# Persian furuxtan "to ignite" and proto-IE *puer- "fire"



## CyrusSH

There are two similar words in Modern Persian which actually have different origins, one of them is _afruxtan_ "to set alight" and another one is _furuxtan_ "to set fire". Accroding to Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, page 316, the first one could be from prefix _*abi-_ + *_rauč_ "to shine, radiate" and the second one from _*fra-_ + *_rauč_ but it seems the author has doubt about the second etymology and there is a question mark about the loss of *_-ra-_. What do you think about it?


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> There are two similar words in Modern Persian which actually have different origins, one of them is _afruxtan_ "to set light" and another one is _furuxtan_ "to set fire".


Not correct in my view, _afruxtan _means "to set alight/on fire/to fire"_ and fruxtan _in this sense, is the abbreviated form of it, so they are not different, therefore have the same etymology.  There are many many examples of _fruxtan_ (i.e. without the initial a) in classical Persian sources, meaning 'to set alight/on fire/to fire', which I'm sure you you are basing your assertion on, but they are all the abbreviated form of _afruxtan.
_


CyrusSH said:


> afruxtan "to set light" and another one is furuxtan "to set fire"


You seem to suggest that Persian has two literally identical verbs, for literally identical actions, and you adjust the spelling to suit too, not very likely, is it? In most dictionaries afruxtan & furuxtan are shown to have the same meaning, I can't understand why you attempt to make them sound different, so what does 'to set light' mean to you that 'to set fire' doesn't? I can guess where you are going with this, let's wait & see.


----------



## fdb

This can perhaps be best explained beginning with proto-Indo-European.

IE *leuk- “bright” gives Latin luc- (nom. sing. lux). In Indo-Iranian this gives rauč- before IE front vowels, otherwise rauk-. In Persian we have the present stem *abi-rauč-a- > aβrōz > afrōz (with č > z after vowels) and the perfect passive participle *abi-rauk-ta > aβrōxt > afrōxt (with kt > xt) “to light, to make bright, to ignite”.

There is also IE *leuk-sno- as in Latin luna. This is found in Iranian *rauxšna- > Avestan raoxšna- “light” (with ksn > xšn) and Middle Persian rōšn > NP rōšan (with xšn > šn).

Finally, there is the New Persian verb furōz-, furōxtan “to ignite”. Johnny Cheung suggests tentatively (in the entry referenced in no. 1) that this is from *fra-rauč- > *frarōz > furōz with loss of the second -r-. Another possibility (as suggested in no. 2) is that afrōz and furōz “ignite” are actually the same word, the latter with the usual NP loss of the initial a- (as in andar > dar), and subsequent insertion of an epenthetic vowel. So we would have the present stem *abi-rauč-a > aβrōz > afrōz > fi/urōz, and the past stem *abi-rauk-ta- > aβrōxt > afrōxt > fi/urōxt.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> Not correct in my view, _afruxtan _means "to set alight/on fire/to fire"_ and fruxtan _in this sense, is the abbreviated form of it, so they are not different, therefore have the same etymology.  There are many many examples of _fruxtan_ (i.e. without the initial a) in classical Persian sources, meaning 'to set alight/on fire/to fire', which I'm sure you you are basing your assertion on, but they are all the abbreviated form of _afruxtan.
> _
> You seem to suggest that Persian has two literally identical verbs, for literally identical actions, and you adjust the spelling to suit too, not very likely, is it? In most dictionaries afruxtan & furuxtan are shown to have the same meaning, I can't understand why you attempt to make them sound different, so what does 'to set light' mean to you that 'to set fire' doesn't? I can guess where you are going with this, let's wait & see.



I actually just copied the meanings of those Persian verbs from "Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, page 316", of course they have similar meanings but as I said they have different origins.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> of course they have similar meanings


Not similar, identical. You are trying to make them sound similar, i.e. not identical.

In fact, now that you have changed 'to set *light*' to 'to set *alight*' (see my second quote, in post #2) it makes them identical, as you can imagine 'setting alight' then, didn't mean 'turning on the electric lamp' but  'setting on fire'.


