User talk:Torvalu4

I don't think we can use it as a reference. As far as I know it hasn't even been decyphered yet... so how do we know it says that at all? —CodeCat 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I didn't realize how many competing decipherments there are. Torvalu4 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The preferred terms are Indo-Aryan and Greek. These are the terms established in the literature and widely understood, as opposed to Indic which is AFAIK never used in linguistic sense (Proto-Indic, really?) and Hellenic which is annoyingly pretentious. --Ivan Štambuk 06:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've seen both terms used in literature, I don't think it's really that rare. And 'Greek' doesn't distinguish between what we know as Ancient Greek, and the family of which it is a part. —CodeCat 10:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Greek is a family by itself, that contains no other languages other than Greek. We use ==Ancient Greek== as a cover header for all of the historical Greek dialects from antiquity to early modernity, except for Mycenaean which primarily due to its usage of a separate script (Linear B) is handled under its own header. --Ivan Štambuk 15:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ivan: Haven't you ever seen Middle Indic or Old Indic? Fortson, Mallory & Adams, Clackson, Baldi, for instance, all of which are major works on PIE, systematically use Indic, so please don't correct me on this again. I also agree with CodeCat about Hellenic, especially since Mycenaean & Anc. Gk are actually sister langs; pretension doesn't enter into it. Torvalu4 14:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The terms Middle Indic and Old Indic are ambiguous and can mean several things in the literature, just as the word Indic itself. Furthermore, they are irrelevant to my comment - I was referring to the family usually referred to Indo-Aryan, with proto-language usually referred to as Proto-Indo-Aryan. What we are listing as nodes in the ====Descendants==== section of the PIE appendix pages are the reconstructions of proto-langauges. The term Indo-Aryan is much more preferred to the term Indic when referring to the proto-language, in particular by specialists in the field (e.g. Alexander Lubotsky, George Cardona, Michael Witzel), as opposed to general reference work that you cite, so we should stick to it instead.

Mycenaean and Ancient Greek are not sister languages. Mycenaean is a Greek dialect which can be shown to have some isoglosses that separate it from all the other, much later attested, Ancient Greek dialects. But it's Greek nevertheless. The term Hellenic itself carries the unnecessary aura of intellectual posturing which we should strive to avoid. It's obscure, barely known and misleading. Just stick to the usual Greek please. --Ivan Štambuk 15:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but your argument isn't convincing about Indic. First, there's nothing ambiguous about the word Indic; it's straightforward. Indo-Aryan, on the other hand, can also refer to Dardic/Nuristani (cf. Cardona), is racially charged, and makes a useless distinction (i.e., not Indo-Dravidian, which is a foregone conclusion). Second, the node labels refer to IE subgroups, not to protolanguages (otherwise they would be prefaced by proto-); it's simply a convenient place to list protoforms. Third, even if they did, it doesn't change the fact that Indic is a valid label, and that what you're really talking about is a split usage where both terms are commonly used, neither "preferred" over the other. My point is that you have no business editing only on the basis of terminological correctness. The facts that Lubotsky is somewhat outdated and that Witzel is not so much a philologist as an expert in Indian studies & lit. do not lend credit to your assertion. In any event, comparativist reference work, especially of the magnitude of the above-listed authors and of the kind that is virtually identical to an appendix page, deserves just as much merit as any indologist's.

As for Hellenic, it isn't misleading (just the opposite), and the intellectualism you attach to it is quite frankly unfounded. Because Mycenaean is not the precursor of Anc. Gk, or of any of its dialects, it's not actually Greek in the strictest sense of the word. This is a matter of terminological precision. However, since it is in fact commonplace to use the term "Greek" to encompass Mycenaean, I'll concede on this point. Torvalu4 16:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indo-Aryan and Greek are what we use here, period, end of story. Now can we all quit bitching and do something useful, please? — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your contributions in etymologies. Please add {{rfscript|Armenian}} to entries with Armenian cognates, so I can find them and add the script. Also, note the formatting I did to verzë. --Vahag 15:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Torvalu4 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another thing, when using {{etyl|obt}} in a Breton section, please use {{etyl|obt|br}}, otherwise the template places the word in Category:English terms derived from Old Breton, which is of course false. For {{proto}}, please use lang=br, such as {{proto|Celtic|root|lang=br}}. Thank you. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Torvalu4 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you please put glosses within the {{term}} template and not outside it. Have a look at Template:term for more details about how this works. You can customise your own system to display this however you like by going to WT:PREFS. Ƿidsiþ 15:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You added length signs to the descendands of *jagonan. You did this with Middle Low German...There were two kinds of long A in GML. Ā, which merged with Ō, and Â, which did not. (But merged with Ā a few hundred years later.) Do you separate them?Dakhart 01:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I meant to answer this a long time ago. In this case, I simply followed the form the word had been cited elsewhere. Torvalu4 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't find this, only लोमाश (lomāśa) and लोपाशिका (lopāśikā). Did you mean one of these? — [Ric Laurent] — 00:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The second (lopāśikā) is a diminutive (and therefore related) but the first is unrelated. The word (minus -ika) is cited in just about every PIE book there is, and I know it's listed on the U of Chicago's Skt Dic. (not in Devangari, oddly enough). Keep trying. Torvalu4 00:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm unconcerned either way, was just wondering :P — [Ric Laurent] — 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Swiss" is not a language name in English. Which language did you mean? --EncycloPetey 05:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Swiss German. Torvalu4 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello! There are enough sources, even though older, which derive Old French biche from the Old English. Do you have an alternate source? Leasnam (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Every modern French general and etymological dictionary derives biche < OFr bisse < Lat bestia; considering the word means "doe", I'm not sure why anyone would've ever proposed OE bicca. Bichon (which is not related) is an aphetic form of barbichon < dim. & blend of barbet 'spaniel' + barbiche 'goatee' < both from barbe 'beard'. Print: von Wartburg, Picoche, and Dauzat/Dubois/Mitterand; Web: Wiktionnaire, Tresor de la langue francaise informatisee [1]; additionally for bichon, in English OED & Random House. Torvalu4 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

If I may jump in here... The derivation doesn't really seem to fit, because it goes against regular sound laws. Old French -ss- regularly becomes modern -ss- as far as I know, so a change -ss- > -ch- would be very irregular. And linguists tend to regard irregular sound changes with a lot of suspicion. So to me, a Germanic derivation is more likely than a Latin one. The same for 'bichon' as well; it seems to fit *bikjōn perfectly in the form that it would have had in Frankish. But we'd have to find other loans with Frankish -kj- > French -ch- to confirm this. —CodeCat 01:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is discussed in the above sources; -ss- > -ch- is common in northern dialects (Norman, Picard, Walloon), and probably spread from there into mod. Fr; see Tresor, s.v. "biche" (other forms are cited with this sound change). Bestia > bistia > bisse is regular. Assuming Frk > biche > bisse, how would you account for -ch- > -ss-? Also, the sound wouldn't have been -kj- in Frank. (PGmc *bikjō > Frk *bikka; which would not give -ch- in OFr), the semantics don't make any sense (whereas Eng itself has the sem. shift deor "animal" > deer "cervid"), and biche has cognates in other Romance lang.s (though with different meanings; e.g. Italian biscia "garter snake", Span bicho/bicha "fantastic animal", Portg bicho "bug, grub", bicha "vermin"). This word's etym. is quite settled in the litterature. Torvalu4 (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and about bichon, please consult the sources. The history of the word is well documented, and bichon isn't attested until 1588, has a masc. diminutive suff. -on (which isn't etymological), and is not related to biche. Torvalu4 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It seems very probable that we are talking about the possible conflation of two words: one from Latin bestia "savage, wild animal, beast" (> bisse <<idem>>), and another possibly mingled with *bikja, either Frankish or Old English in origin. Old Northern biche is probably a blend of the two, as--despite the grammatical gender--has specificity on "female" (animal) as opposed to a deer in general. I'm not sure if the sense-shift from "savage beast" borne by bestia, bisse (1135) could have so radically softened to a near-antonym of sorts in so short a time to hind, female deer (1160), WITH the form change without assistance from another similar sounding word. Leasnam (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't pretend to understand the full history of French... But the sound would have been -kkj- in Frankish. *bikjōn would have become *bikkjō/bikkja. The -j- wasn't lost until later, after the gemination of the -k- and after the Franks took hold of Gaul (Old Saxon and some early Old High German sources still write it). —CodeCat 12:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're right; -j- must've been present, because it very specifically blocked -ch-; consider Gmc *krukjo > Frank *krukkia > Fr crosse "crook; crozier"; Gmc *wrakjo > Frank *wrakkia > Fr gars "guy, fellow". Torvalu4 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The sense of biche = "doe" is not the one being added here, unless it is a conflation with the OFr word biche = "bitch, female dog", which I believe is unlikely. More likely biche (= "doe") is a product or conflation of another root *bikka, *bukkô? ("she-goat"), in which case it would belong on another page (there is also ibex to explain this; cf. OFr ibiche). However, biche (= "bitch, female dog") does certainly warrant inclusion (perhaps this sense is archaic or obsolete these days?). Chronology makes bichon from barbichon improbable if not impossible, as barbichon (1694) is attested later than bichon (1588). Therefore, bichon = OFr biche + -on (dim suffix?) to form a new word. OFr biche is usually regarded as a loan (via Norman) of the Old English word, which given the form, meaning, and cultural relationship is extremely probable. Leasnam (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It looks as though you're trying to re-invent the wheel here, probably because you're not reading the sources (that you asked for). The word biche doesn't occur with the meaning "dog" - not in OFr or mod. Fr; whatever you've been reading has mis-glossed the word; the word is only ever applied to the doe right from its first attestation (as bisse). Ibiche? Bikka? You can't be serious. There's no *bikk- form even in Gmc, and bukkaz (masc.) gave bouc "he-goat" (notice no change in meaning), there's no fem. in Gmc to lend or "conflate" with, and a spontaneous fronting of ou > i doesn't occur in Fr; this could've only given **bouche (but never bisse). But, if you want to go the *bukko route, that would argue against being related to Gmc *bikjo. Ibex wouldn't have given **ibiche (more likely **ivoi, fem. **ivese (cf. lex > OFr lei > Fr loi), not to mention it refers to a mountain goat found far away from where French originated. You're nowhere near "dog" or bikjo at this point. The first attest. of barbichon is 1587 (Tresor/von Wartburg), by the way. Your scenarios are phonetically implausible. Just a reminder, biche has firm cognates in major Romance lang.s which all have meanings for diff. animals, none of which come close to "dog". You, like CodeCat, still haven't addressed the alternation bisse ~ biche, which could only come from *-sC-; even the transitional spelling bische is attested (!), which implies the sound went from -ss- directly to -ch- /sh/ without an intermediary /tch/. Aside from grasping at straws, can you offer any actual evidence? Torvalu4 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

My mistake: the words bisse ~ biche apparently referred to "animal" in a general sense in some instances and appear in modern dialects in either form referring to an assortment of animals, though never "dog". They include the robin (bisse: Saintonge, la Rochelle), certain insects (biche, esp. the stag beetle [wonder why?]), etc. This just doesn't jibe with bikjo / "dog". Torvalu4 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

1). "The word biche doesn't occur with the meaning "dog" - not in OFr or mod. Fr"--there are a ton of sources on the internet that withspeak this. It may not be a standard Modern French word, but it is Old French (and possibly modern regional). I am not going to belabour or waste time finding them for you. A simple Google search will help you. 2). "whatever you've been reading has mis-glossed the word"--and your credentials...? "Ibiche? Bikka? You can't be serious." --no, I can't, but others can. The form *bikk- as a mutated form from bukk- is postulated in a well known French source (Google it), and Old French ibiche is an actual attested word ("chamois"), from ibex. I will not concern myself further with biche = "doe". That is another matter not connected to the PGmc root at hand. Until you can prove to me that OFr biche "bitch, dog" didn't exist, I stand firm. "The first attest. of barbichon is 1587 (Tresor/von Wartburg), by the way." Incorrect. CNRTL has the first attestation date of 1587 as "probable" (in order to make the bichon (1588) derivative possible). There is no actual citation to substantiate barbichon at 1587. First true cite is 1694. This is why I am a bit leery about this particular source instance: it begins with a conclusion, and then works backward to make it true. Leasnam (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to be of no help, but the "nouveau dictionnaire étymologique" (1996) doesn't list biche at all. What is it we're supposed to be citing, bisse to mean female dog? That's gonna be hard, as likely in any citation, the "doe" meaning will be as possible as the "bitch" meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! No, we are looking for Old French biche to mean "bitch, female dog"; and also possibly Modern French biche to mean the same; and you are correct, it will have to be a very specific context use to be able to discern whether it means "doe" against "female dog". Leasnam (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just to point out as well, Old French includes Anglo-French. Leasnam (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

According to the Croatian Language Portal (Hrvatski jezični portal), the entry for the Serbo-Croatian term kopile lists the etymology of the word as having been borrowed from the Albanian word kopil, meaning servant, bastard.

