Wiktionary >Discussion rooms > Etymology scriptorium

WT:ES redirects here. For help with edit summaries, seeHelp:Edit summary. For information about Spanish entries on Wiktionary, seeWiktionary:About Spanish.

Welcome to the Etymology scriptorium. This is the place to cogitate on etymological aspects of the Wiktionary entries.

RFV of the etymology for the "to fall through" sense. this is a claim I've seen circulating in both the Chinese- and the English-speaking worlds, but have not been able to source. in any case the predominant premodern usage of泡湯 is in the sense "steep (usually medicinal ingredients like herbs) in hot water to make a drink", and salt would make little sense in this contextragweed theater_talk,user03:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Schrijver seems to suggest on p.310-1 ofThe reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin thatrārus might come from*HrH-ro-, but the conclusion on p.314 seems to be that*HrH- would have developed intoră- and p.17 clearly states "rārus cannot be compare with ἐρῆμος < *h₁reh₁mo- because there is no way in which we can explain Lat.rā- in view of the fact that *HrHC- yielded Lat.RăC-". Beekes (at ἐρῆμος) apparently missed this remark.
So shouldn't we simply abandon the derivation from*h₁reh₁-? Then it looks the meaning of the PIE root is pretty clearly "to rest, (to be) quiet".Exarchus (talk)18:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Schrijver rejects the etymology from h₁r̥h₁ro-. Schrijver's statement on page 311 that "rarus may reflect *Hreh₂-ro-, or *HrH-ro-" is misleading outside of context. That is just Schrijver's evaluation of this datum in isolation (representing a theoretical stage before the correct sound changes for Latin have been established), whereas Schrijver's ultimate conclusion on page 314 based on a comparison of all the data is that *HrH-C- yielded ra-C- in Latin: using this established sound change, we can then conclude (as Schrijver says on page 17) that only *Hreh₂-ro- and not *HrH-ro- is possible as a source of rārus. I editedrārus, but I'd like to be able to say more about the alternative roots of the form *Hreh₂- (mentioned by Schrijver) and *h₂erH- (mentioned by De Vaan). Another loose end I haven't followed up on yet is the conflicting form*Her- (with no second laryngeal) that we mark as the etymon of the supposed possible cognatesi̇̀rti and*oriti, and the definition of the latter: we mark it as "to drag down?" and list the OCS descendant as oriši, whereas Schrijver refers to an OCS form oriti and translates it as "to dissolve, destroy".--Urszag (talk)06:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag I think option 2 and 3 of the current etymology (*Hreh₂- and *h₂erH-) are about the same thing. Whether the PIE root ofi̇̀rti and*oriti had final *-H- is debated (LIV has *h₂erH-, Derksen gives *Her-).Exarchus (talk)21:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

That seems plausible; I didn't want to make assumptions about what hypotheses were or weren't equivalent without a source saying so.--Urszag (talk)19:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag I now found out that{{R:ine:Woodhouse:2011|page=158-9}} suggests PIE *HrHC resulted in LatinrāC-, vs. *rHC >raC-. Schrijver assumed no PIE roots could start with *r, so couldn't come to that conclusion. Relevant here is Kocharov's and Shatskov'sProto-Indo-European Initial *r Revisited (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27285887).Exarchus (talk)13:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Exarchus Thank you for the additional sources! I have editedrārus further. Although Woodhouse doesn't discuss ἐρῆμος one way or another, as far as I can tell the situation with Woodhouse's sound changes is as follows: PIE *h₁reh₁ could yield Greek ἐρῆμος and Latin rārus, but PIE *h₂erH- could yield Latin rārus but not Greek ἐρῆμος. Therefore, Woodhouse's proposal of the latter form as the ancestor of Latin rārus and Lithuanian i̇̀rti would imply non-cognacy of Greek ἐρῆμος. However, I don't understand the reason for assuming h₂- specifically at the start of the supposed root*h₂erH-: are you familiar with its justification?---Urszag (talk)20:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

{{R:ine:LIV|page=271-2}} reconstructs *h₂ because of Tocharianār-, see also{{R:ine-toc:TVS|page=527-8}}. Adams at{{R:txb:DTB|page=50-1}} doesn't seem to mention this idea.Exarchus (talk)20:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm personally inclined to thinkrārus isn't related to ἐρῆμος because my impression is the original meaning of*h₁reh₁- is "to rest, (to be) quiet", from which ἐρῆμος can be derived as in "quiet place > uninhabited, lonely place".

Though before changing the definition of *h₁reh₁-, I'd still want to clarify the etymologies of Proto-Slavic*rědъkъ, Latinrete and Lithuanianrėtis.Exarchus (talk)22:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was adding{{IPA}} to the Japanese etymologies on冠者 (added by荒巻モロゾフ), but it requires a language code. Does anyone know if these all from modern Japanese, or are some from earlier languages that have different codes? --Beland (talk)20:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

For Japanese entries, the only two language codes we have areojp forw:Old Japanese up through 794, and thenja for everything since then.

For the冠者 entry in specific, poking around just now in my copy ofw:Daijirin, that reference includes all three readingskanja,kaja, andkaza, but it only gives pitch accent information for thekanja reading, suggesting thatkaja andkaza may be archaic or even obsolete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig}01:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

("Word page not added")
I've seen this phobia word used in a title of anindie game released in October 2025. Firstly, I thought it was used as a joke, then I searched it and themeaning of the word is"fear of paintings andvisual art".
The earliest mentions of the word (on the web) and itsdefinition that I found is on some answer website dating to2010 and2011, and other notable mentions arean article in Turkish from 2013 anda blog post from 2014. Unfortunately, I haven't found older mentions.
Although the2010 source says that is comes from ahistorical reference to/of advisor (tho it sounds vague to me), but I don't know what a thing to find or check.

But I am fascinated on the etymological part of the word. Of course, there is the-phobia suffix (a 'fear' inherited from Latin and/or Ancient Greek) and there is the"sportaldislexicarta" root. — In what frick is that?This sounds like an onomatopoeia. Or itmay be a similar case of phobia word likehippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, where it useshippopoto- andmonstro- as prefixes for sake of it (being a long word).

Fromsportaldislexicarta root I found a pattern that the words maybe come fromRomanian and by that I deducted:
•sportal – I think it may comes from "sporadic",
•dislexic – possibly fromRomanian spelling of dyslexia,
• andarta – possibly from theRomanian spelling of the word art,
○OR instead it may becarta – coming from theRomanian spelling of wordcard (maybe as reference to a canvas).

Probably unrelated possibilities(?):
•s – I doubt that if it's forex- orex in Latin,
•sportal – maybe it could be aportal withs- preffix; I doubt it'ssportal (or anything related to sports),
○or maybe it can be mix ofportal andart (as an existing word forsportal with a new meaning…?),
•dislexic – either a misspelling ofdyslexic or maybe thei spelling inSpanish,Portuguese,
○dis – I doubt that it's withdis- prefix,
•arta – I doubt it's anart with-a suffix.

I am not sure about the Romanian language, because everything comes from either Latin, Ancient Greek and/or other older languages. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Feel free to share any kind of feedback.
—Pan1blG (talk)21:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Legitimate terms formed with the suffix-phobia have first components that are based on Ancient Greek roots, as inacrophobia from Ancient Greekἄκρος(ákros,“highest”) andagoraphobia from Ancient Greekἀγορά(agorá,“marketplace”).

While I appreciate the effort you put in this attempt to construct an etymology for this chimaera, I think a better fitting etymology for this term is supplied by what theOnline Etymology Dictionary has to say about the termcoulrophobia.  ​‑‑Lambiam09:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

if the whole rest of the word is Romanian, maybes- is too ... i may be mistaken, but i thought it was the reflex of Latinex-. if not perhaps it'sș- that's the reflex (though we dont list that either, it appears in words likeșterge), and for convenience the creator just spelled it as a normals.—Soap—15:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

the creator lives in Montreal, and while that doesnt rule out a connection to Romanian, perhaps French is more likely.—Soap—15:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Means a "bundle", semantically akin toSerbo-Croatianzavežljaj. I struggle to find an etymology though. The only known cognate (possibly an intermediate etymon) isCarpathian Rusynза́йда(zájda,“knot”). But I've got nothing in Hungarian or Slavic that provides any further etymology. Could it be related toGermanSeide(“silk”) somehow? Is there some dialectal Hungarian term that I'm missing?Dijacz (talk)11:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Hegumen". Any idea? I thought for sure it would be Syriac but there surprisingly aren't any hits forܩܡܨ (or any other voiceless sibilant at the end) athttps://cal.huc.edu.Still, when you think about it (talk ·stalk)08:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

We are at least missing senses of Latincomes and Byzantine Greekκόμης(kómēs), whence Classical Syriacܩܘܡܣ,ܩܘܡܨ was borrowed. In Late Antiquity they became titles for any kind of higher official, including various specified functions in the church administration.Keller, Sigismund (1900), “Untersuchungen über die Iudices Sacri Palatii Lateranensis”, inDeutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht (in German), volume 9, III. Folge,pages12, 18–19 (apparentlyPhD thesis).Fay Freak (talk)16:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

is there any chance that Albanianherdhe "testicles" is the same word asherdhe "nest(s)"? it seems like a credible metaphor, especially if it originally meant the scrotum. This is easier to believe for me than that Albanian separately inherited the same root word for testicle as Greek and preserved the meaning unchanged for 4,000 years even as the word underwent irregular sound changes.—Soap—22:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Soap all of the cognates were inherited and the meaning preserved for thousands of years, too. The thing about human body parts is that every generation has a chance to learn about them from their parents at a very early age, so the basic terminology tends to be very stable. There are of course exceptions where taboos are involved, but not universally across all languages.Chuck Entz (talk)02:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

All the quotations of the sense "wet ass pussy" appear to be from after Cardi B's song. Did she originate, and/or popularize, this?- -sche(discuss)02:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think so. Although there are pre-2020 uses of the collocation “wet-ass pussy”, it doesn’t seem to have been common enough for there to be an initialism for it already then.  ​‑‑Lambiam14:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Big-ass" and "wet pussy" are a lot older and more common, of course, but this particular word combination only seems to have gained momentum after the song.Wakuran (talk)10:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I need help sourcing etymology on Lushootseedgʷidəq, forgeoduck. The entry would definitely reference etymological uncertainty, but I'd like to be sure that fact is academically backed up as well as good sources for multiple possible etymologies.

