-5

Are the English word knee and the English word generation cognate because of the Latin word genu "knee" in the Genetive case has the form genus and this is the case birth (the generation of the new case)?

I can not ask my question more clearly because of the English language has not the cases (except the English pronouns).

I have deleted my previous post.

4
  • Unfortunately I cannot understand what you're trying to ask here. The first part of the question (are "knee" and "generation" cognate) is clear enough, but I cannot even guess what you might mean with the remainder. Case birth? Generation of the new case? – Marc Schütz May 5 '19 at 13:32
  • 4
    @MarcSchütz He's saying if you cherry-pick one specific form from each word, and then conveniently ignore vowel length, you can make the Latin words for "race" and "knee" look the same. – Draconis May 5 '19 at 15:41
  • @Draconic Note: The english verb race is translated into the Old Slavonic as гнати (gnati), where the a "a" is a suffix and the ти "ti" is a verb ending. – prostorech May 5 '19 at 16:00
  • @Draconis The letter "n" oftentimes acts in The Old Slavonic as "эвфоническая вставка" euphony addition (Sorry, but I don't know how this term actually translate into the English) For example, ухо (ukho) "ear" but внушити (vnushiti) "to inspire", where the first letter в (v) is a merged preposition, н(n) is a euphony addition, the kh/sh is a standart Old Slavonic alternation. и (i) is a suffix and ти (ti) is a verb ending. rus.stackexchange.com/questions/448258/… – prostorech May 5 '19 at 16:30
2

English knee is related to Latin genu (knee), as both are believed to originate from Proto-Indo-European *ǵónu (knee).

However, Latin genu (knee) and Latin genus (origin) do not appear to be related, as genus (origin) is traced back to PIE *ǵénh₁os (lineage) and not to *ǵónu (knee); there is no particular reason to believe these two PIE words are related.

So, the fact that the genitive case of Latin genu (knee) looks identical to Latin genus (origin) appears to be a coincidence. This extends to English generation, which comes from Latin genus (origin) through suffixation.

16
  • 4
    You've got to be kidding me. Firstly, the question doesn't mention "evidence", it simply asks if they are related or not. Lack of existing evidence (and superficial similarity is not evidence) that the progenitor forms are related is, in linguistics, a good reason to assume they are not, pending of course the fact that any science can always in time be subject to corrections. Secondly, the question made direct reference to Latin words (if in a hard-to-understand way) that look superficially very similar; showing they come from different PIE roots with no evidence of relatedness is an answer. – LjL May 5 '19 at 20:54
  • 3
    @vectory "No particular reason" is a common English idiom, it's not a "weasel word" and its etymology is utterly unrelated to how it's used today. And when comparing words in an inflecting language, you can't just cherry-pick inflections that look close to show a connection. "Compare the genitive singular of 'knee', conveniently ignoring vowel length, to the nominative singular of 'race'—because if you use the genitive consistently you get generis and genūs and that doesn't fit my hypothesis" is not exactly scientific. – Draconis May 5 '19 at 23:30
  • 2
    The standard way to compare inflectible words is to compare their stems, which is what LjL has done here. You can also compare their Latin inflections if you want; they're totally different (one is consonant-stem and the other is waw-stem). – Draconis May 5 '19 at 23:32
  • 2
    @vectory Oh, absolutely, one deriving from the other is possible—but without any solid evidence, we have to assume no connection. If that other question shows some sort of pan-European connection between knees and generations (which would be quite eye-opening) that would be good enough evidence for me. But until then, I'm taking the null hypothesis. – Draconis May 5 '19 at 23:46
  • 3
    @vectory The default position in science is always "these phenomena are unrelated", as the vast majority of phenomena are. The burden of proof is on the person who claims a connection. If you say there's a teapot in orbit around the Sun, the null hypothesis is that there isn't, and that's the position I'll take unless you have some evidence to the contrary. In this case, the vast majority of words used in the world aren't cognates; thus, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that these ones are. – Draconis May 6 '19 at 0:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.