Talk:Germanic words of Unknown Origin

message: I have never heard of this theory, where does it come from?  How accurate are these articles?
:It was originally part of a series of articles that do not reflect any well accepted theory of historical linguistics, anthropology or history.  At the time I first tried to edit it into something that was at least not totally false, it had a tenacious defender who is currently serving out a one year ban from Wikipedia.  Frankly, it ought to be deleted.
:As for sources, there is only one reputable one - or at least one credentialed one - that I know of.  Try ISBN 3-11-017054-X  I haven't read the book, and the summaries suggest unorthodox methods and tenditious conclusions, but I can not evaluate the claims in it.  This area of linguistics is not my specialty.  However, in its current form this article serves little purpose since it is strongly at variance to what is generally accepted in linguistics and explains neither who holds these beliefs nor offers sources for why they do.
:Diderot 16:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, Cite? 

message: Which Helm is the article talking about? 'Helm' as in the archaic term for 'helmet' is accepted to derive (and quite logically) from the PIE root *kel, 'a covering', and as you know PIE 'k' becomes 'h' in Germanic (kel>hel). The other 'helm' (as in, to take the helm of a ship) is generally considered to be from PIE *kelp, 'to hold, grasp'. I don't know if these etymologies have been since 'rejected', but I'm not sure that they have been. But basically, the article is right, and there are a lot of English/Germanic words of unknown origin. Decius 18:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Francoprovençal my grand-father used the word "lou vale" to mean "the son" ; "le Valet" in French means "the servant"; also this etymology does not sound ridiculous to a French speaker.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.15.3 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that boy has any cognates in other Germanic languages; does it?  Words for "boy" and "girl" (also of unknown origin) show wide variation even among closely related Germanic languages.  "Boy" is pojka in Swedish, and (I think) dreng in Norwegian.  To count among these words, the root has to be generally shared among several Germanic languages, and not exist in that same shape in another IE language.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor correction; it's pojke, not pojka. The Norwegian Dreng is also related to the Swedish dräng, meaning servant. —Gabbe 21:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I just brought up 'boy' as an excuse to discuss the etymology from 'embuier', "in chains", meaning "a slave". 'Boy' can't be considered common Germanic, and it would belong in an article discussing English words of uncertain or disputed etymology. I think the article is a good idea, I just found it to be full of unaccepted claims. Decius 21:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words already traced to Roots, so what are you Saying

message: I've just checked "blood" - it too goes back to an IE root (meaning "gush").  It is beginning to look as though most of the examples in this article are wrong.  More fundamentally, the tenor of this article is unhelpful.  It implies an outdated desire to show that a large proportion of the Germanic lexis is pre-Indo-European; linguists are thinking this way less and less.  There are very few words in every-day use in more than one Germanic language which cannot be adequately explained in terms of IE philology by the comparative method.  I now formally propose the deletion of this article.  --Doric Loon 14:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to me that the Germanic substrate hypothesis is far less well regarded now than it used to be.  It is still a valid subject for an article, and nothing about this text --- in particular, nothing about any accuracy dispute --- meets the qualifications to delete an article in Wikipedia:Deletion policy; much less is this a candidate for speedy deletion.  I suspect that what needs to be done is to turn this into a historically based description of these long running speculations, and move it to something like Germanic substrate hypothesis or some such.  What say you all? -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realise I had asked for "speedy" deletion - I thought that was a different code - but "blatant nonsense" would not be a vast exaggeration, so "speedy" could be argued for.  You will notice that this article contains no references to sources; it makes a couple of vague assertions without noting that few linguists would agree with them, and backs these up with a long list of "examples" which are simply wrong.  I'm fine with a new article on the Germanic substrate hypothesis if there is anyone here interested and competent enough to write it.  Since I regard the theory as a waste of space, I wouldn't invest my time on it, but as you say, any theory which has had serious academic defenders can be given some space.  But please, don't anyone try to do it unless they have actually read the literature.  However, I doubt very much if you would want to use any of THIS article in that new one.  Just moving it over and hoping it gets tidied up in time will not do.  This article is spreading serious misinformation, and has nothing to commend it.  So I stand by "speedy deletion" and would encourage competent enthusiasts to produce the new article from scratch.--Doric Loon 18:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Not just my say-so.  Look above at all the people who are dissatisfied with the article; I'm not the first to suggest deletion.  I notice that it is 18 months since RickK pointed out that "folk" is entirely unproblematic as an IE word, but the misinformation is still in the article.  Since the article consists entirely of such things, I would delete.  But hey, if you want to keep it, then put the problems right and make something out of it.  You could start off by removing everything from the article which has been documented here on the discussion page as inaccurate.  My prediction: you will then have almost a blank page, and then YOU will see that the whole thing is better deleted.    --Doric Loon 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion