(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2019]

[Salmoneus]

Basque may have played a role. Old Basque contrasted gemination for /n l r /, but not for stops or the labial nasal /m/.

Old Basque is unlikely to have played a huge role in the development of Latin, given our current understandings of history.

[zyma]

Thank you all for your responses!

[GrandPiano]

Also worth noting that while Latin non-geminated /r/ became /ɾ/ in Spanish intervocalically, at the beginnings of words it remained a trill; thus, a few instances of word-internal trilled /r/ in Spanish come from compounds with words that begin with /r/, e.g. pelo /ˈpelo/ “hair” + rojo /ˈroxo/ “red” > pelirrojo /peliˈroxo/ “redhead” (at least that’s what I assume the etymology of that word to be).

There’s also the future and conditional forms of querer “to want”, where a contraction put two /ɾ/s next to each other, giving /r/: *quereré /keɾeˈɾe/ > querré /keˈre/ “I will want”.

[Pabappa]

Is there any chance that the Slavic patronymics in -ov, etc are a direct loan of Greek masculine genitive -ou, which is also a patronymic? I couldnt find info on the etymology of the Russian sufx paradigm. I know rhat the gk is from pie.

[esoanem]

Basque may have played a role. Old Basque contrasted gemination for /n l r /, but not for stops or the labial nasal /m/.

Old Basque is unlikely to have played a huge role in the development of Latin, given our current understandings of history.

Isn't Old Basque usually given as the reason for Spanish's frequent f>h? (I think the usual justification is that Old Basque lacked f but had h and the change is almost exclusive to the areas with the biggest historical Basque population and absent in both the East and West of the peninsula which never had a Basque population)

[All4Ɇn]

Is there any chance that the Slavic patronymics in -ov, etc are a direct loan of Greek masculine genitive -ou, which is also a patronymic? I couldnt find info on the etymology of the Russian sufx paradigm. I know rhat the gk is from pie.

It's not but I'm sure they're related as the Russian patronymics are contractions of the masculine genitive form of the name (-ov) and the word for son (syn)

[gestaltist]

Is there any chance that the Slavic patronymics in -ov, etc are a direct loan of Greek masculine genitive -ou, which is also a patronymic? I couldnt find info on the etymology of the Russian sufx paradigm. I know rhat the gk is from pie.

A cognate, more like. I am not entirely sure and couldn't find anything definite but I'll tell you what I know about Polish. The suffix -ow(y)/-ów was historically a possessive, and is common in Polish (and Russian) town names (e.g., "Kraków" = "(town) belonging to Krak"). In modern Polish, it is also a common adjectivizer suffix. So it seems likely to me that it comes from the same PIE source as the Greek genitive but I would be surprised if it's a direct loan. Especially if you take into account that the typical patronimic ending in Rus was -ich, not -ov.

[Zekoslav]

Is there any chance that the Slavic patronymics in -ov, etc are a direct loan of Greek masculine genitive -ou, which is also a patronymic? I couldnt find info on the etymology of the Russian sufx paradigm. I know rhat the gk is from pie.

A cognate, more like. I am not entirely sure and couldn't find anything definite but I'll tell you what I know about Polish. The suffix -ow(y)/-ów was historically a possessive, and is common in Polish (and Russian) town names (e.g., "Kraków" = "(town) belonging to Krak"). In modern Polish, it is also a common adjectivizer suffix. So it seems likely to me that it comes from the same PIE source as the Greek genitive but I would be surprised if it's a direct loan. Especially if you take into account that the typical patronimic ending in Rus was -ich, not -ov.

It's neither a loan nor a cognate, unfortunately. Gestaltist is right that the Slavic patronymic suffix was originally a possessive adjective It derives from the pie. adjectival suffix *-wos suffixed to o-stems, giving *-o-wos > -ov. For that reason, it is only used with masculine and neuter nouns, since there are no feminine o-stems in Slavic. It is still a productive suffix in my native language (a variant of standard Croatian), to the point that it has practically replaced the possessive use of the genitive case (This is, I think, true for all South Slavic languages - it is certainly true for the entire Serbo-Croatian area, Slovene, and I recall it being mentioned for Bulgarian as well).

Greek -ou, on the other hand, derives from the pie. genitive *-osyo, and the resulting similarity is a complete coincidence.

[Ælfwine]

Besides the vowel changes commonly associated with each branch of Romance, what are some other ways Vulgar Latin vowels have developed?

For example, I know that Sicilian had merged ē i ī and ō u ū all together, but what else?

[All4Ɇn]

Is there any evidence that the use of the word Akt in German to refer to a nude at least partially developed from rebracketing of "ein Nackt"?

[ixals]

Wikipedia says "Akt" referred to any kind of sketch involving humans performing an action, both dressed and undressed. In the Renaissance however, sketching naked people became very popular so the term shifted from "a person doing something" to "a naked person doing something" and in the end to "a naked person". So the term has been used before the current meaning it has. I don't think a rebracketing happened (or influenced the meaning) but I have to admit, that it would be a very cool rebracketing.

[All4Ɇn]

Wikipedia says "Akt" referred to any kind of sketch involving humans performing an action, both dressed and undressed. In the Renaissance however, sketching naked people became very popular so the term shifted from "a person doing something" to "a naked person doing something" and in the end to "a naked person"

Interesting. I figured it had to have something to do with nakt given that in English, Dutch, and the Romance languages the word for a nude is the same as those languages adjective for naked.