Lushootseed is a Coast Salish language, and would naturally have more resources from universities near Seattle, Washington. Communities which are reviving the language include the Puyallup Tribe and Tulalip Tribes.Cam0mac (talk)04:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've found a bilingual online dictionary offered by theTulalip Puyallup tribe, athttps://lushootseeddictionary.appspot.com/#!LutEngCellBrowser. It's unfortunately not apparently possible to link to individual entries, but if you walk through the selection tree, they have an entry forgʷidəq, albeit with no etymological information. There are also entries for plural-marking suffix-əq and verbgʷil(i) (unsure about notation; "to dig something up" and suggested as one of the possible roots for the animal name over atw:Geoduck#Etymology). The closest match for the initialgʷid- in the animal name would seem to begʷiid, listed as a variant ofgʷihid(“to invite someone”) -- however, the semantics seem odd, and I know nothing about Lushootseed sound-shift patterns, leaving open the possibility that some other term would be a more-fitting candidate root.

Anyway, I hope the link is useful. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig}18:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, it might have some connection with the root*(s)peh₂-. The etymology is supposedly discussed inthis source, but I am unable to access it.Graearms (talk)17:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

We can do better thanFrom Ancient Greek for "honey".Vealhurl (talk)21:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Better now? —Mahāgaja ·talk08:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure :)Vealhurl (talk)17:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

According to its etymology entry, Icelandictölt is ostensiby derived from an Indogermanic root (related tototter,tilt); meanwhile, GermanZelter is said to derive from Basque, a distinctly non-indogermanic language.

I just can’t believe they aren’t etymologically related. Suggestions? Cheers _hugarheimur14:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wolfgang Pfeifer says that the etymology of Zelter is ultimately unknown. Phonetically, I also think Icelandic -t would correspond to German -(t)z.Wakuran (talk)16:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Initialt ~Z is fine, but in a native Germanic word, finally we'd like to have either Icelandicþ/ð corresponding to Germant, or vice versa Gz corresponding to It. The attested Latin word also does not seem like it could derive from Germanic. So what other proposal would we actually have in the cards here then? A specifically Latin or German borrowing somehow making its way into Icelandic? --Tropylium (talk)22:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It would indeed be surprising if they weren't related. According to Kluge{{R:de:Kluge|1006|edition=25}} the Icelandic word has the same origin as the German. But Philippa (under{{R:nl:Etymologiebank|telganger}}) doesn't think they are related. She also says that the agent noun GermanZelter from Old High Germanzeltāri is oldest. Definitely cognate with this are Middle Dutchtelder, Old Saxonteldari, West Frisiantelder, and Icelandictjaldari. It's hard to derive Icelandictölt etc from these. You could start from Middle Dutchtelt (withw:final-obstruent devoicing) and take it as an example of the dialectale >ø before a labial (Noreen 1884, §85 note 3) but that's a stretch. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk)10:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about England, but I found an account in Telemark (noted down by Ove Høeg) thatkvovugras (Norwegian cudweed) was used by some people for chewing on it. If the same tradition is known in England, it would explain the name.kvovu- doesn't mean no cud tho, but rather strangling.Tollef Salemann (talk)16:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rathersuffocating, I'd say, but it seems as if the root hasn't otherwise been found in English with that meaning.Wakuran (talk)16:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I mean the origin of the English word. May thecud come from the same use, that English people used it as chewing gum? Is there any scientifical litterature about traditional use of English herbs?Tollef Salemann (talk)17:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

A fixed phrase that means "forever". There's also the associated adjectiveоречни(orečni,“eternal, given to someone forever”).

Update: I traced these to two Old Slovak terms,írek(“permanent ownership, hereditary real estate”) andírečný, which does provideo- initial as an alternate form (as well as(j)erek,úrok, several others). But then my trails run dry, other than it apparently being a Hungarianism. Maybe it's related toHungarianér(“to be worth something”)? Any ideas?Dijacz (talk)19:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Dijaczörök.Voltaigne (talk)02:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Voltaigne Makes sense. Thanks a lot.Dijacz (talk)03:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Is Indonesian/Malayduga ("to guess") a Sanskrit loanwordदृग(dṛga,“to see”) and/orदूर(dūra,“distant, far, remote”)? PleaseYuliadhi (talk)00:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page*h₂éǵr̥yos claims that this Armenian term is inherited from PIE, but this is contradicted by the Armenian entry itself. Martirosyan implies that that the Armenian word might be paralleled by GreekAncient Greekἄγριος(ágrios), though he suggests that it is unclear whether the suffix reflects*-yós or*-yeh₂.^[1]

Graearms (talk)04:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is no contradiction. One is a synchronic analysis, the other is a diachronic analysis.Vahag (talk)19:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't the pages still contradict each other? If the Armenian term is indeed inherited from PIE*h₂éǵr̥yos, then shouldn't the Armenian page say that it was inherited from PIE? If the term is an innovative formation within Armenian, then shouldn't it be removed from the page for*h₂éǵr̥yos?Graearms (talk)19:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

In an ideal world, yes. In our world, it's hard to know if something is inherited or formed newly. Isbigly inherited from Middle English or did Trump coin it independently? Who knows.Vahag (talk)09:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

You could just be simple and say one couldcorrespond to the other.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)23:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Etymology 1 has to do with "small amount of liquid" while Etymology 2 has to do with "letting something fall". Something went horribly wrong, though, because they're now mapped according to whether it's a noun or a verb and there'sa lot of conflation between the two etymologies. "Of a liquid: to fall in drops or droplets." is marked as ety2 while "An act or instance of dropping (in all senses)." is marked as ety1.

The entire page is a mess and it needs an overhaul. English editors, help!!(NotifyingMahagaja,Vahagn Petrosyan,Brutal Russian,The Editor's Apprentice,-sche,Theknightwho,Benwing2):MedK1 (talk)19:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

it might be okay as it stands. it's pretty much the same thing we do withdrink. we're categorizing it by which Middle English word it comes from, rather than by semantics.—Soap—19:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. That makes it better, but I think that approach is still a problem when you consider etytrees. Essentially, what's happening here is that you're merging two different trees after they reach Middle English — though the words in etymology 1 all come from the same spelling in Middle English, they got there through different routes.

I also feel this is pretty bad for the reader experience because in some cases (I first noticed this withfly), it gives readers the impression that Middle English made a distinction that is no longer made. You'll see ety1 as "from enm X" and ety2 as "from enm Y" and figure "huh, neat." ...But clicking on X or Y reveals they're actually alt-forms of each other.

I hadn't thought about the etytree issue before your comment, Soap, but I think the etytree people might be interested (@Vininn126,Fenakhay). I don't think changing how etytrees work to accommodate for this is the best call tbh.MedK1 (talk)14:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Middle English is a mess and way too much is consolidated. That's not an issue of the tree, it's an issue of the fact Middle English is not handled properly.Vininn126 (talk)14:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The etymon tree is currently assigning|id=small drop to both Etymology 1 and Etymology 2. Obviously this is bad practice, firstly because it defeats the purposes of etymology IDs to have two etymologies with the same ID, and secondly because using "small drop" as an ID for "drop" makes a circular definition if the IDs are supposed to be highly abbreviated glosses (as I assume they are). —Mahāgaja ·talk17:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree this is bad practice (also I'll just note, this would be an issue with{{etymid}} anyway).Vininn126 (talk)17:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Our entry forCheese featuresCleese as a derived term, qualified as "a surname derived from Cheese" (added atSpecial:Diff/35382194), but our entry forCleese itself states no such thing.w:Cleese informs us that "Cleese is a surname from Britain; an English surname, and a Scottish surname originating from MacCleese/McCleese." Can anyone resolve this?Voltaigne (talk)01:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The remark atCheese is probably in reference the family ofJohn Cleese. I don't know if anyone else has made the same change or else if one single person (albeit a notable one) is enough for us to mention.Still, when you think about it (talk ·stalk)06:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thank you. I was unaware of that biographic detail.FreeBMD yields 16 people registered at birth with the surnameCleese in England and Wales between 1842 and 1899, i.e. before Reginald Cheese's name-change. So it seems plausible to me that he adopted a similar-sounding existing surname that he was aware of, rather than coining it independently as a variant ofCheese. (In any event, my initial suspicion thatthis edit was a mischievous allusion to theCheese Shop sketch has been dispelled.) In the absence of evidence thatCleese was originally derived fromCheese, I propose to delete the Derived terms section ofCheese.Voltaigne (talk)09:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like someone to have a look at these etymologies:ignobilis is given asin- +‎(g)nōbilis, but de Vaan (atnōscō) suggests that(g)nobilis was rather back-formed fromignobilis. And then at PIE*ǵneh₃- there's a Proto-Italic reconstruction*gnōðlis, which presumably shouldn't be reconstructed if mentioned theory is correct.@Urszag, @Mellohi!Exarchus (talk)10:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It does not necessarily exclude each other since it is thinkable thatignobilis is from(g)nobilis which later died out and was back-formed. Yet I find it natural thatignobilis is fromignotus.Fay Freak (talk)13:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and added the etymology laid out by de Vaan and the NIL. I've also removed the dubious PIt reconstruction.

It seems plausible thatgnobilis is a later back-formation, considering that it is apparently only attested in theworks of the grammarian Festus. Festus writes:

"nobilem antiqui pro noto ponebant, et quidem per g litteram ut . . . Livius in Virgo"

"The ancients putnobilis fornotus, and spelled it with a g as . . . Livius in Virgo

Festus provides two separate fragments from two separate archaic Latin authors, which are transcribed in the Loeb Classical Library as:

From Livius Andronicus, "ornamento incedunt gnobiles ignobiles"

From Accius, "ergo me Argos referam, nam hic sum gnobilis ne cui cognoscar noto."

