3 ms·

The etymology is completely distinct tho, not a cognate. From Old Irish duilesc (compare Scottish Gaelic duileasg), from Proto-Celtic doliskos, duliskos (compa

The etymology is completely distinct tho, not a cognate. From Old Irish duilesc (compare Scottish Gaelic duileasg), from Proto-Celtic doliskos, duliskos (compare Welsh delysg), from Proto-Indo-European dʰelh₁- (“to bloom, be green”) (compare duille (“leaf”)). Whereas Latin 'dulcis' comes from PIE dl̥kús ("sweet") Actually probably cognate with Latin 'folium' (Italian foglia, French 'feuille'). EDIT: Actually no. Not sure there's a Latin cognate at all; the dʰelh₁ PIE doesn't seem to have evolved to "Leaf" in Latin and the Greek word for "bloom" was borrowed instead? Something like that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Yeah see my edit, it seems clear to me that the bʰleh₃- is the origin, and Latin never got the dʰelh₁- derivation.
chupasaurus 3y ago
It sounds OK to me if dʰelh went through some thenanigans to Latin. Fun fact: zelen is one of common roots in Slavic languages for green/leafs.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
Comparing this other comment: > Note that phonetically dulce in NI would be pronounced "dulis." is interesting in that the modern pronunciation looks much closer to the ancient pronunciation than the modern spelling is to either. What happened?
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  I am not an Irish (or any kind of Celtic) speaker but orthography for those languages looks absolutely crazy to me. Both Welsh and Irish / Scottish Gaelic look like languages that might have benefited from their own alphabet, or at least the addition of some diacritical marks. We also have no real idea how proto-Celtic or even Gaulish or early old Irish would have been pronounced. Only best guesses. We have inscriptions in e.g Gaulish from Roman times but they look to me suspiciously Latinized. And then look at English.. it's a mismash of a bunch of different orthograpic conventions -- Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, Nordic, Latin, Greek... and makes no sense. Even us native speakers have no absolute certainty how to pronounce a word they've never seen before.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Yeah see my edit, it seems clear to me that the bʰleh₃- is the origin, and Latin never got the dʰelh₁- derivation.

chupasaurus 3y ago

It sounds OK to me if dʰelh went through some thenanigans to Latin. Fun fact: zelen is one of common roots in Slavic languages for green/leafs.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

Comparing this other comment: > Note that phonetically dulce in NI would be pronounced "dulis." is interesting in that the modern pronunciation looks much closer to the ancient pronunciation than the modern spelling is to either. What happened?

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
I am not an Irish (or any kind of Celtic) speaker but orthography for those languages looks absolutely crazy to me. Both Welsh and Irish / Scottish Gaelic look like languages that might have benefited from their own alphabet, or at least the addition of some diacritical marks. We also have no real idea how proto-Celtic or even Gaulish or early old Irish would have been pronounced. Only best guesses. We have inscriptions in e.g Gaulish from Roman times but they look to me suspiciously Latinized. And then look at English.. it's a mismash of a bunch of different orthograpic conventions -- Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, Nordic, Latin, Greek... and makes no sense. Even us native speakers have no absolute certainty how to pronounce a word they've never seen before.