Re: Crus, Crures (quod pectus, quod crura tibi, quod bracchia vellis)

 Ar an t-aonú lá déag de mí Meitheamh, scríobh Ross Clark:

 > On 11/06/2024 9:49 p.m., Aidan Kehoe wrote:
 > >
 > >   Ar an naoiú lá de mí Meitheamh, scríobh HenHanna:
 > >
 > >   > Crus, Crures ("leg") is Not related to Latin crusta (“shell”)
 > >   >
 > >   >            https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Crustacea  is not related
 > >   >
 > >   > Crus, Crures ("leg") is Not related to any word in English or French
 > >
 > > “Crural” exists in anatomy jargon and is used by those who use anatomy jargon.
 > > It would not shock me if something similar were the case in French.
 > >
 > > https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22crural%22
 >
 > Et voilà! There it is in French, same spelling, same origin. Both words first
 > appear in the 16th century (OED 1599, translation of a work by Gaebelkhover;
 > Dauzat says XVI century, from the anatomist Ambroise Paré).

Within anatomy there’s a convention, more honoured in the breach than in the
observance in my experience, that “leg” should be used for that part of the
lower limb between the knee and the ankle, and “lower limb” should be used as
the more general term. This seems to be a borrowing of sense from “crus”. The
native English word for that part of the body is “shank” and I get scare
quotation marks from the radiographers when I use that requesting radiological
investigations, I suppose it doesn’t have much currency.

 > So a direct borrowing from Latin, not an inherited word. Apparently crus was
 > replaced in late Latin by gamba, originally 'horse's leg'.
 > While "foot" (PIE *ped-) is one of the great stable items, words for 'leg' seem
 > to be much more volatile. (Of course many languages get along without a primary
 > lexical distinction between the two.)
 >

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)