User talk:Stegotyranno

etymologies

@Stegotyranno I just wanted to tell that I corrected the etymologies you suggested for Punjabi words ਦਾ (dā), ਨੇੜੇ (nere) and ਬਿਰਛ (birch). The etymology I give for ਦਾ is a bit of speculation suggested by the Hindi article for का (kā), but the other two are confirmed by dictionaries. Exarchus (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

etymologies

While I appreciate the correction on Biracha, i doubt your work on the other etymologies. da is very similar to terms found in Latin, Pashto, Kurdish, and Irish. I doubt such a connection with Ka, and Kada seems to be a compound, not the origin. Secondly Neḍe has a retroflex consonant, which can be derived from the sanskrit consonant cluster -sdh or -sd. In Indo-European to Germanic to English it is able to evolve as -sd(h)>/z/ and sometimes z turns into /r/. So I request you return those pages to the previous status. Stegotyranno (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The clusters -sd- or -sdh- simply do not exist in Sanskrit. If you think ਨੇੜੇ (neṛe) doesn't come from निकट (nikaṭa), well, what's your alternative? Exarchus (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

from PIE->Sanskrit Stegotyranno (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

PIE -sd- can indeed turn into Sanskrit ḍ/ḷ (for example नीड (nīḍá) /नीळ (nīḷá)). So which Sanskrit term does ਨੇੜੇ come from, and which PIE term? And what do these terms have to do with Proto-Germanic *nēhwiz, ultimately derived from PIE *h₂neḱ-? Exarchus (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Now about ਦਾ (dā): if you accept that Hindi का (kā) comes from Sanskrit कृत (kṛtá) (and that is what McGregor suggests, which is not far fetched as one of the meanings of का is 'made of'), then it doesn't seem implausible that Punjabi could have taken the second consonant of a form like 𑀓𑀤 (kada) instead of the first. The declensions (which suggests an origin as adjective, as in a way it still is an adjective) of का and ਦਾ are also very similar.

Anyway, if Sanskrit doesn't have an equivalent of Latin 'dē', then why would Punjabi have one? Exarchus (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because we dont have the "missing link" does not prove nor disprove such a connection. But it makes much more sense for the word to be from PIE form than for it to be derived from a odd and cumbersome manner of semantic changes.

Let me put it this way, maybe you will say this analogy doesnt work for you, but in the study of evolution with transitory fossils, if one is not found, that does not discredit the idea of anagenesis from one taxon to another. If Animal A is living today, and we have distant fossils from animal group C that have similar biologicaltraits to A, that does not prove, nor disprove animal B ever existed because there is not any remains of it recorded in what we do know. That'd make more sense than saying it came from Animal group X which had different feautures, and was only distantly related. That evolved into animal Y, while serving the same ecological niche as A, is composed of different roots. Sanskrit still has some unknown details. Besides this is not the first time such a case occured. A similar connection with Latin et and Punjabi ate (and) was noticed, and later an entry for Sanskrit ata was found and written here. Stegotyranno (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting analogy, but it's clearly wrong in this case, as Sanskrit is very well attested (and definitely basic things like how to express the genitive). It's clear that the system of postpositions in languages like Hindi and Punjabi is an innovation compared to Sanskrit, so yes, these elements can come from other language elements that might not have much in common. If you think the evolution of कृत to का or ਦਾ is cumbersome, then what do you think about the Hindi dative marker को (ko), which comes from Sanskrit कक्षे (kákṣe), locative singular of कक्ष (kákṣa), “armpit” ? (and yes, there are intermediate forms) Exarchus (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

certainly an interesting case. Maybe I am looking at this site the wrong way, if some academics propose a theory, it is the best theory. There can't be any other possible routes to the etymology. Users cannot infer any other possibilities right?

Besides, depsite being superbly attested, Sanskrit still has reconstructed roots, like its ancestors. And grammatical forms can vary between (unattested) vernaculars, and attested forms.

How about we have both etymologies listed, so the readers can see more options? Stegotyranno (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sanskrit roots are not 'reconstructed'. Exarchus (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

i know, the vast majority are not, but there are some Stegotyranno (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And by the way, I also changed the etymology for Pashto د. If the word would be 'lə' instead of 'də', then at least a PIE origin from *de couldn't be excluded on phonetical grounds. Exarchus (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

okay but how about Latin, Kurdish, and Irish similarities Stegotyranno (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether Central Kurdish دا (da) comes from PIE *de, I can't tell, the two uses of دا may have different etymologies, as one is 'de' in Northern Kurdish and the other 'da'. Someone with more knowledge of Iranian languages would obviously be able to tell more about this. (Being able to read this might also help. I'm not sure which Persian 'de' is intended on page 361, maybe the interjection given by Hayyim ?)

About this similary with Latin and Irish, well, those are prepositions while Punjabi ਦਾ is a postposition. ਦਾ is declined like an adjective, while Latin 'dē' and Irish 'de' obviously aren't (Irish 'de' has a kind of declension, but these are contractions with possessive pronouns). On the other hand, Punjabi ਦਾ is functionally identical to Hindi का, it's just that Punjabi has 'd', while Hindi has 'k'. What's your explanation for this? Did 'd' turn into Hindi 'k', or the reverse? Would be rather implausible phonetically. If both would come from a form 'kada', then the solution is easy, as of course it makes sense to have just one syllable for a basic thing like a genitive marker, so 'kada' would've been shortened to 'kā' in Hindi, and to 'dā' in Punjabi.

Phonetical + semantic similarities with other languages can perfectly happen without being etymologically related. There's English 'bad' and Persian بد (bad), with the same meaning, yet unrelated. There's English 'better' and Persian بهتر (behtar), same meaning, not related, not even the comparative suffixes are related (Persian -tar is related to Greek -τερος). Noting similarities like that should simply be the start of doing further research to see whether an etymological link is plausible or not. Exarchus (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

i dont understand why a postposition cannot be equated with a Preposition, just because in modern day they dont line up 100% Stegotyranno (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that is not a big issue. A bigger issue is why it is declined like an adjective. The biggest issue is that you can't give any cognates in either Sanskrit, Prakrits, or other modern Indo-Aryan languages. Exarchus (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)