First of all I would like to say that these words are not cognates; they are loanwords.
The coffee plant is indigenous in the highlands of Ethiopia. It was transplanted to the Yemen in the 14th century (which is fairly recent), where the drink coffee became popular among Sufi circles, and was soon after exported to Istanbul, and hence to Europe. For a long ...
This a metaphor. Both terms refer to plants, but words are not plants.
Metaphors are rarely exact, so there's no reason to expect the difference between root and stem to be consistent for all languages. The distinction is only useful in a highly inflected language like Latin; in English both words are used in the same way -- to indicate what one adds an ...
The main problem with these particular reconstructions is that the author of "etymonline" does not use diacritics. In fact, there is a very significant difference between *g and *ǵ (they develop differently in the “kentum” and “satem” languages), and also between *a and *ā (or, if you prefer, *h₂e and *eh₂). The reconstructions in “etymonline” are wrong, ...
Armenian: սուրճ [surch] (Wiktionary)
English: java (Wiktionary)
In the 17th century, the Dutch colonized the island of Java, which is now part of Indonesia. They planted lots of coffee there and began exporting it to the rest of the world. It was successful enough to have become a generic word for coffee. — Quora
Proto-Indo-European has gone through different stages of development historically, which represent higher levels of abstraction.
In particular, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory, which dates from 1879 but which gained widespread acceptance only after it was used to make sense of Hittite in the 1930s, did away the reconstruction of long ...
Esperanto does both. One can introduce a neologism, a new international term. Or by combining existing word parts. Not introducing new words is considered optimal, as it saves in words to know. However the new combination must be understandable, and optimally intuitively formable.
Sometimes the terms exist in parallel, until a concensus crystalizes. Usage, ...
It should be noted, anything about Proto-Indo-European is purely hypothetical, based on comparing all its different descendants. That is, there are no Proto-Indo-European people we can go up to and interview about "what is the difference between this word and that word, exactly?", and there are no written inscriptions talking about a particular word and how ...
Zamenhof borrowed and made up the first batch of words. He encouraged people to Esperantize words from their mother tongue if they didn't know a word. So from the beginning, there wasn't a central source of authority for new words. This contrasts with other new languages, such as Klingon, toki pona, Tolkien's Elivish, where the stock of root words is limited ...
the word for "coffee"
What if the language doesn't have the word for coffee, and there are several words to express it? For example, in Somali, coffee can be called both bun and qaxwe.
does not contain the sounds k/q and f/h/v
In Navajo, the word for "coffee" doesn't contain k/q: ahwééh. Yet, it looks like a loanword.
the word has a different root
Unfortunately the answer is: we aren't exactly sure.
The easy answer is that it had a *ḱ, as listed on Wiktionary. As sumelic points out, the AHD (and many other sources) don't mark *ḱ and *k separately for the most part: their PIE reconstructions are thus from a later stage, after the Centum-Satem Split.
However, the hard evidence either way is lacking.
To supplement Nick's excellent answer:
The mainstream view of PIE now is that it had no /a/ vowel (in the oldest stages we can reconstruct). Instead, it had three(*) "laryngeal" sounds, which weren't actually particularly laryngeal, but the name has stuck. They're conventionally written *h₁ *h₂ *h₃ and there are various theories as to their actual ...
This is one of the topics addressed by Mike Brame in his MIT dissertation Ch. 5, for Classical Arabic, however I have to say that I find his discussion inconclusive.
The prosodic pattern of verbs and deverbals (CCVC, CVCVC, CVC:C...) is convincingly reducible to non-lexical factors (e.g. "is this is 2nd measure derived verb; is this perfective, or ...
These words are related, but they do not have any known cognates outside of Germanic and Balto-Slavic. “Proto-Indo-European *dʰayl-, *dʰoyl-“ (as posited on Wikipedia) is highly uncertain. It has been suggested that it is a substrate word.
See the etymology section here: https://www.dwds.de/wb/Teil
In Indo-Iranian both *eh₃ and *n̥h₃ become *ō, which then becomes ā. In Skt jānāti there is an infix *-ne- before the last consonant of the root, in this case the laryngeal. Thus the zero-grade root *ǵn̥h₃- forms the present *ǵn̥-ne-h₃-ti > *janāti (cf. Avestan zanā-) > jānāti (with ā in the first syllable by analogy to forms with *ǵn̥h₃- > jā-).
For your English example drivers
The lemma is driver
The stem is also driver
The root is driv
The whole thing is better explained in a language with more inflections, where things become interesting.
Take the Latin verb laudare "to praise"
The lemma is (depending on convention) either laudare or laudo "I praise"
There are three stems: The present stem ...
