really just stumbled across this South Asian name and wondered its origin.Kritixilithos (talk)14:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago5 comments5 people in discussion
In very many languages, "clove" is referred to as "nail" because it looks exactly like an old-fashioned nail or spike. (In fact, English "clove" is from Latin "clavus" too.) But how is it that Hebrew refers to it with the word for "fingernail"? To my knowledge, there is no identity between the two kinds of "nails" anywhere but in the Germanic languages. So my first thought was a mistaken calque from Yiddish, but this seems unlikely on second thought, not least because it would have to be quite recent. So what's going on here? Just coincidence? And if so: why call the plant "fingernail" in the first place?90.186.83.11316:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
As Hebrew shares the connection betweencarnation andclove, that basically only seems to be found in Continental Germanic (and possibly Finnish), it seems highly likely that Yiddish or German has had an influence here.Wakuran (talk)17:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Wakuran: It's a bit wider than Germanic. One of the older varieties of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus) was selected for its clove fragrance at a time when South Asian spices were only available in Europe via a couple of tightly controlled trade routes, and extremely expensive. Most of the names for theseclove pinks are derived from Ancient Greekκᾰρῠόφῠλλον(kărŭóphŭllon,“cloves”) (e.g. Englishgillyflower), or Arabicقَرَنْفُل(qaranful,“cloves”).Chuck Entz (talk)01:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
How early is the sense "clove" attested? That could rule some possibilities in or out. I notice the sense "stylus" is in the Tanakh; maybe the sense "clove" derives from that; cloves look about as much like styli as nails, IMO.- -sche(discuss)18:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
mzungu is a common Bantu word for "white person, European". Under that word we have Chichewa and Swahili referring back to a 'Common Bantu' form - but different ones. The exact form is not reconstructable, and the various alternatives all seem to include the same list of descendants. Shouldn't there be one central repository of descendants (even if we admit we don't know it's correct), with alternatives pointing to it? Isn't it much harder to maintain if there are four different, parallel copies of it? --Hiztegilari (talk)22:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Redirects! I never even saw that. Is it at all common to use redirects for alternative forms? I thought we never did that. Anyway, apologies for wasting your time. --Hiztegilari (talk)19:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Same word? Different transmission routes, or why did the first one drop thel? (Edit: aha,cadiascher suggests Ottoman Turkish dropped Arabic's l.) Definitions also need to be deduplicated / one made a synonym/altform of the other, presumably.- -sche(discuss)01:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Because there is at least one Arabic word in it, the compound could use the Arabic article. And when there is an Arabian or Persian word,izafet is permissible, and therefore it is to be presumed here—where the article is not seen—, otherwise it would beasker kadısı.
The vocalism of the firstعسكر is expected by the authorities due to the laryngeal, but since Turkish by itself has no such laryngeal but vowel harmony it is probable that the colloquial had/ɛ/ instead of/a/, which is actually seen in some descendants of the Ottoman Turkish we give, and of course also attested in transcriptions, e.g.in this practical primer 1882.Fay Freak (talk)15:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both! I have edited the entries so the definition is not being repeated in multiple places. Please edit further (or undo my edits and we can discuss further) if needed.- -sche(discuss)00:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:15 days ago12 comments7 people in discussion
Wikipedia says the English outcome of PIE *k (and *ḱ) following an unstressed vowel and hence Verner's law isy. I am momentarily drawing a blank: what is an English word descended from a PIE *k (or *ḱ) that followed an unstressed vowel and underwent Verner's law?- -sche(discuss)07:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are certainly cases where *k in a Verner position shows up in Old English asġ, such as the past plural forms and past participles of strong verbs that ended in-h(w)an in Proto-West Germanic, such asliġen (tolēon),wriġen (towrēon),þiġen (toþēon),sċriġen (tosċrēon) andġefeġen (toġefēon), but I'm not finding any cases of it showing up asy in Modern English. —Mahāgaja ·talk18:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's true, but it is part of a cross-linguistic tendency to voice obstruents in proclitics and other unstressed elements, e.g. English/ðə/,/iz/, Irishgo from Old Irishco, Old Irishdo- from Proto-Celtic*to- and so on. —Mahāgaja ·talk21:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well actually, proclitics are likely to appear in Wackernagel-position interfixed after vowels stressed and unstressed (cafe con leche).*ḱóm is accented as predicted by Verner's. There even is an argument that*ga- was enclitic to begin with. Howeverġelīċ simply becomeslike says the entry.Yorik Molik (talk)08:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: Using searches for PIE roots ending ink- andḱ-, I was able to find some examples:edge,enough,fair,fay (Etymology 1),fly (the insect),owe,pail,saw (Etymology 1),tong (Etymology 1),wry (Etymology 1), andthig. It looks like the outcome depends a lot on the environment, with "y" due to neighboring front vowels/semivowels, and gemination also playing a part.Chuck Entz (talk)00:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
My first thought was that it might be from Ukrainianліва, which made me super curious, but I could not find any information. My first time using this, hope it is the right place to ask such questionsBneugxu (talk)09:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
L. L. Zamenhof apparently had a working command of several Slavic languages, including Russian and Polish, and the earliest drafts of Esperanto included several words directly derived from Slavic, which in later iterations were replaced with equivalents derived from Romance or Germanic, as the language families were deemed to be more internationally familar. Anyway, whether derived from Latinlaevus or some Slavic cognate, I would have suspected a *leva variant form, but maybe that word was thought to fit another meaning better.Wakuran (talk)19:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is pretty clear, but it was the "i" that caught my attention. Shifting Common Slavic (or in this case even Indo-European) "e" into "i" seems like a pretty district feature of Ukrainian, at least as far as I am aware, so it made me really curious of whether this is a contribution from Ukrainian, or there is a different explanation of why it is specifically "liva" when nearly all IE languages have it closer to "leva". Either way there is a missing piece in its etymology, and I can't stop thinking about this word...Bneugxu (talk)22:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
The only other option that occurs to me is that Englishlevo- has/iː/. The entry forliva says it's a neologism, so maybe English is more likely than Ukrainian, though if Zamenhof himself had invented the word, it would be the other way round. —Mahāgaja ·talk07:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
The only Dutch term that is somewhat similar isoveral, which, however, has a completely different meaning.