CyrusSH said:


> _afruxtan_ "to set alight" and another one is _furuxtan_ "to set fire"






BTW - do you think afzun-افزون/fzun-فزون or afkand-افکند/fekand-فکند have different etymology?


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> This can perhaps be best explained beginning with proto-Indo-European.
> 
> IE *leuk- “bright” gives Latin luc- (nom. sing. lux). In Indo-Iranian this gives rauč- before IE front vowels, otherwise rauk-. In Persian we have the present stem *abi-rauč-a- > aβrōz > afrōz (with č > z after vowels) and the perfect passive participle *abi-rauk-ta > aβrōxt > afrōxt (with kt > xt) “to light, to make bright, to ignite”.
> 
> There is also IE *leuk-sno- as in Latin luna. This is found in Iranian *rauxšna- > Avestan raoxšna- “light” (with ksn > xšn) and Middle Persian rōšn > NP rōšan (with xšn > šn).
> 
> Finally, there is the New Persian verb furōz-, furōxtan “to ignite”. Johnny Cheung suggests tentatively (in the entry referenced in no. 1) that this is from *fra-rauč- > *frarōz > furōz with loss of the second -r-. Another possibility (as suggested in no. 2) is that afrōz and furōz “ignite” are actually the same word, the latter with the usual NP loss of the initial a- (as in andar > dar), and subsequent insertion of an epenthetic vowel. So we would have the present stem *abi-rauč-a > aβrōz > afrōz > fi/urōz, and the past stem *abi-rauk-ta- > aβrōxt > afrōxt > fi/urōxt.



There is also furugh (فروغ) and Middle Persian _frōg_, the Middle Persian verb _frōgihistan_ has also a similar meaning, what about them?


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> There is also furugh (فروغ) and Middle Persian _frōg_, the Middle Persian verb _frōgihistan_ has also a similar meaning, what about them?



frōg “brilliance” is presumably *fra-rauk-, with loss of the first r.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> frōg “brilliance” is presumably *fra-rauk-, with loss of the first r.



And why _k_ was changed to _g_?


----------



## fdb

After vowels /k/ almost always changes to /g/ in Middle Persian.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> After vowels /k/ almost always changes to /g/ in Middle Persian.



So why it was not changed in other ones?


----------



## fdb

Sound changes take place at different times. kt > xt is proto-Iranian (prehistoric). Post-vocalic k > g took place (probably) in the 3rd century AD.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Sound changes take place at different times. kt > xt is proto-Iranian (prehistoric). Post-vocalic k > g took place (probably) in the 3rd century AD.



You yourself say that proto-IE *_k_ was changed to another sound in proto-Iranian, so it didn't exist in the 3rd century AD to be changed to _g_.


----------



## fdb

Where did I say that EVERY /k/ "changed to another sound"?


----------



## CyrusSH

What do you think about the proto-IE word that I mentioned, *_puer-_ "fire"?

I wonder why these Persian verbs that you believe Iranians themselves created them, could be from proto-IE too, for example as you said I assume that the original form of _furuz_ was _brōz_ and it meant "to make bright", couldn't it be from Proto-Indo-European **bʰereg-* "to make bright" (_bʰ_>_b_ & _g_>_z_ in Iranian), Cognate with English _bright_?


----------



## desi4life

PIE _*péh₂ur _and _*h₁n̥gʷnis _(the two main words for fire) are not continued in Iranian languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

The problem is that Iranian linguists never thought about proto-Indo-European but they usually believed that most of Persian words were actually compounds and were created by Iranians themselves, for example if a Persian verb begins with "f" then it will be certainly from "fra" but sometimes "r" is dropped or "a" is dropped or both of them are dropped, and the only thing which doesn't matter is that the meaning of the second part of the verb relates to this verb or not!


