Talk:God (word)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i need to know what does god want me to do. and why he comes in my dreams what does it mean.

god wants you to rapschrapsch politicians with a motormower. this will make him come on earth.

[edit] English and Persian

It would be interesting to show the link between the English word "god" and the modern Persian word "khudā" which has the same meaning. It's phonology is almost equal to the Dutch word.

Tājik 23:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I must disappoint you, but such similarities are very often just coincidences. The link doesn't seem to be recognised by etymologists. It is often mentioned by non-expert websites, and sometimes ascribed to the authority of "Catholic Encyclopedia", but that's apparently about it. According to Oxford English Dictionary, linking "god" back beyond even Germanic is uncertain; if at all it's an Indo-European root gheu-, which would apparently lead to Indo-Aryan hu (attested in Sanskrit). That doesn't look a lot as if it had the right consonants for later Iranian "kho-". At least according to one source (unfortunately not an expert source either), Khoda comes from the Old Iranian (Indo-European) Hwa-Taw, meaning literally “self-able” or “self-powerful,” that is, “Ruler” and “Lord.” It is a name of majesty, indicating that God is self-sufficiently omnipotent. Although the English “God” and Persianate “Khoda” are both Indo-European and give the appearance of being cognates, they are actually derived from different roots. ([1]). Not reliable at this point, but plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... interesting. However, Kluges Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache (original German version) traces both the English word "god" as well as the modern Persian word "khudā" to PIE *gheu, "to pour (i.e. blood)" and points to the ritual sacrefices of the early Indo-European peoples, eventually translating the word "god" as "he, for whom blood is shed/sacreficed". It also notes that the modern meaning of the word "god" evolved after the demonance of the Christian faith in Europe, the same goes to the Persian word which evolved after the Islamization. Sanskrit "hu" has the same root, but a different meaning, which strengthens this theory. Another source (I have only the paper, and - unfortunately - no name) links these words to PIE *khutóm which is the neuter passive perfect participle of the root *khu-, meaning "libation" as well as "sacrifice" (related to Sanskrit "hu" and Greek "kheu").

Tājik 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't have my Kluge available yesterday, but I'm checking now. Which edition are you using? It's not in mine (23rd ed., 1995). And a paper talking of an IE root "*khu-" would seem to be seriously out of date, could it be a rather old one? Modern theories of Indo-European don't assume a sound *kh for IE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kluge: 24th ed., 2002. As for the word *khu, I think it's pronounced k'h'u (seperate sounds, comparable to kh- in modern Hindi), and not like a kh (x-). Sound-changes from k to kh are quite common in Iranian languages, even up to day. For example, the international word "doctor" is pronounced "doctor" in Iran and Afghanistan, but "dokhtor" in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The kh-sound may also change to h. Tājik 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good. If the PIE *gheu > Persian khuda derivation is in the new Kluge, we can use that. That should be reliable enough. As for the alternative derivation from PIE *khu-, you are right, we'd be dealing here with a plosive [kʰ], not a fricative [x] like in Persian, you are also right about the plausibility of an intermediate change [kʰ] > [x]. But my point nevertheless stands: such a sound is today believed never to have existed in PIE, so any paper proposing it must be heavily out of date. Let's just forget about that version, the other one is perfectly plausible if the Kluge quote is as you say. Is it presenting the Persian etymology as certain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, please feel free to edit the text, since my English is deffinitly not as good as yours. Besides that, I am not saying that the "Germanic"-theory is wrong. I am just saying that the other possible theory should also be mentioned. Presenting both theories in the article is probably the best solution. Kluge does not examine the Persian etymology in detail, but simply explains that the "PIE theory" seems to be more plausible than the "Germanic only" theory, because of the similarities to Avestan, Sanskrit, and modern Persian. Tājik 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but it seems nobody is talking about a PIE *khu-. this is about a Persian khuda. Now correct me, but Persian doesn't seem to have aspirates. In fact, the first thing the Iranian branch did was de-aspiration. So I think we are looking at a Persian xuda? This is conceivably from the same root *gheu and would just be another cognate. I don't have any books with me now, I can look it up later. dab (ᛏ) 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd just worked that out, actually. Look at Tajik's second posting above: He was speaking of the modern Persian "khuda" ([xuda], indeed), but also of one theory that apparently spoke of a root "PIE *khutóm", as being one of two alternative common IE etymologies. But I think we all agree now that a derivation of modern [xuda] from *gheu sounds prima facie plausible enough, right? If we can get another reference besides Kluge would be great of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, I didn't pay attention. It is PIE *ǵhu, not *khu. I think we can be assertive about the Persian word being cognate, but should treat it in Indo-Iranian context first. dab (𒁳) 10:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)