Talk:mezquita
Add topicLatest comment: 4 years ago by Metaknowledge
@Fay Freak: The Spanish entry here is asking for an Andalusian Arabic term, but I'm not sure that's appropriate here, as the Andalusian seems to be identical to CA. Is there any historically plausible dialectal form that can explain this, Old Galician-Portuguese mesquita, and Berber (e.g. Central Atlas Tamazight ⵜⵉⵎⴻⵣⴳⵉⴷⴰ (timezgida)), which all reflect ج as /g ~ k/ and a feminine noun? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: People always phantasize more difference between Andalusi Arabic and Classical Arabic than there was, while Andalusi Arabic counted as the most conservative of the dialects; so these requests are usually to be removed. The reason for this shape is unknown. Fay Freak (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The European forms with -g- are often explained by mediation of Middle Armenian մզկիթ (mzkitʻ) during the Crusades, but I remember reading that this is incorrect. Unfortunately, I do not remember where I read it. See also User_talk:ZxxZxxZ/Archive_2#mazgit. --Vahag (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Intriguing. The Armenian is geographically implausible, but it also fails to explain the feminine form in Iberian Romance and Berber. The Greek seems like it may be misleading, both by morphological change and by late enough attestation that the gamma is palatalised. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- This thread offers an explanation: https://twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1063778562996666369. --Vahag (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! The idea of Aramaic travelling along with the Arab conquests had not occurred to me. Al-Jallad helpfully put this hypothesis in a paper we can cite. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- What Ahmed Al-Jallad implies I understand but find hard to imagine: Arabic speakers using a frequently-needed word in a shape foreign to the phonological system of their language? Or was it instead borrowed from Aramaic-speaking Christians, as Christian Romance speakers had more contact with them even if they were rarer? The encoding, Metaknowledge, needs to be from Nabataean codeblock, you even see the photo of the inscription in the Twitter thread; I already did it in the descendant list of مَسْجِد (masjid) after reading the paper of Schwally, who considers the Arabic word a new formation in Arabic though the corresponding verb be borrowed from Aramaic, and the Syriac a borrowing from Arabic (and the Nabataean, I understood). I found this all easy to believe for the rarity of the word in Aramaic, but this belief is also easily disspelled by seeing that the Official Aramaic is attested in the 5th century BCE. It is probably regional Aramaic and the Syriac and Mandaic is borrowed nonetheless from Arabic. Fay Freak (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: 1. Al-Jallad claims there is an Oromo comparandum on Twitter but does not produce it (and my Oromo book gives a completely different word). If this shape is only in Greek, Romance, and Berber, then we are limited to Christian communities (at the time of the conquest), so that could explain it. In any case, I think it is useful to give as an alternate hypothesis. 2. I cannot read that script; would you mind adding it in as appropriate? 3. The descendants list at مَسْجِد (masjid) is really pretty shoddy, and places a bunch of Persian-mediated and Ge'ez-mediated words as coming directly from Arabic, among other problems. I would like to add more descendants to it, but it could use some attention first from someone like you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I hope I have made it less shoddy now. The most is now at an Imperial Aramaic page. Fay Freak (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, matters are better now and I have just made a couple edits. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I hope I have made it less shoddy now. The most is now at an Imperial Aramaic page. Fay Freak (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: 1. Al-Jallad claims there is an Oromo comparandum on Twitter but does not produce it (and my Oromo book gives a completely different word). If this shape is only in Greek, Romance, and Berber, then we are limited to Christian communities (at the time of the conquest), so that could explain it. In any case, I think it is useful to give as an alternate hypothesis. 2. I cannot read that script; would you mind adding it in as appropriate? 3. The descendants list at مَسْجِد (masjid) is really pretty shoddy, and places a bunch of Persian-mediated and Ge'ez-mediated words as coming directly from Arabic, among other problems. I would like to add more descendants to it, but it could use some attention first from someone like you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- What Ahmed Al-Jallad implies I understand but find hard to imagine: Arabic speakers using a frequently-needed word in a shape foreign to the phonological system of their language? Or was it instead borrowed from Aramaic-speaking Christians, as Christian Romance speakers had more contact with them even if they were rarer? The encoding, Metaknowledge, needs to be from Nabataean codeblock, you even see the photo of the inscription in the Twitter thread; I already did it in the descendant list of مَسْجِد (masjid) after reading the paper of Schwally, who considers the Arabic word a new formation in Arabic though the corresponding verb be borrowed from Aramaic, and the Syriac a borrowing from Arabic (and the Nabataean, I understood). I found this all easy to believe for the rarity of the word in Aramaic, but this belief is also easily disspelled by seeing that the Official Aramaic is attested in the 5th century BCE. It is probably regional Aramaic and the Syriac and Mandaic is borrowed nonetheless from Arabic. Fay Freak (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! The idea of Aramaic travelling along with the Arab conquests had not occurred to me. Al-Jallad helpfully put this hypothesis in a paper we can cite. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- This thread offers an explanation: https://twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1063778562996666369. --Vahag (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Intriguing. The Armenian is geographically implausible, but it also fails to explain the feminine form in Iberian Romance and Berber. The Greek seems like it may be misleading, both by morphological change and by late enough attestation that the gamma is palatalised. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- The European forms with -g- are often explained by mediation of Middle Armenian մզկիթ (mzkitʻ) during the Crusades, but I remember reading that this is incorrect. Unfortunately, I do not remember where I read it. See also User_talk:ZxxZxxZ/Archive_2#mazgit. --Vahag (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)