# Etymology of 'self'



## ThomasK

I generally use two sources for etymological research, etymonline.com and etymologiebank.nl, but this time they offer very different explanations for the origin of 'self'. In fact, the Dutch one considers it all quite unclear, whereas etymonline.com refers to 


> PIE _*sel-bho-_, suffixedform of root _*s(w)e-_, pronoun of the third person and reflexive(referring back to the subject of a sentence), also used in forms denoting thespeaker's social group, "(we our-)*selves*" (see *idiom*).



which is as such quite attractive, because it refers to a link with Greek 'idios'... But does it hold, do you think? Can you find another source substantiating this claim?. 

Dutch resorts to pie. _*se-l-bho-_ (FvW, NEW,Kluge21, Pfeifer), refutes _*se-_+ _*lība-_ ‘lijf’ (zie → *lijf*)...


----------



## ahvalj

Of course, the *_selbho_- variant is the only plausible one. The Germanic word actually has a direct correspondence in the extinct Venetic language (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language).


----------



## ThomasK

Is it that simple, Ahvalj? isn't that track too far-fetched?


----------



## ahvalj

It is that simple. The Venetic language had no vowel reduction attested, so there is no reason to believe that a vowel was ever present between _l_ and _b_. The in-Germanic data do not support the *_selībaz_ variant as well: this hypothesis is based upon the development _which_<*_hwa/ilīkaz _(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=which&searchmode=none), but in the latter word the vowel is found in several Germanic dialects, and the Gothic form is simply transparent, which is not the case with _self_.


----------



## ThomasK

One last question: would you be able to give the origin of Greek 'idios' as well?


----------



## ahvalj

ThomasK said:


> One last question: would you be able to give the origin of Greek 'idios' as well?


Beekes (_Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek:_ 577–578 — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0/edit?usp=sharing) prefers the *_su̯e_- etymology (hence from *_su̯ediı̯os_), though this _i_ in the root requires some trick that I don't understand. By the way, *_s(u̯)e_- is attested in most if not all the IE branches (e. g. Latin _suus_, German _sein_, Latvian _savs_, Russian _svoy_ etc.; Latin _sibi_, Prussian _sebbei_, Russian _sebe_), in Balto-Slavic it is simply reflexive (Russian _svoy_ "own's", _sebe_ "to oneself"), why such an attention to the Greek word?


----------



## ahvalj

Orel (_Orel VE · 2003 · A handbook of Germanic etymology:_ 323 — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJcE9IMDBISXpsSUU/edit?usp=sharing) writes that connection of the Germanic *_selƀaz_ with *_s(u̯)e- _are_ "not so obvious". _I agree that it all is based on the similarity of the first two sounds and the overall sense, but this was probably true for the Germanic speakers themselves, and in any case these words must have interacted.


----------



## sotos

ahvalj said:


> Beekes (_Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek:_ 577–578 — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0/edit?usp=sharing) prefers the *_su̯e_- etymology (hence from *_su̯ediı̯os_), though this _i_ in the root requires some trick that I don't understand. By the way, *_s(u̯)e_- is attested in most if not all the IE branches (e. g. Latin _suus_, German _sein_, Latvian _savs_, Russian _svoy_ etc.; Latin _sibi_, Prussian _sebbei_, Russian _sebe_), in Balto-Slavic it is simply reflexive (Russian _svoy_ "own's", _sebe_ "to oneself"), why such an attention to the Greek word?



All the above seem to be related to the Gr. σφείς http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...tic+letter=*s111:entry+group=174:entry=sfei=s
The ίδιος doesn't exactly mean "self", unless combined with forms of εγώ, e.g. εγώ ο ίδιος, εμείς οι ίδιοι. Isn't ίδιος related to id, it etc?


----------



## ahvalj

sotos said:


> Isn't ίδιος related to id, it etc?


No, it isn't because the Greek word originally had a digamma, whereas the Latin _id_ sounded this way since the IE times (cp. Sanskrit _id-am_, Gothic _it-a_, both with extenders).


----------



## Gavril

If self is from earlier *_selbho_-, is the *-_bho_- in this word comparable to the last syllable of Latin _pro*bus *_"worthy"?

_probus_ is traced back to *_pro_- "fore, in front" + *-_bhuo-_ "being" (with *_bhuo_ > *_bho_).


----------



## mataripis

I think the Greek word Edo means here is more positive link.The Tagalog of Edo is Ito.S letter might be Si ( Tagalog For the one or direct pointing).recreating Tagalog word si ito (the one who is here).self might be consisting of S+ el+ f with meanings Here+a person+is present.


----------



## ahvalj

Gavril said:


> If self is from earlier *_selbho_-, is the *-_bho_- in this word comparable to the last syllable of Latin _pro*bus *_"worthy"?
> 
> _probus_ is traced back to *_pro_- "fore, in front" + *-_bhuo-_ "being" (with *_bhuo_ > *_bho_).


_Probus_ can be analyzed this way because its first element resembles the widespread prefix (likewise Slavic _prostъ_ "simple" < *_pro-stH-o-s _"standing in front, evident") which is impossible for *_selbhos_. We simply don't know: this is where the comparative method comes to its limits.


----------



## ahvalj

mataripis said:


> I think the Greek word Edo means here is more positive link.The Tagalog of Edo is Ito.S letter might be Si ( Tagalog For the one or direct pointing).recreating Tagalog word si ito (the one who is here).self might be consisting of S+ el+ f with meanings Here+a person+is present.


That looks very promising. I am curious, how does then the Tagalog etymological science analyze the word _antidisestablishmentarianism_?


----------



## ThomasK

I am sorry, I have been lagging behind. But I am not sure now whether the _sel-bho _form and the_selbho__r_efer to the same root. If so your point is mainly that the 'se-liba' hypothesis does not make sense.

My question regarding 'idios' had to do with the reference etymonline.com made. That does not hold, you seem to think - or don't you? (_I am sorry, but I am not that familiar with technical aspects of  etymology)_

In that case that ought to be corrected at etymonline.com, I suppose...


----------



## ahvalj

Well, less technically speaking:
(1) the *_se-līƀaz_ scenario would be possible had we any trace of this long (!) vowel preserved in any Germanic dialect — which is not, and dialects that show a vowel in the ancestor of the word _which_ show no vowel in the ancestor of _self_ (see especially Gothic _ƕileiks_ vs. _silba_);
(2) we have no information to analyze the form *_selbhos_: the available Germanic and Venetic material leads to this proto-form, but that's all: any further etymologizing would be highly speculative;
(3) since we cannot securely link *_selbhos_ with *_su̯e_- (one of the possible, though not necessarily so, ancestors of the Greek word), the connections between _self_ and _idiom_ are not secure as well.

Etymology can be called science as long as it follows convincing procedures, otherwise it becomes fiction. Unfortunately, even the scientific literature is full of doubtful or simply far-fetched guesses: the intellectual discipline is not widespread among scholars, many of which come to this business because of the pleasure they get from crossing the boring limits.


----------

