Word coincidence

Gavril

Senior Member
English, USA
I don't think any of these is a coincidence: cherry, Kirsche, cereza etc. all come from Greek kerasion "cherry", and I suspect the Bulgarian word does too.

On the other hand, the similarity of Spanish ciruela "plum" and cereza "cherry" is a genuine coincidence, as the first comes from Latin prunus cereola "wax plum" < cera "wax".
 
  • franknagy

    Senior Member
    The Bulgarian word фас means in Hungarian csikk, in English stub.
    Its pronunciation is almost the same as that of the most coarse synonym of the male sexual organ in Hungarian.
    ...
    череша = cseresznye in Hungarian = Kirsche = Cereza en castellano.
    but
    ceruza = lápiz en castellano.
    ...
    Is there any link between Greek kerasion and Kyrie Eleison?
    ...
    In Hungarian paradicsom = tomato and Paradicsom = Paradise.
     

    DreamerX

    Member
    English
    Here are some pairings for English and French.

    EN court – FR cour
    FR court – EN short

    EN son – FR fils
    FR son – EN sound

    EN pain – FR douleur, peine, souffrance
    FR pain – EN bread

    EN bribe – FR pot de vin
    FR bribe – EN scrap, snippet, crumbs

    EN ride – FR v. aller (à cheval, à bicyclette, en moto); n. tour, trajet, chemin, promenade, balade
    FR ride – EN wrinkle, line, furrow

    EN empire – FR empire
    FR empire – EN empire, but also, “He/She/It makes/is making things worse.” (3rd person singular conjugation of “empirer” – to make things worse, from “pire” – worse)

    As far as I’m concerned, the roots of the respective words in each pair do not coincide. There is literally an overabundance of pairs with words that have common roots but different meanings, although that is not what this thread is about. :)
     

    DreamerX

    Member
    English
    Here are some more for English and French:

    EN chair – FR chaise
    FR chair – EN flesh

    EN lie – FR v. mentir; n. mensonge
    FR lie – EN “He/She/It connects/is connecting (something to something).”

    EN lit – FR Je/Tu/Il/Elle/On/Nous/Vous/Ils/Elles ai/as/a/avons/avez/ont allumé/illuminé (quelque chose)
    FR lit – EN bed

    EN plait – FR v. tresser/natter; n. tresse/natte
    FR plait – EN lit., “He/She/It is pleasing to me.” Semantic function same as that of the English “I like him/her/it.”

    EN pair – FR paire
    FR pair – EN peer

    EN laid – FR vergé, posé
    FR laid – EN ugly
     

    ancalimon

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    English: "Precious" if divided as pr and ecious

    Turkish:
    pr ~ Bir : one
    ecious ~ eşsiz : unique, irreplaceable, peerless, precious



    When writing a letter, the English write "dear" in front of names. In Turkish we write "değerli" in front of names.

    değer means "value of an object or a person"
    değerli means "valuable, exalted, venerable, esteemed, precious"
     

    franknagy

    Senior Member
    The Hungarian women wear CSAT in their hair. It is at list silent unlike
    the English CHAT.

    English RACE sounds like Hungarian RÉSZ which means part.
    The Hungarian word TOLL means feather.
     

    ancalimon

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/41TurkicInEnglish/EnglishTurkicLexiconEn.htm

    This article shows many Turkic-English parallels which should be considered coincidences ranging from words related with body, religion, life, social life, etc...

    Some examples:

    acı: ache, pain, sour, acid
    bod: body
    rop: robe
    kyr: girl
    kun, hun: kin

    Some of the words listed as Turkic in that page have more probable origins inside other languages.

    The author bases these similarities on the movement of Kurgan people during prehistoric times.

    My theory is that the first Proto-Indo-European speakers were polyglot.
     

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    I don't see a problem with using declined forms per se, but I think the original point of the thread was to find words that coincide both semantically and phonetically -- pairs like Russ. mojom / Hung. majom only coincide phonetically, not in meaning.

    That said, even many professional linguists routinely attempt to connect words that don't match semantically, despite being unable (as far as I can currently tell) to provide any consistent justification for why some meanings are similar enough to be seen as related, but others aren't.

    With this in mind, I don't see a problem with posting semantically dissimilar pairs like Russ. mojom/ Hung. majom, as there's no clear reason (that I can see) why they wouldn't be admissible for serious comparison, while other pairs (such as Swedish slag / Slovene slog, and many others I've posted) supposedly would be.
     