Your cited examples do not involve the same roots in Hebrew and Arabic, they involve similar roots: [t] is not the same as [ṭ] and [f] is not the same as [p]. Semitic šim- "name" appears in Arabic as ism- and in Hebrew as šem: these have the same historical origin, but the synchronic roots are not the same, they are just similar. "Sky" which is from Semitic ...
In addition to Wilson's comment:
The English /oː/[oʊ̯] in indigenous words is derived from a Proto-Germanic diphthong that is reconstructed as pgm. *ai (pgm. *ai > Old English ā > modern /oː/). The same diphthong is the root of German /aɪ̯/(usually spelled ⟨ei⟩) and /eː/ (can be spelled ⟨eh⟩). That's why German Stein and English stone are cognates as well ...
Semitic languages work with consonantal roots which can be modified and conjugated using vowel patterns and affixes. See the Wikipedia article on Semitic roots.
To take your root אהב or ʔhb as an example:
The present tense of the basic stem (if you are not yet familiar with stems/binyanim, you can ignore it for the moment) is ʔohev 'he loves'. Here the ...
The classic original study is Joseph Greenberg 1950 "The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic" (Word 5, 162–181). A later study with a larger lexicon was conducted by M. Mrayati 1987 "Statistical studies of Arabic language roots". The OCP controversy features this pattern prominently. There are different degrees of strength to the particular effects, for ...
Henning, Das Verbum des Mittelpersischen der Turfanfragmente (1933) p. 187 posited Iranian *xwaz, ‘wish, want’, represented by Middle and New Persian xwāh-, with long-grade present stem, the regular SW Iranian shift of /z/ to /d/, and then a specifically Persian dialect shift of /d/ to /h/.
Johnny Cheung, Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb (2007), ...
By definition, compounds have more than one base: mice-killer is formed from MOUSE and KILL. Unlike Noun-Verb+er compounds, most of them are opaque and the relation between the two vary. There is a long tradition giving names to these different cases. For example, one of the oldest:
tatpurusa => blackboard: 1 head = BOARD, 1 modifier = BLACK
dvandva => ...
It's not that PIE roots always contain the vowel e, it's that PIE roots don't contain vowels. This is a common misconception, unfortunately aided by the traditions of IE lexicography.
Take a root like lei̯kw- 'leave'. This root is found in:
e-grade, e.g. Gk. pres. leip-ō
o-grade, e.g. Gk. pf. le-loip-a
zero-grade, e.g. Gk. aor. e-lip-on
What this shows is ...
Note that the AHD doesn't seem to use accents to mark the "palatovelars" in its head entries for PIE roots. For example, the entry for the root that is the ancestor of English he/his is given as
Stem of demonstrative pronoun meaning "this. " Oldest form *k̑o‑, becoming *ko‑ in centum languages.
So I don't think it's right to read the AHD's ...
This seems to be quite the knotty little tangle of roots, so this is going to be rather long.
LIV² gives a total (that I’ve found) of seven different roots for this rather complex mass of running and sleeping:
?*derdʰ-, ?*dreh₁- and 2. *drem- ‘sleep’
*dreh₂-, 1. *drem-, *dreu̯- and ?*du̯er- ‘run’
(Question marks indicate that the existence of the root is ...
That's a very interesting question and the answer sheds a light into what makes Esperanto unique.
English is a wide-open language, very free in creating new words and idioms (e.g. "spam," "copasetic," "hang 'em high.") This gives English an openness and freedom, but also makes it hard for people to learn. It can lead to impreciseness and sloppiness.
@fdb's answer addresses the Indo-Iranian forms, so this one will address the Greek and Latin ones.
In Greek, there are two relevant sets of sound changes:
PIE *eH > Gk V̄. That is, *e followed by any laryngeal became a long vowel; which long vowel resulted depends on the specific laryngeal: *eh₁ > ē, *eh₂ > ā, *eh₃ > ō. (In Attic-Ionic, most instances of ...
The Oxford English Dictionary indexes a number of slang terms for 'coffee'. Two of them are clearly derived from coffee, so I'd consider them scratched for your purposes — Everton toffee (rhyming slang), joe (alliterative slang). But there are five others that probably pass muster: Java, mud, ninny-broth, syrup of soot, Turkey gruel.
They definitely do go to the same common ancestor, just the first etymology you found does not go deep enough.
Norwegian del is reconstructed to proto-germanic dailiz, but that originates from PIE *dhail-, the etymon for the Slavic děliti.
DEL in Norwegian
DAILIZ in Proto-Germanic
DĚLIŤ in Russian
Since you're asking on Linguistics instead of Constructed Languages, here's a real-world example!
Look at Ancient Greek (Attic/Koine dialect) τείν-ει /tiːn-iː/ "she spreads", next to Latin ten-et /tɛn-ɛt/ "she holds" (from the same PIE root).
The original vowel in the ending was /eː/; Latin shortened it to /e/ before final /t/, and it later became /ɛ/. ...