# "connaître" and "naître"--etymological relatives?



## Robert K S

Here's another one for the etymology mavens.  I'm trying to discover if connaître (to know) and naître (to be born) share a root.  I understand that connaître traces to the Latin cognoscere, and naître to the Latin nasci.  This would seem to indicate that the words, in fact, are unrelated despite their apparent similarity.

Any confirmation?


----------



## jeremyanaya

*co-*_naître__,_ verbe trans. _En résumé, nous connaissons les choses en leur fournissant le moyen d'exercer une action sur notre_ « _mouvement_ ». _Nous les_ « _co-naissons_ », _nous les produisons dans leurs rapports avec nous_ (CLAUDEL, _Art poétique, _1907 p. 176). _En matière d'existence personnelle, connaître, suivant le puissant calembour de Claudel, c'est co-naître, naître avec, et bien souvent renaître avec, à la suite d'un violent effort pour rompre les chaînes de la mort recouvertes des apparences de la vie_ (MOUNIER, _Traité du caractère, _1946, p. 524)


----------



## vince

Hmm I wonder why in Spanish it's "conocer" with an o, but "nacer" with an a?


----------



## jeremyanaya

I think in French connaitre et naitre have no real link, Claudel is just using them as a poetic concept.
In Spanish this difference is clear, maybe some linguist would say that in spanish conacer turned to conocer in a process of (I can't remember the name) which turns the a into an o for pronouciation reasons, but I think it's just linguist assumption por el amor al arte...


----------



## Robert K S

It's looking more and more like these words are, ahem, false cognates.


----------



## Agnès E.

*Connaître* est issu du latin *cognoscere* (*cum* = avec et *gnoscere* = connaître).
*Naître* est issu du latin *gnasci*, qui a donné ensuite *nascere* (naître).

Les deux termes n'ont donc rien à voir, en fait.


----------



## Cath.S.

L'idée que _prendre connaissance_ et _naître_ ne sont pas des concepts étrangers l'un à l'autre ne me semblant pas de prime abord farfelue, en effet lorsque l'on naît, on prend connaissance du monde, j'ai eu envie de gratter un peu à la recherche de racines comestibles. 


*(G)NOSCIO*

Gnosco est une forme archaïque de nosco :
*nosco, ere, novi, notum* : - tr. - 1 - s'apercevoir, prendre connaissance de, étudier, apprendre à connaître. - 2 - reconnaître, chercher à reconnaître. - 3 - connaître de (t. de droit). - 4 - reconnaître, 
approuver, agréer, admettre.
Source :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prima.elementa/Dico.htm

En aval de nosco on trouve... l'anglais know qui a subi diverses modifications, passant par la forme cnawan (1) en vieil anglais.

Old English cnawan from Indo-European roots *gn-, *gne-, *gno-, which are roots of Greek gnosis and Latin noscere ‘to know’, root of cognition and note.] 
Source :
http://www.paragonian.org/glossary.shtml

Il est intéressant de voir que_ know_ et _connaitre_ ont 
en fait la même origine, fait que leur orthographe 
pourrait aisément dissimuler. Cette racine a aussi donné le grec _gnosis = connaissance_. 

*NASCIO*
En amont de _nascio_, on trouve
-  la racine étrusque _nac_-,
http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_Vocabulary2.html 
puis en remontant beaucoup plus haut on voit que nascio (qui a donné _nature_) viendrait en partie de l'indo-européen _bhu = être_, lui-même issu de la racine _bha = lumière_, 

we find that nature can also be described, and significantly so, as “being that illuminates itself, that appears”. 
Source :
http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/90.asp 

Nous ne sommes pas loin de l'idée de connaissance, n'est-ce pas ? D'une manière ou d'une autre, que l'on naisse ou que l'on connaisse, on accède à la lumière.

On trouve également à l'origine de nascio l'indo-européen _*gen_ :

Both "nasci" ("gnasci") and "gignere" are related to the ancient Indo-European root "GEN" [to generate, to give birth], present in the Latin themes "gen"-"gign", in the Greek "gignomai" [to be born", "to become"] andin the Sanskrit "janas" [to generate].
Source :
http://www.rostau.org.uk/Aegyptian-L/archives/week131.txt

En aval, l'anglais _cognate_. Notons en passant que l'on trouve en persan _nik_ et _nek_ qui signifient bien / prosperité.

En conclusion (provisoire) je ne peux m'empêcher de remarquer que les racines indo-européennes de ces deux verbes latins sont remarquablement proches, et il n'est pas impossible qu'elles dérivent toutes deux d'un concept unique. Une affaire à suivre. 

1. Ce mot s'écrit normalement avec un accent en forme de tiret (-)sur le a, mais je ne trouve nulle part le code alt qui correspond à ce caractère.


----------



## vince

Merci pour tes explications. Maintenant je comprends que les deux mots ne sont pas issus du meme origine


----------



## VictaHeri

Naître comes from _Nasco*r*_, nasci, natus sum-- it is a "deponent" verb, which means that only the passive form is used (i.e. the active form does not exist) but that it takes on an active meaning.  A bit confusing... but here's an example:

Caverna *abit*: he/she/it is leaving the cavern.
Caverna *nascit*_ur_: he/she/it is born in the cavern. (the Italics are the passive suffix for the 3rd person singular)

Not only is _nascor _a deponent, but it also is of the "fourth conjugation"-- if it had not been a deponent, its dictionary entry would have looked something more like: nasco, nascire, nascivi, natus sum.

In contrast:
cognosco, cognoscere, cognovi, cognotus: cum+ nosco, noscere, novi, notus (as Agnès mentioned).  It means "to learn" in the present, imperfect and future, but in perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect (futur antérieur), it means "to know".
It is not a deponent verb-- the active forms are almost exclusively used in literature--, and it is also a "third conjugation" verb (the second to last _e _is short; the stress is on the _o_).

Hope this clears it up!


----------



## Wynn Mathieson

Just as an aside:

Let's not forget that the relatively modern spelling _connaître_, with an "a", can give a misleading impression, etymologically speaking. The word was still being written as _connoître_ in the early 19th century and as _connoistre_ a hundred years before that (when English borrowed a form of it as "connoisseur": Modern French _connaisseur_).

Today's spelling, though, reflects a pronunciation which has been about for at least 400 years, it would seem. The "Table de Rithmes francoises" (Table of French Rhymes), written at some time before 1608, points out that

« One pronounces _paroistre_ as if it were written _parestre_ and it rhymes with _estre_ [i.e. être] _»_

Wynn


----------



## VictaHeri

Wynn Mathieson said:


> « One pronounces _paroistre_ as if it were written _parestre_ and it rhymes with _estre_ [i.e. être] _»_
> 
> Wynn


I've never seen it in the infinitive, but that might just be my own inexperience.  On the other hand, it was very common to use "-oit" instead of "-ait" as a verbal suffix (e.g. pourroit=pourrait).  I'm not sure about the etymology of that tradition, _mais ça c'est une autre question_...


----------



## Wynn Mathieson

Here's _paroistre_ and an even older version of _connaître_ < _connoître_ < _connoistre_ : namely, _cognoistre _(!) -- together with some other 1608 spellings for Italian, English, and Dutch -

*Fortune miroir d’Amour.*
La face de la fille vn miroir fait paroistre,
Au vray sans flatterie, & il ne ment;
Par la fortune aussi se descouure l’amant.
Par le succes se fait le cœur loyal cognoistre.

*Fortuna specchio d’Amore.*
Si come il fido specchio i gesti, e l’opre
Di bella, e brutta façcia manifesta,
Cosi per sorte prospera ò molesta
Nei suçceßi l’amante si disçuopre.

*Fortune is loues looking-glas.*
Eu’n as a perfect glasse doth represent the face,
Iust as it is in deed, not flattring it at all.
So fortune telleth by aduancement or by fall,
Th’euent that shall succeed, in loues luck-tryed case.

*Fortuyne Liefdes spieghel.*
Heel onbedrieghlick toont een goede spieghel claerlick
Eens dochters aenschijn schoon/ of soo het is bevleckt:
Soo doet oock de Fortuyn die ’s minnaers hert ontdeckt.
Gheluck of ongheluck maeckt alles openbaerlick.

Otto van Veen (Vaenius), _Amorum emblemata_ - verses inspired by

Ut speculum puellæ faciem arguit sic amantem fortuna. 
(As a mirror reveals the face of a girl, so fortune reveals a lover.)

Euripides: Hippolytus


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


VictaHeri said:


> I've never seen it in the infinitive, but that might just be my own inexperience.  On the other hand, it was very common to use "-oit" instead of "-ait" as a verbal suffix (e.g. pourroit=pourrait).  I'm not sure about the etymology of that tradition, _mais ça c'est une autre question_...


That's indeed another question . But interesting enough to open a new thread.

Groetjes,

Frank
Moderator EHL


----------



## vince

"oi" (nowadays pronounced "wa" for some reason) is used where in other Romance languages you have a non-schwa "e" sound that is usually stressed.

So you have "royal" which is actually "real" (compare "Montréal" and the Brasilian "real"), moi (me), toi (te), croire (crere), voir (ver), etc.

It passed through a stage where it was pronounced "weh" (cf. "Illinois", and rural Québécois pronunciations of "oi") before finally being pronounced "wa"

So perhaps the reason why "oi" substituted "ai" in the past was because "oi" was still associated with the "e" sound (even if it was no longer pronounced that way).


----------



## Aoyama

Agnès E. is giving a simple an definitive answer :



> *Connaître* est issu du latin *cognoscere* (*cum* = avec et *gnoscere* = connaître).
> *Naître* est issu du latin *gnasci*, qui a donné ensuite *nascere* (naître).
> 
> Les deux termes n'ont donc rien à voir, en fait.


But, nevertheless, countless interpretations (that we call _folk etymology_) have tried to give grounds to some common root to both verbs. 
Jeremyanaya cites Claudel but admits that it is only a poetical license. In fact, a pun, which will fit because it is directed to fit ...


----------



## pomar

> Not only is _nascor _a deponent, but it also is of the "fourth conjugation"-- if it had not been a deponent, its dictionary entry would have looked something more like: nasco, nascire, nascivi, natus sum.
> 
> In contrast:
> cognosco, cognoscere, cognovi, cognotus: cum+ nosco, noscere, novi, notus (as Agnès mentioned). It means "to learn" in the present, imperfect and future, but in perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect (futur antérieur), it means "to know".
> It is not a deponent verb-- the active forms are almost exclusively used in literature-???-, and it is also a "third conjugation" verb (the second to last _e _is short; the stress is on the _o_).



Both _nascor _and  _cognosco _are 3rd conjugation verbs (short -ere desinence)
Just to be precise, not that it changes anything in their having nothing to do with eachother.


----------



## Rajki

The Latin verbs cognoscere < gnoscere 'to know' and nascere < *gnascere 'to be born' are indeed related.

Highly interesting is the passage from the Bible (Exodus 4.1):

And Adam knew his wife, Eve ...

Here 'to know' is an euphemism for an act whose end result is 'to bear a child'.


----------



## Wynn Mathieson

Rajki said:


> The Latin verbs cognoscere < gnoscere 'to know' and nascere < *gnascere 'to be born' are indeed related.


That's rather a bold claim to make on the evidence you give, Rajki!

