# Word for "noun" and word for "name"



## Testing1234567

The word for "noun" and word for "name" are related in many languages:


English: *noun* < Latin *nōmen* < PIE *h₁nómn̥; *name* < PIE *h₁nómn̥
French: *nom* for both
Arabic: *اِسْم‏* (ism) for both
Chinese: *名詞* (name+word) for noun, *名* for name
Cornish: *hanow* for both
Hawaiian: *haʻiinoa* for noun, *inoa* for name
Hungarian: *főnév* (main+name) for noun, *név* for name
Icelandic: *nafnorð* (name+word) for noun, *nafn* for name
Irish: *ainmfhocal* (*ainm* name + *focal* word) for noun, *ainm* for name
Zulu: *ibizo* for both
Malay: *kata nama* (*kata* word) for noun, *nama* for name
Why? Coincidence?


----------



## berndf

These grammatical terms are mostly loans or loan translations from Latin. In Latin grammar, _nomen _is a generic term for _declinable word_ including the categories noun, adjective and pronouns including articles and determiners. The Latin word for noun in the narrower sense was _nomen substantivum_, from which _substantiv_ (the word for noun in many languages) is derived, contrasting with _nomen adjectivum > adjective_., i.e. _"true" _and _"attached" names_. The semantic derivation is quite straight forward: _Nomina _(the "true" ones at least) are those words that that give "names" to things.


----------



## entangledbank

The Greeks invented all the basic terminology, and they used their word ὄνομα for both. All the rest of us have calqued or borrowed from there.

_cross-posted_


----------



## Dib

Sanskrit had a separate ancient grammatical tradition. So, this likeness does not occur there, and as a corollary - I'd guess - also in most modern Indian languages (I can really only vouch for Bengali though), since the grammatical terminology is usually taken from the Sanskrit tradition.

Noun = viśeṣya (Beng: biśeśśo), literally "to be qualified", in contrast to viśeṣaṇa (adjective), lit. "qualification".
Name = nāman


----------



## apmoy70

entangledbank said:


> The Greeks invented all the basic terminology, and they used their word ὄνομα for both. All the rest of us have calqued or borrowed from there.
> 
> _cross-posted_


The Greek terms ὄνομα (for the noun) and ἐπίθετον (for the adjective) are generally attributed to the Hellenistic grammarian Dionysius Thrax (1st c. BCE).


----------



## berndf

entangledbank said:


> The Greeks invented all the basic terminology


You are right. Latin grammar terminology is based on Greek. I mentioned Latin because from there it radiated most into modern languages.


----------



## fdb

apmoy70 said:


> The Greek terms ὄνομα (for the noun) and ἐπίθετον (for the adjective) are generally attributed to the Hellenistic grammarian Dionysius Thrax (1st c. BCE).



ὄνομα is used in the linguistic sense "noun" already in Plato and Aristotle. Liddle and Scot have: _noun,_ opp. ῥῆμα (verb, predicate), Pl.Tht.168b, Sph.262a, 262b, cf. Arist.Po.1457a10, Int.16a19, al.; as one of five parts of speech, Chrysipp.Stoic.2.45 ; ὄ. κύριον a proper _name,_ opp. προσηγορικόν, D.T.636.16, A.D.Pron.26.12, al. (so ὄ. alone, Ar.Nu.681 sqq., Diog.Bab.Stoic.3.213).


----------



## franknagy

Gramatical term in Hungarian: *főnév* = English: *noun* < Latin *nōmen*. Composed from: _main+name_. 
Denomination  of a person or something else in Hungaria*n:  név =* English*: name*.


----------



## Penyafort

Romance languages -except, perhaps, Romanian- use the same for both (from Latin NOMEN, ac. NOMINEm).

