# Arabic: tarjaman ترجمان



## AbdulJabbar

The Arabic word for interpreter or translator, tarjaman, looks suspiciously like the the word for Turkoman. In verb form, it is a (rare) Arabic 4-letter root (most verb roots are 3-letter), t-r-j-m. 
Does anyone know the origin of this word? Were wandering Turkic businessmen the original polyglots, such that they were considered human babel-fish and employed as translators?
Thanks.


----------



## origumi

Root "trgm" exists also in Hebrew for at least 2400 years (Old Testament, Ezra 4:7). Semitic root "rgm" means "speak" (Akkadian), "cry" (Ugaritic), "explain" (Aramaic). The 4-letters root "trgm" in Hebrew (and maybe also in Arabic) is derived (either directly or via Aramaic) from Assyrian "targumanu" = "one who reads, speaks".

See here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3156531.
Also several Hebrew sources such as http://he.wiktionary.org/wiki/תרגום, http://israel.hagalil.com/middle-east/semitic.htm.


----------



## 0m1

origumi said:


> Root "trgm" exists also in Hebrew for at least 2400 years (Old Testament, Ezra 4:7). Semitic root "rgm" means "speak" (Akkadian), "cry" (Ugaritic), "explain" (Aramaic). The 4-letters root "trgm" in Hebrew (and maybe also in Arabic) is derived (either directly or via Aramaic) from Assyrian "targumanu" = "one who reads, speaks".



Out of curiosity, is there a reason you say the root is derived from "Assyrian"? Wouldn't it make more sense to regard the Assyrian (or Akkadian) as cognate?


----------



## origumi

0m1 said:


> Out of curiosity, is there a reason you say the root is derived from "Assyrian"? Wouldn't it make more sense to regard the Assyrian (or Akkadian) as cognate?


The 3rd link above says:


> These [the months names] are part of a small vocabulary common to Hebrew and Arabic whose origin is in the Assyrian language (such as the word 'targum').


I guess that the problem is with the 4 letters root. Arabic and Hebrew share root "trgm" although the old root is "rgm". For both, 4-letters root is an exception. A reasonable explanation is borrowing a foreign word (Assyrian in this case) including the initial "t": the Hebrew / Arabic audience couldn't tell that it's not really part of the root.


----------



## 0m1

Ahh, that makes sense; I wonder, could we even suggest that it was some sort of Proto-Arab-Canaanite borrowing then, or would that be contrary to Semitic linguistics?

And I wonder if the root R-G-M survives in its original form in Arabic... there's رجيم (rajiim), meaning accursed, descriptive of the devil, in the Quran; But perhaps more clearly still we have rajmuun (conjecture, guesswork - ironically, what most of this is! ), and  marajim (foul speech), both of which, according to Project Roots List, are traced to a R-J-M root.


----------



## origumi

In Hebrew root r-g-m means "to throw stones". Maybe similar to Arabic "rujm" = "a heap of stones". Before going to Assyrian, the theory about "trgm" = "to translate" was that one metaphorically "throws words from one language to the other".


----------



## 0m1

That's odd though, because the root for rajm meaning to stone (which does exist in Arabic too, as  to stone, cast stones, stone to death), shares the same root as the "verbal" meanings, R-J-M, but also lacks the T, so the stone-throwing theory must have been a strange one, considering the root itself had a lot to do with speech already. 

But I suppose the Assyrian theory makes it all irrelevant anyway, with the same root going to T-R-G-M and back into a Proto-Language which developed into separate Arabic and Hebrew [trgm/trjm], which both also retained words from the original RGM root, such as "to stone", "accursed" and "foul speech"


----------



## origumi

0m1 said:


> But I suppose the Assyrian theory makes it all irrelevant anyway, with the same root going to T-R-G-M and back into a Proto-Language which developed into separate Arabic and Hebrew [trgm/trjm]


Hebrew is assumed to have borrowed root t-r-g-m about 2500 years ago either directly from Assyrian (in the geographical region of Assyria) or more likely via Aramaic that ousted the original Akkadian languages and yet was influenced by them in the east.

Of what I read Arabic borrowed t-r-j-m later, maybe from Assyrian, Aramaic or Hebrew.

From historical point of view what you mean by "Proto Arabic-Canaanite" is apparently "Central Semitic". This must be much more than 3500-4000 years old (when Aramaic and Canaanite splitted and were already very different from Arabic) - most likely too early for t-r-j-m. The route of Assyrian -> Aramaic -> Hebrew / Arabic seems the most probable.


----------



## 0m1

Thanks for explaining that, makes sense to me now


----------



## Abu Rashid

Origumi,



> Semitic root "rgm" means "speak" (Akkadian), "cry" (Ugaritic)


The Ugaritic verb rgm means to speak, not cry as far as I'm aware. It is a common opening phrase in the Ugaritic letters that have been found.