BTW, no dictionary (other than Wiktionary) seems to list this as a verb. Instead I see two noun senses: (1) “discount sale”, (2) “sale” (an event where goods are sold), and an adjectival sense: “on discount”. ‑‑Lambiam09:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’ve kicked the can down the road by declaring this to be “Frompantheistic +-al.” This is in analogy with how we treat e.g.ascetical,genetical,mystical,statical,tactical, although I have some doubt about the etymological soundness of this approach. Continuing the kicking, I have changed the etymology ofpantheistic to “Frompantheism +-tic.”
I have left the etymology ofpantheism untouched, but this appeared to be a bit of a rabbit hole. What is stated there seems to be copied fromthe Catholic Encyclopedia but cannot be right, since Fay wrote in Latin and used the Latin termpantheismus. It also contradicts the sectionPantheism § Etymology at Wikipedia. I have no reason to question the correctness of what is stated there, but have not investigated this further. ‑‑Lambiam18:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for bringing this up. If you are like me, then we saw that YouTube video by Kyouta which recently talked about いし and both went to see if it was on Wiktionary :)Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)15:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:24 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I don't think any of the theories added by @Eirikr can be the etymology of this term.榎(e) is consistently described as having an OJP pronunciation of /e/ (ア行のえ). This is distinct from枝(eda,“branch”) and柄(e,“handle”) which can be traced to a common /ye/ root (ヤ行のえ), and餌(e,“feed”) which can be traced to OJP /we/ (ゑ).Horse Battery (talk)23:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks like the edit at issue is this one from 2018:
While I have no distinct memory of this some seven years later, after reviewing the sources I would have likely consulted at the time (and that I can still access), I believe I got that fromNihon Jiten, relevant entry here:
If a deeper understanding of Old Japanese and Proto-Japonic phonology rules out these theories, we should certainly rework our entry's etymology. Given the age of that edit, and that theNihon Jiten entry itself is publicly available, I'd recommend keeping that content on our page, and clarifying that these theories have been found invalid, and explain the reasons why. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’ve read and heard two rival etymologies before. The first is that ‘drunk as a Lord’ became ‘drunk as a blood’ (from the idea that a ‘blue blood’ is a Lord or noble) which became ‘bloody drunk’ and then it later started to be used as a general intensifier. The second theory is that it’s from ‘by our lady’, referring to Mary, mother of Jesus. The first of these seems more plausible but, in any case, I doubt it’s a contraction of ‘by lady’ without the word ‘our’ in between ‘by’ and ‘lady’.Overlordnat1 (talk)08:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
That does not account for my username,bloody beginner.
I did a spit-take once seeing that Danish phonology contains ablødt d,blød(“soft”), from*blautaz, because it sounds likeblöd(“dull, silly”), from*blauþaz, same meaning but from a notably different root, which is closer toμαλάκας.
