# Knight vs. night



## tipar

I asked in Yahoo answer the explanation for these two words. Anyone did know that or has another explanation? My question is why these two words have a different "writing" and an equal pronunciation.

Spanish versión
Hasta donde sé no tienen origen en común. 
"Night", noche, es una palabra con raíz muy antigua, en latín era "nox"  (creo), en griego "nux" (creo) y el germánico tenía una palabra  parecida, por lo cual su origen es casi diría común a todas las lenguas  indoeuropeas. 
"Knight", caballero, en cambio comparte raíz con "king", "kind", "akin",  "kinship" y palabras así, significando "de la misma raza" por decirlo  de una manera, de ahí "kind" como "tipo", "clase", e.g. "What kind of  music do you like?", mientras que el "king", rey, era el jefe, el máximo  de su "kind", no sé si se entiende. El "knight" era como un joven, del  grupo, del mismo "kin", seguidor del rey o algo así. Espero que se  entiendan los paralelos. 
Los sonidos, tanto los "gh" de ambos términos como la "k" de knight,  seguramente se pronunciaron hace muchos siglos, "night" debía sonar tipo  "nejt" como suena aún en alemán, que se escribe "necht" (creo). Knight  seguramente se pronunciaba "kenejt", después cayeron esos sonidos pero  los ingleses son tradicionalistas y no cambian su escritura para adaptar  como si hacemos con el español y como los americanos son un poco mas  abiertos a hacer (en EEUU he visto escrito "nite", así como "rite" e  incluso carteles que se escribe "thru" en vez de "through"). 

google-english version.
To my  knowledge they have no common origin.
"Night, night, is  a very old root word in Latin, was" nox "(I think), in Greek nux" (I  think) and Germanic had a similar word, so I would almost say its origin  is common all Indo-European languages.
"Knight" Knight,  shares change root "king", "kind," "akin", "kinship" and words as well,  meaning "of the same race" to put it in there "kind" as " type "," class ", eg "What kind of music do you like?", While  the king, king, was the leader, the peak of their "kind" I do not know  if you understand. The "knight" was like a young group, the same "kin", a  follower of the king or something. I hope you understand the parallels.
The sounds, both  "gh" of both terms as the "k" of Knight, surely spoke for many  centuries, "night" should sound like "nekht" still sounds like in  German, which is written "Nechtan" (I think) . Knight probably  pronounced "kenejt", then dropped those sounds but the English are  traditionalists and do not change to adapt his writing like we do with  the Spanish and how Americans are a bit more open to doing (in the U.S.  have been written "nite" and "rite" and even written signs "Through" instead  of "through").

Thanks


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


tipar said:


> To my  knowledge they have no common origin.
> "Night, night, is  a very old root word in Latin, was" nox "(I think), in Greek nux" (I  think) and Germanic had a similar word, so I would almost say its origin  is common all Indo-European languages.


PIE *nok(w)t-


> "Knight" Knight,  shares change root "king", "kind," "akin", "kinship" and words as well,  meaning "of the same race" to put it in there "kind" as " type "," class "


Etymonline.com, Oxford Dictionary of English etymology, my Dutch dictionary (knecht), my German dictionary (Knecht), they all give a Germanic root, but state that the origins are unclear, unknown.
So, I wonder where the information about "king", "kinship", "kind" comes from.  

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## magosil79

Today the pronunciation in the same but in Old English the two words were c_niht_ and _niht_. The _h_ in these two words was pronounced like the German _ch_ in _ich_. As for _night _in Old English it was [nɪçt], later on (I don't know exactly when) [ç] was dropped with consequent compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel /niːt/, and finally the great vowel shift took place: the long iː turned into aɪ as in present-day English /naɪt/ .
As for _knight_, the Old English _knicht _went through the same changes of _niht_ with the additional drop of the initial _k-_ in the cluster _kn-._ The English spelling is quite conservative in this respect and it has retained the spelling _knight _even though the pronunciation is quite different now. other words spelled differently but pronounced the same way are: _knot-not, know-no, knew-new._
I don't think that _knight_ and _king_ come from the same root, because in Old English the meaning of _kniht_ was 'boy, youth, servant', meaning preserved in the German word _Knecht_ 'servant, labourer'.

