| User talk:Florian Blaschke Aug 25th 2013, 00:35, by Ivan Štambuk | | | | Line 25: | Line 25: | | | :Which Spanish and Portuguese etymological dictionaries have you already tried? Have you looked at the 1856 ''Diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana, precidido de unos Rudimentos de etimología'' treatise on Spanish etymology by Pedro Felipe Monlau y Roca? Which Galegan and French etymological dictionaries did you check? Or are you only asking now because you got caught out? You're quick to eliminate information that you "can't see" justification for, without a reference to support you, but won't change your mind without chapter and verse? Did it never occur to you that the inheritted "native" forms are {{term|dios}}, {{term|dieu}}, etc. and that {{term|Deus}} was secondarily borrowed from Ecclesiastical Latin? --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC) | | :Which Spanish and Portuguese etymological dictionaries have you already tried? Have you looked at the 1856 ''Diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana, precidido de unos Rudimentos de etimología'' treatise on Spanish etymology by Pedro Felipe Monlau y Roca? Which Galegan and French etymological dictionaries did you check? Or are you only asking now because you got caught out? You're quick to eliminate information that you "can't see" justification for, without a reference to support you, but won't change your mind without chapter and verse? Did it never occur to you that the inheritted "native" forms are {{term|dios}}, {{term|dieu}}, etc. and that {{term|Deus}} was secondarily borrowed from Ecclesiastical Latin? --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC) | | | :Please ''stop'' this line of argument. If you think that it's "not ''my'' job", then you shouldn't be editing a wiki. EncycloPetey has already gone through more trouble in providing you refs than I would have. In fact, he already listed some of the "native" forms and you apparently failed to understand him. The only thing I appreciate here is that you apparently have ceased to edit war at [[Deus]]. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | | :Please ''stop'' this line of argument. If you think that it's "not ''my'' job", then you shouldn't be editing a wiki. EncycloPetey has already gone through more trouble in providing you refs than I would have. In fact, he already listed some of the "native" forms and you apparently failed to understand him. The only thing I appreciate here is that you apparently have ceased to edit war at [[Deus]]. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | | | + | | | | + | == elephant == | | | + | | | | + | Do you have any sources on the origin of the word ''elephant''? Beekes claim that Greek {{term|ἐλέφας|lang=grc}} is Berber-Egyptian compound which sounds stupid. The oldest related attestation is Akkadian {{term|𒄠𒋛|tr=pīru}} (see talkpage). Blažek (see reference) is a well-known [[long ranger]], even though his explanation seems plausible, and the Russian web site, apparently sourcing Militarev & Kogan (not checked in paper edition though), optimistically reconstructs plethora of Proto-Semitic forms, and Orel's work cited at {{term|𓍋𓃀𓅱𓌟|lang=egy}} has been criticized for many errors. Something more up-to-date and without agenda is needed. If necessary, we can create an appendix page which would discuss all theories and which individual etymologies could link to. --[[User:Ivan Štambuk|Ivan Štambuk]] ([[User talk:Ivan Štambuk|talk]]) 00:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:35, 25 August 2013 Welcome[edit] Welcome! Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers: - How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
- Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
- Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
- The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
- We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Hello! Please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we know what languages we can help in. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Just because you "Can't see a reason" does not make the work of professional etymologists wrong. The next time you can't see the reason, try asking first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC) - Which Spanish and Portuguese etymological dictionaries have you already tried? Have you looked at the 1856 Diccionario etimológico de la lengua castellana, precidido de unos Rudimentos de etimología treatise on Spanish etymology by Pedro Felipe Monlau y Roca? Which Galegan and French etymological dictionaries did you check? Or are you only asking now because you got caught out? You're quick to eliminate information that you "can't see" justification for, without a reference to support you, but won't change your mind without chapter and verse? Did it never occur to you that the inheritted "native" forms are dios, dieu, etc. and that Deus was secondarily borrowed from Ecclesiastical Latin? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop this line of argument. If you think that it's "not my job", then you shouldn't be editing a wiki. EncycloPetey has already gone through more trouble in providing you refs than I would have. In fact, he already listed some of the "native" forms and you apparently failed to understand him. The only thing I appreciate here is that you apparently have ceased to edit war at Deus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
elephant[edit] Do you have any sources on the origin of the word elephant? Beekes claim that Greek ἐλέφας is Berber-Egyptian compound which sounds stupid. The oldest related attestation is Akkadian 𒄠𒋛 (pīru) (see talkpage). Blažek (see reference) is a well-known long ranger, even though his explanation seems plausible, and the Russian web site, apparently sourcing Militarev & Kogan (not checked in paper edition though), optimistically reconstructs plethora of Proto-Semitic forms, and Orel's work cited at 𓍋𓃀𓅱𓌟 has been criticized for many errors. Something more up-to-date and without agenda is needed. If necessary, we can create an appendix page which would discuss all theories and which individual etymologies could link to. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 
 |
