Talk:անտառ

Come on, this is just borrowed from the ancestors of, as we have also solved – don’t need the transcription atāru, aṭāru in Akkadian even with that old d → t sound change, methinks. A broad spectrum of language knowledge pays again, since the meaning shift is exactly what happened in and reversely 🇨🇬, which you both already know, and you also know that Semitic likes to add /n/ at this exact place for no reason, in Aramaic even possibly not expressed in script, nC treated allophonic with CC as a consequence of low functional load;, , whatever, I am sufficiently explicit.

I cannot pursue the comparison to found in  together with  on its talk page to follow the suspected  →  phenomenon outlined on the talk-page of. Fay Freak (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * this is an interesting proposal. Is ʾāḏar the non-emphatic form of ʾāḏrā? Vahag (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is the absolute state and construct state singular, whereof the vowel a under addition of the emphatic state ending is weakened to ə and then ∅ following a general development, which also had the emphatic state being used more often than the absolute state which was most common in Imperial Aramaic centuries—in which  also did not occur yet, hence d not ḏ. Fay Freak (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, added to the mainspace. I wonder which language is the immediate source of these old borrowings from Semitic in Armenian. Could be Old Aramaic or late Akkadian. Some have argued that Akkadian was already dead before the first Armenian–Semitic contacts. This is connected with the question of when the Proto-Armenian speakers appeared in the Armenian Highland. It is also possible all Ancient Near Eastern borrowings in Armenian are via Hurro-Urartian, but we are not always lucky to have the Hurro-Urartian attestation like we do in . Vahag (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This corresponds to the observation that not even a single time I have been compelled to assume direct borrowing from Akkadian into Arabic; the only entries for this are alternative stories. Deriving a word so basic as from Neo-Assyrian can only be based on a certain naivety of entropy celebrated amongst linguists as scientific unprejudicedness, which defies the knowledgeableness otherwise Al-Jallad demonstratedly has. However Arabic borrowings into Akkadian are occasionally reasonable to assume, by reason of immigrated traders and officials in Assyrian service, known from history, which does not create common words either nonetheless. Fay Freak (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)