Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11

Catholic and Katholic

Is Katholic a misspelling, or is it a proper variation of Catholic? Or do they have separate meanings? Shadowjams (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is a mispelling; "Catholic" is always spelled with a "c". However, in some languages the word for "Catholic" begins with a "k": cf. de katholisch, nl katholiek, pl katoliki, but fr catholique. Where did you see this particular spelling? Xenon54 / talk / 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

German spelling, except it's Katholik. German often uses a K instead of a hard C. A couple of other examples that come to mind that are cognates are Klasse and Dokument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the Latin catholicus comes from the Greek katholikos ("universal"), so one could argue that the Germans are the ones spelling it the right way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c with above) "Katholic" is not a German word, although the noun for "a Catholic person" is der Katholik. I would still guess it's a misspelling, however this question probably can't be answered for certain without context... Xenon54 / talk / 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the original article that prompted this, but here are some other examples: Katholic School Etten-Leur (part of the name so slightly different), Twello (a good example of a typo, if that's what it is), and Neuhofen (listing x number of "katholics", which is the original context I saw it in).

I'm thinking of writing an AWB rule for this but wanted to be sure first. Also, it might be useful to know if there are other, legitimate uses (like the school name). Shadowjams (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I went searching for "katholic" and also found Katholic School Etten-Leur, which if correct would suggest that is the Dutch spelling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Google it's "Katholiek" in Dutch, and it looks like that article has it mis-spelled. More research needed to be certain. Google Translate does not find "Katholic" as being a valid word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The Dutch words are katholiek (adjective) and de katholiek (masculine noun). Googling doesn't bring up anything useful so I'm pretty certain it's a misspelling. Xenon54 / talk / 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is the place, either the article should be titled with the Dutch Katholieke Scholengemeenschap Etten-Leur, or a proper English translation ("Etten-Leur Catholic High School", or similar) should be used. Is the place even notable? Deor (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was created over 3 years ago by this editor [1] who has a grand total of 6 edits, all on that same day. I'm guessing he was or had been a student of that school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've moved the article to Katholieke Scholengemeenschap Etten-Leur and requested speedy deletion of the resulting redirect, so some of the links above may be turning red. Deor (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why to delete the redirects. There are countless examples of misspellings in redirects that are entered or retained purposely, in order to lead the casual speller to the right article. A good example of that is Nucular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of redirects from plausible search terms. In this case, with the misspelling of "Catholic" and the unlikelihood that anyone would enter that exact sequence of characters as an English version of the school's name, I don't think it's a plausible search term. Some random admin will decide. Deor (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of making things easier for the reader. The usual justification for deleting redirects is when they are a gross violation of the rules, such as BLP violations or blatant POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Shadowjams (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What was the meaning of the word "amend" when the US Constitution was written

When the founding fathers penned the United States Constitution they had an understanding of the words they used and were very particular in their useage. I have read that the word "amend" in their time meant "to add to or remove from for the purpose of clairification without changing the original intent". I have a copy of the 6th printing of Black's Law Dicitionary and the word "amend" simply say "to change". I am fairly sure that I have read a copy of the 1st printing from 1861 where I think I got the first definition I quoted. After having had a kidney transplant and experiencing the related drugs my memory is now shy of what it used to be and am hoping for further light on this topic. thanks, SterlingSterlingangle (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The word itself comes from Latin ēmendāre ('to correct, free from fault') and its meaning in the 13th century (when it was borrowed into English) was "to free from faults, rectify." The meaning of "to add to legislation" is basically novel to the process of constructing the American constitution and its first use that way is in 1777. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I need to amend :-) Aeu's American constitutional reference there. In the OED 1st edition, the oldest cite for this sense of "amend" is indeed from 1777, but it's Edmund Burke talking about a bill being amended before being passed by the British House of Commons. The definition given, by the way, is: "To make professed improvements to (a measure before Parliament); formally, to alter in detail, though practically it may be to alter its principle, so as to thwart it." So this may still have been a new-ish sense when the US Constitution was written 10 years later, but the constitution certainly did not originate it.

The next older sense in the OED is the one the original poster was thinking of: "Law. To correct (an error committed in legal process) or rectify (a legal document)." This is cited as far back as 1429. So yes, at one time an amendment did just mean a correction, but the newer meaning was in use before 1787. --Anonymous, 04:57 UTC, March 12, 2010.

