false-cognates

[false-cognates]

#45: “tachyon” > “dung”

Ancient Greek ταχυ-ον < PIE *dʰn̥gʰu-om > PGmc *dungu-ą > OE dung > ModE dung /dʊŋ/

(Sorry about the slow update schedule recently. I’ve been having some problems with Tumblr, and I may need to relocate this blog. I’ll try to keep you posted.)

Ancient Greek form: Did not exist as such, but is rather a modern form based on analogy to proton (πρῶτον) and neutron (νεῦτρον). I have interpreted the PGmc form accordingly, although it doesn’t matter—final a-loss would syllabify *w anyway.

Proto-Indo-European form: Hypothetical, and apparently based on only one (Lithuanian) cognate déngti.

Old English form: The second /u/ is lost after a heavy syllable, making this word identical to *dungō (but with presumably different inflection.)

[false-cognates]

S-mobile, as far as I understand it (which, I will admit, is basically limited to having read the Wikipedia page), appears only before voiceless stops and before liquids.

PIE didn’t allow null onsets, but I don’t think that’s true of words beginning with liquids. So if *uper/*upo is a zero-grade of some root *wep-, then there needn’t be a laryngeal. Plus, s-mobile before /w/ may actually be attested. This seems harder to support when nothing like *wep- exists (and anyway, it seems unlikely that uper is related to upo in that way, given the opposite meaning.)

#44: “surprise” > “ixoverforgouse”

Middle French surprise < Latin super-prehēnsus < PIE *h₁eḱs-uper-preh₂i-gʰn̥d-tós > PGmc *ihs-uber-frai-gunsaz > OE ihs-ofer-for-gūs > ModE ixoverforgouse /ɪksˌoʊvəɹfɔɹˈɡaʊs/

Proto-Indo-European form: The etymology usually given of prehendō is prae + hendō, which is problematic with regard to the initial vowel. A rather complex justification is given by Livingston 2004. Personally I am inclined to believe that pre- represents a different grade of *p(e)r-, which did not survive into Latin.

Proto-Germanic form: An alternate cognate of Latin super, with analogical development to Latin, would be *s-uber > sofer > sover (producing soverforgouse). *gʰn̥d-tós becomes *gʰn̥dstós. Without the intervening nasal this would simplify to *gussaz, but as we can see from e.g. *pn̥t-tós, the result is *gunsaz.

[false-cognates]

I’ve never heard of s-mobile operating in that way (i.e. before vowels), but it could be. de Vaan doesn’t list a source for it, and neither does Beekes, so I’m not actually sure where I got the impression it was from eks-uper.

#44: “surprise” > “ixoverforgouse”

Middle French surprise < Latin super-prehēnsus < PIE *h₁eḱs-uper-preh₂i-gʰn̥d-tós > PGmc *ihs-uber-frai-gunsaz > OE ihs-ofer-for-gūs > ModE ixoverforgouse /ɪksˌoʊvəɹfɔɹˈɡaʊs/

Proto-Indo-European form: The etymology usually given of prehendō is prae + hendō, which is problematic with regard to the initial vowel. A rather complex justification is given by Livingston 2004. Personally I am inclined to believe that pre- represents a different grade of *p(e)r-, which did not survive into Latin.

Proto-Germanic form: An alternate cognate of Latin super, with analogical development to Latin, would be *s-uber > sofer > sover (producing soverforgouse). *gʰn̥d-tós becomes *gʰn̥dstós. Without the intervening nasal this would simplify to *gussaz, but as we can see from e.g. *pn̥t-tós, the result is *gunsaz.

[false-cognates]

#44: “surprise” > “ixoverforgouse”

Middle French surprise < Latin super-prehēnsus < PIE *h₁eḱs-uper-preh₂i-gʰn̥d-tós > PGmc *ihs-uber-frai-gunsaz > OE ihs-ofer-for-gūs > ModE ixoverforgouse /ɪksˌoʊvəɹfɔɹˈɡaʊs/

Proto-Indo-European form: The etymology usually given of prehendō is prae + hendō, which is problematic with regard to the initial vowel. A rather complex justification is given by Livingston 2004. Personally I am inclined to believe that pre- represents a different grade of *p(e)r-, which did not survive into Latin.

