False cognates

qwed117 · Post by **qwed117** » 13 Aug 2015 19:03

baka idiot

babbu fool (Sicilian)

Edit: I'm forgetful too.

Lao Kou · Post by **Lao Kou** » 24 Aug 2015 15:14

Grâce à clawgrip

:

車輛 sharyō "vehicle"

chariot

Post by **clawgrip** » 24 Aug 2015 15:25

qwed117 wrote: baku idiot babbu fool (Sicilian)

It's actually baka, not baku.

HoskhMatriarch · Post by **HoskhMatriarch** » 04 Sep 2015 08:24

Pirahã hi [hì] "he" English he [hi] "he"

Post by **Dormouse559** » 05 Sep 2015 19:30

brothel and bordello

Khemehekis · Post by **Khemehekis** » 05 Sep 2015 23:21

Dormouse559 wrote: brothel and bordello

Wait . . . those two aren't related?

Post by **Dormouse559** » 05 Sep 2015 23:46

Looking into it more, Wiktionary says they both come from Proto-Indo-European *bʰer-, but that's the last point where they were related. So they're very distant cogates. Again according to Wiktionary, *bʰer- eventually resulted in a Proto-Germanic verb meaning "to fall apart" and a Frankish noun meaning "board". The verb became "brothel" in English. The noun was borrowed into the Romance languages and became "bordello".

Shrdlu · Post by **Shrdlu** » 05 Sep 2015 23:59

So brothel means in effect "the place where it (marriages, relations whatever) falls apart"? Haha.... oh.

edit: also brothel kind of looks like Swedish "bryt|a" to|break.

Post by **Dormouse559** » 06 Sep 2015 00:16

Well, "brothel" originally meant "degenerate person", but then (Whaddya know?) etymonline says the similarity with "bordel(lo)" caused it to shift to refer to a place instead of a person.

Shrdlu wrote:edit: also brothel kind of looks like Swedish "bryt|a" to|break.

Pretty sure that comes from *bʰer-, too.

GrandPiano · Post by **GrandPiano** » 06 Sep 2015 03:58

Can false cognates be within a single language? :zho: 蛇 shé "snake" and :zho: 舌 shé "tongue" seem like they could be related, given the similar shapes of snakes and tongues, but according to the Baxter-Sagart reconstruction, 蛇 was *Cə.laj in Old Chinese, while 舌 was *mə.lat.

Ahzoh · Post by **Ahzoh** » 06 Sep 2015 04:10

GrandPiano wrote:Can false cognates be within a single language? :zho: 蛇 shé "snake" and :zho: 舌 shé "tongue" seem like they could be related, given the similar shapes of snakes and tongues, but according to the Baxter-Sagart reconstruction, 蛇 was *Cə.laj in Old Chinese, while 舌 was *mə.lat.

How does Cə.laj and mə.lat correspond with (that is, become) shé?
I don't think these are false cognates but simply homonyms...

zyma · Post by **zyma** » 06 Sep 2015 04:30

Ahzoh wrote: I don't think these are false cognates but simply homonyms...

A similar thought occurred to me at first, but I think the following quote might be what sets cases like this apart:

GrandPiano wrote:seem like they could be related, given the similar shapes of snakes and tongues

Not only are they pronounced the same, but their meanings may give some the idea that they're etymologically related.

Just my thoughts on this at the moment. I'm actually not 100% sure whether or not I'd call them false cognates.

Shemtov · Post by **Shemtov** » 06 Sep 2015 04:54

:heb: /ax/ "Brother"

/ax/ "older Brother"

qwed117 · Post by **qwed117** » 06 Sep 2015 18:44

shimobaatar wrote:
Ahzoh wrote: I don't think these are false cognates but simply homonyms...
A similar thought occurred to me at first, but I think the following quote might be what sets cases like this apart:

GrandPiano wrote:seem like they could be related, given the similar shapes of snakes and tongues
Not only are they pronounced the same, but their meanings may give some the idea that they're etymologically related.

Just my thoughts on this at the moment. I'm actually not 100% sure whether or not I'd call them false cognates.

I would. In fact, why wouldn't they? They appear to have a etymological relation but don't.

zyma · Post by **zyma** » 06 Sep 2015 18:51

qwed117 wrote: I would. In fact, why wouldn't they? They appear to have a etymological relation but don't.

Yeah, I think I came to the same conclusion shortly after making my previous post here. Unless there's a term I've never heard of for this kind of situation within a single language, I agree that they could be called false cognates. Although, would that imply that words within a single language that appear to have an etymological relation and actually do could be called cognates? I suppose so, although it sounds a bit off to me, but that may just be because I'm not used to it.

GrandPiano · Post by **GrandPiano** » 06 Sep 2015 20:05

Ahzoh wrote:How does Cə.laj and mə.lat correspond with (that is, become) shé?

Chinese historical sound changes are weird.

loglorn · Post by **loglorn** » 06 Sep 2015 22:38

GrandPiano wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:How does Cə.laj and mə.lat correspond with (that is, become) shé?
Chinese historical sound changes are weird.

I have give those a look, finding natlangs doing crazy beyond what you've imagined is always a relief.

GrandPiano · Post by **GrandPiano** » 04 Oct 2015 23:41

aimer "to love" :zho: 愛/爱 ài "to love"

qwed117 · Post by **qwed117** » 04 Oct 2015 23:49

fat
:hin: pet "stomach"

Post by **clawgrip** » 06 Oct 2015 07:15

下がる sagaru (descend; go down)

sag

I'm reaching here, but we seem to be running out of stuff.

The CBB

False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates

Re: False cognates