Comments on: Do birds and fowls fly? http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/word-origin-bird-fowl-etymology/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Fri, 24 May 2013 18:48:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Oh, what lark! | OUPblog http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/word-origin-bird-fowl-etymology/#comment-319235 Oh, what lark! | OUPblog Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:30:23 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=29046#comment-319235 [...] some time I have fought a trench war, trying to prove that fowl and fly are not connected. The pictures of an emu and an ostrich appended to the original post were expected to clinch the [...] [...] some time I have fought a trench war, trying to prove that fowl and fly are not connected. The pictures of an emu and an ostrich appended to the original post were expected to clinch the [...]

]]> By: Roland Schuhmann http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/word-origin-bird-fowl-etymology/#comment-295485 Roland Schuhmann Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:10:27 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=29046#comment-295485 Some small remarks: 1. It is quite clear that lat. ôvum is a derivation from avis (not the other way round), regardless the exact and disputed preform (either Vrddhi: PIE *h2owi- [with o-grade that later was given up] --> *h2ôwjo- or with Schindler as compositional form *ô-h2wjo-). 2. The verb PG. *flewge/a- didn't mean 'to fly', but 'to float' and could be used for both moving through air and water. 3. The lat. words puer and pullus/putilla are not related; puer < *ph2u-ero- pullus < *put-slo-, putilla, derived from putus < *put-o-. To the latter also seems to belong russ. ptitsa. So it can, when at all, only belong to the puer-word. This is related to lat. pauper 'poor', so shows a root PIE (e-grade) *peh2u- / (zero-grade) *ph2u-. When the PG *fugla- belongs here, it could continue a PIE *ph2u-kló- (*ph2u-ghlo- is not worth considering). The problem with this is the difficulty to identify a suffix *-klo- outside Latin (in Latin it is derived from *-tlo-). Also the semantics are (at least a bit) unclear, because the root *peh2u- means 'little' (*ph2u-klo- 'the little one?'). So the reasons for not putting PG *fugla- to *flewge/a- are in my opinion not very compelling, even more the relationship is possible as the Finnic example shows. In the end for everybody: Just try to say *fluglaz flewgeþ(i) - the dissimilation to *fuglaz flewgeþ(i) will become very obvious :D Some small remarks:
1. It is quite clear that lat. ôvum is a derivation from avis (not the other way round), regardless the exact and disputed preform (either Vrddhi: PIE *h2owi- [with o-grade that later was given up] –> *h2ôwjo- or with Schindler as compositional form *ô-h2wjo-).
2. The verb PG. *flewge/a- didn’t mean ‘to fly’, but ‘to float’ and could be used for both moving through air and water.
3. The lat. words puer and pullus/putilla are not related; puer < *ph2u-ero- pullus < *put-slo-, putilla, derived from putus < *put-o-. To the latter also seems to belong russ. ptitsa.

So it can, when at all, only belong to the puer-word. This is related to lat. pauper 'poor', so shows a root PIE (e-grade) *peh2u- / (zero-grade) *ph2u-. When the PG *fugla- belongs here, it could continue a PIE *ph2u-kló- (*ph2u-ghlo- is not worth considering). The problem with this is the difficulty to identify a suffix *-klo- outside Latin (in Latin it is derived from *-tlo-). Also the semantics are (at least a bit) unclear, because the root *peh2u- means 'little' (*ph2u-klo- 'the little one?').

So the reasons for not putting PG *fugla- to *flewge/a- are in my opinion not very compelling, even more the relationship is possible as the Finnic example shows.

In the end for everybody: Just try to say *fluglaz flewgeþ(i) – the dissimilation to *fuglaz flewgeþ(i) will become very obvious :D

]]> By: Fabio (Vinos Ambiz) http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/word-origin-bird-fowl-etymology/#comment-294636 Fabio (Vinos Ambiz) Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:55:26 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=29046#comment-294636 Yes, that theory about 'fowl' being derived for "fluglaz" is strictly for the birds. Yes, that theory about ‘fowl’ being derived for “fluglaz” is strictly for the birds.

]]> By: Cameron Majidi http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/word-origin-bird-fowl-etymology/#comment-294515 Cameron Majidi Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:05:19 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=29046#comment-294515 The word for bird in modern Persian does refer to the capacity to fly. The word is "parande" and would be construed as something like "leaper" or "springer" if it weren't a common noun. As with English "fowl" there's a secondary old word for bird "morgh" that is now generally limited to domesticated birds (chicken in particular). The older more general usage of 'morgh' can be seen in the name of the mythic creature the Simurgh, which was featured in epic poems by Ferdowsi and Attar. The word for bird in modern Persian does refer to the capacity to fly. The word is “parande” and would be construed as something like “leaper” or “springer” if it weren’t a common noun. As with English “fowl” there’s a secondary old word for bird “morgh” that is now generally limited to domesticated birds (chicken in particular). The older more general usage of ‘morgh’ can be seen in the name of the mythic creature the Simurgh, which was featured in epic poems by Ferdowsi and Attar.

]]> By: Annie Morgan http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/word-origin-bird-fowl-etymology/#comment-294472 Annie Morgan Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:15:46 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=29046#comment-294472 That one left me breathless - truly! I found I was holding my breath from detail to detail it was so fascinating. Such enjoyment first thing in the morning surely does set up the day!! That one left me breathless – truly! I found I was holding my breath from detail to detail it was so fascinating. Such enjoyment first thing in the morning surely does set up the day!!

]]>