P.S. (I've used Wikipedia to trace the phonological changes of these two words).


----------



## ThomasK

I'd really be interested to find out more about this, because I happened to think of 'verknocht aan' (inseparable from), but I think, due to some kind of addiction, which can be interpreted as subjugation; in Dutch _addiction_ is translated as verslaving, being a slave). There is an idea of _verknechten_, subjate, making smaller, so quite opposed to the idea of a knight in principle, although he used to be a vazal (vassal ?) too. He was not that important. _(Sorry, this is messy, but I had to leave)_


----------



## ThomasK

Now a German etymologist, Heinrich Tischner, tells me he is sure that *knight/ knecht* is based on 



> japhet. **кën*- 'zusammendrücken, kneifen, knicken, ballen' !
> a.. vgerm. **genogʰ*- 'Holzstück'
> 
> a.. germ. **knag*- 'Holzstück''
> 
> a.. wgerm. **knaħtjaż* '"Bengel", Junge'


He is quite sure there is a link between a boy, well, an unruly boy, and a piece of wood, indeed. As a matter of fact, there are other words where we have the same similarity: _B/bengel_ (it is a boy, and a piece of wood/ in Dutch the bell clapper), _Flegel/ vlegel_, ...


----------



## Frank06

ThomasK said:


> Now a German etymologist, Heinrich Tischner[...]
> He is quite sure there is a link between a boy, well, an unruly boy, and a piece of wood, indeed.


Both Van Dale Etymologisch woordenboek and Van Wijk (Etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal, 1949) mention that some people think it could be related to "piece of wood", but it is not generally accepted at all.

Slightly off topic. 
What caught my attention in the Tischer quote was "*japeth.* kën...". I have got the very very bad habit of checking out sources, I am sorry. I also have the bad habit of thinking a source isn't that trustworthy when it talks BS. Sorry again.
Mr Tischer was sure about a few other things: 


> Beim Vergleich der sog. indogermanischen Sprachen wurden Wurzelwörter erschlossen, die den indogermanischen Wörtern zugrunde liegen und *wohl aus dem Noachitischen *und regionalen Dialekten entwickelt wurden. Sie stammen aus dem Neolithikum vor der indogermanischen Einwanderung. Ich nenne diese Grundsprache in Anlehnung an die Bibel "japhetitisch".


Now, "japethisch" could only be a label, just as, let's say, "Nostratic". 
But Mr. Tischer chose that label "japethisch" for entirely different, non-linguistic reasons: How serious can one take "a linguist" who talks about "Adamitisch > noachitisch > japhetitisch > Indogermanisch"? 
You really know how to pick your evangelical sources lately, Thomas ;-).

Well, I don't think it's really that much off topic: one should check or at least explain a few things about their (online) sources before using them in an argument. 

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Ok, I see. But then: what could be the main reasons for not accepting? There may be good reason, no problem about that. 

_(*Japh*.: I know, I know, and yet, I do not belong to some C-sect, as I told you, on the contrary, I hope. I do have connections with the other C-group, but I am quite open to corrections if necessary. And C-ref. are not by definition suspect, so I hope. ;-))_


----------



## Frank06

We're dealing with etymology here, and hence we should check and doublecheck multiple sources (available in most libraries, but I do know that in this e-era the L-word sounds a bit obselete).

As for the Dutch sources, one can find back two very contradictory explanations: 

1a. Vercouillie (1925) doesn't have any doubts about the etymology of 'knecht': IE *gne-g-ti and he connects it with Latin natus < gnatus.
1b. Van Wijk (1912, 1949): related to "kind" and "knaap", and he gives a reasonable etymology on the basis of Gothic and Old High German forms. Surprisingly enough ("wonderlijkerwijze") quite a few people came up with the basic meaning of 'piece of wood'. No further explanation.

