Talk:خلر

@Fay Freak: Compare also Kurdish wilēra, wilīra, wilara, hulēra, xulēra, xilēra, xilīra "chickling vetch" and Classical Persian xu(l)lar "chickling vetch". In Kurdish wilēra is from earlier hulēra (wi- < hu-). Kurdish h- ~ x- is also common like xāz ~ hāz "Arum orientale"--Calak (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Calak Great. You can add it, and maybe create the Persian perhaps even with quotes and/or references that show that the Persian meant the chickling vetch. This is presumably also the meaning of the Arabic (from which I can derive the Persian?), and I suspect all the Aramaic words and the Akkadian; because likening a grasspea with a coin is easier as the grasspea is flat, while the chickpea does not invite to comparison with coins, unless coins had now hugely unusual three-dimensional forms (they hadn’t even back then as far as I know – or is it that one does not photograph them?), so that I think that the meaning “chickpea” is only parrotted by Anglo-Saxon and German scholars – is it right, @Profes.I., or are there botanical hints suggesting that the Akkadian word means chickpea and not grasspea? (This similarity between the grasspea and a coin as opposed to a chickpea is my only hint and one would need to look at the sources more to test this claim. But after all Thompson seems have to been of the seen view, and maybe there has been a scientific retrogression by glossing conventionially.) Both can be staples, the grasspea has been in Franco’s Spain while it is unknown in more northern European regions so this is why scholars could have made it themselves easy by glossing the Akkadian as chickpea. Fay Freak (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

As was stated above all glosses with such old languages can be up to speculation. Chickpea is the leaning, and although I do not disagree with that identification, I usually prefer thinking in broader terms as often times the ancients did not distinguish in the same taxonomical way that we do; its a type of bean legume. A physical visual comparison to a coin however is not necessary, as the unit is referencing originally a meager weight size, idiomatically like a grain of. -Profes.I. (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I found hollar, hollarī, holler in Central Iranian dialects, also hollar in Bakhtiari. It seems that this word is very common in Iranian languages... .--Calak (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Calak: I see. While this Arabic word can only be found with artifice, one finds many Persian pages when searching "خلر", it being the title of articles about Lathyrus sativus. Given this frequency distribution – and the quote is from a Persian! –, a borrowing of the Arabic from Iranian must be a serious consideration. Though parallel borrowing from Aramaic into Arabic and Persian is possible, a form matching the Arabic and Persian form is not even attested in Aramaic, so Fraenkel was likely wrong, unwitting of the Iranian. (And I have no way been compelled to assume direct Hurro-Urartian borrowings into Arabic. Hurro-Urartian borrowings into Iranian on the other hand may be seen as more likely but a borrowing from Akkadian or Aramaic into Iranian is still more likely each.) So you should try your formulation art and integrate the information and considerations we have here. Fay Freak (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)