The noun rgm in Ugaritic means speech, noise or sound.

Om1,



> And I wonder if the root R-G-M survives in its original form in  Arabic... there's رجيم (rajiim), meaning accursed, descriptive of the  devil, in the Quran


That is the same root that exists in Arabic, and carries mostly the meaning of stoning or cursing. But it also carries the meaning of doubtfully guessing or engaging in conjecture and even prophesising. It also has this same meaning in Akkadian (Assyrian), raggimu being one word for a prophet, perhaps meaning to "speak from God".


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> The Ugaritic verb rgm means to speak, not cry as far as I'm aware. It is a common opening phrase in the Ugaritic letters that have been found.
> 
> The noun rgm in Ugaritic means speech, noise or sound.


True, I swapped the Akkadian "shout, bring legal action against" [Rosenthal, Rabin] with Ugaritic "speak, say". But see this Ugaritic verse (which is also almost perfect Hebrew), where "rgm" was translated as "clamor":

Ugaritic: *rgm* `s wlhst 'abn / t'ant smm `m 'ars / thmt `mn kbkbm
Hebrew: *רוגם* עץ ולוחשת אבן / תואנות (טוענות?) שמיים עם ארץ / תהומות עימן כוכבים
English: the *clamor* of the tree and the whispering of the stone, the sighing of heaven with earth, of the deep with the stars.

http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1997%2025/Polak25.pdf (p. 38)


----------



## XiaoRoel

En las lenguas románicas esta palabra ha dejado descendencia con dos consonantismos, una forma con *dr-* (por intermedio del _griego bizantino_ *δραγούμανος*), _italiano_ y _langue d'Oc_ _*drag(o)mán*_, y otra forma con *tr-*, como francés _*truchemán*_ (que prestó al español moderno _*truchimán*_), español clásico *trujamán*, catalán *torsimany*, palabras todas aparecidas en estas lenguas en la baja Edad Media (siglos XII-XIII en adelante).
En los medios romanísticos se consideran estas palabras derivadas todas del _árabe_ *turǧumân* < *tárǧam* ('traducir'), que se consideran préstamos del _arameo_ (*targem* 'interpretar', _hebreo rabínico_ *Targum*). Este préstamo lo transmite el árabe al _pelví_ y al _persa maniqueo_ con anterioridad a la Héjira (_persa medio_ *turgumân*) y del persa se habría transmitido al _griego bizantino_ (otras versiones opinan que al griego debió pasar desde el _árabe egipcio_ que pronunciaba /ǧ/ como /g/). En árabe su atestación más antigua está en las _Mil y una noches_ ("El hombre y la bestia", el más antiguo del libro, y que refleja el _árabe iraquí_ del s. X).
A pesar de su forma con cuatro consonantes (formas siempre sospechosas de ser préstamos en árabe), el _árabe_ _*tarǧam*_ 'traducir' derivaría de una _raíz semítica_ que produce en _árabe_ _*raǧam*_ 'conjeturar' que ya aparece en el _Corán_.


----------



## ancalimon

Does the word mean anything if "T" or "TA" are removed?


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> Does the word mean anything if "T" or "TA" are removed?


That's what has been explain here several times: r-g-m (the Semitic phoneme represented as "g" is pronounced like an English "j" in Arabic and like a "g" as in "gold" in other Semitic languages) exists as a root with slightly different meanings in many Semitic languages. But the meanings of r-g-m and t-r-g-m are very different. The proposed etymology is than t-r-g-m (remember, vowels don't count where looking at etymology of Semitic words) was in Akkadian a derived form from the root r-g-m (t- being an inflectional prefix) and this derived word form entered other Semitic languages as a loan becoming a new rooot with a meaning different from r-g-m with which it exists side by side.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Although the theory that it was merely an inflected form of r-g-m in Akkadian that was borrowed wholesale into other Semitic languages does seem plausible, it is equally just as probable it could be a quadriliteral root, that just happens to share 3 radicals with a triliteral root.

The fact that it exists in so many Semitic languages in the same form suggests strongly that it could be. It's not often that borrowings are so widely distributed in the exact same form. Apart from Arabic and Hebrew there's also Syriac ܬܪܓܡ (targem) and Amharic ተረጉመ (targuma) and probably others.


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> Apart from Arabic and Hebrew there's also Syriac ܬܪܓܡ (targem) and Amharic ተረጉመ (targuma) and probably others.


* *Syriac *is an Aramaic dialect
* The *Amharic *word is too similar to Hebrew - most likely result of borrwing (direct or indirect)
* In *Hebrew* the word is first seen when the Hebrew people returns from exile in Akkadian lands (which already speak Aramaic)

Compare it to what XiaoRoel demostrated above for Greek and Romance languages.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> *Syriac *is an Aramaic dialect



And? Syriac as about as much a dialect of Aramaic as Amharic is of Ge'ez or some other Semitic languages are of their groups. The delimiter between what makes them dialects or distinct languages is not so clear.



