# Romanian/Turkish: Rahat



## pizzakid

Apparently this is a fairly strong Romanian curse word, although it comes up as 'Turkish delight' in the online dictionaries, which is not surprising given the history of the two peoples.. Anyway, I think there's a pretty good chance it comes from the identical Turkish word which has a very different meaning- probably from Arabic or Persian, where it means 'comfortable' or 'rested'. What's the etymology of this word, and are the Romanian and Turkish words related?


----------



## robbie_SWE

pizzakid said:


> Apparently this is a fairly strong Romanian curse word, although it comes up as 'Turkish delight' in the online dictionaries, which is not surprising given the history of the two peoples.. Anyway, I think there's a pretty good chance it comes from the identical Turkish word which has a very different meaning- probably from Arabic or Persian, where it means 'comfortable' or 'rested'. What's the etymology of this word, and are the Romanian and Turkish words related?


 
Its initial meaning was and still is "Turkish delight" (the confection), but over time another meaning arose. The colloquial meaning is "something insignificant" < "crap". DEX lists the etymology as coming from Turkish *rahatlokum*.

Hope this helped! 

 robbie


----------



## OldAvatar

pizzakid said:


> Apparently this is a fairly strong Romanian curse word



It is not really a „strong curse word”. It is not as vulgar as the Romanian word for _crap_, _shit _and that's why it is frequently used.


----------



## Trisia

OldAvatar said:


> It is not really a „strong curse word”. It is not as vulgar as the Romanian word for _crap_, _shit _and that's why it is frequently used.



I rarely disagree with OldAvatar, but I've always thought that this word was no better than the words just mentioned.

Robbie is right about it meaning something "insignificant," but it's just as strong as "s**t," if not more vulgar, precisely because of the other meaning (confection).


P.S. To OldA:

I got that, and that's what I meant.
In my neck of the woods, the two words are every bit as vulgar.


----------



## OldAvatar

I wasn't reffering to the English words *shit*, *crap*, but to the Romanian equivalent, _căcat_. I consider _căcat _being far more vulgar than _rahat_.


----------



## pizzakid

Thanks!

I should say, I was watching an English film with Romanian subtitles and they translated 's**t'  as 'rahat'..Guess cacat isn't used as an interjection?


----------



## OldAvatar

Yes, both words can be used in the same way that _shit _is used in English, in some situations, as an exclamation, for example! Seeing the word _rahat _instead of _căcat _in a movie subtitle may be considered as a proof that _rahat _is not as bad and trivial as _căcat_.


----------



## Trisia

It would be interesting to know if the subtitles were made in a real studio or they were the "internet" kind.

I wouldn't have used any of those words in subtitles, and this kind of interjection usually doesn't get translated at all.
And, of course, even professional translators are human and they have their own ideas about what's vulgar and what's not.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

I have read this thread with considerable interest – _and curiosity_.



Trisia said:


> Robbie is right about it meaning something "insignificant," but it's just as strong as "s**t," if not more vulgar, precisely because of the other meaning (confection).


 What do you mean by this?

There is no doubt that Romanian rahat, “trifle, bagatelle” comes from Turkish rahat, “ease, comfort”, but why should it develop into a ‘four-letter word’?! This doesn’t make sense. 

First of all, let’s keep _Turkish delight_ apart. Turkish rahatlokum is actually an abbreviation of an Arabic word which is rendered in Turkish as rahatülhulkum, “comfort of the throat” – _hulkum_ being actually the anatomical word for the “pharynx”. This cannot possibly have any relation to Romanian rahat that we are discussing.