The following is from what I understood from bg:копеле:

• Albanian: kopil - young boy, servant; bastard
• Ossetic: хъæбул (qæbūl), хъæбол (qæbol) - child
• Greek: κοπέλι (kopeli) [Cretan dialect] - child
• Romanian

  copil - child

  copilaş - illegitimate son

  copilă - illegitimate daughter

• Serbo-Croatian: kopile - bastard
• Slovene: kopyl' [dialectal] - bastard
• Turkish: kopil - rascal, bastard

Interesting to note:

• Polish: kopył - hoof
• Lower Sorbian: kopoło, kopuło [dialectal], koṕeło [standard] - corral hoe

  More research concluded the following:

  asl. (?) - *kopelo, *kopolo

  vgl. os. (?) - kopoł

  Polish - kopuła [dialectal]

  dr.-polb. (Polabian?) ḱüpol

  Kashubian: koepuła

• Polabian: ťüpål - hoe (= *kopъlъ)
• Russian

  копыл (kopyl) - stake (piece of wood), sled stand; hoe

  копылок (kopylok) - stone (pit) (of a fruit)

• Belarussian: капыл (kapyl) - stand; hoe, pickaxe

The latter forms would make sense to derive from *kopylъ / *kopъlъ, which generally come from *kopati

I therefore conclude that copil and the pan-Balkan variations do not derive from a common South Slavic root *kopylъ and ultimately not from *kopati as it would not make sense, but instead perhaps from Sarmato-Scythian, like Albanian cjap, as seen through Ossetic. Cheers! --Gentijan (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Browsing through the internet, I seemed to have stumbled upon another theory. Perhaps the term ultimately derives from Greek, as witnessed here: http://cretafan.gr/lexiko/kopeli Essentially, it says κοπέλι (kopeli) derives from the Mycenaean Greek term κοπέλιν (kopelin), which is a hypocoristic of του κοπέλα (tou kopela). Now, while browsing the WordReference Forum, I found a post which contained the following:

«κοπέλα» (ko'pela, f.); from the Byzantine «κοπέλιν» (ko'pelin, n.)-->the young manservant + feminine suffix «-α». The young unmarried woman (common).

The Byzantine Greek term κοπέλιν seems to coincide with that of Mycenaean Greek. Now, according to the terminology used in bg:Копеле, the Albanian term kopil is given to mean "young boy, servant". The term κοπέλιν means young boy. In spite of all this, we cannot fully determine the true etymology of the term copil, at least in my opinion. Clearly it is a substratum word given that every language in the Balkans has some form of it in their respective languages. --Gentijan (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see errors up there. Wherever you're getting your information isn't sufficiently trustworthy if, for example, it defines copilaş as bastard. Browsing through the internet isn't the best way to get your sources. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Gentijan: I agree with Ric Laurent: online resources aren't very trustworthy. Anyway, I don't understand how you could to your conclusion. The word is widely attested in Slavic (all the way to Russia) with rather different meanings "hoe", etc., which incidently has a lot to do with digging/cultivation (kopati), so this proves it comes from Slavic, not somewhere else. Ossetic obviously borrowed from Slvc. (Russ?), just like Albanian, Greek, & Romanian, all of which are situated around Slvc countries. The words in Alb-Gk-Rom clearly don't derive from any words or roots in those languages. The "theory" about Myc *kopelin being a "hypocristic" of modern Greek "tou kopela" is pretty absurd: Myc Gk predates (by several centuries) even Ancient Gk, which I might add didn't have an article (in other words, tou didn't mean "the" like it does now) - in fact that's not what a hypocristic is. Kopelos doesn't appear until Byz Gk, i.e. the Middle Ages - so the word just popping up is hard to imagine considering how extremely well Gk is attested. Sorry, but you're way off base here. You can read more about it in Orel (Alb Etymological Dictionary) and DEX'98 (dicionarul explicativ al limbii romane). Torvalu4 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

According to the Croatian Language Portal (Hrvatski jezični portal), the entry for the Serbo-Croatian term čuka lists the etymology of the word as having been borrowed from the Albanian word çukë, meaning peak. Cheers! --Gentijan (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The transliteration of the Greek upsilon is English Y - therefore υ > y, ύ > ý. See also Wiktionary:Greek transliteration.  :) — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

There was also an Old French escruve, borrowed from Old Dutch which meant "screw" in the Germanic sense, and I have no doubt that this is probably where English derives its sense. The Occitan word is probably a borrowing of the French. As for the Sicilian scrufina, that looks like a completely independent (and perhaps parallel develpment) which does not go back to a Latin source-term; or again may be a borrowing of French usage (or based on folk-etymology). Leasnam (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

First, escruve is described as "northeastern OFr" ([2]), which clearly writes it off as a localized loan from MIDDLE Dutch, and could not be related phonetically to escroe: o < stressed ō & loss of intervocalic -f- indicate *scrō(f)a; whereas escruve < *scru/ū(p/b/v)a. Second, phonetically, Occitan escrofa cannot be a borrowing (compare Provençal escrou "nut" (< MFr escrou(e)) vs. escoufa "screw on a wine-press" (< escrofa)). Calabrese scrufina is naturally from < *scrof(a) + -ina (with regular o > u); neither language would randomly add an -f- as a hiatus-filler (from escroe), or, if theoretically from *escruve, would have -uva. These words are clearly reflexes of the original Latin etymon (along with Ital scrofa "sow", Romanian scroafă "id."). As for being "borrowings" of "French usage", I'm not sure you realize that that would imply Occitan-spkrs & Calabrese-spkrs would have to (1) be already aware of the etymology of French écrou and (2) to already believe it came from Lat scrōfa, which is preposterous. Instead, in both cases, the words had to have been formed when Lat scrofa meant "screw". A folk-etymology? In what way? Torvalu4 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Using Occitan as a way to argue against "not found in other Romance languages" is somewhat akin to using Scots to substantiate a Gmc etymon for an English word (--maybe a bit of a stretch, but you see my point...). What is the date of creation for scrufina? How long has it been around? (I'm honestly curious to know) Is it a word that derives from the Roman-Era Latin usage of scrofa to mean "nut"? If so, why has it so completely disappeared from the whole of Romance, save this small enclave as a dialectal Italian word and a Gallo word? (these are useful for comparative purposes, but in no way should be regarded as cognate terms--I am not directing this at you personally--I understand this is not your own orignal research. I have seen this in other places as well.) "Northeastern" France is the area nearest to England, and best represents where the word was probably taken from. So we might need to be looking at the NE French term rather than the other as the true source of ME scrue. The Occitan word **can** indeed be a borrowing, via the Middle Latin word, ultimately taken from Old French (where the f would have been "restored" in its proper Latin form). This was the usual vehicle of transporting OFr words to other (Romance) languages in those days. Bad thing for us today, when that occurs, it makes it appear as inheritance. Leasnam (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Read about Occitan. You'll find its sister language is Catalan, not French, so that's a false analogy. As for scrufina, I neglected to mention it's a suffixed form of scrufa "sow", so definitely not a borrowing, and assuming scrufa never had the meaning "screw", it could result from the same analogy being made, just later, like Sp puerca/Pg porca. Although, if the latter scenario were true, one wonders why no language (including Calab.) used troia for this (Calab. has both words). "Why has it disappeared"? Don't play dumb: you know all about singular conservatisms and how every language usually retains a handfull of words that none or few of its sister languages have retained from an earlier period. How about: Why did Italian retain scrofa with the meaning "sow" when virtually every other language on the Italian peninsula has troia? Classic misdirection. Next, it's not NE France, but NE Old French (there's a difference), which is the area closest to ... Dutch-speaking Flanders, and no mod. NE patois (Picard, Walloon, Lorrain) has a -uve ending; even if one did, that would be irrelevant because, once again, escroe and escruve are not phonetically related. Now, if the Occitan word was a ML borrowing, theoretically "restored", that would be back to scrofa, which is clearly not a latinization of scruva and would, again, imply someone already knew it came from scrofa in the first place. You've just argued in a circle and in my favor. And the main mode of borrowing was by oral loans (remember: low literacy rate, and Lat was the commonest lit. lang.). Torvalu4 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You make it seem as if I said OFr escroue does not derive from scrofa but from escruve. Where did I say that? Leasnam (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That was your stance before my edits (wrong), and, if you actually believed escroue < scrofa, you wouldn't have reverted my version in the first place (wrong), since what I wrote doesn't contradict OFr escroue < scrofa. Marginalizing escrofa/scrufina, mentioning escruve when it plays no part in the etymology of E screw, finding a way to re-add Gmc despite its irrelevancy(wrong), and adding language of doubt and inconsistencies are all implied rejections of the etym: ME screwe, scrue < M/OFr escroue < L scrofa. Some of what you said (in your revisions) makes me think you don't understand that: (1) a nut is the same thing as a female screw (wrong); (2) this is the sense of scrofa, escrofa, scrufina, and escroe; (3) escruve, described simply as a "screw", hence presumably a male screw, shows that it's unrelated semantically and from MDu (which is a borrowing from Romance), not Frank (anachronism; would not have come into France with this word already given the screw's history). But now that you agree, I'll edit down your massive version. Torvalu4 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC

You really shouldn't think you know what others think, that's called assuming, and you know what happens when one assumes. You are utterly (and quite sadly) , totally wrong in your estimations. Leasnam (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The English word doesn't have the meaning of "male screw" because the Old French word meant "Male screw and/or female screw (nut)". The coincidental occurance of the Spanish bi-sense is a weak argument (though it shows that this can possibly occur), but it does not prove that is the case with the English word. The Germanic forms do count as relevant, as their words are near identical in form and meaning to the English, where the Old French is similar only in form. Leasnam (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

So, screw doesn't mean "male screw"?! I suggest you read the dictionary or go to a hardware store. And for the meaning in earlier English, you're contradicted by the OED. The French word meant and means "female screw" only (any Fr dict). If you're relying only on Eng material, which uses "screw" indifferently, then I can understand how you'd be misinformed. Sp & Pg isn't coincidental at all, but that's neither here nor there; it's inclusion shows the underlying metaphore is specific to Romance languages, and for the average reader, not as unique or unimaginable as one might've thought. As for Gmc, if we both agree a M/OFr word from Lat underlies Eng, then Gmc is irrelevant; if it isn't, you so far haven't stated how it's relevant. And Gmc isn't identical with Eng (see, here again, it sounds like you're denying that E screw < OFr < L). So, where does Gmc fit in? And how is this not your own hypothesis? Torvalu4 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

(1) Okay, something is wrong with either the way I am typing or the way you are reading because you are reading everything to mean the opposite of what I am saying. Please stop! Let's start over. The English word screw comes from Middle English scrue "(male) screw". From there, the form looks like OFr escroue "(female) screw", but the meaning (as well as the form) looks like OFr escruve "(male) screw". This is what I am saying. Period. Hopefully you are not being difficult in order to be disruptive. Leasnam (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

(2) Okay, I think I see the disconnect. It is my style of argument which may be throwing you off, because I state things rhetorically, like <<The English word doesn't have the meaning of "male screw" because the Old French word meant "Male screw and/or female screw (nut)".>> What I mean by the foregoing sentence is (in plain, direct speech): We mean "male screw" when we say screw. Old French means "female crew" only when they say escroue; Old French escroue did not mean both "male" and "female" screw. Therefore, we did not get the meaning from the Old French word. Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

(3) You are taking things too literal, and this is why I think you are confused by what I am saying. I will try to be less confusing. Leasnam (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

(4) If OFr escroue meant both "male" and "female" screw, I would have no issue with the ME word deriving wholly from it because speakers could have chosen one sense over the other. But because it does not carry the "male" sense, we cannot assume that ME speakers arbitrarily flipped it, which make no sense. Leasnam (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Careful: after four posts one after the other, you're actually talking to yourself. A tip: stop being rhetorical. Responding to what you said earlier, you're wrong about the form; the earliest attestation (1404) has scrwe (to be read obviously as s-k-r-u-ə, nearly identical to M/OFr escroue [ɛskruə]), with the -ew- (not a -v-) added in the next attestation (1497) as another way of writing -u- (compare dew, flew, etc.), so the form doesn't look like escruve. As for the meaning, it's hardly a stretch to go from "female screw" to "male screw": the fact a nut can be called a female screw is proof of that, or in Thai (deprecated template usage) เกลียว (glieow) "nut, wood screw". Plus, it's precisely what happened when Romance > MLG/MDu/MHG (Pfeifer, EWN, Chambers). In any case, without any proof beyond a personal suspicion (who else has ever suspected this?), it's "pesonal research" and doesn't warrant mentioning. No one has to convince you; the burden of proof is on you. You need to let it go. Torvalu4 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will stop being rhetorical. I do not like scrwe and I have been avoiding using it. Scrue is a modernised normalisation/representation of it, and is not necessarily "wrong". Scrwe is unsightly to me. Add it if you like, it is a correct form. Whether a change from "female" to "male" in sense is difficult or not is a matter of speculation. All we are certain of is that our word screw comes from Middle English. That's it. Beyond that it remains open. All we can do is provide suggestions as to where it may have come from. Personally, I believe there was input/influence from Germanic. The v does not bother me. v changes to w often in ME (chavel > jowl; lovel > lowell, havok > hawk, laverke > lawerke, loverd > lourd, etc.). It is not certain that Romance contributed the word to Germanic. Sources disagree on this. I will not let it go because people need to make their own conclusion based on all information, and decide for themselves. Inclusion of the Germanic forms for comparison is not unique to me; it is featured in several dictionaries. Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

