# طَاْوِلَة



## Ali.h

I could not find any roots for the word *طَاْوِلَة* (table), so does this mean not all Arabic nouns have roots? And secondly are most Arabic nouns verbal nouns?


----------



## Abu Rashid

Do you know how to use an Arabic dictionary? Doesn't seem so, because I had no problem finding it.

*طَوَّلَ
فــــعــــــــل* ,  protract  ,  sprawl  ,  lengthen  ,  prolong  ,  elongate  ,  draw out ,  reach​


----------



## Ali.h

Abu Rashid said:


> Do you know how to use an Arabic dictionary? Doesn't seem so, because I had no problem finding it.
> 
> *طَوَّلَ*
> 
> *فــــعــــــــل*, protract , sprawl , lengthen , prolong , elongate , draw out , reach​


 
Can you refer me to a dictionary which shows the roots? And are all Arabic nouns verbal nouns?


----------



## Muwahid

Except for maybe borrowed words, I believe all Arabic words have a 3 and sometimes 4 root letters, then of course nouns, verbs, adjectives, will have an appropriate "form" like فعل أفعل etc, this creating the various variations of a common root's meaning.

The best Arabic-English dictionary that sorts by roots is probably Hans-Wehr, by that you can find the root of any word, but you can't look up a word without knowing it's root. Unless you're a good guesser of course.


----------



## Mahaodeh

طاولة is generally classified under ط و ل but it's a loanword from Italian.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> طاولة is generally classified under ط و ل but it's a loanword from  Italian.



Well if it comes from the root طول then it's definitely not from Italian, because this root is used in the Qur'an, long before Italian even existed (unless you mean Latin). I can't see any reason to say it comes from Italian. The root has a clear meaning of being long and broad which fits perfectly for a table.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> Can you refer me to a dictionary which shows the roots?



All Arabic dictionaries list words by root, as far as I know.



> And are all Arabic nouns verbal nouns?



The vast majority of nouns in all Semitic languages are verbal nouns. That's a unique characteristic of Semitic languages, is that most words are derived from verbs. Even for instance colours will usually come from verbs which mean to "turn that colour".


----------



## Josh_

Many say it comes from the Italian word "tavola."  The fact that it fits in with the root ط و ل may just be a coincidence.

You are also right, Abu Rashid, that as well as fitting in with the root it also can be connected to the meaning of the root, but that may also be a coincidence.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Abu Rashid said:


> Well if it comes from the root طول then it's definitely not from Italian, because this root is used in the Qur'an, long before Italian even existed (unless you mean Latin). I can't see any reason to say it comes from Italian. The root has a clear meaning of being long and broad which fits perfectly for a table.


 
Being listed in a dictionary under a certain root does not mean that it's not a loanword. فارس meaning Persia is under ف ر س and سراط is listed under س ر ط when both are loanwords. Usually, the word is list under the root that most fits it, if there is no such root (such as بستان ومنجنيق) a root is invented for it (ب س ت ن و م ن ج ق). 

However, regarding طاولة I got that from this site, where it claims taht Lisaan Al Arab says it's Italian. However, I went back and looked it up in the paper copy I have but I didn't find it at all. So I'm not sure any more.

Now, according to this, the English table is through Italian tabula, which is from Latin and it says "of uncertain origin", and claims it was first recorded in c. 1300. Wikitionary says it's from Classical Latin for "tablet".

The two words are obviously related. Especially when one links it with the collequal طبلة and طبلية for two specific types of tables (the first is a small side table and the second is a low round table that one eats on while sitting on the ground).

I frankly can't see it as مولدة because other options are more likely such as مائدة, which is in fact used for a large dining table, مكتب for a writing table and منضدة for a side table - these words actually exist and are used, not to mention the obselete خوان which used to be used for a dining table without the food on it (since مائدة classically requires the table to be set).

In all cases, I don't know which took it from the other, but with the little information I have, it seems to me that it is Latin and probably through either Italian, French or maybe even Spanish (although the first two are more likely).

By the way, I don't think the root means "broad", only "long", "strong", "capable" and "reaching".


----------



## Abu Rashid

Josh,



> Many say it comes from the Italian word "tavola."  The fact that it fits  in with the root ط و ل may just be a coincidence.



Right, with about as much chance of it just being a coincidence that the two languages happen to have similar sounding words for the same object.

Maha,



> Being listed in a dictionary under a certain root does not mean that  it's not a loanword.



Just as a similar sounding word in another language does not mean it is a loanword. Unless there's actually some evidence for it being a loanword, then just assuming it is by default is pretty sloppy work.



> and سراط is listed under س ر ط when both are loanwords.



Again, what's the evidence for this being a loanword? I could not find mention of it being a loan in any dictionary, and in fact in some they seemed to be linking it to the meaning of the root.



> By the way, I don't think the root means "broad", only "long", "strong",  "capable" and "reaching".



To sprawl and reach out means to be broad. So according to the definition I posted above (which is also from sakhr) then it would mean broad.


----------



## Josh_

Abu Rashid said:


> Again, what's the evidence for this being a loanword? I could not find mention of it being a loan in any dictionary,


The Hans Wehr mentions that the word is from the Italian "tavola" and lists the word alphabetically (not by root) separately from the root ط-و-ل.

The Hinds-Badawi "A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic" also mentions that it is from the Italian "tavola." It lists it separately from the ط-و-ل entry.

"Al-Munjid," one of the most common Arabic-Arabic dictionaries in the Arab world, also lists is separately from the root ط-و-ل and mentions that it is from Latin. 




> and in fact in some they seemed to be linking it to the meaning of the root.


In what way do they seem to be linking it to the root? 

Sure, it is interesting that we can make a connection between the meaning of the root ط-و-ل and the fact that a table or طاولة, which looks like it could be from the root ط-و-ل, can be long, but it is really a tenuous connection as tables can take many shapes and sizes. There is nothing that says that a table is inherently long.

As Maha said, many foreign words are listed under the root they fit in. So, again, I just think it is most likely a coincidence that طاولة fits under the root ط-و-ل, and the tables can be long. 



			
				Maha said:
			
		

> However, regarding طاولة I got that from this site, where it claims taht Lisaan Al Arab says it's Italian. However, I went back and looked it up in the paper copy I have but I didn't find it at all. So I'm not sure any more.


Do you mean that you could not find the reference to the word being from Italian, or could not find the word طاولة at all? I ask, because when I looked up the word طاولة in the Lisan I could not find it at all. 
-----

I also looked up the word in Lane's Lexicon (which claims to be a dictionary of all the classical Arabic words and is largely a translation of the Taj Al-Aroos, which is largely copied from the Lisan Al-Arab) and could not find it at all as well.

Some food for thought:

If the word does not appear in any of those dictionaries, which are dictionaries of the classical language (i.e. the language used during the Jahiliyya period and up to about a generation or two after the advent of Islam) that implies that the word is not a classical word; that is, that it was not used during the classical period as it is not attested to by the جاهليون or the مخضرمون, the only two classes of poets which have been traditionally regarded as unquestionable authorities concerning the language. Did the word exist during this period but they just did not use it, or was the word unknown to them?

None of this is to say that the word is not from the Arabic root ط-و-ل (it could possibly be a post-classical coinage) but it does indicate that it cannot, by traditional standards, be considered a pure or genuine Arabic word as it is not attested to by either the جاهليون or the مخضرمون. So at most it could only be considered إسلامية or مولدة (if it is indeed from Arabic), but as the corruption of the language was deemed to be great at those times, poets/writers therein were not considered authorities, and as such any words that they used, which were not used by the جاهليون or the مخضرمون, are not considered pure/genuine Arabic words -- again, traditionally speaking. 

Maha already mentioned that she did not think that it could be مولدة because other words would have been more likely used. Would they have really coined a new word if they already had words at their disposal?

It would be interesting to see when the word طاولة was first attested to. That may help us in our quest to determine whether it is from Arabic or not. Maybe those who claim it is from Italian or Latin, know something we don't know.

As a side comment, somewhat related to the above discussion, which is obviously highly speculative, I would imagine that the ancient nomadic Arabs of the Jahiliyya period would not have had long tables, as it would be difficult to carry them from encampment to encampment. I would imagine that the tables they would have used would have been small ones, something that a camel could easily carry.

At any rate, to sum up, while the fact that the word is not attested to during the classical period does not rule out the possibility of its being from the root ط-و-ل (being a post-classical coinage), it does add a little bit of weight to the possibly of it being a loanword. Knowing when the word was first used may also help us to determine its origin.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Josh,



> The Hans Wehr mentions...
> 
> The Hinds-Badawi "A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic" also...



Sorry Josh but neither of these are authorities whatsoever on the Arabic language, and certainly not on the origins of words. Using Hans-Wehr as an authority for the Arabic language is about as authentic as using al-Mawrid Arabic-English dictionary as an authority for English and the origins of it's words.

Books like Hans-Wehr might be useful tools for English speakers who want to learn Arabic, but trying to enter them into a discussion about the origins of an Arabic word is not really what these tools were designed for.



> In what way do they seem to be linking it to the root?


From what I understand of this entry in qamoos al-mu7eet, they are linking it to the meaning of the verb. I may be misunderstanding it though.

والسِّراطُ، بالكسر: السبيلُ  الواضِحُ، لأنَّ الذَّاهب فيه يَغيبُ غَيْبَةَ الطَّعامِ المُسْتَرَطِ،  والصادُ أعلى للمُضارَعةِ، والسينُ الأصلُ.



> but it is really a tenuous connection as tables can take many shapes and  sizes. There is nothing that says that a table is inherently long.


Interesting, because I think that's the original meaning in Latin too. So you seem to find it a tenuous connection in Arabic, yet I doubt you even question the connection in Latin.



> None of this is to say that the word is not from the Arabic root ط-و-ل  (it could possibly be a post-classical coinage) but it does indicate  that it cannot, by traditional standards, be considered a pure or  genuine Arabic word as it is not attested to by either the جاهليون or  the مخضرمون.


On what basis are post-classical coinages not considered 'genuine Arabic'?? That's a very strange concept if you ask me.


----------



## Josh_

Abu Rashid said:


> Josh,
> 
> 
> Sorry Josh but neither of these are authorities whatsoever on the Arabic language, and certainly not on the origins of words. Using Hans-Wehr as an authority for the Arabic language is about as authentic as using al-Mawrid Arabic-English dictionary as an authority for English and the origins of it's words.


Regardless of whether you consider them authorities or not, they are well respected and well-researched dictionaries of the Arabic language.



> Books like Hans-Wehr might be useful tools for English speakers who want to learn Arabic, but trying to enter them into a discussion about the origins of an Arabic word is not really what these tools were designed for.


They do not claim to be etymological dictionaries. They do not go into etymologies of words, but they do mention, I imagine on good authority, words that are of foreign origin. 

Now, as I pointed out, many dictionaries mention that طاولة is of foreign origin. They must have a reason for doing so, but at this point, I am not completely sure of their reasoning, but I highly doubt that it is done by default.




> Interesting, because I think that's the original meaning in Latin too. So you seem to find it a tenuous connection in Arabic, yet I doubt you even question the connection in Latin.


I thought we were discussing the Arabic طاولة, not any Latin word. The etymology of the Latin word for table is irrelevant to this discussion. But since you brought it up, I will mention that if the word is from Latin or Italian, it most likely came as a direct borrowing from the language without any thought or consideration as to its original/primary meaning.



> On what basis are post-classical coinages not considered 'genuine Arabic'?? That's a very strange concept if you ask me.


I was having trouble expressing myself yesterday. "Genuine" is not the appropriate word. Of course words from Arabic roots coined post-classically are Arabic words. What I meant to say was that if a word was not used by the جاهليون or the مخضرمون it is not, traditionally speaking, considered a true old/classical Arabic word. Words coined after these periods are considered مولدة.

And my point in bringing that up is to mention that طاولة is, as far as I can tell, not a classical Arabic word as it is not attested in the classical period, so if we are going to look for its etymology, we would need to look after the جاهلي or the مخضرم time periods.


----------



## clevermizo

Josh_ said:


> If the word does not appear in any of those dictionaries, which are dictionaries of the classical language (i.e. the language used during the Jahiliyya period and up to about a generation or two after the advent of Islam) that implies that the word is not a classical word; that is, that it was not used during the classical period as it is not attested to by the جاهليون or the مخضرمون, the only two classes of poets which have been traditionally regarded as unquestionable authorities concerning the language. Did the word exist during this period but they just did not use it, or was the word unknown to them?



Here's a little evidence that it was unknown during that period. Now, طاولة is one of the most common words for "table" that I know, despite the existence of the (more فصيح?) word مائدة. Malta was taken from the Fatimids by the Normans in the 11th century, and Maltese evolved from the colloquial Arabic of that period and region without much known contact with فصحى or many other dialects. The word for table in Maltese? *mejda* (pronounced: mey.da].


----------



## Sidjanga

Abu Rashid said:


> All Arabic dictionaries list words by root, as far as I know.


Not all do. I've come across one or two so far that don't list words by root but simply in alphabetical order considering all the letters the individual words are made up of - which can have considerable advantages, in particular for beginners.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Josh said:
			
		

> Regardless of whether you consider them authorities or not, they are well respected and well-researched dictionaries of the Arabic language.


As much as al-Mawrid is of the English language. Yet I doubt anyone would accept it as a legitimate authority.

You must see that in this context, you are viewing this from a very english-centric view of languages. As I doubt anyone would ever consider an inter-lingual dictionary to be authoritative over their language. It's nothing more than a translation tool.



			
				Josh said:
			
		

> Now, as I pointed out, many dictionaries mention that طاولة is of foreign origin.


Many... yet you've only produced one proper Arabic dictionary. That's not many. You could perhaps say one Arabic dictionary and several inter-lingual translation tools.



> I thought we were discussing the Arabic طاولة, not any Latin word.


Your point was that it's unlikely to be of Arabic origin because the root isn't that closely related to the meaning of table. If the origin of the Latin word had a similar base meaning, then that would make it just as dubious to claim it's originally Latin, as well as strengthen the idea that other languages found the same base meaning to lead them to derive the word for table from it.



			
				Josh said:
			
		

> What I meant to say was that if a word was not used by the جاهليون or the مخضرمون it is not, traditionally speaking, considered a true old/classical Arabic word. Words coined after these periods are considered مولدة.


But I don't see where anyone ever claimed it was a [pre-]classical word, so this entire line of reasoning is just fruitless. Since it seeks only to prove something which was never claimed.


----------



## Josh_

Abu Rashid said:


> As much as al-Mawrid is of the English language. Yet I doubt anyone would accept it as a legitimate authority.
> 
> You must see that in this context, you are viewing this from a very english-centric view of languages. As I doubt anyone would ever consider an inter-lingual dictionary to be authoritative over their language. It's nothing more than a translation tool.


No, I am not viewing this from an English-centric view of languages. The two aforementioned dictionaries are authorities for what they are -- Arabic-English dictionaries. At no point did I claim anything different. 

As I'm sure you know the Arabic-English dictionaries are not compiled solely by native English speakers, rather they are compiled by native English speakers and native Arabic speakers working together, who are educated and most likely just as competent as those who compile Arabic-Arabic dictionaries and capable of determining what is Arabic and what is not.



> Many... yet you've only produced one proper Arabic dictionary. That's not many. You could perhaps say one Arabic dictionary and several inter-lingual translation tools.


You seem to be insinuating that the compilers of English-Arabic dictionaries are somehow less competent than the compilers of Arabic-Arabic dictionaries at determining if a word is foreign or not. Or that their judgement or conclusions are less valid in some way. If I am wrong in thinking this, please disabuse me, but if that is your stance, I'd be interested in knowing why you assume that? Why would the judgement of the Arabic-English compilers count less than the Arabic-Arabic compilers?

I do not hold that position and believe that the judgments of the compilers of the Arabic-English dictionaries are as valid as those of the compilers of the Arabic-Arabic dictionaries. 

And honestly, how are inter-lingual dictionaries compiled? They do not exist in a vacuum. Native sources are obviously consulted and used along the way. So I do not buy the reasoning that an Arabic-English dictionary is not a valid source by the mere fact that it is an Arabic-English dictionary. Could it not be that the idea that Taawila was foreign first appeared in native sources, and was then later included in the Arabic-English dictionaries?



> Your point was that it's unlikely to be of Arabic origin because the root isn't that closely related to the meaning of table.


My point is that, while a connection can be made, it is weak. It is not strong enough, in my mind, to be conclusive.



> If the origin of the Latin word had a similar base meaning, then that would make it just as dubious to claim it's originally Latin, as well as strengthen the idea that other languages found the same base meaning to lead them to derive the word for table from it.


I still fail to see why the base meaning of the Latin word is relevant in this discussion.



> But I don't see where anyone ever claimed it was a [pre-]classical word, so this entire line of reasoning is just fruitless. Since it seeks only to prove something which was never claimed.


My comments were not a response to any claim. They were a side "food-for-thought" comment. And as I alluded to above, I am engaging in a process of elimination. Eliminating the word from certain time periods narrows the search -- as I said, I would be interested in knowing when this word is first attested, as I believe that will help us to arrive at an answer as to its origin. Further, I wanted to preclude any erroneous conclusions that this word was around during the advent of Islam that may arise from your comment in post #6.

Bottom line, I have provided sources, which I imagine were compiled by competent Arabists, that support the position that it is a foreign word. I have also provided a little of my own research and analysis. So far, you have provided nothing but your own assertion. Do you have any other sources that you can provide that support that idea that it is an Arabic word or that link it to the root ط-و-ل? Perhaps, instead of taking the negative argument approach by trying to break down my argument, you could take the positive argument approach by providing evidence that supports your conclusion.

Note that I am not saying that it is for sure a foreign word (authorities can be wrong, and the idea that the word can be connected in some way to the meaning of the root ط-و-ل is interesting and should not be ignored), but so far the scales seems to be tipping in that direction, in my opinion.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Josh said:
			
		

> The two aforementioned dictionaries are authorities for what they are --  Arabic-English dictionaries. At no point did I claim anything  different.



Ok let me put this another way. Would you use al-Mawrid English-Arabic dictionary as an authoritative source when discussing the origin of an English word? I personally would feel like my position was pretty inferior doing so. Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Macquarie etc. yes no problem, these are proper English authorities on the language, but al-Mawrid?? No, it is not. It's merely an inter-lingual tool for non-native speakers to see the meaning of English words in Arabic, nothing more. Such tools have no authority whatsoever.



			
				Josh said:
			
		

> Could it not be that the idea that Taawila was foreign first appeared in  native sources, and was then later included in the Arabic-English  dictionaries?



Could well be, but unless you've got a reference for it, and we can go back to the proper authoritative Arabic dictionary to reference it, then it's nothing but speculation and has no place in this discussion.



> My point is that, while a connection can be made, it is weak. It is not  strong enough, in my mind, to be conclusive.



Your claim is that it's an originally Italian word right? With origins in Latin? Well if the original meaning in Latin of the root is similar to the root in Arabic, then claiming it's Latin/Italian and not Arabic because the meaning in Arabic isn't conclusive would go both ways. I don't know why that wasn't clear the first time??



> My comments were not a response to any claim. They were a side  "food-for-thought" comment.



That makes more sense now that you clarified you didn't really mean the word is not authentically Arabic just because it may have been coined in post-classical period.



> Further, I wanted to preclude any erroneous conclusions that this word  was around during the advent of Islam that may arise from your comment  in post #6.



I clearly said the root ط-و-ل is in the Qur'an, not the word طاولة.

That still doesn't preclude it from being a Latin borrowing, but my point was merely that if it is from the Arabic root, then it wouldn't be a borrowing from Italian, Latin perhaps, but not Italian.



> Bottom line, I have provided sources, which I imagine were compiled by  competent Arabists, that support the position that it is a foreign word.



Quite frankly I'm a little skeptical about so called "competent Arabists" who I think very frivolously claim any and every Arabic word is Greek or Latin. Their claims often come off as very euro-centric.

We've had a fair few of these cases in this forum over the past few years like "fulan" and "hadaramut".



> So far, you have provided nothing but your own assertion.



Well since I've not made any positive assertion, I'm in no need of providing anything. I've merely challenged the assumptions, premature ones if you ask me, that instantly claim it must be Italian. It may well be, I honestly don't know, but you gotta provide some concrete evidence to substantiate it. Otherwise you're just coming from a position where everything is assumed by default to be borrowed unless proven otherwise.

Remember who the onus of proof is upon.



> Do you have any other sources that you can provide that support that  idea that it is an Arabic word or that link it to the root ط-و-ل?



This question just exposes how completely upside down your thinking is. The word is being used in the Arabic language, the default position should be that it's an Arabic word, if you can prove otherwise, then so be it, but don't ask me to prove an Arabic word is authentically Arabic.



> Note that I am not saying that it is for sure a foreign word  (authorities can be wrong, and the idea that the word can be connected  in some way to the meaning of the root ط-و-ل is interesting and should  not be ignored), but so far the scales seems to be tipping in that  direction, in my opinion.



If it's merely based on the "authority" of Hans-Wehr, then I'd have to say your scales are not too accurate.


----------



## Josh_

Abu Rashid said:


> Ok let me put this another way. Would you use al-Mawrid English-Arabic dictionary as an authoritative source when discussing the origin of an English word? I personally would feel like my position was pretty inferior doing so. Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Macquarie etc. yes no problem, these are proper English authorities on the language, but al-Mawrid?? No, it is not. It's merely an inter-lingual tool for non-native speakers to see the meaning of English words in Arabic, nothing more. Such tools have no authority whatsoever.


Of course, I see what you are saying, I would go to the OED, not because it is a native source, but because its purpose is to show the development of the English language and I know (or am led to believe) that it is a well-researched dictionary compiled by competent, educated people. For that same reason, I would not deem the wordreference dictionary an authority on etymology, despite its being a native source, because that is not its purpose. 

Again, the compilers of the Arabic-English dictionaries are not less competent than those of Arabic-Arabic dictionaries. I would of course not believe all they say hook, line, and sinker (and that goes for the English equivalents of the words they give as well), but would question why they hold that position and do my own research. I would not assume, however, that they made those judgments prematurely or hastily or that that was their default position. The fact of the matter is they are educated and competent Arabists. Their opinions cannot simply be ignored.




> Could well be, but unless you've got a reference for it, and we can go back to the proper authoritative Arabic dictionary to reference it, then it's nothing but speculation and has no place in this discussion.


 



> Your claim is that it's an originally Italian word right? With origins in Latin? Well if the original meaning in Latin of the root is similar to the root in Arabic, then claiming it's Latin/Italian and not Arabic because the meaning in Arabic isn't conclusive would go both ways. I don't know why that wasn't clear the first time??


I wrote, in clear language, what my position was, yet you twist my words. I'm not sure I can make it clearer.



> I clearly said the root ط-و-ل is in the Qur'an, not the word طاولة.


Yes, you did, but the first thought that came to be was I wonder if Taawila was used back then. Now if I thought that, perhaps others would as well. So I thought I would research it and post my findings so others would not erroneously think it was.



> Quite frankly I'm a little skeptical about so called "competent Arabists" who I think very frivolously claim any and every Arabic word is Greek or Latin. Their claims often come off as very euro-centric.


How do you know that they are quick to jump to jump to foreign origins? I think we would need to understand why they claim what they do before we make that judgment.



> We've had a fair few of these cases in this forum over the past few years like "fulan" and "hadaramut".


I wonder how many of those are educated and trained Arabists, though, who have extensively studied the language and looked at all possible scenarios.




> Well since I've not made any positive assertion, I'm in no need of providing anything.


Yes you did. You claimed something which seems to be against the current thinking, so you should to back that up, you should say why the current thinking is flawed. 





> I've merely challenged the assumptions, premature ones if you ask me, that instantly claim it must be Italian.


How do you know they are premature? How do you know that those that claim it is from Italian did not do a lot of research before coming to their conclusion. I highly doubt it came out of a vacuum.



> It may well be, I honestly don't know, but you gotta provide some concrete evidence to substantiate it. Otherwise you're just coming from a position where everything is assumed by default to be borrowed unless proven otherwise.


That is not true. They do not assume everything is borrowed by default until proven native. Again, how do you know what kind of research they have done? We simply do not know enough about why it is claimed to come from Italian. And attributing motives to them without knowing the whole story is fruitless.



> Remember who the onus of proof is upon.


yes, the one making the positive claim.



> This question just exposes how completely upside down your thinking is. The word is being used in the Arabic language, the default position should be that it's an Arabic word, if you can prove otherwise, then so be it, but don't ask me to prove an Arabic word is authentically Arabic.


Again, how do you know that was not their default position? -- that it was Arabic, but then after research they determined that it was from Italian. Again, I doubt they are making claims out of nowhere; without something that suggests it is of foreign origin. I highly doubt an educated and competent academic would do that. So perhaps your thinking is upside in thinking that they did not start from that position.

Again, the piece of information that we are missing is why those who claim the word is from Italian claim that? They probably know something or have more information, that gives them good reason to claim that, that we simply don't know.We can't or shouldn't assume that was their default position or that they are making premature claims. We simply don't know that. We can go on and on about how Arabic-English dictionaries are not authoritative or about how this claim is premature or this, that or the other thing, but without knowing the whole story it is an effort in futility.



> If it's merely based on the "authority" of Hans-Wehr, then I'd have to say your scales are not too accurate.


I believe you saw that that was not the only source I provided.


----------



## clevermizo

1. Hans Wehr is an authority, in my opinion. Who says you have to be a native Arab to be an authority? Sibawayh was an authority and he was Persian. Nevertheless, I concede Hans Wehr is not as good of an authority about this matter because the dictionary is not meant to be etymological, and therefore the etymological claims are not sourced.

2. The point about Al-Mawrid is moot because Al-Mawrid does not at all claim anything about English etymology, so it's not comparable or worth wondering about how we would accept its authority if it did make etymological claims. 

3. In the 12th century, the word _tavola_ in various dialects of Italian, Occitan and Catalan was pronounced [taula] and often spelled "taula" as well. _Tavola_ was also extant and survived into modern Standard Italian.  My source is in the OED. You need to have academic or personal subscription to see the link, unfortunately. If the kasra in طاوِلة was elided in the 12th century as it is often the case now, then the two words are essentially *identical* in pronuncation. Two words that are identical in pronunciation and refer to the same object make me quite suspect *someone* borrowed it from *someone*. They are far too identical in pronunciation and meaning at this stage in history to be unrelated.

Here are a couple of lines from an old Occitan song to confirm this pronunciation:



> Et a las *taulas* servia al mangiers,
> denan lo rei estava prezentiers,
> 
> And at table he would serve the diners,
> before the king he presented himself well,
> 
> *(The mid-12th century epic of Daurel et Beton, in M. DE RIQUER, Los Trovadores: Historia literaria y textos [Barcelona 1975], p. 550)*


4. طاولة being borrowed from Italian or other Romance into Arabic, or from Arabic into Italian or other Romance, has nothing to do with Latin. Two pieces of evidence support this. 

a. in the 11th century, Maltese Arabic speakers were separated from the Arab world, and they have continued to use مائدة, whereas طاولة is well known elsewhere. Therefore, before the 11th century, we can suspect طاولة was unknown in Arabic: either because it had not been borrowed yet, or because it had not yet been natively coined. In either case, Latin was not spoken at the time and is otherwise irrelevant. By the 12th century, taula is apparent in Romance languages.

b. If it had been borrowed from Latin, there would be no reason to transliterate proper Latin -b- into Arabic و when Arabic has a perfectly fine ب. I would have expected *طابولة. If it had been borrowed from Arabic into Latin, there would be no reason to Romanize Arabic [w] into Latin * when *taula would have sufficed. However, *taula is unattested in Latin. Latin has tabula which as we have established earlier is most likely related, but perhaps we don't know. This means either the Arabic word was borrowed directly into Italian or one of those other languages, or the evolution of tabula>tavola/taula was a native Romance development. Furthermore, tabula does not mean "table" in Latin. However, taula does mean table in Romance.


Just logically, it seems pretty clear that:

A. Taula and طاولة are related.
B. This relationship was established after the 11th century AD, perhaps in the 12th century AD.
C. This relationship is either a native evolution of Latin tabula borrowed in Arabic through Romance taula or native evolution of the Arabic root ط و ل as a noun طاولة into Romance as taula.

If طاولة was a native Arabic formation, would we not have expected مطول، مطولة, مطوالor طوّالة or something along those lines? I suppose there is طائرة of the pattern فاعلة, but there's a bit of a difference because a طائرة actually تطير whereas there's no concrete action associated with طاولة.*


----------



## Mahaodeh

Josh_ said:


> Do you mean that you could not find the reference to the word being from Italian, or could not find the word طاولة at all? I ask, because when I looked up the word طاولة in the Lisan I could not find it at all.


 
I meant that I could not find it in the paper copy at all.



clevermizo said:


> If طاولة was a native Arabic formation, would we not have expected مطول، مطولة, مطوالor طوّالة or something along those lines?


 
Not all tools/objects/other take the form of اسم الآلة; including furniture such as سرير كرسي صفة سجادة حصيرة 

--------------

The information about the pronounciation of the Italian word at the time is very interesting; but it confuses me regarding the other words in Arabic that actually use baa' rather than waw; specifically طبلة (لا علاقة لها بالآلة الموسيقية) وطبليّة, how can we explain these? Somehow I don't see them as a later borrowing but an earlier one. They are more common in the Levant and Iraq and I don't recall hearing them from Egyptians (I may be wrong).

Of course I may be wrong altogether.


----------



## clevermizo

Mahaodeh said:


> The information about the pronounciation of the Italian word at the time is very interesting; but it confuses me regarding the other words in Arabic that actually use baa' rather than waw; specifically طبلة (لا علاقة لها بالآلة الموسيقية) وطبليّة, how can we explain these? Somehow I don't see them as a later borrowing but an earlier one.



Well if they are an earlier borrowing, that makes sense because first of all, _tabula_ was the Latin word with a _b_. The weakening to forms _tavola_ and _taula_ were colloquial and happened in stages, _tavola_ being earlier. In those days there were no standard Romance languages, so the fact that _tavola_ became standard in Modern Italian just has to do with the Italian dialect it came from originally with this pronunciation. If Arabic loans came from different contact with different people with different dialects, this explains the different transliterations in Arabic. 

I should edit my post to say that _tavola_ was pronounced _in various dialects of Italian_ as _taula_ in the 12th century.


----------



## Abu Rashid

clevermizo,



> Who says you have to be a native Arab to be an authority? Sibawayh was  an authority...



Yes who says?

I don't know who you think said that, but I most certainly did not. I don't believe anyone in this thread has mentioned anything whatsoever about the ethnicity of dictionary compilers.



> The point about Al-Mawrid is moot because...



No it is not moot. An inter-lingual dictionary could never be considered an authoritative source for any language, and I think you know it. You know full well no scholar of the English language would ever accept al-Mawrid or an English-Bungla or an English-Eskimo dictionary as authoritative on the English language. You wouldn't accept it for your own language, but you seem to be under the impression it should be acceptable to all the other languages. As I said, these views are very English-centric.

If Hans-Wehr or other dictionaries merely take it from more authoritative sources, then bring them. If not, then it's pointless going around in circles.



> If the kasra in طاوِلة was elided in the 12th century as it is often the  case now, then the two words are essentially *identical* in  pronuncation. Two words that are identical in pronunciation and refer to  the same object make me quite suspect *someone* borrowed it from *someone*.  They are far too identical in pronunciation and meaning at this stage  in history to be unrelated.



This is food for thought, but I don't think it's conclusive.



> 4. طاولة being borrowed from Italian or other Romance into Arabic, or  from Arabic into Italian or other Romance, has nothing to do with Latin.  Two pieces of evidence support this.



Again, I don't believe anyone ever said it has anything to do with Latin.



> a. in the 11th century, Maltese Arabic speakers were separated from the  Arab world, and they have continued to use مائدة, whereas طاولة is well  known elsewhere.



Although the isolation of Maltese is a valuable scenario to consider in some cases, in this one it is not. Since nobody ever claimed the coining was pre-11th. century and also it's quite likely Maltese could've just used another synonym. Also since Maltese was far more influenced by Italian than other Arabic dialects, then we'd expect it'd be more likely to have an Italian word for table.



> A. _Taula_ and طاولة are related.



There are cases of very similar sounding words existing in languages which are neither borrowed nor cognate, as I'm sure you're aware.



> B. This relationship was established after the 11th century AD



Your only evidence for this seems to be that it doesn't exist in Maltese. This assumes all known synonyms have to have been handed down to Maltese. Maltese lacks a lot of the synonyms for most words that other Arabic dialects have, because of its isolation.



> C. This relationship is either a native evolution of Latin _tabula_  borrowed in Arabic through Romance _taula_ or native evolution of  the Arabic root ط و ل as a noun طاولة into Romance as _taula_.



Or they both happened coincidentally the same.

And even if those were the only two options, I have yet to see any evidence one is more likely than the other.



> If طاولة was a native Arabic formation, would we not have expected مطول،  مطولة, مطوالor طوّالة or something along those lines? I suppose there  is طائرة of the pattern فاعلة



Mahaodeh already addressed this, so no need to. That means your point above is not quite as solid as you first thought.



> but there's a bit of a difference because  a طائرة actually تطير whereas there's no concrete action associated  with طاولة.



تطيل exists and means to 'make long' or lengthen, to draw out or prolong.


----------

