Open main menu

User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan



Hello Vahagn! May I wish you to make the above blue so as to finish up the following instances of a likely Eurasian w:Wanderwort?

KYPark (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Not you again and your crazy theories. --Vahag (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, anyway. Good money drives out bad, in this case. KYPark (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic loanwords in IranianEdit

We know there were certainly contacts between Proto-Germanic and Iranian peoples, Germanicists freely talk about Proto-Germanic loanwords from Iranian in Wiktionary, like this one:þaz (Of course this word is clearly from a western Iranian language, compare Old Persian paθi but Ossetian fændag) but it seems you don't allow that Iranologists publish their works on this subject here, what is the reason? Mojshahmiri (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a dictionary. We provide etymologies (and reconstruction entries as an extension of those) based on reliable sources where possible- we don't "publish" anyone's "works" here. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this rule in Terms of Use, if it really exists then you should remove more than 90 percent of etymologies of Persian words, will you do it? I can list them for you. -Mojshahmiri (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mojshahmiri: you claim Proto-Germanic borrowing for Modern Persian and Middle Persian words. That is impossible chronologically and geographically. The situation is different for borrowings into Proto-Germanic from Eastern-Iranian-speaking nomads of the steppe. --Vahag (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above most of Iranian borrowings into Proto-Germanic are from actually western Iranian languages, like Persian, not Eastern Iranian languages, like Scytho-Sarmatian, Modern/Middle Persian is a continuation of Old Persian. It is certainly possible both chronologically and geographically, my master's degree thesis was about this historical fact: -Mojshahmiri (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Mojshahmiri, seeing how you conduct yourself here, and in online forums, I think it's for the best that you choose a different community from Wiktionary. --Victar (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? Yes, I'm the founder and admin of one of the largest history communities on the web ( with more than 5,000 members (including 800 expert historians), just search for "history forum" in google to find the place of my website, has been used as reference in thousands wiki pages, like this one: Is it you reason that I should leave wiki? -Mojshahmiri (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to your unbecoming conduct in that forum, which mirrors what you have shown here on Wiktionary, but whilst on the topic of said forum, I find it full of nutbag conspiracy theorists and racial bigotry. No one should be citing that site for anything. --Victar (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Your words are familiar to me, aren't you one of members who were banned by me in AllEmpires forum? Do you want to avenge here?! -Mojshahmiri (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Haha, no, but it sounds like whoever that is, we would get along just fine. --Victar (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

կաղամախի EtymologyEdit

Congratulations on your diligent efforts to run the etymology to ground. I am not at all surprised that there might be disagreement as to species of Populus. I was surprised that Platanus was also in the running. The bark and leaf (two of the most readily observed characteristics) are very different in Platanus and Populus. It is hard to see how both types of trees could ever have been covered by they same term, unless the term was analogous to tree. DCDuring (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Both are riparian trees. In my experience it's not uncommon for borrowed terms to be applied to different trees at different times, and don't forget that there are multiple translations involved in the various sources as they come to us. As an illustration of what can happen: in the following, you'll notice that the correspondence between the species in the different languages is rather loose. Ancient Greek λεύκη (leúkē, white poplar) translates both Hebrew לבנה‎ (I think) and Hebrew תאשור‎. (Hebrew תאשור‎ is translated in Isaiah 60:13 as Ancient Greek κέδρος (kédros, cedar), and Hebrew לבנה‎ in Genesis 30:37 as Ancient Greek στυρακίνος (sturakínos) (from Ancient Greek στύραξ (stúrax, storax)). This kind of confusion is common in translations from the Hebrew scriptures because of the lack of contemporary sources and the centuries (perhaps millenia) between texts and their translations. Also, people were focusing on religious rather than botanical matters.
The Hosea passage cited in the entry:
ի ներքոյ կաղնեաց եւ կաղամախեաց եւ վարսաւոր ծառոց
i nerkʿoy kałneacʿ ew kałamaxeacʿ ew varsawor caṙocʿ
under oaks and white poplars and leafy trees
originally from
תַּ֣חַת אַלּ֧וֹן וְלִבְנֶ֛ה וְאֵלָ֖ה
under oak and [species uncertain] and terebinth
which is translated into Greek as
ὑποκάτω δρυὸς καὶ λεύκης καὶ δένδρου συσκιάζοντος
hupokátō druòs kaì leúkēs kaì déndrou suskiázontos
under oak and white poplar and [shady trees?]
which becomes Latin
subtus quercum et populum et terebinthum
under oak and poplar and terebinth
In English, the King James Version has
under oaks and poplars and elms
and New Revised Standard Version has
under oak, poplar, and terebinth
The Isaiah passage:
Եւ բղխեցուցից յանջուր երկրին զմայրն եւ զտօսախն, զմուրտն եւ զնոճն եւ զսօսն, զսարդն եւ զսարոյն եւ զկաղամախն, զգին եւ զփայտն իւղոյ։
Ew błxecʿucʿicʿ yanǰur erkrin zmayrn ew ztōsaxn, zmurtn ew znočn ew zsōsn, zsardn ew zsaroyn ew zkałamaxn, zgin ew zpʿaytn iwłoy.
I will produce in the dry land the cedar and box, the myrtle and cypress and plane, the cedar and cypress and white poplar, the juniper and the [literally olive wood].
אֶתֵּ֤ן בַּמִּדְבָּר֙ אֶ֣רֶז שִׁטָּ֔ה וַהֲדַ֖ס וְעֵ֣ץ שָׁ֑מֶן אָשִׂ֣ים בָּעֲרָבָ֗ה בְּר֛וֹשׁ תִּדְהָ֥ר וּתְאַשּׁ֖וּר יַחְדָּֽ
I will plant in the desert cedar, acacia and myrtle, [literally, oil tree], I will set on the desert plain pine, [uncertain- perhaps elm] and [uncertain] together
θήσω εἰς τὴν ἄνυδρον γῆν κέδρον καὶ πύξον καὶ μυρσίνην καὶ κυπάρισσον καὶ λεύκην
thḗsō eis tḕn ánudron gên kédron kaì púxon kaì mursínēn kaì kupárisson kaì leúkēn
I will plant in the dry land the cedar and box, the myrtle and cypress, and white poplar:
dabo in solitudine cedrum et spinam et myrtum et lignum olivae ponam in deserto abietem ulmum et buxum simul
I will plant in the wilderness cedar and thorn and myrtle and [literally olive wood], in the desert fir, elm and box at the same time
I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together
I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive; I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together

Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For Hebrew לבנה‎ see also Löw, Immanuel (1924) Die Flora der Juden[1] (in de), volume 3, Wien und Leipzig: R. Löwit, pages 338–339, and the chapter for the family; for Platanaceae Löw, Immanuel (1924) Die Flora der Juden[2] (in de), volume 3, Wien und Leipzig: R. Löwit, pages 65–67.
I have now created the Arabic word for the poplar حور‎. To the best I know nobody has hereunto recognized it as borrowed from Aramaic. @DCDuring Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW the կաղամախի page and particularly with the Hebrew here shows again how the quotation templates need support for translated sources of quoted translations as laid out in Talk:kalsarikänni. We are in the fourth row with English already: Hebrew → Greek → Armenian → English. Fay Freak (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, guys. I think in this case the whiteness of the bark and/or leaves is what unites the various trees.
{{Q}} should be expanded to handle several rows of translation. It should also have the ability to show the edition from which the text is quoted and should allow links to websites other than Wikisource. --Vahag (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Khatun خاتونEdit

Both etymologies look wrong and made-up. Khatun itself seems a Sogdian word.[3] So the Persian equivalent is a direct loanword from Sogdian not Turkish. Plus the Turkish one hatun is a Sogdian loanword too.[4][5] -- 05:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to deal with this. Please raise the issue at WT:ES. --Vahag (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think?Edit

Please look through Special:Contributions/ and tell me what you think. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, his edits are mostly bullshit, not to mention poorly formatted. I would revert all of them, even if some bits of information could have been salvaged. --Vahag (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure enough to block him. That was Nemzag. I wanted to give him a chance, since he seemed to be trying very hard to tone down his eccentricities. I didn't want to let him know I recognized him until I was ready to block him because then he would stop trying. Now I've got some cleanup to do <sigh>... Chuck Entz (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, people don't change. --Vahag (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

