I thought it might be interesting to open a thread on this subject and prompted by a recent word I came across.

That word was ‘edify’ which the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says is derived from the Latin aedificare, to build, and which itself is a conflation of the Latin aedis, a dwelling, and facere, to make. These are the roots of the words ‘edifice’ and ‘edification’. The interesting thing about it is that the modern meaning of the verb ‘edify’ has nothing to do with house building but relates to the moral and educational improvement of the person. In Irish we have the word éadaigh (pron. ‘aid-ig’) = ‘clothes’ and éidigh (same pron.) = ‘armour’, which may be related.

It seems in later Latin it became a common usage for "building up character" as in the moral education of a person and thus found its way into English via French.

What is strange though is that "to edify" now only means that particular application of the verb, though as late as the 17th century it could obviously still be used to mean physical construction of buildings etc (I take it the inspiration for your post was the quote you cited in your other thread - "Kilcolman Castle had originally been destroyed in 1598 but was subsequently ‘re-edified’").

One does wonder why perfectly logical and usable words simply "drop out" of usage and are often replaced by less precise or otherwise inferior terms.

The word 'egregious' has gone from meaning outstanding (in a positive sense) to meaning the opposite. The word itself derives from the Latin for 'out of the herd' - (i.e. 'ex grex') so technically its use as an adjective could be either positive or negative depending on the noun applied.

Really interesting site, maps of Europe that show the origin and meanings of some common words used by the various countries. Or in other words, the influence of language

http://www.businessinsider.com/european-maps-showing-origins-of-common-words-2013-11

That's an interesting site Islanddawn.

Thanks for that.

Kind regards and with esteem,

Paul.

Great map - very interesting stuff there. It's spoiled a little bit for me when I see "béar" as Irish for "bear" cited as displaying similar roots to its English cognate when I grew up with "urrán" as the Irish word and know that "béar" only really appeared during the 1970s - around the same time that the powers-that-be decided "gluaisteán" was too complicated for kids to learn as a word for "car" and suddenly "carr" became the Irish word too. "Urrán" of course shows a link back to "ursa", cognate with "arknos" (Gr.).

Interestingly, even when "urrán" was the word taught in schools we still had "bheithir" for a she-bear. It obviously can indeed be linked to the English cognate but why it ever ended up only to mean a female "urrán" is anyone's guess. To complicate things even further the only word we know that was used for "bear" before Latin was introduced into Gaelic was "mathghamháin", and where that might fit on the colour-coded map is also anyone's guess.

One of the online films I found about the expulsion of Germans from formerly German territories mentioned the word "flucht" which Google Translate gives as meaning "escape" in English.  Would "flight" as in the somewhat archaic biblical expression of "The Flight into Egypt" be from the same origin?  Also, does the saying "doing a midnight flit" - to leave one's lodgings clandestinely without paying the rent - have any relation to "flight" in this sense of the word?

English "flight" and German "flucht" do indeed come from the same Old German root "flug", though the extra notions of "speed" as well as "escape" arose mainly in English whereas the German expression is still closer to its original meaning related to how birds and insects fly, so still infers a meandering or seemingly aimless motion. With regard to refugees therefore it is a perfect word to imply a scattering of people forced to leave their homeland.

"Flit" is one of those English words that came in with the Norse settlers in the early medieval period. It is very similar in sense to the Old German "flug" (and probably shares a very old common root from PIE "pleu-" which implies "float") in that it suggests movement from place to place. In English it in fact originally meant literally only this when used about people - migration from one home to another, in the sense that we now say "move" when changing abode.

I've moved this from the development of a language thread because I think this thread is more fitting.

Is the 'burde' in the medieval text linked http://wpwt.soton.ac.uk/harl2253/ichot/ichotext.htm  "Ichot a burde in bour bryght" from the same root as the modern usage of "me bird" for "my girlfriend" in slang sometimes?

Also, thank you nordmann for a swift response to my question about "flucht" and "flight".

I don't agree with the Wessex Parallel Web Texts "translation" of that line at all. For "Ichot a burde in bour bryght" they posit "I know a noble lady", and they justify this by saying that "bour", in Middle English, could mean a private chamber in a rich dwelling, so they are free on that basis to interpret this as "noble". "Bour" would more comfortably equate with Modern English "bower", and while it may have been used as a euphemism for a bedroom in the past, its sense in Middle English was still more akin to its root in Saxon "burr", which is simply a secure place to rest. The -burgh ending in placenames, for example, comes from use of the very same term to denote defensive buildings erected for security. In fact in Germanic languages "burr" most often these days infers simply a "cage" - as it was also used to mean in Middle English (and I suspect in this poem too) - with an emphasis on the security it affords its occupant rather than the captivity aspect.

With this in mind then the poet's playful use of the expression "a bird in a cage" makes not only more sense, but also gives the reader a hint of the humour and verbal playfulness he employs throughout the rest of the poem. So yes, he did call the lady a "bird", but not as in modern slang. It was more innovative than that, and the avian allusion is simply part of the larger image in which the "cage" also featured.

Anyone know why pants/slacks are plural?  I found one explanation that the garments (or their predecessors) were originally separate leg pieces held together on a draw (drawer?) string with enough overlap to stop anything inappropriate showing.  Another explanation was given that such words were plurale tantum and could only be used in the plural (other examples like scissors and pliers were given).  I was doing some background reading about sewing and came across the first explanation and thought I'd check if it was correct.

