Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2018 June 21

= June 21 =

Etymology of the Persian word peri
Is the etymology of the Persian word peri (پری‎) known? Thanks. Basemetal 21:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Persian Wikipedia has an article on پری → https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D8%B1%DB%8C ... (weird things happen when attempting to create a wikiink) -- no idea if this helps, however. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No etymological information there, but thanks. They do give one bit of information the other WPs do not, namely that the word is already present in Avestan (the other WPs only go back to Ferdowsi's Shahnameh) but, unfortunately, without source or reference to any Avestan text using it. Basemetal  22:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Four etymologies given at پری‎. —Stephen (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to the Avestan derivation, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary adds that it's cognate with Latin paelex, 'concubine'. Deor (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Moving past Iranian! Thanks Deor. Thanks to your paelex we get παλλακίς at Παλλάς, and ultimately PIE *parikeh₂ (“concubine, wanton woman”). Can that PIE form be right? (No source given). There should be no 'a' in PIE forms (unless as a combination of PIE *e and a laryngeal)? If it is correct, then it seems to be analyzable. Is there a PIE root *keh₂? Basemetal  10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Florian, could you kindly check these two questions of mine (in the paragraph immediately above), about the soundness of this reconstruction, and (if it is ok), whether it can be further analyzed? Thanks. Basemetal  19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC) PS: I pinged you also at the question about the Iranian words for "orphan" below but the notification was not sent (apparently) or at least I did not get a notification that it was. If you got this one and not the other one could also check that question? Thanks.  Basemetal  19:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * To avoid weird effects when linking between languages, put an extra colon before the prefix: fa:پری. (It becomes invisible so look at the source.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuity between the speakers of PIE of the 5th-4th millenium BC and the Scythians of the 1st millenium BC?
According to the Kurgan hypothesis speakers of PIE originated in the "Kurgan" cultures of the 5th-4th millenium BC (such as the Yamnaya culture) in the region north of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. In the 1st millenium BC one finds in the same region the people known as the Scythians, considered by most people to be speakers of an Iranian language, whose culture also included the practice of the Kurgan burial. Assuming of course the Kurgan hypothesis is valid, is there continuity between the speakers of PIE and the Scythians. In other words are the Scythians (resp. the Scythian language) the descendents in situ of the PIE speakers (resp. PIE), those IE speakers who never moved out of the PIE Urheimat? Basemetal 22:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly not, as a linguistic community. The origin of the Indo-Iranian languages seems to go through or near Sintashta, the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex etc.  Also, the Scyths in southern European Russia had close affinities to the Sakas in Central Asia, and to the Sarmatians between them.
 * Some have speculated that the most "stay-at-home" Indo-European branch was actually the Balts, although the non-coastal Balts were eventually overrun by Slavic speakers... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Was it on linguistic grounds? Where did Proto-Balto-Slavic develop and how did it split into Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic? By Proto-Slavic speakers moving away? And then did Slavic speakers later come back and overrun the larger part of the Baltic area? Basemetal  10:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It's partly because unlike some other branches (such as Germanic and Indic), Baltic lacks the vocabulary churn which shows that there was intensive interaction with speakers of non-Indo-European languages. Many have remarked that 16th-century Lithuanian (the first Baltic language to be attested in detail) has more recognizable surviving early Indo-European features than the living languages in any other Indo-European branch in the 16th century (see Lithuanian language).  According to some reconstructions, the early Balts moved north a few hundred miles from the "Pontic-Caspian steppe", and then basically remained in place for many centuries, until finally Slavic languages came to be established in that area (though the coastal Baltic languages obviously derive from groups that moved west after moving north...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you AnonMoos. Re: "According to some reconstructions, the early Balts etc." Is this compatible with a period of Balto-Slavic community? IOW is this view held by people who accept or do not accept Balto-Slavic, or is there no correlation? Basemetal  18:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know that level of detail. To look at the Balto-Slavic languages article, that aspect can be quite complex.  I was simplifying to Baltic only... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend not to get too invested in speculation about homelands of proto-languages. I recall an item published in some linguistics newsletter (I seem to have discarded my copy) speculating that the Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages had a common origin, presumably in the fertile crescent. These are fun to read, but the further back you go, the harder it is to pin down the details. - Donald Albury 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those three together sounds like Nostratic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)