Talk:God (word)

English and Persian

It would be interesting to show the link between the English word "god" and the modern Persian word "khudā" which has the same meaning. It's phonology is almost equal to the Dutch word.

Tājik 23:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I must disappoint you, but such similarities are very often just coincidences. The link doesn't seem to be recognised by etymologists. It is often mentioned by non-expert websites, and sometimes ascribed to the authority of "Catholic Encyclopedia", but that's apparently about it. According to Oxford English Dictionary, linking "god" back beyond even Germanic is uncertain; if at all it's an Indo-European root gheu-, which would apparently lead to Indo-Aryan hu (attested in Sanskrit). That doesn't look a lot as if it had the right consonants for later Iranian "kho-". At least according to one source (unfortunately not an expert source either), Khoda comes from the Old Iranian (Indo-European) Hwa-Taw, meaning literally “self-able” or “self-powerful,” that is, “Ruler” and “Lord.” It is a name of majesty, indicating that God is self-sufficiently omnipotent. Although the English “God” and Persianate “Khoda” are both Indo-European and give the appearance of being cognates, they are actually derived from different roots. ([1]). Not reliable at this point, but plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... interesting. However, Kluges Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache (original German version) traces both the English word "god" as well as the modern Persian word "khudā" to PIE *gheu, "to pour (i.e. blood)" and points to the ritual sacrefices of the early Indo-European peoples, eventually translating the word "god" as "he, for whom blood is shed/sacreficed". It also notes that the modern meaning of the word "god" evolved after the demonance of the Christian faith in Europe, the same goes to the Persian word which evolved after the Islamization. Sanskrit "hu" has the same root, but a different meaning, which strengthens this theory. Another source (I have only the paper, and - unfortunately - no name) links these words to PIE *khutóm which is the neuter passive perfect participle of the root *khu-, meaning "libation" as well as "sacrifice" (related to Sanskrit "hu" and Greek "kheu").

Tājik 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't have my Kluge available yesterday, but I'm checking now. Which edition are you using? It's not in mine (23rd ed., 1995). And a paper talking of an IE root "*khu-" would seem to be seriously out of date, could it be a rather old one? Modern theories of Indo-European don't assume a sound *kh for IE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kluge: 24th ed., 2002. As for the word *khu, I think it's pronounced k'h'u (seperate sounds, comparable to kh- in modern Hindi), and not like a kh (x-). Sound-changes from k to kh are quite common in Iranian languages, even up to day. For example, the international word "doctor" is pronounced "doctor" in Iran and Afghanistan, but "dokhtor" in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The kh-sound may also change to h. Tājik 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good. If the PIE *gheu > Persian khuda derivation is in the new Kluge, we can use that. That should be reliable enough. As for the alternative derivation from PIE *khu-, you are right, we'd be dealing here with a plosive [kʰ], not a fricative [x] like in Persian, you are also right about the plausibility of an intermediate change [kʰ] > [x]. But my point nevertheless stands: such a sound is today believed never to have existed in PIE, so any paper proposing it must be heavily out of date. Let's just forget about that version, the other one is perfectly plausible if the Kluge quote is as you say. Is it presenting the Persian etymology as certain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, please feel free to edit the text, since my English is deffinitly not as good as yours. Besides that, I am not saying that the "Germanic"-theory is wrong. I am just saying that the other possible theory should also be mentioned. Presenting both theories in the article is probably the best solution. Kluge does not examine the Persian etymology in detail, but simply explains that the "PIE theory" seems to be more plausible than the "Germanic only" theory, because of the similarities to Avestan, Sanskrit, and modern Persian. Tājik 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In Kurdish "Xweda" (khwae-da) means God and literally "Himself Given" or "has given himself". Adding an "n" (Xwedan) would mean "Owner of wealth" (a great amount of wealth). Replacing "a" with "î" (Xwedî) would also mean "owner" but also "one who takes care of those under him". 85.106.89.218 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but it seems nobody is talking about a PIE *khu-. this is about a Persian khuda. Now correct me, but Persian doesn't seem to have aspirates. In fact, the first thing the Iranian branch did was de-aspiration. So I think we are looking at a Persian xuda? This is conceivably from the same root *gheu and would just be another cognate. I don't have any books with me now, I can look it up later. dab (ᛏ) 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd just worked that out, actually. Look at Tajik's second posting above: He was speaking of the modern Persian "khuda" ([xuda], indeed), but also of one theory that apparently spoke of a root "PIE *khutóm", as being one of two alternative common IE etymologies. But I think we all agree now that a derivation of modern [xuda] from *gheu sounds prima facie plausible enough, right? If we can get another reference besides Kluge would be great of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, I didn't pay attention. It is PIE *ǵhu, not *khu. I think we can be assertive about the Persian word being cognate, but should treat it in Indo-Iranian context first. dab (𒁳) 10:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of "god"