I imagine that some connotation of weak, small, and effiminate could eventually give rise to the b'lady theory. As for the allusion toblue, seefair, eventuallymy fair lady.bloody mary, now that I can see refer to its viscosity and color, naturally.Blutiger Anfänger (talk)21:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is this Ukrainian term attested in the 1800s at all? Because then I can possibly determine whether thePannonian Rusynдїєслово(djijeslovo) was modelled directly off of that, or borrowed from an earlier Carpathian Rusyn cognate of the Ukrainian term.Insaneguy1083 (talk)08:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's been there since April of 2019, and the reason seems to be that thereis no word in Proto-Austronesian, as asserted byCoconut on Wikipedia.Wikipedia. The genetic evidence seems to show that the type associated with the Austronesian-speaking peoples was domesticated in the Philippines by the early Malayo-Polynesian-speakers after they left Taiwan/Formosa.Chuck Entz (talk)04:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:17 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion
Seeأَبَو(ʔabáw, ʔabaww). It's used primarily among Armenians from what I can tell, to the point where one of the quotes I added claims it meanswow effect "in Armenian", but an Armenian friend online tells me the "aw" sequence is foreign to Armenian (even Western). Any ideas?Still, when you think about it (talk)19:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Huh I asked an Arab friend from Lebanon. He doenst recognize that word. I guess it’s an Arabic word that Lebanese Armenians use in their speech, perhaps because of community ties with Syrian Armenians. But I’d still classify it as an Arabic word and not an Armenian word.Hovsepig (talk)20:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Very confusing. It has no apparent Arabic etymology either. The only hint so far is that one of the quotes I added refers to it as an Aleppine term without making reference to Armenians specifically, but given that Aleppo has the largest Armenian population in Syria that still doesn't isolate anything...Still, when you think about it (talk)21:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Something like /waʊ/ or /waw/ is found in a lot of languages as onomatopoeia, with its contrast of high-rounded and low unrounded sounds. The current form would seem to be the result of this passing between languages with mutually-incompatible phonotactics- Arabic in general has no problem with initial "w" sounds, but Armenian seems to convert them into "v". Would the local Arabic lect convert that into a "b"?.Chuck Entz (talk)23:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was talking about pronunciations. Orthographic ⟨b⟩ and ⟨v⟩ both are pronounced with the phoneme/b/. The North Levantine Arabic pronunciation with a/b/ might be explained by borrowing from Castilian or Occitan instead of from Italian. ‑‑Lambiam20:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wondered whether there could be some connection to the Arabic expletive "ʔabu", but maybe the semantics don't really make sense...Wakuran (talk)22:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This isn't a bad idea at all either.أَبُوه(ʔabū́, literally“his father”) actually feels really intuitive to me to use as an interjection, and it would traditionally be pronouncedʔabáw in much of rural Lebanon. The only problem would be determining whether the areas that historically exhibit this-ū(C) >-aw(C) diphthongization (off the top of my head Zgharta, the entire(?) Beqaa, and the Shiite south) are the same areas where "abaw" is attested or where there are Armenians, and honestly I don't know if there's a lot of overlap there. There are many Armenians in the Beqaa, but there are also many in Beirut (where this diphthongization hasn't been attested), and the term is also found in Aleppo (where there are again a lot of Armenians but no traditional diphthongization).Still, when you think about it (talk)22:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
well, /e/ to /je/ was a pretty common sound change, so i assume because of the sound change, people assume it underwent changes while evolving from latin instead of having been borrowed, leading to the belief that it's inheritedTooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)18:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
In Spanish, the reason for saying that -ente is borrowed is because the regular inherited outcome of Latin "e" in stressed syllables is "ie" (aside from certain exceptions), so a word like "contenente" should have been "conteniente" if it was inherited: compare "conteniendo". However, there are a few complications that would be good to clarify in regard to-ente,-iente,Category:Spanish terms suffixed with -ente andCategory:Spanish terms suffixed with -iente.
First, "ye" is regularly used in place of "ie" after a vowel (compare incluyendo, atrayendo). So in my opinion, forms likeincluyente andatrayente, currently categorized as ending in -ente, should actually be marked as ending in the suffix -iente. Do others agree?
Second, verbs likedormir (from Latin dormīre) could be considered to have a stem ending in -i-, and so words likedurmiente (compare Latindormientem) could theoretically be divided as durmi-ente. But I think it is easier and feels more consistent to categorize these as ending in -iente.
As for Italian, while it also had the e > ie change in open syllables (at least in some words), I think it did not generally occur in closed syllables like it did in Spanish (compareviento andvento,tierra andterra,ciento andcento). So in terms of form, I don't know of a reason why Italian-ente could not be inherited.--Urszag (talk)20:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can't say for sure whether it makes more sense to interpret verbs likeincluir as having an underlying stem ending in -u- or -uy- (likewiseleer, etc.). If we look at cases liketraer/atraer, where tray- is found only in the gerund, that suggests thatatrayente at least is probably best analyzed as atra- + -iente. Furthermore, in the gerund, I don't believe we ever see -endo after consonants except for -y-: assuming we analyze the -y- as stem-final, that suggests that the sequence -yie- (which seems to not really be allowed according to Spanish phonotactics) is simplified to -ye- in verb inflection: compare also the preterites of verbs like comer/comió, recibir/recibió, incluir/incluyó (not incluyió). So regardless of whether the first component of incluyente is inclu- or incluy-, I think the second element can be -iente, and I think this inherited suffix is more likely than the borrowed suffix -ente because we know words ending in -yente were not borrowed as a whole from Latin forms: Latin doesn't use -y- as a consonant.--Urszag (talk)00:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
you mean -endo?
