Reconstruction talk:Proto-Turkic/čātïr

I doubt this is PT. More likely just borrowed into Karakhanid from MP and spread from there. @Anylai, Crom daba --{{victar|talk}} 20:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Speculative. It could have also have come from Oghuz or some third variety. There are certainly irregularities here (modern Karluk voiced, Kipchak unvoiced...), but existence of the Hungarian word shows that it can be tracked to a layer which we may call Common Turkic. Crom daba (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crom daba: Doerfer also speculates (Proto-? OAT?)Oghuz (adding more sources), but no one thinks PT. --{{victar|talk}} 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the Hungarian word can well have been come about during the Near Eastern migration period in the 7–8th century CE, the time when Bulghars became notable and Hungarians historical, and almost from New Persian, which is from the 8th century, like Turkic starts being attested in the 8th century. I thought Common Turkic is a millenium before. Fay Freak (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, Crom daba: Yeah, the Hungarian is said to be taken from Old Chuvash, so much later even, perhaps the 11th century. --{{victar|talk}} 02:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We had this discussion many times. Etymons shared among a wide variety of Turkic languages in a similar way should be grouped together instead of being broken up inconsistently according to etymological whims.

Early Turkic varieties are too similar to meaningfully reconstruct who borrowed what from whom, we use "Common Turkic" to encompass all of this common inheritance dating to the earliest attestations.

Mobility of Persian merchants and missionaries allows for multiple scenarios of adoption, and if we allow for a non-Persianite Indo-Iranian source, the possibilities are truly endless.

The Chuvash word is probably a later loan and Hungarians had multiple points of contact with both Turkic and Indo-Iranian so insisting on reconstructionist Old Chuvash is not too useful. Crom daba (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty much retired pending a life-style change. I stick around mostly to help people with the organization of content they've come to inherit and contribute an occasional edit or domain knowledge where possible.

I strongly believe that those who do the work should organize the work and others get out of their way, so I won't edit war when I disagree, but I do think that the abstractions you're using here are leaking all over the place and will harm both users and editors.

The matter of how Turkic etymologies should be handled in general should be discussed with all concerned parties (to my knowledge @Allahverdi Verdizade, Anylai, LibCae, Vahagn_Petrosyan, Borovi4ok).

If you insist on using reconstructed languages exclusively for the last common ancestor of monophyletic groups, one possible solution could be reverting to having all non-rhotic varieties inherit from Old Turkic and lump all pre-13th century varieties into it. Crom daba (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We see the same proliferation of this word in Slavic, but no one is clamoring to reconstruct a Proto-Slavic form. --{{victar|talk}} 05:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crom daba, do you objections to the reconstruction of Proto-Oghuz, as per Doerfer? --{{victar|talk}} 20:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Victar Your theory sounds a bit more plausible than Doerfer's, but I'd leave it as "Common Turkic" for above mentioned reasons. You're free to do as you will. Crom daba (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

For some reason I can't create Common Turkic entries, that is why I had to create PT. Common Turkic *čātïr being borrowed from Middle Persian čādur did not seem plausible to me. d-->t and u-->ï is without explanation as Common Turkic should have distinguished these. It seemed more plausible to me that Oghuz *čādïr was realized as *čādur in Middle Persian. -Anylai (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)