Talk:تپسی
Add topicThe purported Middle Chinese origin of this word is problematic, because the character 碟 (dié) was not attested in Middle Chinese. Moreover, the character 子 is a Mandarin suffix, and is generally not used as a suffix in Middle Chinese.
Another term 楪子 (diézi, “type of lacquerware plate”) exists in Chinese literature, but its reconstructed reading in Middle Chinese is /jiɛp̚ t͡sɨ/ which is slightly different from تپسی (tepsi). Coincidentally, other unrelated characters 喋,堞,惵,牒,蝶,蹀 which are Mandarin homophones of 碟 (dié) have the reconstructed MC reading /dep̚/.
For comparison, here are the modern Sino-Japanese and Sino-Korean readings of 楪子 (diézi) (diézi in Mandarin):
Since the initial syllable in تپسی (tepsi) does not match well with that of Middle Chinese 楪子 (diézi) or its Sino-Japanese/Sino-Korean readings, I have removed the etymology for now. KevinUp (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Update: 疊子 (MC dep tsiX, “small dish; plate”) is attested during Tang dynasty (618-907 AD) and is phonologically similar. However, Middle Chinese (6th to 10th century) is not contemporaneous with Ottoman Turkish (1500-1928 AD), so the term is still missing some of its ancestors. KevinUp (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- @KevinUp: So, resolved, I guess? Thanks!? There is no expectation for ancestors, as Ottoman Turkish, or Old Anatolian Turkish, is not attested before the 13th century, which puts us not many centuries farther, and for any other intermediate Turkic languages that there were it is yet controverted what there was with which relation, as seen on my talkpage. What could even be a speculated chain?
{{R:trk:Clauson}}treating the word on page 445b (who by the way gives as the Chinese source term tieh tzǔ) gives as other languages the term is attested in: Old Uyghur from the VIIIth century (!), Xākānī from the XIth, Khwarezmian from the XIVth, Koman from the XIVth, Kipchak from the XVth, strangely Ottoman from the XVIII’s. Fay Freak (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @KevinUp: So, resolved, I guess? Thanks!? There is no expectation for ancestors, as Ottoman Turkish, or Old Anatolian Turkish, is not attested before the 13th century, which puts us not many centuries farther, and for any other intermediate Turkic languages that there were it is yet controverted what there was with which relation, as seen on my talkpage. What could even be a speculated chain?