i believe that -yente feels like a variant of -iente because of the gerund doing the same thing with -yendo and -iendo
the adjective "estupendo" came from a latin participle, but that isn't grammatically used as a gerund, so we can assume it's borrowed (plus, in spanish, gerunds don't decline, yet estupendo does decline)
plus, there is no *estupir or *estuper that we can model this off of anyway, so considering that there isn't even an infinitive of the verb the adjective is based off of, and that there are other borrowed derivations of the verb (i.e. estúpido), we can say that it's borrowed.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)15:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:19 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hobo is short for hoe boy. It refers to an agricultural worker that travels by foot carrying a hoe, which is his main work implement. They were often seen carrying a small bundle of items which were tied to the hoe end of the tool handle and slung over the shoulder. This accounts for the oft mentioned relation to the term bindlestiff.74.254.4.12216:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Our entry for Arabicجَدْوَل(jadwal) says that Malayjadual and Indonesianjadual,jadwal are descendants, so ifjudul is also from that word, they should be marked as{{doublet}}s. It would also be good to explain why the“title, heading” word has different vowels from the“schedule” word if they're both borrowed from the same Arabic word. —Mahāgaja ·talk17:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
For the wordtì in Vietnamese and its meaning "dollar, buck" (I'm not even sure if it have broader meaning)
Latest comment:18 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I seen the using of the wordtì in the translation of the novelThe Catcher in The Rye, publish first time in 1964-1965, with a typical old writing style and a strong Southern Vietnamese vibe at the time. I can't find a single definition for this meaning of the word in any dictionary, from the one I had in 1980s to current online dictionary.Queen Duck שא (talk)03:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:18 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@DDG9912 Regarding "arkib", I think it's probable that it was borrowed from English "archive" because it's not unheard of for Malay to adapt English words with the "price" vowel as /i/ or /e/ as we can see in words like "lésén" (from "licence"), "Palestin" (spelled before as ڤاليستأين (Paléstain)) and "prébet" (from "private"), and adaptation of English final "-ve" as "-b" in Malay can be found in other words too in words like "rizab" (from English "reserve").
In fact, this adaptation of that "price" vowel as /i/ or /e/ can be found in loanwords from other languages as well such as the Arabic names "Husin" and "Syuib" which came from "Husayn" and "Shu'ayb".
(Note: In the first paragraph I'm only referring to English loanwords that entered Malay before around 1972 when English loanwords started being spelt to reflect their etymology rather than based on how Malay speakers actually pronounced them)
Latest comment:17 days ago3 comments1 person in discussion
This one has puzzled me for a while. Is it some other language's word for pinky, or for coffins, or for cutting someone off? All I've been able to find is a 1973 Lebanese play by the nameسنكف سنكف(“Singof Singof”), but the title uses it as an already-established term and I don't have access to the script to see if there are any hints. There's also a reasonable chance it was originally with/k/, as in*sinkuf sinkuf or*sinkif sinkif, if those forms look at all usable... also, this transcription convention is somewhat opaque, and it might be more familiarly spelledsengof orsingof or the like.Still, when you think about it (talk)19:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Forgot to clarify that I'm wondering about coffins because of the rhymeسنكف سنكف عالتابوت(singuf singuf ʕa t-tābūt, literally“singof singof on a/the coffin”). Any relation to zinc as a coffin liner...?
A forum thread mentions that the associated pinky gesture is found outside of the Levant, just with the Arabic verbحَارَب(ḥārab) instead ofسَنْكَف(sangaf), which to me says it must be a new loan applied to an old practice.
Considering new loans, the only crackpot connection I can think of is to Russianцинков(cinkov), which is a match in form but a stretch semantically. (In light of the military sense listed at Russianцинк(cink), I suppose it's worth noting that Russian military terms are well-known from the days of the civil war in Lebanon --كْلَاشِنكوف(klāšinkōv, klāšinkōf,which is entrenched enough to have a familiar abbreviation I forget...klāšin?) -- but I don't know if that helps.)Still, when you think about it (talk)19:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Like many of the contributions of this editor, this shows a great deal of knowledge and research, but odd lapses in details and no sources. The Arabic term here is a redlink because it was created as a Latin-script entry with no headword and no sources that might be consulted to fill in necessary details. I hope they're not using AI to create entries in languages they don't know.Chuck Entz (talk)14:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:15 days ago14 comments3 people in discussion
The page for Turkishşınav (push-up) says it comes from Englishchin-up, however I can find only one source[4] for this and several (Nişanyan[5], EtimolojiTürkçe[6], Ak Sözlük[7]) that says it comes from Persianشناب orشناو meaningsidestroke. I'm inclined to trust the first source (the Turkish Language Association) on most things, but <ç> to <ş> feels unlikely and there are mutiple sources that contradict it. There's an IP edit from 2018 saying that chin-up "fits neither semantically nor phonetically and is almost certainly nonsense", which I agree with, though "sidestroke" to "push-up" also feels somewhat strange to me. Unless anyone objects or gives other sources I'm going to replace the current etymology with the one from Persian.Wreaderick (talk)13:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why would Ottoman Turkishشناو(şinav,“the act of swimming”) become modern Turkishşınav(“push-up”)? As far as I can tell, the former does not survive in modern Turkish, and the latter pops up in 1980s.Vahag (talk)14:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how to do rigorous etymological research, but looking up "şınav etimoloji" only gives sources supporting the Persian origin. Where did you find that the modern meaning arose in the 1980s? I do agree that the semantic change is tenuous, but I feel you could say the same for the English origin too. Also just Googling "شناو" gives me images of push-ups, nothing about swimming, though Ak Sözlük says the <av> is from Persianآب (water). Do you have any sources?Wreaderick (talk)14:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I searched on Google Books. To me, the etymological proposals have no value until someone does a rigorous philology: where and when doesşınav(“push-up”) first appear? The Persian borrowingşinav would not lay dormant and suddenly come back to life in 1980s in a different form and meaning.Vahag (talk)17:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is just Classical Persianشنا(šinā,“swimming”), see its many alternative forms, one of which includesشناو(šināw), without prejudice to more specific meanings such as specific swimming moves, and related terms some of which we added. Arabicشَنّ(šann,“waterskin”), to be added because related terms sections generally only allow the same language, and a whole article by Buyaner 2006 cited on both leads you farther but I don't have it (1980–2007 ofthe journal missing …) and only used the journal piece from previews.
