• Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    Old English attests the word as docga. My hypothesis is that it’s dōc “bastard, mongrel” + -ga [diminutive suffix], roughly like calling it “the little mutt”. The vowel shortening would’ve been happened already back then, otherwise the modern form would be *doog /du:g/.

    Note that Latin/Romance attests similar phenomena (depreciative word for animal becoming the default word + diminutives being ingrained into the main word). And typically when you see weird stuff going on in a language you’ll see it happening in other languages too.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If I were to have guessed I would have said squid came from both squalo meaning shark and squamata for reptiles like snakes. A squid is like a snake shark, so squa-ish. Add some shift in sounds over the centuries and it becomes squid.

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      That sounds unlikely.

      Both squalus “shark, whale” and squamatus scaled are from Latin; typically this sort of phenomenon affects the native vocab, not erudite borrowings. And this sort of word merging is rather uncommon. Plus Old English /a/ ended as /æ/ in modern English, not as /ɪ/ (sound changes are typically regular).

      Wiktionary tentatively connects it with “squirt”, that sounds a bit more likely.

  • daddyjones@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Who on earth calls their feet “dogs”? I’ve also never heard of “putting on the dog”, but that’s probably just because. 🐶