Due to the Late attestation of the word, it seems possible that it was an archaizing form. Of course, it is also possible that Festus had access to now lost ancient Latin sources.Graearms (talk)21:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

A pluralia tantum meaning "gums", in the mouth. A potential link toCzechjasno(“clear sky”) or no?Dijacz (talk)12:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Update: Slovak hasďasno, and the Old Slovak dictionary does showjasno as a variant. If anyone finds other dialectal forms in Slavic languages that show this shift, let me know.Dijacz (talk)12:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be surprised if it was an irregular shift. Comparedziąsło.Vininn126 (talk)13:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: I've also found that both Ukrainian and Carpathian Rusyn haveя́сна(jásna). I think it's just a western Ukraine-eastern Slovakia areal shift.Dijacz (talk)13:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Japaneseどう致しまして. Recently I've been thinking about how the meaning relates to the literal words, and I put my thoughts after a bit of research to be sure at the entry; may any Japanese boffins check it out and see whether my explanation is in need of any improvement?Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)01:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

That jives with how I learned the expression ages ago, and also seems to align with what we've got over at the JA Wikt entry atja:どういたしまして. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig}01:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know the origin of Bulgarian and Macedonianпо-,по, "comparative prefix"? The Bulgarian entry says inherited from Proto-Slavic*po-, but that entry doesn't currently say anything about a comparative meaning, and other Slavic languages don't seem to have that meaning as a descendant either. Moreover,Old Church Slavonic at Wikipedia claims that the innovation of по- as a prefix was during the Middle Bulgarian stage around 1300, so an inheritance from Proto-Slavic is probably wrong. Should this be analysed in Bulgarian as an inheritance from Middle Bulgarian? How about for Macedonian?Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)02:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The particle is probably inherited from proto-Slavic, but its usage as a grammatical marker of the comparative degree is a Balkan Slavic innovation. Vl. Georgiev tentatively considers Greek origin, but does not stick to this hypothesis firmly. In other Slavic languages, the desc. ofProto-Slavic*po- (similarly to*vъz-,*per-) conveys excessiveness: e.g.Russianпобо́льше(pobólʹše,“even bigger”),пода́льше(podálʹše,“further away”), not necessarily a comparative degree.

For refs e.g.:

• Стоян Буров (1987):Степените за сравнение в Българския език на Славянски и Балкански фон, изд. „Народна просвета“

~2026-28341-0 (talk)20:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved fromWT:RFVE.

Apparently

*þwerhaz gives derivation from *(s)twerH- ('to stir; to propel')

*þwerana gives derivation from *terkʷ-

Is it that one influenced the other, conflation, or from either root? Someone clean the etymology up.Ronaldo sewie (talk)16:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Which sense (if any) ofchuck is this fine Australian term from?Vealhurl (talk)09:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way, shouldn't sense 4 and 6 of chuck be merged? They seem to be of the same origin.Wakuran (talk)11:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Esperanto. Supposedly from Italianagio(literally“ease, convenience”). That would give it a completely different etymology from its gloss, Englishagio, which is from Italianaggio.jlwoodwa (talk)04:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right, it should be fromaggio.Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs)12:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Given 4 words: A, B, C, and D.

A means B, and B derives from D. A also sounds suspiciously similar to B, but it is instead said to be derived from C.

I believe word C would be completely out of the question.

Therefore, I think aĝio (due to it sounding like its meaning, agio) should not be from Italian agio, but instead from its paronym's etymon, aggio.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)04:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The etymology for the name of the fish, specifically what we say in the Spanish section. We give a Latin etymon (which the RAE does also), but then say itrepresent[s] a specific use of bonito (“pretty”) and direct to Etymology 1. Etymology 1 is for a word purportedly formed within Spanish, not in Latin (although I suspect it was inherited from Old Spanish? but that’s besides the point). Surely there must be some confusion?—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·05:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The abbreviation “b. lat.” in RAE stands forbajo latín, “Low Latin”, an imprecise term. RAE does not claim or even suggest an etymological connection between the Low Latin precursorboniton and the Latin adjectivebonus. The term is in du Cange, glossed as “Piscis genus. Vide infra Byza.”^[8] UnderByza we find:

“BYZA, Piscis genus. Tract. de Piscibus cap. 23. ex Cod. reg. 6838. C :

Quæ ἀμία a Græcis dicitur, Latino nomine caret. A nostris et Hispanis Byza, quasi Bysantia, ut opinor : amia enim Bysantia in pretio habebatur. Ab aliis Boniton vocabatur.”^[9]

 ​‑‑Lambiam17:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

We used to give an Arabic etymon untildiff; and thenUser:Djkcel added this connection to Etymology 1 indiff (after they were reverted earlier). Should we just remove it? And is the Arabic etymon a possibility at all?—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·18:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It would not be the only fish name passing the Mediterranean from South to North in the Middle Ages, where I think aboutbottarga.

I also don't understand how that Latin word with a Greek neuter ending would be a specific use of the Spanish diminutive ofbono, unless of course the Latin is borrowed from Spanish so it is not available to explain the Spanish.

A common word such as the one for “good” creates an availability bias, and this is here forced when you had to have a heck of a specialist literature to even dig out the Arabic word, until I wrote the first etymological dictionary of the Arabic language;Edward William Lane I link onبُنِّيّ(bunniyy) had to take it from Forsskål rather than the dictionary manuscripts otherwise available to him, so Arabic lexicography just omitted the ichthyonym; Dozy knew no exact meaning, and both saw but one form, unlike us who now know four.

By the same token, we have what feels like 95 % incorrect technical treatises explaining the “Roman steelyard” as, ehm, Roman. When it is the counterpoise Arabicرُمَّانَة(rummāna, literally“pomegranate”) – where it was to irritating for me to create a descendants list for the specialized sense, since in searches the descendants are homographic to the respective Romance adjective meaningRoman. Sometimes the easiest explanation is wrong because we have alectio difficilior.Fay Freak (talk)20:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sup! Sources such ashere,here,here,here support the connection tobueno and Etymology 1, so I don't think that's an outlandish thing to write. I don't know if that's inherited from Latin though, theboniton thing might be conflation withRAE's claim, though they don't elaborate any further on what they thinkboniton means. If we mention Arabic, we should probably include a source too.DJ K-Çel (contribs ~talk)00:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see: it’s analternate theory. The way you put it in the entry reads as ifboniton is related tobonus.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·00:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It could be a borrowing of the Arabic word (a variant with /t/, I suppose) that was folk-etymologized as the similar-sounding Spanish adjectivebonito.Nicodene (talk)03:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do we have any sources that give the Arabic word as an etymon? That does seem like it’s too similar to be a coincidence. Also @Fay Freak—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·03:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I haven't noticed any this time when reviewing this, though paying attention. For, as said, even to find sources for the Arabic in isolation is challenging if you are not expert in where to look Arabistics or reviewing its all fish names. Note alsomezquita, you two, where the ending-a is definitely not attested in Arabic but is here assumed to have been present in speech.Fay Freak (talk)07:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

For sources of an ultimately Akkadian origin, seeبني § Etymology 5.  ​‑‑Lambiam12:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The wordbonito is one of the entries in a list of Spanish words of Arabic origin inan issue ofMemorias de la Real academia de la historia from 1805. The theory of an adapted borrowing from Arabic is IMO mucho más plausible than a similar name for the fish independently arising in Spanish by being named with the equivalent of “nice one” or “pretty one”, presumably because it looks or tastes pretty good or does a pretty price on the market.  ​‑‑Lambiam13:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Another similar work,Leopoldo de Eguilaz y Yanguas (1886),Glosario etimológico de las palabras españolas ... de origen oriental,page347 (Archive), where it is oddly writtenبينث(bainits) without second yāʔ. Maybe I left these oldish works out back then owing to them not being templatized (which would require ascertaining the best editions etc., opening even more tabs) when my attention was already occupied with making sense of the material, and I probably encountered one or the other. I intend to add this 1886 one right now since it appears to be the only edition – he used only like 20 dictionaries for all languages perpage XXIV, you see.Fay Freak (talk)14:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have therebyfixed the etymology, finding a formulation which discloses the decisions made by the editor community members.Fay Freak (talk)15:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak some useful information is found inCoromines (citation: {{R:ca:DEC|30364|bonítol}}).

For convenience, here is a translation into English — heavily abridged, partly paraphrased, and with no attempt at elegance:

ETA: for whatever my opinion is worth, I accept a Mozarabic origin for the Romance word-family (per the attestations cited by Coromines) but reject the theory of a tortuous connection to the Greekπηλαμύς(pēlamús) and regard an Mozarabic < Arabic borrowing as infinitely more likely, assuming that the information we provide underبني § Etymology 5 is all correct.

Nicodene (talk)02:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand the phrasing withavailability bias. Is this a fancy way to suggest it is a folk etymology? The description sounds unnecessarily complicated to me.Wakuran (talk)02:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

To be fair I don’t really like Fay Freak’s wording either. I feel it would make more sense to list the three theories and individually address their shortcomings, probably citing Corominas along the way.

Funnily enough, I did check Corominas’ DCEC because it very often helps me with obscure Portuguese etymologies. The etymology he gave didn’t say anything useful. I didn’t know he had a Catalan-only etymological dictionary, and it’s funny he corrects his previous observations.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·02:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Though I can’t say I’m very convinced by the source he proposes instead.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·02:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Availability bias means that since you hear a lot about gold and silver even from ancient literature, you invest it in, while palladium, nickel and other materials are less understood and underbought, so only gold and silver run likememe stocks. In like manner you see a word superficially identical to a common internal derivation and fail not to be persuaded by its suggestiveness, because you don't fathom the other materials quite literally. Surely I have also been culpable of over-lumping for this reason in the past.Etymology is meme economy. I reckoned we could appear academic and expect interested readers to parse it, while we can't really edit word explanations in gamer language. 🥴 But it seems like in principle you dig it, after multiple editors have reformulated the sentence but kept the keyword. Note that I also find no little embarrassment in citing AHD, MW, OED and suchlike in foreign languages, where it is guaranteed to have small-scale research depth and thus greater error marging when their etymologies could just end at “Borrowed fromlanguage +term. Scilicet the rest of the story is not our job, even if we are tempted.”