Why does Googling شنا give images related to swimming but شناو only gives push-ups? I don't see how the two meanings are related. It seems that the meaning didn't originate in Turkish but rather Persian. I would have found it strange for a word that meant swimming in Turkish to suddenly take on a whole different meaning in recent decades with such little documentation. Maybe there's some nuance I'm unaware of in Persian that could lead to the alternation.Wreaderick (talk)17:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did not say anything contrary to this, it was only about the etymological identification, where ever semantics developed. Some of the alt-forms developed alternative meanings in Persian, and exercise names, together with the regulization of their sports such as swimming, altogether were standardized only in recent decades, probably after the Ottoman era though even in this case, and the base-meanings, by reason of which they are in the alternative forms section, belong to Classical Persian – like 1½ century ago thewoodlouse had dozens of names across Britain and now all are unrecognizable and thus do not suit image searches.Fay Freak (talk)17:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Wreaderick I added the earlies quote (1986) I could find toşınav. Please check the spelling and translation, I used OCR and machine translation. As you can see, the term was unusual enough in 1986 that the author had to explain it in parentheses.Vahag (talk)19:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This of course means Ottoman Turkishشناو(şinav,“the act of swimming”) did not become Turkishşınav(“push-up”) since we did not have Turkishşınav(“**swimming”) at that1970–1980s calisthenics craze. The same word was reborrowed again from Iran, where the form with the meaning “swimming” was not wholly dead everywhere, since an origin in Englishchin-up would not only be phonologically, but also semantically too ignorant an invention to be possible in reality (of the 1980s, with the education even of meatheads), even more so thanpull-up, given the supinated grip of a chin-up which cannot be mirrored in push-up position (and the actual mirror of a push-up, working the same muscles flipping the body around, is a bench press).Fay Freak (talk)20:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Is a Persian borrowing that late possible? Perhaps it is from the Kurdish cognate of the Persian word. I have ordered big, fat Kurdish dictionaries from Turkey. Will check when they arrive.Vahag (talk)20:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Slyly I wrote without prejudice to the language. What I know is that you Caucasians get your anabolic steroids from Iran. I have had some swole internet acquaintances who when emigrating from Russia in 2022 choose Armenia or Georgia for this consideration. This scene of course leaves little trace in written history, or where are the Turkish muscle magazines?Fay Freak (talk)20:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hey, first of all I'd like to thank you for your addition of the quote, I had found the same quote when you mentioned you had looked at Google Books. The translation looked fine, I only had to fix a minor OCR typo.
I do find a Kurdish borrowing quite unlikely; Turkish for some reason hasvery few Kurdish borrowings, most of them are place names or clearly Kurdish-context words (one of the ones that isn't I even added myself). Should I expand the etymology with the information we have now while making it clear that it is uncertain? I also find Persian borrowings at such a recent date unusual. Are there any Persian-speaking editors you know of who would be available to ask about the meaning of شناو and if it has any meaning related to swimming? ThanksWreaderick (talk)09:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Wreaderick: This is fromBurhān-i Qāṭiʕ copied into Vullers already linked in the entry and under thesame entry inDihxudā with quotes; the Prophet himself is ascribed the wordsبیاموزید فرزندان را تیراندازی و شناو.(“Teach your children archery and swimming!”). I don't know why you cast doubt upon it, when I already told you that image searches are slanted in disfavour of historical usage, though in turn they are good positive indicators that a term is known. We always watch for a reliable chain of transmission.Fay Freak (talk)12:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:12 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The etymology claims the word was inherited from Maghrebi Arabic, which is a dialect continuum. Furthermore, Libyan Arabic is part of this dialect continuum. I can't understand how a word could be inherited from a dialect continuum, perhaps the editor meant that the word traces its root to the proto-language that the dialect continuum descends from, but that claim seems completely unverifiable as Libyan Arabic (and most other dialects in the dialect continuum) are solely vernacular dialects with no written history. The word in question (fakruna) has various cognates (often with the same meaning) in a lot of the dialects in the dialect continuum. I fins this claim in the etymology questionable/incorrect, or perhaps I might just be struggling to understand the claim. Any clarification/guidance would be much appreciated :)CasualDudeeee (talk)15:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
It spread around at some point of course. At that point, inMiddle Arabic if you want, spreading around Maghrebi Arabic was easier and was not felt like borrowing (it felt like intralanguage borrowing of idiolects and familects rather than like interlanguage borrowing) because regiolects had not had the time to develop apart so much as they are now.
Then, editors that are not acquainted with any Berber language are avoidant of noting any forms, they could miswrite, and they can't add the Arabic dialects in the descendant section—what they actually want to do—of any specific Berber language header ever entered, since the situation of Medieval Berber is even more muddled.Fay Freak (talk)23:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I assume it's supposed to be pronounced serk-horal, although it's easy to parse it as serch-oral. Not the most intuitive orthography, arguably.Wakuran (talk)00:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
RFV of the etymology. The OGP etymon is attested, so Portuguese and Galician surely come from it, but the Latin part is unsourced and differs between entries: Portuguese mentions Latinmarculātus, frommarculus(“hammer”), which doesn't seem to be attested; Galician only mentionsmarculus and cites DCECH, but it doesn't have this etymology; and Spanish goes for a completely different origin.Trooper57 (talk)19:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Kloekhorst, Beekes, Kortlandt, Martirosyan, and Kroonen all prefer to reconstruct the term with an initial*h₃ laryngeal. This allows for the term to be connected with a root*h₃erǵʰ-, which itself could be the source for*argaz. However, the reconstruction*h₁órǵʰis allows for a connection to the root*h₁erǵʰ-, whenceAncient Greekὀρχέομαι(orkhéomai).
