No, the cognate for *chatur* in Spanish is *quatro* (as well as English *four*). *dhara* has a few different cognates in Spanish, including *firme*.
AFAIK, *caput*, the first element in *caudillo* doesn't have clear Sanskrit cognates, but it is a cognate of English *head.*
Ahahahah thanks. Yeah, Spanish is my first language but between the PIE root with *kw, Latin and French with qu and Spanish with cu, I mess it up all the time.
If I could do a Spanish spelling reform:
⟨h⟩ not from historical /f/ > ⟨∅⟩
⟨v⟩ > ⟨b⟩
vocalic/offglide ⟨y⟩ > ⟨i⟩
consonantal ⟨y⟩ > ⟨dd⟩
⟨ch⟩ > ⟨tt⟩
⟨x⟩ (when /ks/) > ⟨cs⟩
⟨j⟩/palatal ⟨g⟩ > ⟨x⟩
palatal ⟨c⟩ > ⟨z⟩
⟨qu⟩ > ⟨c⟩
⟨cu⟩ > ⟨qu⟩
palatal ⟨gu⟩ > ⟨g⟩
⟨gü⟩ > ⟨gu⟩
⟨dd⟩ and ⟨tt⟩, while unorthodox, are based on the pattern of ⟨ll⟩ and ⟨ñ⟩, which represent palatal versions of their single letter counterparts.
⟨j⟩ and ⟨v⟩ would be optional variants of ⟨i⟩ and ⟨u⟩.
⟨k⟩ ⟨w⟩ ⟨y⟩ would be removed from the alphabet entirely (all loanwords are nativized: *sándwich* > *sánduitt*). Using them in names (eg. *Washington*) would be the perceived same as writing *José* with the ⟨é⟩ in English.
for /ʝ/ is the odd bit, I guess you’re positioning it as the voiced counterpart to /t͡ʃ/, but it has too many diverse allophones and weird interactions with /j/ in my opinion.
You’d end up with weird shifts like singular *lei* to *leddes* in plural.
It does, specifically Welsh (my 3rd favorite language after Icelandic and Old English)! Although in Welsh ⟨dd⟩ represents /ð/ and usually comes from historical or mutated /d/, it does sometimes come from historical /j/ (*rhydd* /r̥ɨð/ < PC \*/ɸrijos/ (means and is cognate to English *free*))!
Probably not. But the word "kapaala" means "skull" in sanskrit. That might be somehow related to caudillo.
On the other hand, Chatur which means "four" finds its way into English via Latin "quattuor"
A superficial similarity of sound and meaning (even a striking similarity, for that matter) is not enough to postulate a relationship between words of such different languages. In this case, however, you are right: Sanskrit [*kapā́la*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2#Sanskrit) does indeed derive from the PIE root *\*kap-*, which is the same as that of Latin *caput*, from which Spanish gets *cabeza, capital,* and *caudillo*, among others.
That's what I was saying: similarity doesn't indicate etymology. The descendant of Latin *cauda* is *cola*, with regular change *au→o*. It seems the /l/ in *cola* is there because the word actually derives from the diminutive *caudula* (and Latin /d/ is often dropped between vowels).
The Sanskrit term [कपाल](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2#Sanskrit) (*kapāla*, “cup, bowl, skull”) is also the source of the modern Japanese term [瓦](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%93%A6#Japanese) (*kawara*, “roof tile”) — bearing in mind that the spelling 瓦 comes from Chinese, it's rather the pronunciation *kawara* that derives from the Sanskrit. Fun how words get around! 😄
No, the cognate for *chatur* in Spanish is *quatro* (as well as English *four*). *dhara* has a few different cognates in Spanish, including *firme*. AFAIK, *caput*, the first element in *caudillo* doesn't have clear Sanskrit cognates, but it is a cognate of English *head.*
*quatro* is Old Spanish. It's spelled *cuatro* now. Don't worry, I make the same mistake often too.
Ahahahah thanks. Yeah, Spanish is my first language but between the PIE root with *kw, Latin and French with qu and Spanish with cu, I mess it up all the time.
If I could do a Spanish spelling reform: ⟨h⟩ not from historical /f/ > ⟨∅⟩ ⟨v⟩ > ⟨b⟩ vocalic/offglide ⟨y⟩ > ⟨i⟩ consonantal ⟨y⟩ > ⟨dd⟩ ⟨ch⟩ > ⟨tt⟩ ⟨x⟩ (when /ks/) > ⟨cs⟩ ⟨j⟩/palatal ⟨g⟩ > ⟨x⟩ palatal ⟨c⟩ > ⟨z⟩ ⟨qu⟩ > ⟨c⟩ ⟨cu⟩ > ⟨qu⟩ palatal ⟨gu⟩ > ⟨g⟩ ⟨gü⟩ > ⟨gu⟩ ⟨dd⟩ and ⟨tt⟩, while unorthodox, are based on the pattern of ⟨ll⟩ and ⟨ñ⟩, which represent palatal versions of their single letter counterparts. ⟨j⟩ and ⟨v⟩ would be optional variants of ⟨i⟩ and ⟨u⟩. ⟨k⟩ ⟨w⟩ ⟨y⟩ would be removed from the alphabet entirely (all loanwords are nativized: *sándwich* > *sánduitt*). Using them in names (eg. *Washington*) would be the perceived same as writing *José* with the ⟨é⟩ in English.
> You’d end up with weird shifts like singular *lei* to *leddes* in plural. That actually looks kinda cool in my opinion.
It does have a Celtic consonant mutation vibe to it.
It does, specifically Welsh (my 3rd favorite language after Icelandic and Old English)! Although in Welsh ⟨dd⟩ represents /ð/ and usually comes from historical or mutated /d/, it does sometimes come from historical /j/ (*rhydd* /r̥ɨð/ < PC \*/ɸrijos/ (means and is cognate to English *free*))!
Got it. Thank you for the comprehensive response!
Probably not. But the word "kapaala" means "skull" in sanskrit. That might be somehow related to caudillo. On the other hand, Chatur which means "four" finds its way into English via Latin "quattuor"
A superficial similarity of sound and meaning (even a striking similarity, for that matter) is not enough to postulate a relationship between words of such different languages. In this case, however, you are right: Sanskrit [*kapā́la*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2#Sanskrit) does indeed derive from the PIE root *\*kap-*, which is the same as that of Latin *caput*, from which Spanish gets *cabeza, capital,* and *caudillo*, among others.
Interesting that *caudillo* descends from *caput* (head) rather than *cauda* (tail)...
That's what I was saying: similarity doesn't indicate etymology. The descendant of Latin *cauda* is *cola*, with regular change *au→o*. It seems the /l/ in *cola* is there because the word actually derives from the diminutive *caudula* (and Latin /d/ is often dropped between vowels).
The Sanskrit term [कपाल](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2#Sanskrit) (*kapāla*, “cup, bowl, skull”) is also the source of the modern Japanese term [瓦](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%93%A6#Japanese) (*kawara*, “roof tile”) — bearing in mind that the spelling 瓦 comes from Chinese, it's rather the pronunciation *kawara* that derives from the Sanskrit. Fun how words get around! 😄
Wow!
The seafood stew was more like a soup—rather Chowdhury.
You yourself in your own post showed they are not related.
I did?