Talk:Kirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Etymology

Kirk is ultimately Norse in origin? It seems to be a variation on the same theme as church and to be Greek in origin. Laurel Bush 09:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC).

Sorry, I just noticed this. Yes, of course it is of Greek origin. But it came into Germanic, probably through Gothic, and has forms with k- in all continental Germanic languages. Old English palatalisation changed it to ch-, and this should normally also be ch- in Scots, if the usual rules applied. Child, cheese and chick were likewise palatalised in earliest English (cf German: Kind, Käse, Küken), and all the Scots forms related to them have the palatalised ch-. But Scots has many Norse loan-words, which explains how in this case it has the unpalatalised form. So, yes, Greek, but via Norse. --Doric Loon 11:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mind you - Scots also has many borrowings from early Dutch, like coft ('bought') in the 15th century. The dictionaries don't mention this possibility, but I don't actually see why it couldn't equally well come from the Netherlands. But at any rate, it is definately a loanword from continental Germanic. --Doric Loon 19:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw that Dutch hypothesis - it was just an unconsidered thought, and on further checking it doesn't hold up. The element kirk is found in place names far earlier than the earliest attested reference to it as a common noun, and thus it predates the earliest possible borrowing from Dutch. Also, it is found mainly in areas with a strong Viking influence on the language generally, and is found at a very early date in names like Kirkby where the other element is definitely Norse. So that seems to clinch it. But I still don't have a solution to the problem of why such a word would be borrowed from Norse at a time when the Vikings weren't Christians. Anyone got any ideas? --Doric Loon 01:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High Kirk

Hey, Mais oui, thanks for that very useful section.--Doric Loon 18:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. This page is becoming quite good. It will surely soon be a "Featured Article" ;) Mais oui! 19:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig?

Is this really still a disambiguation page? --Doric Loon 18:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really, no. Perhaps we should just put normal categories on it and then initiate a Kirk (disambiguation) page?--Mais oui! 19:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like an interesting case of a disambig page that is migrating into an article. It started out as a redirect to a user page, then a redirect to Star Trek's James T. Kirk. Even the version from a year ago, was still primarily a disambig for everyone's favourite starship captain. Now it is more fixed on the Scottish church. -- Solipsist 20:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've restored + expanded the actual disambig page, and trimmed this so that it falls 100% into article category--205.188.116.66 21:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I may have made a slight mess of things, but I think I've made overall positive changes, although the disambig page might be a bit non-stanbard--205.188.116.66 21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I thought it was fine as it was, but if the list of personal and place names is going to grow, a separate disambig article may be sensible. So I don't mind you doing something along these lines, but the place names and personal names are not unrelated things which happen to use the same word - they are directly derived. What you have moved to the disambig page is partly information on this, which as you say yourself, is non-standard for a disambig. I would suggest you reinstate the place-name and personal-name sections of this article, move the discursive bits back here, also the note on Dunkirk and the book reference, and a couple of examples. Then if you want to leave the main list of cross-references on the disambig page, that's fine. --Doric Loon 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)