Thanks, anonymous. FWIW, remember that it's the constitution itself which is being amended, and as a constitution is a document that sets out the powers of government and rights of citizens, we could consider that a single amendment would really work more to tweak or correct the way a society/government operates. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So when certain politicians some years back were belittling the Bill of Rights as "just some amendments", they were inadvertently saying, "just some corrections"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would explain why there was virtually no discussion on the bill of rights, though I imagine it was also because the content in the BoR was considered assumed by the original drafters of the US constitution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The "discussion", as I recall from history class, was that without the first 10 amendments, the Constitution would have been rejected by enough states that it would have failed. There were actually 12 items in the proposed Bill of Rights, of which one of the remaining two was never passed; but the other, having to do with Congressional compensation, quietly worked its way through 2 centuries of approval processes and was finally passed a decade or two ago. That kind of thing is why amendments nowadays have a built-in statute of limitations for approval, which is how the ERA was defeated. But the original BoR had no built-in limitations, and while some questioned the appropriateness of counting ratification votes from generations earlier, Congress was not so dumb as to realize that vigorously opposing it was bad politics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution did pass ratification without the BoR, though if I recall correctly, when people said they wouldn't ratify it without one, there was a promise by federalists to include it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Had the BoR not been offered fairly promptly, likely some of the States would have revoked their ratifications (sooner than some did). —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The other lost clause of the BoR, by the way, became irrelevant (by its own terms) when the population reached ten million. —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the OP is asking whether the Constitution's authorization of amendments to itself was an authorization merely "to add to or remove from for the purpose of clarification without changing the original intent." That this is not so is demonstrated by the fact that the Constitution forbids unequal representation in the Senate (absent the unequal state's or states' consent) even if an entirely new constitution is drafted (much less an amendment). If it were understood that amendments (again, much less entirely new constitutions) were simply for "clarification" and could not change "the original intent," there would be no need to explicitly state (in a relatively short document) that the Article One requirement for equal representation in the senate cannot be changed without consent even if the entire Constitution is scrapped and a new one written. This is a basic legal conclusion based on the rules of construction. 63.17.64.195 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Allegheny

How do you pronounce "Allegheny" as in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania? I can read IPA, by the way. Yuunli (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[.ælə'geɪni]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And for those of us who can't, it's "al-uh-GAY-nee": As in Capone's first name; a hesitation when talking; not-straight; where your leg bends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way to describe it is: the first three syllables are the same as in "alligator", and the last is like "knee". The pronunciation at [2] is OK, but I put more stress on the first syllable than that speaker does.

Of course the schwa in the second syllable can have different sounds. For my somewhat-Pennsylvania accent, the "uh" is more like the vowel in "lip". The same thing is true for "Appalachian"; I don't have a true "uh" in either one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

About the stress: it's the opposite for me, I put primary stress on the "ghe" (and, hence, it doesn't quite sound like "alligator" in my pronunciation). As for the schwa, I agree, whatever I produce is more ɨ-ish, I was just doing a broad (read: lazy) phonemic transcription ;)rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I put more stress on the third syllable in "allegheny" than "alligator"; just the vowels are the same. But I am pretty sure that I put a little more stress on the first syllable then the audio recording I linked above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. When I say it out loud, it's really more like "alligainy" than "alluhgainy". If you were to say "alligator" with emphasis on the third syllable instead of the first, it would be about the same. Key question: app-uh-LAY-chun, or app-uh-LATCH-un? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a "key question", but an "off-topic question". However, since such beasts are not exactly unheard of around here, I'll counter that I've always heard 'Appalachian' pronounced exactly like 'appellation'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"AppuhLATCHun" tends to be considered a 'redneck' pronunciation, at least in my experience. (And I'm from Appalachia myself.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the ch in Appalachian is always pronounced [tʃ] rather than [ʃ], so its pronunciation differs from that of appellation by one consonant (cluster). Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not "always"—in fact, not usually. I, and most people I know, including many thru-hikers and people who work at the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, pronoounce it [æpəlɛɪʃn̩]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your pronunciation guide looks like little boxes on my old PC. So are you saying "latch" or "laytch"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't say either, I say roughtly "laysh". That is the standard pronunciation. The "latch" pronunciation is the one I was referring to as being considered somewhat rednecky. "laytch" to me just sounds like what someone from far away would say (i.e., someone who's never heard "Appalachian" before); I have not heard it pronounced that way very much. 129.237.62.53 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (Rjanag editing while logged out)

