research-word-etymology
О программе
Этот навык отслеживает происхождение слов через исторические языки и реконструированные пракорни, выявляя когнаты в различных языковых семьях. Он документирует семантические изменения с датированными свидетельствами и помечает неподтверждённые народные этимологии. Используйте его для изучения истории слов, сравнения групп родственных слов и разоблачения неверных версий происхождения.
Быстрая установка
Claude Code
Рекомендуетсяnpx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/research-word-etymologyСкопируйте и вставьте эту команду в Claude Code для установки этого навыка
Документация
Research Word Etymology
Trace word origin from modern form back through attested historical stages + reconstructed proto-lang roots, ID cognates in related langs, document semantic drift w/ dated evidence, flag folk etymologies.
Use When
- Investigate origin + historical dev of specific word
- Compare cognate words across related langs → common ancestor
- Chart how meaning changed centuries w/ attestation dates
- Eval whether popular origin story genuine or folk
- Build structured etymology entry for docs/scholarly ref
In
- Required: Target word (modern form)
- Required: Source lang (default English)
- Optional: Reconstruction depth (default earliest reconstructable; alt: stop at specific historical stage)
- Optional: Cognate langs (default major branches of same family)
- Optional: Output format (default structured entry; alt narrative prose)
Do
Step 1: ID Modern Form + First Attestation
Establish current usage + earliest documented appearance.
-
Record modern spelling, pronunciation (IPA if possible), primary meaning(s) in source lang.
-
Search earliest attested use in source lang. Consult etymological dicts (OED for English, TLFi for French, DWDS for German) + historical corpora via WebSearch:
Search: "[target word] etymology first attested" site:etymonline.com OR site:oed.com
-
Record attestation date, source text, meaning at first attestation. Note if modern meaning differs from original.
-
If word entered source lang via borrowing, ID immediate donor lang + approx borrowing date.
→ Dated first attestation w/ source text ID'd, meaning at first use recorded, immediate donor lang (if borrowed) established.
If err: no attestation date in online sources → note explicit + proceed w/ oldest available evidence. Mark "date uncertain" + continue Step 2.
Step 2: Trace Etymological Chain
Work backward from modern form through documented historical stages → earliest reconstructable root.
-
Each historical stage record:
- Form (spelling/transcription)
- Lang + approx date range
- Meaning at stage
- Phonological changes from prev
-
Follow chain through attested langs first, then into reconstructed proto-langs. Use std notation: asterisk (*) for reconstructed, angle brackets for graphemes, slashes for phonemes.
-
For Indo-European, typical chain:
- Modern form (e.g. Modern English, post-1500)
- Middle period (e.g. Middle English, 1100-1500)
- Old period (e.g. Old English, 450-1100)
- Proto-lang (e.g. Proto-Germanic, reconstructed)
- Deep proto-lang (e.g. PIE, reconstructed)
-
Borrowed words → trace through each donor before ultimate origin. Latin borrowing in English: Modern English < Old French < Latin < PIE.
-
Each stage note relevant sound laws explaining phonological changes (e.g. Grimm's Law for PIE→Germanic consonant shifts, Great Vowel Shift for Middle→Modern English vowels).
→ Complete chain modern → earliest reconstructable root, each stage dated, form + meaning recorded, sound changes explained by named phonological rules.
If err: chain breaks at stage (no further ancestor) → mark terminus w/ "origin beyond this point unknown" + proceed Step 3 w/ what's available.
Step 3: ID Cognates Across Families
Find words in related langs descending from same proto-form.
-
From deepest reconstructed root in Step 2, search reflexes in other branches.
-
Each cognate record:
- Lang + modern form
- Meaning (note semantic divergence from target)
- Regular sound correspondences connecting to proto-form
-
Group cognates by branch. PIE typical branches: Germanic, Italic (Romance), Celtic, Hellenic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Albanian, Tocharian, Anatolian.
-
Verify cognates → check sound correspondences regular (systematic across multi word sets), not just superficial. False cognates (look-alikes from unrelated roots) flagged + excluded.
-
Format cognate set as comparison table:
Root: PIE *[root] "[meaning]"
├── Germanic: English [form], German [form], Old Norse [form]
├── Italic: Latin [form] > French [form], Spanish [form], Italian [form]
├── Hellenic: Greek [form]
├── Balto-Slavic: Russian [form], Lithuanian [form]
└── Indo-Iranian: Sanskrit [form], Persian [form]
→ Cognate set w/ ≥3 branches (where root has reflexes), each verified by regular correspondences, false cognates explicitly excluded.
If err: root has few cognates (common for domain-specific or culturally bound vocab) → document what exists + note limited distribution. Word has no cognates outside immediate branch → state + explain (substrate borrowing or innovation).
Step 4: Document Semantic Drift
Chart how meaning changed proto-root → modern form.
-
Each stage of chain (Step 2) record primary meaning. Multi senses coexist → note all.
-
Classify each meaning change by std categories:
- Narrowing (specialization): meaning becomes more specific (e.g. "deer" once any animal)
- Broadening (generalization): meaning becomes more general (e.g. "dog" once specific breed)
- Amelioration: meaning more positive (e.g. "knight" servant → noble warrior)
- Pejoration: meaning more negative (e.g. "villain" farmworker → evildoer)
- Metaphor: shifts via analogy (e.g. "mouse" rodent → computer device)
- Metonymy: shifts via association (e.g. "crown" headwear → monarchy)
-
Provide approx date of each shift where attestation supports.
-
Format drift as timeline:
Semantic drift: [word]
[date/period]: "[meaning]" ([source])
[date/period]: "[meaning]" — [drift type] ([source])
[date/period]: "[meaning]" — [drift type] ([source])
Present: "[meaning]"
→ Dated semantic drift timeline w/ at least original + modern meanings, each shift classified, attestation sources cited.