*gnoscere* is from the Proto-Indo-European base *gno- [1] "know"

*nascere* is from the Proto-Indo-European base *gen-/*gon-/*gn-  [2] "produce, beget, be born"

Yes, the two roots resemble each other phonetically, and that resemblance lives on in other descendants of PIE besides Latin and its derivatives (look, for example, at English cunning, from root [1], and "kin", from root [2] -- but the similarity of sound does not in itself prove anything). Still less, I'm afraid, does your quotation from the English-language Bible:


> Highly interesting is the passage from the Bible (Exodus 4.1):
> 
> And Adam knew his wife, Eve ...
> 
> Here 'to know' is an euphemism for an act whose end result is 'to bear a child'.


However interesting the English translators' choice of words ["carnal knowledge" for "sexual relations"] may be, the fact is that the Bible was not written in English!


----------



## Rajki

Sorry, the translation is very precise:

VehaAdam yada' et-Havah ... (And <the> Adam knew Eve ...)

Even if this does not prove anything.


----------



## berndf

Rajki said:


> Sorry, the translation is very precise:
> 
> VehaAdam yada' et-Havah ... (And <the> Adam knew Eve ...)


True, it is not a translator's choice. This euphemism exists in the original.



Rajki said:


> Even if this does not prove anything.


Unfortunately, you are right here as well. The existence of this Hebrew euphemisms doesn't prove anything about the PIE roots of these _(co)gnoscere_ and _nascere_.


----------



## Rajki

berndf said:


> The existence of this Hebrew euphemism doesn't prove anything about PIE roots.


 
I must contradict. Let me cite another example.

(Exodus 30.3) Vetamar hine amati Bilha bo eleyha veteled 'al-birki ... = And he said: here is my maid, Bilha, go to her (so that she could) bear a child on my knee ...

Seemingly, this makes little sense. What is childbirth to do with knees?

But just watch:

PIE *gen- 'bear child', cf. Latin genus, Greek genos, English kin, etc.

PIE *genu 'knee', cf. Latin genu, Greek gony, English knee, etc.

For semantics compare Balto-Slavic *kel-/kol- (e.g. Lithuanian kelis, Russian koleno) 'knee' and *chel- (e.g. Russian chelyad 'family', chlen 'member') 'kin'.

Are this Biblical citation and the previous one just coincidences? Or in ancient times, childbirth was a special ritual performed on someone's knees?


----------



## berndf

Rajki said:


> Are this Biblical citation and the previous one just coincidences?


Maybe, maybe not. I am afraid the onus of proof rests with him who asserts it is no coincidence. There is no demonstrable link between IE and Semitic languages. Way back in the past, there probably was a common ancestor and a common culture but there we know too little to reconstruct it, if it ever existed.

In the case of Hebrew _Y-D-3 (to know)_ for _having sexual intercourse_,  we don't know if it is just a euphemism or a reflex of an ancient common root. If the latter were the case we should find the same in other Semitic languages. Do you have any information?


----------



## akerta

I guess we might not really know if prior to being separate in latin, the words had a same origin. That is, today, they are fairly separate (except perhaps in poetry): in English connaître breeds words such as 'cognition' whereas naître breeds words such as 'natality', which don't have much left in common.


----------



## Frank06

Rajki said:


> I must contradict. Let me cite another example.


You may cite as many examples from Hebrew as you like, it doesn't matter in this context because we're dealing with PIE. Not with Hebrew.
The same goes for citing Tagalog, Tupi and Klingon.



> But just watch:
> PIE *gen- 'bear child', cf. Latin genus, Greek genos, English kin, etc.
> PIE *genu 'knee', cf. Latin genu, Greek gony, English knee, etc.


What do we have to watch? Your data, which I cannot doublecheck or interpret at this moment, seem to suggest that they go back to the same (?) or a similar root? Yes, and?

Does that mean that the act of giving childbirth has something to do with the human part of the body called knees? That'd be a very naive interpreation of the data (as presented).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------

