What constitutes as etymology within English?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Etymology of "Djibouti"
Within this question, user Drew asks if it is even an English question. Well, it is definitively an etymology question, and the etymology is regarding a proper noun within the English language, but is it an English question? And no, this is not a Meta question, as I am not really wondering about the validicy of the question, I am rather using it as an example for my question, which is what constitutes as etymology within English?
If a word is Anglicized for English usage, then I wound say the etymology of that word is English etymology, as the word is built up by English morphemes. This is a linguistical practice used by many language, here's an example from my language.
In Norwegian, Chad is written as Tsjad. This change in spelling happens because in Norwegian the triconsonant tsj is used to convey the sound /ʧ/.
This is where the word Djibouti falls apart in the English language. I don't think it's spelling is in-line with how English morphology usually works, making it what I believe to be a question outside English etymology.
This is the phonetic script for the word Djibouti:
/ʤɪˈbuːti/
As you can see, the first consonant is a /ʤ/, which is also the sound your hear in words like Jack, gist, genius, jar, etc. Thing is, this sound is always represented by either a "J" or a "G". I have never seen a word, except for Djibouti, that represents that sound with dj.
This is why I don't think it might not be a part of English etymology, as it contains morphemes that are not "English". Also, for Latin and Greek morphemes, I wouldn't say this applies, as they are languages "up for the taking", and so many Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes exist in the language that one could say their morphological structuring have become a part of English morphology.
But maybe I have completely misunderstood, and words that have no traces of English morphology are still within English etymology as long as they are an official part of the language? Or maybe that isn't the case, but Djibouti is an Anglicized word, and it is simply me who is unaware of the consonant combination "dj" within English?
etymology proper-nouns phonology morphology anglicization
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
|
show 12 more comments
Etymology of "Djibouti"
Within this question, user Drew asks if it is even an English question. Well, it is definitively an etymology question, and the etymology is regarding a proper noun within the English language, but is it an English question? And no, this is not a Meta question, as I am not really wondering about the validicy of the question, I am rather using it as an example for my question, which is what constitutes as etymology within English?
If a word is Anglicized for English usage, then I wound say the etymology of that word is English etymology, as the word is built up by English morphemes. This is a linguistical practice used by many language, here's an example from my language.
In Norwegian, Chad is written as Tsjad. This change in spelling happens because in Norwegian the triconsonant tsj is used to convey the sound /ʧ/.
This is where the word Djibouti falls apart in the English language. I don't think it's spelling is in-line with how English morphology usually works, making it what I believe to be a question outside English etymology.
This is the phonetic script for the word Djibouti:
/ʤɪˈbuːti/
As you can see, the first consonant is a /ʤ/, which is also the sound your hear in words like Jack, gist, genius, jar, etc. Thing is, this sound is always represented by either a "J" or a "G". I have never seen a word, except for Djibouti, that represents that sound with dj.
This is why I don't think it might not be a part of English etymology, as it contains morphemes that are not "English". Also, for Latin and Greek morphemes, I wouldn't say this applies, as they are languages "up for the taking", and so many Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes exist in the language that one could say their morphological structuring have become a part of English morphology.
But maybe I have completely misunderstood, and words that have no traces of English morphology are still within English etymology as long as they are an official part of the language? Or maybe that isn't the case, but Djibouti is an Anglicized word, and it is simply me who is unaware of the consonant combination "dj" within English?
etymology proper-nouns phonology morphology anglicization
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
Djibouti and djinn from the Arabic. There are tons of words (am I saying this?) brought into English with little or not relationship to actual English, which is a huge mismosh from Germanic roots, Latin and Greek roots and all sorts of other origins. Take clarified Indian-style butter called: ghee. Spelling in English is not syllabically, phonemically or morphemically coherent overall like a neat package as is Spanish or Italian, though there are some rules that "work". We have a bit of everything. English is full of anomalies.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:11
Yes, but then often those words are Anglicized, unless they already fit English morphology, phonology, etc. Isn't it very rare when they aren't converted, given they don't already fit? @Lambie
– A. Kvåle
May 11 at 23:15
2
No, my friend, we bring them into English (loan words we say) whatever way we like. It usually boils down to a journalist, academic writer, novelist or poet, and today, of course, internet junk. :)
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:21
1
I just saw that comment. I will tell you a little story. I used to work in New York City and called an organization with some information one day about invitees to a conference. The lady on the other end of the line could not figure out why I kept saying: To go. She had never heard of the country: Togo. And odd as it may seem, I have actually worked with a language agency in Djibouti. I think Drew may be like that lady.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:41
1
@Lambie In her defense, Togo sounds nothing like "to go".
– lly
May 11 at 23:43
|
show 12 more comments
Etymology of "Djibouti"
Within this question, user Drew asks if it is even an English question. Well, it is definitively an etymology question, and the etymology is regarding a proper noun within the English language, but is it an English question? And no, this is not a Meta question, as I am not really wondering about the validicy of the question, I am rather using it as an example for my question, which is what constitutes as etymology within English?