As for the connection in Coromines’s Catalan Etymological Dictionary toπηλαμύς(pēlamús), I – as above editors – would not have sided with this (forced) idea in my life even though I knew the word, as shown atبَلُّوط(ballūṭ) where I provided the service of separating the relations of other word families that look similar. But we seeCoromines’s good instinct in tracing back the distribution of the Romance word, in our favour concluding at Arabic as the origin, while the rest of his explanation was helpless. This overfocus on European languages and Roman(ce) and Greek in Europe I tried to break by entering my “research career” as a whole in Arabic and not Romance which is more available (there we have it again) for studies. Literally had “Linguistik der romanischen Sprachen” as a minor where I could have engaged in the collective circular reasoning and added nothing, but found better investment decisions, so to say, even when the college is free and I only had to spend time.Fay Freak (talk)09:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t know you had a formal linguistics background. I actually find that very interesting... although, yeah, there are very good reasons not to have info about your life listed anywhere.—Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ ·09:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I surely mentioned it deep in various discussions, pursuant to Wiktionarians’ reliable habits of keeping curious insights buried albeit express. One just has to be creative enough to provide that the data cannot be connected with ease, but comprehended by privileged persons, and with effort – promising though due to the mannerisms even in the personal vocabulary choice, how can I help it as a long experienced lexicographer – nobody will do it either since I won't become important enough a politically exposed person but a demonstrated pitiful random idiot.

Thecommunism of science, the dynamics of research activities, is hamstringed by the biographies of the scientists, thus we describe these; the progress of humanity depends on it. And I, you see, really complicate and puzzle probability models by picking out the rareties. Just can't repeat language levels of my Wikimedia profile anywhere public since it is a fingerprint (luckily though sorted by the private language of language levels 1 to 4), that's the kind of world we live in.

My life wassitting in front of the computer a lot, so I only get to inflate, with such informal academic achievements, perhaps by the support of AI polishments, my CVs, knowing the preconception thatvolunteering should convince employers as a proof of motivation, exploiting cognitive biases of eventual receivers of information again, which to consciously recognize took me extra years, missing out on neurotypical theory of mind. On the other hand it is a local feature of intellectualism again:

In thisfair city, the Latinists in toto are praised to be stronger in interpretation than the next unis—I heard the teachers of the teachers judge—, while for 2024 we got a new record in being the worst-performing law school (50% flunked the exam after chiefly half a decade and often a full decade of studies) of the country and probably Europe (the data of failures was deleted, don't try to search for it,publication bias even in that), showing that we have asenseless race-to-the-top. I wound myself out of failing it, while I believe that this humanity,classical philology (should we create this term?) at least in Latin, is the most important school subject (a proposition most people find ironic) even more so today: to read closely where people replace their interactions with artificial intelligence. And contrasting conflicting arguments for different legal theories by engaging with theDigest – which I deem a close nexus to linguistics because doing law requires figuring out where we get our concepts from, if not reducing the legal terms to their origins, making it an extension of philologic skill – was the best course, in the worst law school, while it is telling that only a low one-digit number of students enter it every semester. General theme: why is everyone being so dumb? They are content with instructions slanting them further to the base ofBloom's taxonomy, and exercises getting passed by means of reproduction. Well, we here learntquantum satis about it and will keep the formulations buried to our benefits. We won't do an insufferable personality competition, already see thepathocracies.Fay Freak (talk)12:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It was was loaned from German, and then nativized by-ак due to influence ofверстать. This looks certain from these dictionaries, I'm just not sure how to phrase that in the Etymology section.

Krylov, G. A. (2004), “верстак”, inЭтимологический словарь русского языка [Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language] (in Russian), Saint Petersburg: Victory,→ISBN

Šanskij, N. M. (2004), “верстак”, inŠkolʹnyj etimologičeskij slovarʹ russkovo jazyka [School Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language] (in Russian), Moscow: DrofaNiskajuuu (talk)16:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

What about “Borrowed fromGermanWerkstatt with dissimilation of the final consonant – thought to be due to collision with the verbверстать(verstatʹ) – by using the native Russian suffix-ак(-ak).”?  ​‑‑Lambiam17:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Borrowed from GermanWerkstatt, with the ending remodelled to-ак(-ak).Nicodene (talk)03:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The current entry states that this word is directly inherited from "arsmetike", but this seems unlikely since the "th" from the Latin/Greek word was re-added in both the spelling and pronunciation. It seems more likely that "arithmetic" was a learned borrowing from Latin/Greek that replaced "arsmetike."~2025-32800-24 (talk)19:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Surely one of the“restored” cases, likedebt, this time by humanists.What is borrowing anyway?Fay Freak (talk)21:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well in the case of "debt" only the spelling was changed and the "b" remained silent, but in "arithmetic" the "th" is pronounced.~2025-32800-24 (talk)06:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It could just be an influence/semi-learned borrowing. Then again, since it's specifically spelled with a "th" like in the Latin word with the Roman alphabet, I suppose that has to be borrowed.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)23:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note the curious dual etymology we give for Frencharithmétique:

1. for the noun:Inherited fromOld Frencharismetique ;
2. for the adjective:Learned borrowing fromLatinarithmeticus.

This is not supported byLe Trésor, which givesarimetique as a precursor of the noun andarismetique as a precursor of (and only of) the adjective.^[10]  ​‑‑Lambiam13:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

At that point,arismetique is a displaced former native form.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)20:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Latin. No elaboration on the ending whatsoever. Please hypothesize and/or elaborate upon what it could be.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)23:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is not clear that the ending qualifies for being called asuffix. De Vaan writes under the entryapex: “A large portion of the nouns in-ex,-icis represents technical terms without IE etymology, also building terminology (Leumann 1977: 375).” (Leumann 1977 refers to the bookLateinische Laut- und Formenlehre.) And under the entryimber, discussingimbrex: “Most of the nouns in-ex/-ix,-icis are non-IE, and in the technical sphere we also find, e.g.,ipumex,apex,irpex,silex,calix, fornix. Especiallyfornex ‘vault’, ‘arch’ (Enn.+) andapex ‘top, crown’ (Lucil.+, Varro) are close toimbrex.”  ​‑‑Lambiam14:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

This etymology section is all over the place:

• Is the derivation from the PIE word for "swelling, ulcer" verified?
• If so, Old High Germaneiz is a cognate. Englishatter, GermanEiter, Dutchetter, and Old Norseeitill, Icelandiceitill, Norwegianeitel are related terms.
• Regarding Dutchaat,oot and Low GermanAat, these are predominantly (and regularly) derived from Proto-Germanic*ētą. There is an alternative view that does consider them cognate with the English word. In this case the vocalic development is "Ingvaeonic".
• Definitely from the etymon hereabove is Old Norseát.
• Saterland FrisianAate is from Proto-Germanic*arwīts.
• West Frisianiete, Saterland Frisianeitel and LuxembourgishOtz must be sourced. They do not seem to exist.
• I don't want to guess how reliable the list of IE cognates may be.~2026-24277-2 (talk)06:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've updated the West Frisian (and moved it further up) - whether it's a true cognate is still up for discussion.Leasnam (talk)07:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Turkmen. Given that it violates vowel harmony, it is unlikely to be of Turkic origin. Perhaps the ending is Persianـبان(bân).Rizozoda34 (talk)07:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Which "scamper" is this from?Vealhurl (talk)08:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Esperanto. References do not agree on which is the root word. I am inclined to say it isadoleska, as the verb is to be the adjective. See below:

TranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]20:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging requester: @jlwoodwaTranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]20:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Esperanto. Pinging requester: @jlwoodwa. Nothing directly in:Cherpillod:2003,Rajki:2006 orVilborg:1989. However,PIV (2020), “ik” shows that this could beaeronaŭto +-iko.TranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]21:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is -iko a common suffix in Esperanto? It just looks like a direct Pan-European borrowing from the original Greek ending.Wakuran (talk)23:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It appears so. I cannot personally attest to it, but one can read more:

• Wennergren (1997),§39.1.15. IK
• Kalocsay & Waringhien (1985), §Ikopage 463
• RV (1997), “-ik” (currently, intermittent access)

@Mx. Granger any thoughts?TranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]00:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Apparently,-iko has its own etymology:Cherpillod (2003), “iko”TranqyPoo [💬 |✏️]00:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

-iko is not uncommon in Esperanto, but the only words I can think of that have it are borrowings where the equivalent word also ends in-ics,-ique, etc. in other European languages. I don't think it's a productive suffix in Esperanto (though I'm open to being proven wrong). For the etymology section, I might say something like "Borrowed fromEnglishaeronautics,Frenchaéronautique, etc.; surface analysisaeronaŭto +‎-iko." —Granger (talk·contribs)15:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Phrased something like "standard European", "common European", maybe. Or "internationalism".Wakuran (talk)16:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.

• FromCaliforn(ia) +‎-ication.

More likely this is fromCalifornia +-ify +-ation, then modified to make it look likefornication. The ending-ify regularly becomes -ific- when followed by a suffix that starts with an "a", so the expected outcome would be "Californification" (which is attested, even if we don't have an entry for it yet). No need for "-ication", which seems to be based on erroneous morphological analysis.