Kroonen reconstructs a root*h₃erǵʰ-(“tocopulate”), which may be the source ofProto-Germanic*argaz,Lithuanianeržùs,aržùs(“ardent, voluptuous, stubborn”), andHittite[script needed](arkari,“to copulate”). Kloekhorst connects the Hittite verb to a hypothetical pre-form*h₃ṛǵʰ-o ~ h₃órǵʰ-ey, itself from the same root. However, LIV connects the term to root*h₁erǵʰ-, whence also perhapsAncient Greekὀρχέομαι(orkhéomai). Beekes claims that the wordὀρχέομαι(orkhéomai) primarily means "tomount" in inscriptions, although it is also attested with the meaning of "to dance." LSJ make no mention of this sense of "to mount," which seems strange given how comprehensive their dictionary is otherwise. Apparently, the linguist Calvin Watkins published an article claiming that the word had a more sexual meaning in inscriptions, although I cannot read it because it is in French.[1] Nevertheless, Beekes reconstructs a root*h₁erǵʰ-(“tomount”) forὀρχέομαι(orkhéomai), although he doubts the connection withὄρχις(órkhis) as he prefers the reconstruction*h₃orǵʰis for the latter.
Semantically, a connection between the words*h₁órǵʰis and*h₁erǵʰ-(“tomount”) seems possible, although perhaps somewhat dubious. Interestingly, the possible Hittite cognate[script needed](arkari,“tomount (sexually),copulate”) shares the same meaning of "to mount." Moreover, a semantic development from "to mount" to "to copulate" seems conceivable, especially considering that it happened in English. I also find it interesting thatLatvianērzelis(“stallion”) may be related to*h₁órǵʰis, and a semantic relationship between a word meaning "to mount" and a word for "horse" also seems quite possible. It still seems strange for the wordὀρχέομαι(orkhéomai) to have also developed the meaning "to dance;" it makes me suspect that maybe the sense of "to dance" has a different origin than the sexual meanings, assuming those senses actually exist. I'm also not sure whether the root forὀρχέομαι(orkhéomai) has to be reconstructed as*h₁erǵʰ-. Based on my knowledge of the development of the Ancient Greek language, a hypothetical pre-form*h₃orǵʰ-éye-tor would also produceὀρχέομαι(orkhéomai). In fact, the Hittite cognate mentioned by LIV—[script needed](arkatta)—is actually derived from*h₃ṛǵʰ-o ~ h₃órǵʰ-ey by Kloekhorst. Perhaps it is possible to unify all of the forms under a single root*h₃erǵʰ-? This would leaveAlbanianerdha,Sanskritṛghāyáti, andOld Irishregaid—the future oftéit—unexplained.Graearms (talk)22:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
^Watkins, Calvert.1975. La famille indo-européenne de grec ὄρχις:linguistique, poétique et mythologie. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70/1:11–26.
Latest comment:7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am assuming this word for "east" is related toזריחה (zrikha) meaning "sunrise", as is common in a lot of languages. Can someone please verify this? ThanksSkuld (talk)15:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The word adab on the Persian page suggests that the Arabic word adab is a borrowing from the Persian dab, ultimately from Sumerian. However, there is no evidence that the Arabic word adab comes from the Persian word dab, which has no proven existence LoL.John daar (talk)23:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
That's why we don't duplicate difficult etymologies like that (former one) of Arabic ʔadab on known descendants like Persian adab. I never edited the Persian page, but now I have removed that duplication. On the talk page of the Arabic page, one editor made a good reference for the native origin of the Arabic word—although the frequent claims of alleged “Persian” or otherwise Iranian origins are as well true.Fay Freak (talk)10:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, if only because there are some steps left out for such a far-reaching idea of continuity.ادب(adab,“letters”) +ـستان(-estân) seems easy enough, and @ZxxZxxZ apparentlycopied the end etymon from an etymology at the Arabic entry we later softened, only to avoid an insinuation that this is all the same Arabic word.Fay Freak (talk)14:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
With some effort I extracted from GBS snippet views[8][9] the following:
Nun entstand span.carajo „männliches Glied“ gewiſs mit kat.carall dass. aus lat. *characulum „kleiner Pfahl“, dem Diminutiv des durchcharacātus „mit Pfählen versehen“ Columellas für das Volkslatein Hispaniens gesicherten *charax,-acis „Pfahl“ griech. Ursprungs (Spitzer, BAR. II, 1, 158 unten, zu S. 35: Brüch, BAR. II, 3, 36 oben; Meyer-Lübke 1672b);
I did not find a bibliography section with a clearer reference and do not know the meaning ofBAR. It might be the abbreviation of a journal title, presumably published in German. ‑‑Lambiam13:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The breaking seen in Old Englishgriellan (late WSgryllan) and the umlauted past tense "grylde" of the latter suggest that this goes back to *grallijan, with original geminate *-ll-, not gralljan with secondarily geminated -l(l)j-. Compare*wallijan,*fallijan > Early West Saxon OEwiellan,fiellan vs.*salljan,*talljan > Early West Saxon OEsellan,tellan. Hogg and Fulk ("A Grammar of Old English", Volume 2) says on page 275 that the etymology of griellan is uncertain. Do any of the non-English descendants here or at*grulljan point to *-llj-* as opposed to *-llij-?Urszag (talk)16:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I missed one piece of evidence:rattig (“in heat”). Some German Low German dialects have rr for tt, so the comparison ofrut androar makes sense. To extend the argument to ll is wanting, I admit, but then it is onomatopoetic, call it a blend if you will, or vulgar because I project Latin loans onto what you might call PWG,imitative in any event. Whereasrally also indicatesligo, theintelligent observer will note how meaningful this is for the comparison torallen, I think.RacketRalf (talk)22:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The vocative ending in -u would then appear to be analogical, based on the i-stems (such as *gasti).
Given the evidence of the examples above, the u-stem vocative in -au survived in PGmc long enough to become common in Gothic.This also raises the question of when the analogical vocative in -u originated, whether in PGmc or simply in Gothic.In any case, may I suggest an amendment to the PGmc u-stem declension template to reflect the inherited vocative in -au.
I agree that{{gem-decl-noun}} should be edited to indicate the vocative ending in-au rather than-u. As for when the analogical variant in-u showed up, it's probably impossible to say since both North Germanic and West Germanic have lost the vocative as a distinct category. No one can say whether the inherited vocative and the analogical vocative existed side by side in Proto-Germanic before being lost in Northwest Germanic or whether the analogical vocative didn't turn up until Gothic had split off. @Victar,Leasnam. —Mahāgaja ·talk06:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Triggered by @Saam-andar’s ofRFV ofthe entryسروب(sarôb,“word”) which he deems but a transcription of a Middle Persian word.
Regarding the other purist termواژه(vâže,“word, term”), which @Samiollah1357 graciously quoted from 1599, this must outright be borrowed fromNorthwest Iranian after 1500 (Safavid dynasty rule) and no less introduced thanتکواژ(takvâž,“morpheme”) andواج(vâj,“phoneme”), though the introduction of such new technical terms presuppose acquaintance with the regiolectal stem. The unlearned reader is suggested by the current etymology formulation that this is inherited from Middle Persian, but bothژ(ž) and leadingواـ(vâ-) instead ofباـ(bâ-) speak against this.
A pro AI search I let be performed across both English-language academic treatments and available Persian corpora—she also found my reasoning valid, but often needs a nudge to elaborate upon her extrapolation process—, could found no newer quote, thoughwe know Iranians are most liberal with putting online even any copyrighted edition. Her abridged result formatted for you people is:
Perplexity Research:There is no attested use ofواژه in pre‑Safavid New Persian texts, such as the Shāhnāmeh, Vis o Rāmin, Sufi prose, or Khayyām’s works. Neither do the lexica of Asadī Ṭūsī or later dictionaries include it. The first known citation indeed appears with Bahāʾ al‑Dīn al‑ʿĀmilī around 1599 CE. (Because it was cited in the Wiktionary entry, proof we are the best in the West.)
Fay Freak:I want explicit locations indicated by Persian-language sources for pre-Safavid quotes ofواژه.
Perplexity Research:You are correct to demand this level of rigor. After searching Persian‑language scholarly and digital humanities sources (.ir domains, Ganjoor, university repositories), I have found no explicit citation ofواژه in any pre‑Safavid Persian text. The Iranian digital corpus—including: Ganjoor (comprehensive poetry archive with full‑text search of classical poets: […] University journals and linguistic studies on archaic lexicon […] Studies on Safavid‑era prose and lexicography […] No pre‑Safavid occurrences: Detailed lexicographical studies of rare or archaic words in classical Persian poetry and prose (e.g.,Zarīn Qabānāma, Bīhaqī'sTaʾrīkh, early dictionaries like Asadī Ṭūsī'sLughat‑i Furs) do not mentionواژه […] Silence of classical lexicons: Neither Dehkhodā's citations nor specialized Persian linguistic databases referenceواژه […] […]
(The link to the full version is blocked by the spam filter.) So I hereby strongly suggest our Persian and Iranian editors to do something about the etymologies.Fay Freak (talk)17:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Despite the claims of the artificial intelligence, I looked it up, and the poetry archive Ganjoor does in fact quote it as occurring in theShahnameh, in the line:
".جهاندار دهقان یزدانپرست \ چو بر واژه برسم بگیرد به دست"
Regarding the historical usage of the wordوَاژَه(wāža),Dehkhoda's dictionary mentions it as occurring in the terminology of the Zoroastrian priesthood, as well as a derived form occurring in the dialect of the village ofAhar. Ganjoor alsomentions it as having occurred in one of thefahlaviyat ofBaba Tahir, but this is only found on Ganjoor and other sources have it withوَاجَم(wājam) instead. Iranicamentions the verbvāž- ("to say, tell") as a feature of the fahlaviyat, soوَاجَم(wājam) is likely a 1st-person conjugation of this. As for the mentions ofوَاژَه(wāža) in the Kashkool of Sheikh Bahaei, these quoted portions were originally written in Arabic and more recently translated to Persian. The Kashkool originally contained a mixture of Persian and Arabic. You can find the original versions online, such asthis for the first quotation:
أقول: ما ذكره الزمخشري مشكل من جهة الصناعة، لأنه اذا كان المعنى ما ذكره يكون النهار معمول ابتغاؤكم و قد تقدم عليه و هو مصدر، و ذلك لا يجوز. ثم يلزم العطف على معمولي عاملين، فالتركيب لا يسوغ.