աշուն (ašun)Edit

Hey Vahagn, I've been putting together this PIE entry, and I've seen Old Armenian աշուն (ašun, autumn) sometimes cited as been related. Is there any credence to this, or is it just a superficial coincidence? --Victar (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Victar, the appurtenance has been proposed many times, but I don't see how it can be explained phonologically. I added another reflex, which is phonologically sound. --Vahag (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Vahagn. I've been working on a new theory of an s-mobile root, which would unify it with the PII, Celtic and Hittite words for "harvest, crop". I'm surprised no one has suggested it before. --Victar (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks interesting, but I am not competent enough to comment on your theory. --Vahag (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I curious if it gives some more wiggle room for աշուն (ašun). --Victar (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, none of the derived forms listed in *(s)h₁es- can explain աշուն (ašun). --Vahag (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Vahagn, are you aware of any other Armenian words rooted in PIE *sHV-? --Victar (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Victar, perhaps հայթեմ (haytʿem). --Vahag (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Could you please explain, why you reverted my edit? Soshial (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Were you aware that when you added all that stuff to the template, including the {{rfv-etymology}} and the category that goes with it, you were also adding it to the upwards of 2,000 entries that transclude it? Do you realize how silly it is to have warnings addressed to editors appear in the References section for dictionary users to read? Have you ever seen a footnote in a dictionary saying "don't use this footnote?" Chuck Entz (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
{{rfv-etymology}} should be used for questioning specific etymologies. --Vahag (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
What should we do to indicate that this etymologycal dictionary is not 100% trustable, Chuck Entz? Here's the proof. Soshial (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What does Derksen's dictionary's review have to do with Karulis? --Vahag (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Soshial No dictionary is 100% trustable, and even those that are less trustable can be used. We aren’t supposed to follow dictionaries blindly, no warning is needed in the template or its documentation. Fay Freak (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Can we at least write this warning only in the template (noinclude)? — soshial 18:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
No. You can discuss the unreliability in the Discussion tab of Template:R:lv:LEV. By the way, you still have not explained why Karulis is unreliable. --Vahag (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


The Armenian calendar has twelve 30-day months. It begins on Navasard 1 which corresponds to August 11. This means that the sixth month would be sometime around January, not six days after the New Year. The month of Arats begins on January 8 of every year and ends 30 days afterward, on February 6. Arzashkun (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arzashkun, the Armenian calendar was moving. See here, page 25, second paragraph and page 29, first paragraph. What you say is true for the classical period. I will update the entry to show this. --Vahag (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Do you really think that շերեփուկ 'tadpole' is etymologically connected to շերեփ 'ladle' and not to *šerepʿ from IE root *serp- 'to creep' (here)? Edward Divanyan (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Edward Divanyan, it is obviously from շերեփ (šerepʿ), because of the tadpole's shape. PIE *serp- would yield Armenian *(հ)երբ- (*(h)erb-) or the like. --Vahag (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

