# Tarikh: "Date" in Hebrew, Arabic and Hindi



## tFighterPilot

This really baffles me. The word is identical and means the same thing in these languages, but what's its source? Also, the Hebrew word ends with a Kaf that is pronounced as Khaf because it's at the end of the word, yet the Arabic word ends with the unrelated letter Kha rather than Kaf. I'm sure there's a very simple explanation.


----------



## Melaike

We use this word in Turkish too.This is what I find about its etymology on a Turkish website:


> ~ Ar taˀrīχ تأريخ  [_#wrχ/Arχ_ II msd.]  1. günün tarihini yani hilalin kaçıncı günü olduğunu belirleme, 2. olayları tarih sırasına göre yazıya dökme, kronik <* Aram yarχā ירחא  [#yrχ] ay (gök cismi ve zaman birimi)* (= İbr yāreχa ירח a.a. = Akad warχu/arχu a.a. ) ● Karş. *Lat* _calendarium_ (takvim) < _calendae_ (ayın ilk günü, hilalin göründüğü gün).



Ar=Arabic ,İbr=Hebrew ,Aram=Aramaic, Akad=Akkadian


According to this website Aramaic ''yarχā'' means moon and month


----------



## Abu Rashid

It's not entirely clear, but I think the origin is w-r-kh. And it's used for moon and month in various Semitic languages.

There doesn't seem to be any tri-literal root in any language, only derivative nouns.

The Hebrew for date looks like it is probably a borrowing, as it uses mostly letters that seem to transliterate the Arabic word into modern Hebrew sound values.

There are Hebrew words based on this root though.

יָרֵחַ (moon)
יֶרַח (month)


----------



## origumi

The Hebrew word ta-a-rikh תאריך is borrowed from Arabic, with a twist. Instead of root 'rH (as in Arabic?) or yrH (as in Hebrew/Aramaic for moon/month) or wrH (the historical origin of yrH), root 'rk / 'rkh ארך (= length, to measure) was chosen. I think that the reason is sound: with Hebrew root yrH, the word would be ta*y*ari*a*H תייריח - neither similar to the Arabic source nor sounds Hebrew. So the Arabic word was taken, a Hebrew root was picked that has a similar sound (in the modern language) and a reasonable meaning, and we have ta-a-rikh תאריך.


----------



## tFighterPilot

Thanks. I added the word to the Hebrew Wiktionary based on what you said.


----------



## إسكندراني

origumi said:


> The Hebrew word ta-a-rikh תאריך is borrowed from Arabic, with a twist. Instead of root 'rH (as in Arabic?) or yrH (as in Hebrew/Aramaic for moon/month) or wrH (the historical origin of yrH), root 'rk / 'rkh ארך (= length, to measure) was chosen. I think that the reason is sound: with Hebrew root yrH, the word would be ta*y*ari*a*H תייריח - neither similar to the Arabic source nor sounds Hebrew. So the Arabic word was taken, a Hebrew root was picked that has a similar sound (in the modern language) and a reasonable meaning, and we have ta-a-rikh תאריך.


I think you have ح=خ in hebrew, whilst in Arabic it is a separate letter. The question is did this root present originally in Hebrew or is it borrowed from Arabic? It certainly seems well-established in Arabic; we even have a verb for 'writing history' أرّخ - and تاريخ follows the standard pattern تفعيل


----------



## berndf

Yes, but the Canaanite merger was ح<ح, خ and not the other way round. An etymological ح becoming /k/ is not plausible for a words being inherited directly from Proto-Semitic. /k/ in a syllable coda being pronounced like خ was a later (post-exile) development and ח (=Arabic ح) being pronounced like خ even later... much later.


----------



## origumi

There's nothing unknown about borrowing Arabic tariH to Hebrew taarikh. This was done by a specific individual - Eli`ezer Ben-Yehudah, in specific time - about 100 years ago, with specific methodology - taking Semitic words from neighboring languages, maintaining the root and/or sound as much as possible, and yet making them look Hebrew. For tariH Ben-Yehudah decided to keep the sound but not the root.

Therefore this has no direct relations to proto-Semitic sound shifts, or proto-Canaanite mergers, or anything alike. Modern Hebrew history as a reviving language is very peculiar and not always follows the ordinary linguistic development.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> about 100 years ago


What do older occurrences of the word mean then? 1822


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> What do older occurrences of the word mean then? 1822


Root ארכ is Biblical. The verse you quote is based on Deuteronomy 4:40. In this context it's a verb that means _you shall have long_ life (binyan hif`il, 2nd., sing., masc. fut.). תאריך as a noun that means date, based on the Arabic word and Hebrew root ארכ, is what Ben-Yehudah invented.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> Root ארכ is Biblical. The verse you quote is based on Deuteronomy 4:40. In this context it's a verb that means _you shall have long_ life (binyan hif`il, 2nd., sing., masc. fut.).


Of course. Didn't think of it that ארכ exists in hif`il.


----------



## إسكندراني

origumi said:


> There's nothing unknown about borrowing Arabic tariH to Hebrew taarikh.


In Arabic it is taariikh , not taariiH


----------



## origumi

إسكندراني said:


> In Arabic it is taariikh , not taariiH


That's a matter of transliteration. Hebrew/Aramaic has two pronounciations of k - normal and aspirated. Therefore kh often describes the aspirated k and not /x/ خ. Long vowels is a similar problem. I wish there was an agreed Semitic-to-Latin transliteration system based on "clean" characters (ISO-8859-1, 0x20-0x7F). Meanwhile we are doomed to misunderstand each other.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> That's a matter of transliteration. Hebrew/Aramaic has two pronounciations of k - normal and aspirated. Therefore kh often describes the aspirated k and not /x/ خ. Long vowels is a similar problem. I wish there was an agreed Semitic-to-Latin transliteration system based on "clean" characters (ISO-8859-1, 0x20-0x7F). Meanwhile we are doomed to misunderstand each other.


You are now confusing me completely. I've never heard of any convention whereby خ would be transcribed "H", i.e. where تاريخ would be transcribed "taariiH". Any transcriptions I've ever seen which use "h" and "H" as separate letters use "h" for ه and "H" for ح.

I also never read anything suggesting an aspirated Kaf /kʰ/ should ever have existed in either Hebrew or Aramaic. All books I've ever seen on the subject of Begadkefat allophones talk of spirantization and a spirantized /k/ is /x/.

I know of a confusion whether "kh" or "ch" should denote an aspirated or a spirantized /k/ but that concerns Greek because the letter Chi changed its pronunciation from aspirated to spirantized in late antiquity but that doesn't concern Semitic languages.


----------



## origumi

Hmm... I may have confused things. To clarify: k / kh for Hebrew referred (in this thread) to the letter kaf כ, aspirated (kh) or not (k). H for Arabic was meant to indicate خ.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> Hmm... I may have confused things. To clarify: k / kh for Hebrew referred (in this thread) to the letter kaf כ, aspirated spirantized (kh) or not (k). H for Arabic was meant to indicate خ.


Ok, it is clear now what you meant. Thank you.


----------



## ancalimon

Could tekre (Sanskrit for wheel-round) be the source of "tarikh" or maybe the other way around ?  The calendar with 12 animals is called a "Çark" (cogwheel) (Also the seen sky is called a "çark" as well). Its  older versions are usually called the "Sun Wheel". I thought about this  word before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar_calendar


Maybe Arabic tekrar (repeat) is related as well since the wheel is a shape which repeats its motion over and over again (is this approach wrong when trying find the source of words?). Someone who knows Arabic should clarify this.


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> is this approach wrong when trying find the source of words?


The phonetic and semantic similarities are rather vague. Without additional supporting evidence, these surmises are not really credible.

Accumulating evidence is a good idea but meaningful to support a theory only if all pieces of evidence point in the same direction. Producing rows of clues pointing in difference directions as you do have the habit of doing in this forum are not very meaningful. The purpose if accumulating evidence in science is the following: The probability that a peace of evidence agrees by pure accident with a false theory is usually very high. The probability that a false theory passes many tests is very low. I.e. the probability of rolling a a number less that IV when rolling dice is very high (5/6) but doing this 100 time in a row is very low (~0.000000012). For this reason, your raisin-picking approach doesn't lead anywhere.

The recipe for substantiation scientific theories is a bit like Douglas Adams: description how to fly: Try to throw yourself on the ground and fail [quoted from memory].


----------



## DenisBiH

origumi said:


> There's nothing unknown about borrowing Arabic tariH to Hebrew taarikh. This was done by a specific individual - Eli`ezer Ben-Yehudah, in specific time - about 100 years ago, with specific methodology - taking Semitic words from neighboring languages, maintaining the root and/or sound as much as possible, and yet making them look Hebrew. For tariH Ben-Yehudah decided to keep the sound but not the root.




And it wasn't used before then, at least among Sephardic Jews? We have tarih in Bosnian / BCS as well (borrowed via Ottoman Turkish, mostly archaic today), although not with the meaning "date" but "history" (and also chronogram / inscription commemorating the end of construction of some building or some historical event). From what I've seen so far, these Arabic words that found their way into Ottoman Turkish ended up in many languages in former Ottoman lands. I wonder if Greeks have it as well, at least as an archaic term.


----------



## tFighterPilot

berndf said:


> Yes, but the Canaanite merger was ح<ح, خ and not the other way round. An etymological ح becoming /k/ is not plausible for a words being inherited directly from Proto-Semitic. /k/ in a syllable coda being pronounced like خ was a later (post-exile) development and ח (=Arabic ح) being pronounced like خ even later... much later.


Really? Then how come Aramaic Kaf is also pronounced like خ in some words? (same for b\v and p\f).


----------



## cherine

ancalimon said:


> Maybe Arabic tekrar (repeat) is related as well since the wheel is a shape which repeats its motion over and over again (is this approach wrong when trying find the source of words?). Someone who knows Arabic should clarify this.


Yes, I'm afraid it's a wrong approach.
When analyzing Arabic words, you need to use Arabic letters, not the English (or any other language's) transliteration/transcription of these letters, or you will be mislead.
The word tekrar تكرار has a totally different root from that of the word tarikh تاريخ. This alone can break your theory.
Add to this the fact that repetition and the wheel have no relation to one another, nor to the word tarikh, and you'll understand why this approach is not right.


----------



## berndf

tFighterPilot said:


> Really? Then how come Aramaic Kaf is also pronounced like خ in some words? (same for b\v and p\f).


Transcriptions of Egyptian names suggest that spirant allophones of Begadkefat letters happened in post-Imperial Aramaic about 200 B.C. Hebrew underwent the same change, probably under Aramaic influence.


----------



## clevermizo

tFighterPilot said:


> Really? Then how come Aramaic Kaf is also pronounced like خ in some words? (same for b\v and p\f).



As to "how" this arose independently, it's a common lenition process throughout the world whereby a plosive consonant become fricatives or approximants in intervocalic situations (compare Spanish b,d,g). However for *etymological purposes*, Hebrew ח= Arabic (ح،خ) whereas Hebrew (כּ,כ) = Arabic (ك). Now as to Aramaic [k,kh] for כּ,כ I think this is actually the reason that Hebrew has this feature, because pre-exilic Hebrew would have only had [k] but after the majority of this population was Aramaic speaking the distinction of כּ,כ came into Hebrew as well. I'm not sure about that though.


----------



## Abu Rashid

DenisBiH said:
			
		

> And it wasn't used before then, at least among Sephardic Jews? We have tarih in Bosnian



The last letter of the word is definitely خ (kh), as is found in various isolated Semitic languages. Turkish, and by extension Bosnian loans with that letter in them use a 'H' because their speakers generally cannot produce the 'kh' sound properly, so they soften it slightly, and therefore the way they borrowed the word is completely irrelevant.


----------



## DenisBiH

Abu Rashid said:


> The last letter of the word is definitely خ (kh), as is found in various isolated Semitic languages. Turkish, and by extension Bosnian loans with that letter in them use a 'H' because their speakers generally cannot produce the 'kh' sound properly, so they soften it slightly, and therefore the way they borrowed the word is completely irrelevant.




Abu Rashid, it may be because I'm not a native speaker of English, but I don't remember discussing what the last letter of the word is, but whether it might have existed as a loanword prior to Eli`ezer Ben-Yehudah, among Sephardic Jews, given that it also exists as a loanword in Turkish, Bosnian etc. I was primarily motivated by this prior discussion of another Arabic word borrowed in Hebrew which also exists in a number of languages in the eastern Mediterranean, and some other discussions.

As for the last letter in Bosnian, the historical value of our -h- was a voiceless velar fricative /x/ which seems to be the same sound as the one represented by Arabic خ. It is still officially described as such in some BCS grammar books, and still pronounced like that dialectally, though possibly by a minority of speakers now. Not that I see how that would be relevant to what I was asking.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Turkish ... loans with that letter in them use a 'H' because their speakers generally cannot produce the 'kh' sound properly...


If they couldn't I don't know. At least they didn't as the phoneme doesn't exist in Turkish. To my knowledge the letters خ and ح of the Ottoman alphabet were not distinguished phonetically and both kept only for etymological reasons. When the Latin-based modern Turkish alphabet was introduced both letters, as well as ﻫ, were replaced by "h".


----------



## de boer

origumi said:


> The Hebrew word ta-a-rikh תאריך is borrowed from  Arabic, with a twist. Instead of root 'rH (as in Arabic?) or yrH (as in  Hebrew/Aramaic for moon/month) or wrH (the historical origin of yrH),  root 'rk / 'rkh ארך (= length, to measure) was chosen. I think that the  reason is sound: with Hebrew root yrH, the word would be ta*y*ari*a*H  תייריח - neither similar to the Arabic source nor sounds Hebrew. So the  Arabic word was taken, a Hebrew root was picked that has a similar  sound (in the modern language) and a reasonable meaning, and we have  ta-a-rikh תאריך.


תאריך with the meaning 'history' in medieval Hebrew is just an ordinary Arabic loanword  from the Middle Ages; it follows the phonetic shape of the Arabic source  as close as possible while adhering to the traditional and normative Hebrew grammar. It's simple as that.
There  is no need to refer to a non-linguistically concept like "root  twisting", leaving aside that even the concept of the root is one of the  most hotly debated in contemporary Semitic linguistics. And the same holds true, if the word was later borrowed a second time



berndf said:


> I also never read anything suggesting an aspirated Kaf /kʰ/ should ever have existed in either Hebrew or Aramaic. All books I've ever seen on the subject of Begadkefat allophones talk of spirantization and a spirantized /k/ is /x/.


Of course one doesn't write /kʰ/, but simply for the reason that aspiration is generally non-distinctive in Semitic. Nevertheless, non-emphatic voiceless plosives were aspirated, while emphatics were not, as one can cleary see in Greek transcriptions of Northwest Semitic words: Semitic  _p_, _k_ and _t_ are generally represented as _φ_ ([pʰ]), _χ_ ([kʰ]), and _θ_ ([tʰ]) in Greek (as are their spirantisized allophones), while _ḳ_ (_q_) and _ṭ_ are represented as _κ_ ([k]) and _τ_ ([t]) and vice versa. Hebrew and Aramaic even developed an emphatic _p̣_ to represent the unaspirated _p_ in Greek and Persian loanwords (Steiner, R. C. (1997). Ancient Hebrew. In R. Hetzron (ed.), _The Semitic languages_. London and New York: Routledge, p. 147;    Voigt, R. M. (1998). Das emphatische p des Syrischen. In R. Lavenant (ed.), _Symposium Syriacum VII_ (pp. 527–537). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico).



cherine said:


> Yes, I'm afraid it's a wrong approach.
> When analyzing Arabic words, you need to use Arabic letters, not the  English (or any other language's) transliteration/transcription of these  letters, or you will be mislead.


So Arabic is the only language in the world which can only  properly analyzed by using Arabic letters. I'm really impressed. Do you  really mean this?


----------



## origumi

Deleted until I find good online sources.


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> The phonetic and semantic similarities are rather vague. Without additional supporting evidence, these surmises are not really credible.
> 
> Accumulating evidence is a good idea but meaningful to support a theory only if all pieces of evidence point in the same direction. Producing rows of clues pointing in difference directions as you do have the habit of doing in this forum are not very meaningful. The purpose if accumulating evidence in science is the following: The probability that a peace of evidence agrees by pure accident with a false theory is usually very high. The probability that a false theory passes many tests is very low. I.e. the probability of rolling a a number less that IV when rolling dice is very high (5/6) but doing this 100 time in a row is very low (~0.000000012). For this reason, your raisin-picking approach doesn't lead anywhere.
> 
> The recipe for substantiation scientific theories is a bit like Douglas Adams: description how to fly: Try to throw yourself on the ground and fail [quoted from memory].



Like I said: "TARİH" is also called "ÇARK" in Turkish:  You can see people say "tarih çarkı" (the cogwheel of history) even today. They are  connected concepts. Other than that I'm afraid I don't have the necessary skills to collect how this relation came to be. Maybe it has some relation with the saying "history repeats itself"


----------



## Abu Rashid

de boer said:
			
		

> So Arabic is the only language in the world which can only properly analyzed by using Arabic letters. I'm really impressed. Do you really mean this?



I think it's quite obvious that she meant if you use the transliterated letters of other languages to try and link Arabic words together, then it will be a failure, as the tarikh/tikrar example shows, since k and kh have no etymological relationship in Arabic.


----------



## cherine

I thought it quite obvious too, but it seems it's not. So, let me try to rephrase:
If you're going to analyze an Arabic word, please either use Arabic letter (or _accurate_ transcription) so as to be sure you're not mixing sounds/words that may look or sound the same in a foreign language when they're totally different in Arabic. Like the example upon which I was commenting تاريخ from أ-ر-خ and تكرار from ك-ر-ر, whereas the Arabic letters خ - ك are different, while their western transcription (and also pronunciation, at least for many) is almost the same.


----------



## berndf

de boer said:


> Of course one doesn't write /kʰ/, but simply for the reason that aspiration is generally non-distinctive in Semitic. Nevertheless, non-emphatic voiceless plosives were aspirated, while emphatics were not, as one can cleary see in Greek transcriptions of Northwest Semitic words: Semitic  _p_, _k_ and _t_ are generally represented as _φ_ ([pʰ]), _χ_ ([kʰ]), and _θ_ ([tʰ]) in Greek (as are their spirantisized allophones), while _ḳ_ (_q_) and _ṭ_ are represented as _κ_ ([k]) and _τ_ ([t]) and vice versa. Hebrew and Aramaic even developed an emphatic _p̣_ to represent the unaspirated _p_ in Greek and Persian loanwords (Steiner, R. C. (1997). Ancient Hebrew. In R. Hetzron (ed.), _The Semitic languages_. London and New York: Routledge, p. 147;    Voigt, R. M. (1998). Das emphatische p des Syrischen. In R. Lavenant (ed.), _Symposium Syriacum VII_ (pp. 527–537). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico).


That is exactly what was meant what is relevant in the context of this thread: There never was an aspirated/non-aspirated opposition, neither phonemic nor allophonic.



de boer said:


> So Arabic is the only language in the world which can only  properly analyzed by using Arabic letters. I'm really impressed. Do you  really mean this?


You understand very well what Cherine meant as everyone else did. This kind of malicious misunderstanding is not appreciated.


----------



## ancalimon

Could there be a relationship between Tarikh (history) and Tarikh who might have been the grandson of Noah?



> Noah, who after the flood sends his three sons to repopulate the earth:  Ham was sent to Hindustan, Sam to Iran, and Yafes went to the banks of  the Itil and Yaik rivers and had eight sons named Turk, Khazar, Saqlab,  Rus, Ming, Chin, Kemeri, and Tarikh


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> Could there be a relationship between Tarikh (history) and Tarikh who might have been the grandson of Noah?


The youngest son of Japheth is *Tiras*. I don't know where you got those names from and Japheth had only seven sons. An eight's one (ελισα) appears only in the LXX who is most certainly Elisha, the son of Javan who was probably by mistake of the translator listed together with his uncles.

EDIT: Now I know what you are referring to: the Oghuz Khan myth. This is a mixture of Turkish, Mongolian and Islamic myths and can hardly been used to establish an etymology for the Arabic word or for the biblical name.


----------



## ancalimon

I see. Still the names exist in oral tradition.



> Abū’l-Ghāzī’s 16th century version roughly follows Rashīd ad-Dīn’s  already Islamized and Mongolized (post-conquest) version of the early  14th century. But in his account Oghuz Khan is more fully integrated  into Islamic and Mongol traditional history: the account begins with  descent from Adam to Noah, who after the flood sends his three sons to  repopulate the earth: Ham was sent to Hindustan, Sam to Iran, and Yafes  went to the banks of the Itil and Yaik rivers and had eight sons named  Turk, Khazar, Saqlab, Rus, Ming, Chin, Kemeri, and *Tarikh*. As he was  dying he established Turk as his successor. Turk settled at Issiq Kul  and was succeeded by Tutek, the eldest of his four sons. Four  generations after him came two sons, Tatar and Moghul, who divided his  kingdom between them. Moghul Khan begat Qara Khan who begat Oghuz Khan.  For three days he would not nurse and every night he appeared in his  mother's dream and told his mother to become a Muslim or he would not  suckle her breast. His mother converted and Abū’l-Ghāzī writes that  Turkic peoples from Yafes to the time of Qara Khan had been Muslims but  then had lost the faith. Oghuz Khan restores Islamic belief.



Probably it's a totally different word. Maybe the name "Tarık" was derived from it.


----------



## إسكندراني

ancalimon said:


> Could there be a relationship between Tarikh (history) and Tarikh who might have been the grandson of Noah?


In Arabic the 3 sons are called حام وسام ويافث
7aam saam yaafeth


----------



## Abu Rashid

ancalimon said:
			
		

> Maybe the name "Tarık" was derived from it.



Yet another example of why trying to conjure up Arabic etymologies by using English/Turkish transliterations is just going to mislead you.

The name you mention here is:

طارق

whilst the word in question is:

تاريخ

Apart from the alef & raa in the middle, they have nothing else in common at all.

taariq has no more in common with taareekh than Daarib (hitter) and shaarib (drinker) do.


----------



## chizinist

ancalimon said:


> Could tekre (Sanskrit for wheel-round) be the source of "tarikh" or maybe the other way around ?  The calendar with 12 animals is called a "Çark" (cogwheel) (Also the seen sky is called a "çark" as well). Its  older versions are usually called the "Sun Wheel". I thought about this  word before.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar_calendar



I know that Çark is from PIE...it exists in Persian as Çarkh and in English as "cycle"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cycle&allowed_in_frame=0


----------



## ancalimon

chizinist: The Turkic "version" of çark:cogwheel & teker:wheel (which should be related with the seen universe since it's the name given to it and Tengri:Supreme God as well) can not related with that PIE "kwell" because it sounds nothing like that word (and Turkic roots are not unstable like IE roots. Even many ProtoTurkic roots are still the same even in an extremely mixed language like Turkish) but the petroglyphs, pictograms of Tengri (generally known as SunWheel) can be seen even in places where noone related to Indians ever lived. The words being the same in Turkic and Sanskrit should be a coincidence. (seriously) The relation between Tengri and the Mayan, Turkic, Chinese calendar should be coincidence too.

And since I interpreted an Arabic word using Turkic pronunciation of it, I should be wrong about thinking that tarikh and tekre,teker could be related.

cycle-date relation should - could be a coincidence too. (I guess my mistake is thinking that logic should be enough to find relations between words while there are many other variables and I keep doing that mistake)


----------



## إسكندراني

I came across this and it seems to support most likely suggestion so far - though there is nothing to back it up. It suggests the origin is from the Arabic verb أرّخ which was inspired from the akkadian or hebrew word for moon (phases of the moon equating to a calendar): 
akkadian: arkho أرخُ
hebrew: yare*a*h يرح יָרֵחַ

This was mentioned earlier; is there any reason we should be digging any further?


----------



## Abu Rashid

إسكندراني said:


> akkadian: arkhoo أرخو
> hebrew: yareH يرح
> 
> This was mentioned earlier; is there any reason we should be digging any further?



If this were the case, the origin would still be w-r-kh as I mentioned earlier, not arakhu nor yarekh. Akkadian also has an alternate form with waw, and Hebrew is known to have switched all w- initial roots to y- initial. Also Sabaic has w-r-kh. Given that Arabic has أ initial, then it most likely was a borrowing from the Akkadian form, or perhaps from the Sabaic plural form, which is أورخ

P.S The Akkadian final vowel is not a long vowel, so using و for it is probably quite misleading.


----------



## إسكندراني

The same (unconfirmed) page in my last post says some arab tribes use ورّخ (warrakha) while others use 2arrakha, so that follows...
I have now corrected my post


----------



## chizinist

ancalimon said:


> chizinist: The Turkic "version" of çark:cogwheel & teker:wheel (which should be related with the seen universe since it's the name given to it and Tengri:Supreme God as well) can not related with that PIE "kwell" because it sounds nothing like that word (and Turkic roots are not unstable like IE roots.



http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=çark


----------



## amiramir

Perhaps this goes without saying, but since the OP asked about taarikh in Hindi, it should be clear that Hindi borrowed it from Farsi which probably borrowed it from Arabic.


----------



## arielipi

Taarikh is obviously borrowed, moed was used originally,or simply saying the date without a preceding word that declares: DATE AHEAD OF YOU.


----------



## Faylasoof

amiramir said:


> Perhaps this goes without saying, but since the OP asked about taarikh in Hindi, it should be clear that Hindi borrowed it from Farsi which probably borrowed it from Arabic.


 Given the above discussion, the etymological chain leading to Hindi would be: Akkadian -> Arabic -> Persian -> Urdu -> Hindi. 

The earliest _written evidence_ for  تاريخ word-borrowing into Urdu goes back 401 years to 1611 when Quli Qutb Shah (قلی قطب شاہ), Sultan of the Golkunda kingdom in South India and poet of Deccani Urdu, used it in his _diwaan_!. Ref. 

Platts gives the etymology thus:

A تاريخ _tārīḵẖ_ [inf. n. ii of ارخ 'to date'; or, _according to some, the Ar. form of Heb_. or Ch. 'a month'], s.f. Date, era, epoch; day (of a month); chronogram; chronicle, book of annals, history….

(We had a brief discussion about تاريخ here too.)


----------



## Abu Rashid

Faylasoof said:


> Given the above discussion, the etymological chain leading to Hindi would be: Akkadian -> Arabic -> Persian -> Urdu -> Hindi.



I don't think any direct Akkadian -> Arabic relationship is supposed.

_If_ Arabic has borrowed it, then it would most likely be from OSA.


----------



## fdb

This discussion has rather run into the sand. Could I suggest that you consult the article “Taʼrīkh” in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd edition), where the etymology of this word is discussed in some detail? I add only that the Hebrew form with final ך is a mediaeval borrowing form Arabic and does not reflect the ultimate Semitic etymology of the word.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> This discussion has rather run into the sand. Could I suggest that you consult the article “Taʼrīkh” in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd edition), where the etymology of this word is discussed in some detail? I add only that the Hebrew form with final ך is a mediaeval borrowing form Arabic and does not reflect the ultimate Semitic etymology of the word.


Yes, this bid fact has already been clarified at the beginning (see #4).


----------



## Kasrav

This was an interesting discussion and i could understand now why Taareekh apart from date also means History..in Urdu/Hindustani


----------

