Talk:کاسه

@Aryamanarora @JohnC5 I hope this entry is correct. However, there's a small problem and I need help: Old Persian is not fitting in and yet I'm totally sure it's a cognate. PII *č should have yielded PIr *č and from there, Old Persian /c/. And yet there's an /s/ not only in Old Persian but in Baluchi as well. What could the explanation be?
PS: Right now I've entered the Baluchi term as borrowed from Middle Persian although this is conjecture as I do not know if Baluchi borrowed terms from MP. माधवपंडित (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

@माधवपंडित what is your source for the connection to Proto-Semitic *kaʾs (“cup”)? Also, is the laryngeal based on this theorised connect? The ā could have just as easily derived from an open o. --Victar (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Victar: Well when i created this reconstruction I used to refer to starling.rinet.ru for my information which believes in the Nostratic theory and suggested the Semitic connection/borrowing. The exact particular Indo-Iranian entry (which reconstructed the laryngeal) has been taken down but you can see some of their work here. Only later did I realize that most of the etymological info available there is dubious. Interestingly, I just noticed that the entry for the Persian descendant on this project also lists Arabic and Hebrew cognate words. Frankly speaking there's too much wrong with this entry with the Iranian descendants not matching exactly. Persian may have borrowed directly from Arabic. The iranian descendants mean a container whereas the Aryan descendants refer to the material. If you wish to add a {{speedy}} to this entry, I have no objections. -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)