I am rather inclined to believe that Romanian rahat – as as invective! – is a mere euphemism for Romanian căcat. The phoneme substitution is minimal, and the semantic aspect – from “something trivial, insignificant” to “nonsense, crap” (if not ...whatever  ) – may have “invited” _rahat_ to _assume_, as it were, this euphemistic niche. 
 ​


----------



## robbie_SWE

Spectre scolaire said:


> I have read this thread with considerable interest – _and curiosity_.
> What do you mean by this?
> 
> There is no doubt that Romanian rahat, “trifle, bagatelle” comes from Turkish rahat, “ease, comfort”, but why should it develop into a ‘four letter word’?! This doesn’t make sense.
> 
> First of all, let’s keep _Turkish delight_ apart. Turkish rahatlokum is actually an abbreviation of an Arabic word which is rendered in Turkish as rahatülhulkum, “pleasure of the throat” – _hulkum_ being actually the anatomical word for the “pharynx”. This cannot possibly have any relation to Romanian rahat that we are discussing.
> 
> I am rather inclined to believe that Romanian rahat – as as invective! – is a mere euphemism for Romanian căcat. The phoneme substitution is minimal, and the semantic aspect – from “something trivial, insignificant” to “nonsense, crap” (if not further  ) – may have “invited” _rahat_ to _assume_, as it were, this euphemistic niche.
> 
> ​


 
I'm inclined to agree with you Spectre scolaire about the euphemistic usage of *rahat* in Romanian. I personally see this word as being less vulgar than the usual _căcat_. 

But I don't seem to understand what you mean with "let's keep Turkish delight apart"? The word *rahatlocum* (exactly as depicted here) exists in Romanian even if it's old-fashioned. _Rahat_ is only an "abbreviation" of the original word. So the word probably appeared as _rahatlocum_ for the first time in Romanian and has over time acquired a shorter form.  


 robbie


----------



## Spectre scolaire

robbie_SWE said:


> But I don't seem to understand what you mean with "let's keep Turkish delight apart"?


 *rahatlokum* or *lokum*, or whatever you choose to call the “Turkish Delight”, is one _lexeme_ – *rahat* is another.

It is the last word which has entered Romanian and acquired a ‘four-letter word’ status. I think one should have a look into Bulgarian рахат - just in case this meaning happened to emerge in that language. My Bulgarian dictionaries are not next to me for the time being. Any discussion about how this may have happened – and I have suggested my version  – should revolve around this word.

Hence, Romanian *rahat* has nothing to do with the lexeme which indicates the famous “sweet confection” – at least I can’t see any such connection.

If _Trisia_ disagrees on this point – and I took her words “precisely because of the other meaning (confection)” to interfer in our ‘four-letter word’ discussion – she should perhaps clarify this. 




robbie_SWE said:


> _Rahat_ is only an "abbreviation" of the original word.


 This is *not* correct! The word *rahat* is a separate lexeme in both Turkish and Romanian - and of course in Bulgarian, etc. In Greek it is ραχάτι, and it definitely doesn’t have any such connotations as I was surprised to learn about in Romanian.

By the way, I appreciate your support for my _euphemism theory_, a support which implicitly makes your last posting redundant.  I now understand how strongly this “abbreviation theory” prevails in Romania...
 ​


----------



## robbie_SWE

Spectre scolaire said:


> *rahatlokum* or *lokum*, or whatever you choose to call the “Turkish Delight”, is one _lexeme_ – *rahat* is another.
> 
> It is the last word which has entered Romanian and acquired a ‘four-letter word’ status. I think one should have a look into Bulgarian рахат - just in case this meaning happened to emerge in that language. My Bulgarian dictionaries are not next to me for the time being. Any discussion about how this may have happened – and I have suggested my version  – should revolve around this word.
> 
> Hence, Romanian *rahat* has nothing to do with the lexeme which indicates the famous “sweet confection” – at least I can’t see any such connection.
> 
> If _Trisia_ disagrees on this point – and I took her words “precisely because of the other meaning (confection)” to interfer in our ‘four-letter word’ discussion – she should perhaps clarify this.
> 
> This is *not* correct! The word *rahat* is a separate lexeme in both Turkish and Romanian - and of course in Bulgarian, etc. In Greek it is ραχάτι, and it definitely doesn’t have any such connotations as I was surprised to learn about in Romanian.
> 
> By the way, I appreciate your support for my _euphemism theory_, a support which implicitly makes your last posting redundant.  I now understand how strongly this “abbreviation theory” prevails in Romania...
> 
> ​


 
Even if _rahat_ and _locum_ are separate lexeme in Turkish, they don't have to be in Romanian (_locum_ doesn't even exist in Romanian apart from the word appearing in this thread)! 

