# Etymology of Persian word Feroush فروش which means sell or sale



## SumWoman

Greetings everyone,

I am looking for information about the Persian word 'feroush' -
فروش
which means 'sell' or 'sale'.

Can we break it down, please? What is the root word? What does it mean?

Thanks so much. Glad I found this place.


----------



## PersoLatin

فروش (foruš/fruš) is the present stem of فروختن - to sell, and is used to form various present tense verbs, e.g. in the  imperative form i.e. a command, بفروش - sell, or مى فروشم I sell, etc.

On its own, it is used in this term خريد و فروش which means 'buy & sell'.

It can mean 'seller' in terms like گل فروش - flower seller, رنگ فروش - paint seller


----------



## fdb

You asked about the etymology. The usual hypothesis is that New Persian firōxtan, present stem firōš-, is from Middle Persian frōxtan, frōxš- “to sell”, from Old Iranian *fra-waxš-, from the verb *waxš- “to grow”, with the preverb fra-.  This does imply a fairly complicated semantic shift “grow” > “prosper” > “become rich by commerce” > “buy or sell”.

waxš- “to grow” is cognate with English “wax” (of the moon), Greek auksō etc., Indo-European *Hueg-so-.


----------



## SumWoman

Thanks for your replies. 

Okay, 'fra' or 'feru' means 'through' which means 'by the way of'.
Presently, in Persian, 'feru' means 'through'.
Is this right? The word 'feru' (through) appears in the word 'feroush'?

waxš - how do I pronounce this?

You say, it means 'wax' as in 'to grow'
Presently, in Persian, the word 'rousht' means 'grow'.
Is it possible that, 'feROUSH' is indicating the word 'rousht'?

Thanks again for your time. Looking forward to your response.


----------



## Treaty

_fra _is akin to "forth" (cf. "pro") not "through". I'm not sure what "feru" is, but if you mean _forū,_ it means "down", usually as a prefix, not "through" or "by the way". Etymologically, it has the element _fra _in it (from _fra-vata > frōt > forūd > _(I guess by d>y)_ forūy > forū_. By "rousht", I suppose you mean _rošd _رشد that is from Arabic _rušd, _and is not related to _forūš_.

Regarding waxš , x stands for خ  and š for ش.


----------



## CyrusSH

The proto-IE word for "to sell" is *_pera-_: Indo-European etymology : Query result


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> The proto-IE word for "to sell" is *_pera-_: Indo-European etymology : Query result



This may or may not be true, but it has no bearing on Persian firōxtan.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> This may or may not be true, but it has no bearing on Persian firōxtan.



But the question is about the word فروش from the verb فروشیدن "to sell": معنی فروشیدن | لغت‌نامه دهخدا

Look at Shahnameh:

 فروشید گوهر به زر و به سیم
زن بیوه و کودکان یتیم

Molana:

زودتر استر فروشید آن حریص
یافت از غم وز زیان آن دم محیص


----------



## fdb

firō(x)š is the present stem, with past stem firōxt. As is very common in Persian, there is also a “secondary” past stem formed from the present stem plus -īd, in this case firōšīd, infinitive firōšīdan. These are all the same lemma.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> firō(x)š is the present stem, with past stem firōxt. As is very common in Persian, there is also a “secondary” past stem formed from the present stem plus -īd, in this case firōšīd, infinitive firōšīdan. These are all the same lemma.



Persian has its own rules and the verbs were not built for fun, if the present stem is _firōxš_ then the past stem should be _firōxšid_, like _deraxš_ and _deraxšid_ or _baxš_ and _baxšid_.


----------



## fdb

I honestly do not understand what you are saying. Are you denying the existence of the verb فروختن? If not, what is its present stem?


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> I honestly do not understand what you are saying. Are you denying the existence of the verb فروختن? If not, what is its present stem?



Of course it exists, the present stem is فروز. It actually means "to burn" but in the Persian culture, it can also mean "to sell", آتش به مال زدن.


----------



## fdb

These are two different verbs:

NP fi/urōxtan, present fi/urōš “to sell” < *fra-waxš- (MP frōxš)

NP afrōxtan (also furōxtan), pres. afrōz (furōz) “to ignite” < *abi-rauč- (MP abrōz)

furōxtan “to sell” and furōxtan “to ignite” are homonyms; they are identical in the past tense, but not in the present tense.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> These are two different verbs:
> 
> NP fi/urōxtan, present fi/urōš “to sell” < *fra-waxš- (MP frōxš)
> 
> NP afrōxtan (also furōxtan), pres. afrōz (furōz) “to ignite” < *abi-rauč- (MP abrōz)
> 
> furōxtan “to sell” and furōxtan “to ignite” are homonyms; they are identical in the past tense, but not in the present tense.



There could be two different verbs but the problem is that in the Persian verbs an alveolar sibilant ending (-z/-s) could be changed to the voiceless velar fricative (x) in cluster but as I explained in the post #10, it didn't happen about _xš_.


----------



## fdb

Post-vocalic č becomes z in Middle Persian. This is absolutely regular. *abi-rauč- becomes abrōz. *abi-rauk-ta becomes abrōxt. Also perfectly regular.


----------



## SumWoman

Unfortunately, I'm not at all versed in technical terminology, but I do hope we can get to the bottom of this.

According to Google Translate:
Persian word فروشگاه (f/r/sh/ga) translates to the English word 'store'
Persian word فرودگاه (f/r/d/ga) translates to the English word 'airport'
Persian word فرو (f/r/u) translates to the English words 'fall in'

Translating the other way:
English word 'fall' translates to the Persian word فروکش (fru ksh)
English words 'fall in' translates to the Persian words ریختن (fru rkhtn)


In daily life, I use the Persian words فرو رفت (fru rft) to indicate the English words 'went through' or 'into'
For example the Persian phrase میخ فرو رفت به دیوار meaning "nail went through / into / penetrated the wall".

I'm not indicating a loss of altitude, I am meaning to indicate something went through into another. Does this make sense?

Google translates the Persian words فرو رفت (fru rft) to the English word 'sank'.

Is it wrong to use the Persian word فرو (fru) to indicate the English word 'through' or 'into'?
I wouldn't be using it unless I had heard it used in this sense.