Proto-Germanic form: An alternate cognate of Latin super, with analogical development to Latin, would be *s-uber > sofer > sover (producing soverforgouse). *gʰn̥d-tós becomes *gʰn̥dstós. Without the intervening nasal this would simplify to *gussaz, but as we can see from e.g. *pn̥t-tós, the result is *gunsaz.

[false-cognates]

There is not apparently any sort of consensus. According to de Vaan, the first member is either *en-, *n̥-, or *end(o)-; in the latter case, the root could be *Vlg. Connection with longus is difficult, due to the lack of the nasal; connection with langueō is problematic as the root given for langueō is *slh₂g-. *delǵʰ- comes from LIV (which is old, and anything but accurate), and means “to be hard, become fixed”. Sihler proposes *n̥-dl̥ǵʰ-eh₁- as meaning “not to be hard toward” ~ “to be lenient toward”.

#43: “indulge” > “untollow”

Latin indulgeō < PIE *n̥-dl̥ǵʰ-eh₁- > PGmc *un-tulgijaną > OE untolgian > ModE untollow /ʌnˈtɒ.loʊ/

Proto-Indo-European form: The semantics are somewhat uncertain (the original root apparently means “to fix”), for a full discussion see Sihler p. 302. I have taken what he gives as the most likely form, a stative in -eh₁-.

Old English form: Note the lack of umlaut. A similar lack can be seen in a similar verb *fulgijaną > follow. These verbs are not in fact class I weak, but class III weak verbs, and so have forms (e.g. fulgaisi, fulgaiþi) that would not be affected by umlaut. (Not that it’s not possible—for example, fylġan is attested—but I have chosen the un-umlauted form in order to demonstrate the curiosities of this class.)

[false-cognates]

#43: “indulge” > “untollow”

Latin indulgeō < PIE *n̥-dl̥ǵʰ-eh₁- > PGmc *un-tulgijaną > OE untolgian > ModE untollow /ʌnˈtɒ.loʊ/

Proto-Indo-European form: The semantics are somewhat uncertain (the original root apparently means “to fix”), for a full discussion see Sihler p. 302. I have taken what he gives as the most likely form, a stative in -eh₁-.

Old English form: Note the lack of umlaut. A similar lack can be seen in a similar verb *fulgijaną > follow. These verbs are not in fact class I weak, but class III weak verbs, and so have forms (e.g. fulgaisi, fulgaiþi) that would not be affected by umlaut. (Not that it’s not possible—for example, fylġan is attested—but I have chosen the un-umlauted form in order to demonstrate the curiosities of this class.)

[false-cognates]

I tried my hand at deriving *H₂ENH̥₂-BʰI-UD-ONOM and I ended up with "about" > "eambethon" /'i:mbɛþɑn/. Was I close at all? It was my first try so I'm guessing it's pretty far off. I love this blog--thank you!

“About” is a native English word.

Without any reduction, I’d expect *h₂enh̥₂-bʰi-ud-onom > *an-bi-utaną > on-be-otan > onbeote /ˈɔn.biː.oʊt/ (somewhat similar to ‘symbiote’.) With juncture loss as far back as PGmc, *anbiutaną > ombēotan > ombeet /ˈɔm.biːt/.

The expected change is reduction of ‘an’ to ‘a’. The unexpected change is lengthening of PIE *ud to *ūt. (The other unexpected change is a final laryngeal reflected as *a, but that syncopes out anyway.)

[false-cognates]

where did #39 go?

I’m not sure. I may have accidentally deleted it. Or I may have accidentally skipped a number. I have assumed the latter and adjusted the numbering accordingly.

[false-cognates]

#42: “amoeba” > “moak”

Latin amœba < Ancient Greek ἀμοιβή < PIE *h₂moygʷ-eh₂ > PGmc *maikwō > OE māc > ModE moak /moʊk/

Old English form: While labiovelars survive (mostly) into Proto-Germanic, word-final -kw does not seem to survive into Old English. -ō does become -u, but is lost after a heavy syllable.

Modern English form: -ā- becomes ⟨oa⟩.

[false-cognates]

#41: “damn” > “taven”

Latin damnāre < PIE *dh̥₂p-n-eh₂ye- > PGmc *tabnōną > OE tæfnian > ModE taven /ˈteɪ.vən/

Proto-Germanic form: An old theory states that -Cn- combinations, where the consonant is voiced, become unvoiced geminates, in this case yielding *tappōną > tæppian > tap. However, this theory is rejected by Beekes.

Old English form: Note that intervocalic -bC- still triggers lenition if the consonant is a liquid.

[false-cognates]

#40: “procrastinate” > “forresten”

Latin prōcrāstināre < PIE *pro-ḱreh₂s-t-in-eh₂ye- > PGmc *fra-hrōstinōną > OE for-hrēstnian > ModE forresten /fɔ(ɹ)ˈɹɛs.ən/

(Suggested by guitarplayer. Ironically, I finished this one later than I wanted to...)

Proto-Indo-European form: No part of this word is certain. There is some debate over whether *pro or *prō was the original form; however, since a cognate is attested in Germanic, I chose the former. crās is hardly sure, but I have given the best theory cited in de Vaan. The suffix -tinus is found in other temporal adjectives, e.g. diutinus, under which de Vaan postulates *-inos (cf. Greek ἐαρῐνός) with an extension of the root in *-t-.

Old English form: The prefix *fra- merged with *fur- and *fer- except in Gothic. Syncope of -stin- is actually attested in the verb *fastinōną > fæstnian > fasten.

Modern English: It’s unclear whether /ɹ/ would be properly geminate here (especially given that the prefix for- is often reduced to /fə-/.) Normally vowels are not shortened before -st-, but here there is a cluster -stn-, and three consonants will always shorten a vowel (compare e.g. ghost and ghastly.)

[false-cognates]

#39: “syncope” > “sumhave”

Greek συνκοπή < PIE *ḱsum-kop-éh₂ > PGmc *sum-habō > OE sum-hafu > ModE sumhave /ˈsʌm.heɪv/

Proto-Indo-European form: The origin of σύν is obscure. I have here given the most PIE-like etymology.

Proto-Germanic form: Given the accent on the Greek word, we can apply Verner’s law to *f (but not *h, as it is morpheme-initial.)

Old English form: /a/ fronts to /æ/, but is restored by the following back vowel.

[false-cognates]

#38: “domino” > “tame”

French domino < Latin dominus < PIE *dom-onos > PGmc *tamanaz > OE tamen > ModE tame /teɪm/

Proto-Indo-European form: It’s unclear what yielded Latin -i-; the most likely explanation seems to be a thematic vowel, but this is far from certain.

Old English form: Fortunately, the unstressed vowel reduces in any case, and so it does not ultimately matter what vowel we reconstruct. Note that /a/ does not front due to the intervening nasal.

Modern English form: The loss of final nasals does not seem to be merely a morphological change. Notably, nearly identical words *gamaną and *samana become gamen > game and samen > same, and so I here construct tame.

[false-cognates]

#37: “Jesus” > “Yorrow”

Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ ‎(yēšū́aʿ) → PIE *Yēsū́ah₂ > PGmc *Jēzūō > OE Ġārū > ModE Yorrow /ˈjɒɹoʊ/

(Author’s note: I had previously been rejecting loanwords on the basis that there was no way to show the derivation process. However, a solution was recently pointed out to me: simply borrow the word into PIE, and then derive it normally. This may not work well for all words, but will certainly allow for some interesting derivations. As a side note, I will be tagging all such posts #loanword.)

Proto-Indo-European form: The ayin (ע) is a pharyngeal fricative or similar, which is close to the general consensus as to what *h₂ represents. Of course, with such a form, the word would likely be interpreted as a feminine noun.

Proto-Germanic form: Fairly straightforward; since the word takes the form of a feminine noun, there is no problem with inflection class. Additionally, the Hebrew stress accent allows us to correctly apply Verner’s law.

Old English form: Surprisingly, there actually exists a word in Proto-Germanic with the same hiatus: *būą “building” > OE bū (plural apparently bȳ, however—it seems the noun was reanalyzed as a consonant stem?) Thus we can safely say that the OE form, at least in the nominative, would have ended in -ū.

Modern English form: The two usual spellings of -ār- are -oar and -or(e), but neither the form “Yoarow” nor “Yorow” seems especially correct. It is no surprise that there are few examples of polysyllabicwords in -V̄r- that are not simply derivatives of root words. What is surprising is that such examples as do occur show characteristic shortening in Middle English: OE hǣring > ME hering > ModE herring; OE ǣrende > ME erande > ModE errand; OE sāriġ > ME sari > ModE sorry. Therefore, I have constructed Yorrow, which is pronounced like sorry, as well as sorrow and morrow. The final /oʊ/, which usually can be traced back to Middle English -we or -ow (whereas one would expect -ū > -u, assuming unstressed shortening, although this is hardly a certainty), but I have here constructed it—if not on the basis of regular sound change, then on the basis of analogy.

[false-cognates]

#36: “Renaissance” > “wrecuskend”

French renaissance < Latin re-nāsc-entia < PIE *wre-ǵn̥h₁-sḱ-ónth̥₂ > PGmc *wre-kunsk-and > OE wrecūscende > ModE wrecuskend /ɹiːˈkʌsk.ɨnd/

Proto-Indo-European form: I am not aware of the origin of the Latin /i/. It may have been extended from i-stems.

Proto-Germanic form: The identity of the (strong) neuter form of the participle is uncertain. I have here derived it regularly (except for application of Verner’s Law.)

Old English: The strong form of the participle was remodeled. Note that -sc- does not palatalize—a rare occurence—as it is surrounded by back vowels.

[false-cognates]

#35: “terrier” > “tharrer”

Old French terrier < Latin terrārius < PIE *ters-eh₂r-yos > PGmc *þerzōrijaz > OE þeorrere > ModE tharrer /θɑɹ.əɹ/

(Edit: I confused Sievers’ law with Szemerényi’s law. Thanks to @kaththedragon for letting me know.)

Proto-Indo-European form: I was unable to locate *-ārius in any etymological dictionaries, however, it must trace back to *-eh₂rios, with /i/ possibly due to Sievers’ law.

Old English form: The suffix could have a long form *-ēre (> -ear? -eer?), but most suffixes were reduced in Old English. The suffix -ārius, borrowed from Latin, was also reduced to -ere, and in fact became the agent suffix -er.

Modern English form: /er/ was lowered to /ar/ (compare bark, tar, star.)

[false-cognates]

#34: “emblem” > “encolm”

Ancient Greek ἔμβλημα < PIE *h₁en-gʷl̥h₂-mn̥ > PGmc *in-kul-mô > OE incolma > ModE encolm /ɪnˈkoɫm/

Proto-Germanic form: Epenthesis of /u/ happens first, followed by delabialization—a productive process in PIE that remained productive for some time in many languages (e.g. Old Latin ecus, among others.)

Old English form: The tricky law here is a-mutation, which is a misnomer anyway—it is also triggered by o-vowels. It is blocked by a nasal, but only when the nasal directly follows the vowel and precedes another consonant (or is geminate). This is necessarily difficult to prove, as *n tended to assimilate to preceding consonants, but fortunately there is not one but two examples to show what happened to the sequence *-ulm(o)-: *fulmō > folm and *hulmaz > holm (note that modern holm, while it would be a regular derivation, is actually borrowed from Old Norse.)

Modern English form: A bit tricky. The prefix en- is not very common, and more often than not derives from Latin (through French) or Greek. The only certain example I could find was enlighten. It is worth noting that English tends to stress nouns and verbs differently as well; it is possible that this word would be stressed initially by analogy to e.g. encore; in which case it would be pronounced /ˈɑn.koɫm/.