No.9689
Anonymous
2026-05-04 14:00:01
Etymology thread
"cretin". I do enjoy the connection to an older, obsolete? certainly unfamiliar to us, very broad and universal application of Christianity/Christendom. A form of identity that seems to have been forgotten in modern debates of ethnicity and nationality especially with those constant callbacks to a "purer past"
>>9690
Also rare pull with the Alpine French origin, when's the last time you heard of something from there?
Also rare pull with the Alpine French origin, when's the last time you heard of something from there?
>>9691
As the definition says, Switzerland was once infamous for cretinism. It's caused by low iodine and being high up in the mountains with poor soil causes that apparently. Another place where cretinism is common is in the Congo basin (rainforests are, contrary to popular belief, *less* fertile than other soils due to leeching effects) and this is thought to be the motivation for the evolution of the pygmy peoples, who are more distantly related from other humans than all other groups except the San (once 'Hottentot') peoples of the Kalahari.
As the definition says, Switzerland was once infamous for cretinism. It's caused by low iodine and being high up in the mountains with poor soil causes that apparently. Another place where cretinism is common is in the Congo basin (rainforests are, contrary to popular belief, *less* fertile than other soils due to leeching effects) and this is thought to be the motivation for the evolution of the pygmy peoples, who are more distantly related from other humans than all other groups except the San (once 'Hottentot') peoples of the Kalahari.
>>9692
Thanks for taking your banal obsession with racism (sorry, Human Biodiversity™) into my thread about LINGUISTICS but I implore you, do not do it again.
Thanks for taking your banal obsession with racism (sorry, Human Biodiversity™) into my thread about LINGUISTICS but I implore you, do not do it again.
No.9695
Anonymous
2026-05-04 15:04:15
>>9693
explain in actual words how this was a racist comment
explain in actual words how this was a racist comment
No.9696
Anonymous
2026-05-04 15:13:09
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankish_language#Influence_on_Old_French_and_Middle_English
A partial list of Frankish (a Germanic language) words that made it into French. A lot of big, obvious ones like bleu. Also a sort of facepalm moment for me for "frank" - I mean, duh!
I have always had the impression that the relationship between French and the other Romance languages is a little like English to the Germanic ones. That is, it's palpably distinct in many forms including etymologically, but I am not a strong speaker of any Romance languages so I could never solidly qualify that claim for myself like I can with the Germanic or Slavic families.
Wikipedia seems to have turned on these long table-lists (unless they're numerical or statistical data) in the last seven or so years so it's good to see one still surviving out there.
A partial list of Frankish (a Germanic language) words that made it into French. A lot of big, obvious ones like bleu. Also a sort of facepalm moment for me for "frank" - I mean, duh!
I have always had the impression that the relationship between French and the other Romance languages is a little like English to the Germanic ones. That is, it's palpably distinct in many forms including etymologically, but I am not a strong speaker of any Romance languages so I could never solidly qualify that claim for myself like I can with the Germanic or Slavic families.
Wikipedia seems to have turned on these long table-lists (unless they're numerical or statistical data) in the last seven or so years so it's good to see one still surviving out there.
No.9698
Anonymous
2026-05-04 16:55:40
>>9690
Fascinating.
>>9692
>Another place where cretinism is common is in the Congo basin (rainforests are, contrary to popular belief, *less* fertile than other soils due to leeching effects) and this is thought to be the motivation for the evolution of the pygmy peoples, who are more distantly related from other humans than all other groups except the San (once 'Hottentot') peoples of the Kalahari.
Very neat. I knew dwarfs were real! But seriously, that's very interesting how the environment truly shapes who we are. Ignore the redditor.
>>9693
Leave it to the person who creates an 'etymology' thread that throws the word 'racism' around inappropriately
Fascinating.
>>9692
>Another place where cretinism is common is in the Congo basin (rainforests are, contrary to popular belief, *less* fertile than other soils due to leeching effects) and this is thought to be the motivation for the evolution of the pygmy peoples, who are more distantly related from other humans than all other groups except the San (once 'Hottentot') peoples of the Kalahari.
Very neat. I knew dwarfs were real! But seriously, that's very interesting how the environment truly shapes who we are. Ignore the redditor.
>>9693
Leave it to the person who creates an 'etymology' thread that throws the word 'racism' around inappropriately
My favorite tid-bit is how 'cannibal' became the premier word for eating other people despite anthropophage already being established at least three decades before.
For context, Columbus first interacted with Taino speaking tribes on San Salvador, an small island near the Bahamas. They were quick to explain their fear of the "Caribs." From a December 13 entry in Columbus' diary:
"The settlement consisted of a thousand houses and more than a thousand men. The Indian whom the Christians had brought with them ran after them, shouting that they should not be afraid, that the Christians were not from Cariba but rather from heaven, and that they gave many beautiful things to everyone they met."
When speaking with the king on Dec. 26th:
"Although he says that the story began with the Cannibals—whom they call Caribs—who come to capture them, and bring bows and arrows without iron; for in all those lands there was no record of iron or any other metal, except for gold and copper, though the Admiral had seen very little copper. The Admiral signaled to him that the Kings of Castile would order the Caribs to be destroyed and that they would all be brought before them with their hands bound."
Eventually they continue East and meet what they assume to be the Caribs:
"His hair was very long and curled, tied back and then secured in a net made of parrot feathers, and he was as naked as the others. The admiral surmised that he must be one of the Caribs who eat people, and that the bay he had seen the day before—which jutted out from the mainland—must be an island in its own right. He asked him about the Caribs, and he pointed to the east, near there; "
He goes on to show that he hardly knows what the indigenous are telling him: "The admiral goes on to say that on the islands they had just passed, people were greatly afraid of the Caribs, and in some places they called them “Caniba,” but on Hispaniola they were known as “Caribs”; and that they must be a dangerous people, since they roam all these islands and eat anyone they can get their hands on. He says he understood a few words, and from them he infers other things, and that the Indians he brought with him understood more, since he found differences in languages due to the great distance between the lands."
Pretty much just playing a poly-lingual version of broken telephone. Once he realizes that he hasn't met the Caribs, he sails back toward Spain. He adds a little interesting tidbit, though:
"The Indians told him that by that route he would find the island of Matinino, which they said was inhabited by women without men; the Admiral would have liked very much to take five or six of them back to the King and Queen, but he doubted that the Indians knew the route well, and he could not delay, given the danger the caravels were facing from the water; but he says it was true that they existed, and that at a certain time of year men would come to them from the island of Carib, which he says was ten or twelve leagues away, and if they gave birth to a boy, they would send him to the island of men, and if a girl, they would keep her with them."
Obviously the claims that the Caribs were a) cannibals and b) segregated by sex are both hardly tenable. It's difficult to believe that anyone can acquire the ability to interpret all these relatively complex sentences after a few weeks of show-and-tell. He also never even arrived in Cariba and is basing himself off of his best interpretation of second-hand accounts. The biggest hole, though, is the fact that the Caribs never made it farther north than Guadalupe (500 miles away).
The natives could've tried currying favor with the Spaniards (which ended up working, as Columbus admits) or been referencing how the Spaniards had been murdering natives who strayed out of line.
Nevertheless, Columbus in Spain and gave life to the myth. Eventually the same narrative spread throughout Europe and cannibal became the word synonymous with the unproven practice of a tribe Columbus never met. It's a shame because anthropophage is not only more accurate, but arguably a much cooler one.
For context, Columbus first interacted with Taino speaking tribes on San Salvador, an small island near the Bahamas. They were quick to explain their fear of the "Caribs." From a December 13 entry in Columbus' diary:
"The settlement consisted of a thousand houses and more than a thousand men. The Indian whom the Christians had brought with them ran after them, shouting that they should not be afraid, that the Christians were not from Cariba but rather from heaven, and that they gave many beautiful things to everyone they met."
When speaking with the king on Dec. 26th:
"Although he says that the story began with the Cannibals—whom they call Caribs—who come to capture them, and bring bows and arrows without iron; for in all those lands there was no record of iron or any other metal, except for gold and copper, though the Admiral had seen very little copper. The Admiral signaled to him that the Kings of Castile would order the Caribs to be destroyed and that they would all be brought before them with their hands bound."
Eventually they continue East and meet what they assume to be the Caribs:
"His hair was very long and curled, tied back and then secured in a net made of parrot feathers, and he was as naked as the others. The admiral surmised that he must be one of the Caribs who eat people, and that the bay he had seen the day before—which jutted out from the mainland—must be an island in its own right. He asked him about the Caribs, and he pointed to the east, near there; "
He goes on to show that he hardly knows what the indigenous are telling him: "The admiral goes on to say that on the islands they had just passed, people were greatly afraid of the Caribs, and in some places they called them “Caniba,” but on Hispaniola they were known as “Caribs”; and that they must be a dangerous people, since they roam all these islands and eat anyone they can get their hands on. He says he understood a few words, and from them he infers other things, and that the Indians he brought with him understood more, since he found differences in languages due to the great distance between the lands."
Pretty much just playing a poly-lingual version of broken telephone. Once he realizes that he hasn't met the Caribs, he sails back toward Spain. He adds a little interesting tidbit, though:
"The Indians told him that by that route he would find the island of Matinino, which they said was inhabited by women without men; the Admiral would have liked very much to take five or six of them back to the King and Queen, but he doubted that the Indians knew the route well, and he could not delay, given the danger the caravels were facing from the water; but he says it was true that they existed, and that at a certain time of year men would come to them from the island of Carib, which he says was ten or twelve leagues away, and if they gave birth to a boy, they would send him to the island of men, and if a girl, they would keep her with them."
Obviously the claims that the Caribs were a) cannibals and b) segregated by sex are both hardly tenable. It's difficult to believe that anyone can acquire the ability to interpret all these relatively complex sentences after a few weeks of show-and-tell. He also never even arrived in Cariba and is basing himself off of his best interpretation of second-hand accounts. The biggest hole, though, is the fact that the Caribs never made it farther north than Guadalupe (500 miles away).
The natives could've tried currying favor with the Spaniards (which ended up working, as Columbus admits) or been referencing how the Spaniards had been murdering natives who strayed out of line.
Nevertheless, Columbus in Spain and gave life to the myth. Eventually the same narrative spread throughout Europe and cannibal became the word synonymous with the unproven practice of a tribe Columbus never met. It's a shame because anthropophage is not only more accurate, but arguably a much cooler one.
No.9706
Anonymous
2026-05-04 20:46:03
>>9705
-a small island*
-could have been trying*
-arrived in Spain*
I don't know why it was so hard for me to proof-read this post lol
-a small island*
-could have been trying*
-arrived in Spain*
I don't know why it was so hard for me to proof-read this post lol
>>9705
Isn't it Herodotus fanfiction though? Cannibals and Amazons... Colombus seems to have seen in the world what he had read in books.
Isn't it Herodotus fanfiction though? Cannibals and Amazons... Colombus seems to have seen in the world what he had read in books.
bigot(n.)
1590s, "sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite," from French bigot (12c.), which is of unknown origin. The sense was extended 1680s to opinions other than religious.
The earliest French use of the word is as the name of a people, apparently in southern Gaul, which led to the theory, now considered doubtful on phonetic grounds, that the word comes from Visigothus. The typical use in Old French seems to have been as a derogatory nickname for Normans, leading to another theory (not universally accepted) that traces it to the Normans' (alleged) frequent use of the Germanic oath bi God. OED [2nd ed. print, 1989] dismisses in a three-exclamation-mark fury one fanciful version of the "by god" theory as "absurdly incongruous with facts." At the end, not much is left standing except Spanish bigote "mustache," which also has been proposed as the origin of the word, but not explained, so the chief virtue of that theory is the lack of evidence against it.
In support of the "by God" theory the surnames Bigott, Bygott are attested in Normandy and in England from the 11c., and French name-etymology sources (such as Dauzat) explain it as a derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans and representing "by god." The English were known as goddamns 200 years later in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see son of a bitch) for their characteristic oaths.