> The *Amharic *word is too similar to Hebrew - most likely result of  borrwing (direct or indirect)



All of the words are fairly similar between the languages, since there's only a few different patterns on which the radicals can be arranged, it's not that strange.



> In *Hebrew* the word is first seen when the Hebrew people returns  from exile in Akkadian lands (which already speak Aramaic)



I don't think there's a great deal of pre-exilic Hebrew inscriptions anyway is there? So the fact it didn't appear before then isn't so helpful anyway.

Anyway I am not pushing the idea it's not borrowed from Akkadian, just making a suggestion.


----------



## origumi

The suggestion introduced earlier in this thread (based on some sources) is that t-r-g-m was borrowed from Assyrian to Aramaic to other languages. If you are suggesting that the root developed (or remained frozen) independently in the various Semitic languages from a common ancestor:

* The fact that the root exists in Syriac doesn't specifically support your suggestion (because it's also part of the borrowed-from-Assyrian suggestion).

* Claiming that the Amharic word is not borrowed although it's so similar to Hebrew, you should inspect the sound shifts in the 1000s of years since Hebrew and Amharic were seperated - I didn't make this investigation yet suspects that there were enough changes and therefore the words cannot be almost identical.

* Pre-exilic Hebrew is attested mainly by the Bible, not inscriptions. There are nearly 10000 different words in the Bible (depends of course on how they are counted).


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> And? Syriac as about as much a dialect of Aramaic as Amharic is of Ge'ez or some other Semitic languages are of their groups. The delimiter between what makes them dialects or distinct languages is not so clear.


The point is that the two existed already as distinct words in Imperial Aramaic and Syriac is descendent from Imperial Aramaic.

The hypothesis was that t-r-g-m was originally an Akkadian loan into Aramaic from where it spread into other Semitic languages.

Your counter argument was that t-r-g-m exists in many Semitic languages and that this suggest a Proto-Semitic origin. Obviously, languages or dialects descendent from Imperial Aramaic cannot serve as valid examples for your argument.


----------



## AbdulJabbar

Sorry I started such a lively argument, but it's very interesting. I suspect the "perfect answer" is lost in the mists of history, but it's fascinating to such such scholars at work. Thank you all.


----------



## Abu Rashid

[





origumi said:


> The fact that the root exists in Syriac doesn't specifically support  your suggestion (because it's also part of the borrowed-from-Assyrian  suggestion).


Agreed. Was just mentioning it as part of my listing of languages which have the word.

Note I did say: _"Apart from Arabic and Hebrew there's also Syriac..."_ and not: _"Apart from Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic there's also Syriac..."

_Therefore I really don't know why you bothered to point out it's one of the dialects of Aramaic.





origumi said:


> Claiming that the Amharic word is not borrowed although it's so similar  to Hebrew, you should inspect the sound shifts in the 1000s of years  since Hebrew and Amharic were seperated - I didn't make this  investigation yet suspects that there were enough changes and therefore  the words cannot be almost identical.


I don't see why it's impossible. Amharic even shares some strong similarities with Arabic and even Akkadian (I think I've read) so why not Hebrew.



origumi said:


> Pre-exilic Hebrew is attested mainly by the Bible, not inscriptions.


The text of the Bible is only as useful as the earliest attestations of it. So if it wasn't found in an inscription, then we can only know it goes back as far as the earliest manuscripts.



origumi said:


> There are nearly 10000 different words in the Bible (depends of course  on how they are counted).


Right, but how many of them are attested in pre-exilic times?


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Therefore I really don't know why you bothered to point out it's one of the dialects of Aramaic.


The relevance to your argument has been explained, if you care to read.





Abu Rashid said:


> I don't see why it's impossible. Amharic even  shares some strong similarities with Arabic and even Akkadian (I think  I've read) so why not Hebrew.


You didn't address his argument in your reply here. His point is that if certain characteristic sound shifts are missing then we have strong reason to assume a a word is a loan.


----------



## clevermizo

berndf said:


> His point is that if certain characteristic sound shifts are missing then we have strong reason to assume a a word is a loan.



To be fair Proto-Semitic */r,g,m/>/r,g,m/ in Ge'ez at least, and probably also Amharic. However, I still think that the word was borrowed, probably through Aramaic as a vehicle.



origumi said:


> * Pre-exilic Hebrew is attested mainly by the Bible, not inscriptions. There are nearly 10000 different words in the Bible (depends of course on how they are counted).



I'm not even sure I remember the usage of any inflection of /t-r-g-m/ in the Bible, but it's been a long time for me to look it over. The only usage (not sure if it's even found in the text, but extra-Biblically) that strikes me is the word "*targum*" or "translation" which specifically referred to the translation of parts of the Bible into..... (drum roll).... *Aramaic*.


----------