    Last edited:

    learnerr

    Senior Member
    Russian
    That said, even many professional linguists routinely attempt to connect words that don't match semantically, despite being unable (as far as I can currently tell) to provide any consistent justification for why some meanings are similar enough to be seen as related, but others aren't.
    I think the only useful criterion is the aha-one (similar to that cited by Moro for checking the degree of phonetic resemblence, see the opening post for the detail): if hearing word M may induce a specific person to think that it either a) was, or b) could be N, then they are similar enough. After all, this is the criterion that is important for our treatment of such pairs, be it simply amusing, or arguing a theory that languages A and B have a common bag of items.

    The problem, of course, is "who is the specific person"? I think it is up to a poster to decide; it may be a person himself, or someone s|he imagines. What we know (provided the poster took the criterion into consideration) is that the poster had indeed a picture of such person… In other words, I think the only possible criteria are subjective, i.e. dependent on ideas had by people. But since we know that people are constrained in the choice of ideas they may have, subjective does not mean meaningless.
     
    Last edited:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    I think the only useful criterion is the aha-one (similar to that cited by Moro for checking the degree of phonetic resemblence, see the opening post for details): if hearing word M may induce a specific person to think that it either a) was, or b) could be N, then they are similar enough.

    Just to be clear, are you proposing this as a criterion for whether to investigate a potential semantic similarity, or are you saying that this counts as evidence for such similarity?

    I honestly don't think I could reliably identify a "hunch" that word X could be related to word Y, even within myself. I would know if I had momentarily mistaken X for Y, but I wouldn't necessarily trust this evidence. If, for example, I was a historical linguist with a vested interest in discovering (and publishing) solutions to etymological questions, how would I know that my (apparent) conviction of similarity wasn't an artifact of this bias, unless I had a systematic way of evaluating it?

    (E.g., perhaps I could compare my reaction with the reactions of many other people to the same data -- which raises the question of how these reactions should be elicited, etc.)
     
    Last edited:

    learnerr

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Just to be clear, are you proposing this as a criterion for whether to investigate a potential semantic similarity, or are you saying that this counts as evidence for such similarity?
    I am proposing a criterion only for the purposes of this thread, i.e. what is the similarity of meaning that is enough for considering that the words conform to the third criterion listed by Moro. Perhaps I have misquoted you. Of course, we cannot look into the minds of others, but still this criterion makes it possible to decide for ourselves about what is a pair and what is not. For example, franknagy's pair fails this test in my eyes, because I cannot imagine a person, whom the mere hearing of the word "an ape" could outside of any context induce to think it is, well, "my", or the other way around. Thinking further, a person would certainly feel a link, but this link would be neither of "this-is-that" nature, nor involuntary and "natural" (even if vague). The same with Maroseika's Spanish temprano against Russian temp (there he was meaning two coincidences at once, I take one of them that I don't like).

    As for etymology, I know practically nothing about it, but I think that the linguists simply have to rely mostly on sound for providing any strict criteria. As for meanings, they may consider them in the following way: as I suggested, but the "specific persons" must be those people who were supposed to talk a language in question. Since almost nothing is known of them how they thought, and nothing at the moment is known about people in general with certainty, such arguments have to be only somewhat convincing, but not strict and formal.
     

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    I am proposing a criterion only for the purposes of this thread, i.e. what is the similarity of meaning that is enough for considering that the words conform to the third criterion listed by Moro. Perhaps I have misquoted you.

    OK, I see. The part of my post that you quoted (in #226) had to do with the methodology of (some) comparative linguists, so I wasn't sure if you were talking about this thread or about etymological proposals in general.

    Of course, we cannot look into the minds of others, but still this criterion makes it possible to decide for ourselves about what is a pair and what is not. For example, franknagy's pair fails this test in my eyes, because I cannot imagine a person, whom the mere hearing of the word "an ape" could outside of any context induce to think it is, well, "my", or the other way around. Thinking further, a person would certainly feel a link, but this link would be neither of "this-is-that" nature, nor involuntary and "natural" (even if vague).

    The etymology majom -> mojom (Hungarian -> Russian) does seem a little dubious to me, but not because a semantic link is inherently implausible. I find majom -> mojom doubtful because 1) pronoun borrowing is a rare phenomenon, 2) the 1sg. m- pronoun stem is very widespread if not universal in IE languages, and 3) as far as I know (I could be mistaken), Slavic languages rarely adopt foreign words as oblique case forms -- if mojom were loaned from majom, I think we would expect to see the -m treated as part of the stem of the word.

