I linked to Searchable World Wide Web Multilingual Multiscript Plant Name Database within a post once, but I’ve never made a separate post of it, and I think I should, having been reminded of it by e-mail. Thanks, Paul!


  1. Oh boy, how exciting! 😛
    Sorry, couldn’t help myself, I’m sure this truly is exciting to someone somewhere. It is honestly really cool that things like this exist and we all now have access to them via the internet. The fact that you can look up the name of any plant in any language and that there’s an entire website dedicated solely to that purpose is both weird and wonderful in that it indicates just how much information we have access to if we want it.

  2. I for one find comparative multilingual naturalist vocabulary to be ABSOLUTELY fascinating—botanics, animals, ores, alchemical substances, you name it.
    gotta dig the “☆☆☆☆☆ Asian Studies WWW Virtual Library [Prize,] Awarded November 1999”

  3. The 1999 vintage shows up in the use of images rather than Unicode. It’s much easier to create and manipulate sites using Unicode than creating images, which are very clunky and time consuming. I know, because I started out using images before Unicode became popular and then had to painstakingly transform everything to Unicode. On their site it could take months, possibly years of effort (depending on how many people are working on it).

  4. Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/oměgъ

    A relationship to Proto-Slavic *migati (“to blink”) via -ei-/-oi- ablaut because of the phantasms one gets when intaking the plants remains frequently considered. Compare analogues like *omanъ (“elecampane”) and *odolěnъ (“valerian”). Miklosich reconstructs *omęgъ on the basis of frequent nasalized forms in Old Polish and Romanian omeág, but these forms seem secondary.

    *oměgъ m

    1. monkshood (Aconitum spp.)
    2. hemlock (Conium and Cicuta spp.)


  5. Interesting, thanks! But could someone who can edit Wiktionary delete “омѣ́гъ (omě́g) – Pre-reform orthography (1918)” from this page? Whatever the etymology, the word was written омегъ even before the reform, as a glance at, say, Dahl will show.

  6. David Marjanović says

    Anyone can edit Wiktionary. I’m logged in through my en.wikipedia account in all of Wikimedia, so I just did it and signed.

  7. Another Wiktionary bug (?) is that you click on a link and it takes you into thin air, ie, there is no entry corresponding to the original language, as in:

    From gull (“(poetic, archaic) gold”) +‎ viva (“old swedish female headgear”).

    1. a cowslip (Primula veris)

    OK, let’s take a look at viva.

    WTF! Where is Swedish?

  8. January First-of-May says

    Another Wiktionary bug (?) is that you click on a link and it takes you into thin air, ie, there is no entry corresponding to the original language

    Not really a bug as such, just that etymologies frequently involve obscure words that might not necessarily have appropriate articles (yet). Often the link is red, but sometimes it is blue because an identically-spelled word happens to exist in another language.
    (In some particularly uncomfortable situations an identically-spelled word happens to exist in the same language but with a different meaning, so the link works but points to the wrong thing.)

  9. Lars Mathiesen says

    I’m sure the clever programmers at the WikiMedia foundation would be able to make links red (or orange, or some other warning color) if the anchor for the language is not found on the page.

    It’s not a thing only on Wiktionary, exactly the same thing would be applicable on Wikipedia itself — sometimes the target article of a link has been edited, and even if the information some other article tries to link to is still there, they might have decided on a better title for the ([{sub]sub]sub)section — and you end up at the top of the article.

Speak Your Mind