Talk:توت

Etymology
is young and possibly an Iranian borrowing. See and Turner. under has additional information. , can you summarize it for us? --Vahag (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He derives it from Indic origin (and compares it with Sanskrit tūda-, Indian tūt). For Semitic origin, he refers to Fraenkel Aram.FW 140, Noldeke PSt II 43 [Fraenkel S.: Die aramaischen Fremdworter im Arabischen, leiden 1886].--Calak (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * does not say anything about Persian.
 * Nöldeke PSt is
 * I think Nöldeke misinterprets the »Erweichung« in Persian. So because somewhere he find Persian. So because he finds somewhere for Persian, he apparently argues that the Persian word shows begadkefat, which is wrong because Persian itself had variation in spirantization and non-spirantization in this matter in Late Middle Persian Early New Persian, as shown in many Arabic doublets. Copyists even used to “upcorrect” Persian and even other kinds of foreign words by adding the dot, considering such forms more correct when the copyist before didn’t. Fay Freak (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then, the whole word family will not be “from Semitic” as some generalize. The Arabic with that obsolete form however does show begadkefat and is hence necessarily from Aramaic if that pointing is true, while the Akkadian is late and correspondingly deemed an Aramaic loanword. This leaves an origin in Aramaic or Northwest Semitic, and it is not likely that Aramaeans or their Semitic neighbours had invented a word of such a shape: Two identical consonants between a long ū. This reeks of borrowing. Fay Freak (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is not Semitic. But the relationship between Iranian and Indo-Aryan and the ultimate origin remain uncertain. --Vahag (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)