2. De Vries/De Tollenaere (1971): argues against the IE *gen- and goes for the "piece of wood" etymology and he gives some fairly sound arguments.

Not everybody exhibits the same lack of doubt:

3. Franck (1892, I'll summarise and translate from Dutch): the idea that kn- is a remnant of IE *gen-, even though it's supported by the etymology of "degen",  is as unsure as in the case of "knaap".
[Degen, mind you, not the sword, but man, young man, boy, young male warrior/fighter]

4. Van Dale, or rather Van Veen and Van der Sijs (1997): etymology unsure. Even though a few have connected it with 'piece of wood', the relation with "kind", though the form is unclear, seems to be more acceptable.


German
Kluge (1999) is very short, Herkunft unklar.

English
Skeat (1882): Perhaps cneht = cn-eht, belonging to the kin or tribe (from * gn- < *gen-),with adjectival -eht/iht.
Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology: from WGerm. *knehtaz, of unkn. origin. 


Either _we _can pick and choose and start speculating, or _we_ can aknowledge that the etymology isn't clear at all ("We don't know").


----------



## ThomasK

Well, that is quite a bit of information. I have informed Heinrich Tischner, and we'll whether he thinks he can corroborate his japhetic claim ;-), or even go deeper towards the Adamic root... ;-)

I can't check Marlies Philippa's 4-vol. dictionary now (the new one), maybe Saturday.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Quizás la forma *kni-ght*, tenha que ver con gótico *kni-u* (tematizado), 'rodilla', pariente del latín _*genu*_ 'rodilla'. La raíz *kni*- estaría en _grado cero_ y se referiría a la costumbre indoeuropea de _hacer pasar al hijo legítimo entre las rodillas del padre_ (un renacimiento legal desde el padre, después del natural de la madre). Esta antigua institución  de reconocimiento de paternidad explicaría el significado de _knight_ 'hidalgo' (hijo de algo), 'caballero', que tiene estirpe familiar.
En cuanto a *night*, es conocida su descendencia del ie. **nºhg-*. En el caso de las lenguas gérmánicas se presenta con un sufijo *-t-* como el gótico *nahts* < **nºgh-t-s*. La raíz ie. presenta _distintos vocalismos y los alargamientos_ sufijales* -t- *y* -ti- *_(v. gr.,_ lat. gen. pl. *nocti-um*). Sólo el gr. ant. presenta la forma radical pura en palabras como νύχα, νὐκ-τωρ, etc (que además comunican su /υ/ a νύξ).
De teorías sobre lenguas basadas en datos bíblicos, no hablaré. No cultivo la ciencia ficción teológica. Pero lógicas en un pastor protestante. Es lo que tienen los clérigos que toman la Biblia como palabra de un dios omnisciente y, por tanto, como una enciclopedia de las cosas humanas y divinas. 
Hay que aplicar la navaja. ¡Ockham, Ockham, Ockam!


----------



## swift

More etymology 'facts' , from Merriam-Webster Unabridged:



> Etymology: Middle English _night, niht, _from Old English _niht, næht, neaht; _akin to Middle Dutch _nacht _night, Old Saxon & Old High German _naht, _Old Norse _nōtt, nātt, _Gothic _nahts _night, Old Irish in-_nocht _tonight, Welsh _nos _night, Latin _noct-, nox, _Greek _nykt-, nyx, _Sanskrit _nakt, nakti, _Lithuanian _naktis, _Old Slavic _nošti_
> 
> "night." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (2 Aug. 2010).





> Etymology:	Middle English, boy, youth, knight, from Old English _cniht, cneoht _boy, youth, military follower; akin to Old Saxon & Old High German _kneht _boy, youth, military follower, Old English _cnotta _knot -- more at KNOT
> 
> 
> "knight." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (2 Aug. 2010).



(I'll deliver a translation of XiaoRoel's post in a few minutes... or hours )


----------



## XiaoRoel

Muy agradecido Swift, *como siempre*.


