[go: up one dir, main page]

Talk:Oud

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 5.123.177.78 in topic Hosin

Linguistics

edit

There has been a back and forth over linguistics. The article has information from two sources. The way the section is written, it shows different views that have been published over the linguistics. The article isn't choosing whether one is correct. If there is another view for interested readers to consider, it should be put into the article with the earlier stated views and provide a source. I am not disputing that a linguist could have different views. More authoratative sources of information would be a welcome addition. Is there any  information  published  that makes  either  author seem unreliable?Jacqke (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not only that a linguist could have different views. It's that a linguist is the expert here, not a musicologist. Because this isn't about tuning or the intestines of the soundbox, it's about words. It would be the same for a historian, an astronomer or any other non-linguist on a quest for etymologies in their field. Therefore Dumbrill (and the other musicologist whom you also reverted my tag on, Eckhard Neubauer) cannot be put forth tacitly as if they were the last word on the matter. No matter if some other "view" is provided or not. Of course, a linguist would need to consult with a musicologist to be able e.g. to rule out etymologies that are too conflicting with what is known about the spread of the instrument. But the opposite is equally true about sound laws and the like.
Generally there is a notion that you needn't be a linguist to go on a quest for etymologies. That it suffices if you are a historian, musicologist or whatever other expertise you have that may have use for etymologies. After all, how hard can it be when we are all using at least one language daily?
Well, one could expect a scholar or one with some insight into scholarship to realise that it may be harder than you think. As with most subjects we don't know, we don't know the complexities either. We don't know how much there is to know – and to think about.
In this instance for example:
Rōd or rūd > oud: when and why did the "r" disappear? Can it be explained as part of a general r-dropping? If not, you have to make believable why a sound in such a strong position, and which exists in that position in numerous other words in the receiving language, just disappears.
– The "c" in crwth with the etymology proposed: what sound law mandated the addition of that, what particle or analogy can it possibly be derived from, or how else do you make it credible?
I know of no support for any of the above, but there are other more qualified ideas (see Wiktionary for a quick look). If the musicologists in question have more to their etymologies than is cited here, it needs to be added – preferably together with the names of the linguists they have consulted.
But I doubt they have consulted any. Going straight to the pertinent discipline (Oriental linguistics or similar) would be better. Anyway, I haven't got the time to do the work. Hence my tags. If you have the time, please go ahead!
Apologies for a longish comment. I wrote it for an earlier version of the original post and can't spend too much time rewriting it. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would like to consider your reply in detail before answering; I am working right now. A tag may certainly be appropriate. Let me consider and I’ll get back to you. Question, have you looked at the source for Dumbrill? I have to look at it again tonight, but I seem to remember that he teamed with a linguist for the research. However, I might be misremembering. Jacqke (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
No, I haven't got Dumbrill's book. Would be interesting in its own right too, but that must be for another time. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
That’s sounds fine. I’ll look at Dumbbrill's book tonight to see what got left out. Why don’t you look at the links besides my user Page and e-mail me? Jacqke (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello again, sorry to keep you waiting. Richard J. Dumbril's book, The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East contained 5 pages of fairly dense linguistic content, along with the sources. I cannot put it all here, but if you want to read it all, please contact me. I summarized Dumbrill's material into one of the points that you marked as dubious. Perhaps my summarization is dubious, but I wouldn't characterize Dumbrill's research that way. I would agree that "expert needed" is an appropriate tag. Unfortunately, I have yet to see that kind of tag actually do anything other than sit for years unanswered. I am putting a page below that I used when creating my summary, along with the footnotes on that page, which contain the sources. Many of the characters did not come out right in a cut and paste, but this should give you an idea of some of the book's linguistic content. Jacqke (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
The word 'rud' comes from the Sanskrit 'rudrī'[1] which means 'stringed instrument' and shares some homophony with Sumerian gù.di. The word spreads on the one hand via the Indo-European medium into the Spanish 'rota'; French 'rotte'; Welsh 'crwth', etc, and on the other, via the Semitic medium, into Arabic 'ud; Ugaritic 'd[2]; Spanish 'laúd'; German 'Laute'; French 'luth' and so forth. The long-necked lute in the OED is orthographed as tambura; tambora, tamera, tumboora; tambur(a) and tanpoora. We have an Arabic ṭunbur; Persian tanbur; Armenian pandir; Georgian panturi. and a Serbo-Croat tamburitza.

The Greeks called it pandura; panduros; phanduros; panduris or pandurion. The Latin is pandura. It is attested as a Nubian instrument in the third century BC. The earliest literary allusion to lutes in Greece comes from Anaxilas in his play The Lyre-maker as 'trichordos' which is the Sumerian giš.sa.3 = pitnu šelašti[3]. According to Pollux, the trichordon[4] (sic) was Assyrian and they gave it the name pandoura[5]. There is here some homophony with b/pan.tur, where Sumerian giš b/pan[6] equates to Akkadian qaštu (tilpanu) = (wood)-'bow' and Sumerian 'tur' equating to Akkadian seheru = 'small'. This is further reflected in Georgian where tar, thir and tul, also mean 'small'. That the gù.di found its origins in the ban.tur may be hypothesised from the etymology of both terms. On the one hand, the small arched-harp, ban.tur which may have kept the name after the straightening of its neck, eventually led to pandura. and, on the other, the gù.di led to either the 'rotte; rota; crwth' or to the 'ud ; 'd ; luth; lute; laute and laúd'.

:1 In a recent communication, Gèrard Huet told me that the Sanskrit word rudri (fem.) is an abbreviation of rudravInA, that is 'vInA of rudra'. Monier-Williams defines it as a stringed instrument 'sorte de luth ou de guitare". See Danielou, 'L'Inde du Nord' (Buchet/Chastel 1966). :2 In šachar and Šalim, l. 12 as šb'd.yrgm.'l.'d = 7 times to be recited to the accompaniment of the lute?: Gordon, C.H., Ugaritic literature (1949) 59; Driver, G.R., Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh 1956) 120 f., and Caquot, A., Textes ougaritiques I (1974) 370 f. and n I. :3 MSL VI, 124. In Hh VII B Gap a, line b. :4 West, M.L., Ancient Greek Music (Oxford 1992) 80, fn 144. :5 One can assume that it was the reverse which happened. :6 Note that the constellation Canis Major, the 'Big Dog, BAN = qaštu, is listed in Šulgi Hymn B as one of the instruments he played.
I tried to clean up the text, but some characters were unavailable in html. Also, some of this content is only understandable with previous pages both for previously defined concepts and especially for the Sumerian words. At the time I summarized it, I understood it fairly well, but would need to study it again to talk intelligently about it. I can understand the need of an expert linguist, to evaluate the content further and to summarize for an encyclopedia. I think I got the summary into brief layman's terms, but perhaps it could be better. Please let me know what you think. Jacqke (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Origin of name oud

edit

Naming the oud from the Arabic language, and the oud: every wood, minute or thick, and wet or dry. Is not perisan or sanskrit word. Sarazxs123 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hosin

edit

Ho sin hosinzadh 5.123.177.78 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply