Reconstruction talk:Persian/زرپران

RFD discussion: January–March 2020
A naive first entry of some unknown editor created because it was red-linked from old times when we did not undo such links by moving them to the third positional parameter of the template. We shouldn’t make reconstruction pages with but one vertical relation (allegedly ), and this compound is most dubious; the page gives a more interesting relation. On top of all the Arabic term is attested in times, here quotes from the Sunna, which already refutes the existence of the Persian the page claims. All apart from the observation that Persian is allegedly at well-documented language so reconstructions for it cause a sinking feeling, but I take WT:WDL cum grano salis for the Medieval times as Persian reaches beyond Old English which is not “well-attested” either, and has less than one editor here, with quotes added once in a blue moon. Fay Freak (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The theory that the Arabic term comes from this Persian compound smells like folk etymology. It can be found on the Persian Wikipedia, where (zarparân) has been a redirect to  (zaʻferân) since 2 October 2016‎, and been mentioned in the latter article as an alternative name since 9 July 2017, both as a result of edits by the same editor. On 29 June 2018 a second editor added this theory to the etymology section of the article. The editor operating here possibly just copied what they read and thought was a reliable theory.  --Lambiam 06:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve unliked the term to be deleted already. I hope this reconstruction is not what’s written in Asya Asbaghi’s book, which I could not obtain yet by reason of any offers lacking at the German book hawkers (except one for an expensive signed one which is unacceptable), however her book got censured particularly because of mixing up periods wildly and seeing everything Iranian as Persian. Fay Freak (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)