Talk:List of Arabic loanwords in English

Aniline

comment moved from article -- Ferkelparade π 08:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aniline : ultimately from Sanskrit nilah "dark blue" (So you would have us believe that the River NILE was named by Sanskrit speaking people from India? Did the Ancient Egytians come from India too so the Nila color would be Sanskrit? This cannot be true.) -- User:68.12.103.47

No, it's more likely that "aniline" derives from a Sanskrit word nilah meaning "dark blue", and that "Nile" ultimately comes from a Semitic root "N-H-L" meaning "valley" or "river" (cf. Hebrew nahal "dry river") and any similarity between the two words is coincidental. Also, please stop adding words that are obviously from Latin not Arabic. YBeayf 10:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. Aniline came to English and othe European languages from Arabic, not Sanskrit. The Arabic, form is Al-Nili, which would be pronounced An-Nili by amalgaming the "N" sound. This, in Arabic, comes from the color of the NILE river. The Nile, which is blue, is named such by Egyptians and they still use "Nilah" as a color blue. The Egyptians, which you so easily removed ftom the comment, dyed themselves blue when mourning, and till this very day would tell someone "Gatak Nilah" which is "May you [dye] yourself blue." meaning may someone close to you die. Also, the word ending in Nilah is typical of Arabic femenen form and not Sanskrit.

Also, many words in Latin do have roots in the so called "Semitic" languages to which Arabic belongs, and, following your own logic elswhere, and since "Semitic" is more ancient, it must be that those words came to Arabic before they did to Latin, or, at least came to Arabic directly from the source language, say Aramaic, and subsequently were adopted into European languages from Arabic directly and not through Latin. Also, you have to remember that Latin was an integral culture and language to the Middle East, where Arabic dominates today, long before it was related to Europe and the West. Latin culture traces its roots to Greek culture, who trace their roots to Egypt and the Levant (East Mediterranean). No one in the Pre-18th Century world have thought that the Romans and the Greeks are more kin to the Britts or French that say to the Syrians or any of the Arabs.

With all due respect, I submit that you do not know what you are talking about. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, not Latin, which always had its home in the Italic peninsula. The Latinate sphere of influence was in Western Europe, not in the Near East. Greek culture does not in fact trace its origin to Egypt. The Indo-European languages and the Semitic languages are of equal antiquity; neither is more "ancient" than the other. Many of the words that have been submitted on here are demonstrably of Indo-European origin, and have nothing at all to do with the Semitic languages. It is true that Latin did have some borrowings from Arabic, but these borrowings are without fail from middle and late Latin, as prior to the Islamic conquests Arabic was fairly limited to the Arabian peninsula and exerted no great influence on the languages of the Near East. Even if elements of Greek culture were borrowed from the Levant, that still has nothing to do with Arabic, because *Arabic was not spoken in those areas*, nor was it spoken in Egypt. Saying that nobody prior to the 18th century would have disputed that the Graeco-Romans were closer to the Syrians or Arabs than to Western Europeans is balderdash -- French itself is a direct descendant of Latin! In point of fact, it is likely that many more terms were adopted into Arabic from Greek or Latin than vice-versa, simply because those languages were widespread long before Arabic was, and classical Arabic culture borrowed much from the Graeco-Roman tradition.

In any case, the point remains that nila is the Sanskrit word for "blue", and that it and the name of the river Nile have nothing to do with each other. If "nila" is an extant word in modern Egyptian Arabic, then it is virtually certain that it was borrowed ultimately from the Sanskrit, and does not derive from the name of the Nile, and I defy you to produce a reputable cite that says otherwise. YBeayf 18:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary, in the "Nile" entry says:

< Nile, the name of a river in North and Eastern Central Africa. Cf. classical Latin Nīlus, ancient Greek Νειλος (Hesiod), of unknown origin.

The ancient Egyptian name was jtrw river (> Hebrew yȇ'ōr).

In Old and Middle English the name of the river is attested both as Nilus and Nil; the form Nile is attested from the 15th cent. onwards.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the word "Nile" came from Arabic in any way at all whatsoever. Further, the ancient Egyptians, who gave it the name jtrw, didn't speak Arabic.

Under "aniline" it says:

[f. (by Fritzche 1841) ANIL indigo + -INE.]

referring back to the entry for "anil", which says:

[a. Fr. or Pg. anil = Sp. añil, ad. Arab. an-nīl, i.e. al the + nīl, Arab. and Pers. ad. Skr. nīlī indigo (and -plant), f. nīla dark blue.]

which seems to indicate that the word did indeed go through Arabic before it came to English, but Arabic is neither the proximate nor the ultimate language of borrowing.Nohat 19:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So which way is it? Does Aniline come to English from the Name of the River Nile through Arabic, or would the Arabs have to wait a while, go to India, pich up the word, modify it a little and then give it to English? Also, I've just asked my Indian friend and he told me that in Sanskrit nila is green, and not blue.