----------



## Treaty

The problem is that you are no expert in etymology or its history, yet you make such bold claims as if you can read the mind of etymologists! IE languages (not just Iranian) form a significant amount of their vocabulary with prefixes and suffixes. Iranian languages don't differ from others in this regard. Considering the topic of this thread itself, there are parallel morphologies in Sanskrit (_praroč_- "to enlighten"), Greek (προλευκαίνω "to whiten beforehand") and Latin (_prolucere _"to shine forth"), and probably others.

Regarding _fr-, _obviously etymologies with prefix _fra_-<*_pro_ would be statistically prevalent. The number of other PIE roots (*_pl-_ and *_pr- > _maybe Ir. _*fr_) is around 20 in a generous estimate (i.e. considering the dubious roots and non-verbal ones like "onion" and "some kind of wood"). Whereas _fra_- can attach to hundreds of PIE verbal roots, plus non-IE Iranian roots themselves.



CyrusSH said:


> ...couldn't it be from Proto-Indo-European **bʰereg-* "to make bright" (_bʰ_>_b_ & _g_>_z_ in Iranian), Cognate with English _bright_?


The Persian descendant is _brāz_- (to shine, to be splendid).


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> The problem is that you are no expert in etymology or its history, yet you make such bold claims as if you can read the mind of etymologists! IE languages (not just Iranian) form a significant amount of their vocabulary with prefixes and suffixes. Iranian languages don't differ from others in this regard. Considering the topic of this thread itself, there are parallel morphologies in Sanskrit (_praroč_- "to enlighten"), Greek (προλευκαίνω "to whiten beforehand") and Latin (_prolucere _"to shine forth"), and probably others.



Of course I'm not but it doesn't mean that I should believe all things that etymologists say, especially when they themselves doubt, logically if you say xy=x+y then there can be less doubt about it but when you say xy=z+y or x+z then it is clear that you yourself don't know about the origin of this word. For example فرا is certainly a Persian suffix with a clear meaning which has been used in numerous Persian words but I see no reason that it is changed to ف or فا.



Treaty said:


> The Persian descendant is _brāz_- (to shine, to be splendid).



What do think about Persian _frāz_ (فرازیدن، فراختن، فراز ..): 
معنی فرازانیدن | لغت‌نامه دهخدا Is it from another _brāz_?!


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> What do think about Persian _frāz_ (فرازیدن، فراختن، فراز ..):


Totally unrelated with a different meaning and etymology.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Totally unrelated with a different meaning and etymology.



unrelated to what?


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> unrelated to what?


To the topic of the thread.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> To the topic of the thread.



The topic of this thread is about "ignite, fire" and Persian _fraz_ means the same.

بگوی تا بفروزند و برفرازانند
بدو بسوزان دی را صحیفه ٔ اعمال


----------



## PersoLatin

These all mean the same thing, some may have slightly different meaning but they are  essentially from the same source:
  past stem: farâxtan, afrâxtan, afruxtan (foruxtan) (فراختن،‏ افراختن، افروختن (فروختن
  present stem: farâzidan, afrâzidan, afruzidan, foruzidan  فرازیدن، افرازیدن، افروزیدن، ‏فروزیدن (the underlined primarily mean to raise)
  causative: farâzânidan, afrâzânidan: فرازانیدن، افرازانیدن

Our poets have a lot to answer for, so feel free to invent more.

Edited: adjustment made due to post #24 by Treaty (see underlined)


----------



## Treaty

No, _farāz-_ (MP _abrāz_) means "to lift up" (cognate of Latin reg-, English right, Persian _rāst_). Dehkhoda doesn't bring a source, and so we can suspect he got the "fire" part because of that example not vice versa.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> No, _farāz-_ (MP _abrāz_) means "to lift up" (cognate of Latin reg-, English right, Persian _rāst_). Dehkhoda doesn't bring a source, and so we can suspect he got the "fire" part because of that example not vice versa.



Now Dehkhoda is not a reliable source. Look Borhan-e Ghate, page 1446, about فراز it says "به معنی فروز باشد که از افروختن است" and after it: "بالا و نشیب".


----------



## Treaty

Dehkhoda is more reliable than Borhan. He provides some context, compares different sources and sometimes has critical view of the meanings. 

If a word is used with _ātaš _to mean "to start a fire", it doesn't mean that the word itself means so. This is a point Dehkhoda himself implies, when he says -_farāz_ should accompany _ātaš _to mean "lighting". However, he doesn't reflect this point in the other entry. This results into the meaning "to [specifically] raise a fire" rather than "to raise something, e.g., a fire" for _farāzānidan_. My point was that this is a mistake caused by the scarcity of this particular verb, so that the (only) example was used with _ātaš. _Otherwise, for other variants _farāxtan, afrāxtan, afrāzidan _and _afrāštan_ this issue doesn't exist; obviously, the contexts for these verbs clearly show "to raise" (even if used with _ātaš_)_. _Therefore, all of these verbs in the context fire, whether figuratively (to raise > to make) or literally (to raise fire's level), is consistent with the meaning "to raise" and doesn't necessitate a different root (or even some kind of ablaut-ish operation).


----------



## CyrusSH

Ok, فراز is another form of _brāz_ and means "to raise", isn't it from proto-IE _bʰerǵʰ_ "to raise"? Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰerǵʰ- - Wiktionary

My question is that why you believe Persians themselves just invented these verbs?


----------



## Treaty

No, I already said in #17 that _brāz_ (to shine, to be splendid, etc) is from PIE *_bʰereǵ_ (there seem to be two *_bʰereǵ,_ one meaning "to shine" and the other "to cook". The latter is the source of PIr. *_braij_, e.g., Pers. _bereštan. _I don't know how these two are related)_. _

I don't know whether there is a _frāz_ which somehow developed out of this _brāz_ in Persian or a related dialect; but _brāz_ is neither related the *common *verb _farāz_ ("to raise" < _afrāz_ < _abrāz_ < *_abi-rāz_ < PIr. *_abi-Hrāz < _PIE *_epi_+*_h³reǵ_) nor to _afrūz_- (< PIr. *_abi-rauč- < _PIE_ *epi+*leuk-_) and to _forūz _(< either *_abi-_ or *_fra-rauč < _PIE_ *pro+*leuk_).

I don't know why you are obsessed with the question of _whether Iranians/Persians themselves just invented these verbs_. This obsession is ridiculous. PIE gave its descendants the ability to form new verbs with attaching dozen prepositional words to hundreds of verbal stems. Some languages used some of the possible combinations while others used others. Some may have existed during PIE and some (majority) developed after branching. Some were more widespread across the families (e.g., *_pro_) but others were more local (e.g., super/hyper-). It is ridiculous to assume a compound verb should have existed during PIE, unless you want to wonder how cognates _afrāxtan _and "epirectal" are semantically related .


----------



## CyrusSH

Whether you want to believe it or not there is a relation between these Persian verbs which begin with _f_:  فروختن، فرازانیدن ... or _af_: افروختن، افروزیدن ... and "fire" but not about برازیدن، ابراز، بروز ... . This difference can be seen in the Persian words بور "blonde" and فور "reddish". معنی فور | فرهنگ فارسی عمید


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> I don't know whether there is a _frāz_ which somehow developed out of this _brāz_ in Persian or a related dialect; but _brāz_ is neither related the *common *verb _farāz_ ("to raise" < _afrāz_ < _abrāz_ < *_abi-rāz_ < PIr. *_abi-Hrāz < _PIE *_epi_+*_h³reǵ_) nor to _afrūz_- (< PIr. *_abi-rauč- < _PIE_ *epi+*leuk-_) and to _forūz _(< either *_abi-_ or *_fra-rauč < _PIE_ *pro+*leuk_).



One small correction: Iranian abi is not from IE *epi. It is from Indo-Iranian (=Skt.) abhi- < IE *ṃbʰi (or *h²ṃbʰi), as in Greek amphi, Latin ambi.


----------



## Treaty

Thank you. I was wondering why I can't find _api/ab_i preverbs in Sanskrit.


----------

