Talk:چوبان
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sanskrit has paśupati which would etymologically match *fšupāna (as if from PIE *peḱwés pótis "master of the cattle"). Unfortunatelly there is no *pasu-paiti in Avestan. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- But पशुपति (paśupati) matches Old Armenian շպետ (špet), not *fšupāna, with which it has only the first part in common. No? --Vahag (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I copy/pasted it without thinking from this entry's etymology, but meant *fšupati-. *pāna would presumably be a later derivative from *√pā "to protect". It seems strange that Old Iranian would have two of such similarly formed terms co-existing, meaning the same thing; perhaps *fšupāna < *fšupati ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, my sources were Ačaṙyan and Horn, but they don't trace the origin of *pāna, so I have removed the PIE derivation. But I think it is not related to *pati. We'll have to wait for Garnik Asatrian to finalize his Etymological Dictionary of Persian, which takes forever. --Vahag (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Vasmer says that *fšupāna means "страж скота", so if he is correct, it really couldn't have been something other than *√pā "to protect". Although, I don't know which agentive suffixes Old Iranian employed - this seems at odds with pāvā "protector" part inside 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎱𐎠𐎺𐎠 (xšaçapāvā). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Iranica lists only Middle and New Iranian attestations for *-pāna- (see under -pan “protecting”), but my sources confidently reconstruct Old Iranian forms with *-pāna- for the etymons of such Armenian borrowings as պաշտպան (paštpan), բարապան (barapan), դաստապան (dastapan), etc. --Vahag (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Vasmer says that *fšupāna means "страж скота", so if he is correct, it really couldn't have been something other than *√pā "to protect". Although, I don't know which agentive suffixes Old Iranian employed - this seems at odds with pāvā "protector" part inside 𐎧𐏁𐏂𐎱𐎠𐎺𐎠 (xšaçapāvā). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, my sources were Ačaṙyan and Horn, but they don't trace the origin of *pāna, so I have removed the PIE derivation. But I think it is not related to *pati. We'll have to wait for Garnik Asatrian to finalize his Etymological Dictionary of Persian, which takes forever. --Vahag (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I copy/pasted it without thinking from this entry's etymology, but meant *fšupati-. *pāna would presumably be a later derivative from *√pā "to protect". It seems strange that Old Iranian would have two of such similarly formed terms co-existing, meaning the same thing; perhaps *fšupāna < *fšupati ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)