This etymology goes back to Egyptian, butνίκη does not list that, and it seems unlikely to me, although I have not researched it. Is this reasonable? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any good Ancient Greek etymological works anymore, so I can't verify the entry. It seems plausible enough. Ancient Greek did borrow from Egyptian, albeit somewhat uncommonly. I trust the editor who put it there, but of course good editors do occasionally make mistakes. I've asked them for their source, so we'll see if they see the message, and if they remember their source. Correctness aside, I don't think the Egyptian component belongs on the English entry. The English entry should probably stop at the grc, and the grc should mention the Egyptian. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added Beekes' etymology toνίκη. --Vahag (talk)13:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please put the Pali and Sanskrit transliterations into their respective scripts? Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}01:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues atSerendib. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added{{rfscript|Devanagari}} toCeylon andSerendib, for Sanksrit. As for Pali, it's also written in the Latin alphabet.Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Latin script isn't really native for Pali. Figuring out what script(s) are kosher for representing Pali on Wiktionary will probably be a difficult (and I suspect contentious) question, but I would be quite surprised if the end result included Latin. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί02:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latin script is the current de-facto standard for Pali at Wiktionary. Both Pali and Sanskrit have the trouble that they have no native script; both are only ever written in scripts designed for other languages, including the Latin script in both cases. Although Devanagari is widely used for Sanskrit, it's no more the native script than the Latin alphabet is. —Angr02:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, but at least for Sanskrit, Devanagari seems more appropriate. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}03:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per de-facto policy, Sanskrit should be rendered in Devanagari and Pali should be rendered in Latin script. --Liliana•17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could figure out which Greek verb the original author was aiming at, that would be great. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Angr03:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem appropriate to list this (tagged by CodeCat) on RFV, because it cannot be attested... but is it valid?- -sche(discuss)08:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whatballismus is; anyone want to figure this one out? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is Ancient Greekβάλλω(bállō,“I throw”) + Latin-ismus.Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV17:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greekβαλλισμός(ballismós,“jumping about”). Source: Stedman's Electronic Medical Dictionary Ver. 6. --Vahag (talk)18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe this request shouldn't be here, but I'm looking for someone to explain to me why the given etymology of this is true. The only genitive ofnullus ought to benullius, notnulli. How come it's nothomo nullius coloris? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}01:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're right and it would be nullius I imagine. The entry lists it as an alternative form too. On the other hand, analogy between inflections can often change certain words to be more like other words. As far as I know, words with a genitive in -ius are fairly rare compared to those with a genitive in -i, so it's not unlikely that this is simply a matter of regularising an irregular word. I don't know when the phrase was first used or who used it, but it may be relatively late. Is that possible? —CodeCat00:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it possible that nulli is in fact a dative and coloris a genitive? I don't know if that would make any sense in Latin, but maybe? —CodeCat00:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Homo nullius coloris" gets about 30 times more g.b.c. hits than "homo nulli coloris". I'd say the entry should be athomo nullius coloris, andhomo nulli coloris can be called a "common error of" it or something. —Angr07:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true then I agree it should be moved. —CodeCat12:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two etymologies here that contradict each other. Which one of these is correct? --Liliana•05:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word has several meanings; I suspect they don't all have the same etymology. Certainly the stuff about Irish is bullshit, as "the horse" is notan each butan t-each, and there doesn't seem to be any such word aseachóir (and if there were, it would bean t-eachóir when it appeared with the definite article anyway). —Angr19:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed the etymology, but neither the IP's etymology nor the prior etymology agrees with other dictionaries, which posit that this is from Arabic.- -sche(discuss)18:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiktionary-namespace discussion pages