False cognates

[ɶʙ ɞʛ]

Venezia, Vinnycia (Вінниця) seem potentially connected in etymology but still come from different PIE roots.

Vinnycia may be closer to vendere in fact, but this connection is also unverified.

[Shemtov]

cup kop kopp et.al vs. koob

[VaptuantaDoi]

English "July" and French "juillet"

[Khemehekis]

English "July" and French "juillet"

Whoa, so "July" and "juillet" aren't cognates? Now I've heard everything.

[VaptuantaDoi]

English "July" and French "juillet"

Whoa, so "July" and "juillet" aren't cognates? Now I've heard everything.

juillet < juinet < juin-et "little June" < iūlius + -ittus
July < iūlius

[k1234567890y]

English con(as in con artist) v.s. Thai กล(gon) "magic: the art of producing illusions.", "trick: feat of magic; crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, etc, intended to deceive or cheat.", "fraud; deceit.", "engine; machine; motor."

Also Thai กล(gon) v.s. Finnish kone "machine, appliance"

[Sequor]

Ancient Greek: πυγή pȳgē 'the buttocks, bum, rump'
Mandarin: 屁股 pìgǔ 'the buttocks, bum, rump'

[Iyionaku]

German Los and Polish los both translate to fate (although they aren't necessarily the most common Synonym for that). Given the geographic proximity of the German and Polish language, you could expect them to be cognates by means of a loan word, but they don't seem to be related.

Edit: This post was wrong, see Crey's addition

[Creyeditor]

Hmm, according to Wiktionary the Old Polish word is a loan from Old High German hloz.

[Khemehekis]

I don't give a fuck
fuk (indifference or unimportance)

Je mi to fuk. ― I don't care.
To je fuk. ― It does not matter.

[VaptuantaDoi]

English tight and English tighten, the former from proto-Germanic *þinhtaz, ultimately PIE *ten-, the latter from *tuhtijan, ultimately PIE *deu̯k-.

[Khemehekis]

English tight and English tighten, the former from proto-Germanic *þinhtaz, ultimately PIE *ten-, the latter from *tuhtijan, ultimately PIE *deu̯k-.

Wait, "tight" and "tighten" aren't related?

Mind = blown

[Shemtov]

Sanskrit कपि /kapi/ "Monkey" and קוף /qup/ [kuf] "id."

[Khemehekis]

Sanskrit कपि /kapi/ "Monkey" and קוף /qup/ [kuf] "id."

Here, MissTerry explained to me that they were actual cognates:

https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=31 ... ys#p317203

[Shemtov]

Sanskrit कपि /kapi/ "Monkey" and קוף /qup/ [kuf] "id."

Here, MissTerry explained to me that they were actual cognates:

https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=31 ... ys#p317203

I actually explained in the Unexpected Cognates thread why I think this is bunk; TL:DR North African species, like the Barbary Macaque, would have reached Semitic speakers first, this, to me negates the idea of an Indic source for the word "monkey" in a Levantine Semitic language. I did explain there how I believe the Bib. word for "peacock" and Modern for "parrot" comes from an archaic Tamil word.

[Khemehekis]

Sanskrit कपि /kapi/ "Monkey" and קוף /qup/ [kuf] "id."

Here, MissTerry explained to me that they were actual cognates:

https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=31 ... ys#p317203

I actually explained in the Unexpected Cognates thread why I think this is bunk; TL:DR North African species, like the Barbary Macaque, would have reached Semitic speakers first, this, to me negates the idea of an Indic source for the word "monkey" in a Levantine Semitic language. I did explain there how I believe the Bxb. word for "peacock" and Modern for "parrot" comes from an archaic Tamil word.

But maybe the Indo-Aryan languages got the word from the Semitic languages, and that would make them still cognates?

[Shemtov]

Sanskrit कपि /kapi/ "Monkey" and קוף /qup/ [kuf] "id."

Here, MissTerry explained to me that they were actual cognates:

https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=31 ... ys#p317203

I actually explained in the Unexpected Cognates thread why I think this is bunk; TL:DR North African species, like the Barbary Macaque, would have reached Semitic speakers first, this, to me negates the idea of an Indic source for the word "monkey" in a Levantine Semitic language. I did explain there how I believe the Bxb. word for "peacock" and Modern for "parrot" comes from an archaic Tamil word.

But maybe the Indo-Aryan languages got the word from the Semitic languages, and that would make them still cognates?

I retract my original statement. It does seem to be a wanderwort of some kind, but direction is unknown. Egyptian>Semitic (possible cognate in Akkadian does exist)>Iranian (based on Mid. Per. word)>Sanskrit or vice versa. But I was biased because the source I was reading, which convinced me of the idea, that the Bib. word for "peacock" and Modern for "parrot" was a direct borrowing from an archaic Tamil word, also championed the idea that קוף was a direct borrowing from Indo-Aryan, and that struck me as false, which again, did create a bias.