3 ms·

>I simply find it very unlikely that an onomatopoeia would spontaneously achieve word quality with suffixes Why would you say that? There are countless directl

>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.
  - posterboy 8y ago
    I said "spontaneous". see the sibling comment two levels up.
  - posterboy 8y ago
    > I didn't really understand the rest of what you wrote. We know that anciently transmitted etymologies are unreliable What's so hard to understand about that? I think that's a fact, too.

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.
- posterboy 8y ago
  I said "spontaneous". see the sibling comment two levels up.
- posterboy 8y ago
  > I didn't really understand the rest of what you wrote. We know that anciently transmitted etymologies are unreliable What's so hard to understand about that? I think that's a fact, too.