When I want to indicate the English word 'fall', I use the Persian word افتاد (oaf taud) and even the word ریختن (ree kh tan) which translates to the English word 'pour'. So the Persian words فرو ریختن literally translates to the English words 'down pour'.

-----

In any case, what is the word فرو doing in the words فروشگاه and فرودگاه

Thanks for your replies.


----------



## Treaty

SumWoman said:


> In daily life, I use the Persian words فرو رفت (fru rft) to indicate the English words 'went through' or 'into'. For example the Persian phrase میخ فرو رفت به دیوار meaning "nail went through / into / penetrated the wall".


There are two issues here. First, you shouldn't compare Persian and English phrases, word by word. Each word has its own history. If, in one context, "to go through" = فرو رفتن, it doesn't mean فرو = through. Take "download" for example. In French it is télécharger that literally means "afar-load". However this doesn't mean English "down" means "afar", or French télé means "down".

Second, we should differentiate between figurative and literal meanings. For example, we can say a sentence like "the nail _sank_ into the wall". However, neither the wall is a liquid, nor the nail really went downward into it. The reason we can use "sank" in this sentence is that we implicitly liken the surface of a wall to that of water. So, if "sinking" is the same as "going through the surface of water", then "going through the surface of a wall" can also be expressed by "sinking". The same applies to _forū-raftan _(as a whole phrase)_. _It can be applied for anything going through a surface into an object.



SumWoman said:


> In any case, what is the word فرو doing in the words فروشگاه and فرودگاه


_gāh_ is a suffix connoting location. So, _forūš-gāh_ means "place of selling" and _forūd-gāh_ means "place of landing (i.e. going downward)". The etymology of _forūš _and _forūd _are already explained. By the way, these two words are very recent words (100 years or less). We shouldn't use words invented so recently to find an ancient etymology of a part of them.


----------



## CyrusSH

As I mentioned in the post #6, proto-IE *_pera-_ means "to sell", the proto-Iranian word is  *_para-_ "to sell", Khotanese _parath_ "sell", Bactrian _parala_ "to sell", Sogdian _pryθ_ "to sell", Chorasmian p’rδ "to sell", Pashto _prolal_ "to sell", Yidgha _prīst_ "to sell", Munji _perīst_ "to sell", Yaghnobi _pirónt_ "to sell", Ormuri _prawak_ "to sell", ...

Some European linguists make the most unbelievable story about a simple Persian word (grow > prosper > become rich by commerce > sell !!!) because they just believe that in Persian fricativization only occured in cluster: Sound change - Wikipedia "Note that the fricativization does not occur before stops, so *sapta "seven" > Av. hapta. (However, in the variety of Iranian that led to Old Persian, *fricativization occurs in all clusters*, thus Old Persian hafta "seven".)


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Post-vocalic č becomes z in Middle Persian. This is absolutely regular. *abi-rauč- becomes abrōz. *abi-rauk-ta becomes abrōxt. Also perfectly regular.



Of course it is regular but the verb that you made from _frō(x)š_ is very irregular, you should explain this one.


----------



## Treaty

It would be nice to share the source which says those Iranian words go back to IE *_pera_. Cheung's dictionary says they are from *_para-daH_, where *_daH_ means "to give" (cf. Pers. _dah_-), with recognizable _d>ϑ>l_ or _>y_ in some EIr. languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> It would be nice to share the source which says those Iranian words go back to IE *_pera_. Cheung's dictionary says they are from *_para-daH_, where *_daH_ means "to give" (cf. Pers. _dah_-), with recognizable _d>ϑ>l_ or _>y_ in some EIr. languages.



If such a source exited then there would be no reason that people ask about etymologies of Persian words and get weird replies.

Anyway it seems you admit that a proto-Iranian word like *_parada-_ exited for "sell", other than *_p_>_f_ in Persian, this what is fdb said in another thread: "In Middle and New Persian old ϑ generally becomes h, which in some words is then hardened to x", so what should be the Persian word?


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> It would be nice to share the source which says those Iranian words go back to IE *_pera_. Cheung's dictionary says they are from *_para-daH_, where *_daH_ means "to give" (cf. Pers. _dah_-), with recognizable _d>ϑ>l_ or _>y_ in some EIr. languages.




Just to bypass any possible misunderstanding: Cheung pp. 44-45 gives *para-daH- as the etymon of Pashto proləl, Bactrian παραλα- etc., not as that of Persian fi/urōš “sell” which, like everyone else, he derives from *fra-waxš- (pp. 428-9).


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> If such a source exited then there would be no reason that people ask about etymologies of Persian words and get weird replies.


Sources don't appear out of thin air or based on the pleasure of their writers. They are based on congruently tracing back the available material. If your supposed source doesn't exist, it means there is probably no material to support it. I don't get what you mean by "weird reply". We have words for the concept related to selling which seem as unrelated as "grow/increase" in their original meanings (e.g., auction = "to increase", retail = "to cut again", promote = "to move forth", liquidate = "to turn into liquid"). Why should *_fra-waxš_ be considered weird?


CyrusSH said:


> Anyway it seems you admit that a proto-Iranian word like *_parada-_ exited for "sell", other than *_p_>_f_ in Persian, this what is fdb said in another thread: "In Middle and New Persian old ϑ generally becomes h, which in some words is then hardened to x", so what should be the Persian word?


This is a misrepresentation of both the proposed root and fdb's notion. The proposed root is *_para-da*H*_. You can't just omit the final consonant as you please. Then, there is no _ϑ_ in the root to be turned into _h_. Anyway, fdb's notion was about Old Persian _ϑ_, which was from Proto-Iranian *_s_ not *_d_. It has nothing to do with this word.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Just to bypass any possible misunderstanding: Cheung pp. 44-45 gives *para-daH- as the etymon of Pashto proləl, Bactrian παραλα- etc., not as that of Persian fi/urōš “sell” which, like everyone else, he derives from *fra-waxš- (pp. 428-9).



And just to bypass any possible misunderstanding, there is no Persian _fi/urōš_ “sell” but it is _foruš_ in Modern Persian and _fruš_ in Middle Persian, it is also good to mention that Persian is not the only Western Iranian language which has a word from this proto-Iranian origin, the Kurdish word for "sell" is *firot* (_firotan_) or in Mazandarni it is *barut* (_barutan_), ... it can't be said that all Western Iranian peoples invented similar words for "sell" in their own languages!