*Rahatlocum* is the first attested word meaning "Turkish delight", _rahat_ did not even exist before this word entered the language thanks to the Turkish merchants. The "abbreviation theory" (didn't actually get your remark about it "prevailing in Romania", but that's another discussion) works out in every language. E.g.

_cab_ < *cabriolet*

My question is, why shouldn't it work in this case? 

 robbie


----------



## Spectre scolaire

robbie_SWE said:


> *Rahatlocum* is the first attested word meaning "Turkish delight", _rahat_ did not even exist before this word entered the language thanks to the Turkish merchants.


 How would you know this, if I may ask?

Quite another thing is whether such knowledge is relevant. Even if _rahat_ entered Romanian long after _rahatlokum_, it is the ‘four-letter word’ acceptation we are discussing. How old is that?

Whereas I am suggesting a euphemism, you are actually hinting at a semantic transition from [the confection of] _Turkish Delight_ to _shit_.  Isn’t that a bit farfetched, would you say? 
 ​


----------



## robbie_SWE

Spectre scolaire said:


> How would you know this, if I may ask?
> 
> Quite another thing is whether such knowledge is relevant. Even if _rahat_ entered Romanian long after _rahatlokum_, it is the ‘four-letter word’ acceptation we are discussing. How old is that?
> 
> Whereas I am suggesting a euphemism, you are actually hinting at a semantic transition from [the confection of] _Turkish Delight_ to _shit_.  Isn’t that a bit farfetched, would you say?
> 
> ​


 
I agree that the subject is very interesting, but I actually don't believe that my assumption is so farfetched. One should keep in mind that the confection is very "simple" in its purest form and that most people of the time might have seen it as working-class candy and easily attainable by all (giving it an undeserving reputation as "cheap" ). 

The jump from "confection" to something "insignificant" is suddenly not that farfetched anymore. But the jump from something "insignificant" to "crap/shit" is quite remarkable and enigmatic. I never stated that the semantic transition was apparent. I just wanted to prove my thesis by testing it on you guys: 

*Ar.*راحةالحلقم (_rahat al-hulkum_)  *Tc.* _rahatülhulkum_  *Ro.* _rahatlocum_ (archaic and regional) < _rahat_

Am I out on a limb here or are some of my presumptions probable? 

I know this (presume it anyway), because the word _rahatlocum_ is presented in my dictionary as outdated leading me to believe that it is older than its present counterpart _rahat_. This quote led me to assume my thesis: 




> Armenian, Cypriot, Greek (called "λουκούμι", loukoumi), Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian (Albanian: "llokum", Bulgarian and Macedonian: "локум", lokum), Romanian (called "rahat"), Russia as well as in some former Yugoslav states like Bosnia and Herzegovina (called "rahat lokum"), or Serbia ("ратлук", ratluk), Iranian and other Middle Eastern cuisines also have sweets similar to Turkish delight. In





> Cyprus, Turkish Delight is marketed in English as Cyprus Delight, in resentment to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.


 
It seems that Romania's neighbouring countries kept the "_locum_" one way or the other. From what I know, it's called *rahat* only in Romania and Brazil (!). Isn’t this relevant? 

 robbie


----------



## Spectre scolaire

One shouldn’t always rely on what is found on internet.  In rahat al-hulkūm, the last syllable is long - which is not reflected in Arabic


			
				robbie_SWE said:
			
		

> راحةالحلقم (_rahat al-hulkum_)


 Apart from that, I think I should perhaps let some other foreros join the discussion. 
 ​


----------



## dudasd

Note: Serbian "ratluk" comes directly from "rahatlık" (comfort), where guttural "h" got lost and gave "raatluk" and later "ratluk". Lokum is something else (a kind of small cakes dipped in sugar syrup). The word "rahat" itself is rarely used, in rural and/or Muslim environment mostly, but it kept its meaning "comfort, delight", but even more often its used as an adjective: the one who enjoys, surrounded with comfort, satisfied, unstressed.


----------