----------



## swift

XiaoRoel said:


> The form *kni-ght* may be related to the Gothic *kni-u* (thematized), 'knee', akin to the Latin *genu* 'knee'. The root *kni*- would be then _zero grade _and it would refer to the ie. custom of _bringing the legitimate son out from between the knees of the father_  (a legal rebirth from the father, after the natural birth from the mother). This ancient institution, the acknowledgement of paternity, could explain the meaning of _knight_, one who has a lineage.
> 
> Now, concerning *night*, its relationship with the ie. **nºhg- *is well-known. In the Germanic languages it appears with a suffix, *-t-*, like the Gothic *nahts* < **nºgh-t-s*. The ie. root has several vocalisms and suffixal extensions: *-t- *y* -ti- *_(e.g._ lat. pl. gen. *nocti-um*). The Ancient Greek alone has the pure stem in some words like νύχα, νὐκ-τωρ, etc. (note the transmission of the /υ/ in *νύξ*).
> 
> I won’t consider any linguistics theory based upon Bible studies since I don’t cultivate the theological science fiction (which is very logical if you look it from a protestant standpoint). That’s what you get when you are a clerk who takes the Bible as the word of an omniscient god, and therefore as an encyclopaedia of human and divine. That's Occam’s razor in use!


Un placer, Xiao.


----------



## berndf

XiaoRoel said:


> Quizás la forma *kni-ght*, tenha que ver con gótico *kni-u* (tematizado), 'rodilla', pariente del latín _*genu*_ 'rodilla'. La raíz *kni*- estaría en _grado cero_ y se referiría a la costumbre indoeuropea de _hacer pasar al hijo legítimo entre las rodillas del padre_ (un renacimiento legal desde el padre, después del natural de la madre). Esta antigua institución de reconocimiento de paternidad explicaría el significado de _knight_ 'hidalgo' (hijo de algo), 'caballero', que tiene estirpe familiar.


This seems rather speculative to me. And if we are doing speculation then the one Frank quoted seems more obvious to me:





Frank06 said:


> Skeat (1882): Perhaps cneht = cn-eht, belonging to the kin or tribe (from * gn- < *gen-),with adjectival -eht/iht.


----------



## XiaoRoel

La "especulación" es de Ernout, no mía (yo no sé tanto).


----------



## ThomasK

Ich gebe hier die Auskunft wieder die ich von Heinrich Tischner bekam, aber nur auf deutsch. 

1) Herkunft unbekannt. Dazu kein Kommentar.

2) Knabe, Knecht zu japhet. [*кën-] 'zusammendrücken, kneifen, knicken, ballen' mit den Stammerweiterungen idg. *gnobʰ- 'Pflock', vorgerm. *gnogʰ- 'Holzstück' und das von *idg. genu 'Knie, Ecke, Winkel'*.
Rätselhaft (mysterious) ist mir allerdings das t-Suffix, das Kennzeichen eines Verbalnomens ist; also "das ...en" oder "ge...t".
Es gibt aber viele Belege für die Gleichung 'Stock = Junge". Wie z.B. mittelengl. _ladde_ 'Fußsoldat', engl. _lad_ 'junger Mann'. Herkunft nach www.etymonline.com unbekannt, vielleicht aber zu Latte 'eckige Stange'.
Für Mädchen fällt ihm nichts Vergleichbares ein. Sollte doch der Penis gemeint sein?

3) zu genu 'Knie, Ecke, Winkel' im Sinne von 'als anerkannter Sohn auf den Knien des Vaters'. Der Gedankengang ist genau so umständlich wie bei "Stock > Junge", aber nicht unmöglich.
Schwierig ist die sprachliche Begründung: Die idg. Wörter lauten alle so ähnlich wie genu, hinten mit U oder W. Er ist auch der Meinung, dass –t ein Wortbildungselement ist. Ich wüsste kein Beispiel für ein Suffix –kt (auch -g-t musste zu –kt werden).
Auch das Wort "Nacht" spricht nicht dagegen. Nach meiner Kenntnis es* idg. *nok-t-* und nicht, wie behauptet *nºgh-t-s. Ein Stamm *negh- ist ihm nicht bekannt.