I would add that an earlier revision was a lengthy essay with pretentions to being Poetry or High Art, and the current version is still pretty wordy and over the heads of most readers.Chuck Entz (talk)09:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I see no reason to specify “-ify +-ation” and the former becoming-ific- rather than simply-ification, as we have an entry for the complete suffix. I have addedCalifornification.J3133 (talk)17:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of clarity, I added some Usage notes to-ication. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」11:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

(NotifyingAryamanA,Pulimaiyi,Svartava,Kutchkutch,Getsnoopy,Rishabhbhat,Dragonoid76,RichardW57,Exarchus): I don't know any Sanskrit and don't edit it here on Wiktionary, so I wanted to ask for some feedback regarding the descendants that were initially added at*-ōs by Suryaratha03 (sourced from Brugmann and Delbrück 1906) and that have currently been moved by Victar to a second etymology header under-अस्(-as). Since Sanskrit generally neutralizes *ō and *ē as ā, I'm confused about how it can be determined whether nouns or adjectives with that kind of form are from*-ōs or*-ēs. Ideally I'd like to have the genders confirmed and entries with citations added.Urszag (talk)19:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, @Suryaratha03,Victar, I intended to but accidentally omitted to ping you both in the original message.--Urszag (talk)19:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

*-ēs is for compound adjectives and*-ōs for nouns, so I think that's the way to determine where it came from. The Sanskrit-अस्(-as) suffix (from *-ōs) isn't specifically feminine. The gender of a few nouns in that list (हवस्(havás),त्वेषस्(tveṣás)) is apparently unclear (contrary to the neuter given by MW).Exarchus (talk)20:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It turns out thatभियस्(bhiyás,“fear”) is now considered feminine (MW gives masculine), so maybe there is something specifically feminine about it in Sanskrit, but I'm struggling to find the original source ("Brugmann, Karl; Delbrück, Berthold (1906), (in German), 2nd extensively revised edition, volume 2, Part 1, page 404").Exarchus (talk)22:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Source ishere, with rather §404, not p.404Exarchus (talk)22:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Further source for the gender (J. Schmidt Plur. 136f.) ishere.Exarchus (talk)08:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone familiar with Algerian Arabic know the meaning and usage ofسعى in that dialect? The Kabyle verb appears to be borrowed from it, and clarification of its meaning and usage would help with the etymology.Lankdadank (talk)20:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Anyone able to check the accuracy of[11],[12], changing the meaning of the Hebrew from "God is an oath" (the conventional ety AFAIK) to "towards me is seven"? (If these are wrong, the user's other edits, e.g.[13] andcmd$ disconect here, may also need checking.)- -sche(discuss)02:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

They're displaying the certainty that only an amateur can claim. Their assertions about "God" being only at the end of compounds and the niqqud being wrong are contradicted by things like Biblical Hebrewאֱלִיעֶזֶר(“Eliezer”). Of courseElizabeth is from Koine GreekἘλισάβετ(Elisábet) in the Christan New Testament, but the Septuagint has Koine GreekἘλισαβεθ(Elisabeth) for Biblical Hebrewאֱלִישֶׁבַע(“Elisheba”). I do wonder where the "t"/"th" came from (it's in the Latin Vulgate, but where did the Vulgate get it?). There's nothing in the Hebrew spelling to suggest it, but it may just be addition of an extra feminine ending.Chuck Entz (talk)03:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what the Aramaic form is. John the Baptist's mother would have been an Aramaic speaker, so it's possible the-t got added at that stage. —Mahāgaja ·talk19:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

This page of Aramaic names lists the name asאלישבע, spelled the same as the Hebrew nane.  ​‑‑Lambiam15:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

New question, is it intentional and correct thatElisheba derives itself from Hebrew אלישבע (“the Lord is her oath”), butElizabeth derives itself from Hebrew אלישבע (ʔĕlîšeḇaʕ, “my God is an oath”)? Or should these be made consistent?- -sche(discuss)07:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is okay. Theī can be interpreted in different ways, known from Hebrew grammar or assumed to have been retained in names. The naming habits before Moses are poorly understood. So if authors claim the names totally mean something it uses to be a smattering, contradictions have to be expected.Fay Freak (talk)11:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

If both are valid interpretations, shouldn't we present both at each of the two lemmas?  ​‑‑Lambiam17:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree. And checking now, I only spot a few old works giving "the Lord is her oath", so have just removed it.- -sche(discuss)18:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Is Indonesian/Malaycam ("to identify", "to remember", "to be taken by") a Sanskrit loanword? PleaseYuliadhi (talk)02:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Turkmen. Native words in Turkic languages do not usually start with /l/, so this is likely a borrowing. Perhaps related to Azerbaijanilövbər, Kumykлабар(labar), Lezgiлабар(labar).Rizozoda34 (talk)07:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The etymology section states: “FromFrenchdéloper(“throw away”).” Is there evidence that such a French verb exists?  ​‑‑Lambiam09:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also discussed onWikipedia.Wakuran (talk)12:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

A Rusyn surname. Some Croats have it as well, I think.Dijacz (talk)12:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Rusyn dictionary says it is suffixed with an unproductive suffix-айла(-ajla), but I don't know where that comes from either. Nor thetirk- root.Dijacz (talk)12:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have just createdkindlessly ("heartlessly") which I suggest comes fromkind in the sense of "friendly". It is a rare adverb, mostly in 19th century verse, but all the uses I found of it seem to relate to lacking generousity, benevolence, etc., more in line with (not) "friendly" than with (no) "type, kind". BUT, Collins gives two senses of a single headwordkindlessly: "in a heartless manner" and "unnaturally". Similarly, Meriam-Webster online gives two senses of a single adjectivekindless: "disagreeable" and "inhuman".

OED Online includes the adverb, but gives no etymology there. The adjectivekindless has three senses: "lacking natural power", "unnatural", and "devoid of kindness". The adjective has an etymology fromkind (n.) "class or category" , but OED notes "sense 3 partly afterkind (adj.)" -- that is, "friendly".

It seems to me that there are twokindless -es. MWO notes thatkindless is attested from 1596 in the sense "inhuman". I suspect that "devoid of kindness" / "disagreeable" / "heartless" developed later, perhaps as late as the 19th century, which is whenkindlessly appears.Cnilep (talk)05:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The 1933 OED gives the sensedevoid of kindness of the adjectivekindless with this etymological note:

[As if f.Kinda.]”. ^[14]

 ​‑‑Lambiam17:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• The current provided etymology forlysu is contradicted by Kroonen, who suggests that it derives from a zero-grade form*lusiwa-. I’m not super knowledgeable about Germanic languages, but it seems to me more likely that the adjective was inherited and the noun is just a substantivization of said adjective.
• Old Englishlyswen also seems problematic—a Proto-Germanic form is listed, but no cognates are provided and no other pages link to said reconstruction. I presume it would be better to remove the Proto-Germanic reconstruction and just go with the synchronic analysis already provided on the page.
• What is the basis for reconstructing*lasiwjaną? No other pages link to this reconstruction and no descendants are provided?

Graearms (talk)13:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

lysu has an alternative formlesu (attested inleswæs), which implies they may be a mergedie. Either derivation, from*lasiwaz or*lusiwaz, is possible, yet I know of no other evidence of*lusiwaz outside oflysu.Leasnam (talk)17:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam Should the terms be attributed to a root*lews-(“to split, detach”)? None of the sources I've found made such a connection and the semantics seem distant, though not necessarily insurmountable. The pre-form of these words is usually reconstructed as*losiwo-, which would presumably at least require a root*les-.Graearms (talk)21:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it.Leasnam (talk)05:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The term comes froma- +‎κοινός +‎-sexual ('not' + 'common/shared' + 'sexual attraction'; sexual attraction only when the attraction is not reciprocated), 'ne' being optionally present. However, though the root is 'koine', there is widespread inversion of 'oi' into 'io': that is, people often use 'akiosexual' in place of 'akoisexual'. Though the latter yields more results in exact Google searches (i.e.,"akoisexual"), the metathesised version yields many. The etymology section might reasonably simply be 'By surface analysis, neologism froma- +‎κοινός +‎-sexual'. However, the ubiquity of the curious inversion warrants acknowledgement.

From most to least common, the forms attested online are thus: 'akoisexual', 'akiosexual', 'akoinesexual', and 'akionesexual'. This indicates thatakiosexual isn't a one-off mistake. A Tumblr user in 2015 noted they 'for some reason always read the I before the o on [sic] this one'. This suggests that the metathesis is not merely a common misspelling. 'Io' might be more natural to some readers than 'oi'. To the extent that I've searched, no sources acknowledge this explicitly. This might perhaps be by confusion with another term or by association with some common pattern, but that's merely guesswork.

That the pageakiosexual exists whilstakoisexual does not further evidences the presence of this pattern.How should this be treated of in the etymology section of the page? Should the definition be moved toakoisexual?Scelultrix (talk)08:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Scelultrix if both forms are attestable (WT:ATTEST), we would simply list the less common form as an alternative form of the more common form. Comparegynosexual andlithosexual (which I just created). The metathesis would be due to the influence of very common sexuality terms likehomosexual,heterosexual,allosexual, ...This, that and the other (talk)10:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe-o-sexual interfered, but I have no evidence. I would not call itmetathesis when the label "phonetics, prosody" does not strictly apply. I would consider itrebracketing?Friya Willie (talk)14:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The shorteningakoisexual is an etymological abomination, since the ⟨n⟩ inkoin- is part of the stem, seen preserved in scholarly terms based on Ancient Greekκοινός(koinós) such asbiocoenosis,coenoblast,coenure,epicene,holocoen, and, of course,Koine. The sense ofkoin- is also not that of beingmutual but rather of beingcommon among the public as opposed to private to an individual or small group. One would expect that an akoisexual is someone who is not particularly enamoured of cold-blooded unfuzzykoi.  ​‑‑Lambiam12:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Contrary to famed film industry veteran Troy McClure...Wakuran (talk)00:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The etymology of the idiomatic phraseover a barrel is not currently given. I'm a layperson, but according to a bit of quick googling ([15][16]) the most likely ones I can find are either the use of barrels for setting people's bodies up for public beatings (as seen in the Wiktionary page) or potentially their use for hanging surviving drowned people over in order to expel water from their lungs in a nautical setting. I don't feel comfortable claiming either of those on the page myself, though (particularly given the cursory nature of my research), so I'd like to request that someone else add an etymology.LieutenantZipp (talk)17:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LieutenantZipp I've gone and added the nautical explanation to the page, as that etymology appears to be favored byThe Oxford English Dictionary andThe Oxford Dictionary of Idioms.Graearms (talk)18:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. Thank you!LieutenantZipp (talk)18:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The LIV implies that the term was inherited fromProto-Indo-European*wértetor.^[1] However, I foundanother source (page 10) which appears to derive the term from*wert-ye-. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to determine whether either of these etymologies are correct. The EDBIL seemingly relates the term toLatvianvērst, so I suppose that term is probably also relevant to determining the etymology of the Lithuanian word.^[2]

Graearms (talk)18:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Have you read the note in LIV?Exarchus (talk)16:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Exarchus I did look at the note in the LIV, I just can't speak German and am not comfortable adding information based on Google Translate.Graearms (talk)17:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