[Axiem]

I am trying to get a better handle on oaths/swears, and how they're derived. It's the sort of thing I use all the time, but don't have any real sense of how they work grammatically.

I'll start with a question that's been bothering me: the word "by" in English. So for instance, in the phrase "By Jove!" or "By all that is holy!", what is the role of "by" in that? How did it come to be? Are there similar sorts of constructions in other languages?

[Parlox]

I am trying to get a better handle on oaths/swears, and how they're derived. It's the sort of thing I use all the time, but don't have any real sense of how they work grammatically.

I'll start with a question that's been bothering me: the word "by" in English. So for instance, in the phrase "By Jove!" or "By all that is holy!", what is the role of "by" in that? How did it come to be? Are there similar sorts of constructions in other languages?

Well, it looks like in "By all that is holy!", that "by" means "Through the medium of" and is a preosition. I might be wrong though.

[gestaltist]

I am trying to get a better handle on oaths/swears, and how they're derived. It's the sort of thing I use all the time, but don't have any real sense of how they work grammatically.

I'll start with a question that's been bothering me: the word "by" in English. So for instance, in the phrase "By Jove!" or "By all that is holy!", what is the role of "by" in that? How did it come to be? Are there similar sorts of constructions in other languages?

Well, it looks like in "By all that is holy!", that "by" means "Through the medium of" and is a preosition. I might be wrong though.

The etymology of "by Jove" is a Google search away: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/by_Jove These sorts of constructions can be found in all European languages as calques from Latin. I know that the Bible (and hence Hebrew) has similar constructions but would also be interested to know how it works in other languages/cultures. Is swearing by a deity universal? I found some article claiming that many Chinese swearwords use "eggs" for some reason...

[Axiem]

swearing by a deity

What does it mean to swear "by" something? Like, when I think of how I use "by" in other ways, it's things like the instrumental ("I wrote this by pen") or a location preposition meaning "next to": ("The pen is by the pencil") or to indicate authorship (which is potentially a metaphorical use of the instrumental) ("The article was written by me") but none of these seem to be what's going on in oaths.

I can see etymologically it's supposedly connected to "pro" in the Latin, but my understanding of "pro" is "on behalf of" or "in front of", not "next to". So I'm not sure how it made the jump from one to another.

But also, what does it mean to swear in front of Jove? Why would that matter?

[Dormouse559]

What does it mean to swear "by" something? Like, when I think of how I use "by" in other ways, it's things like the instrumental ("I wrote this by pen") or a location preposition meaning "next to": ("The pen is by the pencil") or to indicate authorship (which is potentially a metaphorical use of the instrumental) ("The article was written by me") but none of these seem to be what's going on in oaths.

I can see etymologically it's supposedly connected to "pro" in the Latin, but my understanding of "pro" is "on behalf of" or "in front of", not "next to". So I'm not sure how it made the jump from one to another.

Wiktionary, "by", sense 12 — Indicates an oath: With the authority of.

I can't comment on whether that meaning was influenced by Latin, but "by" means a lot more things than just "next to", and any one of those meanings could be the root of its use in oaths.

But also, what does it mean to swear in front of Jove? Why would that matter?

Jove is the head of the Roman pantheon. If your assertion is endorsed by the king of the gods, that lends some credibility.

[Axiem]

Wiktionary, "by", sense 12 — Indicates an oath: With the authority of.

I'm trying to think of an instance of that meaning outside of oaths, and I'm struggling to think of any. It feels more like "by" gained that meaning as a result of being translated from "pro"—so I'm wondering how it got picked instead of "before" or "for" or anything like that.

But also, what does it mean to swear in front of Jove? Why would that matter?

Jove is the head of the Roman pantheon. If your assertion is endorsed by the king of the gods, that lends some credibility.

I'm aware of who Jove is; that I named him instead of anything else is immaterial to my query. What does it mean to swear in front of [literally anything]? Why would that matter?

[Dormouse559]

I'm trying to think of an instance of that meaning outside of oaths, and I'm struggling to think of any. It feels more like "by" gained that meaning as a result of being translated from "pro"—so I'm wondering how it got picked instead of "before" or "for" or anything like that.

Who said neither of those got picked? For example, "I swear before God this is true." It has the same oath-making effect as "by", though I'd say it places the object of the oath as more of a witness than a source of authority, which may speak to your question of what it means to swear "in front of".

[Axiem]

I'm trying to think of an instance of that meaning outside of oaths, and I'm struggling to think of any. It feels more like "by" gained that meaning as a result of being translated from "pro"—so I'm wondering how it got picked instead of "before" or "for" or anything like that.

Who said neither of those got picked? For example, "I swear before God this is true." It has the same oath-making effect as "by", though I'd say it places the object of the oath as more of a witness than a source of authority, which may speak to your question of what it means to swear "in front of".

Hm, so is the implication then that the deity/whatever would punish the swear-maker should the statement prove false (or not be followed through)? How does that apply to oaths related to body parts (e.g. "<I swear> by Jupiter's hand I will end you!") and things like that? (Using <> instead of [] because BBCode)

So um, what is an "oath" or a "swear", anyway? And why is "swearing" both a thing you do in e.g. court and also to mean a thing you shouldn't say (i.e. roughly synonymous with "cuss" or "obscene/profane language" even though there are subtleties in those)?

To a certain extent, I guess I'm just trying to understand the cultural worldview that led to these sorts of phrases to begin with :/