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 German), 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 German), 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)
Return to the user page of "Vahagn Petrosyan".