French and Catalan *nom*
Spanish *nombre*
Portuguese and Italian *nome*​
But the 'substantive' synonym is often used for 'noun' in grammar:

*substantif *(French), *sustantivo *(Spanish), *substantivo *(Portuguese), *sostantivo *(Italian), *substantiu *(Catalan)​
And the adjectives 'common' and 'proper' are enough to tell them apart:

*nombre común */ *nombre propio *(Spanish)
*nom commun */ *nom propre *(French)
*nome comum */ *nome própio *(Portuguese)
*nome comune */ *nome proprio *(Italian)
*nom comú */ *nom propi *(Catalan)​


----------



## garipx

In Turkic languages including Turkish, it is same, "ad" for the both... 

(but, you linguists probably know, one of most important characteristics of Turkics is, the poorer in number of words in vocabulary the richer in number of meanings of each word. So, it is not strange to have "ad" only for the both, which also has other meanings.)


----------



## franknagy

Penyafort said:


> Romance languages -except, perhaps, Romanian- use the same for both (from Latin NOMEN, ac. NOMINEm).
> 
> French and Catalan *nom*
> Spanish *nombre*
> Portuguese and Italian *nome*​
> But the 'substantive' synonym is often used for 'noun' in grammar:
> 
> *substantif *(French), *sustantivo *(Spanish), *substantivo *(Portuguese), *sostantivo *(Italian), *substantiu *(Catalan)​
> And the adjectives 'common' and 'proper' are enough to tell them apart:
> 
> *nombre común */ *nombre propio *(Spanish)
> *nom commun */ *nom propre *(French)
> *nome comum */ *nome própio *(Portuguese)
> *nome comune */ *nome proprio *(Italian)
> *nom comú */ *nom propi *(Catalan)​


    köznév/tulajdonnév (Hungarian)
AND
*főnévi igenév = Infinitive*
    melléknévi igenév + határozói igenév  = kinds of Participle.
from
    ige = verb
    melléknév = adjective
    határozó = adverb.


----------



## mundiya

Dib said:


> Sanskrit had a separate ancient grammatical tradition. So, this likeness does not occur there, and as a corollary - I'd guess - also in most modern Indian languages (I can really only vouch for Bengali though), since the grammatical terminology is usually taken from the Sanskrit tradition.
> 
> Noun = viśeṣya (Beng: biśeśśo), literally "to be qualified", in contrast to viśeṣaṇa (adjective), lit. "qualification".
> Name = nāman



We use the same words in Hindi, except "sangya" is the more common word for noun. In Punjabi "naam" is used for noun, and it's also one of the words for noun in Sanskrit.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings everyone


berndf said:


> Latin grammar terminology is based on Greek


_Quoi_? Had berndf been writing about rhetorical terminology ('chiasmus', 'anaphora', 'zeugma', 'anacoluthon' &c.) of course no-one could quarrel. But 'active' (and 'passive'), 'nominative', 'substantive', 'supine', 'gerund[ive]', 'mood' [> _modus_], 'present', 'preterite', and even the (uniquely Greek, as far as I know) 'genitive absolute' are all terms derived from the language of the _Latin_ grammarians, issuing from Varro, Remmius Palaemon and Quintilian.

Σ

Edited afterthought: all this codified by Charisius and others in later antiquity. Cf. H. Keil, _Grammatici Latini _(Leipzig 1855)


----------



## fdb

I wonder whether there is some misunderstanding. English grammatical terms like “active, passive, accusative” etc. are of course borrowed from Latin. But the Latin terminology is itself calqued on Greek grammatical terminology, some of which is already in Plato (Cratylus) and Aristotle (Poetica), then systematised in the Τέχνη γραμματική of Dionysius Thrax  (2nd century BC).


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> But the Latin terminology is itself calqued on Greek grammatical terminology


Yes, that's what was meant.


----------



## Scholiast

@fdb (#14), @berndf (# 15)*

Sorry, yes there was a misunderstanding there. It is curious, though, is it not, that the Latin(ate) terminology is generally used for basic grammar, even in relatively remote languages (such as Russian), while the terminology of rhetoric remains originally Greek? Is there a commonly accepted explanation for this? After all, as both gentlemen have clarified, the _wissenschaftlicher_ approach to language began with Plato.

Σ

*At the risk of veering off-topic.


----------



## irinet

I'm thinking of  this old sentence: "Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit", and its significance in the century we are living.


----------

