Talk:اشکیل

Persian vs. Arabic form

The correspondence is somewhat irregular. The Arabic looks perfectly native, and this Persian form is unexpected. I assumed a taḥrīf in Persian, which is however bold but thinkable for farriery, or there misses an alternative form. *إِشْكِيل (*ʔiškīl) would be another pattern but it does not exist for this case in Arabic. @Calak, do you find other Iranian words which could challenge or enrich our etymologies? Surely at least you find some that will enrich the translation table at hobble (where I have already added a lot of Turkic and Mongolic words – it does not seem to appear in Turkic or Mongolic at least).
Perhaps @Vahagn Petrosyan will also find this or that, at least we can ping him because he likely might fancy to add something Armenian, if not other Caucasian things. This farriery stuff is often ignored beyond the name of the farrier himself and the hooves and is a gap to fill. We have yet to make a translation table for twitch or barnacle (→ زِيَار (ziyār)) too (this being more or less the same?). Fay Freak (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I added what I could. For this Arabic word I can offer only Old Armenian շիգղ (šigł), the comparison with which Ačaṙyan rejects. --Vahag (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

An unrelated English grammar question: is "the comparison with which Ačaṙyan rejects" cromulent? I know you can do that in Russian, and although it's true you can say "the like of which I've never seen", here I'd maybe write "which Ačaṙyan rejects the comparison with" or "with which Ačaṙyan rejects the comparison". But none of the three options completely convinces me, in fact. @Equinox? Canonicalization (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I was consciously calquing the Armenian syntax when I wrote it. --Vahag (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It is, especially in Latinate grammar. Like you can put a preposition in front of a relative pronoun but the colloquial puts it at the end. And as it does not sound too odd in any case you can use it as you prefer it. Fay Freak (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I am doubtful about this etymology. In Kurdish we have ئەشکێڵ (eşkêll, “diameter, diagonal”), ئەشکێڵکِردِن (eşkêllkirdin, “tie the feet together and throw (animal)”). We can explain vowel ē (in New Persin i) an imāla, but the problem is prothesis a which regularly is from MIr. consonant cluster šk-. In Kurdish we have also ئەشکۆڵ (eşkoll), ئەشکەڵە (eşkelle, “a wood thing to close door; a wood thing to pitch a tent; a wood instruments of torture”). Compare also Persian اشکلک (eškelak, “a wood instruments of torture”).--Calak (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Calak I have added this to شِكَال (šikāl), conjecturing reasons for why the Arabic is borrowed. The etymology retains darkness. Maybe @Profes.I. knows more with his bounteous historical knowledge. Fay Freak (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Calak I just created ب ز م (b-z-m) and thought myself already smart by relating everything given under و ز م (w-z-m) to it when I discovered that this might all be Iranian, from a meaning “binding”; the suffix I came to knew again two days ago at Persian زلف (zulf), and rather than refuting Irman’s Middle Persian theory I corroborated it by finding the variation و ~ ب in Persian, as is so common. You probably know even more comparisons. Though for “bundle” I also know حُزْمَة (ḥuzma) and رِْزْمَة (rizma), those other shapes gave more impression of foreignness. Fay Freak (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)