# (Z)melt ? (Z)whip ?



## ThomasK

I happened to think of this, to notice some similarity between the two: 
 - _to melt_ --- _smelten_ in Dutch (_schmelzen_ in German)
 - _a whip_ --- _zweep_ in Dutch 

I was thinking the English speakers had had a historical problem pronouncing the /s/, but according to etymology-online.com the /s/ never seems to have been there (Lat. _mollis_), whereas the /s/ in whip has probably been dropped. Or am I mistaken? Is there no link? _ (I do not have the best sources of information, for the time being, I am afraid, and nor have I been able to find other similar duos/ trios)_


----------



## Hulalessar

I do not think English speakers have any problem with /sm/. Indeed there is the word _smelt_.


----------



## ThomasK

I did not mean to insult the English speakers or anything of the kind. There is _small_ as well, etc. , but I wondered whether this is a coincidence !


----------



## ireney

I'm not an expert in any way on this matter but I would like to point out two things: a) the English have dropped any number of letter combinations they are very able to pronounce without changing the spelling; "knight", "knife" would be a good example I think, since I've yet to meet an English speaking person that cannot pronounce "kn" 
b) I am not entirely sure there's anyone who _cannot _pronounce a certain sound or a combination (bar speech impediments obviously) . Sure, some are, for those of us not used to them, more difficult to pronounce as the natives do than others (for me for instance, the Arabic hamza is as tricky as both the French and the German "r"). Not so much by themselves but incorporated in a sentence. Sort of like most of my French friends have no problem making the /δ/ sound but will, in a sentence, pronounce it as /z/ for instance. It's just a matter of these sounds or combinations not being a part of those used in their native language.


----------



## berndf

I am not sure you got the etymology of _whip_ right. _Whip_ is probably cognate to German _wippen_ while Dutch _zweep _and German _schwappen_  might be cognate to English _sweep(<ME swoopen<OE swapan)_. But I am not sure.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

I think it's much older than the language phase we call English. As far as I understood, PIE had quite a few roots like *mel- with a variant form with *s (as, in our case, *smel-).
I'll try to search for more information tomorrow.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

berndf said:


> I am not sure you got the etymology of _whip_ right. _Whip_ is probably cognate to German _wippen_ while Dutch _zweep _and German _schwappen_ might be cognate to English _sweep(<ME swoopen<OE swapan)_. But I am not sure.


I just found this. Wiktionary confirms my surmise about concerning the etymology of _whip_. But it says nothing about Dutch _zweep_. But since you have _wippen_ in Dutch too, it is likely that _zweep _is of different origin (e.g. cognate of _schwapen, sweep_).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


berndf said:


> I just found this. Wiktionary confirms my surmise about concerning the etymology of _whip_. But it says nothing about Dutch _zweep_. But since you have _wippen_ in Dutch too, it is likely that _zweep _is of different origin (e.g. cognate of _schwapen, sweep_).


I am not sure in how far this is helpful, but my Dutch etymological dictionary (Van Dale) is quite vague about both words. But it doesn't connect both words, so I am inclined to (fully) agree with Berndf.

*wippen*: intensivum of Middle Dutch _weiven_.
*zweep*: Middle _Dutch _swepe, Old _English _swipe [...] Belongs to a group with _anlauting zw_-, such _as _zwaaien, zwiepen, etc.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

Well, you seem to confirm the scarce information I had found, gentlemen, but I wondered where our /s/ had come from. So it could be a PIE variant. And indeed, _wippen_ and _zwepen_: too different, it seems to me. 

I will see whether I could come up with other words where the /s/ does not seem to be there, but at least there is no reason to think there is some logic in it. (Another desillusion ;-) )


----------



## berndf

As we seem to have clarified_ whip_, back to your example _melt_. In Grimm you find a discussion under the head word "schmelzen". He suspects a Sandhi effect in PIE to be responsible for the "sm"-"m" variation. He doesn't say why but gives a reference to _A. Noreen, Abriss der Urgermanischen Lautlehre. Strassburg, 1894, p.201sqq_ which I can't verify as I don't have access to the book. In Germanic languages the "sm" variant is generally better preserved than in other IG languages. He quote other examples of loss of initial "s" in non-Germanic languages, like German _Stier _vs. Latin_ taurus_. or _stoßen_ vs. _tundere_. Regarding English _melt_, he writes that the variant _meltan_ without initial "s" can be traced back to OE and continental Anglo-Saxon and [my addition] is hence not a development within the English language.


----------



## koniecswiata

ireney said:


> I'm not an expert in any way on this matter but I would like to point out two things: a) the English have dropped any number of letter combinations they are very able to pronounce without changing the spelling; "knight", "knife" would be a good example I think, since I've yet to meet an English speaking person that cannot pronounce "kn"
> b) I am not entirely sure there's anyone who _cannot _pronounce a certain sound or a combination (bar speech impediments obviously) . Sure, some are, for those of us not used to them, more difficult to pronounce as the natives do than others (for me for instance, the Arabic hamza is as tricky as both the French and the German "r"). Not so much by themselves but incorporated in a sentence. Sort of like most of my French friends have no problem making the /δ/ sound but will, in a sentence, pronounce it as /z/ for instance. It's just a matter of these sounds or combinations not being a part of those used in their native language.


 
I would say that "kn" is definitely a phonetically unacceptable consonant combination in English--definitely at the beginning of syllables. Furthermore, when a typical monoligual English speakers tries to make this sound, it comes out with difficulty. A German name like "Knopf" would be pronounced as "kanoff" (for example). 
Another case of "s loss" would be the difference between English "small" (of Germanic origin) and Slavic "mal-" (Polish maly, which means small).


----------



## Frank06

koniecswiata said:


> Another case of "s loss" would be the difference between English "small" (of Germanic origin) and Slavic "mal-" (Polish maly, which means small).


I am really not sure if we can speak of "loss" in these cases.
If I am not wrong, Slavic *_mal-_ (*mā́lъ(jь)) and Germanic *_smal-a_ go back to the PIE root (s)me:lo, see here.

Meanwhile, I had a look at the paper edition of the _American Heritage dictionary of Indo-European roots_. Though this dictionary only lists PIE roots of words which occur in modern day English, I find dozens of PIE roots like (s)melo- and (s)mel-. 

I don't immediately see a pattern emerging. PIE roots without s- don't seem to exclusively pop up in subgroup A (though often, at first sight, in Greek and Latin), while the variant PIE roots with s- don't exclusively pop up in subgroup B. 
Alas, the dictionary I am using during this very quick search doesn't give information about the Slavic family.

I really hope somebody could elaborate on this phenomenon.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## koniecswiata

I don't know if there was an across the board "loss" going on either.  Since, Slavic languages generally (at least those today) have a lot of "sm" consonant clusters.  Sometimes these things are just do to irregular phonetic development/change.  Maybe it is a cop out to say that but patterns rarely are 100% across the board.  I got the relation of "small" to "maly" from a Polish Etymological dictionary.  Western Etymological dictionaries have a tendency to focus more on Latin/Greek/Germanic relationships.


----------



## berndf

Frank's source (#12) seems to confirm that the "sm"-"m" variation is regarded by scholars as existing already in PIE.

If anyone with access to a scientific library could check the location I gave in #10, we might get some more insight.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


ThomasK said:


> I will see whether I could come up with other words where the /s/ does not seem to be there, but at least there is no reason to think there is some logic in it. (Another desillusion ;-) )


Or another start of a journey full of surprises .



koniecswiata said:


> I don't know if there was an across the board "loss" going on either. Since, Slavic languages generally (at least those today) have a lot of "sm" consonant clusters.


That's the weird thing throughout.
Also PIE has roots as *spei-, *spel-, *(s)pei-; *smeg-, *smei, *(s)me:lo, *(s)mer (and *mer-). I mean, the cluster s+C (well, certain consonsants) is absolutely common in PIE.

Anyway, the phenomenon is called s-mobile.



> I got the relation of "small" to "maly" from a Polish Etymological dictionary. Western Etymological dictionaries have a tendency to focus more on Latin/Greek/Germanic relationships.


That's indeed a limit of quite a few dictionaries, but therefore it's useful to also have sources like Vasmer, Pokorny and other databases at hand.

Take care,

Frank


----------



## ThomasK

So then there was some basis of truth in my 'educated (hm) guess'. This /s/ behaves in a special way at least, in being mobile.


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> So then there was some basis of truth in my 'educated (hm) guess'. This /s/ behaves in a special way at least, in being mobile.


Oh yes. But not in English. It happend in predecessor languages, maybe already in PIE itself.


----------



## ThomasK

No, no, not in English. Anything true is fine... ;-)


----------



## ThomasK

I happened to come across another word showing up the moving /s/ symptom: _*throat*_ and _*strot*_ in Dutch (strottenhoofd)


----------



## ewie

Russian _смерть_ and French _mort_ come to mind.  (I presume they're cognates.)


----------



## koniecswiata

Apparently, the English word "murder" is also a cognate to Slavic "smert" and French "mort", and exhibits the lack of s.


----------



## CapnPrep

koniecswiata said:


> Apparently, the English word "murder" is also a cognate to Slavic "smert" and French "mort", and exhibits the lack of s.


The _s(ъ)_- prefix was an apparently meaningful element (= "good", "self", also found e.g. in Russian счастье "happiness") that was added in Slavic, not something lost in all the other languages. Even in Slavic, it is clear that the basic root is _*mьr_. So this example doesn't look very relevant, unless you somehow want to say that the Slavic prefix is the same as the _s-_ in _swipe_ and _smelt_?


----------



## sokol

I'm giving the link to Vasmer as there are plenty of examples for the same root in many languages; Slavic languages use both roots "smrt" (for the noun) and "mrt" (for verbs).

So the root alone (mrt - in various versions) too is used in modern Slavic languages; and yes, it is obvious, as CpnPrep said, that "s" is not part of the root.


----------

