Reconstruction talk:Proto-Semitic/šalām-

See. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See . And notice the words "perhaps" and "probably". Either way, the etymology is way too indirect for it to be listed here. --WikiTiki89 20:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Etymonline is an uncredited compilation of various sources by a journalist. Dictionaries such as American Heritage Dictionary have editors for etymologies who are themselves trained historical linguists. Besides, even if it is a speculation, it still merits inclusion because we don't exclude speculations - just properly qualify them. If that etymology is good enough for mainstream dictionaries, it should be good enough for Wiktionary as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But they both say the same thing, only etymonline gives more details about how שְׁלֻמִיאֵל could have turned into schlemiel, while the AHD gives more details about where the name שְׁלֻמִיאֵל comes from. I am not doubting that שְׁלֻמִיאֵל comes from שלום, just pointing out that it is not known for sure whether שְׁלֻמִיאֵל was the basis of the character Schlemihl, and even if it was it is too indirect an etymology to merit noting on this page . --WikiTiki89 15:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * AHD doesn't mention at all the character Schlemihl and derives it directly from the Biblical character. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or they just didn't care to mention it. They don't say "directly". --WikiTiki89 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the reason why they don't mention it is because it sounds like BS? :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, after doing a little research it seems more likely that Peter Schlemihl is derived from the Yiddish, rather than the other way around. Nevertheless, I still think the etymology of "schlemiel, from Yiddish, probably from the name of the Biblical character שְׁלֻמִיאֵל, part of which is likely to be from שָׁלוֹם, from Proto-Semitic *šalām-" is too indirect to be mentioned on this page. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So what if it is indirect? The whole point of that, admittedly ad-hoc named, section is to list all of the possible reflexes in modern English so that the interested reader can form a mind map by their origin from a common source and more easily memorize etymologically related words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First a formatting note: in my experience, loanwords are listed in the descendants section, below their immediate etyma (optionally marked as loanwords/borrowings), not in a separate section. For example, see where is in Appendix:Proto-Algonquian/šeka·kwa. On this page, that would mean listing the Yiddish word that descended from šalām- (beneath the Hebrew word that it derived via?), then listing English descendant beneath it. That arrangement has the benefit of showing how the word entered English. Now as for the content: my understanding—one I think CodeCat shares(?)—is that these pages are meant to list a root's main/direct/linear descendants, not to list every compound word with a part that may reflect the root if a direct descendant exists that can be cited instead. For example, watōr lists  (and ) but not . In this case, an argument can be made that it's best to list just salaam (from Arabic) and shalom (from Hebrew) and omit schlemiel ... but a counter-argument could be made that there's no other English descendent from the Yiddish descendant of the root, and so listing schlemiel below the Yiddish descendant is acceptable. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, schlemiel would have to appear under, which would probably be one of the least notable of a long list of Hebrew names coming from . --WikiTiki89 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would omit it, then. - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't care about Hebrew names. We do care about Hebrew names that ended up as English words. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to who? --WikiTiki89 15:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is English Wiktionary and English descendants have a priority. Related terms section can be used for linking etymologically related terms in Hebrew, Arabic and so on. Listing all of the descendants in all languages, including their later morphological derivations, on Proto-X appendices would make them too long and unusable. But no harm is done usability-wise by listing only English descendants and their intermediate ancestors. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September–October 2021
While the root existed in Proto-Semitic, this noun did not but is a Northwest Semitic innovation. The Akkadian linked is a stative verb from the form. The South Semitic terms are borrowed early,, I don’t even see anything genuine in the Gəʿəz root (though the Təgre root seems to have genuine formations from the root, in addition to denominals from these Aramaisms and obvious Arabisms like the word for muslim). Accordingly the Arabic is in the meaning “well-being” (“verbal noun of سَلِمَ”) too most likely borrowed from Aramaic (in antiquity Arabic speakers understood the correspondence of Aramaic š to Arabic s in common roots)—else a parallel formation. We can have all save perhaps the Egyptian under and good. Fay Freak (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually,, will you please deal with all the entries that link to it first? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Fay Freak (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)