Don't false cognates have to sound alike?Shemtov wrote:Also Hebrew "Shalom" and Hawaiin "aloha"Skógvur wrote:Same with hej (or hej, hej) in Swedish and some other corresponding colloquial forms like tja (surprisingly similar to ciao – I wonder if there is some connection there).
False cognates
Re: False cognates
Edit: Unless you're saying that because they both have <alo>?
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
Re: False cognates
No, I was addressing the tangent that Sko was taking about words meaning "hello" AND "Goodbye"shimobaatar wrote:Don't false cognates have to sound alike?Shemtov wrote:Also Hebrew "Shalom" and Hawaiin "aloha"Skógvur wrote:Same with hej (or hej, hej) in Swedish and some other corresponding colloquial forms like tja (surprisingly similar to ciao – I wonder if there is some connection there).
Edit: Unless you're saying that because they both have <alo>?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
-JRR Tolkien
Re: False cognates
So English "sushi" and Japanese "sushi" are cognates?shimobaatar wrote:Since loanwords share an etymological source, why wouldn't they be considered cognates?
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
Re: False cognates
I think I spoke too soon before. This last question of yours has made me really think about this kind of situation, and for me, it's very complicated, much more so than I thought before.Lao Kou wrote:So English "sushi" and Japanese "sushi" are cognates?shimobaatar wrote:Since loanwords share an etymological source, why wouldn't they be considered cognates?
From my point of view, sushi and sushi are not cognates, because the English word is a direct borrowing of the Japanese word. They do share the same etymological source, which was, until now, my definition of a cognate, but the etymological relationship between the two words is different than the one between, say, hundred and centum. I'm not sure I can say exactly what that difference is, but here's my theory. Those two words are both descendants of a common ancestor, PIE *ḱm̥tóm, unlike the two "sushi"s, where the Japanese word is essentially the ancestor of the English word. You could most definitely argue that they are, in fact, cognates, but now that I really have to think about it, calling them that doesn't feel right to me, personally.
So I wouldn't call them cognates. However, I wouldn't call them false cognates either. While I would no longer define two words from different languages as cognates simply because they share an etymological source, I stand by my definition of false cognate, at least for now. Two words that, coincidentally, sound similar and have similar meanings are false cognates, in my opinion. The similarity between the English and Japanese word sushi is no coincidence. I wouldn't call them false cognates, because the reason for their similarity can be demonstrated, but I wouldn't call them cognates either, since the English word is borrowed from the Japanese word. Similarly, if a language borrows the Italian word ciao in some form, that word is neither a cognate nor false cognate with ciao, from my point of view.
I hope I made myself clear.
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
Re: False cognates
Yes, and you've explained what I've understood the definitions of "cognate" and "false cognate" to be. Feel the agreement. Feel the zen.shimobaatar wrote:I hope I made myself clear.
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
Re: False cognates
deus, theos, Nahuatl teotl (god) has already been said, and I think deus->theos is a true cognate originating from a PIE, (devas in Indic languages)
Spoiler:
Re: False cognates
deus and devá are cognates, but neither one is cognate to theós, surprisingly.
deus and devá are both descendants of *deywós. theós is descended from *dʰh₁s-, a derivative of *dʰeh₁-, which makes theós a cognate of Latin fēriae, fānum, and fēstus (and English do and Latin faciō), but not deus and devá.
However, since *deywós is a derivative of *dyew-, deus and devá are related to Greek Zeús, and Latin Iuppiter and diēs.
So deus and theós are, in fact, false cognates.
deus and devá are both descendants of *deywós. theós is descended from *dʰh₁s-, a derivative of *dʰeh₁-, which makes theós a cognate of Latin fēriae, fānum, and fēstus (and English do and Latin faciō), but not deus and devá.
However, since *deywós is a derivative of *dyew-, deus and devá are related to Greek Zeús, and Latin Iuppiter and diēs.
So deus and theós are, in fact, false cognates.
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
- HinGambleGoth
- sinic
- Posts: 432
- Joined: 01 Jul 2014 05:29
- Location: gøtalandum
Re: False cognates
"tja" is a contracted form of "tjenare" which is the Stockholm form of "tjänare" (notice the typical Stockholm vowel merger)Skógvur wrote:Same with hej (or hej, hej) in Swedish and some other corresponding colloquial forms like tja (surprisingly similar to ciao – I wonder if there is some connection there).
"tjänare" means "servant", and the original form of the phrase was "(min) ödmjuke tjänare" literally "my humble servant".
Re: False cognates
That has always felt like a really weird folk etymology to me. Can it really be verified?HinGambleGoth wrote:the original form of the phrase was "(min) ödmjuke tjänare" literally "my humble servant"
Re: False cognates
Wikipedia says that Italian (etc.) word ciao comes from the Venetian phrase s-ciào su "I am your slave".Skógvur wrote:That has always felt like a really weird folk etymology to me. Can it really be verified?HinGambleGoth wrote:the original form of the phrase was "(min) ödmjuke tjänare" literally "my humble servant"
These etymologies do sound very strange to me, but I'm inclined to believe them. The similar origins of the two words/phrases seem to me to be plausible since they were not meant literally. Not to say I can truly verify either one, though.
The user formerly known as "shimobaatar".
(she)
(she)
Re: False cognates
There's also Hungarian szervusz, on which Wiktionary says:shimobaatar wrote:Wikipedia says that Italian (etc.) word ciao comes from the Venetian phrase s-ciào su "I am your slave".Skógvur wrote:That has always felt like a really weird folk etymology to me. Can it really be verified?HinGambleGoth wrote:the original form of the phrase was "(min) ödmjuke tjänare" literally "my humble servant"
These etymologies do sound very strange to me, but I'm inclined to believe them. The similar origins of the two words/phrases seem to me to be plausible since they were not meant literally. Not to say I can truly verify either one, though.
And I must say I don't find anything particularly odd about that etymology. I mean, of course you get odd looks from young people these days if you demand that they address you as "my Lord" and follow proper protocol in general (*sigh*) - but things were different before all this pansy modern liberté-égalité-fraternité nonsense. I blame the French.The greeting evolved from the commoners’ greeting (said to lords) servus humillimus (Domine spectabilis), meaning your humble servant, my noble Lord. No subservience is implied in modern use. Compare Slovak, Romanian or German servus.
Re: False cognates
how can you blame those who speak the language from which the term "T-V distinction" comes from
blame scandinavia
that sort of crap is gone here
blame scandinavia
that sort of crap is gone here
Re: False cognates
That makes sense, because if Deva was cognate with Theos, it would be Dheva, with a breathy d.shimobaatar wrote:deus and devá are cognates, but neither one is cognate to theós, surprisingly.
deus and devá are both descendants of *deywós. theós is descended from *dʰh₁s-, a derivative of *dʰeh₁-, which makes theós a cognate of Latin fēriae, fānum, and fēstus (and English do and Latin faciō), but not deus and devá.
However, since *deywós is a derivative of *dyew-, deus and devá are related to Greek Zeús, and Latin Iuppiter and diēs.
So deus and theós are, in fact, false cognates.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
-JRR Tolkien
Re: False cognates
If you're asking why I think liberté-égalité-fraternité might have something to do with the French, I'm afraid I can't really come up with a terribly clever answer. (Also, at least Wikipedia claims that the term "T-V distinction" actually comes from Latin, although I'll admit I would have blamed the French for that as well had I not checked.)Skógvur wrote:how can you blame those who speak the language from which the term "T-V distinction" comes from
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: False cognates
How about English "give" and Mandarin "gěi" (traditional 給, simplified 给)?
Re: False cognates
Oh, well. I wonder what the actual situation looks like in France now anyway.Xonen wrote:If you're asking why I think liberté-égalité-fraternité might have something to do with the French, I'm afraid I can't really come up with a terribly clever answer. (Also, at least Wikipedia claims that the term "T-V distinction" actually comes from Latin, although I'll admit I would have blamed the French for that as well had I not checked.)Skógvur wrote:how can you blame those who speak the language from which the term "T-V distinction" comes from
- k1234567890y
- mayan
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
- Contact:
Re: False cognates
English cheat and :roc: :zho: Mandarin Chinese 欺 /t͡ɕʰi˥˥/("to cheat, to doublecross, to deceive"), both of them have meanings connected to some types dishonest behaviors.
good example :)GrandPiano wrote:How about English "give" and Mandarin "gěi" (traditional 給, simplified 给)?
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
Re: False cognates
Not false cognates, just a weird coincidence, but where else am I going to post this
English "to" and "two" essentially translate to Japanese "ni" and "ni". It's just a weird coincidence that they are homonyms of each other in both languages.
English "to" and "two" essentially translate to Japanese "ni" and "ni". It's just a weird coincidence that they are homonyms of each other in both languages.