Talk:هزینه

Etymology

@Fay Freak Is this etymology correct? I doubt it... — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 13:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fenakhay: No, the spelling is too dubious, it should be Book Pahlavi ʾwcynk' as in {{R:pal:Mackenzie:1971|page=85}} and you find it in some transcribed documents with the string "wcynk'" on Google Books. What happened to Pahlavica, @Vahagn Petrosyan? Were the Russians behind it? I liked to check Middle Persian attested forms from it. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

How would I know about Pahlavica? :) The etymology given here is the standard one accepted in the literature. The problem of h- is described in Hassandoust, but I don't know Persian. The family of Arabic خَزِينَة (ḵazīna) may also belong here. Vahag (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Well, maybe there was a site move without redirects that passed by me, or some Iranists told you, though we are frequently missing them. Arabic خَزِينَة (ḵazīna) has a normal Arabic pattern and there are other words in the root formula خ ز ن from which it may have been derived, ultimately the well-known word as behind كَنْز (kanz) – seems more likely to me at least, the semantics are as expected there, while there are some problems with “cost” → ”treasury” (thought it be a place from which one covers costs) and ∅ or /h/ → خ (ḵ), although it would be otherwise if Arabic خَزِينَة (ḵazīna) was an artificial word created by creative administration from both strains of word material. Fay Freak (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)