Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2025/January
Can a Vulgar Latin *hinbernum ~ *himbernum really yield these forms with /v/? Wouldn't, for example, the Italian outcome of such a form be *imberno rather than inverno? 92.73.31.113 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The form belongs to a later period in which original intervocalic ‘b’ had long ago turned to a fricative.
- The problem here is that you’ve tried to interpret *hinbernum through the (anachronistic) prism of Classical Latin sound-to-spelling correspondences. Nicodene (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence for a separate *hīnbernum form? I would have assumed that an assimilated *hīmbernum form would have gained ground fairly quickly. Wakuran (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I imagine that the nasal simply remained dependent on the following fricative for its place of articulation.
- For instance *[imβɛ́rnu] initially, then in places where [β] turned to [v], the [m] followed suit automatically (yielding [ɱ], which can be phonemically recategorized as /n/).
- Traditional Latin spelling varies quite a bit in such cases. One author’s imbutus is another’s inbutus, though both probably said it with [m]. The ⟨n⟩ spelling is likely for morphological reasons (the prefix being in-, which generally does have [n]).
- Nicodene (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence for a separate *hīnbernum form? I would have assumed that an assimilated *hīmbernum form would have gained ground fairly quickly. Wakuran (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Leasnam Any ideas what is triggering i-umlaut in this word? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure, but it's a pattern seen in many terms related to ān (“one”): āniġ ~ ǣniġ; ānlīċ ~ ǣnlīċ; āninga ~ ǣninga; ānes ~ ǣnes; ānlīepe ~ ǣnlīepe; ānwintre ~ ǣnwintre; etc. Leasnam (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Probably the same sound change first seen in Proto-Norse ᛗᛁᚾᛁᚾᛟ (minino), also Old English Wēden. It seems like -an- had a tendency to become -in- in certain words in northern Germanic (Proto-Norse and English). This new vowel caused i-umlaut in OE but not in ON, which was more resistant (cf. Proto-Germanic *hugiz > Old Norse hugr, Old English hyge). So ǣne < *aininō < *ainanō. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Is it possible that the Sundanese kecap ("word") might be related to Indonesian ucap ("to say")? Or maybe with kecap ("tongue smacking") via semantic difference? The latter seems a little far-fetched, though. Udaradingin (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Could the plant be named after the boojum, which was thus named by Godfrey Sykes in the early 20th century? One might see a superficial resemblance between the two plants, especially when "under the influence". And the Boojum is from Baja California, not far from stoner territory. 24.108.0.44 02:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Boojum tree? Would it have been widely known, even among stoners? Wakuran (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh yes, they would go rambling in their VW campers or dirt bikes. Don't you remember w:The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers? 24.108.0.44 03:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
ghingheri in Treccani.it – Vocabolario Treccani on line, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana says it is just onomatopoeical.
Pianigiani, Ottorino (1907) “ghinghero”, in Vocabolario etimologico della lingua italiana (in Italian), Rome: Albrighi & Segati has a more convoluted origin.
As far as I understand (it uses terms that aren't very clear to me):
- guindolo (“winder of silk”) => ghindolo in Tuscan dialect
- it corrupted standard Italian agghindare (“to dress up”) into agghingare in Tuscan dialect.
- A ghinghero is like a nice/fine piece of clothing, from agghingare.
- in ghingheri also used in Italian means "in fine clothes"
Etymology 1 does not have a source and *aisk- definitely doesn't look right. -saph (user—talk—contribs) 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Derksen gives Proto-Indo-European *h₂eydʰ- for Lithuanian aiškus, though without mentioning Albanian. Exarchus (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks much like ultimately derived from Arabic عِشْق (ʕišq). The Turkish form that should have mediated the borrowing is irregular (aşk), but then I don't know much about what happened in detail to borrowings from Turkish into Albanian. –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Ety guessed as Hindi. What's their word for the plant? Also, would b interesting to see the other local names for it, and see if any resemble 90.174.3.200 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I had to guess, I would say it's from some Dravidian language's name for wild turmeric, such as Tamil கஸ்தூரிமஞ்சள் (kastūrimañcaḷ), or Malayalam കസ്തൂരിമഞ്ഞൾ (kastūrimaññaḷ)(in the derived terms at Malayalam മഞ്ഞൾ (maññaḷ)- see also
കസ്തൂരിമഞ്ഞൾ on the Malayalam Wikipedia.Wikipedia ml
See user talk:J3133 § on -ate. I have remade quite entirely the -ate page and categorized most of the lemmas that are part of it over the past few months and realize now how I should have brought up this talk earlier. This concerns the suffixation (here according to my views; otherwise the borrowing...) of Latin verbs with the verbal suffix -ate. Among other uses (if not uses, appearances) of it are through: inheritance through Middle English; anglicizing of Romance verbs; suffixation of a non-Latin verbal stem (in other words: in any other circumstance involving suffixation); back-formation; etc. . The gist of it is, whether we ought to analyze, as many other dictionaries do, verbs such as masturbate (the fortuitous verb which made me raise the point to @J3133) as directly borrowed from Latin perfect passive participles (masturbātus → masturbate) or as derivatives from the verbal root or "participial stems" (see the above talk for more) (masturb(or) + -ate → masturbate). I have followed the latter in my hundreds of edits and I will change the ones concerned according to consensus if needed. My explanation is to be read at the dicussion linked above, it might be a little convoluted, I can always try rewriting it. Saumache (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I realized that what I have said is flawed, especially through the authority of other verbs such as protect (1435) or applause which are early English borrowings, and borrowed directly from Latin participal stem, that in masturbate -ate is here not a suffix but reanalyzable as one. I guess the term "borrowing" just sounds off to me in this case, since we borrow a participle/adjective as a verb. I do maintain that the phrasings
- from masturbatus + -ate
- from masturbat- + -ate
are wrong and misleading. I would prefer such phrasing for any verb (even protect/applause) taken from Latin perfect passive participle: "derived/borrowed from Latin... (masturbātus/masturbāt-, the second as in the OED, accouting for the loss of inflectional endings), perfect passive participle of... (see { {af/m|en|-ate|id1=verb|pos1=verb-forming suffix}} for more/on how verbs have been derived from Latin participles)". Which is actually a phrasing I have used... (irradiate, create,...). And maybe accordingly, making the Etymology section at -ate (verb) more general or adding it to a "further etymology" section would be nice (I know the page may look a little scrappy). Thus, (still according to my volage self) verbs like masturbate are borrowings but can be reanalyzed as having been suffixed (contrary to protect and applause), hence the categorization.
Some specific verbs derived from Latin verbs are still to be analyzed as: root + -ate. e.g. ambiate since the Latin verb which it is derived from is of the 4th conjugation and by borrowing would give English ambit. The case is true for any non first conjugation Latin verb-derived English verb showing final -ate (except collate and other suppletives for obvious reasons). Such a case may even make me think the all thing over again, but I guess it simply is a matter of when lived and who was the word-coiner. Bref, I should stop trying to make language a perfect generative formula. Saumache (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)