7 ms·

Yes, you are right, there was a non sequitur as my mind raced ahead. The point is: neither is bar bar the only term, nor is your rather neutral translation "for

Yes, you are right, there was a non sequitur as my mind raced ahead. The point is: neither is bar bar the only term, nor is your rather neutral translation "foreigner" very apt -- minor inconsistencies that never the less prompted me to respond. I simply find it very unlikely that an onomatopoeia would spontaneously achieve word quality with suffixes, inflections and all that jazz. Classical Greek and Latin are preceded by a long pre history of fractured dialects and, well, disputes over territory. By the time they became somewhat standardized, a lot of meaning was ignored and conflated. I don't understand how you can find that irrelevant to the origin of a word. I do understand that you feel somewhat overrun. I didn't mean to discount the theory, just noting that it is (likely) not the full story. By the way I found that ''to boil'' is derived from a root bher-, rather close to bhel-. Certainly boiling creates bubbles. All the while warmth is a positive term. Also, to bear'' comes from a similar root. And those d not seem to be purely PIE innovations. Compare for example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D8%B1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D8%B1 (Arab. "karra" - 1. ''to murmur, bubble, gurgle''; but also 2. ''to fall, sink, prostrate oneself'' ... "to fall at somebody's feet?") (Pers. "xar" - 1. ''donkey, fool''; 2. ''idiotic''; 3. ''big, great'') https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AC%D8%B1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AC%D8%B1 (Arab. "jarra" - ''to pull, draw, stretch, rob, cause, drive slowly, pasture freely'' and then some) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1 (Arab. 1. "hurr" - ''free, unimpeded, set free, born free, noble, unmixed''; but also 2. "harr" - ''heat, burning'') https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AC%DA%91 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AC%DA%91 (Urdu: root, foudation, but also stupid, lifeless) Interestingly, I found ''donkey'' and ''big, great'' are supposed to be near homophone in old Egyptian as well https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EA%9C%A5%EA%9C%A3#Egyptian https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EA%9C%A5%EA%9C%A3#Egyptian. The way I heard the story of ''barbar'', Germanic Vandals called the folks on the African north coast Barbarians, also because of the language. Today still called Berbers. I am aware that Slavic languages follow a similar paradigm, Czechs call Germans "nemcie" - ''mutes''. At the same time, the origin of the word slave from Slavs is contested, so what do I know. Nevertheless, you might know the words ''Habiru''. Consider that in context. Also, "hurr" above reminded me of "Hurrian", but that's barely a hunch.

Grustaf 8y ago
>I simply find it very unlikely that an onomatopoeia would spontaneously achieve word quality with suffixes Why would you say that? There are countless directly onomatopoetic words (names of animals, natural phenomena etc) in all languages, including English, and I suspect that the deeper you look the more you'll find. How would word roots be invented in the first place if not through onomatopoeia or at least as ideophones?
- posterboy 8y ago
  I say this to justify a theory. Hence I focus on the theory and not to discredit another theory as a strawman. But I noted that I would if called on, so here goes: * We know that anciently transmitted etymologies are unreliable. They were prone to folk etymology as much as we are, if not more so. * I guess the most prolific onomatopoeia are simply way way older than this word. And they proliferate because a cuckoo really doesn't make any other sound than that. Whereas language is a lot more diverse. It might have frequent recognizable features, even ones sounding like "bar", I don't even doubt that. After all we have them too, argh. I can imagine that it is a word pronounced in allusion to the foreign language, even a foreign word. * I also hear the theory that some sound imitations pop up all over the place, independently. At least that is obviously highly unlikely to have happened here. * There is very little chance to actually experience a foreigner, which would be needed to reinforce the perception as sound imitation. So it's more likely this was told as a joke for reference. That invites the thought that the joke was just that and outweighed the etymon. Most people don't really care about etymology anyway. * Ideophone fits the idea much better. * It's childish; foreign policy is not.
  - Grustaf 8y ago
    > I say this to justify a theory. Well then your theory is wrong, there are numerous onomatopoetic words that have suffixes etc. Why wouldn't they? No matter what you think about this specific word. I didn't really understand the rest of what you wrote. >There is very little chance to actually experience a foreigner Would this be referring to foreigners in Ancient Greece? Then it's just factually incorrect.

Grustaf 8y ago

>I simply find it very unlikely that an onomatopoeia would spontaneously achieve word quality with suffixes Why would you say that? There are countless directly onomatopoetic words (names of animals, natural phenomena etc) in all languages, including English, and I suspect that the deeper you look the more you'll find. How would word roots be invented in the first place if not through onomatopoeia or at least as ideophones?

posterboy 8y ago
I say this to justify a theory. Hence I focus on the theory and not to discredit another theory as a strawman. But I noted that I would if called on, so here goes: * We know that anciently transmitted etymologies are unreliable. They were prone to folk etymology as much as we are, if not more so. * I guess the most prolific onomatopoeia are simply way way older than this word. And they proliferate because a cuckoo really doesn't make any other sound than that. Whereas language is a lot more diverse. It might have frequent recognizable features, even ones sounding like "bar", I don't even doubt that. After all we have them too, argh. I can imagine that it is a word pronounced in allusion to the foreign language, even a foreign word. * I also hear the theory that some sound imitations pop up all over the place, independently. At least that is obviously highly unlikely to have happened here. * There is very little chance to actually experience a foreigner, which would be needed to reinforce the perception as sound imitation. So it's more likely this was told as a joke for reference. That invites the thought that the joke was just that and outweighed the etymon. Most people don't really care about etymology anyway. * Ideophone fits the idea much better. * It's childish; foreign policy is not.
- Grustaf 8y ago
  > I say this to justify a theory. Well then your theory is wrong, there are numerous onomatopoetic words that have suffixes etc. Why wouldn't they? No matter what you think about this specific word. I didn't really understand the rest of what you wrote. >There is very little chance to actually experience a foreigner Would this be referring to foreigners in Ancient Greece? Then it's just factually incorrect.