As usual editors neglect to look for proposed etymologies,Zacharias P Thundy cites none of the so called fringe philology connecting Gotama with Gudan, but he confirms the link to Buddha in his paper on the etymology of god. He states that Per.khoda is cog. with God and that the Goths picked the word up during their first migration which would have been the time when Buddhist sent missionaries to Persia. The editor here is like most editors, by the time they are done homogenizing we are not left with any factual account Duden Etymological dictionary goes along with the notion of invoking, but suggests that god is something that can be conjured up. This would make the word cognate with Irish "guth" = voice.

Barry Morrissey 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Barry Morrissey

"The Lombardic form of Odin, Godan, may derive from cognate Proto-Germanic *ǥuđánaz."

I think it's rather ridiculous to separate a word etymology, which only appears in Germanic languages, just to go along with the trends of modern academia in large scale language-sound drift theories (like Woden & Godan), but of course, wikipedia has a 'no original research' policy so there's nothing that can be done about it. Modern academics try to say otherwise, but I rather think Goð- Woð- can be connected via the glottal 'yogh' sound, found in Germanic speaking languages like Old English which can connect the 'g' &'w' sounds. To "invoke" (the IE root of what some modern academia called God) and to "inspire, possess" (the IE root of what some modern academia call Wod, Od) seem to be the same to me. To invoke (conjure within yourself, not to be confused with 'evoke', to conjure outside of yourself) is pretty much the same idea as being inspired or possessed. The -in, -an suffix of Odin/Wotan is simply a meaning like 'object of', or 'articulator of', sometimes just considered 'lord of'; Odin then means "source of (spiritual) inspiration", and God simply means 'spiritual inspiration'. Nagelfar 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

the "glottal 'yogh' sound, found in Germanic speaking languages" is a late development of North Sea Germanic / Low German, and you cannot invoke it for Lombardic. The *wat and *ghu roots are completely different etymologically, although anyone would of course grant you the semantic relationship of "invoke" and "inspire" as a truism. I do agree there may have been a contamination of *wodanaz and *gudan to yield godan, we do not need to postulate an actual Proto-Germanic *gudanaz, depending on when that contamination took place. That's splitting hairs. It was either wodanaz x gudan -> godanaz in 200 BC, or wodan x gud > godan in AD 200, the result is indistinguishable. dab (𒁳) 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavonic

Where does bog come from? Malick78 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

cognate to bhaga "lord, wanax". dab (𒁳) 19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous views

The section previous views is interesting, but if this encyclopedia is to be a source of what scientists agree are the most plausible theories, commonly known as the truth, then it needs to be stated that these previous views are not opinions any serious historical linguists would second today. Unless, of course, evidence can be provided to the contrary. And please, refrain from name calling, 68.38.215.42, as you did in the edit summary... --Alexlykke (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic meaning

What's all this nonsense concerning the illuminati and George Bush doing under the 'Proto-Germanic meaning' header? 94.215.169.38 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Added Biolinguistic Considerations section

I added a 'Biolingustic Considerations' sub-section to the 'Germanic etymology' section. While I doubt that there are any mainstream literatures, including encyclopedias and omnipedias, which contain a biolinguistic analysis of the word 'god', the authoritative literatures of both the pediatric and linguistic fields of study make individual mention of each of the three sounds/sound-forms produced by newborns that together approximate this word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatternOfPersona (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced etymological speculation