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> e.g., auction = "to increase"



A very good example, especially since Latin augeo is a cognate of waxš.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Sources don't appear out of thin air or based on the pleasure of their writers. They are based on congruently tracing back the available material. If your supposed source doesn't exist, it means there is probably no material to support it. I don't get what you mean by "weird reply". We have words for the concept related to selling which seem as unrelated as "grow/increase" in their original meanings (e.g., auction = "to increase", retail = "to cut again", promote = "to move forth", liquidate = "to turn into liquid"). Why should *_fra-waxš_ be considered weird?



"First, you shouldn't compare Persian and English phrases, word by word. Each word has its own history. If, in one context, "to go through" = فرو رفتن, it doesn't mean فرو = through." 

What you said above is the main problem about those who belong to other cultures and want to explain Persian compounds. Even if we knew the original Persian word was _fra-waxš_ then its meaning in Persian could be not related to neither _fra_ (فرا), nor _waxš_ (وخش - وخشیدن), compare with فراخور "proper". The most important thing is its relation to the Persian culture, what I said in the post #12 (آتش به مال زدن) may sound weird for other cultures but not for us.


----------



## desi4life

CyrusSH said:


> there is no Persian _fi/urōš_ “sell” but it is _foruš_ in Modern Persian and _fruš_ in Middle Persian,



In linguistics it is common to use the Classical Persian form for New Persian because the modern pronunciations in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan will often differ. Therefore, Persian _fi/urōš_ “sell”.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> This is a misrepresentation of both the proposed root and fdb's notion. The proposed root is *_para-da*H*_. You can't just omit the final consonant as you please.



I didn't omit the final consonant but all Iranian languages did it, I wonder why Persian should be an exception!



Treaty said:


> Then, there is no _ϑ_ in the root to be turned into _h_. Anyway, fdb's notion was about Old Persian _ϑ_, which was from Proto-Iranian *_s_ not *_d_. It has nothing to do with this word.



We just don't know what was the last letter of proto-Iranian word, in the most of Eastern and Western Iranian words the last letter is _t/th_, if we consider _th_ in Old Persian then it could be changed to _h_ and then hardened to _x_ in the Middle Persian.


----------



## CyrusSH

desi4life said:


> In linguistics it is common to use the Classical Persian form for New Persian because the modern pronunciations in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan will often differ. Therefore, Persian _fi/urōš_ “sell”.



Is it a joke?


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> it is also good to mention that Persian is not the only Western Iranian language which has a word from this proto-Iranian origin, the Kurdish word for "sell" is *firot* (_firotan_) or in Mazandarni it is *barut* (_barutan_)


The Sorani word for "to sell" is _frōštan. _The Kurmanji _firotan _is in line with the loss of [x] in some [xt]*** cluster (e.g., _sotin_ = NP _sūxtan _"to burn"_, dot = _NP_ doxt_ "daughter"); meanwhile, its present stem is _firoš- _(Latinized as firoş). This Mazandarani word for "to sell" is (_f_)_rūtan _showing the same _xt>t _(cf. Maz. _peten _= NP _poxtan_ "to cook", _dūtan = _NP_ dūxtan _"to sew")_. _Its present stem is (_f_)_rūš-. _I don't know whether _fr>r_ is common in Maz. or this is an exception. Adding the verbal _ba/be_ prefix (_be_ بـ in Persian) is very common in Maz. (in above examples: _ba_(_f_)_rūtan/ba_(_f_)_rūš-, bepeten _and _ba_(_d_)_ūtan_).


CyrusSH said:


> Is it a joke?


Your knowledge of Iranian languages is. By the way, the Tajik pronunciation is still fairly _furōš-/furōxtan _(фурӯш-/фурӯxтан).


CyrusSH said:


> "First, you shouldn't compare Persian and English phrases, word by word. Each word has its own history. If, in one context, "to go through" = فرو رفتن, it doesn't mean فرو = through."
> What you said above is the main problem about those who belong to other cultures and want to explain Persian compounds. Even if we knew the original Persian word was _fra-waxš_ then its meaning in Persian could be not related to neither _fra_ (فرا), nor _waxš_ (وخش - وخشیدن), compare with فراخور "proper". The most important thing is its relation to the Persian culture, what I said in the post #12 (آتش به مال زدن) may sound weird for other cultures but not for us.


What I said has nothing to do with culture. It is about etymological fallacy. You both neglected the possibility of (drastic) semantic changes overtime, for this particular word. It doesn't matter if it is inter- or intra-language and culture. In any case, the cultural difference applies to us as well. Culturally, we are far closer to an average English speaker now than an Iranian person of Iron Age. Inferring a historic cultural element merely based on a modern element is just another version of etymological fallacy.

*** if it wasn't loss of another consonant before t.


----------



## SumWoman

I'm still trying to find the meaning of the word furōxtan and possibly 'per'


> the Tajik pronunciation is still fairly furōš-/furōxtan (фурӯш-/фурӯxтан).


Any information about 'phi' symbol in the Tajik script? Is 'fra' somehow connected to the concept of 'phi'?



> fra is akin to "forth" (cf. "pro") not "through".


pro "from Latin pro "in place of, before, for, in exchange for" from PIE root *per- (1) "forward," hence "in front of, before, first, chief."
The phrase "quid pro quo" literally means "something for something."

In one sense the word 'per' means "forward, in front of, before, first, chief, toward, near, against," etc.
Rooted in words like afford, before, profit, prophet, purchase, reciprocal, frau.

In another sense the word 'per' means "to lead, pass over."
Rooted in words like fare, export, import, important.

In yet another sense the word 'per' also means "to sell".
Rooted in words like praise, price, prize.

Is the word fra- related to the word 'pro' meaning "exchange", and the word 'per' meaning "reciprocal"?



> Middle Persian frōxtan “to sell”


ōxtan sounds a bit like the English word 'aug-' root meaning "to increase." included in words like auction; augment; augur; auxin; eke ; nickname;"

It's on my mind, so I might as well ask. Is it possible that frōxtan literally means something akin to "reciprocal augmented" or "fee augmented" otherwise "for highest bid"?

Thanks for your response.