But the sense development in bigot would be difficult to explain. According to Donkin, the modern meaning first appears in French in 16c. This and the earliest English sense, "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, might have been influenced by or confused with Beguine (q.v.) and the words that cluster around it.
1590s, "sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite," from French bigot (12c.), which is of unknown origin. The sense was extended 1680s to opinions other than religious.
The earliest French use of the word is as the name of a people, apparently in southern Gaul, which led to the theory, now considered doubtful on phonetic grounds, that the word comes from Visigothus. The typical use in Old French seems to have been as a derogatory nickname for Normans, leading to another theory (not universally accepted) that traces it to the Normans' (alleged) frequent use of the Germanic oath bi God. OED [2nd ed. print, 1989] dismisses in a three-exclamation-mark fury one fanciful version of the "by god" theory as "absurdly incongruous with facts." At the end, not much is left standing except Spanish bigote "mustache," which also has been proposed as the origin of the word, but not explained, so the chief virtue of that theory is the lack of evidence against it.
In support of the "by God" theory the surnames Bigott, Bygott are attested in Normandy and in England from the 11c., and French name-etymology sources (such as Dauzat) explain it as a derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans and representing "by god." The English were known as goddamns 200 years later in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see son of a bitch) for their characteristic oaths.
But the sense development in bigot would be difficult to explain. According to Donkin, the modern meaning first appears in French in 16c. This and the earliest English sense, "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, might have been influenced by or confused with Beguine (q.v.) and the words that cluster around it.
No.9718
Anonymous
2026-05-05 03:05:17
No.9733
Anonymous
2026-05-05 15:20:19
>>9712
Could possibly well have been. The great thing about studying Columbus is that no one had any fucking idea what he was on about half the time (hence why so many myths surround him)
Could possibly well have been. The great thing about studying Columbus is that no one had any fucking idea what he was on about half the time (hence why so many myths surround him)
I like that freedom and friend share a common PIE root.
>The sense evolution from "to love" to "free" is perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves; compare Latin liberi, meaning both "free persons" and "children of a family").
>The sense evolution from "to love" to "free" is perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves; compare Latin liberi, meaning both "free persons" and "children of a family").
No.9739
Anonymous
2026-05-05 16:42:47
>>9737
I'm soulless and hate friendship, does this mean I'll never be free?
I'm soulless and hate friendship, does this mean I'll never be free?
No.9741
Anonymous
2026-05-05 17:23:08
>>9737
Guest and host were the same root in PIE. A relationship presevered in many daughter languages (I was hosting a party at the bar when a host of men entered) and also cultural traditions (for example Indo-Iranian hospitality taboos — invoked by the Pashtun to explain why they would not give up Bin Laden — and also well attested in Old Irish tradition which is very conservative and has several interesting shared motifs with Indo-Iranian)
Guest and host were the same root in PIE. A relationship presevered in many daughter languages (I was hosting a party at the bar when a host of men entered) and also cultural traditions (for example Indo-Iranian hospitality taboos — invoked by the Pashtun to explain why they would not give up Bin Laden — and also well attested in Old Irish tradition which is very conservative and has several interesting shared motifs with Indo-Iranian)
Again with the Franks. They are truly the yin to Norman yang!
No.9777
Anonymous
2026-05-06 14:02:01
Ironic? No, only "ironic" if your idea of the region and its history is one-sided
No.9797
Anonymous
2026-05-07 00:50:21
>>9765
Galbe is such a nice word. The superior "forme", the rounder "contour", a nice poetic ligne claire for satisfying shapes.
Galbe is such a nice word. The superior "forme", the rounder "contour", a nice poetic ligne claire for satisfying shapes.
No.9810
Anonymous
2026-05-07 14:03:42
Lentil is pre-IE. all hail the lenticular. Something about this delights me idk
No.9863
Anonymous
2026-05-09 17:20:21
pom de terre :DDD
No.9923
Anonymous
2026-05-12 10:09:16
No.10078
Anonymous
2026-05-18 12:14:29
I'm becoming a fucking Frankish truther. Nobody can hold me back from telling the world the truth