At present, the article includes speculation deriving various forms of the word God from various forms of the name Woden? It looks unlikely to me. First off, many Germanic languages have separate words for God and for Woden. I admit the latter isn't directly attested in Biblical Gothic, but we can compare Biblical Gothic Guþs with Biblical Gothic woþs meaning possessed. So if they come from the same root, they have diverged in proto-Germanic or common Germanic, and later sound changes are not relevant and may involve assimilation. Second, there is some controversy whether Woden was a proto-Germanic god or was a later innovation or borrowing. 71.191.233.120 (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, this is an encyclopedia; our task is to paraphrase and cite to reliable sources. There are any number of current reliable sources that discredit the Point of View in this edit. Can anyone find a reliable source that supports that edit? The content of both these sections are simply elements of currently attested Germanic etymology, are they not? --Rednblu (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--- The references to the use of "Wod! Wod! Wod!" are totally bogus, the source cited http://ourtroth.weebly.com/chapter-liv-winter-nights-alf-blessing-idis-blessing-frey-blessing.html itself cites the work of Stephan Grundy's 'Teutonic Religion' as its source. "Teutonic Religion" is not an historical work, and the proposed chant of "Wod!" is a creative one. Bunnyman78 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

"The use of capitalization, as for a proper noun, has persisted to disambiguate the concept of a singular God, specifically the Christian god, from pagan deities for which lower case god has continued to be applied, mirroring the use of Latin deus".

I've rewritten this sentence, in the Capitalization section, as it's a potentially misleading explanation of why the word is sometimes written uncapitalised. It's true that capitalisation represents a distinction between the monotheistic "God" and "gods", but this is not the reason for capitalisation/non-capitalisation - it's a consequence of the rule that the capitalised form is used for names by which a god is known (including 'God'). See here; Capitalization #Nouns. Obscurasky (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Guarani and Portuguese

Can we merge Jeús (in pt) with God (word)? Decolonizing it would be Yudah (Judah/Gudah/God). But in Guarani there's Tupan (Tupã). Aboriginally is an electric phoenix hybrid but amiable. Abá (peopling in Guarani) is also a word for〈parented〉beings, in this case us (mankins/parabeings). P- of people comes from para-, meaning in Guarani -gent- (gente in Portuguese), translated as gentle agent, otherwise people and God. Gender comes from genesis (so agender=agenesis=agonadal). Hermetic afro (hermafrodite=America×Africa, aboriginated by God.

But Lilith was the first plutonic ovary (Africa). Adan was AdanEva, so Hemaphrodite that was ambigonadal. Anisogamy is peopling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbonetti (talk • contribs) 07:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Dyeus, Ea, Allah, Eyn

(updated info, now complete.)

I see the claims on etymology on this page is very inaccurate. God stems from Gudea, which in sumerian script implies two. Gud and Ea. Both are derivatives of what in arabic right-to-left reading is written as S. (Reading "Ya"). God being a derivative of Ea again. So a third derivative, and "watered down" concept. And using Ea in either sumerian or latin script is a misrepresentation. The correct latinized concept is Eyn. (From arabic Ɛ, which easily resounds being the only Deity, in latin script). Hopefully the global connected world is ready for this, its quite ahead of the article, but somebody might know how to insert it into there.

Also reading on the "god" page is that EL in hebrew means "god". EL is a derivative of the arabic "Allah", which also is for arabic script, where the original (and correct) is. When using latin script, such as we are, one should use Ein. Which can be written in big or small letters, like latin script is. "Allah" being an arabic right-to-left script version of Dyeus (that written in latin becomes a syncretic import aswell, and one should know that the original is a triangular with dot inside, symbol, as seen on the dispilio tablet, probably Adams writing.)

Peace. 84.215.119.50 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@ IP 84.215.XX – A few things:

• Please stop cross-posting / spamming this (or similar) over multiple talk pages.
• In Sumerian, Ea is a very specific deity.
• The Hebrew is not a derivative of the Arabic – it comes from pre-Akkadian, proto-semitic language predating Arabic (in fact, El is also the name of a specific deity in the Canaanite religion prior to Yahwism cultists imposing monotheism and altering the language… [src]).
• It is not clear what changes you're proposing for the article… Please note: this isn't a forum for general discussion…
• re: "…Hopefully the global connected world is ready for this, its quite ahead of the article…" – Wikipedia is not a place for your theistic and linguistic original research… Concisely propose a change, then come back with WP:RS supporting it… Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What I am stating is the truth, if anyone is interested in that. Not established confusions. Surely many are aware of regressions in religion, that supposedly is "accepted truth", but are wrong? I found a better way of dealing with the word "god" though, make it linguistically correct. As in One Giad. As for how to insert it into the article, I´ve been a researcher for a long time, and is where that is. The established "truths" of popculture, are long gone here. So if you think you need to respect that in some manner, then I have no idea what to say. Its simply is about correctness that is all.

Peace. Bit-8 wkp (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)