4) zu gen- 'zeugen, gebären' hat dasselbe Problem: Woher kommt das Suffix?

2 und 4 gehen davon aus, dass die Grundbedeutung 'Nachkomme' ist. Da hat er Bedenken: Im Altertum wuchsen die eigenen Kinder mit denen der "Knechte" in der _familia_ zusammen auf. Die Lebensumstände eines Haussklaven waren gar nicht so übel, aber man unterschied zwischen _liberi_ 'freien Kindern' und _famuli_ 'unfreien Angehörigen der Hausgemeinschaft'. Germ. _kneht_ hatte die Bedeutung 'Junge' und 'Hilfskraft', aber nicht 'Sohn', _magad_ war 'Mädchen' und 'Hilfskraft' aber nicht 'Tochter'.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Quid est "japhet."?


----------



## ThomasK

It is a name that has been given by the etymologist I know, based on a Biblical source, as Frank pointed out already (however, only the name is Biblical, not the information). However, he is just 'postulating' a phase before Indogermanic, I understand. I just think that name does not suffice to prove the whole theory wrong, and neither do I think quoting separate sources is wrong, especially if there is no way to consult library information quickly.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Supongo que te refieres a este autor. No creo posible su teoría. ¿Es el "jafético" el conjunto dialectal occidental ie. (hitita incluido)?
Como ya dije en varios mensajes, las etimologías hay que motivarlas, además de que sean correctas las derivaciones fonéticas.
En este momento la europeística tradicional está en revisión y ya no son los métodos de la lingüistica tradicional los que están en candelero, sino lo de la dialectología. 
La dialectología forjada en la lingüistica románica, el método palabras y cosas, y un retraso de miles de años con respecto a lo que se tenía como paradigmático en la indoeuropeística radicional (ya el fondo temporal no son los -3.500 de la profesora Gymbutas, ni los -8.000 de Renfrew) ahora se habla de mesolítico y aún paleolítico inferior).
Creo que mi etimología (tomada de Ernout) está motivada en un hecho cultural, lo que puede habilitar la relación etimológica propuesta.


----------



## sokol

XiaoRoel said:


> Quid est "japhet."?


Obviously referring to the Japhetic theory - sorry but this Wiki page isn't available in Spanish. 

But let's not elaborate on that one here, I just wrote this for clarification: the Japhetic theory is not the topic of this thread.


----------



## ThomasK

Could someone translate the (second part of) Xiao Roel's contribution? 

But how about this frequency of association piece of wood/ servant or boy ? Is that the case in other languages as well ? Does it prove anything?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Frank06 said:


> We're dealing with etymology here, and hence we should check and doublecheck multiple sources (available in most libraries, but I do know that in this e-era the L-word sounds a bit obselete).
> 
> As for the Dutch sources, one can find back two very contradictory explanations:
> 
> 1a. Vercouillie (1925) doesn't have any doubts about the etymology of 'knecht': IE *gne-g-ti and he connects it with Latin natus < gnatus.
> 1b. Van Wijk (1912, 1949): related to "kind" and "knaap", and he gives a reasonable etymology on the basis of Gothic and Old High German forms. Surprisingly enough ("wonderlijkerwijze") quite a few people came up with the basic meaning of 'piece of wood'. No further explanation.
> 
> 2. De Vries/De Tollenaere (1971): argues against the IE *gen- and goes for the "piece of wood" etymology and he gives some fairly sound arguments.
> 
> Not everybody exhibits the same lack of doubt:
> 
> 3. Franck (1892, I'll summarise and translate from Dutch): the idea that kn- is a remnant of IE *gen-, even though it's supported by the etymology of "degen", is as unsure as in the case of "knaap".
> [Degen, mind you, not the sword, but man, young man, boy, young male warrior/fighter]
> 
> 4. Van Dale, or rather Van Veen and Van der Sijs (1997): etymology unsure. Even though a few have connected it with 'piece of wood', the relation with "kind", though the form is unclear, seems to be more acceptable.
> 
> 
> German
> Kluge (1999) is very short, Herkunft unklar.
> 
> English
> Skeat (1882): Perhaps cneht = cn-eht, belonging to the kin or tribe (from * gn- < *gen-),with adjectival -eht/iht.
> Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology: from WGerm. *knehtaz, of unkn. origin.
> 
> 
> Either _we _can pick and choose and start speculating, or _we_ can aknowledge that the etymology isn't clear at all ("We don't know").


 Well, in Norwegian *knekt* means a foot soldier, a servant and ... a piece of wood nowadays.


----------



## swift

ThomasK said:


> Could someone translate the (second part of) Xiao Roel's contribution?


Here you go... 


XiaoRoel said:


> I guess you're talking about this author. I don't think his theory holds up. Is "japhetic" the occidental dialectal ie. group (Hittite included)?
> 
> As I said in several posts, etymologies must be motivated, and the phonetic derivations must be correct.
> 
> The traditional Europeistic theory is currently under revision, and Traditional linguistics methods are no more in the limelight, but those  of Dialectolgy are: Dialectology built upon Romanic linguistics, the methods of 'wörter und  sachen', and a delay of thousands of years between what was held as  paradigmatic in the traditional Indo-Europeistic theory _and_ the  temporal background we contemplate nowadays (this temporal background is  no longer professor Gimbutas's -3500 nor Renfrew's -8000, now we are  talking about Mesolithic and even Lower Paleolithic).
> 
> I consider that Ernout's etymology is culturally motivated, and therefore the etymological relationship could be validated.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks a lot, (that was) s/Swift!

But, XiaoRoel, what theory do you mean? The (by now apparently infamous) Japhetic theory? Thanks!


----------



## 0m1

XiaoRoel said:


> La dialectología forjada en la lingüistica románica, el método palabras y cosas, y un retraso de miles de años con respecto a lo que se tenía como paradigmático en la indoeuropeística radicional (ya el fondo temporal no son los -3.500 de la profesora Gymbutas, ni los -8.000 de Renfrew) ahora se habla de mesolítico y aún paleolítico inferior).



I'm really not sure what to make of the Paleolithic theory presented in that link, it shatters all I've ever learnt about IE linguistics, and though in many places it seems to make sense, in others it just seems frankly bizarre. And the way it's written is very insistent, which makes me wary, as though the author is trying a little too hard to gain plausibility. 

An example of the article making-a-little-less-sense:



> What is now called the Romance area – closely corresponding to the area of the Epigravettian Paleolithic culture, of Mesolithic cultures such as Castelnovian and Sauveterrian, and of the Impresso/Cardial culture of Neolithic – Instead of representing solely the remnant of Roman imperialism, must now be seen as mainly an original Italid (or Italoid, or Ibero-Dalmatic) linguistic area, in which several proto-languages akin to Latin, besides Latin and the other Italic languages, were spoken (besides Alinei 2000a, see also 1991, 1997c, 1997d, 1998b, 1998c, 2000c, 2001b, 2001c, 2009a), and for the speakers of which the Latin of Rome must have been an (easy to learn) superstrate (see Alinei-Benozzo 2009). Rumanian appears to be an intrusive language, introduced in Neolithic times into the Slavic area by Impresso/Cardial farmers coming from Dalmatia (Hamangia culture).




It may be a little late in the night where I am, but have I genuinely understood that correctly? The entire area of the Roman Empire, by some enormous coincidence, happened to be Italic right about where the Romans were to actually later expand to? Including, of all places, Romania? Is it really the most logical step to take, suggesting that in fact a pre-historic intrustion into a Slavic wilderness explains the modern Romanian language, rather than the Roman invasion of Dacia, for which we acually have evidence? Did the Romans just prefer to invade places that already spoke a cognate tongue or somehing, even if it meant going out of their way and marching into the Slavic heartlands?

Maybe I've misunderstood, but that seems a tiny bit silly to me.


----------



## XiaoRoel

En la Península Ibérica el paradigma de la continuidad paleolítica explica muchas cosa hasta ahora sin solución, entre ellas el celta p-.


----------

