Talk:Elf

Etymology not supported by sources

This article puts a lot of emphasis on "elf" being connection with the Latin "albh-" (which is the root of "albino"), and its primary source is the 2003 book "A handbook of Germanic etymology" by Orel. However this book does not support this claim. (If anyone has a copy, simply turn to page 13 to see for yourself, or check it out at Archive.org.)

It states:

albaz sb.m.: Burg *alfs 'elf', ON alfr 'nightmare, elf', OE aelf 'elf, genius, incubus', MLG alf 'evil spirit', OHG alb id. Of uncertain origin. KUHN KZ IV 110 (to Skt rbhú- 'clever, skilful'); WADSTEIN Festschr. Bugge 152-155 (to *albh- white'); TORP-FALK 21; SAUS-SURE apud MASTRELLI StG XIII 5-13 (to the name of the Alps); HOLTHAUSEN AEEW 186; POKORNY I 30; VRIES ANEW 5-6; KÖBLER 708; KLUGE-SEEBOLD 24-25.

For albiz it states a primary link with 'deep river-bed' and 'river-bed'. It makes a passing reference to a connection with the Latin 'albus' and 'white', but then states "this etymology is not very reliable" due to the stronger connection with the Swedish 'alv' and 'elve', meaning 'river-bed').

Looking through this talk page, this odd emphasis on "white" as part of its etymology has been brought up before, as it is not generally accepted elsewhere.

For some reason this article seems intent on linking "elf" primarily with "whiteness" and "cleverness" and nothing else, but it is not supported by the current sources, and is actually contradicted by them.

WikiMane11 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of this history of the Wikipedia article itself, the main reference for the paragraph you're talking about is actually Hall 2007, 54–55 (which, for full disclosure, is a book by me). As the phrasing of the paragraph has changed, it has come to look like that reference only applies to a sentence where I'm named specifically. I've added the same reference at the end of a couple of the other sentences in that paragraph just to make it clear that the paragraph all based on that book, not Orel.

Orel's book does cover the *albh etymology (he explicitly says that Wadstein argues for it, and it's also in Vries ANEW at least). It's a shame that Guus Kroonen (2013), Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 11 (Leiden: Brill), doesn't include the elf-word — a weird omission.

But maybe the article should follow Orel's lead and say that the etymology is uncertain rather than 'generally agreed'?

I believe that Riccardo Ginevra's paper 'Old Norse Elves from a linguistic and comparative perspective', of which you can read a conference abstract here, will be published in the next couple of years, and, regardless of what new arguments he may make about the etymology, hopefully he will have a thorough summary of past research on the question that we will be able to cite.

I don't that anyone thinks that the English word 'elf' has anything to do with the etymon of Swedish 'alv'. That similarity is just thought to be a coincidence. Alarichall (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria, as lots of information seems to have been added to the lead since its 2017 promotion. This information should be checked to ensure it is sourced and verified, and much of it should be moved to the article body. Ther are also some uncited statements in the article. Is anyone interested in resolving this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'll sort it out, if nobody else wants to do the honours. Additions since GAN are not an issue as such, though we may see the need to remove anything inapposite; but lack of citations obviously is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Alarichall, I see you took this through GAN back in 2017, and have responded to comments since then. If you intend to answer Z1720's GA concerns now, good luck; I'm happy to lend a hand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, comparing the lead with the GA version, there was just one paragraph added: I've moved it out of the lead now. I've cut a small number of uncited statements in the article body. The article appears to be in good shape: it is well-structured, readable, fully-cited, and suitably illustrated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)