3 ms·

There is no primary evidence that the word Viking originated from some word other than the Anglo -Saxon word. If you’ve found some feel feel to share.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
I mean, I can refer you to https://www.etymonline.com/word/Viking https://www.etymonline.com/word/Viking : > Scandinavian pirate, 1801, vikingr, in "The History of the Anglo-Saxons" by English historian Sharon H. Turner; he suggested the second element might be connected to king: But this later was dismissed as incorrect. The form viking is attested in 1820 The word "wicing" of Old English has no modern descendant; it was not used for the period of several centuries between then and 1800. This is well known. As noted in the entry, in modern use it first appears with the Norse nominative -r suffix included! What kind of primary evidence were you thinking of?
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  I'm taking you up on your bet. I just downloaded that Turner book. It doesn't say where the word came from at all. The earliest primary citation for the word "vikingr" is in reference to a saga written by Snorre/Snorri (an Icelandic historian), who was born in the late 12th century. "Wicing" dates to the 11th century (see Sea Wolves, A History of the Vikings; you're welcome to go down that primary cite rabbit hole yourself).
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    The word "vikingr" can only come from Norse, as I already mentioned, because it includes a Norse inflection, the nominative case suffix. The modern word "viking" similarly cannot come from an Old English word "wicing", because Old English /w/ does not become modern /v/. The only words beginning with /v/ in modern English that come from Old English began with /f/ then. Compare "wit", "will", "water", "wife", etc. etc. etc. etc.
    - staticautomatic 6y ago
      My point is simply this: As far as the primary sources go, we have, as of the 1000's, an Anglo-Saxon word "wicing" that looks nearly identical to "viking" and would have been pronounced "wy-ching." As of at least 100 years later, in what may have been an Icelandic dialect of Old Norse, we have a word "vikingr", which would have been pronounced "veek-een-grr" with a trilled "r". The only other thing we know is that Old Norse had a word "vic". I don't think we can rule out that the word "viking" was invented by the Norse, but based on the above information alone, I don't think we can reasonably conclude that it must have been.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > we have, as of the 1000's, an Anglo-Saxon word "wicing" that looks nearly identical to "viking" and would have been pronounced "wy-ching." Do you have a source for palatalization of the "c"? To know how the word would have been pronounced, you need to know whether it was native to Old English or borrowed from Norse.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_phonology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_phonology : > (Although this palatalization occurred as a regular sound change, later vowel changes and borrowings meant that the occurrence of the palatal forms was no longer predictable, that is, the palatals and the velars had become separate phonemes.) Both the velars /k, ɣ/ (including [ɡ]) and the palatals /tʃ, j/ (including [dʒ]) are spelled as ⟨c⟩, ⟨g⟩ in Old English manuscripts. > In modern texts, the palatalized versions may be written with a dot above the letter: ⟨ċ⟩, ⟨ġ⟩. (As just mentioned, it would otherwise not generally be possible to predict whether a palatal or velar is meant, although there are certain common patterns; for example, ⟨c⟩ often has the palatalized sound before the front vowels ⟨i⟩, ⟨e⟩, ⟨æ⟩. Note that Old English had palatalized ⟨g⟩ in certain words that have hard G in Modern English due to Old Norse influence, such as ġiefan "give" and ġeat "gate".) Modern pronunciation (or Middle English confusions) would be a good guide to that question, if the word had survived, which it didn't. > I don't think we can rule out that the word "viking" was invented by the Norse, but based on the above information alone, I don't think we can reasonably conclude that it must have been. How do you get from here to "the etymology isn't mysterious"? [1] The languages are closely related enough that some borrowings were given the "correct" native pronunciation instead of the borrowed pronunciation. But as we see, this was not universal.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

I mean, I can refer you to https://www.etymonline.com/word/Viking https://www.etymonline.com/word/Viking : > Scandinavian pirate, 1801, vikingr, in "The History of the Anglo-Saxons" by English historian Sharon H. Turner; he suggested the second element might be connected to king: But this later was dismissed as incorrect. The form viking is attested in 1820 The word "wicing" of Old English has no modern descendant; it was not used for the period of several centuries between then and 1800. This is well known. As noted in the entry, in modern use it first appears with the Norse nominative -r suffix included! What kind of primary evidence were you thinking of?

staticautomatic 6y ago
I'm taking you up on your bet. I just downloaded that Turner book. It doesn't say where the word came from at all. The earliest primary citation for the word "vikingr" is in reference to a saga written by Snorre/Snorri (an Icelandic historian), who was born in the late 12th century. "Wicing" dates to the 11th century (see Sea Wolves, A History of the Vikings; you're welcome to go down that primary cite rabbit hole yourself).
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  The word "vikingr" can only come from Norse, as I already mentioned, because it includes a Norse inflection, the nominative case suffix. The modern word "viking" similarly cannot come from an Old English word "wicing", because Old English /w/ does not become modern /v/. The only words beginning with /v/ in modern English that come from Old English began with /f/ then. Compare "wit", "will", "water", "wife", etc. etc. etc. etc.
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    My point is simply this: As far as the primary sources go, we have, as of the 1000's, an Anglo-Saxon word "wicing" that looks nearly identical to "viking" and would have been pronounced "wy-ching." As of at least 100 years later, in what may have been an Icelandic dialect of Old Norse, we have a word "vikingr", which would have been pronounced "veek-een-grr" with a trilled "r". The only other thing we know is that Old Norse had a word "vic". I don't think we can rule out that the word "viking" was invented by the Norse, but based on the above information alone, I don't think we can reasonably conclude that it must have been.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > we have, as of the 1000's, an Anglo-Saxon word "wicing" that looks nearly identical to "viking" and would have been pronounced "wy-ching." Do you have a source for palatalization of the "c"? To know how the word would have been pronounced, you need to know whether it was native to Old English or borrowed from Norse.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_phonology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_phonology : > (Although this palatalization occurred as a regular sound change, later vowel changes and borrowings meant that the occurrence of the palatal forms was no longer predictable, that is, the palatals and the velars had become separate phonemes.) Both the velars /k, ɣ/ (including [ɡ]) and the palatals /tʃ, j/ (including [dʒ]) are spelled as ⟨c⟩, ⟨g⟩ in Old English manuscripts. > In modern texts, the palatalized versions may be written with a dot above the letter: ⟨ċ⟩, ⟨ġ⟩. (As just mentioned, it would otherwise not generally be possible to predict whether a palatal or velar is meant, although there are certain common patterns; for example, ⟨c⟩ often has the palatalized sound before the front vowels ⟨i⟩, ⟨e⟩, ⟨æ⟩. Note that Old English had palatalized ⟨g⟩ in certain words that have hard G in Modern English due to Old Norse influence, such as ġiefan "give" and ġeat "gate".) Modern pronunciation (or Middle English confusions) would be a good guide to that question, if the word had survived, which it didn't. > I don't think we can rule out that the word "viking" was invented by the Norse, but based on the above information alone, I don't think we can reasonably conclude that it must have been. How do you get from here to "the etymology isn't mysterious"? [1] The languages are closely related enough that some borrowings were given the "correct" native pronunciation instead of the borrowed pronunciation. But as we see, this was not universal.