But none of those dicts. are recent, are they? Scrwe vs. scrue is a non-issue. Fine, scrwe it is, but the normalization to -ue tells you something about what the normalizers know about the word's pronunciation that you don't seem to grasp. It's only a mystery if you don't get the phonetics involved. That's why you don't see that, leaving aside scrwe, if you take a very literalist reading of skrewe, where w is from v, then that means u > e, which is totally unexplainable. Either -ew- is a unit standing in for -u-, or it's vowel e + consonant w, which fits even worse. There's no real speculation to be done here; phonetically, it could've only happened one way. You've made it abundantly clear that you think it's from Gmc - somehow - (which is a problem you have beyond screw), but that view isn't warranted. The linchpin is escruve, an obvious borrowing from MDu, which did not survive the OFr period (and as far as I know, is attested once). As for Romance > Gmc, it's completely irrelevant, because Gmc is irrelevant to the history of the Eng word. Presenting fake ambiguities isn't going to do it. So, until you see reason, I guess we're at an impasse? Torvalu4 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

We will leave it where it's at now then. Information from both yours and mine is clearly and equally represented. There is no need to tweak it further. Leasnam (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was just curious as to why you are changing all the words which were presumed to be "substratum" Balkanic terms in Romanian and making them definitely as "borrowings" from Albanian. Of course, I don't have any problem with stating that as a possible or even probable etymology but completely erasing the old alternative ones is unnecessary I think. I mean I wasn't aware there was any new consensus that these words are now all certainly borrowings, and there may be some bias here. Some dictionaries, some based on older ones, did give some of them Albanian etymologies but those aren't the only ones, and I don't see why the other ones, still from many credible Romanian dictionaries, should be totally discarded, especially considering that many words on Wiktionary have various possible etymologies when it's unclear. I was also wondering how exactly Romanian would have borrowed so many words from Albanian if the two people weren't in direct contact for much of history. It seems just as plausible to me to be a common paleo-Balkan source, or in some cases a South Slavic source, or even that Albanian borrowed some of the words itself from the local Vlach/Aromanian or Proto-Romanian being spoken in the area. Of course the reason differs from word to word based on the individual case and some are quite likely to be borrowings or linked to Albanian than others. And since Albanian wasn't attested early in history, how can we know exactly what proto-Albanian would have been like? Was the Romanian borrowed from that early "proto" stage or later after the language formed and became what it was? Many of these words are very basic elementary words that are deeply ingrained in the Romanian language, so I can't see them as late borrowings of any kind in general.

I already brought this up in the Etymology Scriptorium page here if you wanted to discuss it more.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium#Romanian_.22substratum.22_word_etmyologies_and_Albanian_cognates

Thanks Word dewd544 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Many were settled in the DEX'98 (in Romanian), for instance, and are treated by Orel (1998) and DuNay (1977; reprint 1996) just to name the more accessible sources. It's important to be familiar with recent litterature; keep in mind, some of the Albanian etymologies have been proposed since before the 20th century. Many of the alternate etymologies proposed appear in the DER (in Romanian, 1958-66) but are rather outrageous conjecture that are phonetically and semantically implausible, which is why they're generally not mentioned in later dictionaries or other later specialist works. Sticking to out-of-date material might be why you think more words are "unclear" than they really are.
• As for the "substratum", a lot of words have been attributed to it, but that list has shortened dramatically as research advances and linguists have gotten a better handle on the historical phonetics involved. Leaving aside identifying which language is the substratum, it's important to note that etymologies and historical phonetics exist for the Albanian language, and so when the Romanian words of Albanian origin are compared with what we know about Albanian, and seeing how close they are, it is no longer possible to say that X in Romanian comes from substratum Y related to Z in Albanian. This can be seen by comparing Latin words in Romanian and Albanian. It's easier to take this on a word-by-word basis, which I could do if you have some in mind.
• As for the rest of your question, that's an extremely thorny problem. There are 2 general theories about the history of the Romanian language: (1) the theory of continuity, which states that the Romanian-speaking peoples are natives to Romania and have always been there, and the Aromanians, etc. are migrants; and (2) the migration theory, stating that the Romanians migrated into Romania from the Balkans. I don't know what your exposure has been to either or both theories, but the second explains how & when the Romanians would have been in contact with the Albanians (around 9th cent.-12th cent.). With Romanians, only the 1st is accepted, but outside Romania, it's usually the 2nd. Torvalu4 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am well aware of the "Rösler theory" but I don't think it's the most commonly accepted in general, even outside of Romania; some believe it, and many who hold that view are objective, but it is also commonly advocated by others with a political agenda, especially among some academics in Hungary for example due to the issue of Transylvania, but that's another story. There are many problems with both sides but this isn't the place for them. (I personally think proto-Romanian may have formed on both sides of the Danube, since Vlachs in general are a widespread people, but how they reached their present state, including Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians, is a bit more unclear; could be the Slavic migrations separated what was more of a unified Romanian speaking sphere, but I don't know) The problem is, how would one know how exactly the relationship worked at a time when there were no records of either language? Can you really call the presumed "substratum" language Albanian at the time, if this was, say, at least before the 12th century (which is when I hear most propose the "migration" of Vlachs into Romania from the lower Balkans/Illyria area)? Maybe it was just one of several closely related pre-Slavic Balkan-wide languages that survived, rather than being the sole representative for all of them. Or do you think there are no traces of the language Romanians spoke before being Latinized, and that most of the ones shared with Albanian are borrowed from it later? If you are proposing they came from an area near Albanians, how can we be certain that these words weren't remnants of a language that happened to be very close to what Albanian was at the time that somehow survived the Latinizing factor earlier in history, rather than being actually from Albanian? Some people who believe the migration theory go as far as saying that the proto-Romanians themselves were basically Albanian-type people who were Latinized, but I'm not sure how true that is...

I guess we can't get too far in discussing a topic that we can only hypothesize about with the knowledge we have now, but would you say that just residing in an area near where Albanian speakers were meant that they would absorb some basic words from them like for "shore" and such? It's not like Albanian was a language of prestige or anything, so it's hard to say why this would have happened. Maybe through trade and such, but the vocabulary doesn't seem oriented to that domain of life too much, rather in many cases the cognates refer to things like animals, physical topography, or just various things in nature. Rather different types of words than the Slavic influence on Romanian, which often affected more abstract domains like love, marriage, emotion, as well as many religious terms due to Old Church Slavonic. Slavic speakers were much more widespread than Albanian ones, and I can see why their cultural influence would have become important. Also if you say it's the 9th-12th centuries, that would have been after the Slavic migrations to the Balkans; it would be interesting to compare the layers of Slavic influence on Romanian, as from what I understand it came in more than one wave of borrowings, some from an early proto-Slavic (which if the migration theory were true, may correspond to the time early Romanaians may have been near Albanians, and some from Bulgarian and such later; comparing Romanian and Albanian words that are both of Slavic origin like balta/dalta/copil may be useful in this context also).

And from what I hear it's still uncertain as to whether it was Illyrian or a proposed "Daco-Mysian" language that was an ancestor to Albanian, or something else entirely. As I'm not too familiar with the deep history of Albanian in the distant past, are the proto-Albanian terms compared to the scant traces of Illyrian found? I have read that what is considered Albanian (or its ancestor) was probably more widely spoken in the southern and western Balkan area than it is today, with some areas only being Slavicized relatively recently within the last five centuries or so, but would that be why even some South Slavic languages have traces of words originally from Albanian?

Oh, and regarding Albanian and Romanian words both from Latin; they often seem rather different when comparing the two, so this may indeed indicate that the people did not come from the same origin and received Latin influence at perhaps different times. I read Albanian preserves some of the pronunciation of classical Latin around the time of Augustus, while Romanian underwent the phonetic changes of Vulgar Latin that were mirrored or paralleled in the Western Romance languages in their own way. Some have proposed that Albanians, contrasted with Romanians, were only "impartially" Latinized, but I don't think that's the case either. They just seemed to have absorbed some terms from the era when they were under the rule of the Roman empire, but didn't affect grammar or the inherent structure of the language as it did with Romanian.

But the fact that a Balkan "sprachbund" exists even with some of the Slavic languages seems to mean that there was some commonality between these languages, pointing to a possible common origin; I didn't think you could really "borrow" grammatical aspects and such from other languages just by being in contact with them; vocabulary is another thing.

Word dewd544 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• You wrote a lot, and it's too much to respond to. Suffice it to say, you didn't actually bring up any particular point about any particular entry... and if you don't, then you're not really trying to have a conversation about the edits. There's too much above to deal with, but be careful: your "belief" or what you've "heard" aren't good arguments for or against something. For instance, grammatical features can be borrowed - this happens in most languages at some time or another. Any introductory text on linguistics will tell you that.
• I'm really not interested in rehashing the continuity/migrationist debate, but you make some troubling statements above. Let me just say that the Romanians are just as politically biased as Hungarians in this debate, which is why it's best to (1) avoid it altogether, and (2) rely on materials that are not Romanian or Hungarian (when possible) to try to avoid their biases. That being said, most of the migrationist theory has really been written by Germans, not Hungarians (although Hungarians definitely use it).
• As for the difference btw. Albanian and Romanian, yes, Romanian is a full Romance language, whereas Albanian is not. But Albanian's lexicon borrowed heavily from Latin, specifically from the 1st-5th c.AD, and if this is also the departure point when common "substratum" words in Romanian and Albanian would've diverged, then we would expect those words to evolve the same way Latin words did in both languages; however, that is not the case. Plus, most of the Rom. words of Alb. origin are compounds, derivatives, or other obvious forms from Alb. that can only be explained by borrowing. Also, Albanian did borrow grammatical structures from Latin (simple past tense with "to have", etc.).
• Concerning Albanian generally, it's originated in what is today western Kosovo, northern Albania, & southern Montengegro. All that's been found of Illyrian is in placenames, and it's useless; there's just too little of it. The same really applies to all other paleo-Balkan languages, except possibly for Thracian, which doesn't agree with Albanian. Albanian, or Proto-Albanian, was certainly not the substratum of Romanian. All we can really be sure of is that the 2 languages were in contact at some time during the Middle Ages, and that this must've taken place in the Balkans. Both the Romanians and Albanians were traditionally semi-nomadic pastoralists, with the Romanians moving around the middle of the Balkan peninsula (that's where they're first attested, after all). This is an excellent spot from which the Daco-/Istro-Romanians could've moved north, and the A-/Melgeno-Romanians could move south.
• Ultimately, the history of the Romanians is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, there are words that were clearly borrowed from Albanian, and multiple sources agree on this. So, if you want to talk about a word in particular, we can, but if you don't, then we can't get anywhere. I'm sorry I didn't address everything, but it's just too much. Torvalu4 (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, but I will say that at least Wikipedia, Wiktionary's "sister project", presents both sides of the coin in the history section: both the continuity theory and the migration theory proposed by the German scholar. While on here you're basically only showing the side that agrees with the migration theory by saying these are all borrowings, which isn't objective. I mean it's one thing to pick which sides you want to support your viewpoint but I don't think the opposing side should just be ignored totally either. I agree that certain words are very likely to come from there, like for example viezure, while others are a bit more of a stretch and may be coincidental, like the thumbull one, among others. It would be nice to have more input from other users familiar with the languages as well, but I don't know how many there are on here.

And sorry I guess I stated that poorly about borrowing grammatical aspects. It does happen of course, but it usually implies a long time of close cohabitation and interaction, and Slavic may have had an impact on the "sprachbund" and Romanian gramatically as well. It's possible it may have hame some impact on Albanian? The confusing thing is why south Slav languages have some grammatical aspects shared with Albanian and Romanian; how would they have gotten aspects from Albanian, which was probably not widely spoken by that time? I'm guessing the old paleo-Balkan languages other than Albanian (and Greek) were mostly wiped out by the arrival of the Slavs to the Balkans due to the Latinization that had been occurring for centuries before. I assume many in the South Slav areas spoke a type of Eastern Romance akin to early or proto-Romanian before the advent of Slavic being brought there, which may have still had aspects of the old grammar? I know this isn't the most relevant to the discussion but I was just curious about it.

Btw, I wasn't really trying to argue or prove anything so much as just asking some questions about the situation that this process could have occurred in just to clarify some things that were unclear, that's all. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• First, I appreciate questions; just try to keep them in manageable chunks, otherwise it's impossible to answer in any kind of detail. Second, I didn't want to talk about the merits of either theory mainly because it leads to extended debates that really don't go anywhere. Even after this, it's STILL going on, without anyone really focusing on any particular words, which to me is a big red flag. On Wikipedia, when talking about general theories, detailed discussions are encouraged. But Wiktionary is a dictionary, and the etymologies have to be selective. For just one etymology (for any language), you could write an enormous paragraph on the sound changes involved, etc. But a dictionary has to be much more concise, and that seems to be the policy on Wiktionary. Keeping this in mind, I prefer to be concise (although others might disagree). That means removing the fluff.
• About my methods. I'm fairly well versed in Romance & Alb. hist. linguistics, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm not German or Hungarian, I don't have a grudge against Romanians, and I'm not on a crusade to prove one theory or another. I am on a crusade to add etymological material to Wiktionary for the languages that I know about. For me, deciding which etymology is likely depends on evaluating the sound-shape and semantics of the word, compared to the Alb. etymon & its history, contrasted with the other alternatives, and evaluating the recent scholarship. Considering that Romanian, no matter where it developed, was always surrounded by lots of different languages, it would be sloppy scholarship to write off Romanian words whose histories are not immediately apparent as from a (virtually) unattested substratum or onomatopoeic or whatever (since neither can really be verified). Doing that should be a last resort. Now, given the alternatives, in most (and I would say all) cases, an Alb. loan makes the most sense. And when the alternatives are so blatantly wrong or improbable, and are not entertained in later litterature, as is usually the case, then they should not be referenced. And that applies to science and scholarship in general. Otherwise, it looks like you're giving undue respect to something that doesn't deserve any. Trying to present things as if 3 or 4 possibilities are equally likely (or equally ambiguous) - as in the DER - is not scientific, and by pleading that I do the same, is certainly not unbiased. The fact that the writers of the DER wrote the articles the way they did implies they lacked the know-how to evaluate the theories on their phonetic/semantic merits. That's also part of the age issue. It's funny, but the same thing can be seen in the history of Eng. etymology, and at one time certain words (ship, wife, boat, shoe, etc.) were once attributed to a "substratum".
• Just a reminder, if you look in the DER - and to its credit it cites its sources - behind the Alb. propositions there's a string of Romanians behind it (usually Philippide, Rosetti, etc.), and when you add the DEX'98, you end up with a fairly Romanian phenomenon. Torvalu4 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to reopen this discussion, but I would like to address some issues.

Let me start off by apologising for insinuating that Word dewd544 would not receive a straight answer from you; the comment was unnecessary and I apologise.

Thanks. Apologies aren't easy, so I appreciate it.

• DER (1958-66) is still frequently used and referenced to, because it's based on linguistic studies from several linguists – regardless of nationality. Their findings are discussed, compared and scrutinised to produce a versatile understanding for the development of the Romanian language from a morphologic, semantic and phonetic point of view. DEX'98 on the other hand, is – as indicated by its name – an explicatory dictionary, which puts emphasis on the different meanings of words. DEX'98 has been criticised by experts for simplifying etymologies, depriving articles of more sophisticated linguistic discussions. One example of DEX'98's limitations is for instance the large number of terms considered having unknown origins e.g. băiat.

• Referencing DER for certain things - like I did for dialectal forms - makes sense. But for etymolgoies, and if it's systematic, is a sign of incompetence. As a rule, referring back to 50-yr old material (while ignoring verything that's been written since), is bad scholarship. Take Albanian: it starts with Meyer-Lubcke (late 1800s) > Cabej (60s) > Huld/Hamp (70s, 80s) > Demiraj/Orel (90s), and these will eventually become obsolete. It's the natural flow of things. As for DEX'98, you have to take the critiques with a grain of salt: if it's for being too concise (usually the formula din lang. x), then it is a bit, but if that really is just code for not copying the DER and not presenting words as if they were still open to debate, then it's unjustified. Just compare this to Eng. lang. dictionaries; there's only so much the average reader wants to know and the DEX'98 is concise in keeping with general dictionaries. As for the "unknown" bit, it's aggravating, but I think they did that because they couldn't decide and didn't want to devote lengthy portions to comparing and contrasting competing theories; that's apparently not the DEX'98's purpose. No dict. is perfect, obviously, but what you're not talking about is that the DER evenly targets Slavic, Romance, and Alb. words, indecisively presenting multiple alternatives, whereas the DEX'98 has taken a position on those same words. The difference is really about age and that, between the publishing of the two, a lot of open questions have been answered.

• My issue with your edits, is not what you're trying to say – it is that you deny readers the linguistic discussions surrounding different terms. I believe that Word dewd544 proceeded diplomatically (N.B. in accordance with Wiktionary's neutral point of view) by stating in edited articles that there are several theories as to the origins of e.g. sâmbure, viezure and mal – a coherent policy administered by Word dewd544 in every edited article. In no way was the importance of Albanian cognates disregarded in above mentioned articles. Why did you decide to remove the different nuances surrounding certain etymologies? Why is Vladimir Orel's Albanian Etymological Dictionary more acclaimed, taken into consideration that several of his works have been criticised for being based on mistranslations and dubious reconstructions?

• Wikt.'s neutrality policy does not mean you have to present all the alternatives that were written in one dictionary 50 yrs. ago. That's very inappropriate and careless scholarship. Frankly, Word dewd544's policy was to refer SOLELY to the DER, which is a big scientific no-no. The problem here is that in doing that, Word dewd544's edits (1) take scholarship back 50 yrs, (2) misrepresent the possibilities by mixing absurd alternatives with likelier ones, without explaining how some are nonsensical or absurd or impossible phonetically. That in itself is biased because it deliberately paints a picture that is less sure than is really the case. Suppose it were decided tomorrow that all the textbooks were re-edited so that they presented all the "possibilities" about whether or not the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, without talking about why either is right or wrong. Is that fair? Is that unbiased, or doesn't that actually deliberately misinform readers, who without any other knowledge, couldn't really decide one way or the other in any kind of rational way. Also, it's not the job of a dictionary to let the reader make up their own mind (!); on the contrary, a dict. is a ref. source meant to be authoritative and decisively inform. You've mixed Wikt. up with an encyclopedia.
• As for Orel, you can compare him to Demiraj who published a competing etym. dict. (unfortunately in German) a year before and agrees regarding Romanian. Certain Romanian borrowings have been agreed on since Meyer-Lubcke (in the Alb litt.), and in nearly every case Orel cites reference histories. Some words - like vjedhull - are clearly derivatives of other words in Albanian, or are from Latin, Slavic, etc., and developed in very characteristic ways, and Orel, for all his criticisms, can't get that aspect wrong; the problems with Orel are with the exact phonetic shape of his reconstructions between Proto-Albanian and Indo-European.

• The discussion about the origins of Romanians was uncalled for – it surprised me that it was mentioned at all, especially taken into consideration that this is a Dictionary project and surely no place to discuss ethnogenesis.

• I completely agree.

In conclusion, I respect the work you do with Albanian articles and your contributions to the Wiktionary project as a whole are valuable. However, understand that neither Word dewd544 nor I are inclined to abnegate the importance of Albanian cognates. Just keep in mind that a multifaceted approach to linguistics is necessary, particularly in cases when a lack of historic records makes designating etymologies difficult.

I agree about a multifaceted approach, and in particular one that builds off up-to-date scholarship, which is sadly not the case with Word dewd544's edits. That also means realizing that Albanian doesn't present cognates (Alb. & Romanian are not related), but rather potential loan sources. And even where historical records are missing, good comparative work using phonetics, semantics, and whatever else, can usually resolve most problems.

Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. Torvalu4 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Torvalu4! Are you certain that Old Frisian bāt was inherited from PGmc rather than borrowed perhaps from Old Enlgish? I am interested to know. Leasnam (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're probably referring to the vowel. OFris ā ~ ē < PGmc *ai is regular; other forms with ā: āga 'to have to', fāch 'outlawed', frāse 'danger', gāra 'skirt, gore', hār 'honorable' (< 'grey'), lāre 'teaching, doctrine', rāp 'rope', thā (nom/acc.pl) 'the', twā 'two', etc. Some words are attested with both ā and ē: ār(i)st/ēr(e)st 'first', klāth/klēth 'cloth', sāver/sēver 'spittle', etc. Torvalu4 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, I am wondering where Old Frisian *bāt is attested, or what the source of attestation is. Leasnam (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the word isn't attested, but I don't know on what grounds it's been reconstructed - probably mod. Fris. reflexes. There are some articles about it, but I don't have access to them (Wadstein/Fries, O. Rogby (1963), Rolf Bremmer (1993; 1997)). There's no phonetic reason to assume the word, as reconstructed, was borrowed from English. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Dutch forms were probably loaned from Middle English, so it's possible the same thing happened to Frisian. The change ai > ā is normal in some Frisian dialects (next to ai > ē in the others), but 'native' ā did not become ō in Frisian, it became ea. So the modern Frisian (deprecated template usage) boat can't be from Old Frisian. —CodeCat 20:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the reason I initially asked was because I've ever only seen *baitaz attested for OE and ON, and perhaps for Mnl, but never for Ofs. The reconstruction I would say is correct, however, there is no aftercomer, so it's beyond hypothetical, it's imaginary. If we leave it, we should asterisk it. Leasnam (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer it if we listed reconstructions only for intermediate forms that we know existed because they have one or more descendants. As a rule I only include Old Dutch words (for example) if Middle Dutch or Dutch are attested. —CodeCat 21:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Otherwise, we'd end up with a whole litany of forms which really amount to nothing more than guesses. Leasnam (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Just to let you know, a user has asked me about your recent Spanish edits, but I have raised the issue in the Tea Room because I'd like more Spanish-speakers and other knowledgeable editors to weigh in. you might like to comment in the discussion. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! "Dialectal form(s)" isn't a standard header; it's better to use ===Alternative forms=== and then specify that the form is dialectal, like so. (It's even better if you happen to know which dialects use the form and can supply that information.) - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

That layout style is more fitting for a standardized (or centralized) language, whereas with Basque, which is nothing but a collection of dialects, it's uneconomical because any "alternative" form is automatically dialectal. Specifying the dialect is also problematic, since a form often belongs to say 5 dialects all at once. While I'm all for detail, I'm not inclined to add that kind of detail on a "first run-through". I should also mention "alternative" is technically wrong, and is clearly meant for English or some other highly standardized language, where a word may present 2 standardized equivalents (e.g., the 2 Amer. pronunciations of route) that a speaker is free to switch between, i.e. alternatives, but in a language like Basque, they aren't "alternatives" in a standard, but purely regionally dialectal forms. Thanks though for the heads-up; I'll try to use the standard header (despite the fact it's inappropriate). Torvalu4 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, have you ever thought or heard about that template before? I used it on shqipe's etymology section. (On another topic, what will your BabelBox list?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don't add material to etymological sections if you don't even know what you're adding. You mentioned an Ancient Greek term here in lemma form whilst transliterating it in infinitive form, which suggests that you can't read Greek and didn't even check the entry. Please be more careful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What a strange thing to say since the very act of including the lemma form would indicate I can read Greek and that I did check the entry. Take your own advice. Torvalu4 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. If you can read Greek, then please ensure that your transliterations match the word in question. (Also, it'd be preferable if you could follow WT:GRC TR in your transliterations.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please stop changing the etymology of Albanian krah. The word is NOT a Slavic loanword, despite the resemblance. You can't base all your etymos on Orel's book. Please update yourself!! Huld, Demiraj, Lubotskij, de Vaan and even Pokorny consider the term to be Albanian, as both phonetics and morphology support. Thank you!!! Etimo (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

"please update yourself": that's advice you should be following, since Orel is the most up-to-date and you're referring to people who wrote before Orel. Pokorny (1950s), who is very outdated, was no Albanologist. Likewise for de Vaan, who did nothing but summarize Demiraj, and I don't believe Lubotsky has ever commented on krah. You've also jumbled together 2 distinct theories on the origin: kork- (Huld) vs. ḱruH- (Demiraj), which are not related to eachother, and the phonetics certainly do not support either idea (see edit comments). Saying the word "has probably been shaped after South Slavic kraj" is an obvious admission of that fact. If you want to discuss it in detail, I'm fine with that, but you'd better do your homework. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Albanian *krau, from Proto-Indo-European *ḱreh2u-,*ḱruh2-limb, phonetically and semantically very plausible. What I was referring to is 'krahine'-region, wich 'might' have been shaped after South-Slavic krajina although this is not certain as formations in -inë are very common in Albanian. Of what admission do you speak? As I have already stated, it is semantically quite odd for a part of the body to take up its name from a 'region/country' (perhaps with the exception of the languages of the same family among which the term developed a similar meaning), while the other way round seems to be reasonable, for example, as the words for measure units show in other languages. I would not endow someone who writes that Alb.fjale comes from Lat. fabula with such trustworthiness if I were you! Etimo (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not even remotely phonetically possible. For one thing, the -h is left unexplained. Also, there's no way to get mod. a: uh₂ > ū > mod. y (or i), and eh₂u > āu > ā > mod. o. In any case, only Demiraj proposes ḱreh₂u-, but this doesn't agree with the Latin and Armenian forms, so it's not valid. The meaning of the Slavic words is in fact "end, extremity", and in Bulg. "limb" (vs. "region/country" = the meaning of krajina/krahinë), so everything is better explained by a borrowing. Measurements aren't a part of any of this. I agree about fjalë, but you're mixed up: Orel is the one who writes that it comes from *spelā and is cognate with flas. Torvalu4 (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure? The h is very much explained instead, and you should know this, considering your good knowledge of Albanian phonetics. It is not *kra or *kraj it is krah where the h is clearly aspirated, and this cannot be explained with any Slavic borrowing!!! You would have had exactly *kraj, like in other Slavic languages! In fact, in reference to eh₂u > āu > ā > mod. o, which is the one for krah, the final h is explained with *krosko (common Albanian feature *-sko- > h), without which you would have trouble explaining the clearly aspirated h. Latin 'crus' agrees with ḱruh2-, while krah is not even linked to Slavic kraj but to Old Church Slavic грань 'branch'. I referred to measurement units, only to say that it is reasonable that a part of the body, being used as a measure unit (foot, inch, arm, fathom etc) might originate a word which means "region, area" as "specific delimited area" etc (like Alb. shpat-armstretch, which have also yielded toponyms, cf.Eng. fathom).

Yes I'm sure. You didn't actually explain where the -h came from. -sk- is a verbal ending, not a noun ending, and **kro would be an expected modern Alb. form (if from *ḱreh₂u-), which would not have -sko- added to it. In other words, **kro represents a possible modern form, but -sko- is an IE ending: you've joined together 2 elements from completely different time periods. So, at best, you might have *ḱreh₂u- + -sko- (although unlikely), and this would give **kroh. But the form is krah, with an a, so it still doesn't work. The history of the word also proves the sound was not originally an -h; Buzuku has krai, which then appears in dial. Gheg as krahi, where the -h- most likely appeared to break up the vowel hiatus (cf. dial. tuaf > stand. tuhaf "odd, eccentric", OAlb nae > dial. Gheg nahe "us"). Further, Slav. j > Alb h is found in other loanwords: Slav krajiti > Alb krahis, Slav lojŭ > Alb llohë, Slav postaja > Alb postahe. You missed my point: Lat/Arm do agree with *ḱruh₂- but don't agree with *ḱreh₂u-. OSl грань (granĭ) - did you spell this right? Where's the link? The meaning "region" is secondary and probably came about through "edge" > "border" > "border region" > "region", not using measurements. Either way, it's totally irrelevant. Torvalu4 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although you present a good argument about the h in Slavic borrowings (this has to be further explained, Gheg krahi doesn't exist, h in Albanian are etymological in nature, although they are often dropped), final -sk in Albanian does explain aspirated h, especially in front position. Krok-sko, for instance has yielded krakë in Albanian, meaning 'upper arm, shoulder', in my view a k enlargement of krah, which also further explains the proposed Palbanian form. Some examples: kreh<PAlbanian *krebska (very similar to krah),mih-to dig, mold< meik-sko, or with sk cluster in different position; ah<h₃esko in English ash, in front position hie< *sḱeh1-ieh2, or leh<leh2 reflected in Greek as lasko-cry, etc. This phenomenon is very present in Albanian, even in different phonetic conditions. About ḱreh₂u>*kroh (you have kroh in Gheg Albanian, especially in the Kosovo region and Macedonia), now I'm not even sure anymore if this is right. Only PIE ē and ā have yielded o in Albanian, while others are reflected as 'a' and 'e' (cf.krap<kreh₁po, also similar to krah, ), in almost all positions, so the form *kro seems unlikely to me, while krah>ḱreh₂u seems more possible.Etimo (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

First, *krok- & *ḱreh₂u- are two completely different roots; you have to pick one. Your examples with final -h (kreh, mih, leh) are verbs, which proves the point I made about the suffix being a verbal suffix. In ah, it's not a suffix but an inseparable part of the root. In the other positions it's not a suffix, so hie doesn't really have anything to do with what you or I have been discussing. I've never disputed that sk > h; the problem is you've failed to produce a good reason for there to be a -sk- in the word to begin with (not a verb, -sk- is not part of the root). As for kroh in NGheg, a > o is a regional development (kotun < katun(d), etc.) that isn't etymological. As you say, Alb o < Proto-Alb. *ā ~ *ē, and as I stated IE *ḱreh₂u > krāu- > krā > kro, because IE *eh₂ always gives PAlb *ā, and long diphthongs (such as āu) drop the -u. Not every h is etymological, for instance lots of initial h- are recent additions (ardhi > hardhi, yll > hyll, urth/dh > dial. hurdh) etc.). Finally, krahi is a definite form (as opposed to stanard krahu; even Demiraj mentions it [p. 224]). I didn't go into the dialectal variation, but given dial. krahë (m.), where -ë most likely comes from -i, and dial. (def.) kraha (f.) and Arv (m., pl.) kraha, -t, it looks as though Albanian is confused about how to decline the word and which gender it is, which is yet another sign the word is borrowed. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Front "h" are not "recent", it's the exact opposite, they reflect an IE laryngeal, present in other languages (Hittite, Ancient Greek etc.), and they dissimilation is a relative recent phenomenon. True, there is some form of confusion about it, but that's rather a social phenomenon which depends on the individual's knowledge of the language, not an etymological one. The old pronunciation of yll is in fact hyll, where the initial h is etymologically important (cf. 18th century daily "Hylli i Drites") so is hardhi and others. The suffix -sk does not occur only in verbs, it is often presented in order to explain sound changes, otherwise unexplainable. ḱruh₂- and ḱreh₂u- are variants of the same root, the first yields Latin crus, the second Albanian krah, with regular dropping of final -s or in syllabic position, which in Latin is retained. The PIE short e doesn't yield Albanian ā, just a, actually yields *kreh, which krah might represent, very plausibly, a singularized form (cf. rrath-rreth, natë-netë, atë-etër etc). Besides, sticking to the same root, I don't understand why it is presented with the *au dipthong, considering its non-etymological nature (-u simply represents a masculine ending, present in tens of words). There's no such confusion in declining 'ë', as far as I know, it is declined according to dialects. In Northern dialects it is rendered as 'a' or 'o', in southerns dialects (with some mixed results in border lands or depending on each other's influence) it is ë, no relation to 'i' whatsoever.Etimo (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

IE laryngeals didn't survive in any modern IE lang., a point agreed on by every major work on the subject, and also Demiraj/Orel. So, initial h-, in any instance, can't come from a laryngeal. How is this even relevant? Anyway, yll actually first appears as uill (Buzuku) and yyll (Budi), so you're wrong again. Demiraj/Orel, etc. disagree with you on prothetic h- (hardhi, urth/dh, etc.), and the dial. forms support them; some indisputable examples are Latin loans: arcus > ark > hark, armissārius > dial. harmëshor > hamshor, aberrare > harroj, exrimari > hermoj, edictare > hetoj, hora (silent h) > erë > herë, etc.; also ByzGk otos > var. utë > hutë. You continue to miss the point about -sk-; you say it's a suffix added to the root, but other than verbs have failed to cite a single example where this occurs. ḱruh₂- explains Latin/Armenian, but doesn't explain Alb, thus Demiraj's ḱreh₂u-, which then doesn't agree with L/Arm; uH ~ eh₂u are not simply "variants". As for eh₂, it's a single unit that always gives ā (Demiraj & Orel); vowel + laryngeal = long vowel generally. So, your newest scenario with eu > e + vowel gradation couldn't happen. Besides, graded plurals are derived from the singular + pluralizing vowel (usually -i); that wouldn't be the case here. Also, no one else proposes this, it's just your own hypothesis, which is something you chide me for below. Double standard? Regarding -ë in krah, read Demiraj; I can't understand what you're trying to say here. He points out that -ë in masculine nouns is usually from an earlier -i, etc. Torvalu4 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Another thing, please do not delete etymologies from scholars to put your owns, unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a place for personal theories. If you want to add an alternative etymology, that's fine, but deleting others that you might not like is unacceptable. I'll do my best to stick to the same. Thank youEtimo (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd be glad to, but you should tell me which entry you're referring to. Also, I don't think you have any business chiding me about "pesonal theories"; that's the pot calling the kettle black. When I delete your etymologies, it's because they're unworkable or incoherent, which is - sadly - usually the case. You can't go around putting up preposterous proposals without consequences. If you can't stand being edited, then you're on the wrong site. Torvalu4 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Initial 'h' reflects the H4 laryngeal in Albanian, as I'm sure you're aware of. It is reflected in 'ha', 'herdhe', 'hurdhë', 'hekur' etc, where initial H cannot be simply ignored. I agree, again, that there is some form of confusion about initial 'h', considering its many external influences but this is not a reason to ignore the phenomenon altogether, on the contrary, is evidence that this phenomenon is well established in Albanian. Mind your sources when quoting Albanian words (harroj comes from harrë-to weed out, cut off, not from Latin aberrare, 'erë'-time, doesn't exist, Buzuku's utë is influenced by the similar Greek and Latin forms, being hutë in fact an Albanian word<hut-empty,vain, dull). Examples with -sk in nouns: plah<plaf<plaskai, Ancient Greek pelas-skin, OE flaesc-flesh, muh<muf<muska<IE *meu-wet(your buddy Orel), kohë<*kēskā and *kēksā(Oelberg) Slavic *časь, deh<*degska, ah<*aksa<PIE*osk, ON askr etc. Back to krah, in Albanian we have okraj, krajnik, kreshnik, all early Slavic borrowings where Slavic *kraj is reflected as it is, in my view evidence enough that krah is not the same as *kraj. Furthermore, on the voice 'kreh'-comb, Orel treats this as a plural form of a *krah (<*krebska), as I proposed for 'krah' arm(in my opinion they are related). Worth mentioning, the forms *krok-ska and *kar-ska have also been proposed by Wiedemann and Scheftelowitz, respectively (Orel is the only one who stands for the Slavic origin of the word). Even if we drop Demiraj's *ḱreh2u (mind *krok-sko is possible, yielding *krah), still Albanian and Slavic forms don't match phonetically. Krah is a similar formation as krëndë, krap, krakë etc. I'm not chiding you about anything. You have deleted my etymologies and I don't think I ever written you complaints about that (btw. if përrua were a Slavic borrowing it would have yielded *përavë or poravë, since 'ravë' already exists in Albanian reflecting a Slavic loanword, not to mention the semantic nonsense. Note:Camarda, Meyer, Jokl, Demiraj all agree, giving *re(i)-to flow). I do have a problem when you only keep the etymologies that you like, and this is happening quite often.Etimo (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no IE h4; no one accepts this and this idea has been abandoned. The words you cite have h- from multiple sources, mostly prothetic: ha < prothetic if from h₂euw- (Mallory/Adams), from -sk- if from h₁ed- (Orel); herdhe < prothetic from h₃erǵʰi-; hurdhë (which one?), if 'curds' < sk-, if 'pool' < prothetic from var. urdhë < ur.h1- (Demiraj). Nowhere is there h4. Also, this point is completely irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with krah. Apparently erë does exist dialectally, and I meant Alb hutë 'buzzard, hoot owl'; what about the rest? Plah/deh are verbs first; the nouns are just zero-derivatives of the verbs. Muh is a dial. form FROM standard muf, meaning the h can't be from -sk- (which Orel makes clear). H < -s- in kohë, and even if not only a -k- has been added (not -sk-, since -s- is already part of root); -sk- in ah is not a suffix. You still haven't proven anything. I already gave examples of some Slav. loans with -j- > -h-, so it happens; these forms match phonetically. Kreh is a VERB, not a noun (once again proving my point); *krah is mentioned as the base of krehër, although that's completely unnecessary; even if it weren't, that would be an example of a > e, which is not the case with krah 'arm'. Dropping names (Wiedemann/Scheftelowitz) is not proof; in fact, given how old they are, it might be counter-proof. Kork brings us back to the random -sk- which only attaches to verbs. I don't follow: how is krah similar to krëndë, krap, krakë othr than being Slavic?

Ravë = early borrowing < *rovŭ (o > a indicates early). With përrua, the loan must be more recent; poroj > përro (o preserved in declension përroi, përronj; also dial. variant prroj) > përrua (o > ua typical). See Stefan Schumacher (2009). Keep in mind that Slav loans come from all different times, and their outcomes aren't always predictable. What semantic nonsense? Slav poroj 'torrent' > Alb përrua 'torrent' - it doesn't get more straightforward than that. Maybe you're thinking of your own proposal. Also, Demiraj does not bring up *rei- 'flow'. Torvalu4 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have this thing of discarding arguments with ostensible "ease", while in fact you're not proving nothing at all!! You keep parroting "prothetic" just like your favourite mentor, in order to avoid a deeper analysis of the phenomenon. It it not enough to know phonetic rules, you must also know how the words are formed in a language in order to analyse it properly, and Orel has taken many blunders because he often failed to do so (the list is longer then one might think), and consequently, so have you. I'm not talking about h4, in all languages, I'm talking about its presence in Albanian, and what the lexicon points at is a reflex of PIE h4, prothetic does not explain a thing, other then labeling it with a "I have no idea so I call it this way". Leaving this more complicated issue aside for the moment, even if kreh in Albanian is a verb, the word krehër stems directly from it, and there is absolutely no etymological difference between the two, beside the suffix 'ër'. So is the case for plah and muh, both words (if you had a better knowledge of Albanian you'd now that h yields f, and not the other way round). Kohë: Scheftelovitz-kāsḱa, Pisani-*kesḱā, Hamp kēsḱā/kēḱsā, ignore them all? Ok, just because you say so. Deh is a verb, I included it mistakingly, but, etymologically speaking, this makes no difference. -sk it's not a suffix in words, it is part of the etymological root. So you're not getting it again. Krah and kreh are close, even a blind can notice that. When I say that krëndë, krapë, krakë (also kërci belongs here) are similar I mean they are complementary in meaning, and I can notice this probably because I am a natural Albanian speaker. Krëndë is in all probability an extention of krah (as it is the case with krakë, for semantics compare thekë-fringes with skr. sakà-branch), the examples of this in Albanian are numerous: vë>vënd/vend, be>bind, lej>lind, muj>mund, ledh-lëndë etc. This finds further confirmation that in Demiraj you find the root related to Slavic (SCr) granà-brushwood, exactly what is generally compared with krah-arm. Also 'kërci'-lowershank stems from a similar root as krah (for this Demiraj gives ḱruh2-s ‘limb’, after Pokorny, cognate to Latin), or should we consider also this one a Slavic word?

The "ease" with which I discard your arguments reflects that: (1) I know what I'm talking about because I've read the literature, and (2) your arguments are very poor. If I'm "parroting" experts, then that's a compliment. Besides, you keep bringing it up (for no reason). Actually, Orel was very good at analyzing words; keep in mind he worked with a lot of diff. langs.; but he does make mistakes, just like everyone else. By talking about h4 in Alb, you are talking about h4 in all IE languages, because h4 has been hypothesized for Proto-Indo-European ONLY. The roots I listed as the sources above all have other H (h1, h2, h3) or none at all. So, even if the h's in some of the words weren't prothetic, then they're still not from h4. In any case, other authors (Kopalli, Çabej, Huld, etc.) have already established Alb.'s tendency for prothetic h. As for muf, if you read Orel more closely, you'd realize he proposes the exact same etym. for meh (a verb), meaning that muf/h is a derivative of... a verb! You still haven't produced an inherited noun, not derived from a verb, with a -sk- suffix; krehër is a derivative of kreh, in other words, formed after -sk- > h, so totally irrelevant. Are you now proposing that krah and kreh are somehow related? And that krëndë, etc. are too - but you put in diff. etym. for them. You're starting to contradict yourself. And they have completely unrelated meanings (and forms), plus kërci & kr(r)ak (there is no krakë) < Slavic (did you mean krap or krapë?). What you are actually demonstrating is folk etymology: associating etymologically unrelated words based on similarities in their modern forms. What you say about Demiraj and granà and krah makes no sense since he doesn't link either of the two together. Yes, kërci is a Slavic loan: kërci < kërc 'stump' < Slavic krč; they're exact phonetic matches. In any case, this time you're really grasping at straws. Torvalu4 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Concerning përrua, the loan must be a later one, so you fixed it again waving Orel's magic wand!?! Orel gives Slavic *porov/parov, unattested in South Slavic (one of a long list), but in Polnish parow-ravine, so of what "Slavic poroj" are you talking about? Përrua is by all chances a p-prefixed mirror word of krua-source, spring (as in pështyj, pështjell, pështjerë etc). It is quite striking, in fact, that the irregular declension of the two is almost identical: accusative p(ë)-rroj/k-roj, nominative p(ë)rrua-k(ë)rua (the double r has expressive reasons as in burrë, rrotë etc), and the irregular plural of përrenj occurs in the (rare) dialectal k(ë)rrenj. Notice the typical vowel cluster 'ue'/'ua' found in hundred of words. So, should we indeed consider this a coincidence? If you understand how words are structured and formed in Albanian, you don't. Orel failed (willingly??) to notice this striking parallel, and gave for krua a totally different etymology. Meyer, Jokl *per-rēn, Baric *per-srouno, Mann *per-eio- 'passage', Demiraj to Greek 'perao'-to penetrate, all stressing Albanian initial 'pë', thus confirming an internal construction. SCr. poroj could be well from Bulgarian or simply an Albanian borrowing.

Pol. parow & Bulg poroj are cognates, and Bulg poroj is rather clearly not a borrowing from Alb., and no one else thinks it is. What does "mirror" mean here? Do you mean për + krua - what happened to the -k? A likelier explanation is that përrua was influenced by krua, and this is in fact something Schumacher and Orel suggest (have you read Orel?). Keep in mind that other than -oj, there's nothing "identical" about përr- : kr-, etc. The double rr is not "expressive"; it's a different sound from IE r ~ wr ~ etc. and came about through diff. phonetic rules (eg., burrë (< -rn-), rrotë (initial r- > rr-), etc.). If ue ~ ua is in hundreds of words, then isn't that an argument against them being related...? If you understand anything about Alb. etymology, you'd realize that përrua can't be built from krua (-rr- and loss of -k- unexplained!). Demiraj does not connect përrua to Gk perao 'penetrate'; rather, he just lists that as Çabej's proposal - not his own. The rest all have diff. etymologies that don't work for one reason or another: notice that none of them agree with eachother and that none of them use krua. And stressing the pë(r)- is precisely why none of them could figure it out. Torvalu4 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The double r in përrua has nothing to do with "r"~"wr", it has just expressive reasons, like in rrotë, where the wr plays absolutely no role being a transparent Latin borrowing!! Don't look for phonetic complications when there are none! With 'mirror words' I simply mean that they stem from the same root with different prefixes, pë and kë + rua/roj clearly reflecting PIE* Hrei(H)-to flow, not that 'përrua' has been built from 'krua'. They simply represent two words, meaning very similar things, differentiated by different prefixes, and they are pë and kë, not 'për' and 'kr'. This kind of parallelisms are very common in Albanian. How is the vowel cluster 'ue/ua' an argument against their relation?? Isn't the exact opposite? "They've been influenced by each other" is a rather convenient statement, considering that they are declined in THE SAME WAY. If përrua were a Slavic word, the double r would have no reason to exist. Moreover, even krua sometimes is uttered with a stressed double r, meaning that this phenomenon is expressive in nature (in the bespoken cases, this is better illustrated with the difference between burrë and burë, the second one having negative connotations). We've all read literature here, the point is you just have a slanted way in interpreting it. It is difficult to propose a word when you ignore everything that's proposed. Just for the record: plah is NOT a verb, muh is NOT a verb. Besides, pure common sense suggests it, as in every language in 99% of cases it's a noun that yields a verb, particularly when it concerns objects, and not the other way round!!!! In Albanian, for instance, 'bashkoj'-to unite, tie together, a verb, stems from 'bashkë'-fleece, and so is for hundreds of verbs. Even kreh and deh, could be originally, with good chances, words later turned into verbs (and that was my point). But if you keep parroting Orel, you'll always ignore this! What you refer to as "folk etymology" is simply the label for something that you don't understand or deliberately ignore. Albanian words are built this way and if you ignore their semantic and morphological ties you propose deviating etymologies, when not building castles in the air. So you made also kërci a "Slavic" word (again, what "Slavic"??another of Orel's tens of ridiculous "unattested in South Slavic" kind of statements!). I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the word is related to 'kërce' 'cartilage, crust, hard part of a limb or object'. There's an obvious continuum in these words: Krah-arm, krakë- upper arm, shoulder, kërci-lowershank, kërbisht-rump-bone, perhaps also Krëndë/krandë-brushwood(lit. "arms" of the tree, very widespread semantic development) etc. Folk etymology? Believe what you want. But you saw (better saying, Orel saw) "phonetic match" (with ""stump"",??) and you solved it?!Isn't just phonetic parallelism folk etymology? You see, that's exactly the problem. In Demiraj, kërci<PA*krū<PIE*ḱruh2-s. Ignore him? Why should we ignore all the authors that propose different etymologies from Orel in the first place, and stick just to Orel? Why do you think you have the right to insert only Orel's etymologies and delete all the other (very possible) alternatives? Because this is what it's all about and what puzzles me. Etimo (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you add a Babel box to your user page, please, showing what languages you speak? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What is your source for this edit? I need to check it and add to the References section. --Vahag (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to be more specific. I made several in a row. Some of the information was on the page about a year ago or so, but was for some reason removed. I have absolutey no idea if the Georgian word was borrowed from Persian. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I meant the part which claims Iranian derivation from Armenian. After some research I believe you took it from Pokorny, who follows Hübschmann. I have now expanded the etymology. Please list your sources in a references section so that people could verify your edits. --Vahag (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not accidental. Why did you delete my referenced etymology? Shtalb/shtalp has nothing to do whith shtjell, and in Demiraj there is not such thing (at least in the version revised by de Vaan and Lubotsky, the one that should be quoted). They are two different things, meaning two very different things. You have stel-p/b(h), where you magically delete the final labial plosive. In fact you're quoting Orel again. And now you managed to somehow block a counter-editing in order to write what you want? So I'm the one who doesn't like being edited or this is just your idea of democracy??!!! Etimo (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Shtalb/shtalp are the same word. Read Demiraj. I've looked in dictionaries, and can't find the meanings that you had originally put up. Your reference is NOT Demiraj; it's someone else's summary and it apparently has some serious mistakes. I mean, I quoted actual Demiraj/Orel, and both agree about this word. As for the final plosive, that would be the derivative portion... What aren't you getting here? Also, deleting the page's contents is a terrible edit. So, if not accidental, you should stop. Torvalu4 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

A note about deleting etymologies: you can't complain about 'accidental deletions' when you 'accidentally' keep deleting my entries yourself. I don't understand why you deleted additional etymological informations on 'shtalb', something that does not affect the overall etymology itself. You also wrote an inexplicably "falsified source"??You have deleted many of my contributions and replaced them with yours, now you whimper because I want to reinsert infos that you arbitrary deleted without any reason? Doesn't sound very democratic, don't you think?I don't know what source of Demiraj you're using, but mine is the one currently revised by de Vaan and Lubotsky, here the link: http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/natlang/ie/alb.html, you can check yourself the PIE root I inserted Etimo (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can complain because I don't do what you do, which is: (1) delete the entire content of a page and leave an empty shell or (2) take a page down and then re-create it from scratch. That's not editing. And the info. I removed completely rewrites the etymology. You falsified the source when you listed Demiraj because the word is not treated with the meanings you originally gave or the etymology you gave. I added the page where it's discussed and he agrees with Orel. Period. I'm using Demiraj's actual book, which I urge you to read. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're right about deleting the entire entry and re-creating it from scratch, I've done that. But I didn't know it affected in some way the entry since I kept the etymological informations that already were there. I just did it for formatting reasons, adding declension of the noun or the verb when missing, that's all. Concerning the source of the etymology I inserted, I didn't delete the entire page, only part of the etymology that didn't match with Demiraj's. I know both the book and the man in person, I don't know what edition you're using. Again, here's the link: http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/natlang/ie/alb.html. Etimo (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's only 1 edition of the book. You're obviously not familiar with the book because you never cite page numbers and keep referencing the summary (stop giving me the link by the way). What you deleted was from Demiraj and replaced it with information that is not in Demiraj; what it didn't agree with was the summary. Formatting doesn't explain what you did, since you don't have to take down a page to format it. Torvalu4 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I read the book and the database I attached is Demiraj's work revised by other two scholars, a more updated one!!. Shtalb is in p. 376, përrua in p. 318!! I'll stop sending it to you when you'll stop playing with words!! Is the root I added present in the entry "shtalb", in Demiraj and in this database yes or no?? I don't cite pages because at present I don't have Demiraj's work in front of me, so I'm using the database, not that I didn't read its book!! Again you're deviating from the point! Why do you think you have the right to delete entries that are proposed by scholars?? Etimo (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This is plausible, but were you using some source or is it original research? --Vahag (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for including English vernacular names and Translingual taxonomic names in your Albanian entries. If you would like, you could use:

1. wikilinks to link to any English-language vernacular name entries we have.
2. {{vern}} to increase the chances that we would add the English vernacular name. (You can use "pedia=1" to also link to a wikipedia article (or redirect) if one exists.)
3. {{taxlink}} for Translingual taxonomic names.

Though it makes it easier for me to add these entries it is by no means required. If you would add at least one of the templates {{vern}} or {{taxlink}}, that would draw my attention to the entry and I could do the rest. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll do that for future edits, but I'm currently inactive and don't see that changing any time soon. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on Welsh entries. I'm usually active in Japanese, and editors making changes there without any summary has often been a big red flag that things might be going off the rails. I appreciate the edit summaries you've been adding in your more recent work; that helps other editors get a better handle on what we're all doing.

I was curious about this, specifically the re-addition of the Irish term (deprecated template usage) icht. I can't find any instance of this word in the modern language, though my access to Irish references is pretty limited. I do find reference to icht as what appears to be an ancient word, as in these two Google Books hits that mention an old glossary by Cormac MacCullinan. The reference you added is itself about Proto-Celtic, further suggesting that icht might not be in use in the modern language.

Do you have any more information about this term (ideally, enough to create an [[icht]] entry)? Should the language for this term in the etymology at (deprecated template usage) iaith be changed from Irish to Middle Irish or Old Irish, or even Primitive Irish?

Kind regards,

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is a difficult question. After some searching, it appears the modern Scottish cognate is iochd, but the Irish form may very well be archaic or obsolete. I did manage to find it here, for instance: [3]. The source is a 19th cent. dict., which is new enough to show the word is (or was) still used in the modern period. If nothing else, it shows the gloss I provided is wrong. Maybe the best way to fix this is to replace icht with the surer Scottish iochd.

Beyond that, you'll have to refer to a Gaelic-speaker. Also, you should perhaps actually consult the cited source without drawing conclusions about it in lieu of consulting it. You can easily find it online (perhaps through Scribd) if you can't access it directly. All I can say is the book lists it as modern; it is also listed in Michiel De Vaan (2009) and Deshayes (2003) without any Old- or Middle- qualifier.

You've raised an issue that I can't definitively solve which convinces me that creating an icht entry should be left to a Gaelic-speaker. Torvalu4 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you often specify a term language by just typing the name, as in this change. It'd be helpful if you could instead use the {{etym}} template. To specify a term language for comparison, rather than as a source term, you can use a - hyphen for the second langcode. So at (deprecated template usage) iaith, I changed the text from Irish to {{etym|ga|-}} instead.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but I'm already aware of this. I was told by an admin. some time ago that "it didn't matter" when the word form was not actually part of the line of descent or loan pathway, i.e. comparanda. Unless I'm mistaken, the hypthen in the {{etym}} template stops it from making the usual linkage; if so, then what's the point? Aren't you just typing code for nothing? Torvalu4 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• "Aren't you just typing code for nothing?" -- no, it links through to the WP article on that language.

Also, the convention has changed since I last posted: apparently now we're supposed to use {{cog}} instead of {{etyl}}.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

çerdhe from ç + herdhe is pretty straightforward, occurring also in other word formations.. Firstly, it's obvious that Bulgarian черда does not fit into Slavic phonology of south-eastern Slavic languages as far as the rendering of the liquids goes, whereas it perfectly fits into Albanian's (grad vs Alb. gardh, mljeko vs Alb. mjel <*mjelg, glava vs. Alb guall < *galv etc, blato vs Alb baltë, dlato vs Alb. daltë < *dalpta etc etc), the inherited Bulgarian word should have been *çredo, as it is with its other Slavic counterparts, this word is far from clear and shows phonetic influence by a non-Slavic language at least. Secondly, черда would have yielded *çerdha not çerdhe, why should the auslaut in Albanian have yielded and odd e (surprise - like herdhe) instead of a regular a? Thirdly, why in the world should the Albanian term have derived its semantic change from Bulgarian instead of its Albanian counterpart which means EXACTLY the same thing? Again a nonsense..to me, another case of Orel's ordinary blunders that you accept blindly without further digging into it. Etimo (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edits on Hungarian etymology. Would you mind adding a link to your reference? Otherwise, it's impossible to determine the accuracy and I will have to make changes based on the reference that is available to me (a Hungarian printed edition from 2006). --Panda10 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please don't revert referenced etyomologies, no one does that with your entries, so refrain from doing that or you'll be reported!! Thanks Etimo (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you've done this to me on several occasions. In this case, Orel's etymology is more speculative and less convincing than the other (in fact, Orel doesn't list Svane for his etymology, indicating he didn't even consult Svane for this word). Furthermore, Svane & Ylli specialize in Slavic loans in Albanian, which gives them added weight. You can't just add everything as if it's all on equal footing. Even someone not knowing anything about etymology or the history of the language can look at the two proposals and see which one makes more sense. And it is amazingly hypocritical of you to - for no apparent reason - advocate for Orel here when just 2 posts up you talk about him as a blunderer. For these reasons, I will most likely continue to remove Orel's etymology. Torvalu4 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You don't remove referenced etymologies, unless they're considered by mainstream scholarship as outdated and we can discuss on that, but flawed as it is (I still mantain that, there are clear contradictions), Orel cannot be put in the same league with Ylli and Svane, who are not prominent scholars in Albanian etyomology. Orel didn't list Svane, so what? Sure it's possible that he didn't know him (although I doubt that), but excuse me, what's the status of Svanne in the Albanian etyomologies universe anyway?? Or Ylli's? If there's something one cannot blame Orel for, is presenting an incomplete or skinny reference list and I'm pretty sure you know that. I read Ylli's and Svanne's works and there's a lot of arbitrary etyomologies with no scientific or phonetic backing, I see only hunches based on semantic (personal) interpretations and, having understood by now how you do things, I was sure you were going to use them!! I won't be surprised if you'll be using Elsie at some point. Speaking of hypocritical, do I have to list all your Albanian etymologies that are ridiculous attempts to derive or link Albanian words with Ossetian or Caucasian words (eg. one above all, kam - to have, whose PIE* keh2p root cannot be more obvious, yes I reverted that!), or the arbitrary derivations from Slavic or Latin words of which you don't want to consider other alternatives, which are perfectly plausible for such an old and little documented language as Albanian? I mean, why not using Huld, Hamp, Demiraj, de Vaan/Lubotsky, Cabej etc ? There are a lot of good, universally accepted works out there (and Orel's, with all its flaws, can be considered part of them), I advise you to stick to them, if your intellectual honesty allows you, of course! Etimo (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is an insane rant that is fairly indicative of your general state of mind and very much in line with your editing. There are moments where you sound paranoid. Maybe even delusional, e.g. Caucasian? What in the world are you talking about? Frankly, I would LOVE to see this so-called list!

You're what one might call a typical "Balkanist" (that's not a word, but it'll have to do): by that I mean you show extreme ethnocentrism in your etymologies by picking and choosing whichever etym. (old or new) that posits an unborrowed IE origin, no matter how absurd. I mean, Latin and Slavic are widely regarded as major sources for loanwords in Albanian, but to casually dismiss them like you do is rather blatantly ideological. It's all the same to you because you don't understand any of the principles (phonetic or otherwise) at play. I say "Balkanist" because this tendency is very pronounced in nearly all Balkan languages (e.g. Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Greek, Romanian, etc.). For instance, 3 yrs ago you were devoted to Pokorny and dismissed Orel; now you're singing his praises when it suits you. That's genuine hypocrisy.

Since you mentioned kam, I'll say this: kap < *kapa < *keh2p-, whereas kam ~ ka < kaga < *kagʰe. They can't both be from the same root. If they were, then what happened to the ** -p in kam ~ ka? Why is it preserved in kap but not in kam/ka?

FYI, I'm not a major contributor anymore, so all of this is pointless. Torvalu4 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

What rant? You accused me of being a hypocrite and I simply replied to you on that, without calling you names, as I can do now. Where is exactly the extreme ethnocentrism you talk about? Because I consider the possibility that an X word might have another phonetic explanations rather than just being a loanword? Why shouldn't I considering that a) there's absolutely no written proof that specific word derives from that Y language, b) it perfectly reflects Albanian phonetic changes, c) there's an older word which makes the connection simply more logical (eg. buall, bollë, vadhë etc)? What's delusional with the word Caucasian? You linked the word with Ossetian (eastern iranian language) and another Caucasian dialect (which I don't remember at the moment), something I consider odd since almost all major works agree on PIE*keh2p. Ka < kaga < *kagʰe is not possible because the root is not ka, but kam or kap. I never said Orel's work has to end up on the scrap heap altogether, I just said it contains many blunders, same with Pokorny, but considering your way of editing (something pointed out also by other editors), we never had the chance to have a constructive discussion. Regarding kam, the m preceded by a front vowel originates from the *pn/bn clusters, and kam is a formation after kap, just like, for instance, çem - bring to light (< *štšepna) derives from çap-hew, chew. Other examples of m<*pn/bn: gjumë < supnā, kem<kapna - incense, Gr. kapnos-smoke, amë < abnā - source of spring! Good luck! Etimo (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you speak Hungarian? What is the reason you are modifying Hungarian etymologies? I don't think it's wise to combine two different sources the way you did. It is no longer clear which source said what. Please stop. --Panda10 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your request is absurd. Sources are combined everyday on a regular basis everywhere. It's how research, science, and all forms of human inquiry work. Removing sourced information (as you have) for no coherent reason is frowned upon here. In addition, your separating out of the 2 parts of nyíl's etymology boggles the mind since it's the SAME etymology... This appears irrational.

I'm not going to be stopping, so maybe we should get an admin involved if you can't handle that. Torvalu4 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Torvalu4, perhaps you may want to try asking Panda10 what it is about combining etymologies that is unsettling to him/her so that you both can work this out peaceably ? Leasnam (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: I used "maybe" and "if", meaning I'm still open; it's up to him. He has free will, so he can offer up an explanation without being coaxed — I mean, he brought this conversation to me, not the other way around. In any case, based on his tone, I can just tell this guy's going to need an admin. Torvalu4 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please give your sources for the partly idiosyncratic etymologies, which are - at least - debated! Behaving like god and giving no sources, is no science at all!!! E.g., for "thua" 'nail of digits'.HJJHolm (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there ! Long time no talk :) The reason I reverted the edit was due to how we show long vowels in Middle Low German, where the vowel was originally long in Old Saxon (among some other circumstances). I believe there is more about it here. Granted, most sources do show it with a macron. Leasnam (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is absurd. Essentially, the antiquated German use of tremas to write long vowels is - in what I can only describe as stereotypically Wiktionarian manner - retained for one language, namely MLG, but not for any other. This is the sort of thing that makes it impossible to take this site seriously. Nice to see the patients are still running the asylum. Torvalu4 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. May I ask you not to use {{etyl}} anymore? It's being phased out and replaced by {{der}} (there's also {{bor}} for borrowed terms and {{inh}} for inherited terms). Thank you! --Barytonesis (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gladly. Torvalu4 (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Torvalu4: You do not seem to appreciate that some of the etymologists who edit Wiktionary - and certainly the etymologists who are administrators - are more qualified and know more about what is true than many source etymologies. This is a prime example of this; and there is absolutely no Germanic connection with this word, I am afraid; and this etymology is just presenting the public with a lie. I have to adhere rigidly to all the regulations of etymology on (my) user page; or else there is no guarantee for best etymology presentation. Andrew H. Gray 18:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Andrew (talk)Reply

Don't mind him; he has no idea what he is talking about. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If I were to delete all your unsourced Albanian etymologies, I'd have to delete half of the Albanian entries. Stop behaving like god. That lundër is a phonetic variant of lëndër, recurring also in other words (cf. dëllinjë ~ dullinjë, kërm ~ kurm etc.) is plausible when not rather obvious. The Latin origin you inserted is, of course, just as much plausible, but obviously, is not the only one. Etimo (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, your theory isn't plausible, especially in light of the academic consensus on the matter. And could you provide a source for lëndër as a byform? About my unsourced etymologies – the difference is that I could provide sources if prompted; in other words, it's not original research. You've added original research, i.e. your own personal theory, onto the page, which is discouraged. If you can't justify your etymology with a citation, it'll have to go. Torvalu4 (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not original research to state the obvious. Dullinjë is a phonetic variant dëllinjë, kurmë of kërm, drinjë of drënjë, mullej/mullenj of mëllënjë, these are facts, not personal opinion!! In this case lundër is a variant of lëndër, in line with the above. Academic consensus in this case is irrilevant because they simply have ignored a fact, so it is a matter of mere lack of knowledge, not of discarding a possible option. You want proof for a regional variant of a word? Although your request is reasonable, I guess you'll have to travel to the Albanian southern regions, where the word is used. It is matter of deciding to whether take into account or not a simple phonetic variant of a word, whose presence is backed by many other examples! Regarding your entries, that is a rather convenient logic. First you add what you want, than you say all I add is referenced (yet the bulk of it is unsourced), which you can provide if promted. But shouldn't you do it in the first place when adding an entry, just as you require from others? I agree with this policy as long as it is followed by ALL contributors! Etimo (talk)

"shouldn't you do it in the first place when adding an entry?": That would be preferable, but generally that's not how it works here. It's time-intensive to source an etymology properly or to add quotations to prove the existence of a term; and it's often rather needless for common terms or trivial etymologies. Only when something is challenged do we start asking for proof (for example, we have a dedicated page for asking for proof of the existence of a word: Wiktionary:Requests for verification).

--Per utramque cavernam 11:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• @Etimo: Also, you say you agree with the policy if everyone follows the policy, but in the very entry under discussion, I have already provided sources. So, policy followed or not followed, it doesn't matter to you.
• Actually, "stating the obvious" is still OR, especially since what's "obvious" is purely subjective. "Academic consensus is irrelevant" - now who's acting like a god? Considering that the scholars who've commented about this word agree that it's NOT the etymology you've concocted, that indicates that your etymology is NOT obvious. What is obvious here is that if various words have byforms in a certain region with one similar trait (vowel > ë), then all you're doing is pointing to a trivial sound difference found in a single dialect (which only indicates a feature of that dialect and not anything of etymological significance) and then used it to concoct a different etymology, all the while not doing the same for all the other words that show this difference. You've essentially proven - better than I could - that the fact that lundër may have a byform lëndër somewhere is actually NOT a justification for etymologizing it based on that variant.
• Still, the fact remains, you haven't sourced either the variant or the etymology after being prompted. It's clear you've fabricated this etymology, so out it goes. Torvalu4 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. * @Etimo: Also, you say you agree with the policy if everyone follows the policy, but in the very entry under discussion, I have already provided sources. So, policy followed or not followed, it doesn't matter to you.

– The policy matters to me, or better, makes sense, when it’s used by everyone, not only when it fits your own personal views. I remind you, again, that the bulk of your entries are unsourced, something which I don’t have issue with as long as they're in line with Albanian phonetic development (and of course with scholarship written on the matter). I like to think that we have a little leeway when editing, but if this is not the case, then let's put references in every entry we add. But the problem here has never been academic references, which I have never deleted, it is that you don’t accept an alternative etymology. And you've done this also with accademic references (discussion on krah), so you're just twisting words here.

2. Actually, "stating the obvious" is still OR, especially since what's "obvious" is purely subjective. "Academic consensus is irrelevant" - now who's acting like a god?.

– Still you. Again, I didn't delete your entry nor your references, I only added an alternative etymology which, as much as you deny, is objectively very plausible. I said 'Academic consensus is irrelevant IN THIS CASE' because this is not an attempt to replace a sourced etymology, but to give an alternative, just as much plausible one. Again you’re showing your intellectual dishonesty, something which, by glimpsing over the comments left by other users on your talk page, I don't find hard to believe.

3. Considering that the scholars who've commented about this word agree that it's NOT the etymology you've concocted, that indicates that your etymology is NOT obvious.

– Obvious, or better semantically natural, is that lëndë has yielded lëndër and the variant lundër, both variants used in Albanian. The examples given were only brought to show this phenomenon. Ignorance is not an excuse. It is semantically obvious because in almost all cultures rafts and small boats are made by fallen logs or tree trunks. Academics you've quoted simply haven't taken this possibility into account, most probably because they ignored that lëndë has yielded lëndër. If you want to take them as the bible, go ahead, but I consider discussion much more constructive.

A further note: the derivation from Latin lunter/linter (which in my opinion displays non-Latin morphology) is based merely on resemblance and the spread of the word in Romance languages, just as the majority of the terms considered Latin loanwords which don’t find a historical, social or cultural explanation. How is it that you consider this a ‘strong evidence’ that makes this etymology very plausible, but a derivative of lëndër very implausible? They’re objectively both very plausible etymologies.

4. What is obvious [...] that variant.

– What you refer to as trival is a very important Albanian phonetic phenomenon, with several linguistic implications. Every word originates in a certain area within a certain comunity, whether it spreads or not to the point of becoming standard language or the most widespread variant (also considering the history of Albanian languae) is a complex historical process, but, again, it's irrilevant to the discussion. The ë vowel is more widespread in the south while the u dominates in the north (with ‘’mixed’’ areas here and there). Why dëllinjë is more widespread than dullinjë? Why people in the south say kërmë much more often than kurm? It is just a fact, as it is that lundër became more widespread than lëndër (for hydrographic reasons maybe?). The statement ‘’..while not doing the same for all the other words that show this difference’’ doesn’t make any sense as this phenomena have to be analysed individually when they occur, it is not a given that a regional word must automatically yield a variant which becomes standard language. Etimo (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Real simple: cite a source. You can easily prove all of this with a citation. You've been asked over and over, and still nothing. Torvalu4 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You want a source for a dialectal variant? A recording is ok? In the meanwhile I noticed you deleted (again) Demiraj's reference on krah, keeping only Orel. Not surprised at all. So much for your must be referenced whining, just ridiculous!! Etimo (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking for a reference first and foremost for the etymology you fabricated for lundër. Still no reference. As for krah, we've had this discussion already. You've deliberately jumbled several separate etymologies that Demiraj mentions, even though they don't go together. Demiraj doesn't combine them the way you have, and even says some are unlikely, impossible, or whatever. So, you've provided a citation, but the source doesn't actually say what you've written. Torvalu4 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: I see your most recent edit of krah finally reflects what Demiraj said. Torvalu4 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't fabricate anything, I'm just saying there's a variant of this word in use in southern Albania, which is a clear derivative of lëndë (after the examples adduced), because it's used in a sense of wood. This finds easy confirmation by the fact that lëndër is already used in common Albanian with the meaning of object/matter of study (a derivative of lëndë), whose original meaning, as we know, is timber (lëndë in the Albanian dictionary http://fjalori.shkenca.org/ has also a specific meaning of log cut in many shapes used to create objects, tools etc). Now how implausible would it be in your expert, unbiased opinion for lëndër to be used also in the meaning of wooden raft/small rudimentary boat? Too absurd to grasp, isn't it? It must be fabricated indeed. Concerning proof, it depends on what you exactly require. Do you want to see the word written somewhere? Recorded in some file? I will bring it if I find that kind of proof. There are plenty of dialect variants in Albanian (especially Arberesh, Arvanitic and Cham Albanian) which have not all been recorded yet, and this is rather normal for a language which has not a long history of literature. I can give you full lists of such words collected by linguists/travellers, I'm in fact adding some of those to the dictionary, but that's all the proof you're going to get, no literature pieces. As far as krah is concerned, I added the EXACT same source in the way Demiraj meant it, the thing is that you grasp at straws when you don't know what to say. Back then you just didn't accept it and gave several explanations for rejecting it as somehow phonetically incompatible, or simply because you decided you knew more than the source, as you did with përrua and shtalb (or those too were written wrong?), now you backtrack because your reference-only policy is backfiring. Again, the comedy goes on! Etimo (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Could you put glosses in templates, like this (with the |t= parameter) or like this (with a positional parameter)?

Another thing: as the policy here is to create full-blown entries both for Cyrillic and Latin Serbo-Croatian, could I ask you not to use the |tr= parameter, but instead to link both entries, like this?

Other than that, keep up the good work. Thanks! Per utramque cavernam 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the words of praise. Regarding Serbo-Croatian, the answer is no, simply because I don't want to type out the same thing twice. But usually I just link to the Roman entry, so I'll go back to that instead. As for glosses, you're not the first person to ask me to do this, and you won't be the last. I hate Wiktionary's idiosyncratic punctuation around glosses, e.g. (“moronic”), so I don't want to add to it. I've adjusted my personal settings so that it displays differently, but it's never worked. Sorry. Torvalu4 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

.mention-gloss-paren {
	display: none;
}
.mention-gloss-double-quote {
	display: none;
}
.mention-gloss:before {
	content: "‘";
}
.mention-gloss:after {
	content: "’";
}

@ special:mypage/common.css ought to change (“...”) to ‘...’. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 21:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If it works, I'll gladly comply. Torvalu4 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: It worked. Thanks again. Torvalu4 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update of the etymology, but be careful with substantially editing the definitions in unfamiliar languages. Defining wouw as "kite (Milvus)" is much too narrow, for it is also used of birds in several other genera, a few of which are not considered kites in English. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

What are you using as a source for your recent edits in Dutch? They contained a few errors:

• leenwoord and erfwoord are verb-noun compounds, not noun-noun compounds. Here is a source for leenwoord, as for erfwoord the fact that erf is outdated in the sense of "inheritance" is a strong clue.
• "Compounds" isn't a recognised heading. These go under "derived terms" instead.

←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

On some subjects you didn't raise here:

• Some other words, like erfrecht, erfopvolging, etc. are from the noun, not the verb. Semantically, only the noun makes sense. In the first case, a dead giveaway is that the Belgian synonym is erfenisrecht.
• Regarding eerstegeboorterecht, you didn't explain why you undid it. Primogeniture is the translation; there's no need to explain it twice more.
  Torvalu4 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Those were more minor issues and posting a needlessly longer list could come across as shirty. Anyway:

• The Belgian synonym is not a "dead giveaway" in any way, there is no rule in Dutch that any synonym of a noun-noun compound is also a noun-noun compound. As a matter of fact "law regarding/right of inheriting" and "succession by inheriting" work just as well, and the WNT derive them from erven in any case.[4][5]
• Primogeniture is polysemic and not all senses are covered by eerstgeboorterecht, so it is a bad idea to remove the gloss. Also eerstgeboorterecht can cover other rights held by a firstborn child, at least more often than primogeniture tends to do.

My question about the source you used for your edits remains. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Despite the WNT, the semantics don't work. The phrasing calls for a noun (e.g. law (recht) of inheritance (erf)); whereas, "inherit-right" would imply something totally different. Another dead giveaway is that the name for every other branch of law is formed in this way. It just strikes me as so odd that a native speaker can't see this.
• If eerstgeboorterecht is polysemic, as you say, then it should have multiple definitions, not one. That said, I don't know what the right of a firstborn would be if not the right to inherit. Provide examples; otherwise, this doesn't seem credible.
• As for the original matters you raised, I'm letting them drop. You should do the same. "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Torvalu4 (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

In response to those points:

• Dutch verb-noun compounds are typically analogous to English combinations of a gerund and a noun; the weirdness of *inherit-right is purely because of the awkward rendering in English; there is nothing ungrammatical about "rights regarding inheriting". Even then, the English parallel has no bearing on the analysis of the Dutch. The argument about recht mostly forming compounds with other nouns is a much better argument, though a counter-examples is beklemrecht, possibly wisselrecht. Another issue is that the relevant meaning of erf became less common over the course of the eighteenth century. That is a problem for erfopvolging, but not for erfrecht, a considerably older word. Yes, the WNT isn't infallible but its analyses are generally quite good.
• I wrote "Primogeniture is polysemic", I am not claiming that the current definition of eerstgeboorterecht doesn't cover the relevant meanings. In my experience primogeniture connotes royal or aristocratic dynastic inheritances far more often than eerstgeboorterecht does, but correct me if I'm wrong. The birthright in the Jacob story is called eerstgeboorterecht; I don't think that's commonly translated as primogeniture in English translations.
• If you think I'll concede merely for the sake of compromise rather than good arguments, pull the other one. Feel free to do your thing on erfrecht though.
  ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not a good idea to remove taxonomical information. They are helpful in delineating the scope of definitions. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not in the cases you're referring to. You essentially say the same thing two or three times in cases where there is no ambiguity. Torvalu4 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Having the taxonomical name allows a reader to verify whether a provided translation is an exact match or not. Not having it leaves the reader in the dark about that. It follows that having taxonomical names and precise definitions are desirable when feasible. For instance, nachtvlinder and mot are not exact synonyms, since the latter may be diurnal. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The etymology given here is not sourced, it is apparently original and according to a lecture last year at an Albanalogical conference at Jena University that presumably will be published some day a major step in the right direction (whereas it is condemned in an already published article by Marek Majer), so it would be most useful if there were an explicit statement of whose idea it is, so it can cited properly in the academic (and other) literature. Thank you in advance. — This unsigned comment was added by 95.42.79.54 (talk) at 07:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC).Reply

I have a sneaking suspicion you got a lot of those translations at bycatch from Wikipedia. Did you check each if they meet WT:CFI and in the definitions claimed? If so, how did you do that without speaking those languages? I'd recommend not mass-adding translations from Wikipedia as it is rife with protologisms and also you do not speak those languages. This has been a bannable offence in the past if continued. Vininn126 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I speak French, and verified the terms (e.g. Termium, etc.). You can also verify the other Romance-language items, as I did (since I have a passive understanding of them in the written form). As for Welsh, there's a specialty terminological dictionary. The only one I can't make a case for is Polish. As for bans, I would hope someone wouldn't act on just a hunch. Torvalu4 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply