--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@>
> wrote:
>
> > "BAD"
> > Bengali/Oriya <kharap>, Hindi/Rajasthani <kharab>, are Perso-
> > Arabic loans; why do the authors of the study regard them as
> > native Indo-Aryan words?
>
> If you are just doing similarity comparisons on languages, there is
> no justification for excluding loan words. The question is rather
> whether they are now the 'typical' words for the meaning.
Excuse my ignorance, but why should loan words, even those which have
in course of time become typical for a given meaning, be included in
these Swadesh-like lists created for the sake of historical
comparison? As minimum, one should in this case consider carefully
the time depth at which the loan took place (e.g.: was it in the
prehistoric period? in the early historical period? three centuries
ago? etc.).
I give two examples: English (like most of other European languages)
borrowed the words for 'cotton' and 'alcohol' from Medieval Arabic;
indeed, 'cotton' is from Arabic quTun/quTn, which is possibly derived
from a Proto-Semitic root meaning 'to be small, be thin' (in this
case, said of textiles); 'alcohol' is from Arabic (al-)kuHuul, pl. of
kuHl 'antimony' (from a Proto-Semitic root; in this case used
euphemistically in the sense of 'fine powder' to designate alcohol).
If one includes loan words like these in Swadesh-like lists such as
those used by "our" Slovenian researchers, will English and Arabic
cluster close to each other after they have put the data into their
shaker? :^)
Thanks and best regards,
Francesco