Talk:زئبق
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Vahagn Petrosyan
@Profes.I., is the "mercury" sense really attested in Middle Persian? If no, we should mark it with an asterisk. --Vahag (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Had to look into it, zywndk' is attested as meaning living or being alive; the sense of mercury is actually applied to a hypothetical form *zīwag, from which both modern Persian ژیوه (žive) and Classical Syriac ܙܝܘܓ (zīwag) root. I take it the Syriac is the intermediary source of the Arabic. -Profes.I. (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Profes.I. Thank you, but what is the hypothetical part of the zywk' /*zīwag/ “mercury” you added? If only the meaning, then “mercury” gets a star, if the form zywk' (i.e. the corresponding original script form) is not attested then it gets a star (and the form gets put into the second positional parameter or into the third positional parameter depending on whether it is worth to create a page for it and thus worth to link it; or some don’t even add a reconstructed transliteration or reconstructed spelling if a spelling is unattested but only add according to this distinction a transcription), and if only the transcription is conjectured then I believe the practice is not certain whether a star needs to be put since virtually all the transcriptions of words in older Semitic script spellings are more or less “understood” only (right, you usually don’t put stars in front of cuneiform readings though they be vague, since one also needs to avoid inflation), it depends a bit on how many possibilities there are according to what else one knows of the language and later stages and relatives and sometimes one instead puts a question mark after a transcription. But you have starred the transcription and prepended the word “hypothetical” in front of the form which leaves one in doubt what is hypothetical, whether the attestation of the form or only the transcription, or perhaps the form in the needed meaning. If the spelling too is not recorded then it is superfluous to star the transcription. We might expand the page * a bit, @Vahagn Petrosyan, seeing a variety of practices. Fay Freak (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the immediate Middle Persian antecedent is not attested. I would write it as {{m|pal||*zīwag|t=mercury|sc=Latn}}. PS I don't want to work on * :) --Vahag (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe the whole term is being inferred only from its descendants, as that form would nicely yield the known Syriac and Classical Persian forms. I found it listed in a few locations, but wanted to find the source which I believe is the work "Loanwords in Syriac by Claudia A. Ciancaglini" quote: "Moreover, many Iranian loanwords are related to minerals, precious stones, and the like. Examples: ... dhng “malachite,” MPers. *dahanag, NPers. dahana; zywg “mercury, quicksilver,” MPers. *zīwag, NPers. žīwa; lʾzwrd “lapis lazuli,” cf. NPers. lāžuward." It has no Pahlavi script listed whatsoever, so perhaps {{m|pal||*zīwag|t=mercury|sc=Latn}} is best. However, the script form tr=zywk' would be the standard and logical way if it ever was found, taking the root zyw + the -ag ending always spelt -k', making it an adjective. What it comes down to is zyw- is attested and zywnd- is attested, both synonymous roots pertaining to "life", just the latter we have listed in its adjective form in dictionaries and the former can be soundly constructed by what is listed in dictionaries, even though not specifically listed. I respect both of your judgements in such matters and I will leave it to your discretion on what you deem most appropriate. -Profes.I. (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Because, as you said, *zywk' would be the standard and logical Pahlavi spelling, I guess we can show it, but with an asterisk. --Vahag (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe the whole term is being inferred only from its descendants, as that form would nicely yield the known Syriac and Classical Persian forms. I found it listed in a few locations, but wanted to find the source which I believe is the work "Loanwords in Syriac by Claudia A. Ciancaglini" quote: "Moreover, many Iranian loanwords are related to minerals, precious stones, and the like. Examples: ... dhng “malachite,” MPers. *dahanag, NPers. dahana; zywg “mercury, quicksilver,” MPers. *zīwag, NPers. žīwa; lʾzwrd “lapis lazuli,” cf. NPers. lāžuward." It has no Pahlavi script listed whatsoever, so perhaps {{m|pal||*zīwag|t=mercury|sc=Latn}} is best. However, the script form tr=zywk' would be the standard and logical way if it ever was found, taking the root zyw + the -ag ending always spelt -k', making it an adjective. What it comes down to is zyw- is attested and zywnd- is attested, both synonymous roots pertaining to "life", just the latter we have listed in its adjective form in dictionaries and the former can be soundly constructed by what is listed in dictionaries, even though not specifically listed. I respect both of your judgements in such matters and I will leave it to your discretion on what you deem most appropriate. -Profes.I. (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the immediate Middle Persian antecedent is not attested. I would write it as {{m|pal||*zīwag|t=mercury|sc=Latn}}. PS I don't want to work on * :) --Vahag (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Profes.I. Thank you, but what is the hypothetical part of the zywk' /*zīwag/ “mercury” you added? If only the meaning, then “mercury” gets a star, if the form zywk' (i.e. the corresponding original script form) is not attested then it gets a star (and the form gets put into the second positional parameter or into the third positional parameter depending on whether it is worth to create a page for it and thus worth to link it; or some don’t even add a reconstructed transliteration or reconstructed spelling if a spelling is unattested but only add according to this distinction a transcription), and if only the transcription is conjectured then I believe the practice is not certain whether a star needs to be put since virtually all the transcriptions of words in older Semitic script spellings are more or less “understood” only (right, you usually don’t put stars in front of cuneiform readings though they be vague, since one also needs to avoid inflation), it depends a bit on how many possibilities there are according to what else one knows of the language and later stages and relatives and sometimes one instead puts a question mark after a transcription. But you have starred the transcription and prepended the word “hypothetical” in front of the form which leaves one in doubt what is hypothetical, whether the attestation of the form or only the transcription, or perhaps the form in the needed meaning. If the spelling too is not recorded then it is superfluous to star the transcription. We might expand the page * a bit, @Vahagn Petrosyan, seeing a variety of practices. Fay Freak (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)