I removed español and put it on List of Spanish words of uncertain origin because the breve diccionario says its from Late Latin from an unknown source, and then very cautiously adds "from Punic?" I'm not trying to discourage anyone from submitting additions, I just want all of the Spanish etymology pages to have very specific inclusion criteria and have sources where an ISBN is cited. The English etymology pages are a fine mess because no one holds them to high standards like I hope to do with the Spanish ones.--Hraefen23:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, 'español' arose in Catalan, but I think you would agree that it comes from 'Hispania' just as España does, right? Just because a word (like español or capicau) arises in language x, that doesn't mean that it doesn't descend from an earlier source. So, if we can agree that español, although it may have first arisen in that exact form in Catalan, ultimately dervies from 'Hispania' which derives from a Punic source, then let's add a section for Phoenecian/Punic in List of Spanish words of various origins and put it there. You can mention that it arose in that exact form in Catalan and then give its ultimate derivation. If you want to do this, please add the RAE dictionary to the list of references. In the case of 'capicau' we can both agree that although it may have first arisen in that exact form in Catalan, it is ultimately from Latin, and I don't want to start List of Spanish words of Latin origin just yet. I may do it eventually, but right now it is just too massive of an undertaking. The RAE dictionary is probably a pretty trustworthy source (I've never really used it before), but in the case of capicau, it (for whatever reason) omits the word's ultimate origin.--Hraefen21:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is the part of your argument that I like "The reason I put that words in the list is that although they ultimately come from Latin, they entered Spanish from other languages and are still identical to the words in the language of origin. So it is not a direct "evolution" from Latin but an import from another language that did the evolution." If you want to start List of Spanish words of Romance language origin for words that ultimately come from Latin, but underwent significant semantic change, new combinations of Latin words (like capicau), significant phonological changes, etc., then I think the idea has some merit, but let me voice some concerns. 1. people will start adding a LOT of words and the list could be hard to maintain. Not a huge problem, but something to consider. 2. what exact criteria could be used to determine which words would qualify? I mean, combinations like capicau would clearly qualify for such a list, but how much semantic/phonological change would be necessary to qualify? Maybe it doesn't matter..maybe any word which was introduced into the Iberian peninsula via another Romance language would qualify. 3. I know people will start adding many words on a whim, not really being sure if it did come from Language X. Also, people will make many unsourced additions i.e. they won't cite their source. In both cases, the integrity and verifiability of the list would be weakened. If you do go ahead with it, please use on of the other pages as a template for the sake of consistency. Also, I would suggest getting a list of at least twenty words together before you tackle the project. Buen suerte--Hraefen22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I thought of. What about words which were introduced into Spanish by other Romance languages, but stem from a non-Latin source? Example: banco= bank: from Frenchbanque "bank," from Italianbanca "bench, money changer's table," from Old High German banc "bench, board." There are dozens (hundreds?) of words with similar histories. This "problem" (and it could be a problem of having duplicate information on multiple pages) could be avoided if you state specifically that all of the words included on the List of Spanish words of Romance language origin must derive solely and entirely from Latin. Just a thought.--Hraefen23:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
