# Mis-takes [Mistakes], Faults and Errors



## ThomasK

_Moderator's Note: Multiple threads have been merged to create this one._

Encolpius' question makes me wonder about the nature of your word for 'mistake' in its very 'practical' meaning, as in: 
_"I gave you back 20 euros, but I should have given you 50. I am sorry, that was *a mistake*."_ (a)

Is the word different in this context?
_"3 + 4 = 9", says the little girl. _
_"Have a look, Annie," says her Dad, "you are making *a mistake*."'_ (b)

(So no morals involved here ! ;-)

English: 
The origin of the word is clear in English: the 'wrong take'. I don't think *fault* (lit. a shortcoming, so I read in etymonline.org) could be used here, whereas the word seems older than 'mistake'. But I suddenly think: *error* would be alright (going astray, etymologically), wouldn't it? 

The original meaning based on Latin *errare *refers 'to  wander (off)', not finding the way. It is quite common of course in  French, English, ..., simply as a synonym of 'mistake', I believe. We  have a calque *'dwaling' *(_dwalen _= to wander off, metaphorically as well), but only to refer to grave mistakes: _een gerechtelijke dwaling_,  a judicial error. --- 'U dwaalt' (you are mistaken) will be considered  ironical, because it is quite uncommon in that meaning. 

How about your language (noun and verb) ?                 

Dutch :
a - (Dat was) een *vergissing* (neg. prefix _ver_- + _guess_)
b - ... *een fout*


----------



## apmoy70

(a)«Λάθος» ('laθos _n._ from the classical verb «λανθάνω» (lan'θanō)-->_to escape notice, to be unknown, unseen, unnoticed, to forget_; «λάθος» lit. describes _the result of forgetfulness, neglectfulness_.
(b)«Σφάλμα» ('sfalma _n._) from the classical verb «σφάλλω» ('spʰallō)-->_to cause to fall, overthrow, baffle, balk_ metaph. _to go wrong, be mistaken_ (remember our discussion about «ασφάλεια»?)


----------



## ThomasK

You are right, indeed; I had forgotten about that association! As for λανθάνω: it does not have to do with _lontano, lountain_, far, does it? (Thanks !)

But could you also explain the difference between the two? I guess you mean (b) is like an *error*, which I added above... 

_(That is so difficult: to enjoy fully the riches we find here ! I think we should all publish a book in our own language containing all those different metaphors and views. Can't we get support from the EU or the UNESCO ? ;--) )_


----------



## Orlin

I think that Slavic languages (at least the ones that I speak) use the same word for both - Bulgarian грешка, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS) грешка/greška, Russian ошибка. The word грешка/greška is etymologically related with Bulgarian грях, BCS gr(ij)eh - sin. I don't know about Russian ошибка.


----------



## sakvaka

Also in *Finnish*, _virhe_ for the both.


----------



## ThomasK

Are you suggesting that making that kind of errors is referred to with a basically religious term? But then: is the religious term not based on another root ? 

(Thanks)


----------



## Maroseika

Orlin said:


> The word грешка/greška is etymologically related with Bulgarian грях, BCS gr(ij)eh - sin. I don't know about Russian ошибка.


Ошибка is from о-шибиться, i.e. hit   beside the mark (from шибать - to hit).
Russian also has a cognat of грешка/greška - погрешность, but it means "drawback" or "mistake of the calculation' (math. term).


----------



## Orlin

ThomasK said:


> Are you suggesting that making that kind of errors is referred to with a basically religious term? But then: is the religious term not based on another root ?
> 
> (Thanks)


 
Certainly not nowadays - we don't feel such a connection (probably long ago such an idea existed) and no religious motives either: these words apply to *all* errors.


----------



## ThomasK

I see, thanks, but then no reference to an underlying root, Orlin and Sakvaka ?


----------



## Orlin

ThomasK said:


> I see, thanks, but then no reference to an underlying root, Orlin and Sakvaka ?


 
Probably a semantic change which has almost "hidden" the original meaning of the root.


----------



## enoo

*French*:
a) _erreur_ (error/mistake)
b) _erreur_ or _faute_ (fault/fail)

No moral involved (or maybe just a little bit in fault, as it means failling at something that one is expected to succeed -- as in your example, the little girl is expected to give correct answers to her maths exercises)


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> I see, thanks, but then no reference to an underlying root, Orlin and Sakvaka ?



I can't sense anything, and my dictionary confirms that the origin is covered with dust.


----------



## ThomasK

It might be interesting to see whether any of those words 'feels' harsher than others inasmuch as it is part of their meaning. In this case: could _erreur_ not be used in (a), Enoo? 

_(I sometimes wonder indeed: how 'far' are morals, or at least feelings, when one uses those words? Mistakes imply judgments, so have their negative meaning (not just connotation) - and therefore there is something unpleasant about the whole concept, I guess, not just about the word._ That is what I think...)

@sakvaka: 'covered with dust' _(I like the expression, we use it too..)._We could take it to the E section. But OK, later.


----------



## sakvaka

ThomasK said:


> I
> @sakvaka: 'covered with dust' _(I like the expression, we use it too..)._We could take it to the E section. But OK, later.



Really, because we don't.  I just couldn't remember the English expression. 

About the etymology, the dictionary I consulted was collected by prof. Kaisa Häkkinen, the leading person in these matters, from various sources. If her book doesn't help, nothing will.