When I was a kid in a northern school, it was "laytch". When I lived in the south for awhile, it was "latch". I have very seldom heard "laysh" (or "lash", for that matter). I've become convinced over time that "latch" is correct, as it's consistent with other geographical features with the same root as "Appalachian". Although that doesn't necessarily prove anything, given that "Arkansas" has two different and equally valid pronunciations for different features. In any case, Appalachian State University is pronounced "latch". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I must pipe in to agree. The only reason the pronunciation Appa-latch-an sounds "rednecky" is because, I reckon, it's a southern pronunciation, and negative stereotypes about southern Appalachian people continue to the present day (even among self-identified Appalachians). I grew up saying Appa-laysh-ian, being from the north. But I've come to prefer Appa-latch-an. Note the -an instead of the -ian too. The southern form is particularly well suited to the term Appalachia, the cultural/historical region: Appa-latch-a. Nice and crisp. Another point--the term originated in the far south in the Florida panhandle and the Apalachicola Indians. Now tell me, would you pronounce the name of the Apalachicola River "Appa-laych-i-cola"? And they say southerns have a drawl! Pfly (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack, how appropriate: when Eric Idle in his monologue about Australian wines mentioned an appellation contrôlée (a term unknown to me on first hearing), I thought he was talking about an Appalachian variety (though he didn't pronounce it quite as I'd pronounce either Appalachian or appellation). —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, Tamfang! You probably won't believe this, but when I made that post, I was thinking of somehow referring to Eric Idle's appellation contrôlée, but I couldn't see a way of working it in. You've done it for me.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original question, it occurs to me that an even closer parallel is "allegation(s)", whose first 3 syllables, along with the stress on the third syllable, is well nigh the same as with "allegheny". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, although the third syllable in Allegheny is a bit more nasalized (because of the following [n]). If you pronounce just the ge/ghe from each word, you can hear a slight difference (in my dialect, at least). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Observing that fine of a differentiation certainly requires a cunning linguist. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, a further tangent. It is curious how the word Allegheny has at least three widely used spellings: Allegheny, Alleghany, and Allegany. Firefox tells me only the first is right, but what about Alleghany County, North Carolina and Allegany County, New York? Pfly (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare!

The word nightmare references to mythological/folkloristic figures in a lot languages.
For example, are related to Mare: English (nightmare), Dutch (nachtmerrie), Danish (mareridt), Norwegian (mareritt), Swedish (mardröm), Icelandic (martröð), French (cauchemar), Romanian (coşmar), Lithuanian (košmaras), Polish (koszmar), Russian (кошмар). A lot of them seem to have just borrowed from French.
From Elf: German (Albtraum, Alptraum), Anglosaxon (ælfādl).
From Incubus: Latin (incubus), Italian (incubo).
From Will-o'-the-wisp: Hungarian (lidércnyomás).
From Ephialtes: Greek (εφιάλτης).
Now, my question is, what's the etymology of Arabic (kaabuus), Urdu (kābūs) and Turkish (kabus)? Are they related to Incubus?
And Czech (noční můra), Serbian (noćna mora)? Are they related to Mare?
And Irish (tromluí), Welsh (hunllef), Hebrew (סיוט ), Albanian (ankth), Occitan (cachavièlha), Basque (amesgaizto)? --151.51.61.156 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Slavic, "Croatian Language Handbook" [3] says that "mora" is an Old Slavic word meaning "plague" or "pest", and is a cognate with Latin "mors" and Sanskrt "maras", meaning "death". "Košmar" also exists in Serbo-Croatian in the same meaning, but it is a borrowing (as in other Eastern European languages) from French "cauchemar". Note that there also exists Mora in Slavic mythology, so it is a relative with Mare, and they share the same root. No such user (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For a non-mythological root, haveFinnish painajainen, which refers to a physical or spiritual feeling of pressure or weight, or that of being held down. Pitke (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kabus كابوس derives from a verb root meaning to "press" or "squeeze", and I would assume it comes mainly from the traditional folkloric belief that a malicious being comes in the night and sits on your chest and presses on it... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite understandably, since the sleep paralysis that is sometimes experienced in the hypnagogic or hypnopompic state (as I have) feels exactly like this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish tromluí means literally "heavy lying" ("lying" in the sense of lying down, not in the sense of telling a lie). +Angr 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And the Spanish and Portuguese words for nightmare (pesadillo, pesadelo) are derived from weight, and refer to the same folkloric belief (according to their wikipedia articles). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

_{It's actually 'pesadilla'} Caesar's Daddy (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Basque amesgaizto looks straightforward enough: amets means "dream", and "gaizto" means "evil". Esperanto knows "koŝmaro", "inkubo", and "premsonĝo" ("pressure" + "dream"). The pressing image is sometimes used in German too, in combination with mythology: "Alpdrücken". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about the etymology of one of the Rumantsch words for nightmare: "dischariel". Normally, the prefix "disch-" corresponds to "dis-" in English. Perhaps a reference to Ariel's more malicious side, or simply a bad spirit? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And they say Chinese are superstitious. Nightmare in Chinese is simply 噩夢 / 噩梦: bad dream. --Kvasir (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But then, sleep paralysis is 鬼压身: ghost pressing on body. :) Indeterminate (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but other forms of nightmare in Romansh are: derschalet (Sursilvan), darschalet (Surmiran) and dischöl (Puter&Vallader). Surmiran has also fulet and ischier. Fulet is similar to Italian folletto (Imp, fairy). Moreover, in Friulian (a sister language) it's čhalčhut (probably from čhalčhâ, to press). In Ladin(Fassano) it's strassomech (is it related to 'strassomeèr, to disturb?) and trota--151.51.61.156 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, dischöl is of Gaulish origin and is a cognate of Walloon dûhin, dûhon, goblin, Basque tusuri, devil, Cornish dus, devil, Breton diz devil, Irish dásachd madness, rage. From [4] --151.51.61.156 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing special about the origin of the Bulgarian word. It's кошмар (koshmar), a derivative from French. It also has a figurative meaning - "a bad or terrifying experience". The English word has this meaning too, but I can say nothing about the other languages. --Магьосник (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's a wittle?

I just started reading Great Expectations and I've been wondering what a wittle is? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you've read wittles, which would be Dickens's representation of a dialect form of victuals, meaning food and drink. Does that make sense in context? Maid Marion (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Vittles" with a v was widely used in a jocular or pseudo-dialectal or pseudo-Wild-West way in the United States through the mid-20th century (not sure how many young people would understand it today, though). AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Though there was still a pet-food brand "Tender Vittles" until a few years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's eye dialect, though; victuals is correctly pronounced "vittles". +Angr 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be eye dialect if it didn't actually feature a pronunciation change. I believe a work that might help out in desciphering some of Dickens's use of dialect is Stanley's Sound and symbol in the dialogue of the works of Charles Dickens (1967). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Wittles" isn't eye dialect, but "vittles" is. +Angr 23:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And what does 'sumever' mean? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And this would be a dialect form of 'soever', eg howsumever would be equivalent to howsoever. Maid Marion (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

a wittle is wess then a wot. Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The shift from [v] to [w] was apparently typical of a Kentish dialect in the time of Dickens. See this source. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes perfect sense in the context. Kayau Voting IS evil 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Slavic equals slave?

A friend of mine tried to argue that the term Slavic (as in the people) is related to the word slave. He told me about slavery in the Middle East and it seemed plausible, but I want a second opinion. I read the article about Slavic people and the origins of the word, but it left me a bit confused. 129.3.179.87 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true. The word slave is derived from the Medieval Latin word for "Slav".[5] +Angr 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The way that you word the question leads me to assume that your friend was trying to argue that the term slavic came from the word slave, when it was the other way around, as Angr says. —Akrabbim^talk 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Just to reiterate, the word slave is derived from Slavic, not the other way around. See also our article on slavery, particulary the Etymology section. Coreycubed (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know the origins of the word Slav, this entry suggests that it comes from a Slavic word meaning word and ultimately from an Indo-European word meaning fame. So the name may originally have meant something like "people of the word" or "people of fame". Marco polo (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's indicates that "Slav" came from the name of a tribe, and that "slave" came from "Slav" - as Angr and others have said here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course that's right, though Slav or Slovene probably referred to an ethnic identity that encompassed more than one tribe. I was offering a source on the roots of the ethnonym. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, at least, it seems that in many cases a people's name for themselves is basically "the people". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In one of the Czech courses I took, I was told that the root for "Slavic" was the same as the root for "slovo", the Czech word for "word" (as Marco polo pointed out), and also that the Czech word for "German" (německý) shared the same root as the Czech word for "mute" (němý). Presumably this is because the Czechs had a reasonable chance of understanding other Slavic speakers, but German was very different and incomprehensible. —Bkell (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Russian word for German (in different senses) is similar - немец (n'emets), немка (n'emka), немецкий (n'emetsky). I always assumed it was cognate with 'nemesis' - enemy, but немой (n'emoy) = mute is also plausible. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So, in essence, those terms come down to "people whose language we do/don't understand"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's more like, "people who can't speak properly". Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For the names of Germany, please have a look here: Names of Germany. Apart from the languages listed there, I can think of at least two more that use a word derived from the same root, though for the language and demonym only. In Bulgarian, the country is called Германия (Germaniya), but the language is немски език (nemski ezik). There is also the word немец (nemets), feminine немкиня (nemkinya), which could mean "a German person", but the same word, and especially its plural form немци (nemtsi), could be used as a collective name of all peoples who speak German, that is Germans, Austrians, German-speaking Swiss people, etc. The other language I have in mind is Romanian. It is not a Slavic language, but has experienced a considerable Slavic influence over the history of its development and uses a lot words of Slavic origin in its modern form. The country's name in Romanian is Germania, but there are neamţ for "a German man" (cf. Piatra Neamţ), nemţoaică for "a German woman", and limba nemţească for "German language". However, in modern contexts the words german, germancă and limba germană instead are preferable. --Магьосник (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard a native Romanian use the word "germancă" Rimush (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But it exist somehow, doesn't it? hu:wikt:germancă, lt:wikt:germancă. --Магьосник (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In Hungarian, the word for "German" is nemet, so it's presumably a borrowing from a Slavic language. Romanian likely works out the same way. 66.127.52.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC).