Reconstruction talk:Proto-Iranian/tatr̥wáh
Add topicMissed forms
[edit]@Victar, Tropylium:. Well-known it is that Neo-Persian resolves the Middle Persian consonat clusters dr, tr by anaptyxis, and that it drops coda g. I am in doubt now therefore and in view of Arabic تَدْرُج (tadruj, “pheasant”) that the “ttl /tatar(w)/” accurately represents the Middle Persian form. The word for francolin, now without etymology, Persian تراج (turāj), دراج (durāj), Arabic دُرَّاج (durrāj, “phasanid”) I recognize as identical (because meaning is important), and they point toward a /ɡ/ as well as the first Arabic form and comparanda like طَيْهُوج (ṭayhūj, “grouse”). Suppressing the purported Indo-European cognates, will this even lead to the reconstruction of an other Proto-Iranian form? Especially since such long-range comparisons for onomatopoeic bird-names as well as the references given are frowned upon – although I until now ignored this consideration seeing that all this comparison was even good enough for Victar. Well I at least point towards that there is something left to explain. Fay Freak (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: The Arabic forms look pretty clearly to be borrowed from unattested Persian *tudrāg, *tadrug, which is easily derived from *tatr̥wáh; compare Old Armenian տատրակ (tatrak). As for dr > rr, is that Semitic a thing? I can only venture at dr > rd > l in Iranian. -
{{victar|talk}}19:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)- @Victar: No, it isn’t a Semitic thing, it doesn’t remind me of anything at all. And the geminate rr I presume only secondarily comes from alignment with a known Arabic pattern (such as in قُفَّاز (quffāz)) and عُكَّاز (ʕukkāz); though KuLāM without geminate is also pattern, however not with the same meanings). Such gemination being given also for Persian (Vullers, Johann August (1855) “دُرّاج”, in Lexicon Persico-Latinum etymologicum cum linguis maxime cognatis Sanscrita et Zendica et Pehlevica comparatum, e lexicis persice scriptis Borhâni Qâtiu, Haft Qulzum et Bahâri agam et persico-turcico Farhangi-Shuûrî confectum, adhibitis etiam Castelli, Meninski, Richardson et aliorum operibus et auctoritate scriptorum Persicorum adauctum[1] (in Latin), volume I, Gießen: J. Ricker, page 819b labelled “Arabic”) rather comes from the authors of medieval dictionaries not distinguishing the languages, it’s the Middle Ages we talk about after all; the vocalization and consonantism taḏaruj there (so also in Dihḵudā) suggested is also a mix, of the Neo-Persian form into the Arabic borrowing, and it surely was tadruj in Arabic in the Middle Ages as now. So has the well-known ending -ag the variants -āg and -ug and -ūg, and was there just a vocalism metathesis after one has not understood the suffix -ug, -ūg (as also in کندو (kandū), آهو (āhū), آلو (ālū)) anymore? I would yet have to find a historical Persian morphology. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would actually more expect the outcome of PIr. *tatr̥wáh to be Middle Persian *tadurw with labial rounding, compare the Old Median. Vocal assimilation of a > u is pretty common in MP: *tadurw (> *tudurw) > *tadurug, *tudurāg > Pers. *tadrug, *tudrāg. --
{{victar|talk}}03:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)- @Victar: Aha, so the trailing w conditions the -ag to become -ug. Surprising though that Neo-Persian would resolve dur to dr, although it is not wholly impossible, it reminds me of words like بادرنگ (bâdrang). A question we failed to expound is, where does the ج (g) in the Persian francolin words as opposed to گ (g) come from? Hardly from Arabic, as we also have تراج (turāj), unless this form is a blend of دراج (durāj), which we indeed deem borrowed from Arabic, with تذرو (taḏarw). I already recognized blends of Arabic into Persian so I guess this is a not too crazy solution. Neo-Persian reconstructions >? Classical Persian: *تدرگ (*tadrug), *تدراگ (*tudrāg), *دتراگ (*dutrāg), are unneeded then.
- Has Arabic زُرَّق (zurraq, “white falcon, merlin”) and what is mentioned there had an influence, is it maybe even the same word? Dihḵudā sub voce دراج (durāj) appears to know زراج (zurāj), زرج (zurj), زرچ (zurč) as forms. Fay Freak (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would actually more expect the outcome of PIr. *tatr̥wáh to be Middle Persian *tadurw with labial rounding, compare the Old Median. Vocal assimilation of a > u is pretty common in MP: *tadurw (> *tudurw) > *tadurug, *tudurāg > Pers. *tadrug, *tudrāg. --
- @Victar: No, it isn’t a Semitic thing, it doesn’t remind me of anything at all. And the geminate rr I presume only secondarily comes from alignment with a known Arabic pattern (such as in قُفَّاز (quffāz)) and عُكَّاز (ʕukkāz); though KuLāM without geminate is also pattern, however not with the same meanings). Such gemination being given also for Persian (Vullers, Johann August (1855) “دُرّاج”, in Lexicon Persico-Latinum etymologicum cum linguis maxime cognatis Sanscrita et Zendica et Pehlevica comparatum, e lexicis persice scriptis Borhâni Qâtiu, Haft Qulzum et Bahâri agam et persico-turcico Farhangi-Shuûrî confectum, adhibitis etiam Castelli, Meninski, Richardson et aliorum operibus et auctoritate scriptorum Persicorum adauctum[1] (in Latin), volume I, Gießen: J. Ricker, page 819b labelled “Arabic”) rather comes from the authors of medieval dictionaries not distinguishing the languages, it’s the Middle Ages we talk about after all; the vocalization and consonantism taḏaruj there (so also in Dihḵudā) suggested is also a mix, of the Neo-Persian form into the Arabic borrowing, and it surely was tadruj in Arabic in the Middle Ages as now. So has the well-known ending -ag the variants -āg and -ug and -ūg, and was there just a vocalism metathesis after one has not understood the suffix -ug, -ūg (as also in کندو (kandū), آهو (āhū), آلو (ālū)) anymore? I would yet have to find a historical Persian morphology. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)