Latest comment:3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
A surname, apparently of Hungarian origin according tothis page. The-ски(-ski) component is obviously Slavic, but I wonder ifСалон-(Salon-) could be an alteration ofHungarianszálló. But I also found the Hungarian surnameSzalontai (possibly with some accents?), which survives in Pannonian asСалонтаї(Salontaji) as well, so I'm not sure.Insaneguy1083 (talk)09:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Hungarian surnameSzalontai literally parses out to "someone from Szalonta", which city name is more commonly encountered in English contexts asw:Salonta. Looking at the#History section there, we see that the city name is probably derived fromHungarianszalonna(“bacon”), from the historical background of this area being big in raising swine for food production. In turn,szalonna is a borrowing from a Slavic language -- which might give a usable clue to the origins of Rusyn surnameСалонски.
@Lambiam: This claim wasadded in 2011 by Dbachmann (“Adopted in the 17th century, from RussianСибирь.”); we did not have a Latin entry at the time. I have edited the etymology in March to add the suffix, but the question whether it came via Latin remains.J3133 (talk)17:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The earliest use I found (using GBS) was English, and the earliest Latin use just 7 years later,from 1599. In view of the more limited coverage of Latin texts on Google Books, this is not conclusive. If the nameΣιβηρία is attested in pre-Modern Greek at all, it would be Neo-Ancient Greek. It is possible that the coiner modeled the name afterIberia. ‑‑Lambiam01:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The first etymological section at曲#Chinese traces this word back to Proto-Sino-Tibetan for the "bent" sense.
This word apparently also has a sense of "song". This sense also has a different tone in modern Mandarin (qǔ, third / low tone, compared toqū, first / high tone for the "bent" sense). The entry has nothing to say about how or why this separate tone evolved, nor how or why we got from "bent" to "song".
Latest comment:2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey! I was looking at the page forgeronto- and under the "Derived Terms" section, there's a list labeled "English terms prefixed with geronto-", and within that list there's a link toProgeria, which only has "geronto-" as a mid-fix. It's definitely still derived from "geronto-", but it doesn't seem like it belongs.
What's the ideal pattern here? Is Progeria encoded improperly, getting picked up by this automated list when it shouldn't be there? Is the list coded wrong, picking up one element that shouldn't be in there? Are there terms derived from "Geronto-" that aren't showing up in the list, but should? Is everything actually working as intended and I simply haven't internalized the logic here?
As an aside, I'm a software dev looking for little projects to contribute to Wiktionary; is there a already a version of the prefixed-by script for the other ways a word could be derived-by (suffixed, midfixed, just references it)? I just thought it might be nice to have more than the one list in the "derives" section.Vincent.Xavier.Zell (talk)15:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I looked up theOdd Couple episode mentioned, but it appears that it's likely just made-up nonsense;
So what do you want from me?I'm not a mind reader.(laughs)Excuse the jest, but...if I took my work too seriously...Nee-noo-nah-nah-noo-noo...I would go bananas.
Latest comment:22 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion
On the [Liver Attack|page for the chess opening called the Fried Liver Attack], it claims the phrase is a literal translation of the Italian “giuoco fegatello”, though the page displays a note asking for verification - and I think I’ve found something, but as you’ll see, I’m not sure. I’m completely new to posting here, so I’m hoping for a. advice on what to do and b. honestly just to show off my findings.
With an in-quotes Google search, 4 results pop up. Two wiktionary pages, and two pages from the New York Clipper, both from the late 19th century.
Thefirst is from the Illinois Digital Newspaper, is dated 1886 and features a chess game (third column, at the bottom, pg. 12) labeled “Giuoco Fegatello” which, translated into modern notation, begins:
1. e4 e52. Nf3 Nc63. Bc4 Nf64. d3
Thesecond is from the Cleveland Public Library Digital Gallery, is unhelpfully dated from 1884 to 1890, and features a chess game (third column, in the middle, pg. 87) also labeled “Giuoco Fegatello” which, once more translated into modern notation, begins:
1. e4 e52. Nf3 Nc63. Bc4 Nf64. Ng5 d45. exd5 Nb4
Neither of these are strictly the Fried Liver Attack, but do begin, until the first one’s fourth move by white and the second one’s fifth move by black, as a Fried Liver Attack would. Should I add this or no, given the dubious support of the etymology?TabaEnjoyer (talk)21:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Coconut on Wikipedia.Wikipedia. The genetic evidence seems to show that the type associated with the Austronesian-speaking peoples was domesticated in the Philippines by the early Malayo-Polynesian-speakers after they left Taiwan/Formosa.Chuck Entz (talk)04:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
