Talk:فلاح

Impenetrability

Could someone who both understands the origin of this word and how to write clearly in English please attempt to put some sense on the somewhat turgid prose in which the Etymology section is currently written? -- Picapica (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Picapica What aboot this? Fay Freak (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, FF. I believe I understand now what the original formulation was trying to say! I hope you find my re-edit acceptable. -- Picapica (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Picapica Ay lmao, not it is not acceptable, since that Aramaic word is the noun (I have not glossed it but it has entries on Wiktionary, so …). The question is whether the Arabic noun is borrowed from the Aramaic noun. This is very likely if you look at how rare the Arabic verb is (not easy to find) and at how well-developed the Aramaic verb is in contrast, though of course we have no more than scarce records of what actually happened back in the day. The theory here is is that the Arabic verb is a denominal verb. The way you have formulated now the Arabic verb would be from the Aramaic noun and then the Arabic noun formed secondarily from a borrowed verb and only then we would have an Arabic noun that corresponds to the Aramaic noun, which isn’t the story. (Plus take care of the word choice: Nominalization is hardly ever a word we can use for Arabic, it is what you say for lexical conversion.) Fay Freak (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)