If a word is Anglicized for English usage, then I wound say the etymology of that word is English etymology, as the word is built up by English morphemes. This is a linguistical practice used by many language, here's an example from my language.
In Norwegian, Chad is written as Tsjad. This change in spelling happens because in Norwegian the triconsonant tsj is used to convey the sound /ʧ/.
This is where the word Djibouti falls apart in the English language. I don't think it's spelling is in-line with how English morphology usually works, making it what I believe to be a question outside English etymology.
This is the phonetic script for the word Djibouti:
/ʤɪˈbuːti/
As you can see, the first consonant is a /ʤ/, which is also the sound your hear in words like Jack, gist, genius, jar, etc. Thing is, this sound is always represented by either a "J" or a "G". I have never seen a word, except for Djibouti, that represents that sound with dj.
This is why I don't think it might not be a part of English etymology, as it contains morphemes that are not "English". Also, for Latin and Greek morphemes, I wouldn't say this applies, as they are languages "up for the taking", and so many Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes exist in the language that one could say their morphological structuring have become a part of English morphology.
But maybe I have completely misunderstood, and words that have no traces of English morphology are still within English etymology as long as they are an official part of the language? Or maybe that isn't the case, but Djibouti is an Anglicized word, and it is simply me who is unaware of the consonant combination "dj" within English?
etymology proper-nouns phonology morphology anglicization
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
Etymology of "Djibouti"
Within this question, user Drew asks if it is even an English question. Well, it is definitively an etymology question, and the etymology is regarding a proper noun within the English language, but is it an English question? And no, this is not a Meta question, as I am not really wondering about the validicy of the question, I am rather using it as an example for my question, which is what constitutes as etymology within English?
If a word is Anglicized for English usage, then I wound say the etymology of that word is English etymology, as the word is built up by English morphemes. This is a linguistical practice used by many language, here's an example from my language.
In Norwegian, Chad is written as Tsjad. This change in spelling happens because in Norwegian the triconsonant tsj is used to convey the sound /ʧ/.
This is where the word Djibouti falls apart in the English language. I don't think it's spelling is in-line with how English morphology usually works, making it what I believe to be a question outside English etymology.
This is the phonetic script for the word Djibouti:
/ʤɪˈbuːti/
As you can see, the first consonant is a /ʤ/, which is also the sound your hear in words like Jack, gist, genius, jar, etc. Thing is, this sound is always represented by either a "J" or a "G". I have never seen a word, except for Djibouti, that represents that sound with dj.
This is why I don't think it might not be a part of English etymology, as it contains morphemes that are not "English". Also, for Latin and Greek morphemes, I wouldn't say this applies, as they are languages "up for the taking", and so many Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes exist in the language that one could say their morphological structuring have become a part of English morphology.
But maybe I have completely misunderstood, and words that have no traces of English morphology are still within English etymology as long as they are an official part of the language? Or maybe that isn't the case, but Djibouti is an Anglicized word, and it is simply me who is unaware of the consonant combination "dj" within English?
etymology proper-nouns phonology morphology anglicization
etymology proper-nouns phonology morphology anglicization
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
edited May 11 at 23:03
A. Kvåle
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
asked May 11 at 22:59
A. KvåleA. Kvåle
9651419
9651419
Djibouti and djinn from the Arabic. There are tons of words (am I saying this?) brought into English with little or not relationship to actual English, which is a huge mismosh from Germanic roots, Latin and Greek roots and all sorts of other origins. Take clarified Indian-style butter called: ghee. Spelling in English is not syllabically, phonemically or morphemically coherent overall like a neat package as is Spanish or Italian, though there are some rules that "work". We have a bit of everything. English is full of anomalies.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:11
Yes, but then often those words are Anglicized, unless they already fit English morphology, phonology, etc. Isn't it very rare when they aren't converted, given they don't already fit? @Lambie
– A. Kvåle
May 11 at 23:15
2
No, my friend, we bring them into English (loan words we say) whatever way we like. It usually boils down to a journalist, academic writer, novelist or poet, and today, of course, internet junk. :)
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:21
1
I just saw that comment. I will tell you a little story. I used to work in New York City and called an organization with some information one day about invitees to a conference. The lady on the other end of the line could not figure out why I kept saying: To go. She had never heard of the country: Togo. And odd as it may seem, I have actually worked with a language agency in Djibouti. I think Drew may be like that lady.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:41
1
@Lambie In her defense, Togo sounds nothing like "to go".
