Reconstruction talk:Proto-Iranian/tatr̥wáh

Missed forms
. Well-known it is that Neo-Persian resolves the Middle Persian consonat clusters dr, tr by anaptyxis, and that it drops coda g. I am in doubt now therefore and in view of  that the “ttl /tatar(w)/” accurately represents the Middle Persian form. The word for francolin,  without etymology,, , I recognize as identical (because meaning is important), and they point toward a  as well as the first Arabic form and comparanda like. Suppressing the purported Indo-European cognates, will this even lead to the reconstruction of an other Proto-Iranian form? Especially since such long-range comparisons for onomatopoeic bird-names as well as the references given are frowned upon – although I until now ignored this consideration seeing that all this comparison was even good enough for Victar. Well I at least point towards that there is something left to explain. Fay Freak (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Arabic forms look pretty clearly to be borrowed from unattested Persian *tudrāg, *tadrug, which is easily derived from ; compare 🇨🇬. As for dr > rr, is that Semitic a thing? I can only venture at dr > rd > l in Iranian. -  19:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it isn’t a Semitic thing, it doesn’t remind me of anything at all. And the geminate rr I presume only secondarily comes from alignment with a known Arabic pattern (such as in ) and ; though KuLāM without geminate is also pattern, however not with the same meanings). Such gemination being given also for Persian ( labelled “Arabic”) rather comes from the authors of medieval dictionaries not distinguishing the languages, it’s the Middle Ages we talk about after all; the vocalization and consonantism taḏaruj there (so also in Dihḵudā) suggested is also a mix, of the Neo-Persian form into the Arabic borrowing, and it surely was tadruj in Arabic in the Middle Ages as now. So has the well-known ending -ag the variants -āg and -ug and -ūg, and was there just a vocalism metathesis after one has not understood the suffix -ug, -ūg (as also in, , ) anymore? I would yet have to find a historical Persian morphology. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would actually more expect the outcome of PIr. to be Middle Persian  with labial rounding, compare the Old Median. Vocal assimilation of a > u is pretty common in MP: *tadurw (> *tudurw) > *tadurug, *tudurāg > Pers. *tadrug, *tudrāg. --  03:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, so the trailing w conditions the -ag to become -ug. Surprising though that Neo-Persian would resolve dur to dr, although it is not wholly impossible, it reminds me of words like . A question we failed to expound is, where does the in the Persian francolin words as opposed to  come from? Hardly from Arabic, as we also have, unless this form is a blend of , which we indeed deem borrowed from Arabic, with . I already recognized blends of Arabic into Persian so I guess this is a not too crazy solution. Neo-Persian reconstructions , *تدراگ, *دتراگ, are unneeded then.
 * Has and what is mentioned there had an influence, is it maybe even the same word? Dihḵudā sub voce  appears to know, ,  as forms. Fay Freak (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)