Talk:ग़ज़ब

@Palaestrator verborum अजब (ajab) is a word too. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: Swell, but not *غَزَب (ḡazab), it’s in no source, not in Hans Wehr, not in obscurity-ridden Steingass, not even once used in any context in Reverso Context. And I have seen enough Arabic “source words” just being invented. So either ग़ज़ब (ġazab) is a variant of अजब (ajab) with the same etymology I have posted or you have to find a completely different one. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Palaestrator verborum: It can't be a variant of अजब (ajab), Hindi borrowings from Arabic are usually very strict in retaining the original form; I've never encountered j > z, and ग़ (ġa) is specifically only used for Perso-Arabic loans. Also ज (ja) and ज़ (za) are never allophones in Standard Hindi. That said, what about قَزَب (qazab, “hardness; strength; severity”) in Steingass? —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 19:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: How does that fit the meaning? Also, that is rare enough not to be included in Hans Wehr or Reverso Context, and it is easy to scroll down to the end in DuckDuckGo searching this word.

But I see in the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary a completely different meaning, “disaster”, “terrible”. The “wonderful” meaning is according to that entry colloquial. But I can relate it with that original meaning to غَزْوَة (ḡazwa), غَزْو (ḡazw) meaning “raid” or “assault”, which also has descendants all over Europe via razzia. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Palaestrator verborum: Hmm, I think you're right, I don't know how I missed that. There are plenty of cites for “disaster”, “terrible” etc. I think you have a good lead for the etymology. I'll expand the entry. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hindi Shabdasagar claims the word is from Arabic غَز (ḡaz). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

lol, found it: غَضَب (ḡaḍab). —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: Hooray! Next problem: How do you determine if a Hindi word comes directly from Arabic or through Persian? Theoretically you need to search the Persian lexicon first, and hope it’s not there, because if it is, you possibly still do not know if the Hindi word is directly from Arabic or through Persian from Arabic. This has lead me to omit the borrowing arrow in descendant tables or Arabic. Now I see why I should read the book Der Islam im indischen Subkontinent by Annemarie Schimmel 1983 that has been on my shelves for some time. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Palaestrator verborum: Most of the time, it is through Persian. For proof, you can see that Urdu spellings (and Urdu is nigh-identical to Hindi, no matter the politics) always matches with the Persian spelling of the borrowed Arabic term. And I see you've noticed that ta marbuta (I think that's what it's called) is retained in words like कायनात (kāynāt), which is also proof of Persian as an intermediate. Not to mention Persian was the court language of the Mughals, and Arabic was limited to religious study among the small Muslim population of India, so historical factors favour Persian as a superstrate. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s ة (tāʾ marbūṭa), but कायनात (kāynāt) is no such case as it has loaned a plural word (that word is a plurale tantum). The sound (i.e. non-broken) feminine plural ending in Arabic is ـَات (-āt) and it under no pronunciation or circumstance loses it’s /t/. (Vulgar pronunciations of Arabic can pronounce intervocalic hamza as /j/, that’s where the Hindi second consonant comes from). But now I see I have at least to read about the phonetics of Hindi to be more sure what Hindi adds and transforms by itself, which would presuppose learning the script more or less. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Palaestrator verborum: My mistake, I meant diff. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)