missing connections - pannous/hieros GitHub Wiki

missing connections on wiktionary.org see clusters

There is a gradient between words which possibly should be connected on wiktionary, but are left out because of doubt or insufficient research,
and words which should be connected but are actively rejected because of dubious arguments and "formal difficulties".

These formal difficulties include wrongly reconstructed roots.

One of the axioms of revised language theory is:
If words from the same language familie(s) look similar on the surface they are most likely connected, even if the reconstructions seem to be divergent on first examination.

𓎛 θρίξ 𒋠 šārtu شعر šaʿr שיער 𐎌𐎓𐎗𐎚 shair@Semitic hair her@Armenian 𓎛

The surface similarity between šarm and shame dictates that these should be connected:

شرم • šarm शर्म śarma 𐭱𐭥𐭬 (šarm) from Avestan 𐬟𐬱𐬀𐬭𐬆𐬨𐬀 fšarəma shame

While شرم • šarm is correctly connected to 'harm', the connection to 'shame' is missing.

This cluster can be reconciled with the following reconstruction:

shame < •sharm <⋍ scar.mak
Schande ⇔ Schaden scar.done scar.do > hurt

Where scar is just one illustrative representative of the scar (ἐσχάρα) branch with similar sound in an anknown stage.

One of the axioms of revised language theory is:

If words from language familie(s) with historic close contact look similar on the surface they are most likely connected, if only through phono-semantic-matching:

شرم • šarm სირცხვილი sircxvili 耻辱 chǐrǔ shame ( perhaps ;)

Pilz βωλίτης bōlítēs lettuce/ https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/porcini < pork

Even worse than obvious missing connections are those which were rejected later:
mm, true!
wiktionary says:

" сорокъ (sorokŭ, “a bunch of 40 sable pelts; forty”,
Further etymology is unclear. In the past regarded as borrowed from Byzantine Greek σαράκοντα (sarákonta, “40”, but this etymology is dubious for phonetic and semantic reasons. The older meaning is a bunch of sable pelts. May be related to соро́чка (soróčka); compare Old Norse serkr “shirt; 200 furs”,

The problem here is asserting "The older meaning"

heute hodie hoc.day