– lly
May 11 at 23:43
|
show 12 more comments
Djibouti and djinn from the Arabic. There are tons of words (am I saying this?) brought into English with little or not relationship to actual English, which is a huge mismosh from Germanic roots, Latin and Greek roots and all sorts of other origins. Take clarified Indian-style butter called: ghee. Spelling in English is not syllabically, phonemically or morphemically coherent overall like a neat package as is Spanish or Italian, though there are some rules that "work". We have a bit of everything. English is full of anomalies.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:11
Yes, but then often those words are Anglicized, unless they already fit English morphology, phonology, etc. Isn't it very rare when they aren't converted, given they don't already fit? @Lambie
– A. Kvåle
May 11 at 23:15
2
No, my friend, we bring them into English (loan words we say) whatever way we like. It usually boils down to a journalist, academic writer, novelist or poet, and today, of course, internet junk. :)
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:21
1
I just saw that comment. I will tell you a little story. I used to work in New York City and called an organization with some information one day about invitees to a conference. The lady on the other end of the line could not figure out why I kept saying: To go. She had never heard of the country: Togo. And odd as it may seem, I have actually worked with a language agency in Djibouti. I think Drew may be like that lady.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:41
1
@Lambie In her defense, Togo sounds nothing like "to go".
– lly
May 11 at 23:43
Djibouti and djinn from the Arabic. There are tons of words (am I saying this?) brought into English with little or not relationship to actual English, which is a huge mismosh from Germanic roots, Latin and Greek roots and all sorts of other origins. Take clarified Indian-style butter called: ghee. Spelling in English is not syllabically, phonemically or morphemically coherent overall like a neat package as is Spanish or Italian, though there are some rules that "work". We have a bit of everything. English is full of anomalies.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:11
Djibouti and djinn from the Arabic. There are tons of words (am I saying this?) brought into English with little or not relationship to actual English, which is a huge mismosh from Germanic roots, Latin and Greek roots and all sorts of other origins. Take clarified Indian-style butter called: ghee. Spelling in English is not syllabically, phonemically or morphemically coherent overall like a neat package as is Spanish or Italian, though there are some rules that "work". We have a bit of everything. English is full of anomalies.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:11
Yes, but then often those words are Anglicized, unless they already fit English morphology, phonology, etc. Isn't it very rare when they aren't converted, given they don't already fit? @Lambie
– A. Kvåle
May 11 at 23:15
Yes, but then often those words are Anglicized, unless they already fit English morphology, phonology, etc. Isn't it very rare when they aren't converted, given they don't already fit? @Lambie
– A. Kvåle
May 11 at 23:15
2
2
No, my friend, we bring them into English (loan words we say) whatever way we like. It usually boils down to a journalist, academic writer, novelist or poet, and today, of course, internet junk. :)
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:21
No, my friend, we bring them into English (loan words we say) whatever way we like. It usually boils down to a journalist, academic writer, novelist or poet, and today, of course, internet junk. :)
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:21
1
1
I just saw that comment. I will tell you a little story. I used to work in New York City and called an organization with some information one day about invitees to a conference. The lady on the other end of the line could not figure out why I kept saying: To go. She had never heard of the country: Togo. And odd as it may seem, I have actually worked with a language agency in Djibouti. I think Drew may be like that lady.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:41
I just saw that comment. I will tell you a little story. I used to work in New York City and called an organization with some information one day about invitees to a conference. The lady on the other end of the line could not figure out why I kept saying: To go. She had never heard of the country: Togo. And odd as it may seem, I have actually worked with a language agency in Djibouti. I think Drew may be like that lady.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:41
1
1
@Lambie In her defense, Togo sounds nothing like "to go".
– lly
May 11 at 23:43
@Lambie In her defense, Togo sounds nothing like "to go".
– lly
May 11 at 23:43
|
show 12 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498117%2fwhat-constitutes-as-etymology-within-english%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498117%2fwhat-constitutes-as-etymology-within-english%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Djibouti and djinn from the Arabic. There are tons of words (am I saying this?) brought into English with little or not relationship to actual English, which is a huge mismosh from Germanic roots, Latin and Greek roots and all sorts of other origins. Take clarified Indian-style butter called: ghee. Spelling in English is not syllabically, phonemically or morphemically coherent overall like a neat package as is Spanish or Italian, though there are some rules that "work". We have a bit of everything. English is full of anomalies.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:11
Yes, but then often those words are Anglicized, unless they already fit English morphology, phonology, etc. Isn't it very rare when they aren't converted, given they don't already fit? @Lambie
– A. Kvåle
May 11 at 23:15
2
No, my friend, we bring them into English (loan words we say) whatever way we like. It usually boils down to a journalist, academic writer, novelist or poet, and today, of course, internet junk. :)
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:21
1
I just saw that comment. I will tell you a little story. I used to work in New York City and called an organization with some information one day about invitees to a conference. The lady on the other end of the line could not figure out why I kept saying: To go. She had never heard of the country: Togo. And odd as it may seem, I have actually worked with a language agency in Djibouti. I think Drew may be like that lady.
– Lambie
May 11 at 23:41
1
@Lambie In her defense, Togo sounds nothing like "to go".
– lly
May 11 at 23:43