Talk:Germanic words of Unknown Origin

Folk? Isn't it related to the Latin Populusque? RickK 02:54, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sort of...according to this it's related to plebs. Adam Bishop 03:00, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There have been tries to find IE roots for a number of the words on the list. "Folk" is one, although the *pl@-go- form is quite irregular; the suffix *-go- is quite rare; I know of no other nouns made this way. It has to be a *g also; *pl@-ko yields *flaha-. Getting from xero-grade to *o in Germanic is also a problem for that proposed etymology.

Another word on the list that has some controversy is "king." Many relate that to *gen-, which relates it to kin and genus and so forth; the idea apparently is that the king is father to his people or some such. The Germanic form *kuningaz again poses a problem; the root doesn't appear in this context in any other IE language, and the suffix is a problem. We know that Germanic has the *reg- root, which lies at the bottom of German Reich and English rich; so the fact that the surely inherited word is not used for "king" is significant. The list here was taken mostly from Comrie's introduction to Germanic in The World's Major Languages; the folk etymology is discussed in Lockwood's Indo-European Philology (1969). -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:49, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

15:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I made it to redirect here. Smerdis of Tlön 16:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The

article says "The Germanic languages have a large number of non-Indo-European roots (especially sea terms; the first Indo-European speakers lived in an inland area)." Then in the next paragraph as examples of non-Indo-European words gives the same list of ship-related words as this article. Is there a group of Indo-European related ship words also in Germanic or is the Battle-axe people article confused? Rmhermen 16:25, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. There are only a handful of ship words in Indo-European, most notably *nau-, which AFAIK does not exist in any branch of Germanic. Smerdis of Tlön 16:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. Inland areas can have inland seas. Central Asia used to have a lake system bigger than the current Great Lakes. One theory suggests that the Indo-Europeans lived around the Black Sea migrating when it was flooded by the Mediterranean. that would imply that Indo-Europeans could easily have had ships despite living in an inland area. -- Derek Ross 20:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

---

This page seems to reference a 'Vanir/Aesir' theory as fact, while not actually linking to the pages describing this theory but just mentioning them out of the blue. I do not know this theory myself, but isn't this one theory among many? Connecting archeological findings with linguistic developments is a non-trivial exercise, so unless I missed something the Vanir/Aesir theory is one theory among possibly many. Martijn faassen 21:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did not just delete it. I removed a single reference from Germanic languages, where I believe this does not belong. I do state unless this is the prime theory amongst archeologists, linguists and historians, it should not be mentioned so extensively, and definitely not as fact. Even a mention as a theory so extensively risks implying that it is the consensus theory, and I doubt this is the case. Martijn faassen 22:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Kenneth Alan included a lot of *new* material on his Vanir/Aesir theory of the evolution of the Germanic peoples under the guise of the comment 'remove battle axe'. The original article is far more POV and I've reverted. Martijn faassen 22:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The Indo-European etymology for "sword" is as well documented as it is for most words in most Indo-European languages:

sword: ON swerdh, OE sweord- from general Gmc root, etymology dubious, perhaps OHG sweran 'cause or suffer pain', swero, swer(a)do 'pain' , Ir. serb 'bitter', Av. xara-'wound' with orig. sense of root 'sting, cut' (Walde-Pokorny, Krogmann, Kluge and Buck).

In short, they don't even know what the right Old Germanic word is, but the most likely root fits Indo-European quite well. I suspect I will find the same is true for "knight", "earth" "house" and all the others when I get a chance to look it up. I'm the kind of person who is sympathetic to mixed origins hypotheses for Indo-European languages, but if there was any serious consideration of the things being said in this article, I would know about it. There isn't any.

I intent to merge the savable content of this article with Vanir/Aesir theory. Anybody object?

Diderot 15:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some of the data from an earlier version of the page ought to be reverted and saved, although I'd welcome suggestions for a better title. I did not realize that the substratum hypothesis was so controversial when I began the page, but a prior version minus the Vanir and Aesir perhaps ought to stay. The controversy needs to be covered from both sides. The Norse gods have stomped on any number of pages, including

Battle-axe people, that may need to be edited or reverted. Smerdis of Tlön

16:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

In Romanian, "Carp" is "Crap", as is in some Slavic languages (like Bulgarian) or even other Romance, like French. Did all these languages borrowed it from German? Bogdan | Talk 21:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Also, "house/haus" seems to be a cognate with "casa", using these paralels with Italian: "casa -- house; cuore -- heart; cane -- hound; corno -- horn"

"House" and "haus" represent hûs, which exists in that shape in Swedish. The vowels are not the same. Casa is itself of obscure origin in Latin. It originally meant "hut" or "cabin", and as such may have been borrowed from a Celtic original. Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Latin Casa is not from any "celts". Decius 21:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, cAsa and cAne follow a regular paralel to hOUse and hOUnd, (although House comes from a long vowel and Hound from a short vowel.) but it might not be sufficient, anyway. Mouse seems to be akin to latin Mus, also...

---

Okay, I did the best I could to revise without getting POV about it. It's just hard to be neutral about something based on a misunderstanding of the comparative method in linguistics.

Diderot 18:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have never heard of this theory, where does it come from? How accurate are these articles?

It was originally part of a series of articles that do not reflect any well accepted theory of historical linguistics, anthropology or history. At the time I first tried to edit it into something that was at least not totally false, it had a tenacious defender who is currently serving out a one year ban from Wikipedia. Frankly, it ought to be deleted.

As for sources, there is only one reputable one - or at least one credentialed one - that I know of. Try ISBN 3-11-017054-X I haven't read the book, and the summaries suggest unorthodox methods and tenditious conclusions, but I can not evaluate the claims in it. This area of linguistics is not my specialty. However, in its current form this article serves little purpose since it is strongly at variance to what is generally accepted in linguistics and explains neither who holds these beliefs nor offers sources for why they do.

Diderot 16:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which Helm is the article talking about? 'Helm' as in the archaic term for 'helmet' is accepted to derive (and quite logically) from the PIE root *kel, 'a covering', and as you know PIE 'k' becomes 'h' in Germanic (kel>hel). The other 'helm' (as in, to take the helm of a ship) is generally considered to be from PIE *kelp, 'to hold, grasp'. I don't know if these etymologies have been since 'rejected', but I'm not sure that they have been. But basically, the article is right, and there are a lot of English/Germanic words of unknown origin. Decius 18:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Carp', according to this American Heritage Dictionary, is "from Middle English 'carpe', from Old French, from Late Latin 'carpa', of unknown origin". Though the Late Latin word is of unknown origin (not traced to a root), I don't know of any proof that it is Germanic, and not from some other source. I'm erasing 'carp' from the article and 'helm', because my dictionary is more credible than this article. Decius 19:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Bear' was traced a long time ago to the PIE root *bher, that meant 'brown', and this is accepted in every single reference that I have seen. I'm erasing that too. I just discovered this article less than half an hour ago, and I see that it has serious problems. Decius 19:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked 'earth' was from PIE *er, 'earth, ground'. Yet this may be a semi-"root" found only in Germanic. I'll be back after I've verified whether or not it is found outside of Germanic. *Kel I already know is found across IE, but I'm not sure about *bher (brown) and *kelp; I'll be back. Usually when a root is exclusive to a branch, my book indicates that. I'm busy, so wait awhile. Decius 19:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The name of the article is not appropriate, and it seeks to imply that, at base, the Germanic languages are not Indo-European. That's a bit of a kook theory. I changed the title from the potentially scandalous "Non-Indo-European roots of the Germanic languages" to the more objective "Germanic words of Unknown Origin". Decius 19:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Bow' as in Bow & Arrows, is from PIE *bheug (to curve, bend, swell), which is found outside Germanic (Celtic, etc., I'll check). The verb 'bow' is also from *bheug. 'Bow' as in the Bow of a ship is from *bhaghu, and I'll see whether this is a common root. Decius 19:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Stork' is generally considered to be from the common PIE root *ster, 'stiff', because of the stiff movements of the bird. This etymology is supported by the Old English word stearc (stiff), which is from Germanic, from the PIE root *ster (>stiff). I don't see anything wrong with that idea, so I'm removing the claim that stork is "untraced" or "non-Indo-European". A few disagree with this etymology, and they compare English 'stork' to Greek 'torgos' (>vulture), a Greek word of unknown origin. The *ster etymology is more accepted. Decius 22:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Rudder' is considered to be from the common PIE root *ere (second 'e' is a schwa) meaning 'to row', from which Latin 'remus', 'oar', is also derived. 'Rudder' can't be claimed as NonIE. Decius 22:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Run' is considered to be from the common PIE root *er, to set in motion, to flow. Okay, whatever, I'm too busy to worry about this, so I'm moving on to something else, let someone else waste their time and fix this. If I remember, I'll check to see whether those roots are actual common roots, or semi-"roots". Decius 19:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Instead of words like 'run', which probably are traced already, the article can mention 'boy', which hasn't been traced, and which is of unknown or uncertain etymology, though some connect it tentatively to an Old French word 'embuier', which meant 'in chains, fettered' and the idea is that 'boy' is from a Norman French word that meant 'servant, slave', and from French 'slave' came the English 'boy'. But of course, that etymology is popular only in France. Decius 21:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Francoprovençal my grand-father used the word "lou vale" to mean "the son" ; "le Valet" in French means "the servant"; also this etymology does not sound ridiculous to a French speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.15.3 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that boy has any cognates in other Germanic languages; does it? Words for "boy" and "girl" (also of unknown origin) show wide variation even among closely related Germanic languages. "Boy" is pojka in Swedish, and (I think) dreng in Norwegian. To count among these words, the root has to be generally shared among several Germanic languages, and not exist in that same shape in another IE language. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Minor correction; it's pojke, not pojka. The Norwegian Dreng is also related to the Swedish dräng, meaning servant. —Gabbe 21:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I just brought up 'boy' as an excuse to discuss the etymology from 'embuier', "in chains", meaning "a slave". 'Boy' can't be considered common Germanic, and it would belong in an article discussing English words of uncertain or disputed etymology. I think the article is a good idea, I just found it to be full of unaccepted claims. Decius 21:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The same is true of "dog" - it is an ENGLISH word of unknown origin; not a general Germanic root. Does it belong here? At any rate, "wife" does not; it has been traced to a PIE root (with rather an obscene meaning, as it happens!) Reading down all the objections on this discussion page, I wonder if this article should not be deleted? --Doric Loon 23:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just checked "blood" - it too goes back to an IE root (meaning "gush"). It is beginning to look as though most of the examples in this article are wrong. More fundamentally, the tenor of this article is unhelpful. It implies an outdated desire to show that a large proportion of the Germanic lexis is pre-Indo-European; linguists are thinking this way less and less. There are very few words in every-day use in more than one Germanic language which cannot be adequately explained in terms of IE philology by the comparative method. I now formally propose the deletion of this article. --Doric Loon 14:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It does seem to me that the Germanic substrate hypothesis is far less well regarded now than it used to be. It is still a valid subject for an article, and nothing about this text --- in particular, nothing about any accuracy dispute --- meets the qualifications to delete an article in Wikipedia:Deletion policy; much less is this a candidate for speedy deletion. I suspect that what needs to be done is to turn this into a historically based description of these long running speculations, and move it to something like Germanic substrate hypothesis or some such. What say you all? -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise I had asked for "speedy" deletion - I thought that was a different code - but "blatant nonsense" would not be a vast exaggeration, so "speedy" could be argued for. You will notice that this article contains no references to sources; it makes a couple of vague assertions without noting that few linguists would agree with them, and backs these up with a long list of "examples" which are simply wrong. I'm fine with a new article on the Germanic substrate hypothesis if there is anyone here interested and competent enough to write it. Since I regard the theory as a waste of space, I wouldn't invest my time on it, but as you say, any theory which has had serious academic defenders can be given some space. But please, don't anyone try to do it unless they have actually read the literature. However, I doubt very much if you would want to use any of THIS article in that new one. Just moving it over and hoping it gets tidied up in time will not do. This article is spreading serious misinformation, and has nothing to commend it. So I stand by "speedy deletion" and would encourage competent enthusiasts to produce the new article from scratch.--Doric Loon 18:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Admins can't just speedy things on your say-so, take it to
  Kappa
  02:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not just my say-so. Look above at all the people who are dissatisfied with the article; I'm not the first to suggest deletion. I notice that it is 18 months since RickK pointed out that "folk" is entirely unproblematic as an IE word, but the misinformation is still in the article. Since the article consists entirely of such things, I would delete. But hey, if you want to keep it, then put the problems right and make something out of it. You could start off by removing everything from the article which has been documented here on the discussion page as inaccurate. My prediction: you will then have almost a blank page, and then YOU will see that the whole thing is better deleted. --Doric Loon 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)