LIV says the verb was later reformed to a *-ye-present (as if from *wert-ye-), apparently because of the transitive meaningExarchus (talk)17:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I guess I should go an add that to the entry. Currently, the page*wert- also listsversti as a descendant of*wert-ye-ti, which should probably be removed if we are to accept that the ye-present is secondary. I suppose we could also list it as uncertain if either explanation is possible.Graearms (talk)17:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ancient Greek. Beekes suggests that this word is of Pre-Greek origin. However, the entry on Wiktionary suggests that is related toδμώς(dmṓs), which I haven't found any evidence for. Beekes says thatδμώς(dmṓs) is derived fromReconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dem-, making it related toδόμος(dómos).Missileboi (talk)19:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The etymology provided on the page was inaccurate and poorly phrased. Beekes actually suggests that the formἀδμενίδες(admenídes) is related toἀτμήν(atmḗn), perhaps with a slight remodeling on the basis ofδμώς(dmṓs). I should have fixed the error.Graearms (talk)Graearms (talk)00:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

While I was making a page foržúžoľ and its etymology I found a mention of wordžuh, and I am not sure if it's Slovak dialectal word, from Old Slovak or from Proto-Slavic.Tho, I found mentions in these:Slovenská reč magazine,Kultúra slova magazine(?),Zo studnice rodnej reči, the book.Pan1blG (talk)17:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think this would be a fun etymology for Wiktionary to do because there's apparently a conspiracy theory surrounding the oranges of the term- seeConspiracy_theory#Alleged_CIA_origins. --Geographyinitiative🎵 (talk)23:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is there any particular reason to presume that the PIE pre-form of the Hittite term must have had Narten-ablaut. According to Kloekhorst, the attested 3pl.pres.act form in Hittite is𒉈𒂊𒌋𒉿𒄴𒄩𒀭𒍣(ne-e-u-wa-aḫ-ḫa-an-zi/⁠⁠nēwaḫḫ-⁠⁠/),^[1] which appears to showcase the exact same inflectional ending as[script needed](ša-ša-an-zi), which Kloekhorst traces back to PIE*sésti ~ **ssénti.^[2]Graearms (talk)01:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Most of the uses I can find of this phrase have to do with driving, but surely the phrase itself is a reference to taking one's half from the middle of e.g. a cake, leaving behind the (presumably less desirable?) outer part. One doesn'ttake anythingout of a road when driving...This, that and the other (talk)05:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The earliest use I can find, in the variant formhave one’s half out of the middle, is this witty narration from 1833:^[17]

So you have—with yourself both times; said the other; you remind me of the boy who complained of his bed-fellow for taking half the bed—and why not? said his mother? he’s entitled to half, aint he? yes mother, said the boy—but how should you like to have him take out all the soft for his half?—he willhave his half right out o’ the middle! and I have to sleep both sides of him—

Might this be the origin of the idiom, considering that it is not nearly as funny if this is an existing idiom?  ​‑‑Lambiam17:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, perhaps I underestimate how unprecedentedly uproarious that joke would have been in the 1830s, but to me it seems like people could still make jokes of that sort now... and if that sketch is the origin, the phrase seems to have entered less comedic use pretty fast; for example here is an1843 question, "Suppose 'W. L.' should become a vender of cheeses, would he allow a purchasing customer wanting half a cheese (at same price as for the whole) to take or separate the half out of the middle, and only leave 'W. L.' to rejoice over the caseous ring left?" It might just be a straightforward concept. In any case, the current etymology attributing it to cars is wrong; maybe we rewrite it to something like "Early attestations are about taking one's half of a bed or cheese wheel out of the middle, later uses are about cakes, or cars driving too close to the center of a two-way road, leaving vehicles going the other way with no usable half on which to drive." ? (Cake:[18]; cat chair:[19].)- -sche(discuss)18:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see a pattern of two types of lesser desirability for the remaining part:

1. the remaining part is still usable, butof a lesser quality than the half already taken (cheese, cake);
2. by the middle half being occupied, the remaining part isno longer usable for its purpose (bed, road).

Presumably, one of these types was the first to appear, the idiom later being adopted for the other type of selfishness. A purely semantic consideration suggests to me that type 2 came first, the argument being that for type 1 the relative quantity of the part taken is immaterial; uses withthird,part,share orportion instead ofhalf should also be attestable. For type 2, there is a pre-existing conceptual partitioning of that which is to be shared into two halves – one would not ask “what is my half?” but “which is my half?”.  ​‑‑Lambiam10:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I tried rewriting the etymology along the lines of -sche's suggestion. I wonder if it's an American saying? I don't think I've ever heard it.This, that and the other (talk)02:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The 1833 citation is American, reading the link it contains cod representations of black American speech, probably slave speech, and mentions the US but the 1843 citation is for a British magazine published in London’s Fleet Street that mentions Linlithgow and Glasgow in Scotland. Either it spread fairly quickly from the US to the UK or it existed as a British phrase first that was brought over by colonists. I’ve never personally heard or read this phrase before though.Overlordnat1 (talk)07:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes fair or "equal share" has to quite literally be physically or energetically 50/50 identical and require the same amount of effort to obtain/consume. Even if we get an "equal" split, it's not fair if yours is physically fragmented or you have to circumnavigate me to get the rest of your part.

Like a narrow road for instance, if you're behind me- we're not "sharing the road" if you can't get around me. You're just following me then.~2026-68946-6 (talk)00:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Esperanto. We define it as "skillful, skilled, adroit" and give an etymology from Italiansolerte(“diligent, industrious, willing, eager”). Looking atReta Vortaro, the first sense talks about "flexibility of movement" and compares it withgracia(“graceful”). This means that deriving it fromsolerte requires not just dropping a consonant, but also a large shift in meaning. I think Frenchalerte(“agile”) and the obsolete Englishalert(“brisk; nimble; moving with celerity”) make for more likely etyma/cognates.jlwoodwa (talk)01:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Both verbs have uncertain etymologies. Is it possible they have a common origin?

BTW, the etymology section for the Dutch verb mentions a conjectured intermediate*huck(e)ren from a verbhucken, both with the language labelnl. This cannot be correct if they gave rise to a Middle Dutch verb; they should be labeled withdum orodt.  ​‑‑Lambiam10:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The etymology section for the English verbhanker states: “Related to Dutchhunkeren”, yet the the etymology section for the Dutch verb does not reflect any of the suggested etymology for the English verb.  ​‑‑Lambiam10:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

hangen is mentioned.Wakuran (talk)14:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Only at the Dutch side, and only as the last of three “perhaps related” terms. In view of this having the same meaning ashanker and even taking the formhankeren inWest Flemish, one might expect to see a stronger expression of relationship at the Dutch side than unidirectional references not leading anywhere close to the English verb.  ​‑‑Lambiam15:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

According to theHandbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, the term might derive from*m̥h₃sḱeti.^[1] I suppose the underlying root would be of the shape*meh₃-, which is perhaps to be identified with the root*meh₃-(“to be tired”). This root perhaps already has an attested ske-present inTocharian A, where it is reflected asmāskā-(“to be difficult”).Graearms (talk)02:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's the etymology ofCharpentier, repeated in{{R:xcl:Klingenschmitt:1982|page=69}}. The only cognates they know are Old Armenianամաւթ(amawtʻ,“shame”) from*m̥h₃to- and Ancient Greekμῶμος(mômos,“blame, ridicule”) andμωρός(mōrós,“slow, stupid”). Instead of assuming the existence of*(s)meh₃-(“to be ashamed; to be stupid”) on Armenian and Greek evidence alone, it would be more economical to identify with your*meh₃-(“to be tired”), but the sense development needs an explanation.Vahag (talk)18:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rix provides the alternative meaning "Mühe bereiten, zur Last fallen(“to cause trouble, to be a burden”) for the PIE root." I suppose the sense of "to feel ashamed" could have developed from the notion of feeling like a burden. Pokorny, interestingly enough, provides the meaning "sich mühen(“to make an effort; to strain”)." I suppose the sense of the Armenian word could have developed in a manner akin toLatinanxius (<*h₂enǵʰ-(“to constrict, compress”)), with the idea of physical stress coming to refer to emotional pain.Graearms (talk)20:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, that's not a very natural development.

Having looked at Biblical attestations, Viredaz concludes that the subsense "to feel shame" in Armenian is a secondary development from "to feel inferior, to show consideration, to respect, to submit oneself", with a development similar toverecundia.Vahag (talk)21:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any better ideas. I suppose we'll have to abandon that etymology. I did find one scholar who tried to argue for a connection between the Armenian words andGermanschmähen, which he derives from a root*(s)meh₁-. He also connectsAncient Greekμῶμος(mômos), which he derives from*(s)moh₁-mό- (page 144, note 8). The source is in French, so I'm not sure how much use it will be to you.Graearms (talk)19:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible that Pannekoek (alternatively Pannecoeck) as a surname is related toPenicuik? The listed etymology of pannekoek ("pancake") doesn't feel right to me and it would make more sense given the historic trade between Scotland and the Netherlands as well as presence of Celtic people.Woodpigeon Gaming (talk)21:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Apparently Penicuik with variations is a rare surname, as well, but I still kinda find it unlikely.Wakuran (talk)23:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

