Reconstruction talk:Old Persian/naftah

Etymology
Is Old Persian really the ultimate origin of this word? According to Sokoloff, Syriac ܢܦܛܐ comes from Akkadian napṭu (while not mentioning Old Persian at all). Anyway, Hebrew נפט is doubtlessly related. --334a 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The origin of the Iranian word is disputed. Maybe it is borrowed from Semitic. Maybe it is of PIE origin. I removed the Syriac descendant as it may indeed come from Akkadian. --Vahag 10:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The word as given here is not attested in OP. It may be a reconstruction, its wrong to suggest anything else.

RFV discussion: December 2016–April 2017
Anon on talk page says this is unattested. DTLHS (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If this doesn't pass, we should consider moving it to RC:Old Persian/𐎴𐎳𐎫, rather than deleting it. --WikiTiki89 16:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this doesn't seem to be attested. See here, about the origin of naphtha. I would delete the appendix altogether, because the nature of the relationship between these words is not clear. --Vahag (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. No reconstruction entry created per the talk-page and Vahag. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction citations
I think 𐎴𐎳𐎫 should have a page as a reconstruction, attested by the following citation: (which as I understand it is based on the interpretation of Old Persian-derived proper nouns in the mostly "") as well as the Encyclopædia Iranica citation given by Vahag.
 * Gershevitch, Ilya (1969). "Amber at Persepolis". Studia Classica et Orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata. archive.org. ii: 212. Retrieved 1 September 2018.

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding the reason for deletion but I think the confusion over the relationship between 𐎴𐎳𐎫 and the other words mentioned in the talk page is because the "wet" meaning derives from the given Indo-European root (*nebʰ-; cf. Avestan napta, "moist, wet"}}) while the "petroleum" meaning was assimilated from the coincidentally similar Akkadian napṭu, which I'm taking from the Iranica entry. Hence the seemingly related words in Semitic languages.

I'd make the page myself, only I can't see the whole deleted entry as a non-administrator. I think all that needs to be added is the secondary etymology, plus optional Avestan, Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic (نفط) cross-refs.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This paper (p.506) says "OIran. *nafta- "Naphtha" (a word of which the Iranian origin is by no means assured) is simply the same as OIran. nafta- (Av. napta-) "wet", which H. in common with Bartholomae (and others) derives from √nebh".The etymology gets debated but it's clear there's a consensus that *nafta- is a reasonable reconstruction.

As for the comparative method, these Old Iranian sound change rules (p. 864) can be used to reconstruct *nafta from Avestan, as the only difference you would expect between the two languages here is a "ft" in Old Persian in place of the "pt" in "napta".

To cover all bases, maybe we could try something like this for an updated etymology section: "Contested. Either from, from (cf. Avestan napta, 'moist, wet'); or from Akkadian napṭu, 'naphtha' (cf. Syriac ܢܦܛܐ, Hebrew נפט (néft), Arabic نفط (nifṭ, nafṭ)); or derived first from Indo-European, meaning 'wet', with the 'petroleum' meaning assimilated from coincidentally similar Akkadian. Possible connection to the Indo-Iranian god, whose name means 'the son (grandson) of the water', described in the Vedas as fire emerging from water, perhaps inspired by a burning seepage of natural gas."

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Made the page.

Middle Persian "naft" also has the meaning of "wet, damp" (p.57), and no Semitic language does, so it can’t be a simple borrowing, which is why there must have been a corresponding Old Persian version of Avestan napta. I think it’s better to separate out the etymologies, since the “wet” meaning is the main reconstruction, and the “petroleum” part is the bit subject to speculation.

Also turns out Apam Napat wasn't described as fire emerging from water in the Vedas, just as "golden". His connection with fire—which could hint at an Indo-European origin for the "petroleum" meaning—while possible (see Apam Napat's Iranica entry) is by no means fundamental. Obviously I've included the idea anyway but in any case it doesn't cast doubt on Etymology 1, for "wet", which is the foremost justification for having the page.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It means “wet” in half of the Semitic languages. Arabic means “to vesicate, to have water between skin and flesh; to snort; to cook so as to pour forth”, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. Fay Freak (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)