Talk:جاسوس

The word Jasus originated from middle persian. Not from syriac

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4030944?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents

according to this source, the word jasus is of middle persian origin and was borrowed by arabic. It then made its way into new persian. 216.181.132.21 22:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know why so many people are stans of this paper. The conclusion of an Aramaic mediation is likelihoodwise compelling. Fay Freak (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me a source that contradicts the claim that the word jasus is not of persian origin? 216.181.132.21 01:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

1. You don’t care much about the exact thinking upon which etymological papers have to be written so I won’t seek out any sources for you.

2. You still completely ignore the circumstance that our etymology does not even contradict it but we do discuss “Persian” influence but at the Syriac entry so this Arabic could mediately be “of Persian origin”;

3. nor are we required to mirror everything stated in some paper but Wiktionary knowingly contradicts other publications within reason, and the reason I already have laid bare, which should satisfy anyone—you have not succeeded in arguing against.

4. the D.Y. Shapira in the reference list explicitly shares our position as outlined in the etymology that the direct source of the Arabic is Classical Syriac. Fay Freak (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not an experienced wikipedia editor, or an editor at all. I simply asked a question and wished for it to be answered out of courtesy, not out of necessity. I have no expectation for you to change anything and I do not intend on "arguing against" you. I am simply trying to learn. I now understand that the direct source of the arabic is classical Syriac. However I do not understand why some words are traced back to their origin in one page, for example: arabic to Syriac to middle Iranian.. and some aren't, like this one. Is it simply the source of the jstor paper? Or are there other reasons? Once again, I am not trying to argue, nor am I trying to change anything or criticize your work. I posted the Jstor link because I thought that you were unaware of it (which I was wrong), then I asked for a source that claims that the word jasus is not of Persian origin (which is what I wrongly thought what you were claiming). Obviously, you have no obligation to respond but I would appreciate it if you would. Thank you. 99.209.41.22 16:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it would lead to a lot of duplication, which we use to avoid, the most weighty consideration being that pages become out of sync if a detail is changed on one page but not the other: naturally duplication is especially avoided then with uncertain etymologies, such as words influencing each other or combinations of multiple sources within a word, or the more we go back in antiquity and the attestation situation becomes rudimentary.

Why would we copy anyway? People can just click through if they are really into those details. There are a lot Slavic individual pages, for example, which you can trace back to a single Proto-Slavic form, but then there are multiple explanations; it would be unclean to copy everything written under the etymology section of *broščь to her descendants—it’s not even strictly their etymology.

Given that this is a dictionary for multiple languages it was silly in the first place to assume that every word includes all origin information to the very end that is known without the additional effort of the reader clicking. Fay Freak (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable. Thank you for answering my question. 216.181.132.21 23:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)