Reconstruction talk:Proto-Georgian-Zan/šol-

@Vahagn_Petrosyan, @Fay_Freak: see the forms compared by Chukhua. They look even closer to Semitic. კვარია (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess that means that the Proto-Georgian-Zan term is a Northeast Caucasian borrowing, since Northeast Caucasian preserves a more primitive meaning “branch, bough”, whips being made from branches or boughs primitively. The Semitic terms took a different path then, bypassing the /l/ in Georgian-Zan and hinting at the original meaning in Jewish Literary Aramaic, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic שׁוֹטִיתָא (šōṭīṯā), שׁוֹטְיָא (šōṭəyā, “staff, cane, branch”). Fay Freak (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say Mingrelian preserves the primitive meaning: see Mingrelian შორტი (šorṭi), შქვერთი (škverti), შორდი (šordi), შვერთი (šverti). If Semitic really has no etymology, this could be some kind of wanderwort. კვარია (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, I can’t really tell what the presence of the liquid in Georgian-Zan and its absence in NEC tells us. But as we see that the bough/branch/wood-strip meanings are more primitive and Mingrelian has them mainly, I reason that they, i.e. something like a long strip or large superficial cut of wood from a branch, were the meaning of the Proto-Georgian-Zan word—if it existed at all. It may of course have been borrowed separately after the proto-stage. The variation within the Kartvelian group may be an argument for this (or not, depending on how regular). You/Kartvelianists only made the proto entry because of the bias of not knowing the word in another language group where it could be native. Fay Freak (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Georgian შოლტი (šolṭi) ~ Mingrelian შქვერთი (škverti) < შქორთი (škorti) is *perfectly* regular. ტ (ṭ) vs თ (t) isn't a show-stopper at all, in fact it's irrelevant. As for the meaning of "whip" in Proto form, I had to rely on Čuxua for this because Fähnrich never provides the basic meaning of the Proto form itself (which I find really annoying to be honest). I'm open to suggestions though.

Also if you recall, I was always open to consider this an ancient borrowing during the times of Karto-Zan unity (so ~7th century BC). კვარია (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am also inclining to that then. I guess you also find more cognates for our wanderwort reflected as Arabic مِلَاط (milāṭ), @კვარია? The structure is alike and I see no sound swap typical of Semitic here. Fay Freak (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There is also Akkadian šarāṭu "tear into strips", Arabic شـَرّطَ (šarraṭa, “made it into stripes”), شَرِيط (šarīṭ, “strip”). These seem to be native Semitic. PS. Kvaria, it is not a good idea to create a full entry for each alternative reconstruction. Please use Template:alternative reconstruction of to avoid duplication. Vahag (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I was going to ask you to merge them anyhow. Personally I prefer Čuxua's reconstruction for this, but Fähnrich is Fähnrich. კვარია (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@კვარია: I found Laz შორთი (şorti, “şerit, kordon”) in {{R:lzz:BLS}}, with a usage example ნჯონი შორთი შორთი შკორუმტეს (nconi şorti şorti şǩorumťes, “they would cut the skin into strips”). A borrowing from Georgian? Vahag (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps. The თ ~ ტ (t ~ ť) irregularity is already attested in Georgian's supposed Mingrelian cognate and I'm going to assume it can't be from Turkish (← Arabic) due to vocalism. And once again Arabic شَرِيط (šarīṭ) is similar. We should just move Semitic comparisons to this page from OGE. კვარია (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that the alternation of aspirated ~ unaspirated is very irregular in Kartvelian. For example, in ჩლიქი (čliki). Vahag (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)