PS: when we make a bad deal, as in we exchange something of value for something of less value, the saying goes, 'we got burnt'.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> The Sorani word for "to sell" is _frōštan. _



What does it prove? In the post #8 I also mentioned that there is the verb فروشیدن in Persian.



Treaty said:


> The Kurmanji _firotan _is in line with the loss of [x] in some [xt]*** cluster (e.g., _sotin_ = NP _sūxtan _"to burn"_, dot = _NP_ doxt_ "daughter");



Unfortunately you don't know some basic things about Iranian languages that an Iranian kid knows!

1. Persian is just one of Iranian languages and other Iranian languages didn't adopt their words from Persian.
2. In Persian verbs _x_ in _-xtan_ didn't belong to the stem but it is a result of fricativization. (ساختن، باختن، ریختن، شناختن، گریختن، دوختن، سوختن، گداختن، ...)
3. Kurdish has never lost _x_ in _xt_ cluster, _bext_ "luck", _sext_ "though", _dext_ "pressure", ...
4. You can't say Avestan, Bactrian, Sogdian and almost all other Iranian languages lost _x_ in the word for "daughter" because there is a _x_ in the Persian word.


----------



## Treaty

SumWoman said:


> Any information about 'phi' symbol in the Tajik script? Is 'fra' somehow connected to the concept of 'phi'?


No. Tajik script is based on Russian Cyrillic script where ф (though from Greek _phi_) sounds as normal _f_. It only stands for the _f_ of *_fra. _The _r_ is represented by Cyrillic letter p (again from Greek _rho _but sounds as plain Persian _r_). 


SumWoman said:


> ōxtan sounds a bit like the English word 'aug-' root meaning "to increase." included in words like auction; augment; augur; auxin; eke ; nickname;"


This is what fdb explained in post #25. However, you should be careful that the initial ō is produced by a contraction of three vowel/glide-ish sounds (_a+wa/va_). Only the latter part (_wa_) shares the same origin with Latin _aug_-. 


SumWoman said:


> Is the word fra- related to the word 'pro' meaning "exchange", and the word 'per' meaning "reciprocal"?


There are two issues here. First, there are two _pro_s: The older PIE *_pro _which only meant "forth" and its descendant in Latin, _pro,_ which means both "forth" and "in place of". Iranian _fra_ (and hence Persian _far/fur/fir_) descended from PIE not Latin; and it only has the "forth" meaning. So, _fra_ doesn't fit in your "exchange" idea. Secondly, regarding PIE *_per_, if some words sound the same, it doesn't mean they are cognates (compare to English _pair, pear_ and _pare_, sounding the same but from three different roots). We don't have much (if any) information about PIE and earlier. So, we probably won't know where all these *_per_s came from.

Regarding the semantic shift, no one can really be sure what had happened. We don't have much information about the trade culture and jargon of pre-classic Iran. So, any kind of guess would be a speculation. In a hypothesis (as mentioned by fdb in post #3) "increase" refers to the growth of seller's own wealth. If we draw a semantic parallel to "promote" and "auction", we can associate "increase" with the price of the sold item itself. I even fancy a third possibility ("to grow" > +_fra _> Avestan "to branch" > "to divide" (i.e. from wholesale to retail) > "to sell").


----------



## sotos

SumWoman said:


> 'feroush' -



Probably accidental, but sounds as if it could be relevant  to Gr. plousios (rich), ploutos etc.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> What does it prove?


It proves you were inaccurate in saying "Kurdish" (which includes several dialects) instead of Kurmanji.


CyrusSH said:


> 1. Persian is just one of Iranian languages and other Iranian languages didn't adopt their words from Persian.
> 2. In Persian verbs _x_ in _-xtan_ didn't belong to the stem but it is a result of fricativization. (ساختن، باختن، ریختن، شناختن، گریختن، دوختن، سوختن، گداختن، ...)
> 3. Kurdish has never lost _x_ in _xt_ cluster, _bext_ "luck", _sext_ "though", _dext_ "pressure", ...
> 4. You can't say Avestan, Bactrian, Sogdian and almost all other Iranian languages lost _x_ in the word for "daughter" because there is a _x_ in the Persian word.


A standard example of our proverb من آنم که رستم بود پهلوان! You can't get away with a mistake by hiding behind some other random irrelevant statements. Please read what I've written again:


> The *Kurmanji* _firotan _is in line with the loss of [x] *in some* [xt]*** cluster (*e.g.,* _sotin_ = NP _sūxtan _"to burn"_, dot = _NP_ doxt_ "daughter")


I was talking only about *Kurmanji *(because *your* example was from Kurmanji). I told *some of** [x] were lost (in Kurmanji). I brought examples *from Kurmanji* to back up my claim. I did the same thing with Mazandarani (again because of *your* example), about a similar loss of some x, while bringing examples from that language. You brought two examples to support your _parada_, and I proved those examples irrelevant to your case. If you're not happy with it, do some research before writing something; so that you won't make a blunder as your #4:

Both Avestan (_duxda_) and Sogdian (_duγt_/_dγut_) had the velar fricative in "daughter". I think if you go ahead like this, you'll probably deny the existence of [x] in Iranian all together just to prove a point about your _parada_.

*** Or maybe even more than just some. One should check whether those existing/remaining -_xt_ are not loans from Persian.


----------



## PersoLatin

SumWoman said:


> Is the word fra- related to the word 'pro' meaning "exchange", and the word 'per' meaning "reciprocal"?


فرا/farâ in modern/classic Persian, means: near, towards, (فراهم ,فرا او رفتم), and as a prefix (mainly) it means: up, high, ultra (فراوان, فراپایه, فراز) and in this sense, furu/foru/فرو is the exact opposite (فرود, فروتن, فرو بردن, فرو رفتن).


----------



## CyrusSH

sotos said:


> Probably accidental, but sounds as if it could be relevant  to Gr. plousios (rich), ploutos etc.



It is certainly relevant, especially πώλησις (_pṓlēsis_) "sale": πώληση - Wiktionary

But another important words are Ancient Greek _περάω_ (peráō), πιπρᾱ́σκω (piprā́skō), πέρνημι (pernimi) "to sell": πέρνημι - Wiktionary all of them are from proto-IE *pera-/*pra "to sell" that I mentioned in the post #6.

