Re: electronyms

>Eugene Oh wrote:
>> 2007/9/13, R A Brown <ray@...>:
>>
>>>Isn't the modern Hebrew for 'electricity' derived from a Biblical Hebrew
>>>word for _amber_? And the Chinese is certainly non-Greek-based, namely
>>>dian4 (which IIRC is also the word for 'lightning').
>>
>> Technically wouldn't the mod. Hebrew word be counted then as sort of
>> "Greek-based",
>
>It depends how loosely you define the term, I guess. I understood John
>Vertical's question to refer to derivations from the actual Greek
>language, i.e. from _electron_ (amber).
Well, no, I should have been clearer. Still, the discussion has been most
interesting so far.


>We have, in fact, three categories
>of language, so to speak, i.e.:
>(a) Those like the majority of European languages that derive the word
>for 'electricity' etc. from the Greek ήλεκτον (e:lektron) "amber."
>(b) Those that are calqued from the major European languages, i.e.
>derive their words from their own (possibly archaic) word for "amber",
>e.g. Icelandic and IIRC modern Hebrew.
>(c) Those which derive their word for electricity from a quite different
>source, e.g. Finnish & Chinese and .....
The crutch is that Finnish doesn't really derive _sähkö_ from anywhere -
it's a completely inanalyzable word with no secondary meanings, basically an
a priori coinage with some vaig phonesthetic influences. I was wondering if
any other natlang also does THAT.

...I could ask the same for any other "modern" concept, really. Modern
Finnish is probably much more Constructed than any other extant standard
language, and yet I can't really think of any other such words in use, so to
find more such hits might require loosening the requirements.


>Welsh: trydan <-- tân "fire" with the prefix _try-_ (plus soft mutation)
>"through, inner". Thus 'electricity' is, so to speak, 'the fire within
>things.'
>
>Breton similarly has _tredan_.
>
>--
>Ray
Neato.

John Vertical

Replies