Talk:безымянный

Relevance of the Persian word in the etymology

@Useigor: Just because ЭССЯ mentions it, doesn't mean we necessarily should. I don't see the relevance even if the morphemes are related, because the process is transparent (it's not as though we need to show a parallel development to explain why the process makes sense) and there is no reason to believe the words actually influenced each other. --WikiTiki89 16:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 for me it's interesting to know that there is parallel in Persian, luckily etymology is not overburdened. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Useigor: Why is it any more interesting than English nameless, Turkish adsız, or Finnish nimetön? Or than Polish bezimienny or Serbo-Croatian bezimen for that matter? If you find it interesting that بی (bi) is related to без- (bez-) and نام (nâm) to и́мя (ímja), then add these cognates to those individual pages themselves; I still see no need to have them here. --WikiTiki89 19:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: English -less, Turkish -siz and Finnish -ton are not related, that's why they aren't interesting. Polish bezimienny, Serbo-Croatian bezimen are obvious, i'm too lazy to add them. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wikitiki89. The Persian example is irrelevant here but any language comparison is interesting ... in a proper place.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Useigor: It is not the compound that is related, it is the individual parts. So you can mention the relationship between the individual parts on the pages of the individual parts. --WikiTiki89 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Wikitiki89 and where this Persian could be mentioned? It's not cognate but it's not unrelated. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

On a language forum? In a Russian Wiktionary of the Persian entry or the other way around. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)