جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « etymology » در نشریات گروه « علوم اجتماعی »

These notes discuss several words and expressions in the Shahnameh that have been subjects of debate among scholars of the text. In each case, the current understanding by literary experts remains incomplete. The words and expressions in question are: “Shahr-e Iran”, “Bargvā”, “Rakhteh”, and “Sūgvār”. Referring to texts and documents from pre-Islamic languages can shed more light on the meanings of these terms.

The topic of this issue of "Notes on Shahnameh" is a discussion about the two words "Dīnāvar" and "Khīshkār". The commentators of the Shahnameh, as far as the author of this essay knows, have not discussed precisely the meaning and recording of these two words, and if some have mentioned them correctly, their opinions have been lost in the incorrect words of others. Dīnāvar is a variant of the word Dīnvar, and  Khīshkār is the same familiar word in Pahlavi books and treatises, meaning "dutiful" and "honest man", and contrary to what some say, it has no relationship with the persian word "Khīsh", the plow a famous agricultural tool, of course. An attempt has been made to substantiate these two points with the evidence of Persian and Pahlavi writings.

In the third issue of "Notes on Shahnameh", the origin of some proper names in the Shahnameh is discussed. These names include Pishdad, Garvi, Chehrdad, Farshid. What has been said about these names in Persian and sometimes Western sources is obscure. It is natural that there have been changes in the form of these names over time, which has caused their origin or the way they were made to be hidden. In these notes, which are mostly reminders, an attempt has been made to eliminate the defects and to make the correct derivation of these proper names in Shahnameh clear.

Bāleh in the title of the Mashāyikh and elders of the of chivalrous men of Azerbaijan, which also had other forms such as Bole and Baleh and apparently is the same as that found in Bāli in Ottoman form, is probably a word meaning "great" or more likely " great brother".  There are evidences that say that this word has entered the language of Azerbaijan from Rāji dialects. This short text is an attempt to find the origin of this word.

This article contains two notes about two words in Attar Neyshabouri's Ilāhi Nāmih. One about Mastura and the other about Sarpatk. In the first note, the author after rejecting the commentators' view, has tried to obtain the origin of the Persian word for Masturah, in the second note, little information has been added to what is mentioned in the commentary on the meaning of Sarpatk, and some inaccuracies in the annotation have been corrected.

The book of Twelve Ancient Texts is the result of years of research and follow-up by Bijan Gheiby in ancient Iranian texts, especially Middle Persian texts. In each of the articles, the author first presents the sources and then deals with the Pahlavi text, transliteration, translation of the text, lexical notes, and explanation of the ambiguities of the text. This book includes a report on twelve short pahlavi texts such as Wizārišn ī čatrang, mādayān ī yōšt ī Yošt ī Fryān, māh ī Farvardin…, ayādgār ī zarīrān, āmadan ī šāh Bahrām ī warjāwand, Sūr ī saxwan, xwēškārīh ī rīdagān, Rēdakān, Farroxnāmag, čim ī kostīg, āfrīn ī žardšt. This book is very important because of its careful translation of texts and commentaries and the author’s valuable notes. However, the above-mentioned authorship is not without significant shortcomings in terms of scientific principles and methods in correcting and translating ancient texts. These shortcomings have sometimes damaged the principle of authorship. What has seriously damaged the whole collection is the lack of critical correction of the Pahlavi texts; that is, comparing of the manuscripts, transliteration and transcription of the texts, and the mention of the differences in the manuscripts. Obviously, without such a method, reliable translations of the texts cannot be obtained.

This article focuses on the evolution of the image from simplicity to exaggeration in Sami languages. According to an inscription from the ninth century BC, ancient Sami tribes in their first mental experience used the phrase "being eaten by another" as a metaphor for "utter disgrace and helplessness". This stylistic device is also found in the Nevi'im section of the Torah. Then in the Akkadian-Aramaic texts the phrase "eating another person" is a metaphor of "slander / accusation". In Arabic, the phrase "eating human flesh" is a metaphor of "backbiting". Finally, the Qur'an likens the aforementioned moral disorder to an illustration of "eating dead brother's flesh." ." Given the use of the root "'kl" in this common use, the first part of the article, in order to better delineate this evolution, discusses two issues of etymology in Afro-Asian languages, as well as the semantic uses of 'kl in the Qur'an and אכל in the Hebrew Torah.

In the forthcoming article, the author is going to introduce the book the Story of the Words (Analyzing two hundred and thirty words and terms), by Behruz Safarzāde, which was published in 1398 by Bahār publication. After briefly acquainting the reader with the contents of the book, he has begun to criticize some of the explanations contained in the book such as the ones presented in the entries of Boz-e Akhfash (Akhfash›s goat), Vajeha-ye pāchekhār (flattering words), tofang (gun), Rowze khāni va medād (Rowze khāni and pencil).

With the latest theories and findings regarding the historical and comparative linguistics, the rate of accuracy and plausibility of etymologies given for different words in the Iranian languages is improving as the previous suggestions are reviewed or revised and new etymologies proposed. In this research, attempts are made to converge the latest in Indo-European historical-comparative linguistics with Iranian philology and to bridge the gaps between some obscure and problematic Iranian words on the one side and their Indo-European cognates on the other. To do this, a “radix” or primary root, here a Proto-Indo-European *sel-, is reconstructed by a “semanto-cladistic” approach and then a number of secondary roots are hypothesized based on the existing data in Indo-European daughter languages and, in particular, in the Iranian. In the process, some of the etymologies are reviewed and, in some instances, new or alternative ones are proposed.