Talk:Botanical identity of soma–haoma/Archives/2021

Regarding cannabis Sativa
You recently undid my changes in the Canabis Sativa section regarding the evolution of the Chinese term "hu-ma" to the avestan "haoma" and then subsequently the vedic "soma", because the citations did not support it. I wanted to know if this citation. Does this count as a valid source/citation In the article it states:

"Now, this takes us to a core part of the cannabis-soma/haoma theory as I laid it out in Cannabis and the Soma Solution, how different variations of Chinese words for cannabis, such as hu ma (Iranian hemp) became the Avestan term, Haoma, and later as the Aryans entered India, through further dialectic changes, to soma."

I wanted to know if I can add the information back if this citation is acceptable. Thanks --ShellPandey (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That article does clearly argue that the term was borrowed from Chinese. Chris Bennett, the author, seems to taking his argument from S. Mahdihassan since the other sources he cites don't actually support a Chinese origin for the word, with some even explicitly suggesting the opposite (such as "Littleton, 2008"). S. Mahdihassan's argument regarding the etymology seems to be a small minority view and it's particularly dubious because it would require the sound change from /s/ to /h/ in Iranian languages to be reversed during secondary borrowing into Indian languages, something which, afaik, isn't attested in any linguistic evidence. Chris Bennett himself doesn't seem to cite any evidence for "further dialectic changes, to soma" in that article, though maybe I overlooked it.


 * I'm not sure it should be included since including this etymology may be giving it undue weight, particularly since the details of other etymologies aren't covered in this article but are instead covered at Soma (drink) and Haoma. If it is included, then S. Mahdihassan and Chris Bennett should be named as the advocates rather than vaguely saying that "scholars claim" since that would suggest a scholarly consensus for this view which does not exist. Scyrme (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair enough fair enough. But just to clarify. But to clarify your argument when you say "it's particularly dubious because it would require the sound change from /s/ to /h/ in Iranian languages to be reversed during secondary borrowing into Indian languages", the source I linked to does not claim that it went from China -> India -> Iran (in which case a /s/ to /h/ would be required), but the source claims that it went from China -> Iran -> India (and that the only change that happened was from /h/ to /s/ in "haoma" to "soma". However, like you pointed out this may not be a reliable source, but it could possible be mentioned as an opinion which is not widely held by scholars (while clearly stating that scholarly consensus does not corroborate this theory)? However if you feel like that would be giving it undue weight that it can be left out. Thanks for your input -- ShellPandey (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The source you linked claims it went from China -> Iran -> India. If this were true it would require a change in pronunciation from /h/ -> /s/ when it went from Iran -> India. This is dubious because the standard theory is a change of /s/ -> /h/ in Iranian languages when the Iranian and Indian languages evolved into separate language families; the sound remained /s/ in Indian languages and changed to /h/ only in Iranian languages. The source you linked instead says that haoma was borrowed into Indian languages from an Iranian language and that the change was inverted (that /h/ was changed into /s/); this would be a very unusual and so would require evidence but the source you linked does not seem to provide any, it only vaguely says dialectal changes happened without any supporting linguistic evidence for these changes.
 * The argument made by your source is also contradicted by some of the scholarly articles it cites, which only makes it even more dubious. For example, the source cites Littleton who argues that haoma was borrowed into Chinese from Iran -> China; Mia Touw similarly argues that the Chinese name for cannabis came from a Central Asian language and was borrowed into Chinese. The only scholarly article your source references that unambiguously supports the argument your source is making is the one written by S. Mahdihassan, who seems to have inspired the author of your source to argue this view in the first place. This perspective could possibly be mentioned as an opinion which is not widely held by scholars, provided it not presented as a scholarly consensus but only as the opinion of its explicitly named advocates, so that readers aren't mislead into thinking there's more support for this view than there actually is.
 * However, I think Chris Bennett (author of your source) and S. Mahdihassan are arguing for a very small minority perspective. If I am right, then I think including this perspective in the article would be giving it undue weight (especially as more widely accepted etymological theories aren't described in this article) so it would be best to leave it out.
 * I hope this provides the clarification you asked for. Scyrme (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it clears it up. You're right, it shouldn't be added in that case.