<!-- {{discussionsection|yellow yolk}} -->
==yellow yolk==
Anyone out there know what the -ca is doing (and additional examples of it) in the Old English word geoloca 'yolk', derived from geolo 'yellow'? [[User:Tibetologist|Tibetologist]] ([[User talk:Tibetologist|talk]]) 09:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
: The following table is an empiricist or positivist note of the relevant '''Translations''':
{| align=center
|
Czech: {{t+|cs|žlutý}} "yellow"
Czech: {{t-|cs|žloutek|m}} "yolk"
Hungarian: {{t+|hu|sárga}} "yellow"
Hungarian: {{t+|hu|sárgája}} "yolk"
Korean: [[노랑]] (norang) "yellow"
Korean: [[노른자위|노른자]] (noreunja) "yolk"
Kurdish: {{t+|ku|zer}} "yellow"
Kurdish: {{t+|ku|zerik|f}} "yolk"
'''Old English: [[geolo]] "[[yellow]]"'''
'''Old English: [[geoloca]] "[[yolk]]"'''
Polish: {{t+|pl|żółty}} "yellow"
Polish: {{t+|pl|żółtko}} "yolk"
Russian: {{t+|ru|жёлтый|tr=žóltyj}} "yellow"
Russian: {{t+|ru|желток|m|tr=želtók}} "yolk"
Slovak: {{t-|sk|žltý}} "yellow"
Slovak: {{t|sk|žĺtok|m}} "yolk"
Slovene: {{t+|sl|rumen}} "yellow"
Slovene: {{t+|sl|rumenjak|m}} "yolk"
|}
: You may note the suffix ''-ca'' of Old English {{term|geoloca}} "yolk" from {{term|geolo}} "yellow" looks like the eastern ones.
: --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 23:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC); Expanded the table --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 03:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::The Slavic suffixes are diminutives. Because of Grimm's Law they, and the Kurdish, can't be related to the -ca found in Old English. The non-Indo-European forms are not demonstrably related. —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::: Isn't this total denial of my note (rather than thesis) too hypersensitive? First and foremost wanted here is ''any'' explanation or answer to the question, I guess. I've tried after almost 4 days of nothing, while wishing mine better than nothing. Perhaps most wanted here may be ''the'' Indo-European explanation. Do it yourself, or help do it anyway!
:::* The yolk ''in itself'' is a part or ''diminutive'', if you like, of an egg.
:::* I wouldn't believe in Grimm's law too much, which is only phonetic.
:::* Whether Indo-European or not, it would not apply anyway in case of a ''calque'', say, of a Korean word where no theory would work!
::: Should you be not terribly confined within PIE or the like, you may reasonably assume from the above information that Korean [[노른자위|노른자]] (noreunja) "yolk" ''might'' be the origin! Why not at all? From linguistics? Just nonsense! Should I say [[귀띔]] (gwittuim) vitally, you would do your best to translate it into English, or simply find the best calque, while no Grimm's Law may come in!
::: --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: Not hypersensitive at all. Nonsense is worse than nothing.
:::: It's true that English does have a diminutive suffix that might explain this, as can be seen by pairs such as [[bull]] and [[bullock]], but this can't be related to the diminutives in Slavic languages, because regular sound changes would have made the Germanic and Slavic forms completely different. I don't know enough to rule out borrowing, but it would have had to have happened at a very early stage.
:::: Are you suggesting borrowing between Korean and Old English? I don't think anyone has ever even suggested that there was any contact between the two a millennium and a half ago. There are just too many intermediate peoples and languages in between for this to make sense. Besides, [[Wanderwort]]er are almost always for items that don't have names in local languages because they come from somewhere else. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
::::: Again and again I wish you do not behave as if you were omniscient but do suspect you may be a victim of mass obscurantism.
::::: As if you were omniscient, you make such a hurry from the beginning as to try to conclude and suggest that all that I empirically note as above is just nonsense as worse than nothing. Such are propagandas, brainwashes, personal attacks, and so on.
::::: Instead, you'd better offer your constructive view perhaps based on PIE, regardless of mine, so that readers could compare and make a choice for themselves. This is so called the "readerly" or "user-centered" way in vogue since the late 70s, hailing [[w:the death of the author|the death of the author]] and [[w:reader-response criticism|reader-response criticism]].
::::: The valid explanation after all has to do either with or without such an empirical note, no doubt, which thus should remain the sole source of inference until one after another competent alternative comes in.
::::: There would be no folk having no word for fire. Why then did Germanic folks borrow the Greek word into Danish {{term|fyr}}, Deutsch {{term|Feuer}}, Dutch {{term|vuur}}, English {{term|fire}}, Frisian {{term|fjoer}}, etc., almost certainly in addition to their own? I wonder how you could explain this mysterious loan in Proto-Germanic and PIE terms.
::::: It is quite valid in science, esp. from the rationalist perspective, to assume the significant Euro-Korean contact without any historical evidence, as far as it can explain the relevant phenomena, and until it is fully falsified.
::::: Nonetheless, in Europe "a millennium and a half ago" Huns centered around Scythia. So Romans called them Scythians. Anglo-Saxons back then must be closely related to them, as usually were other Germanic ''folks wandering'' around Europe and North Africa ''with them'', often storming even the Roman Empires, like Germanic langobards. History has it that AS in Britain needed reinforcement from Scythia so far away. A 2005 documentary of [[w:ZDF|ZDF]] has it that Huns came "from the end of the world," suggesting the Korean peninsula and Manchuria. Most strikingly, the Hunnish traits may be found most in Korea!
::::: I do like you to also "see lots of [Euro-Korean] connections others might miss."
::::: --[[User:KYPark|KYPark]] ([[User talk:KYPark|talk]]) 06:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