If err: intermediate stages lack clear attestation → note gap explicit ("semantic shift X to Y between [date range] but mechanism not attested") + proceed.
Step 5: Flag Folk Etymologies
ID + eval popular but incorrect origin stories.
- Search common folk etymologies, backronyms, urban legends:
Search: "[target word] folk etymology" OR "[target word] myth origin" OR "[target word] false etymology"
-
Each folk found document:
- Claimed origin story
- Why linguistically unsupported (anachronistic, phonologically impossible, no attestation)
- Likely reason became popular (satisfying narrative, apparent plausibility, memorable acronym)
-
No folk etymologies for word → state explicit, no omit section.
-
Use clear verdict markers:
- Confirmed: Supported by linguistic evidence
- Probable: Well-supported but not conclusively proven
- Speculative: Possible but lacking sufficient evidence
- Folk etymology (unsupported): Popular but contradicted by evidence
- Backronym: Acronym invented after the word already existed
→ Folk etymologies ID'd + debunked w/ linguistic evidence, or explicit statement none known.
If err: status of claimed etymology genuinely uncertain (legitimate scholarly debate) → present both sides w/ citations not force verdict. Mark "disputed" w/ competing hypotheses.
Step 6: Format Structured Entry
Compile findings → standardized output.
- Assemble entry w/ structure:
## Etymology: [word]
**Modern form**: [word] ([language], [part of speech])
**Pronunciation**: /[IPA]/
**First attested**: [date], [source text/author]
### Etymological Chain
[Modern form] ([language], [date])
< [intermediate form] ([language], [date]) "[meaning]"
< [older form] ([language], [date]) "[meaning]"
< *[proto-form] ([proto-language]) "[reconstructed meaning]"
### Cognates
[Cognate table from Step 3]
### Semantic Drift
[Timeline from Step 4]
### Folk Etymologies
[Findings from Step 5, or "None known"]
### Sources
[Etymological dictionaries and corpora consulted]
### Confidence
[Overall confidence level: certain / probable / speculative / contested]
[Notes on any gaps or uncertainties in the analysis]
-
Review entry for internal consistency: chain matches cognate set? Drift timeline aligns w/ attestation dates?
-
Add confidence assessment for overall etymology, note weak links.
→ Complete internally consistent etymology w/ all sections, sources cited, confidence marked.
If err: section couldn't complete (no cognates, no folk known) → include section w/ explicit "not applicable" or "insufficient evidence" note, no omit.
Check
- Modern form + first attestation recorded w/ date + source
- Chain traces ≥2 historical stages (or notes why fewer)
- Reconstructed forms use std notation (asterisk prefix)
- Cognate set has words from ≥2 branches (where available)
- Sound correspondences cited regular (not ad hoc resemblances)
- Semantic drift timeline dated w/ classified shift types
- Folk etymologies addressed (debunked or noted absent)
- Sources cited (dict names, corpus names, URLs)
- Confidence level explicit
- Entry internally consistent (chain, cognates, drift align)
Traps
- Surface resemblance for cognacy: Look-alike words across langs not necessarily related (e.g. English "much" + Spanish "mucho" diff roots). Always verify regular correspondences not visual similarity.
- Confuse borrowing w/ inheritance: Word in 2 related langs may be borrowed not inherited from common ancestor. Check phonological form vs expected sound-law outcomes.
- Treat reconstructed as attested: PIE roots + other proto-forms = scholarly hypotheses not historical docs. Always mark asterisks + note reconstructed.
- Accept folk etymologies uncritically: Popular origins often more memorable than correct. Always check attestation + phonological plausibility.
- Ignore semantic drift: Modern meaning may be very diff from original. Tracing only form w/o meaning → misleading.
- Stop too early: Online sources give only 1-2 stages. Push back to deepest reconstruction for complete picture.
→
manage-memory— document etymology research findings for persistent ref across sessionsargumentation— build + eval arguments about contested etymologies
GitHub репозиторий
Похожие навыки
evaluating-llms-harness
ТестированиеЭтот навык Claude запускает lm-evaluation-harness для тестирования LLM на более чем 60 стандартизированных академических задачах, таких как MMLU и GSM8K. Он предназначен для разработчиков, чтобы сравнивать качество моделей, отслеживать прогресс обучения или сообщать академические результаты. Инструмент поддерживает различные бэкенды, включая модели HuggingFace и vLLM.
cloudflare-cron-triggers
ТестированиеЭтот навык предоставляет обширные знания по реализации Cloudflare Cron Triggers для планирования запуска Workers с помощью cron-выражений. Он охватывает настройку периодических задач, заданий технического обслуживания и автоматизированных рабочих процессов, а также решение распространенных проблем, таких как неверные cron-выражения и ошибки часовых поясов. Разработчики могут использовать его для настройки планировщиков обработчиков, тестирования cron-триггеров и интеграции с Workflows и Green Compute.
webapp-testing
ТестированиеЭтот навык Claude предоставляет инструментарий на базе Playwright для тестирования локальных веб-приложений с помощью Python-скриптов. Он позволяет проводить проверку фронтенда, отладку интерфейса, создание скриншотов и просмотр логов, одновременно управляя жизненным циклом сервера. Используйте его для задач автоматизации браузера, но запускайте скрипты напрямую, вместо чтения их исходного кода, чтобы избежать загрязнения контекста.
finishing-a-development-branch
ТестированиеЭтот навык помогает разработчикам завершать готовую работу, проверяя прохождение тестов и предлагая структурированные варианты интеграции. Он направляет рабочий процесс по слиянию, созданию пул-реквестов или очистке веток после завершения реализации. Используйте его, когда ваш код готов и протестирован, чтобы систематически завершать процесс разработки.
