Talk:կարաս

@Fay Freak, could you please also add the Syriac "pitcher" and Official Aramaic "a type of small container" here with scripts? --Vahag (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: The second is Aramaic כרז / כרוז (“a type of container”) I already mentioned at كُرَّاز (kurrāz), also after Fraenkel (he says כרוז is found in a Palestinian Aramaic locus), I refrained to add it because we don’t even have the vocalization. If we knew it to be karrāz, we would know it is the same as the Arabic term. The Syriac is the same spelling as ܟܱܪܳܙܳܐ (karrāzā, “ram, bell-wether”), provided that the dictionaries have correctly assigned it to the same vocalization (as have CAL and Brockelmann according to Bar Bahlul: “1. vervex, dux gregis; 2. urceus”). Fay Freak (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, I wasn't attentive. The connection with Arabic kurrāz is already discussed in Ačaṙyan and rejected, because it is supposedly a native formation from a root k-r-z, also in kirūz ‘to hide’ and mukāraza ‘to ran away and hide’, with reference to {{R:ar:Qamus|page=197|vol=II}}. --Vahag (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan The first is correctly written كُرُوز‎ (kurūz) (kirūz does not exist at all in Arabic), verbal noun of كَرَزَ (karaza) which I dared to add, the second مُكَارَزَة (mukāraza) is the verbal noun of a كَارَزَ (kāraza). I hope Ačaṙyan hasn’t thought that the verbal nouns are the citation forms for Arabic verbs. Else, to have it said, his derivation is applesauce, because 1. these verbs are totally unknown (I still wait for comparisons and quotes, with but little hope), and the other things of this root formula are identified borrowings 2. Such meanings are no way close to make a connection plausible (the meaning is rather given as “to flee, to hide oneself”, not in the sense of hiding supplies in a container; possibly a rare imitative verb) 3. if one still formed a container name, it would hardly have this pattern. This pattern is of restricted use. Wolfdietrich Fischer in his Grammar of Classical Arabic § 77 sees فُعَّال (fuʕʕāl) as a pattern for animal and plant names only, and فُعَال (fuʕāl) as reserved for names of diseases. And for the first group, which he might not have realized, his two examples are loanwords (he lists رُمَّان (rummān, “pomegranate”) and تُفَّاح (tuffāḥ, “apple”)); I see sometimes also diseases in it, but the examples with this pattern seem to be modern and of questionable correctness, like دُمَّال (dummāl) which I do encounter but dictionaries do not list instead of دُمَّل (dummal) and خُرَّاج (ḵurrāj) instead of خُرَاج (ḵurāj). Apart from a rarely encountered adjective formation فُعَّال (fuʕʕāl) and the frequent plural formation فُعَّال (fuʕʕāl) – which is inflection and not derivation – the pattern is thus a reliable marker for loanwords, and here the Arabic word is marked by its pattern as a loanword twice since we have two patterns كُرَّاز (kurrāz) and كُرَاز (kurāz).
It might be worth for you to have the Grammatik des Klassischen Arabisch (2006) of Wolfdietrich Fischer because it contains an index of patterns and it pays particular attention to the old-classical language. Fay Freak (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe you that the Arabic is a loanword. Its connection with Armenian is possible, but we can't be certain without finding the ultimate origin of these words and clarifying the interrelationship. There is also supposedly the synonymous Mordvinic karašja mentioned by Acharyan, but I do not find such a word. --Vahag (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)