What, precisely, is it that doesn’t feel right? That the English surname came from the existing Dutch surnamePannekoek, earlier also spelledPannekoeck? Or that the Dutch surname came from the name of a Dutch type of pancake? Or that the Dutch wordpannekoek comes from a Middle Dutch compound formed frompanne andkoeck?  ​‑‑Lambiam18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just the idea of the name coming from the the food definition rather than coming from a loosely similar-sounding word. I'm no expert but I was thinking about how e.g. the town/principality of Orange in France or the river Almond in Scotland are both Celtic-derived and have nothing to do with fruit and was wondering if this could a similar case.Woodpigeon Gaming (talk)15:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Dutch surnames are famously quite weird - they weren't mandatory until 1811 when Napoleon issueda decree demanding that people in Holland and the Low Countries without surnames must take one (previously,patronymics were more common in most parts of the country) - and they couldn't take a place name as a surname. While the idea that there wereno surnames, or that people picked weird surnames as a protest,seems to be a myth, there are a lot ofweird surnames in the country, and many surnames seem to be modern inventions. It feels more likely to me that a baker picked the surname Pannekoek as a quirky job-related surname than that a Scottish surname survived and corrupted into that form.Smurrayinchester (talk)08:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The name probably originated as a nickname to distinguish one Jan or Dirk from the next. Compare surnames likede Scheele (the Cross-eyed) andde Lamme (the Lame), obviously originally nicknames. The surnamePannekoek is rare, but variant spellings included (Panckoucke,Panckouke,Pancouck,Pancoucke,Pancouke,Panecoucke,Panekoek,Pankoucke,Panneckoucke,Pannecoecke,Pannecoek,Pannecoeke,Pannecoucke,Pannecouke,Pannekoecke,Pannekoick,Pannekouck,Pannekoucke,Pannekouke,Pannenkoek) the Dutch genealogy websiteGeneanet has altogether 33,303 records of family trees for the surname. Other, more common “edible” Dutch surnames includeBrood (Bread) andKoek (Cake). Also attested, but much rarer, areOli(e)koek (Oliebol) andTaart (Pie).  ​‑‑Lambiam12:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Germans also sometimes have food surnames: two rare ones I've encountered areRoggenbrot(literally“rye bread”) andSchweinebraten(literally“roast pork”)! —Mahāgaja ·talk14:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

See also(von) Pfannkuch,Pfannkuche,Pfankuch,(von) Pancug,Pankok andPankoke.  ​‑‑Lambiam17:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the etymology.Added recently by @0.02s. While plausible, it disagrees in details with the etymology at KazakhҚызылорда(Qyzylorda). Someone who knows more than I do needs to sort this out.Chuck Entz (talk)23:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I cannot find any source forordo,ordu ororda having the meaning of “city” in any language. The meaning of “Turkic Mongolian” is unclear. In modern scholarship, the Mongolic language family and the Turkic language family are considered to be distinct. But perhaps the intention is “Turkicand Mongolian”: since the term occurs asordu in Turkic and asordo in Classical Mongolian; it was almost certainly borrowed by one of the two from the other. The original meaning is a place of power, like a palace or an army camp. The Kazakh Wikipedia, in the entryОрда, informs the reader that Russian scholars and officials of the 18th and 19th centuries used the term for the Kazakh concept ofjüz. But none of this helps to explain the etymology of Kyzylorda.

Since several of the historical names were formed by a colour name + a word corresponding tohorde (Golden Horde, White Horde, Blue Horde, Gray Horde), it seems more plausible that the namegivers played on this theme in coming up with a new name for the city.  ​‑‑Lambiam19:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why is thegeography cone called that?- -sche(discuss)03:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't show very well in your image, but they have dark and light blotches in patterns reminiscent of continents and oceans on a map- though maps have gotten a lot less blotchy and more colorful since Linnaeus' day.Chuck Entz (talk)04:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here is a set of shells in which the patterning is clearer.  ​‑‑Lambiam19:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the page*gínˀtei is contradicted by the page*gʷʰen-, which instead attributes the Balto-Slavic forms to*genˀtei. Derksen himself seems to imply both forms are possible, in which case mention should probably be made of the alternative reconstruction on the page*gínˀtei.Graearms (talk)06:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This might be a case ofWT:BOLD. I can help update the use of{{etymon}} on the given pages if need be.Vininn126 (talk)20:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Graearms I moved the link on*gʷʰen- to*gínˀtei simply to link to the existing page, but now I'm thinking that the infinitive clearly should get e-grade, with the zero-grade seen in for example 1sg.pres. *žьňǫ (at*žęti).Exarchus (talk)15:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Moved to*genˀtei.Exarchus (talk)14:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly confident that this term should be treated as a borrowing from Osco-Umbrian, considering that the actual goddessdea Cupra was herself imported into Roman culture from the Umbrian and Picene areas.Graearms (talk)17:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I tried to improve it a little, check and see if it's better now! :>Pitocuev4 (talk)22:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems alright.Graearms (talk)22:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

might this have come from Wikipedia? the pagew:Wikipedia:Administrators still prominently depicts a mop today and mentions janitors. Did we start the trend, or has this been common slang for a long time that I only noticed on Wikipedia?—Soap—18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

the redirectw:WP:MOP was added in 2006, so the janitor motif must be at least as old as that, though it wasnt present on the main Administrators' page at the time.—Soap—22:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

4chan was calling its junior moderators "janitors" by 2006, it seems. The term is mentioned in an05/20/06 announcement. Though since the internet archive excludes 4chan, it's hard to prove the date.PhoenicianLetters (talk)01:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

hmm, interesting, thanks. and it was used without explanation, so it was probably already well-established by then, and must be older. but i've also found a mention ofthe mop from 2005 on Wikipedia, so it's still an open question which is older. 4chan users were organizing vandalism raids against Wikipedia around the late 2000s, so they may have adopted our term as an ironic tribute, but I'm not sure if the "relationship" (to use a biology term) goes back to 2005. it's possible both WMF and 4chan got the idea from a common source, perhaps somewhere in theFOSS community, or phpBB web forums. i will try to find more information.—Soap—15:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Japanese "smartphone game". The current etymology section offers two etymologies: "borrowed from English" and "compound ofスマートフォン + ゲーム". One of those is almost certainly correct, but it cannot be both borrowed as a compoundand formed in Japanese by compounding. Certainly, bothスマートフォン(sumātofon) andゲーム(gēmu) are derived from English, but the interesting question is which language the compound arose in. (The answer could, of course, be "in both, separately".)Cnilep (talk)05:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It can absolutely be both, why not? At the very least, we can use{{surf}} for the compound. —Mahāgaja ·talk07:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

A Japanese compound is formed by combining two Japanese lexical items. A loanword, on the other hand, is borrowed from another language. A Japanese compound can be formed by combining previously borrowed words (e.g.w:ja:ウィンナ・コーヒーwina kōhī "Viennese-style coffee; Franziskaner", ultimately from GermanWien and Dutchkoffie). But if Japanese borrows a word that is a compound in the language it comes from (say, Englishcowboy), that (カウボーイ(kaubōi)) is not a Japanese compound. See what I mean? You are right, though, that it has the surface form of a compound in either case.Cnilep (talk)01:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

ところが,smartphone game does not appear to be an established compound in English. I didn't find it using DuckDuckGo, at least. Ifスマートフォンゲーム is an established Japanese word, it would seem not to be a loanword as I defined above.Cnilep (talk)01:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Doing some quick and dirty Googling, the (very rough) figures show about 500K hits for"smartphone game". Meanwhile,"スマートフォンゲーム" nets 654K hits, and"スマホゲーム" nets 10.4M hits -- suggesting a greater frequency of use in the Japanese-language side of the web.

Looking at the search results at resource aggregator websiteWeblio, we are given a number of synonyms:

別名：スマートフォン向けゲーム，スマホゲーム，スマホ向けゲームアプリ，スマートフォン向けゲームアプリ

This variation in forms tells me that this is very likely a Japanese coinage, albeit one apparently paralleling the English. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig}10:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should the frozen genitive be thought to account for some lost set phrase denoting the group of a said number of men,duum virōrum coitus (alongsideduō virī, the actual components of it) ->duum virī. It is rather strange that these are the only of theN-virī that classically share this trait.Saumache (talk)17:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are correct at least aboutduumvir—both Sihler and de Vaan suggest that the term derived from an earlier phraseduum virum. I would presume the same is true oftriumvir, though I could not find a source that explicitly made this claim.Graearms (talk)14:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

No need to syllogize about it,triumvir is morphologically equivalent toduumvirī; though we have post-classicalquadrumvirī, more likely analogical. I'll update both etymologies shortly.Saumache (talk)15:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Shuowen:「从十从䏌」。臣鉉等曰：「䏌，振䏌也。」claiming䏌 is a semantic component, but regarding䏌 we also have 段玉裁注：「振肸者,謂振動布寫。蓋䏌與肸音義皆同。許無八佾字,今按作䏌作肸皆可。」who suggests that肸 (OC*hrɯd, *hlɯd) and䏌 >佾 (OC*lɯd) are the same character. Which seems very plausible given their OC reconstructions, and of course the character compositions, but it's not clear what the original etymon would be.ChromeGames (talk)01:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

You see, I was reading through the 海東諸國記 and in it the word for "father" was labeled as 아샤/아ᅀᅡ. The sound is roughly a.sja or a.za according to IPA notation. After some digging, I've noticed that there exists something that has a similar sound in my opinion and also means "dad", which is すー. I'm curious, what is the etymological origin of this word? Like does it trace its roots back to Proto-Ryukyuan or even Proto-Japonic? Is すー related to 아샤/아ᅀᅡ? What is its cognate/relative in Japanese?Blahhmosh (talk)01:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, there exists a sentence transcribed in Korean phonetics "우라ᄌᆞ마피츄?" which means "Where are you from?" This is very easy to understand. 우라 means you. 피츄 means human. But that implies ᄌᆞ마 means "where". I know that in Okinawan, "まー" means where. This corresponds to the 마 sound in the word. But then, what does ᄌᆞ mean? Is it a grammatical particle? I personally have my own theories. I believe, from a Japanese novice point of view, it comes from じゃ, which is a clipping of では. Then this makes sense, it transcribes to "As for you, where are you from?" But I need people who speak Okinawan to help me here.Blahhmosh (talk)02:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okinawan and Korean are not demonstrably related. Any relation would be quite ancient. Certainly far too old for a recent contraction like じゃ to be relevant.kwami (talk)11:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Obviously not, but what I'm saying is that the Koreans were transcribing the sounds and words of the Okinawan language via the Korean script, and it just so happens that the word for father sounds like a.sja. I want to know what word exists in the Okinawan language that sounds remotely like a.sja or a.za @KwamikagamiBlahhmosh (talk)13:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You might need to include a transcription. Not everyone is fluent in both hiragana and hangul.Wakuran (talk)15:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK. It will be in IPA notation.