    As far as loaning in the other direction, from Russian to Hungarian, I don't know how likely Hungarian would be to adopt the oblique case of a noun (my understanding is that this is a rare phenomenon worldwide).

    As for etymology, I know practically nothing about it, but I think that the linguists simply have to rely mostly on sound for providing any strict criteria. As for meanings, they may consider them in the following way: as I suggested, but the "specific persons" must be those people who were supposed to talk a language in question. Since almost nothing is known of them how they thought, and nothing at the moment is known about people in general with certainty, such arguments have to be only somewhat convincing, but not strict and formal.

    If we need to know about the thought processes of a language's speakers in order to evaluate a claim of semantic change, but we don't currently have the needed information, then I don't think there is any basis (within semantics) to determine whether a semantic-change claim is convincing in the first place. "Maybe" is the extent of what we can say about a proposal like mojom <-> majom, until some type of systematic methodology is introduced (which is what I tried to do above).
     
    Last edited:

    learnerr

    Senior Member
    Russian
    As I see, this thread had two purposes: amusement and telling a nice fable about how appearances may be deceptive. From Moro's part, it was very likely only the first (judging by his comment that such coincidences must happen very seldom).
    If we need to know about the thought processes of a language's speakers in order to evaluate a claim of semantic change, but we don't currently have the needed information, then I don't think there is any basis (within semantics) to determine whether a semantic-change claim is convincing in the first place. "Maybe" is the extent of what we can say about a proposal like mojom <-> majom, until some type of systematic methodology is introduced (which is what I tried to do above).
    I do not see how evaluating such claim can be done without knowledge of the mechanics of thought processes. First of all, people do think differently and deal with words and their sequences differently, so if we develop an abstract model for semantic changes that ignores these mechanics (which we do not know and, as far as I know, we as humanity are not currently making any progress towards it), then this model, based of course on abstract properties of words and texts (what else it may possibly be based on?), may even serve to thinking of some, but will fail to serve to thinking of others; moreover, even the same person may not respond to a word in the same way (so I don't understand what Moro meant by "identical" meanings).

    That is not to say that whatever we may know about thinking of people in general or about thinking of certain groups of people available for study, that would not help to get anything beyond a guess for semantic changes that occurred driven by people who lived years ago. I guess that as far as meanings are concerned, etymology will always have the same degree of rigour as it has today. I.e. they eventually will have to believe to intuition, leaving the burden of rigour only to phonetists, and students of archaic writing, and so on.
     
    Last edited:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    As I see, this thread had two purposes: amusement and telling a nice fable about how appearances may be deceptive. From Moro's part, it was very likely only the first (judging by his comment that such coincidences must happen very seldom).

    I think this thread can also serve as a collection of evidence for the cross-linguistic frequency (or infrequency) of sound-meaning coincidences. (Some linguists claim that these coincidences are negligibly rare, and that therefore, a surface resemblance between words, such as Eng. name / Jpn. namae, really does point (in most cases) to an etymological connection between these words.)

    Threads on All Languages tend to be "list"-oriented rather than discussion-oriented -- maybe this is what you mean by "amusement"? -- but that doesn't mean that the lists can't collect useful data.
     
    Last edited:

    learnerr

    Senior Member
    Russian
    By "amusement" I mean that the idea of such pairs is funny, interesting by itself. Unusual facts are often funny and amusing to hear of.
     

    franknagy

    Senior Member
    The following match is not random:
    Slovenian: muka = (in English torment) -> Hungarian munka = (in English work)
    but this one is random:
    Slovenian: moka = (in English lour) sounds like the Hungarian móka = (in English jest).
     

    ancalimon

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    English - Turkish

    heal - iyi ol (heal)
    hail - iyi ol (be good)

    court - korut (to (make) protect), kur (to assemble)



    Old English - Turkish

    segl (sail, veil, curtain) - sakla (hide) , sığ (shallow water), su (water), sal (raft), salın (to start a journey)




    Nordic - Turkish

    troll - dumrul (Dumrul was a person who guarded a bridge and asked for money from anyone who wanted top pass it. He asked for even more money from people that choose not to pass it)

    Some God names:

    Odin : Descended Fire
    Thor : Töre (law), Tur (Türk, human)
    Jord : earth, ground, country, ~the mother of human beings)




    Persian - Turkish

    ateş (fire) - od (od is a core word in Turkic from which many words that are related with living by the hearth ~ fire cult are derived. Ultimately it's related with hole, home, refuge, dwell.

    Here are some words related with od:
    otur: to dwell, to sit, >meeting, >court, >a session, >a hearing
    ota: to get warm, to light a fire
    otacı: healer
    odun: wood
    ot: hay, weed, dry grass
    otçak: the place where fire burns, hearth
    otağ: the great tent with fire burning in the middle
    oda: room
     
    Last edited:

    ancalimon

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    English-Turkic

    tax - takas (exchange of goods, sevices)

    English - Turkish

    More than him : ondan çok
    More than you : senden çok

    I came then I saw : geldim de gördüm:
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    Gaul (ancient region of Europe): from French Gaule, which is thought to come from *Wal- < Germanic *walh-, a noun used to refer to various neighboring non-Germanic tribes (Wales, Wallachia, Walloon, etc.)

    Gallia, the ancient name (from Roman times) of Gaul: from an unknown root, possibly connected to Welsh gallu "ability"

    (Not necessarily a full coincidence, since the use of the term Gaul might have been partly motivated by knowledge of the earlier term.)
     

    Awwal12

    Senior Member
    Russian
    It's strange that some of the best examples apparently weren't mentioned yet. :)
    Russian странно "stránno" (strange, adv.) vs. Italian "strano" (strange).
    Russian надзор "nadzór" (supervision, surveillance) vs. Persian نظارت "næzo:) )rǽt" (supervision, surveillance), and, even closer, Tajik назорат "nаzorát" with the same meaning.
    English "bad" and Persian بد "bæd" (bad), etymologically unrelated as well.
     

    Barboso

    New Member
    Portuguese - Brazil
    I like one very special: "Turkey" in English means both a country and an animal. In Brazilian Portuguese "Perú" is obviously also the name of a country and an animal. Definitely not the same country (Turkey = Turquia), but curiously the same animal (turkey = perú)!
     

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    English cause [kɔz] < Latin causa
    Welsh achos ['axos] "affair", "cause" < Latin occasio

    Finnish pariton "odd" (as in odd number), from pari "pair" (< Latin pār) + the suffix -ton ("without")
    Greek perittón (neuter nom./acc. sg.) "odd", possibly from peri- "around" + the suffix -tto-
     

    ger4

    Senior Member
    German
    The Japanese often end their sentences with "ne." We also do that in Brazil in some sentences (not as often though) with "né?" from "não é?" = "isn't it?", "right?".
    In colloquial (north) German we add "... 'ne?" as well, meaning something like "...isn't it?"
    Well, that is interesting.
    What do you propose for Kurmancî "ez", then? PIE: *ég´h2- ? (I don't have the characters right now. You will know what I mean, check my previous post.)
    Does "ez" mean "I" (1st person singular)? If so, it is similar to Latvian: "es" and Bulgarian: "az".
    Arabic: ast :backside,butt .
    English:a$$.
    Latvian "aste" = "tail"

    Chinese: "de" corresponds to French "de" ("belonging to") in some contexts, except that it follows the word it refers to:
    Zhongguo de = from China, belonging to China

    Japanese: "no" corresponds to Latvian "no" ("from") in some contexts; again, it is added to the word it refers to, whereas in Latvian it precedes it:
    Nihon no = from Japan / no Rîgas = from Riga
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    - Slovene razum "reason" (= "reasoning capacity", "sense") < the prefix raz- ("out", etc.) + um ("mind")
    - English reason < Latin ratio < reri "to reckon"

    - Slovene in "and", possibly < common Slavic i "and" (< *ei) + the suffix *-no (still need to confirm this)
    - English and (pronounced similarly to "in" by many speakers) < Germanic *andi < IE *anti


    - Swedish hon "she" < *kona (not sure if this reconstruction is 100% correct, but at least the initial consonant was *k)
    - Welsh hon "this (feminine)" < *sona (same caveat as above)
     
    Last edited:

    animelover

    Senior Member
    Deutsch
    In colloquial (north) German we add "... 'ne?" as well, meaning something like "...isn't it?"
    And my grandma (Saxony), for example, likes to end sentences with "wa", presumably an abbreviation of "was". わ 'wa' is a Japanese sentence final particle as well.

    まあ、きれいだわ。 (Japanese)
    'maa, kiree da wa' (Romanized)
    "Das ist aber schön, wa?" (German)
    "Well this is nice, huh?"

    Finding examples between Japanese-English/German seems to be pretty hard as their phonologies are quite different. Japanese is basucally 50% vowels, so most word longer than 2 syllables don't sound like any German/English word (to me.)

    One more example I came up with:

    斬る (Japanese)
    'kiru' (Romanized, remember 'r' sounds like 'l', and the final 'u' gets devoiced and is [almost] inaudible)
    "kill" (English)

    罪人を斬る (Japanese)
    'zainin o kiru' (Romanized)
    "kill a criminal" (English)
     

    ger4

    Senior Member
    German
    Genitive/possessive endings:
    -n: Finnish (genitive)
    -(n)in: Turkish (vowel changing according to vowel harmony)
    -in: Slavic (possessive, no longer productive in Russian [I think] but apparently in some other Slavic languages)
    -n: derivational suffix (there might be a better term) in many IE languages (as in Europe > European)
    -no: Japanese postposition (in some contexts expressing possession)
    -n/-iin/-giin: Mongolian http://sprachen.sprachsignale.de/mongolisch/khkgramm3.html

    "one":
    ichi: (Sino-) Japanese
    egy: Hungarian (-gy seems to have a pronunciation similar to -dj; I don't know how to put IPA symbols in here)
    ek: Hindi
    yksi: Finnish (-s derived from -t)

    3rd person singular pronoun:
    ta: Mandarin Chinese (he = she)
    ta: Estonian (short form of tema; he = she)
     
    Last edited:
    Eng. adv. after < Proto-Germanic *after (further behind) - Homeric Gr. adv. «αὐτάρ» autár (in MoGr we pronounce it [afˈtar]) --> later, nevertheless, but (with obscure etymology).
    Lat. amen < Hebr. אָמָּן (truly) - Classical Greek «ἤ μήν» ḗ mḗn (interj.) --> truly, certainly.
    Eng. boss < Proto-Germanic *bautaną (cognate of beat) - Homeric Gr. «πόσις» pósīs --> lord of the house (PIE *poti-, husband, lord of the house).
    Eng. mock < Proto-Germanic *mukkijaną (to shout) - Classical Gr. «μωκάομαι/μωκῶμαι» mōkáŏmai (uncontracted)/mōkõmai (uncontracted) --> to mock, ridicule (with obscure etymology); mockery = «μῶκος» mõkŏs (masc.).
    Eng. space < Anglo-Norman space < Lat. spatium (room, quantity of length) - Classical Gr. adj. «σπίδιος» spídīŏs --> extensive, wide (with obscure etymology).
     

    ger4

    Senior Member
    German
    In most languages the pronouns are very short words. But this means that from a purely mathematical point of view the probability of random coincidence between two unrelated languages is fairly high.
    Despite that logical explanation I find these similarities with (Baltic-) Finnic, Kazakh and even Manchu quite surprising:

    1st person singular possessive:

    min/mijn/my/mein/mon/mi/...
    - Indo-European
    minun/minu/... - Finnish/ Estonian
    mening* - Kazakh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_language
    mini - Manchu http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Manchu/Lesson_11_-_Grammar_Summary

    ---
    * менің
     
    Last edited:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    Despite that logical explanation I find these similarities with (Baltic-) Finnic and even Manchu quite surprising:

    1st person singular possessive:
    min/ mijn/ my/ mon etc - Indo-European
    minun/ minu - Finnish/ Estonian

    In Finnish, the -n- is part of the stem of the singular pronouns: minä "I" (nominative), accusative minut, partitive minua, etc.; sinä "you" (nom.), acc. sinut, prt. sinua etc.; n "he", acc. net, prt. n, etc.

    By contrast, the -n- in IE words like mine, thine, etc. is an adjectival suffix.

    Continuing the list of coincidences:

    Spanish ser "to be" (infinitive) and soy "I am" appear to come from the same root, just like dar "to give" and doy "I give". But, in fact, ser comes from earlier seer, which comes from Latin sedere "to sit", whereas soy comes from Latin sum, whose infinitive was esse.
     

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    Italian apre "opens" (3sg. present) < Latin aperire "to open"< *ap- "away" + *wer- "close"
    Slovene odpre "opens" < odpreti "to open" < od- "from, off" + *preti < cognate with Russian peret' "to press, push", and further possibly with Latin spernere, English spurn, etc.
     

    Radioh

    Senior Member
    Vietnamese
    'Mate' in English as a friendly way of addressing somebody is similar to Vietnamese 'mày'(pronounce /mei/). Mày is used to address (close) friends; it sounds friendly and very informal. However, it might sound rude if used for somebody you have just got acquainted.
    R.
    Edit: Ah, 'mày' does not always sound friendly. Depending on the context, it can have a negative or a positive connotation.
     
    Last edited:

    franknagy

    Senior Member
    I always assumed it's not a coincidence, that it's related to the Arab occupation of Spain.
    In Hungarian el means away.
    In Hungarian al means sub- mainly in military ranks: alhadnagy, alezredes = sub-lieutenant, sub-lieutenant.

    :) Q: How do you say "fing"="farth" with only "a" sounds? A: Al-far-hang. Sub-bum-sound.

    English-Hungarian pairs:
    Eleven in Hungarian means vivid.
    Tar means in H. bald.
    Case -> kéz [hand].
    Why -> váj [scoop]
    Hold means Moon.
    Nap means Sun.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    Latin pati "suffer, undergo", possibly from the same root as paene "almost", Greek pêma "misery, calamity", etc.
    Finnish potea "to suffer (from a disease or condition)", verb stem pote-
    Greek patheîn "to suffer" (aorist), from earlier *kwn.th-, cognate with Old Irish cessad "suffering", Lithuanian kę̃sti "endure" etc.

    I cannot remember the etymology proposed for Finnish potea, so I'm not absolutely sure it is unrelated to Latin pati.
     

    franknagy

    Senior Member
    Short Hungarian coinciding words with a few other Languages:
    ez = this, az = that.
    "-on" suffix of nouns = "on" preposition in English.
    "De" means in HU "but".
    "Mini" = miniskirt.
    "Kosz" 1. Greek island 2. Dirt.

    Bulgarian фас = Hun. cigarettacsikk = En. cigarette stub.
    Hungarian fasz = coarsest synonym of penis in Hun.
    German Faß = Hun. hordó = En. barrel.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    Not an exact semantic match, but:

    Armenian տուփ (Western pronunciation: dup) "small box, case"
    Low German duppe, doppe "beaker, jar" (seemingly related to German Topf "pot")
     

    luitzen

    Senior Member
    Frisian, Dutch and Low Saxon
    Bulgarian стоплихте (warmed) sounds exactly the same as Dutch stoplichten (traffic lights). Though their meaning is quite different, the pronounciation matches quite closely for such long words.
     

    Encolpius

    Senior Member
    Hungarian
    Bulgarian фас = Hun. cigarettacsikk = En. cigarette stub.
    Hungarian fasz = coarsest synonym of penis in Hun.
    German Faß = Hun. hordó = En. barrel.

    Most of your previous examples are false, they are no coincidences at all.
    I am posting the thread-openers text here again:

    What I am specifically looking for is a situation when:

    3. The words M and N have identical or close meanings.

    And I agree with the thread-opener again, it is a rare phenomenon and hard to find.
    Here is a real example of mine:

    Hungarian: neeeeeee [English: nooooooooo - you shout when you see your house explode, etc.] [Uralic origin]
    Czech: neeeeeeee [Slavic origin]



     

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    Welsh nawr "now" < yn awr "in (this) hour"
    English now

    (Welsh has historically had other words for "now", and the modern-day preference for nawr could well be influenced by English.)
     
    Last edited:

    Stoggler

    Senior Member
    English (Southern England)
    Do you know the origin of the northern Welsh word for "now", rŵan, Gavril? It's "nawr" backwards (ignoring the circumflex), but I assumed that was coincidence.
     
    Last edited:

    Gavril

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    According to the folks at GPC (I don't know how to link to the entry itself), rŵan is from yr awr hon "this hour". Apparently another variant of this word is yrŵan.
     

    ancalimon

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    Babylonian goddess "Ishtar" means "light bringer"

    In Turkish
    "ışıtır" means "(it) illuminates" ... or "ışıdır" means "it is the thing that is illumination".

    "ısıtır" means "(it) heats you" ... or "ısıdır" means "it is the thing that is heat"
     
    Last edited:

    franknagy

    Senior Member
    Pojke is also a boy in Swedish. Would it be of Finno-Ugric origin?
    Why not?
    In Hungarian "fia" means "his/her son", "fiú" means "boy"; "lánya" means "his/her daughter", "lány" means "girl".
    The language needed words with meaning restricted to "boy" and "daughter", respectively.
    They were borrowed from Gypsy: "csávó" and "csaj", respectively.
    The word "klapec" for "boy" came from Slovakian to Hungarian.
     
    Top