Talk:𒄠𒋛
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Etymology[edit]
What does "Mediated via Middle Egyptian..." mean? Is it supposed to mean "Influenced by"? Also, the Egyptian word doesn't have an initial p-. Hopefully Ivan Štambuk or someone else can answer this for me.
--Foreverknowledge (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- p is the definite article in Egyptian, so that's how we know it came via Eyptian (and was not merely influenced by). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- So the Akkadian word is a loan from Egyptian rather than a cognate? --Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Although the word was borrowed all of the place, so it's hard to pinpoint the exact origin - but initial /p/ betrays Egyptian, and since Akkadian piru is "older" (=attested earlier) than anything else, we put it as the original etymon. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, wouldn't the Egyptian word be the original etymon since it's the source of the Akkadian word? What reference did you use for the etymology? Thank you. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I mean the etymon of those words listed under the ====Descendants==== section. I don't really remember where exactly I saw it (it was a few years ago after all, back then we didn't use references as much as today), but after some quick googling it appears that the p- prefixation theory originates in Hommel's Die Namen Der Saugethiere Bei Den Sudsemitischen Volkern, and that this Wanderwort has had a spectacular array of explanations over the last few centuries [1]. (Personally I think that the Berber-Egyptian compound theory of ἐλέφας is BS as well). If you want to add an alternative explanation, or compile all of the prominent ones (becasue of NPOV), be my guest! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, wouldn't the Egyptian word be the original etymon since it's the source of the Akkadian word? What reference did you use for the etymology? Thank you. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Proto-Semitic reconstruction looks very fishy. Can you source it? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Part of it is from the article link you posted before. The rest is from this etymology site. [1][2] --Foreverknowledge (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that the first is a research paper and the second is an obscure Russian web site, containing a bunch of original research. I can't speak for Proto-Semitic with assurance, but their (of STARLING database) Proto-Indo-European etymologies still use pre-laryngeal notation and are largely based on Pokorny. Blažek's reconstruction is simply *pirl-, and the rest of the forms are described as later assimilations with compensatory lengthening. The forms that you added in the etymology: "*p-r-l, *palpal-, *pīr-, or *pīl-" seem to be simply copied from various sources without any due consideration on their plausibility. Just as the (anonymous?) author on that Russian website, you seem to to go at great length to explain this as an inherited Proto-Semitic word, as opposed to Kulturwort borrowed across languages. Until you come up with a more reliable source, I'll change the etymology to a more neutral wording. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Although I agree with you about the Indo-European etymology being outdated, that is not true for the Semitic. I would hardly call the authors for the Semitic etymology "obscure." As explained here 1, the Semitic etymology is based on the work of Militarev and Kogan, who are scholars. The explanation I gave for the etymology is based on what they wrote. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but how do you know they haven't altered the PS reconstruction and interpretation to fit their Nostratic agenda? If you have access to the book (which doesn't seem to be available at pirate websites), it's best to check there. It's a credible source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Although I agree with you about the Indo-European etymology being outdated, that is not true for the Semitic. I would hardly call the authors for the Semitic etymology "obscure." As explained here 1, the Semitic etymology is based on the work of Militarev and Kogan, who are scholars. The explanation I gave for the etymology is based on what they wrote. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that the first is a research paper and the second is an obscure Russian web site, containing a bunch of original research. I can't speak for Proto-Semitic with assurance, but their (of STARLING database) Proto-Indo-European etymologies still use pre-laryngeal notation and are largely based on Pokorny. Blažek's reconstruction is simply *pirl-, and the rest of the forms are described as later assimilations with compensatory lengthening. The forms that you added in the etymology: "*p-r-l, *palpal-, *pīr-, or *pīl-" seem to be simply copied from various sources without any due consideration on their plausibility. Just as the (anonymous?) author on that Russian website, you seem to to go at great length to explain this as an inherited Proto-Semitic word, as opposed to Kulturwort borrowed across languages. Until you come up with a more reliable source, I'll change the etymology to a more neutral wording. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OP from Indic?[edit]
This source derives the Old Persian pīru- from Indic languages. --Z 17:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Akkadian or Sumerian?[edit]
The only entry on the page at the moment is for Akkadian, but the quotation given as an example is clearly Sumerian? —Pinnerup (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing it out. I don't feel comfortable creating the Sumerian entry, so I'll move to quote to the Citations tab. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)