----------



## Rallino

In *Turkish*:

*Yanlış *and *hata* both mean: _error, mistake, fault_. They are synonyms and interchangeable.

The verb forms are:

_Yanlış/Hata yapmak (to make a mistake)_

There is also the verb_ Yanılmak_, which I believe is from the same root with 'yanlış', it means:_ to be mistaken.
_


----------



## ThomasK

@sakvaka: I am sorry, I did not want to call your information or prof. Kaisa's in doubt! _(And I guess, in Finland old things are covered with snow rather... ;-))_

@rallino: does either have a particular root ?


----------



## enoo

ThomasK said:


> It might be interesting to see whether any of those words 'feels' harsher than others inasmuch as it is part of their meaning. In this case: could _erreur_ not be used in (a), Enoo?



I can hardly imagine any other word than _erreur_ in that case (maybe _bourde_ (blunder), but the "neutral" error fits better here). If we use "faute" it somehow implies that taking and giving money back is part of the speaker's job, and that by giving the wrong amount, he made a mistake in his job.

_Faute_ is commonly used when talking about mistakes in writting (be it grammar, spelling or calculus - things everyone learned and is supposed to know),  or in one's job (as one is supposed not to fail at that either). I never really thought about that before, but yes the word _faute_ implies a judgment (maybe less strong than the English "fault"), whereas the word _erreur_ does not. 

Oh, as long as I'm thinking about it, there's also _méprise_ (verb: méprendre) ... literally mis-take  But that one is used only when one mistakes someone/something for another one/thing.


----------



## ThomasK

That is quite interesting. So, _faute_ weighs heavier?


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> You are right, indeed; I had forgotten about that association! As for λανθάνω: it does not have to do with _lontano, lountain_, far, does it? (Thanks !)


According to the _Babiniotis' "Lexicon of the Greek Language"_, «λανθάνω» has a sole cognate within the IE family and that is in Latin, the 2nd conjugation verb, "Lateō"-->_to lurk, be hidden_.


ThomasK said:


> But could you also explain the difference between the two? I guess you mean (b) is like an *error*, which I added above...


Yes there exists a _slight_ difference between the two, which has almost disappeared in Modern Greek and now the two are used interchangeably 


ThomasK said:


> _(That is so difficult: to enjoy fully the riches we find here ! I think we should all publish a book in our own language containing all those different metaphors and views. Can't we get support from the EU or the UNESCO ? ;--) )_


Indeed, indeed


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, Apmoy !


----------



## Rallino

ThomasK said:


> ...
> 
> @rallino: does either have a particular root ?




I checked the etymological dictionary.* Yanlış* and *yanılmak* come from "yan"  which means, tilted/diagonal => Not straight. If you're going off the straight line, you're going tilted --> mistaking ^^.


----------



## ThomasK

Very interesting!!! It reminds me of something in Dutch: _right_ means 'straight' originally. And there should be more implicit hints at this opposition in Dutch as well. Maybe this will inspire other 'Foreros' around here !


----------



## bibax

Czech:

*omyl* = mistake; from the verb mýliti se (= to err), unclear etymology; it is a discrepancy between knowledge and reality, the machines cannot make omyly (mis-takes); it is also a legal term (error facti, error iuris);

*chyba* = fault, error (originally it meant _*lack of ..., deficiency*_);
e.g. chyba is a difference between a calculated/measured value and the correct (theoretical) one;

*blud* = a heavy mistake; from the verb blouditi (= to stray); the bearers of such mistakes usually ended on the stake (like John Huss or G. Bruno); now it is also a medical term (delusion);

finally *hřích* (грях, OCS grěch) = sin;


----------



## ThomasK

Great information, thanks! Too bad we do not know about the 'sin'-origin.


----------



## itreius

Croatian Language Portal suggest a possible etymology in the word "gorjeti" - to  burn (Old Slavic - gorěti, PIE *gwher-/*gwhor).
It offers "the flame/fire of consciousness" as an example of how the meaning could have formed.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, that is not at all implausible. Great, thank you !


----------



## ThomasK

i wondered about the origin of 
- Italian _*sbaglio*_ 
- Russian *ошибка,* but that looks very much like Czech


----------



## bibax

Czech:

*chybovati, chybiti* = to err;
*chyba* = error;

In Old Czech _chybiti_ meant _to miss_ (a target, right way, ford, etc.). We still have an expression (quite obscure for an average Czech) for a blunder: *chyba lávky*, originally it meant _missing the footbridge/gangplank_ (if someone miss the gangplank), in modern Czech it means _an error of the gangplank_.

In Polish the word *chyba* dropped to the preposition _except_.


----------



## ThomasK

bibax said:


> In Polish the word *chyba* dropped to the preposition _except_.



Very interesting information about Czech. It used to be transitive then, or did it have both meanings? I think Latin errare has never been transitive, but of course 'wandering' implies missing the mark, the target, etc. 

Polish: you mean the word is no longer in use, except as a preposition?


----------



## bibax

Yes, _chybiti_ was transitive in Old Czech: chybiti sě brodu (= to miss the ford), in this sense it has been replaced by the verb _minouti_: minul jsem brod (= I missed the ford).

In Polish: error is *błąd*; I think it is related to the Czech verb *blouditi* (= to roam, to wander about, to stray, to be going around in circles) and *blud* (= fallacy, delusion).


----------