The Persian word for "sale" (فروش) is from the stem _fru_ "to sell", you can compare it with _srush_ (سروش) from the stem _sru_ "to hear", or _agush_ (آگوش/آغوش) from the stem _agu_ "to unite", or xrush (خروش) from the stem _xru_ "to shout".

For example about the last one _xrush_ "shout", the Persian stem _xru_ is from proto-IE *_kraw-_ "to shout", cognate with Greek κράζω (_kra.zo_) "cry, shout": κράζω - Wiktionary


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> It proves you were inaccurate in saying "Kurdish" (which includes several dialects) instead of Kurmanji.
> 
> A standard example of our proverb من آنم که رستم بود پهلوان! You can't get away with a mistake by hiding behind some other random irrelevant statements.



It is better to focus on the main topic, we Iranians should believe that we have also brain to think, at least about our own language, if I say to a Persian kid that _deraxt_ (درخت) is the past tense of _deraxš_ (درخش) or _baxt_ (بخت) is the past tense of _baxš_ (بخش), then he/she will certainly laugh at me, because he/she knows that we can't replace _š_ with _t_ to have the past tense in Persian, for this reason if we even knew that _fruxš_ (فروخش) existed, its past sense couldn't be _fruxt_ (فروخت) but _fruxšid_ (فروخشید), do you agree?


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> if we even knew that _fruxš_ (فروخش) existed, its past sense couldn't be _fruxt_ (فروخت) but _fruxšid_ (فروخشید), do you agree?


Regardless of etymology we can look at these possibilities:

Let's assume _fruxš_ (فروخش) was the _present stem_ at some point, therefore its equivalent _past stem_, based on the pattern of other verbs, would've had to be,
either:
_fruxšt _فروخشت which when _š/_ش is dropped, gives _fruxt/_فروخت, that follows سوخت، باخت، نواخت (suxt, bâxt, navâxt)
_or:       
fruxšd _فروخشد which when x/خ is dropped, gives _frušd/_فروشد, this then gave us _frušid/_فروشید, that follows بخشید, ‏درخشید, ‏پاشید (baxŝid deraxŝid pâŝid)

This may give a clue as to why فروش doesn't follow other verbs like suz/suxt, navâz/navâxt, or bâz/bâxt  because it past stem had two options.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> Regardless of etymology we can look at these possibilities:
> 
> Let's assume _fruxš_ (فروخش) was the _present stem_ at some point, therefore its equivalent _past stem_, based on the pattern of other verbs, would've had to be,
> either:
> _fruxšt _فروخشت which when _š/_ش is dropped, gives _fruxt/_فروخت, that follows سوخت، باخت، نواخت (suxt, bâxt, navâxt)
> _or:
> fruxšd _فروخشد which when x/خ is dropped, gives _frušd/_فروشد, this then gave us _frušid/_فروشید, that follows بخشید, ‏درخشید, ‏پاشید (baxŝid deraxŝid pâŝid)
> 
> This may give a clue as to why فروش doesn't follow other verbs like suz/suxt, navâz/navâxt, or bâz/bâxt  because it past stem had two options.



The important point is that in Persian verbs nothing is dropped but in cluster, ending consonants are changed to fricative consonants _x_, _f_, _š_, _s_, usual changes are: _z_>_xt_, _b_>_ft_, _r_>_št_ and _h_>_st_. (سوز > سوخت ، آشوب > آشفت ، انبار > انباشت ، خواه > خواست).


----------



## CyrusSH

Sound changes in Iranian languages:

Proto-IE *_p_ > p/f
فرپ (فریب) > فریفتن

Proto-IE *_k_ > s/x
شناس > شناختن

Proto-IE *_s_ > ŝ/h(x) 
فروش > فروختن
> Ruki sound law


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Proto-IE *_s_ > ŝ/h(x)
> فروش > فروختن
> > Ruki sound law


The ruki-rule is *_s_ > _š_ after semi-vowels, liquids and _k_.

The additional retraction _š > x_ occurs in Slavic but to my knowledge not in Iranian. Where did you find that?


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> or _baxt_ (بخت) is the past tense of _baxš_ (بخش)


Good example. _baxt_ (alloted>destiny from _baxtan_) is indeed the past tense and participle of _baxš- _ in MP (Nyberg: 45).


CyrusSH said:


> if we even knew that _fruxš_ (فروخش) existed, its past sense couldn't be _fruxt_ (فروخت) but _fruxšid_ (فروخشید), do you agree?


We did know it existed (attested in MMP). There are unexpected _x_ in some MMP -_š_ verbs (e.g., _kuxš- _"to kill" and _čaxš- _"to taste"), but in all of them the past tense was still -_št _as is in NP_. _As PersoLatin also mentioned the contrast of present -_xš _vs past -_xt _suggests a genuine _x._ It is also common to have two different variants of infinitives for verbs in Persian, the -t/-d and īd/īt- endings (in this case, MP _vaxšītan_). 


CyrusSH said:


> The important point is that in Persian verbs nothing is dropped but in cluster,


There are missing sounds between present and past stems: _n _in _ng-/nj_- > _xt_ (_ranj- > raxt, sanj- > saxt_), and _nd- > st_ (_band>bast, frasind>frasistan _"to break"), _d_ in _rd>št _(_hird/hil_>_hišt, gard>gašt_).


----------



## fdb

In verbs like band / bast the “missing” /n/ is the result of ablaut. The present stem has full-grade /an/; the perfect passive participle has zero-grade *ṇ > /a/.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> The ruki-rule is *_s_ > _š_ after semi-vowels, liquids and _k_.
> 
> The additional retraction _š > x_ occurs in Slavic but to my knowledge not in Iranian. Where did you find that?



I meant in cluster, proto-IE *_st_ > _xt_, like Persian _axtar_ (اختر) from proto-IE *_h₂stḗr_ "star", cognate with Greek _ἀστήρ_ (astḗr).


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> I meant in cluster, proto-IE *_st_ > _xt_, like Persian _axtar_ (اختر) from proto-IE *_h₂stḗr_ "star", cognate with Greek _ἀστήρ_ (astḗr).


There are two errors in your statement. The first one is to suggest there is a *rule*, simply because you have *one *example (despite multitude of opposite examples). Secondly, even that example is wrong. _axtar _(discussed here) is not related to Ir. *_star- _and it PIE root *_h₂stḗr_.


----------



## CyrusSH

Another example for _št_>_xt_ in Persian can be seen in another word that I mentioned in another thread: _rušan_ "light" > _afruxtan_ (_ab-ruxtan_) "to set light". The Persian words for "girl": _dušiza_ (دوشیزه) and _duxt_ (دخت) could be related to the same sound change too.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> _dušiza_ (دوشیزه) and _duxt_ (دخت) could be related to the same sound change too.


_dušiza_ (دوشیزه) is more likely to be related to NP دوست داشتن/dust dâŝtan, ultimately from MP dōsidan/to love, see this thread here & a post here.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> _dušiza_ (دوشیزه) is more likely to be related to NP دوست داشتن/dust dâŝtan, ultimately from MP dōsidan/to love, see this thread here & a post here.



According to this page about proto-IE *_dʰugh₂tḗr_: Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰugh₂tḗr - Wiktionary The original meaning is probably "the (potential) suckler, the one that draws milk", in modern Persian we have _dušidan_ "to draw milk" and Middle Persian _duxtan_ meant the same, so I think _dušiza_ also relates to it.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I meant in cluster, proto-IE *_st_ > _xt_, like Persian _axtar_ (اختر) from proto-IE *_h₂stḗr_ "star", cognate with Greek _ἀστήρ_ (astḗr).


What makes you think such a law exists?


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> What makes you think such a law exists?



Generalization can't be probably true, of course a large number of loanwords from Avestan and other Eastern Iranian languages in Persian is also a problem, proto-IE *_s_ is usually changed to _h_ and sometimes _x_ in the Iranian languages but in Avestan it is not changed in _st_ cluster, the important point is that Persian doesn't follow Avestan rules, compare to proto-IE *_sp_ cluster (Avestan _hapta_ & Persian _haft_ "seven").


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> Another example for _št_>_xt_ in Persian can be seen in another word that I mentioned in another thread: _rušan_ "light" > _afruxtan_ (_ab-ruxtan_)



I have answered this in your other thread. Maybe we could discuss each word in a separate thread instead of throwing them all together.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Generalization can't be probably true, of course a large number of loanwords from Avestan and other Eastern Iranian languages in Persian is also a problem, proto-IE *_s_ is usually changed to _h_ and sometimes _x_ in the Iranian languages but in Avestan it is not changed in _st_ cluster, the important point is that Persian doesn't follow Avestan rules, compare to proto-IE *_sp_ cluster (Avestan _hapta_ & Persian _haft_ "seven").


That doesn't answer the question. You tried to substantiate your theory by by reference to a "sound law". Sound laws are exemplified in text books by positive examples, but that is not how they are defined. They are defined by the absence of counter examples, i.e. every apparent counter example must be explained and there are so many, I wouldn't now where to start, maybe with داشت = _he had_ which I wouldn't assume to be an Avestan loan, would you?
Apart from that, non of your positive example so far has withstood scrutiny.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> That doesn't answer the question. You tried to substantiate your theory by by reference to a "sound law". Sound laws are exemplified in text books by positive examples, but that is not how they are defined. They are defined by the absence of counter examples, i.e. every apparent counter example must be explained and there are so many, I wouldn't now where to start, maybe with داشت = _he had_ which I wouldn't assume to be an Avestan loan, would you?
> Apart from that, non of your positive example so far has withstood scrutiny.



In the post #40 I said that one of the certain sound changes in Persian is _rt_>_št_, like دار > داشت ، انبار > انباشت، انگار > انگاشت، گذار > گذاشت ، پندار > پنداشت ... it probably relates to Ruki sound law too.

But what I said about _št_>_xt_ seems to be certain too, especially because other examples that I mentioned in the post #47, if you know a Persian verb which doesn't follow this rule, please mention it. The only exceptions are those ones that _š_ is itself in cluster, like _kuxš_ "to kill" that Treaty mentioned in post #43.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> But what I said about _št_>_xt_ seems to be certain too, especially because other examples that I mentioned in the post #47, if you know a Persian verb which doesn't follow this rule, please mention it. The only exceptions are those ones that _š_ is itself in cluster, like _kuxš_ "to kill" that Treaty mentioned in post #43.


I am lost. If there were such a sound shift than -_št _should not exist, which is obviously not the case. I don't understand what you mean by _št_>_xt_.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I am lost. If there were such a sound shift than -_št _should not exist, which is obviously not the case. I don't understand what you mean by _št_>_xt_.



When *_s_>_h_ sound shift exists in Iranian, Greek and Armenian languages, does it mean _s_ shouldn't exist in these languages?!


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> In the post #40 I said that one of the certain sound changes in Persian is _rt_>_št_, like دار > داشت ، انبار > انباشت، انگار > انگاشت، گذار > گذاشت ، پندار > پنداشت ... it probably relates to Ruki sound law too.


دار is the present and داشت is the past stem, so there's no _rt_>_št_, if anything r>š as /t/ is common and denotes the past tense. Even if you meant  دارت ‏> ‏داشت it is still r>š.


----------



## berndf

We have to be more precise. Greek does not have *_s_>_h_, it has_ *s>h/{sV-, -VsV-} _plus other shifts that produce _s_ as a result. What is the explanation for داشت? Do you have any reference? I am still lost as to what you are actually claiming and I am trying to understand.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> دار is the present and داشت is the past stem, so there's no _rt_>_št_, if anything r>š as /t/ is common and denotes the past tense. Even if you meant  دارت ‏> ‏داشت it is still r>š.



I just used the same method that you used in the post #39, the present stem is دار the past tense could be دارت but it is داشت. It is certainly wrong to say in Persian _r_ is changed to _š_ but we can say that what we expect to be _rt_ has been changed to _št_, so _rt_>_št_.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> We have to be more precise. Greek does not have *_s_>_h_, it has_ *s>h/{sV-, -VsV-} _plus other shifts that produce _s_ as a result. What is the explanation for داشت? Do you have any reference? I am still lost as to what you are actually claiming and I am trying to understand.



These sound changes in the Persian verbs have been explained here with its references: افعال فارسی - ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد Even those ones which seem to be irregular have been explained like پذیر and پذیرفت.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> What is the explanation for داشت?



/rt/ does not normally become /št/ in Persian. dār : dāšt is believed to be by analogy to verbs like *wart- : *wart-ta- (NP gard : gašt), where rtt > rst > ršt > št  is regular. The first /t/ is part of the root, the second belongs to the suffix.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> /rt/ does not normally become /št/ in Persian. dār : dāšt is believed to be by analogy to verbs like *wart- : *wart-ta- (NP gard : gašt), where rtt > rst > ršt > št  is regular. The first /t/ is part of the root, the second belongs to the suffix.



Thanks for your explanation, I also guessed that it should be related to Ruki sound law but I didn't know how.


----------



## PersoLatin

fdb said:


> dār : dāšt is believed to be by analogy to verbs like *wart- : *wart-ta- (NP gard : gašt), where rtt > rst > ršt > št is regular.


For 'gard' we have, present stem: gard, past stem: gard*d* or gart*t*, so it follows "rtt > rst > ršt > št"
applying the same to dār, we get:
present stem: dār and past stem: dār*d* or dār*t* so no rtt (rdd) to get št, there's no /t/ as part of the word.

Maybe I have misunderstood.


----------



## fdb

Yes, that is basically it. Chronologically the shift of w- to g- is much later than the sequence of changes "rtt > rst > ršt > št".


----------



## PersoLatin

What I meant was that, the below can't be true for dār, so it is not analogous to gard, in regards to rtt > rst > ršt > št


fdb said:


> dār : dāšt is believed to be by analogy to verbs like *wart- : *wart-ta- (NP gard : gašt), where rtt > rst > ršt > št is regular


----------



## berndf

I am still lost. As far as I can see the question of the thread was exhaustively answered at this point:


fdb said:


> These are two different verbs:
> 
> NP fi/urōxtan, present fi/urōš “to sell” < *fra-waxš- (MP frōxš)
> 
> NP afrōxtan (also furōxtan), pres. afrōz (furōz) “to ignite” < *abi-rauč- (MP abrōz)
> 
> furōxtan “to sell” and furōxtan “to ignite” are homonyms; they are identical in the past tense, but not in the present tense.


What are we discussing now?


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> Generalization can't be probably true ... the important point is that Persian doesn't follow Avestan rules, compare to proto-IE *_sp_ cluster (Avestan _hapta_& Persian _haft_ "seven").


You just generalized the OP/Av. difference in -_ft/pt_ to -_st _and _-xt. _Of course, Persian doesn't have *all *the rules of Avestan, otherwise, it wouldn't have been called Persian. However, this fact doesn't give you a blank check to make whatever rule you please. Anyway, OP is abundant with -_st/št_. Also, I find it very unlikely that only the past stems of verbs like _rastan_, _kāstan _and _xwāstan _are borrowed, while their present _-h_ stems are genuinely Persian (because most EIr, and even NWIr. stems end with _-s_ or _-z_)! The shift of *unclustered *Iranian _s _to SWIr. _h. _is not uncommon. There is no reason to drag PIE into discussion.


fdb said:


> Possibly _*dʰewgʰ-so-_ (root extension) > Iranian _*dawxš_- > MP _dōš-_.


Thanks to PersoLatin for reminding us this. Yet another example for present _xš>š _but past_ xt._


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I am still lost. As far as I can see the question of the thread was exhaustively answered at this point:
> 
> What are we discussing now?



The problem is about a word which doesn't exist: MP _frō*x*š_, we have _frōŝ_ "sell, sale", _frōŝandak_ "seller", ...


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> The problem is about a word which doesn't exist: MP _frō*x*š_, we have _frōŝ_ "sell, sale", _frōŝandak_ "seller", ...



 Manichaean Middle Persian <prwx_š>_


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Manichaean Middle Persian <prwx_š>_



Do you mean it began with _p_?


----------



## fdb

Yes, there is no letter f in the Manichaean script. They used <p> for both /p/ and /f/.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Yes, there is no letter f in the Manichaean script. They used <p> for both /p/ and /f/.



And for what reason you know it was _f_? For example it could be related to پرداختن.


----------



## fdb

There is no -dā- in the Manichaean form. The interpretation of <p> depends on the etymology, but also largely on the cognate NP words, in this case furōš.


----------



## CyrusSH

Does it matter what Persian dictionaries say about the origin of the word which has been asked in this thread? معنی فروختن | لغت‌نامه دهخدا


----------



## SumWoman

Thanks for your replies. This is a lot of information to absorb. I looked around the forum and found a thread with some great clues. 

<off topic>


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> Does it matter what Persian dictionaries say about the origin of the word which has been asked in this thread? معنی فروختن | لغت‌نامه دهخدا


After some clarification, yes, it may matter. So, I try here:

First, I assume he refers to Avestan _frauuaxšiieite _that is the only(?) use of such compound in the meaning akin to "call" or "speak" (there are a few _vaxš- _though)_._ I don't know how it is conjugated (i.e. whether a certain tense of Av._ frauuaka_ "to speak" < PIr. *_uač _or if there is a -*_so_ version of it > *_uaxš; _we may wait for fdb to clarify). Second, the main problem with his remark is that it doesn't mean "to put forth to for sale" به معرض فروش گذاشتن at all! So, we should take that remark as either a misunderstanding of Moeen by Dehkhoda, or as Moeen's personal opinion that "to sell" < "to call a sale"/" to advertise" < "to call"_. 
_
Of course there is the other similar word: Avestan _frauuaxš-_ / _frauuāxš- _which is used multiple times in meanings akin to "growth" from PIr. *_uaxš _(that is proposed to be the root of فروش as well, as mentioned before). 

So, what we have here are two possible homophone roots *_fra-waxš_ which mean "increase/grow forth" and "call/speak forth" respectively (unless the latter _xš _is conjugative not a part of the root). For some reasons, the former root is considered more probable. In any case, it has nothing to do with _st/xt, parada_, and other nonsense claims.


----------



## CyrusSH

Honesty I believe both claims about "increase/grow forth" and "call/speak forth" are absolute nonsense, however the Iranian etymology sounds much more logical than another one, at least in the Persian culture it is believable.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> Honesty I believe both claims about "increase/grow forth" and "call/speak forth" are absolute nonsense, however the Iranian etymology sounds much more logical than another one, at least in the Persian culture it is believable.


Cyrus, please briefly explain how or why one is more believable in Persian culture, e.g. to someone like me who is exposed to that culture, you never know I might agree with you.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> Cyrus, please briefly explain how or why one is more believable in Persian culture, e.g. to someone like me who is exposed to that culture, you never know I might agree with you.



There are actually different reasons, one of them can be the meaning of داد in the Persian culture, "give, bestow, justice, cry, call", it means both "sell" (داد و ستد) and "call" (داد و فریاد).


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> There are actually different reasons, one of them can be the meaning of داد in the Persian culture, "give, bestow, justice, cry, call", it means both "sell" (داد و ستد) and "call" (داد و فریاد).


*داد *و ستد literally means '*give *and take' and in most cultures, it can be interpreted or explained as selling, which is *giving *money (or other goods so bartering) and *taking *some goods. داد is cognate with PIE *do-


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> There are actually different reasons, one of them can be the meaning of داد in the Persian culture, "give, bestow, justice, cry, call", it means both "sell" (داد و ستد) and "call" (داد و فریاد).


Aren't_ dād _(law > justice > cry for justice) and _dād _(pp. of to give) from different roots?


----------



## berndf

Treaty said:


> Aren't_ dād _(law > justice > cry for justice) and _dād _(pp. of to give) from different roots?


Ultimately from the same root: _that what is given > law_. But that meaning separated long ago.

A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary


----------



## Treaty

berndf said:


> Ultimately from the same root: _that what is given > law_. But that meaning separated long ago.


I meant _dād_ (law) is from "to create/to place" (Ir. *_daH2 _cf. Skt _dha_-) while the other one is from "to give" (Ir. *_daH1_, cf. Skt. _da-_).


----------



## fdb

That is correct. dā- “to give” is cognate with Skt. dadāmi, Gk. didōmi. dā- “to set” is cognate with dadhāmi, tithēmi.  Ahura Mazda is dātar- “the creator, the one who sets”. But the two words merge completely in all Iranian languages.


----------



## PersoLatin

fdb said:


> Ahura Mazda is dātar- “the creator,


Could dātar also have been 'the giver'? Unless of course the rest of that text will make that clear.


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> After some clarification, yes, it may matter. So, I try here:
> 
> First, I assume he refers to Avestan _frauuaxšiieite _that is the only(?) use of such compound in the meaning akin to "call" or "speak" (there are a few _vaxš- _though)_._ I don't know how it is conjugated (i.e. whether a certain tense of Av._ frauuaka_ "to speak" < PIr. *_uač _or if there is a -*_so_ version of it > *_uaxš; _we may wait for fdb to clarify). Second, the main problem with his remark is that it doesn't mean "to put forth to for sale" به معرض فروش گذاشتن at all! So, we should take that remark as either a misunderstanding of Moeen by Dehkhoda, or as Moeen's personal opinion that "to sell" < "to call a sale"/" to advertise" < "to call"_.
> _
> Of course there is the other similar word: Avestan _frauuaxš-_ / _frauuāxš- _which is used multiple times in meanings akin to "growth" from PIr. *_uaxš _(that is proposed to be the root of فروش as well, as mentioned before).
> 
> So, what we have here are two possible homophone roots *_fra-waxš_ which mean "increase/grow forth" and "call/speak forth" respectively (unless the latter _xš _is conjugative not a part of the root). For some reasons, the former root is considered more probable. In any case, it has nothing to do with _st/xt, parada_, and other nonsense claims.



From the point of view of morphology frauuaxšiieite could in theory be 3rd person sing. present indicative middle from the verb *waxš- “to grow”, present stem *waxšya-, with preverb fra-. But the context in which it occurs shows that it is in fact 3rd person sing. future indicative middle from the verb *wak-/wač- “to say, to call”, future stem *waxšya-, again with the preverb fra-. In this case the -š- is the suffix for the future tense. So we can translate: “will be called”.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> *داد *و ستد literally means '*give *and take' and in most cultures, it can be interpreted or explained as selling, which is *giving *money (or other goods so bartering) and *taking *some goods. داد is cognate with PIE *do-



I think you didn't get what I meant, the relation between "give" and "sell" is so obvious which needs no explanation.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I think you didn't get what I meant, the relation between "give" and "sell" is so obvious which needs no explanation.



If I am not mistaken, we are debating this only because you have challenged the traditional explanation in #77, as far as I can see out of gut feeling and without any etymological substantiation. I can't see any more how this discussion about داد contributes to the thread's topic.


----------



## CyrusSH

My Conclusion:

Persian _fruxt_ is neither a loanword from Avestan, nor a Persian compound but it is from proto-IE *_pera_-/*_pra-_ "to sell", cognate with (all words that I mentioned) and Latvian _pirkt_: pirkt - Wiktionary

> _fruš_ or _fruxš_ is actually a gerund and means "selling, sale".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> My Conclusion:
> 
> Persian _fruxt_ is neither a loanword from Avestan, nor a Persian compound but it is from proto-IE *_pera_-/*_pra-_ "to sell", cognate with (all words that I mentioned) and Latvian _pirkt_: pirkt - Wiktionary
> 
> > _fruš_ or _fruxš_ is actually a gerund and means "selling, sale".


You are of course entitled to your own personal opinion but it is just that: an amateurish gut feeling opinion.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> You are of course entitled to your own personal opinion but it is just that: an amateurish gut feeling opinion.



Of course it is my opinion but it can be changed, so far I don't see any better explanation about this verb both semantically and structurally.


----------



## SumWoman

> Honesty I believe both claims about "increase/grow forth" and "call/speak forth" are absolute nonsense, however the Iranian etymology sounds much more logical than another one, at least in the Persian culture it is believable.



From what I gather, language and speaking are creative acts and even captivating, hence spells and chants.


----------



## Derakhshan

Is it possible that it's from *_fra-baxš_ "bestow forth" > _fra-waxš_ > _frōxš_?


----------



## fdb

Have you looked at no. 13?


----------



## Derakhshan

Yes, but you said the reconstructed form *_fra-waxš_ "grow forth" is semantically difficult, so I am suggesting *_fra-baxš_ "bestow forth" > _fra-waxš_ with the shift of postvocalic b > w.


----------

