Talk:քութէշ
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Fay Freak
@Fay Freak, the first quote here has հարսանիթէ (harsanitʻē) or հարսանիթ (harsanitʻ) as a synonym of քութէշ (kʻutʻēš). It is supposedly a loanword from Arabic ḥarasān. Can you find such a word in Arabic and which disease does it mean? --Vahag (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: I can’t find it. Which does not mean it did not exist – especially the field of disease names in the Middle Ages is a black hole. It would be from the root ح ر ش (ḥ-r-š) (*حَرَشَان (*ḥarašān)). The suffix however points to it being Aramaic, same suffix as in ܥܪܛܢܝܬܐ (ʿarṭānīṯā), ܟܟܪܝܬܐ (kakkārīṯā), ܚܠܕܝܬܐ (ḥallādīṯā), ܙܓܘܓܝܬܐ (zḡūḡīṯā), which makes a match even more lucky, Fay Freak (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're right, I found a suitable Aramaic term. --Vahag (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: Yes, I should have remembered this entry in CAL. You are right that the Arabic root is cognate, as PS s₂ makes Arabic š and Aramaic s. We see here that many of the Aramaic formations must have been lost. The attestation situation for this skin disease name is reverse to بَهَق (bahaq), where the Arabic is from a skin disease term which is only attested with the ending -īṯā in Aramaic not present in the borrowing. Not even the name of the plague طَاعُون (ṭāʕūn) seems to be attested, and بَاصُور (bāṣūr, “hemorrhoid”) is from another unattested term. These are all circumstances which give us more confidence that our etymology is exactly true to the facts. Maybe this skin disease name بَهَق (bahaq) is also found in Armenian. Fay Freak (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Don't know about Aramaic, but many medieval Armenian medical works remain unpublished. These unattested Aramaic forms may be buried in the manuscripts. بَهَق (bahaq) has indeed been borrowed. --Vahag (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: Here is a list of Syriac editions and translations yet in preparation, so the supplies will not dry up for someone who wants to read Syriac in the 21st century – although I do not see medical works there, these may come too. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Don't know about Aramaic, but many medieval Armenian medical works remain unpublished. These unattested Aramaic forms may be buried in the manuscripts. بَهَق (bahaq) has indeed been borrowed. --Vahag (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: Yes, I should have remembered this entry in CAL. You are right that the Arabic root is cognate, as PS s₂ makes Arabic š and Aramaic s. We see here that many of the Aramaic formations must have been lost. The attestation situation for this skin disease name is reverse to بَهَق (bahaq), where the Arabic is from a skin disease term which is only attested with the ending -īṯā in Aramaic not present in the borrowing. Not even the name of the plague طَاعُون (ṭāʕūn) seems to be attested, and بَاصُور (bāṣūr, “hemorrhoid”) is from another unattested term. These are all circumstances which give us more confidence that our etymology is exactly true to the facts. Maybe this skin disease name بَهَق (bahaq) is also found in Armenian. Fay Freak (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're right, I found a suitable Aramaic term. --Vahag (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)