Language desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 30

Couth mouth

When, approximately, was the most recent time in the history of the English language when "mouth" and "couth" still rhymed? — Kpalion^(talk) 11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that "couth" has remained unchanged (why?), then "mouth" started to change early in the Great Vowel Shift. According to the table, /uː/ had changed to /ou/ by the year 1500. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar note, I wonder what happened with soup, wound, and youth, though mostly the latter two since in the case of soup, you could point out that although it was present in Middle English, it came from Old French. GalacticShoe (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean wound or wound?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant wound ;) GalacticShoe (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Scotsman can have a couthie mooth. --Lambiam 06:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thank you! — Kpalion^(talk) 12:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic terms for Muslim toilet jug

uz:Qumgʻon is a term for aftabeh used by (according to iw links) Bashkirs, Chechens, Tatars, Chuvashes, Kyrgyz, and Uzbeks. What is the origin of that term? What is the Turkish equivalent?

aftabeh and abdasta are Persian terms for the same item, used by (according to iw links) Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs, Tajiks, and Uzbeks again. According to the Uzbek article, "Qumgʻon differs from obdasta by the size of its mouth and neck".

wikt:آفتابه states that the Persian term had also been used in Ottoman Turkish, but no Modern Turkish descendants are listed. An Ottoman Turkish synonym that is listed, ابریق ibrīq, resulted in Modern Turkish ibrik; but curiously, ibriq redirects to aftabeh, while ibrik is an article about a Turkish coffee pot. 147.234.72.83 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This reference may be useful: [1]. (Although it gives relationships in Altaic languages and Nostratic languages, so use with care!). --Amble (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also fa:قمقمه qomqome, a Semitic borrowing, superficially similar to the Turkic *qumgan both phonetically and semantically, yet seemingly unrelated. 62.219.224.152 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And from that borrowing comes Turkish güğüm. Turkish Wiktionary has an entry for Old Turkic "kumgan" that can mean "güğüm". Here's an article about rose products in Turkey that mentions both words and connects them, which (as you mentioned) probably isn't right: [2]. --Amble (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that güğüm came to Turkish through quite a detour. The Turkish Wiktionary states it comes from Pontic Greek. Nişanyan gives κουκούμιον as the etymon; LSJ mentions this as a diminutive of κούκκουμα (jar), a loan from Latin cucuma (cooking vessel), which is assumed to be a Semitic borrowing. --Lambiam 16:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The version on English Wiktionary for wikt:گوگم#Ottoman_Turkish connects it from Greek to Syriac (without passing through Latin), and then possibly through Akkadian to Sumerian. Whoever started it, just about everyone seems to have thought it was worth borrowing. --Amble (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THe only term I've been able to find used for a jug as commonly seen in a Turkish squat toilet is maşrapa. This is a generic term for mug-shaped water containers, these days typically made of plastic. --Lambiam 06:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the OP I learnt the etymology of Polish imbryk "teapot". (But why the extra m?) Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It flows better, I guess. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First use of "Armenian highlands"

According to the Turkish Wikiedia (tr:Ermeni Yaylası): "The expression Armenian Plateau was first used by German geologist Hermann Abich in 1843 in his lecture titled "About the Geological Structure of the Armenian Plateau", which he gave at the University of Dorpat , then known as Dorpat University. In this lecture, Abich talked about the surface studies he carried out in the Caucasus and Eastern Anatolia regions . The term "Armenian Plateau" is not found before this date." (translated)

Is the above correct? When were the terms Armenian highlands, Armenian upland, Armenian plateau, or Armenian tableland first used? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original title of Abich's lecture is Über die geologische Natur des armenischen Hochlandes.^[3] It will be very difficult to establish with certainty that this was the very first use of the term; to be sure one needs to peruse all articles and treatises buried in the archives of old libraries around the world. I am not sure why anyone should care about the precise first date of use of the term "American Cordillera", or of the term "Anatolian Plate", or of the term "Armenian Plateau". --Lambiam 05:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A lot of people care, unfortunately. See for instance Tigran A. Avakian's latest tweet (he's the former Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine) and the reactions below. A bit like the debate around the definition of Anatolia. So it would be useful to know when the terms were first used in a geographic or topographic sense (rather than an ethnographic definition or an irredentist one such as United Armenia). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have recently learned that google books dating is not always reliable, but a look at the ngram [4] suggests that the highlands term is oldest, so you might want to focus on that one in your search. In the German corpus, the ngram [5] also hints that you might find uses predating 1843. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use here is clearly from 1817. When this was written, the geographic term "province of Armenia" referred to a province of the Ottoman Empire.^[6][7][8] --Lambiam 16:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on xwitter. Are Avakian's xweet and the reactions really about the date of first use of the term? --Lambiam 15:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(You can use Nitter to read threads without logging in.) Indeed, the date of first use isn't the issue discussed on Twitter, the debates are way more primitive than this, but you can understand from the remark on the Turkish Wikipedia that it is implied. After in the Turkish article you can find (translation): The expression Armenian Plateau is used today, especially by some European and Armenian geologists and geographers. Additionally, this term is also frequently used by radical Armenian nationalists. Turkish people instead say "Eastern Anatolia", even though historically Anatolia was the western two-thirds of Turkey, bordering the Armenian Highlands and Mesopotamia).

Thanks for the 1817 source, I'll update the Turkish article accordingly...

In any case, the article Armenian highlands would benefit from a "Toponymy" or "Etymology" section. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1792 in English. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the sentence, "But Karabagh may be regarded as a separate geographical unit, combining in miniature many of the characteristics of the Armenian highlands—an inner plateau region flanked by peripheral ranges." It occurs on page 307^[9] in a quote taken from a book^[10] written by H. F. B. Lynch, originally published in 1901. --Lambiam 04:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can a book printed in the year 1792 possibly quote a source that was originally published in 1901? 82.166.199.42 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand either but it's possible that 1792 refers to the first edition and that the online version is a republished one with a note added in the new edition? Because the sentence is indeed from Lynch 1901 and there's an explicit reference to Lynch's Travels through Armenia (Armenia, Travels and Studies?) HFB Lynch's father, Thomas Kerr Lynch, wasn't even born in 1792. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is not from the original text by Joseph Emin, it's found in a note added by the editors of the later edition. --Amble (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That later edition is a reprint published in 1918. --Lambiam 21:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]