"Dad":

아샤: /a.sʲa/

아ᅀᅡ: /a.za/

すー: /suː/

"You":

우라: /u.ra/

"?????":

ᄌᆞ: /dzɒ/

"Where":

마: /ma/

まー: /maː/

"Human":

피츄: /pʰi.tsʰʲu/Blahhmosh (talk)15:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@WakuranBlahhmosh (talk)16:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Blahhmosh - sorry, my bad. 海東諸國紀 is indeed recent enough for じゃ.kwami (talk)22:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Kwamikagami I certainly am not fluent at all in Okinawan, so I do not know how the language works at all. 海東諸國紀 was written in 1471. So it is pretty recent in the grand scheme of things. But what does じゃ mean in Okinawan? Does anyone here know Okinawan?Blahhmosh (talk)02:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Re: "dad", the JLect search resultshere seem like they include a number of relevant entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig}10:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr THANK YOU!!! I found what I wanted!Blahhmosh (talk)16:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the etymology is missing. I presume it is probably related toProto-Slavic*bersto.Graearms (talk)23:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any idea where this came from? I can trace back the other old IPA click letters, but this seems to have come out of nowhere.kwami (talk)06:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe from the first letter ofʗlick?  ​‑‑Lambiam11:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Zulu and Xhosa orthography use⟨c⟩ to stand for the alveolar click, but I don't know whether that came before or after the IPA use of this symbol. —Mahāgaja ·talk11:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Before, but this is the q-click in Zulu.

A few years before adoption into the IPA, there was a notation that used a ʕ-like symbol, set low like an open 'q', for the q-click. (Also c with an ascender for the c-click.) Another letter in that notation was used for the IPA x-click letter, so perhaps this is from the same set of letters. But if so it's been distorted enough that we can't tell without written testimony. I was wondering if maybe the IPA used a separate source for this letter, if there was anything likely.kwami (talk)11:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you've seen Pullum and Ladusaw'sPhonetic Symbol Guide where they say (p. 34):Perhaps a visual compromise between⟨c⟩ on the one hand and the rightward-swept tail of retroflex consonant symbols like⟨ʈ⟩ and⟨ɖ⟩ on the other. By the way, could you please add References sections to entries like [[ʗ]] and [[ʖ]] identifying things like Johnston (1913), Beach and Jones? —Mahāgaja ·talk17:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem with that idea is that AFAICT ⟨ʈ⟩ and ⟨ɖ⟩ did not yet exist. Rather, ⟨ṭ⟩ and ⟨ḍ⟩ were used. In the 1921 chart that introduced the click letters (which I believe had been worked out earlier but had been delayed by WWI), it was suggested that the IPA might adopt ⟨𝼪⟩ and ⟨𝼥⟩ from existing conventions. Variants ⟨ʈ⟩ and ⟨ɖ⟩ were decided on in 1925.kwami (talk)22:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps there's some commentary by Jones on the adoption of the current retroflex letters that might shed light on this.kwami (talk)03:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Refs added.kwami (talk)03:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The current etymology connects the term withProto-Germanic*dab-, fromProto-Indo-European*dʰebʰ-. I’m fairly certain they’re confusing the root with the*dʰeh₂bʰ- mentioned by Kroonen.^[1] Also, the related terms, such asDutchdeppen, are explained as onomatopoeic. It seems as if the entire word family ofdab in Germanic requires some cleaning up. Kroonen provides an Indo-European etymology, but the Wiktionary pages for many of these terms claim that they are of onomatopoeic origin.Graearms (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Graearms (talk)15:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The description on the verb to me seems akin to other similar Germanic verbs. The semantic shift from drawing off alcoholic beverages to pouring them in doesn't strike me as particularly odd.Wakuran (talk)22:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Someone tapping beer pours the liquid in one container (like a mug) by drawing it off from another container (like a keg), so the "semantic" shift is perhaps mostly a matter of focus.  ​‑‑Lambiam21:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Icelandictap- clearly does not match Germanic*dab-; this etymology is obviously wrong from a glance. There are many cases of confused editors back in the day mixing up PIE and Germanic roots (I've noticed it a lot with North Germanic specifically, for some reason), so I'm sure if you look in the edit history you'll find the first person who added the*dab- etymology was one such serial offender. I'm removing it.

By the way, be careful with adding references in these forums. They will appear at the way bottom of the page by default, after any following sections created after yours, unless you use <references/> or{{reflist}}. —~2026-78854-2 (talk)02:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Celtic*legyā and Gaulish*ligā are formally different (the former would presumably yield Gaulish*ligyā and the latter could reflect a number of things (*legā,*ligā) but none with suffix-y-), so which is it? I'm not convinced we can narrow it down to either of these two anyway. —~2026-78854-2 (talk)02:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I encountered this word reading an old text, and had to look it up on the dictionary. Wiktionary did not have an entry for it, so I created it.

Treccani says it is fromLate LatinBrittus meaning "Briton" and later "Breton". We don't have Late LatinBrittus, but we have LatinBrittō with the same Briton/Breton meaning, could it be an alternative form?Emanuele6 (talk)08:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Said to be related to homō̆ with "unclear vowel mutations," but I feel like it could just be as simple as humus + -ānus, despite the first vowel not being long enough. The first element is from the same source as homō̆, I believe. Conjectured by me and unsourced.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)02:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The etymology was indeed incorrect. I’ve gone ahead and added the etymology provided by de Vaan.Graearms (talk)13:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suppose at least my post served as a reminder.TooSimilarT0DaFollowingUsername (talk)14:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Turkic*tẹri(“skin”)?物灵 (talk)07:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The current reconstruction and etymology seems to be favored by Oryol, though it has also been connected to*leh₁ǵʰ-. Kroonen, however, seems to provide a reconstruction of the term as a u-stem. He also suggests thatEnglishlow is a Nordic loanword.^[1]

Graearms (talk)12:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kroonen's statement is slightly puzzling since the status of Englishlow as a loanword is universally agreed upon (e.g. theBDE,^[1] Björkman,^[2] Dance,^[3] theGersum Project,^[4] theODEE,^[5] Skeat^[6]), presumably since Proto-Germanic*lēgaz would be expected to yield Old English*lǣġ, Middle English*ley, then modern English*lay through inheritance.Hazarasp (parlement ·werkis)04:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Given that in the Japonic languages, yesteryear has many cognates, can we reconstruct a Proto-Japonic word that means "yesteryear"?

Japanese: こぞ

Kikai: ふじゅ

Okinawan: くじゅ

Okinoerabu: ふず

Yonaguni: くどぅBlahhmosh (talk)05:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This might also appear in some ancient sources asko₂so₂, although what I'm finding in references is a bit confusing, and the form with/s/ might be specific to a sense of "last night" as opposed to "last year". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig}11:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

So can it be reconstructed into a Proto-Japonic word? I don't care about its definite meaning, but as long as we can, what do you think it'll look like? @EirikrBlahhmosh (talk)17:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Are all of these words even cognates, or are they from different roots, to begin with?Wakuran (talk)03:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wakuran I can assure you that they are cognates.Blahhmosh (talk)17:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that these are likely cognates, just on phonological grounds:

• Although it looks a little strange, there is a trend for Japanese/k/ to appear in the Ryukyuan branch as/f/ in specific contexts, such as when followed by/u/. Compare also Japanesekusa ("grass") and Miyakofusa ("grass").
• Ryukyuan also usually has/u/ where Japanese has/o/.
• Yonaguni hasa tendency towards fortition, where Japanese/j/ appears as/d/, such as even in the name of the place -- Japanese calls the island "Yonaguni", which appears in the local language as "Dunan". My memory is fuzzy, but I think this also applies to Japanese/z/ becoming Yonaguni/d/ in specific phonological contexts.

My concerns about any reconstruction are:

• We aren't sure of the meaning. Old Japanese seems to record both "last year" and "last night", leaving open the possibility that the meaning was actually something looser, such as "before now (of variable scope?)". See also the NKD entryhere (in Japanese), sense ②, quoting a section of theKojiki of 712 with the phonetic spelling許存 (⟨ko₂zo₂⟩.
• The voiced consonant on the second mora is generally reconstructed for Old Japanese as a prenasalization, which some (most?) authors suggest derives from an even older contracted mora, possibly/ni/ or/no/.

There are a couple other long-attested Japanese words with an initial/k-/ element that seems to indicate the past, such as:

• 昨日(kinō,“yesterday”), Old Japanese⟨ki₁no₂pu⟩, generally parsed aski ("past"?) +no (genitive) +pu, alternate ofpi, modern日(hi,“day”).
• 今朝(kesa,“this morning”), Old Japanese⟨kʲesa⟩. Phonologically, this is probably a contraction of⟨ki₁⟩ ("past"?) +⟨asa⟩ ("morning"); there are other examples ofi +a contracting toje, such as Old Japaneseけり⟨ke₁ri⟩, a suffix originally indicating past tense and current noticing of, or supposition about, that fact, and derived in most references as past-recollective verb suffix Old Japaneseき (⟨ki₁⟩) + copular Old Japanese有り(ari).

Old Japanese also had⟨ki₁so₂⟩, possibly also appearing as⟨ki₁zo₂⟩, as a synonym for "yesterday", and the NKD entryhere explicitly calls out the initial⟨ki₁⟩ element as likely related to the⟨ko₂⟩ element in⟨ko₂zo₂⟩ ("last year; last night"). The⟨i₁⟩ vowel is reconstructed variously as/i, ji/, and⟨o₂⟩ as/o, ö, ə, ɵ/ (seew:Old Japanese#Vowels). This "i" and "o" difference seems difficult to reconcile -- but I note that Old Japanese来(ku,“to come”) had irrealis conjugation⟨ko₂⟩, continuous conjugation⟨ki₁⟩, and is often given as the source of the past-recollective suffix⟨ki₁⟩. This raises the possibility that this "past" prefix might also be a verb derivation, with the differences in vowels reflecting underlying conjugational forms. I wonder too if theko- prefix for "this" in terms like Old Japanese此の (⟨ko₂no₂⟩, "this"),此処 (⟨ko₂ko₂⟩, "here") might also be related.

Anyway, various different threads to consider. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig}20:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've only seenyesteryear used metaphorically for some indefinite time period in the past. As a term for "last year", it's either obsolete or too rare to be used as a definition.Chuck Entz (talk)21:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply