# Word



## Alxmrphi

Ok, I'm trying to map out the history of this _*word*_ (pardon the pun).
With my new quest to learn the history of English it's made me start thinking about a lot of new things..

Modern day English has the word '*word*', obviously...
If we date back to Old English, it also has the word '*word*'..

So, I knew the Icelandic word was *orð*, so I was surprised when I looked back to Old English and didn't see* orð* there as well, because I assumed we got words like _*orth*ography_ (study of words) from Old English..

So I had a little look in the etymological dictionary and did a search to find out where exactly "word" came from, and it told me (to my surprise, *Latin*)
So if 'word' came from Latin..... then where did _orthography _come from... again Latin (orthographia), which came from *GREEK* (orthos-) !!

So if Icelandic has* orð* then I assume it's a fair assumption that it is the same in Old Norse, which I found out it was!

So if there is a link between Old Norse and Greek (big distance between those two places) then it probably came from PIE, but my question is.. what word would that have been *orð* or *word*? (I mean, what one would it be closest to)

Or is it possible that they both came from the same word and down one path the *ð* was straightened out to *d* (like '*ord*' = Swedish) and a *w* was added?

I'm quite new to this so I am not sure of the best ways to check this out but I got quite confused and thought maybe someone here knew the answer and could explain it to me in a fuller way (also in an easy to understand answer, something that linguistic material on the net doesn't seen to like)

Thanks
Alex


----------



## phosphore

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=word


----------



## ireney

Orthography actually means correct/right writing or, in other words, correct spelling 
Orthos = correct, right (has other meanings too but not in this case). Graphein (inf) = to write. Therefore, and from what I've read in the online dictionary phosphore linked to, the two words are not really related.


----------



## Athaulf

phosphore said:


> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=word



According to this source, Proto-Germanic *_wurdan_ became English _word_ and Old Norse _orð_. I've also noticed other examples where Proto-Germanic /d/ similarly became Old Norse /ð/ at the end of words (which can be still found only in Icelandic, if I'm not mistaken). Was this a regular sound change that affected the final /d/ in the development of Old Norse, or is the story more complex? Also, is this the only example besides Grimm's law where dental fricatives evolved in Germanic languages?


----------



## Athaulf

Alxmrphi said:


> So, I knew the Icelandic word was *orð*, so I was surprised when I looked back to Old English and didn't see* orð* there as well, because I assumed we got words like _*orth*ography_ (study of words) from Old English..
> 
> So I had a little look in the etymological dictionary and did a search to find out where exactly "word" came from, and it told me (to my surprise, *Latin*)
> So if 'word' came from Latin..... then where did _orthography _come from... again Latin (orthographia), which came from *GREEK* (orthos-) !!



It seems like you misunderstood what you read in the etymological dictionary. To understand the exact relationship between these words, you should know at least approximately how the Proto-Indo-European language evolved into classical and modern languages. You should also be familiar with the way modern IE languages are grouped into subfamilies, i.e. groups of languages that share a more recent ancestor. 

Furthermore, you should clearly understand the difference between English words that were _adopted_ from Latin or Greek and those that are _cognate_ with Latin or Greek words. For example, English _word_ and Latin _verbum_ are cognates, since they both developed independently from the PIE (Proto-Indo-European) root *_were_. In contrast, English _verb_ was adopted from French, which in turn developed from Latin. 

In the first case (cognates), the words are related because you can trace two independent and continuous chains of several hundred generations of speakers reaching all the way back to PIE (English < Old English < Proto-West-Germanic < Proto-Germanic < PIE, and on the other hand French < Vulgar Latin < Old Latin < Proto-Italic < PIE). In the second case, the words are related because English adopted the word at some date much later than the ancestors of English and Latin split off. Thus, cognate words can exist only between languages that share the same ancestor, whereas similar words due to borrowing can exist between any languages whose speakers have been in direct or indirect contact. 

So, to sum up this concrete case:


_Word_ is a Germanic word that shares the same PIE root as Latin _verbum_, whose various forms have also been adopted into English (_verb_, _verbal_, etc.). _Word _also comes from the same Proto-Germanic root as Old Norse _orð_, German _Wort_, Dutch _woord_, etc.


_Orthography_ is a Greek word adopted into English, as Ireney has written above. _Orthos_ is unrelated to any English word, except of course for several Greek borrowings in English, but _graphein_ happens to share the same PIE root as English _carve_.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Needless to say that I agree with the previous explanations. Just an addition.


Alxmrphi said:


> So, I knew the Icelandic word was *orð*, so I was surprised when I looked back to Old English and didn't see* orð* there as well [...]
> Or is it possible that they both came from the same word and down one path the *ð* was straightened out to *d* (like '*ord*' = Swedish) and a *w* was added?


We do have several attested older Germanic languages, so it's always a good idea to have a look at all of them and not to limit ourselves to two. Gothic waurd, Old Saxon word, (Old) High German wort, Old English and Old Frisian word, Old Norse orð. All but ON have w-. Since none of those languages are derived from Old Norse, this is a first indiciation that ON got rid of w-, rather than *all* the other Germanic languages adding w-.
If you have a look at other words you'll notice the same phenomenon: OE wyrm, OS and OHG wurm, Gothic waurms, ON ormr; OE wull, wolle, OHG wolla, Gothic wulla, ON ull, etc.
Last but not least: phonetically, w- > zero makes sense, zero > w- not (depending on the phonetic environment).
I think it's safe to say that Proto-Germanic word initial w- > ON zero (depending on the phonetic environment).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

Athaulf said:


> I've also noticed other examples where Proto-Germanic /d/ similarly became Old Norse /ð/ at the end of words (which can be still found only in Icelandic, if I'm not mistaken).


As far as I know, [d] and [ð] were allophones of the same phoneme in most development stages of Nordic languages. In Danish they still are.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> We do have several attested older Germanic languages, so it's always a good idea to have a look at all of them and not to limit ourselves to two.



I completely agree! Can I ask where you find out that information (so I know for future reference) ?

_______________________

Ahh, with the meaning of *orth*ography (a word relating to words, correct spelling of them [thanks irene]) and the Old Norse/Icelandic *orð *I was sure this meant they were connected! 
It's surprising to realise it's not... but if* orð* and *word* are two eventualities (Old English/Old Norse... or rather English/Icelandic) from the same PIE root *were then that makes sense..
I'll have to read the inbetween explanations of your posts another few hundred times before they make sense to me though..

[Edit]





> According to this source, *Proto-Germanic* *_wurdan_ became English _word_ and Old Norse _orð_.


Ok, so before there was a split, both words derived from *wurdan...
I had to go and check because I am familiar with language charts, the whole mapping of what languages come from PIE, and I've never seen "Proto-Germanic" before...

I can't see it on this list.. or this one.. nor this one.. or this..or this..
Is it just the same thing as Germanic? Or before Germanic (because of the word 'proto' ?) Because the only thing I can see before Germanic is Proto-Indo-European, so is that another word for Proto-Germanic, or is it just Germanic?
Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Alxmrphi said:


> I completely agree! Can I ask where you find out that information (so I know for future reference) ?


- I normally don't plug books on this forum, but _Old English and its Closest Relatives: A Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages_ by Orrin W. Robinson is an excellent introduction.
- Most Wikipedia articles which deal with historical/comparative linguistics are worth reading too, for example here.
- Most etymological dictionaries (for Germanic, English, German, Swedish, ...) mention cognates in other (IE/Germanic) languages, see resources here.


> I had to go and check because I am familiar with language charts, the whole mapping of what languages come from PIE, and I've never seen "Proto-Germanic" before...


It's by and large the same, but the suffix "Proto", in this context, refers to the fact that it is not attested, but hypothetical/reconstructed (just like Reconstructed Indo-European, hence Proto-Indo-European). Proto-Germanic is more technical than just Germanic. Other sources, like the Oxford Dictionary English Etymology uses the term Common Germanic, if I am not wrong.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> Ok, so before there was a split, both words derived from *wurdan...





Alxmrphi said:


> I had to go and check because I am familiar with language charts, the whole mapping of what languages come from PIE, and I've never seen "Proto-Germanic" before...
> 
> I can't see it on this list.. or this one.. nor this one.. or this..or this..
> Is it just the same thing as Germanic? Or before Germanic (because of the word 'proto' ?) Because the only thing I can see before Germanic is Proto-Indo-European, so is that another word for Proto-Germanic, or is it just Germanic?
> Sorry for the confusion.


Proto-Indo-European split into several successor languages. *One* of them was Proto-Germanic.
 
Proto-Germanic is the common ancestor of *all* Germanic language*s*.
 
The group of Germanic languages comprises three sub-groups:
East-Germanic (extinct): Gothic.
West-Germanic: German, Dutch, Frisian, English.
North-Germanic: The Nordic languages. There common ancestor is called Old Norse. In some development stages of Old Norse, [d] and [ð] were allophones of the same phoneme. The North-Germanic languages have lost the "w" in "word". Members of the other two groups did not.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

berndf said:


> As far as I know, [d] and [ð] were allophones of the same phoneme in most development stages of Nordic languages. In Danish they still are.


I didn't know that - the Old Swedish version is given as orþ (presumably a voiceless 'th') but I have no idea whether /þ/ , /ð/ and /d/ were allophones or when the shift occurred from the 'th' foneme(s) to the modern /d/ as in ord. In modern Swedish, /ð/ or /þ/ are regarded as speech impediments. 
 
/Wilma


----------



## berndf

Wilma,

this might interest you. It reads that originally d and ð where allophones and later (including the Viking period) þ and ð became allophones and in 1400 returns to the original status when þ became extinct (except in Icelandic).


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> Wilma,
> 
> this might interest you. It reads that originally d and ð where allophones and later (including the Viking period) þ and ð became allophones and in 1400 returns to the original status when þ became extinct (except in Icelandic).



I'm not sure I understand exactly what allophones are, but if they are variations on the same sound then I was just wondering if it would still count if they were slightly different..

I know a bit of Icelandic and know that thorn þ is '*th*' like '*th*en' , and ð is '*th*' like in '*th*istle'. so the same thing just a voiced difference I think, would that still make them allophones?


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Alxmrphi said:


> I'm not sure I understand exactly what allophones are, but if they are variations on the same sound then I was just wondering if it would still count if they were slightly different..
> 
> I know a bit of Icelandic and know that thorn þ is '*th*' like '*th*en' , and ð is '*th*' like in '*th*istle'. so the same thing just a voiced difference I think, would that still make them allophones?


Allophones are variants of a sound (phoneme) within a specific language and era. If you exchange one for the other without changing the meaning of a word, then the two sounds are allophones. I don't know enough Icelandic, but in English, the two 'th' sounds of then and thistle are different phonemes, not allophones, while Scottish R and English R are allophones - a rat is still a rodent whatever type of R sound you use to pronounce it.

Thanks to berndf for the link about the D development in Swedish.

/Wilma

*Mod note: the allophone discussion was split off to this thread.
Some posts (partially) are kept in both threads as (and insofar) they're relevant to both threads.*


----------



## berndf

Allophones appear as variants in different phonetic environments. E.g. German phoneme /ch/ has two allophones, [x] and [ç]. Their use depends in the preceding sound, _ich _[Iç] and _ach_ [ax].

In Old Norse it was apparently as it partially still is in Modern Danish that [ð] was an Allophone of /d/ used word-finally. I.e. a "d" at the end of a word automatically becomes [ð].

E.g. the Danish word _rød_ (_red_) has the phonemes /rø:d/ and is realized as [ʁœð], i.e. the final "d" becomes "ð".


----------



## berndf

But you are right in that "complementary allophones" is what we are concerned with in this thread. In the original question, Alxmrphi was wondering how to explain the difference between "word" and "orð". The explanation of the different final character is that "ð" is a complementary allophone of "d" in ON it is therefore normal to find "orð" and not "ord".


----------



## Alxmrphi

As we move down and I can see [ð] remains in Icelandic and is replaced with [d] in Swedish, so I can definitely see how there is a link here...

Ah so when we're talking about [ð] and [d] we're talking about sounds and not letters?
I was only ever thinking about letters you see, no wonder I didn't understand


----------