reverting cited editsEdit

Dear Vahagn, I was wondering if you'd mind explaining why you have reverted my sourced edits?MS 会話 13:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Because your source is either wrong or you misrepresent it. Proto-Iranian *ĵʰansás cannot give Persian غاز(ğâz). The Turkic origin of the latter is well-known and universally accepted. --Vahag (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Vahagn, on what grounds have you implied this universal acceptance? How do you say it while Proto-Turkic:kāŕ is itself suggested to be an Indo-european borrowing (Take a look at the wiktionary page)? How do you say my source is wrong? please ask another persophone to verify the source and the author (Persian WP page:wikipedia:fa:منوچهر آریان‌پور کاشانی). I repeat the source: "Manouchehr Aryanpour Kashani, فرهنگ واژه‌های هندواروپایی زبان فارسی (The Indo-European roots of the Persian language), page 394". Looking forward to your reply, MS 会話 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
On the basis of the standard references listed at Proto-Turkic *kāŕ. Even if the Turkic word is itself an Indo-European borrowing, that does not change the immediate Turkic origin of Persian غاز(ğâz). --Vahag (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at the source which clearly states that the origin of غاز‎ is PIE *ǵʰans or ask another person with Persian knowledge to verify. I won't edit for a week or so, but will revert your edits on that page afterwards. MS 会話 15:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
ĵʰ gives /z/ and /ns/ does not give /z/. Nothing fits the supposed Iranian or Indo-Iranian origin. No need to check sources when one knows a priori. Those sources troll you only and you shoot yourself in the leg by using them. Is it too inconvenient to use common sense? Fay Freak (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Freak, really wondering how you say this while हंस (haṃsá) is also derived from the same root? Unfortunately, common sense would often be misleading in some cases. Besides, I said *ǵʰans not ĵʰansás. This source is clearly reliable, authored by a well-known, well-reputed linguist. All I want is that you ask a person with Persian knowledge to take a look at it. MS 会話 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Different notation, same result. It would still be a voiced alveolar fricative and not a voiced velar or uvular fricative. And giving excuses to dismiss your responsibility for own reasonable handling of source material is tawdry. That he is a reliable, a well-known, well-reputed linguist, is what you say. I can say the same about Theo Vennemann, and it would be true because he does not produce fakes as far as I know, but it does not mean I need to believe his derivations. And if something were to be spread by the Iranian Minister of Propaganda it would also be well-reputed, because the state ordained the reputation. Theologians are also well-reputed even when you know you shouldn’t take over their explanations. Fay Freak (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is clearly the funniest case I have ever come across in any of sister projects. I got a citable source in my hand but can't use it because a dilettante who sees no difference between "g" and "j" and believes "ĵʰ gives /z/ and /ns/" only, dismisses works of true academics, not just the one I mentioned, but even others who suggest the proto-Turkic term is also a derivative of the PIE root. Besides, the pronunciation of "غ" is not the same in Persian and Arabic. It's not fricative at all, it's a stop (⟨q⟩,⟨G⟩). Anyways, we made Vahagn's talk page messy enough, and this is apparently going nowhere. I won't edit for some days, but will revert edits on that page afterwards. MS 会話 08:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed funny that you promote reconstructions but don’t even know how Classical Persian was pronounced. In the words of Wikipedia’s article just on Persian phonology: ”In Classical Persian, the uvular consonants غ‬‎ and ق‎‬ denoted the original Arabic phonemes, the fricative [ɣ] and the plosive [q], respectively.” Where it is continued about how this pronunciation has been preserved in Dari and Tajik. This case only shows that you should not deal with any reconstructions as you even fail to know the pronunciation of Persian itself. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Who said I didn't know how classical Persian was pronounced? I just though you meant modern Persian in your previous comment, where غ and ق have the same pronunciation. However, what are we pursuing by these pronunciation exactly? Stop it here, dear classical Persian expert. MS 会話 10:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
If some term in Persian comes from Proto-Iranian, it very likely did not skip Classical Persian to enter modern Persian. What they are pursuing is a logical path from Proto-Iranian to Classical Persian to modern Persian, which they are not finding based on the construction you gave. There is the possibility that the academics you are talking about made a mistake. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 11:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ms96: Persian غاز(ğâz) cannot be regularly derived from PIE *ǵʰh₂éns, irrespective of what your source says. If you want to overturn the scholarly consensus on Turkic derivation of Persian غاز(ğâz) (for example, as reflected in the standard work of Doerfer), you have to start a discussion at WT:ES and convince others. --Vahag (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


Привет, Вааг. Я опять добавил кучу новых запросов, которые я добавляю как переводы с английского на армянский, пока я о них помню. Я стараюсь выбирать наиболее существенные, на мой взгляд, слова. Похоже ты очень занят в последнее время, и наверное такой длинный список тебя только вгоняет в депрессию :) Скажи, если ты хочешь, чтоб я притормозил с новыми запросами. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Привет, Анатолий. Я вернулся в Армению. Теперь у меня больше времени для словаря. Смело добавляй запросы! --Vahag (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Спасибо. С возвращением! —Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Вааг, похоже качественных русско- или англо-армянских словарей не существует в природе. Так что, когда закончишь праздновать с коньяком, возвращайся к словарю :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Действительно, не существует. Наш словарь будет лучшим в мире :) --Vahag (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Western Armenian formsEdit

Hi! I just have a quick thing to say. I think that there should be some inflection tables made for Western Armenian grammar, and for {\{hy-pron}} to be enabled for Standard Western Armenian too. I don't know how familiar you are with it, but there are enough inflectional differences between EA and WA (like EA արել եմ vs WA արած եմ, կ- vs պիտի, -ում vs կը, -ներ-ի vs -ներ-ու, խոսել vs խօսիլ (that's the big one), etc.) that Wiktionary honestly isn't that helpful for Western. I understand if it would be too much work to do, and I'll admit now that I won't be very helpful (արեւելահայ եմ, ոչ արեւմտահայերեն չգիտեմ), but it would be really nice if it could happen. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk). 07:24 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I too am a speaker of Eastern Armenian. Covering Western Armenian is my long-term goal, but I can't do it without a dedicated and competent native speaker to guide me through creating a pronunciation template and inflection tables. I have found that the textbook descriptions of the language are not reliable. --Vahag (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The pronunciation of WA isn't that difficult, I know a speaker, and he taught me how to pronounce it. As for the grammar, that's my main reason for asking, but I'll go to church and see if anyone there knows of any good resources. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk). 14:13 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wiktionary has higher standards. Your friends' teachings aren't sufficient. Also, please refrain from calling the reformed orthography 'communist orthography' and from making other politically charged comments in the mainspace. --Vahag (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Vahagn Petrosyan".