Moderator:Forum Administrators
linguoboy wrote:With God as my witness, if I have to look up gadael ("let") or gafael ("hold") one more time to figure out which is which in a particular passage, I'm going to get them tattooed on my forearms.
Yasna wrote:linguoboy wrote:With God as my witness, if I have to look up gadael ("let") or gafael ("hold") one more time to figure out which is which in a particular passage, I'm going to get them tattooed on my forearms.
Before you do that, gafael appears to be cognate with German Gabel, with which you can easily associate the "hold" meaning. Also, Welsh gefel apparently means "tongs".
linguoboy wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:But I agree with Koko that the distinction is unknown to most people, me included. I generally call the children of my first cousins my "second cousins" even though strictly speaking they're my "first cousins once removed".
I found it pretty easy to grasp once it was explained to me: the ordinal refers to how many generations back you need to go from your parents to find a common ancestor. My first cousins share a grandparent with me, my second cousins share a great-grandparent, my third cousins a great-great-grandparent and so forth. "Removes" then count how many generations off you are from that. My first cousin's children are my first cousins "once removed", their children would be "twice removed", and so forth.
One distinction which causes a lot of confusion because it's so rare in this day-and-age is "double first cousins". This is when two sets of siblings marry, so your natural uncle/aunt is also your aunt/uncle' in-law. My husband has a set of double first cousins, and whenever he mentions this he finds himself having to explain what it means.
Dormouse559 wrote:[first cousin once removed = child of your first cousin / your parent's first cousin (depending on which side of relationship you're on)
eskandar wrote:Italian sostare (to park; to stop, halt). It always makes me think of Spanish asustar (to frighten), which is obviously unhelpful. What's the etymology, anyway?
Saim wrote:Treccani says it’s from Latin “substare” (to be underneath).
dEhiN wrote:I initially think vermelho means green even though whenever I see verde, I also think green.
Rí.na.dTeangacha wrote:dEhiN wrote:I initially think vermelho means green even though whenever I see verde, I also think green.
This happens to me too
OldBoring wrote:What's even more confusing is that roxo does not mean red, but purple!
It's easy tofor me to associate vermelho with red, because as a kid we used coloured pencils, and one of the colours was rosso vermiglio, in English vermilion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermilion
Return to “General Language Forum”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests