Talk:կապիճ

Borrowing from Aramaic can't explain Arm. -č. It is a loanword from early MIr. like dahlič.--Calak (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan ?--Calak (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Calak, Fay Freak, despite Ritner, the Iranian origin of the Armenian is almost universally accepted. For the ending compare դահլիճ (dahlič), դահիճ (dahič), դարգիճ (dargič), all Iranian borrowings.

@Fay Freak, I wonder why you took Demotic as the ultimate origin in قَفِيز (qafīz). Your sources and also Ciancaglini derive all the cognates ultimately from Old Iranian *kapīča-, with the Iranian suffix -īča. Demotic too must be borrowed. Further origin is uncertain. Olsen suggests PIE *keh₂p- (“fassen”). Dalalyan derives from Urartian kapi- with the Iranian suffix (take this with a grain of salt, he is not a careful scholar).

Georgian / Laz forms with წ (c̣) are puzzling. They correspond to Mandaic ṣ. --Vahag (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan Ritner is a bit obscure in his expressions, avoiding to state an origin distinctly, or it is not even the subject of the paper. He states that “the term has received problematic treatment from Iranists.” Combined with his claim that Armenian comes from Aramaic I extrapolated that this measure went Egyptian/Demotic → Aramaic → Iranian, with this piece by Rüdiger Schmitt there stating that it has reached Kartvelian and Ossetian via Armenian (which also Dalalyan), But the sentence that the jar dealed with is a “bottle certainly calibrated in a foreign standard” is revealing. It could suggest that this Demotic word denotes a foreign measure. Though apparently the Demotic is the oldest attested sample of the word, it is not the origin then. Well but we also have Akkadian 𒆏𒁍 (/⁠kappu⁠/, ““a small serving container””) (CAD 8, 189a) and Urartian 𒅗𒉿 (ka-pi /⁠kapi⁠/, “a grain measure”). What Dalalyan suggests is not even far-fetched if the Urartian is attested 33 times, going by frequency. I point out that only the ending of Iranian has suggested to people that it is of Iranian origin. If you take into account that the measure could have just been a suffigation of an earlier form (as measures often do, like for diminutives), the whole card house falls. And you see yourself that the ending in some languages is a bit puzzling, like Aramaic (and Arabic) having /z/ and /ṣ/ rather than /š/. You compare դահիճ (dahič) which with the Iranian ending has Classical Syriac ܕܚܫܐ (daḥšā).

Little I lean. We will presumably never know, because of the phonemes /k/ and /p/ being in the game, which are of the most frequent, spawning random correspondences, with causality not known if not stated in original texts. Fay Freak (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current cautious language at قَفِيز (qafīz). --Vahag (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Just noting here that Corriente, Federico, Pereira, Christophe, Vicente, Angeles, editors (2017), Dictionnaire du faisceau dialectal arabe andalou. Perspectives phraséologiques et étymologiques (in French), Berlin: De Gruyter, →ISBN, page 1049 naively thinks the “Pehlevi” is “probablement d’origine égyptienne ancienne“; apparently not realizing the complex attestation of similar terms. Fay Freak (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Also Hittite kappi- ‘dry measure’, from which the Urartian may be borrowed: https://books.google.am/books?id=l-FokDnmCfIC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=%22kappi%22+%22dry+measure%22. --Vahag (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

We will find it difficult to judge whether an Urartian word is borrowed from Hittite, vel sim. Fay Freak (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)