Also, the Ancient Egyptians did not speak Arabic, but they did not speak Sanskrit either. In actuality, the Ancient Egyptian and Arabic do share many of the linguistic constructs and words. Many words in Egyptian are derived from its Eastern Neighbors, wheather you want to call them Arab or not is a moot question since thery are historically related and do presently consider themselves and are considered by others as Arab. The reverse is also true. Many words is Arabic come from Ancient Egyptian either directly or through mediation of another language, sometimes Semetic, sometime Greek and sometimes Latin. Having said that I must proclaim that I myself do not subscribe to language or racial families, which are demonstratively biblical bullshit, and look at the whole of humanity as being a great big sea with water mixing all around at all times. Of course, the closer the distance the similar the waters, and this is true of cultures and languages. Also, nothing precludes that a language claimed to be "Indo-European" by Western historians, as if this means anything, was not actually developed by a so called "Semetic" people and then passed on to the more barbaric Aryans. Afterwards, the Semetic people either advanced beyond it or rejoined the other Semetic peoples and adopted one of the Semetic languages. It is all nonesense of course, but the whole construct of "families" is nonesense too. Now, seriously, does anyone really know the HISTORICAL path of the word, in distiction to the assumed, and biased, path of origin which is usually given in dictionaries?

Yep, you definitely have no idea what you are talking about. My patience for dealing with a profoundly benighted anonymous user has run out. This conversation is over. Come back when you have a username and some actual sources other than your own imagination. Nohat 06:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for this childish response or any undue remarks. I've checked your profile and you are not the GOD of the site. If you consider yourself intelligent then do provide answers when asked or shut up, but don't be a moron. As for getting a login, that is not required by the site and certainly I would not do it on your orders. If you do have clout, then do please change the policy of the site and make a login required for any posting. Absent that, again, please keep your attention to the topic and just respond to what is asked or discussed, politely.

Anonymous commenter, please create an account. It only takes a few seconds. You're right that logging in is not required; but it's impolite to have an extended conversation with someone without introducing yourself. Dbenbenn 00:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While most user identities I checked did not have real information about the people behind them, and as such did not really introduce themselves, I'll do it just because you are nice :), but that does not negat the fact that Nohat is childish and a jerk.

Even if Nohat is "childish and a jerk" (though I've not seen evidence of that yet), that does not change the fact that your linguistic theories are nonsense, and that you have yet to provide a citation for any of your claims. YBeayf 01:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neither have you provided citation for that matter. The only evidence I found so far of the origin of Alexander as you state is from a Website on baby names. What a reference! On the other hand, I have tons of Near Eatern histories that call him Iskandar, and they would know since they encountered him, lived the hellenistic age and even supposidly worshipped his person, and also an article on his reference in Indian culture that lists his Sanskrit name as being Skanda, again without the AL so typical of Arabic. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that my questions are not valid, and the fact that you only know Western histories is your loss not mine. Get out of the box a little and see if your mind can take you to other places. If we all went only by the knowledge within encyclopedias and dictionaries then knowledge would not advance at all. And yes, I have not signed in yet, so grow up and live with it.

I can assure you that whatever baby name site you viewed, it was not my source. May I ask what Near Eastern histories you have read, and in what language they were composed? If, as I suspect, they were in Arabic, then the fact that Alexander is referred to as "Iskandar" is no surprise, as that is the Arabic form of his name. The fact that his name in Arabic is "Iskandar" or in Sanskrit is "Skanda" is irrelevant, because his name is GREEK. Alexander was a Greek, he spoke Greek, and to suggest that mutations of his name in other languages somehow mean that his name was Iskandar is ludicrous. Therefore, I must once again ask you for a cite (preferably a reputable one, but at this point I'd be interested in seeing *anything* other than your bald assertions), and I shall not return to this conversation until you have produced one. YBeayf 05:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous comment above: "Neither have you provided citation for that matter." Actually, I cited Webster's dictionary above. Ball's in your court. (By the way, note that the issue is ultimately about how English got the name "Alexander". Details about Alexander the Great are logically secondary.) Dbenbenn 20:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Webster or any other source I looked at did say that it came from Latin from Greek, or just Greek, which is not saying much for the main question. What I am asking about is the assertion that "'Alexander' comes from the Greek words alexein 'to protect' and aner (root form andr-) 'male person'" which is not found in any of the sources available to us the general public. What is the source and is this attested by the existence of "alexein" as a word and/or in other names, or is it constructed, assumed, presummed, probable, possible or any of the words that mean that it is not set in stone.

I know I said I'd stay out of this, but I couldn't resist. Anonymous poster, please see the Latin text of Quintus Curtius Rufus's Life of Alexander the Great. For your convenience, I shall quote the first sentence of Book III, Chapter 1: "Inter haec Alexander ad conducendum ex Peloponneso militem Cleandro cum pecunia misso Lyciae Pamphyliaeque rebus conpositis ad urbem Celaenas exercitum admovit" (emphasis mine). This text was written in the 1st century CE, and should, even if it doesn't have anything to say about "alexein", nevertheless show the absurdity of claiming that "Alexander" comes from "al-Iskandar", unless you are going to claim that a 1st-century Latin author took the name of Alexander from Arabic. YBeayf 18:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See, that was easy. Now I can follow your link and ponder on it a little and see if I can find more information. And you provided us with a link too, great. Hope it did not cost you much! Still, you have not told me yet about the origin/source of your break down of the name to "alexein" and "andr" components. This info would be very helpful. By the way, do I have to enter my name or does this thing do it automatically?

Regarding the origin of the name Alexander, see the entry from the Online Etymology Dictionary: 'masc. proper name, from L., from Gk. Alexandros "defender of men," from alexein "to ward off, keep off, turn (something) away, defend, protect" + aner (gen. andros) "man." The first element is related to Gk. alke "protection, help, strength, power, courage," alkimos "strong;" cf. also Skt. raksati "protects," O.E. ealgian "to defend." ' To put your name and the date you posted, enter four tildes in a row -- they will be converted to the name/date stamp. YBeayf 20:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Type ~~~~ at the end of your message to sign it. You still haven't provided any sources for your shall we say extremely unorthodox linguistic theories. But:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Nohat 20:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for all the links, even though it seems that they all drink from the same stream. However, I find in one of the sources Nohat gave that "in fact it goes back even further to a King of the Hittites (Turkey) called "Alaksandus". (1300 B.C.)." So, if it is a Hittite name, how come it has a Greek etymology? Anyone would care to comment on this? ItisIAnonymous 21:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be taken somewhere else, as it doesn't have much to do with this list of words of Arabic origin. Whether it came from Hittite or Greek, it doesn't belong here. Dbenbenn 23:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

Extra words that OED derives from Arabic: burka, merino. OED disagrees with the derivation from Arabic of many words on this page. There is also an issue with words coming from other languages (esp Sanskrit and Persian) via Arabic, as they are included inconsistently. --Zero 07:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which words does the OED disagree with? I believe I checked most of the doubtful ones, and removed the ones that weren't at least arguably from Arabic. If you can tell me which words you think are wrong I will be more than happy to delete them provided no dictionary asserts Arabic origins. If only one dictionary asserts Arabic origins or the Arabic origins are merely probable or possible, then the entries on this page should say so.

You are correct about inconsistent treatment of words coming from other languages. For related pages, the method I have been using, although it isn't complete really on any page is like this:

If the word's evolution was as follows: source language form1 > proximate language form2 > English form3, then on List of English words of source language origin, there would be an entry like this:

form3

from form1 via proximate language form2

and on the List of words of proximate language origin, there would be an entry like this:

form3

from form2, from source language form1

If there was more than one intermediate language, the handling has varied. We should probably decide on a standard way to do it. Also, if any of the dictionaries consulted were equivocal about the origins of the word, I added either probably or possibly before the word from, depending on how equivocal the etymology was. Further, we might decide to divide each page up into sections by words proximately borrowed from the language, words ultimately borrowed from the language, and words that passed through the language on their way to English. Let's discuss potential standard practices for these pages at Talk:Lists of English words of international origin. We might also want to move Lists of English words of international origin to Lists of borrowed words in English or delete the page altogether now that we have the category. Nohat 08:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Call for Opinion on Kermes

Regarding the listing below,

kermes

قرمز qirmiz (via Spanish; ultimately from Sanskit krmi-ja "worm-produced")

I doubt that an Arab would say "qirmiz" in classical or in slang, but rather "qurmozi" قرمزي

Also it is Sanskrit and not Sanskit

Anyone objects to this modification?

I have checked and found that the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary attributes the english word "Crimson" to the arabic origin "Kermes". Here is the link http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?010206 and here is the text snippet:
Crimson entered English during the 15th century from an Old Spanish version of the Arabic word for kermes. What are kermes? They are the dried female bodies of a round scale insect about the size of a pea that are found on the dwarf evergreen kermes oak of the Mediterranean region. These kermes constitute a very old—perhaps the oldest—dyestuff known to produce a red color.

Persian words

The following Persian words which were wrongly listed as the words of Arabic ORIGIN were ommited by me from the list:

zircon

from Persian Zarnikh

vizier

From middl-ePersian Vichir

spinach

Orange

lemon

lilac

lime

julep

from Persian Gulab

guitar from Persian sitaar (thrre snares)

galingale

check

checkmate

shah."

candy from Persian Qand

borax

from Persian Burah

azure

from Persian Lajevard

algorithm

from Persian Khwarazmi

Almost all of these should be restored. Most English borrowings from Persian are via Arabic, and some of these - algorithm, for instance - are purely Arabic. - Mustafaa 17:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Names or Words

There are some parts of this list which are proper names and therefore oughtn't be here - I'm thinking of the names of Stars. These are not English but English transliterations of the Arabic, as opposed to words which have been taken into the English language such as admiral. GraemeLeggett 18:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)