Also belated thanks to nordmann for explaining the medieval 'burde'.

In French, le pantalon, with no plural 's' but meaning trousers, has always been singular because it's just an individual one-piece item of clothing. Basically it is the same as the English: a pair (singular) of trousers (two of 'em, hence a plural). The English 'pair of trousers' implies two individual bits of 'trouser' or 'trouse' one for each leg, no?

But in English one can also misleadingly talk about a brace (ie two) of grouse (that's two individual grouse - or should that be grouces or even grice?); a 'pair' of kippers (ie two joined halves of a single fish); or just a dozen eggs (singular but of twelve individual items). And while the French pantalon (a singular item made of two parts) seems correct in French, what about a pair of scissors, which in French is, rather perversely when compared to trousers/pantalon, une paire de ciseaux - or more commonly les ciseaux, ie scissors, ... which is clearly a plural noun but for a singular item?

Languages are not always consistent ... that's just the way they are I guess.

Meles meles wrote:

Languages are not always consistent ... that's just the way they are I guess.

I had just such a thought today when a presenter on a radio gardening program said "Today marks the start of the Advent so let's talk about holly." Note the use of the definite article there - the Advent. I'd never heard it used in this way before but then we do talk about such things as 'the advent of the motor car' or 'the advent of war' etc so why not 'the Advent' for the liturgical season.

Thanks for the enlightenment, MM. Thinking of old-fashioned corsetry folk speak (or spoke) of a corset but some stays. Thinking of what Vizzer mentioned I've never heard of "The Advent" about the season though I have heard of "the Advent season" or "the season of Advent".

Modern Advent calenders also nearly always start on the 1st December and count down to Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, but strictly the first day of Advent is the fourth Sunday before Christmas, hence this year it does indeed start today, on the 29th November.

Yes - I've always considered the 1st of December to be the first day of Advent. For retailers it's the 1st of November (sometimes/often earlier) and for commerce generally it's the 26th of December the previous year. I think that our gardeners' questions friend was just relishing the opportunity to be a double pedant here.

Etymology meurtre-murder-Mord-moord

Looking to the French series: "meurtres à"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_in...
I wondered how this word ressembling in four languages was linked etymologically...
it was easy for English, German and Dutch...
https://www.etymonline.com/word/murder
and it is related with the Proto Indo-European "mar"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/*mer-?ref=etymonline_crossreference

And for the French "meurtre" also from
https://www.etymonline.com/word/murder
"The spelling with -d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-French murdre, from Old French mordre, from Medieval Latin murdrum, which is from the Germanic word. A parallel form murther persisted into 19c."

And confirmed from a French site:

https://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/meurtre

Even a William the Conqueror...

As we were recently on the board discussing the etymology of the words "swine", "pig", "porc" and as we have in Dutch also two words for it: "zwijn" and "varken"...
And from my experience of the two main dialects of the former County of Flanders: East- and West-Flemish, they use more in East-Flanders the word "verken" (although also "swein"), while in West-Flanders more "swien"...

https://www.etymonline.com/word/swine
Old English swin "pig, hog, wild boar," from Proto-Germanic *sweina- (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian Middle Low German, Old High German swin, Middle Dutch swijn, Dutch zwijn, German Schwein, Old Norse, Swedish, Danish svin), neuter adjective (with suffix *-ino-) from PIE *su- "pig"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/pig
Middle English pigge "a young pig" (mid-13c., late 12c. as a surname), probably from Old English *picg, found in compounds, but, like dog, its further etymology unknown. The older general word for adults was swine, if female, sow, if male, boar. Apparently related to Low German bigge, Dutch big ("but the phonology is difficult" -- OED).

And as our "zwijn" and our "varken" seems to be related with the English words...
http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/zwijn
http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/varken

As I see it from the Dutch text: "varken" (verken) seems to be a diminutive of "fare" (
"Afleiding van onl. *fare ‘varken’ met het verkleiningsachtervoegsel -(e)kīn < West-Germaans *-ikīn."
"varken* [zoogdier] {verkin 1208, varken 1286} middelnederduits verken, met verkleiningsuitgang gevormd naast oudhoogduits far(a)h, oudengels fearh [big]; buiten het germ. latijn porcus, oudpruisisch prastian [big], litouws paršas [gecastreerd zwijn], oudkerkslavisch prasę [varken, big], middeliers orc (vgl. porselein¹).


I knew it:  "varken"..."porcus"..."porc"...   and perhaps "pig" from "bigge"...

As I needed it for a translation...

"zat"

if you say in Southern Dutch: "ik ben zat" you mean: "I am drunk"
if you say in German: "ich bin satt" you mean: "I am full, satisfied, saturated"

Somewhere I see the relation as "saturated with alcohol"?

http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/zat
relation of the word with Latin, Greek, English: "sad" (saturated with sadness?), Lithuanian, Russian, old Irish...

In a restaurant, when the Germans say "ich bin satt", we say in the North of Belgium: "ik heb genoeg" (I have enough)...

But if you coincidentally say without thinking: "ik heb er genoeg van" , it is the same as in English: I have had enough of this, I am done with it...)