Post by kizolk on Nov 26, 2024 17:57:29 GMT
I've just found out that what I had found out seconds before was probably not true.
If you look up "mortise/mortice" on the English Wiktionary (as I did, because the etymological section of the English Wiktionary entries is usually more comprehensive and better sourced than in French), you'll see:
But in the French Wiktionary entry for Old French "mortaise", you're told a different story:
Like I initially thought when I read the English etymological section, it would seem strange that a word for such a common and important thing that was known in prehistory would (come to) be referred to by a borrowing. As always with this kind of thing, it's not impossible, but it makes the hypothesis look shadier.
If you look up "mortise/mortice" on the English Wiktionary (as I did, because the etymological section of the English Wiktionary entries is usually more comprehensive and better sourced than in French), you'll see:
From Middle English morteys, from Old French mortaise, from Arabic مُرْتَزّ (murtazz), from اِرْتَزَّ (irtazza).
But in the French Wiktionary entry for Old French "mortaise", you're told a different story:
(XIIIe siècle) Étymologie obscure :
1. mordre ne peut donner mortaise[1] ;
2. selon Louis Marcel Devic, emprunt à l’espagnol mortaja qui remonterait lui-même à l’arabe murtazza, participe passé de رز, razza (« insérer ») ; cela semble peu vraisemblable[2] aussi bien du point du vue phonétique que chronologique : la forme mortoise s'accordant mal avec le mot arabe et l’espagnol mortaja n'étant attesté qu’en 1734.
1. mordre ne peut donner mortaise[1] ;
2. selon Louis Marcel Devic, emprunt à l’espagnol mortaja qui remonterait lui-même à l’arabe murtazza, participe passé de رز, razza (« insérer ») ; cela semble peu vraisemblable[2] aussi bien du point du vue phonétique que chronologique : la forme mortoise s'accordant mal avec le mot arabe et l’espagnol mortaja n'étant attesté qu’en 1734.
Like I initially thought when I read the English etymological section, it would seem strange that a word for such a common and important thing that was known in prehistory would (come to) be referred to by a borrowing. As always with this kind of thing, it's not impossible, but it makes the hypothesis look shadier.
