text:
Talk:Lists of English words by country or language of origin

[Untitled]
I realize it's daunting, but will someone get started on the Greek words? Usually they come indirectly through other languages like Latin or French. Here's a start: emphasis, scene, music, pedagogy, euphonium, sybil, xiphoid, larynx, partridge (from perdix), bible, circle, cosmos, synagogue, chyme, thyme, orchestra, Christ, meter, kilogram, dram, Celtic, sarcasm, sarcophagus, microbe, biology, arachnophobia... See, it's all the coolest English words! --NG

Clarification of Intent of Articles
I think there needs to be some discussion to determine what we want these articles to be so that we can work towards standardization. What follows is are my opinions about what types of words belong. Please comment so that we can reach some sort of working standard.
 * These lists ideally ought to contain words that are used in daily speech by native English speakers as a part of English, such as "kindergarten". It is possible that they also contain words listed in English dictionaries that are not commonly used as a part of English, such as "xiphoid" in the above comment, although this begins to get into a gray area where it is harder to tell whether the word is actually English, or whether it is a foreign word that is sometimes used by English speakers.
 * Words that should not be included are foreign words that are sometimes used by English speakers, such as "barrio". This also includes words like "sari" which refers to an item natively found in a culture that does not natively speak English.
 * Last time I checked, English was an official language of India and the native language of many Indians. Nohat 18:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude about it. I think you definitely understand what I'm trying to say here. Clearly there are English speakers in India. I'm not even going to argue about this - Please, if you try I'm sure you will understand what I mean when I say that English is not the native language of India.

Tritium6 17:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Words that can't be found in English dictionaries ought not be included.

The criteria for whether or not a word is "English" varies. This topic has come up before. See e.g. Talk:Salsa (sauce) and Talk:Hangul. I have proposed the following three-part test to determine whether we can call a word an "English word". No one seems to have disagreed with it when I have invoked it. It is as follows:

 * 1) Does the word occur in English texts with any regularity?
 * Foreign words and phrases are common in English texts. Does that make them English? The phrase "c'est la vie" is common in English texts. I'd say it certainly isn't English.
 * A good example is the word "ergo". I imagine you and I have different ideas about whether it is an English or a Latin word.

 * 1) Is it listed in any major English dictionaries?
 * 2) Is the word used by people who don't speak the foreign language?
 * This is the most important criteria.

If a word can be robustly shown to meet all three of these criteria, then I think it's fair to say that the word is a fully naturalized English word. I disagree with your conclusion that words like "sari" and "barrio" should not be included. It is true that they are fairly recent borrowings, but I believe it can be shown that they enjoy robust usage in monolingual English texts. I don't think there is such a thing as "a foreign word that is sometimes used by English speakers". Those words are borrowed English words. Many monolingual English speakers will be familiar with words like this and if we exclude them from these pages, then they may never learn what language is the source of those words. For example, there are probably many people who are at least vaguely familiar with saris but have no idea what language the word comes from. Even if they know they're from India, they probably don't know from which Indian language. What value is there in excluding the word from list of English wods of Hindi origin? How does it improve Wikipedia to delete that valuable information?

I want to note that I think that carefully maintaining these lists is indeed important; however, removing words that are debatably English is not the kind of maintenance that is sorely needed. What is needed is for people to check whether or not the words actually are borrowed from the language suggested. I have to go through these lists every few months and delete items that have been added erroneously by people who heard that such-and-such a word is from some language when it turns out not be. It is very tedious looking up each word in Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary and consulting the etymology. The methodologies used by dictionary editors when writing etymologies are very particular in order to ensure they are correct. Folk etymology is common and we must be vigilant in ensuring we do not promulgate folk etymologies as being true. We need to form these pages in such a way that people will be very unlikely to add things without checking first. Perhaps a reference is needed for each word. Nohat 18:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nohat, I am very sorry that people make mistakes by substituting folk etymology for a quick etymology check with a dictionary. I am with you in trying to prevent that from happening.

About the "English word vs. Foreign word" issue, I think there are two paths that these articles can take, and I imagine we make different judgements about which words belong because we each see the articles developing towards different goals. I noticed that you are a linguist, and because of this I can imagine that you would be interested in accumulating definitive lists of words that come into English from various languages. In my opinion, that could be a very useful resource. However, I think that there is an equally valid goal to be achieved, and that is to make lists of common words of foreign origin that every native English speaker knows, and that most non-native speakers should know. If this list were free of academic terms specific to a few people outside of their own discipline, the list would be much more fun and informative for most readers. I'm afraid that if we attempt to achieve both goals with the same page, then there will be too many genre specific words to be of general use. Although I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is the right place for definitive lists of etymologies, I propose the following compromises:

 * Sections are created in the articles for each language for common words(such as "kindergarten"), a category for academic terms, and another catch all category for other terms (or perhaps no catch all category).
 * Or, two pages are created for each language, one being the list common English words from a foreign language, and the other being a definitive list of words from a foreign language.

I don't agree with you that words such as sari and barrio fit into the English language the same way as words like kindergarten and cheetah. We use words like sari or dashiki because we have no English equivalent of those words. They are foreign words that English speakers use because they do not have an English word for the object. That does not make the word an English word. If it did, that would mean every item in a foreign language that does not have an English equivalent is an English word. I'm sure that most linguists would not consider it so. What about those difficult untraslatable words? Are all of those also automatically English words? I think there is a difference. And I think that words that fall in the category of "words that we dont have an equivalent for in English so we use the exact word from the foreign language" ought not be included in these pages because of the sheer volume. Any useful information would get lost. This difference is what I mean by "a foreign word that is sometimes used by English speakers". Tritium6 23:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly c'est la vie is a French phrase and ergo is a Latin word. The Oxford English Dictionary gives ergo the || symbol, indicating "not naturalized, alien", and Merriam-Webster calls c'est la vie a "foreign phrase". I will concede that if outside authorities like major English dictionaries are willing to label things like that as foreign, then we should be willing to note that, and even make editorial decisions based on that. I am willing to forego inclusion of ergo on list of English words of Latin origin and c'est la vie on list of English words of French origin (notwithstanding the fact that c'est la vie is a phrase, not a word) for the very reason that dictionaries mark them as "foreign" or "unnaturalized".

However, I note that both sari and barrio are given no such special marking in either OED or M-W and I am thus much less amenable to the decision to exclude them or separate them from words like cheetah and kindergarten. The reason is because there isn't any qualitative criterion that can be used in a neutral way to divide up these lists in the way you desire. I had two ideas for ways to divide up the borrowings:

 * 1) Exclude or separate out words that were borrowed recently (say within 50 or 100 years).
 * 2) Exclude or separate out words that are infrequently used by measuring the number of Google hits for that word, either by itself or in a short phrase that ensures it is being used in English in the meaning in question.

Neither criterion, however, succeeds in separating sari and barrio from cheetah and kindergarten. Criterion 1 falls apart easily: the OED has quotations for sari dating back to 1591 and quotations for kindergarten only go back to 1852. So the length of borrowing criterion, regardless of what arbitrary cutoff is set, doesn't divide the words in the way you desire.

Criterion 2 fails similarly. For example, you removed "sari" from list of English words of Hindi origin but not "cummerbund". Google searches for the words sari and cummerbund show that sari is a much more common word than cummerbund. The raw hit count for the word sari  (> 2,000,000) exceeds by more than 20 to 1 the number of hits for vs. cummerbund   (< 100,000). If you narrow the search by looking only for cases where the word is being used in its normal sense in an English sentence, you get similar results: a Google search for the phrase "wear a sari" returns over 3700 results but a similar search for the phrase "wear a cummerbund" returns less than 300 results. Given this, would you still defend including cummerbund but excluding sari? If so, on what basis? The only reason I can think of is that cummerbund is associated with a Western cultural construct (the tuxedo) and sari is not. English is a world-wide language, used by people in every country, and that kind of Western bias has no place on Wikipedia.

After performing this analysis, I came to the conclusion that the only thing that makes them different from kindergarten and cheetah is your own intuition, something which I hope we both agree doesn't make for a very consistent or neutral criterion.

The lack of a good, neutral criterion is the fundamental problem with your proposal. Unfortunately, there is no definitive point at which a word ceases being an unnaturalized borrowing and it becomes a naturalized English word.

If we adopt your proposal, then the problem becomes one of deciding at what point has a word been naturalized. Borrowing is a continuous process and there is bound to be a large group of words where it is unclear whether it is a borrowing or a naturalized word. If we were to pick a point, it would be necessarily arbitrary, and almost certainly capricious and inconsistently applied due to the subjective nature of making the decision. For some people, certain words are fully naturalized and for others they are totally foreign. For example, to me "cilantro" is a completely ordinary and natural word and "coriander" an obscure alternative, but for someone from England, "coriander" may be the ordinary word and "cilantro" an exotic Spanish word. It is an ugly and unpleasant debate that can never be decided conclusively on Wikipedia. I think it would be an inadvisable step into a never-ending quagmire of acrimonious debate if we were put Wikipedia in the place of deciding what is and isn't a fully naturalized English word. I think it is best if we make no attempt to decide that debate and leave it up to the reader. The proposed harm that this would make the lists inaccessible to some readers I think is overstated and minimal. It is easy to browse through a list and skip over unfamiliar terms.

I am curious how you determine that a word of foreign origin is a common word or not. What neutral criterion do you propose we use to divide up the words? I think that "common words of foreign origin that every native English speaker knows, and that most non-native speakers should know" will never work because determining what words every native English speaker knows is an impossible task, and words that "most non-native speakers should know" won't work because Wikipedia is not in the place of deciding any "shoulds" because that would violate NPOV policy. I don't think that "words that we don't have an equivalent for in English so we use the exact word from the foreign language" is going to cut it either as is a useful criterion. The word kindergarden would meet it. It just doesn't work.

I don't believe there is such a criterion, which is why I don't believe we should adopt a policy of dividing up the words in this way. I understand the urge that is drawing you to want to divide up these lists in the way you propose. However, I don't think there is any reasonably neutral way to do it. I considered age of borrowing and frequency of occurrence in a Google search, but neither of those ways gave results that you would agree with. If you have any suggestions for how to do it using a neutral criterion, I remain open to suggestions. In the meantime, however, I think we should stick to my previously proposed criteria and apply it rigorously. Feel free to remove words that don't meet one of the criteria. Also, feel free to remove words that are marked in dictionaries as "foreign", "alien", or "unnaturalized"). But please leave words like barrio and sari, that robustly meet all three criteria. Nohat 01:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems as if your solution is to be fully inclusive, nevermind the issues I mentioned relating to how this would mean that under your definition, any word without a direct English translation would then become an English word. As a clarification, would you please indicate whether this is what you intend? If not, how would you adjust your recommendations to keep this from being the case?Tritium6 20:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The criteria I use restricts the selection to words that occur in English dictionaries and that are commonly used in English texts. English dictionaries are large but finite. There are many millions of words in other languages that can't be translated by a single word, but not all those words appear in English dictionaries and are used by English speakers. We shouldn't confuse "words that have been borrowed into English" with "words that potentially could be borrowed into English". They're two different sets of words. Nohat 22:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One question I have relates to the same topic, but with view to a specific criterion. Many English speaking individulas and groups are members of certain religions, affiliations or specialized fields of knowledge. By deduction, they must employ a much wider selelction of foriegn words in their personal or professional usage, and I wonder if that would make the words they use English? You might argue that specialized knowledge is not actually adopted but employed by professional people, but what about religions and their specific vocabulary. For example, tens of millions of people in the English speaking world, and hundreds of millions if we include India, are Muslims who employ a much wider range of words of Arabic origin on a daily basis than what would be found in standard dictionaries or known by the general public. The same is true of Hebrew for Jews, Hindi for Hindus, Budhists, and the like. Are these words to be considered English? If not, why? Is it because of the percentage of the population that use them, and, if such, what would be the criterion quantity? If it is by sheer numbers or percentage, then we must remove words of Hebrew origin that are used by Jews alone for their own religion and add say Hindi for Hinduism with all of its varied facets and source languages. Any idea?

 * I think the general criterion used by dictionaries is if the word enjoys robust usage outside of its area of borrowing. That is, if a word used by Hindus is used robustly by non-Hindus as well, then it gets added to a dictionary. Hence, sari but not bindi. The distinction is difficult to crack I think, and our best bet is not to try to make any conclusions ourselves, but to just report what dictionary editors do. Nohat 19:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi all, this is a very old discussion but it is well written and relevant to a debate that recently started on New Zealand articles  Any comments are welcome, here or there. Pinging Giantflightlessbirds and Pelagic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

List != dictionary

 * I don't understand the rationale behind the posted notice at the top. These lists are not dictionary entries.  The definitions of these words are not the purpose of the articles.  The compilation of the lists, the ability to see all these words in their own catagory is the main purpose of the article.  I followed the links to the wiki dictionaries.  These dictionaries do not show these words as loan words in the English language, over there, these words are just drown among all other words in each language.  The individual dictionary entries do not replace the function of the lists.  Kowloonese 00:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * These lists are not dictionary entries. — Indeed the lists are not dictionary entries. The items on the lists are.  Every single one of these lists is either a list of translations of words, a translation dictionary, or a list of etymologies, an etymological dictionary.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Wiktionary is.  And its specific remit is to list translations and etymologies of words.  If you want to see what happens to lists of words, notice the overwhelming delete consensus at Votes for deletion/List of English words of Latin origin and the subsequent wholesale deletion of the article.  I've turned the tide on Votes for deletion/List of English words of Greek origin only by doing to that article what I'm now doing and have done to the others here, namely removing the dictionaries from the encyclopaedia and putting them in the dictionary where they belong, leaving room for encyclopaedia articles to grow in their place.  Had I done nothing, pretty much all of these articles would be on their way to deletion by now. Uncle G 03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * the ability to see all these words in their own catagory is the main purpose of the article. — Then the article is not encyclopaedic, and should be deleted. Again: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you want to see all of the words in a category all together in a list, go to Wiktionary. Uncle G 03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * These dictionaries do not show these words as loan words in the English language — Correct.  They show the words as loanwords to all languages.  It's parochial in the extreme to think that English is the only language to which words have been loaned.  As was pointed out in the VFD discussion, many of the words from Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, and so forth have been loaned to a lot of languages.  Indeed, in many cases, such as words of Nahuatl origin, it isn't even English that the words are loaned to.  The whole idea of looking at this as "words loaned to English" is wrong.  One should consider this in terms of the language that the words are loaned from.  Not only are all of these articles incorrectly titled as "list of words", they are incorrectly titled for being "list of English words". Uncle G 03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * And this article should never have existed. First: With the existence of categories, there's almost never a reason to have a lists of lists, especially one such as this where there was nothing in the article beyond the hyperlinks themselves.  (The article as it stood was only a hair off being a speedy deletion candidate.)  Second: The title is incorrect, both for the reasons given above relating to "list of English words" and for the additional reason that "international" is highly misleading, given that in several cases the loaning has been done within the same country (such as words of Bengali origin being loaned to Indian English). Uncle G 03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * over there, these words are just drown among all other words in each language — Incorrect. There are separate categories for the language words and for the loaned words.  Given that only a couple of the derived words categories even extend over more than one page-worth (200 words) at present, with several not even having as many as 10 words in them as yet, I have to ask which categories you actually looked at to come to the conclusion that anything was "drowned". Uncle G 03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * The individual dictionary entries do not replace the function of the lists. — But the categories of directory entries, which are clearly pointed to here, do, and do so completely. A list of words in Wikipedia is a category of words in Wiktionary. Uncle G 03:11, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

 * The problem here is that whole lists have been deleted, but much of the etymological information wasn't copied to Wiktionary. For example, a previous version of Words of Dutch origin had the word ahoy on it, with an indication that that it comes from the Dutch word hoi, which means hello. Unfortunately, the Wiktionary entry for ahoy does not contain this information, and unless someone digs through the history of Words of Dutch origin, it might be lost to Wikipedia/Wiktionary forever. Further, the category method on Wiktionary makes browsing these lists difficult. To find the etymology of a word you have click on the word in the category list and then read the etymology. When all the words and etymologies were on one page, then the etymologies could be easily compared. This move to Wiktionary has demonstrably weakened Wikipedia.
 * I am dubious about what essentially amounts to the removal of these articles from Wikipedia because I think it isn't supported by precedent. It should be noted that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not mean "Wikipedia articles should not contain information that you might find in a dictionary". It has the very narrow meaning that Wikipedia articles themselves shouldn't be just definitions. No other interpretation of this policy has any kind of consensus. These lists were not just definitions—in fact many of them didn't have definitions, as they only had etymologies. There is no consensus that lists of lexical information do not belong on Wikipedia. The only consensus is that articles that consist only of a simple definition do not belong on Wikipedia. No dictionary that I've ever seen lists words by language of origin, so it would seem that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy does not apply here on its face. There is no solid policy that you can point to that indicates that these lists of etymologies do not belong on Wikipedia. The Latin origin words article was deleted because its scope was too large, not because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. In fact, several of the delete comments specifically note that they support the inclusion of such lists where the size of the list is relatively small. I move that all these lists be restored. Nohat 04:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I take issue with the statement not only are all of these articles incorrectly titled as "list of words", they are incorrectly titled for being "list of English words". The way the lists were earlier was that they were lists of English words, which had origin (whether proximate, ultimate, or otherwise) in some other language. Specifically, the lists only included words that were demonstrably English words. Nohat 04:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * much of the etymological information wasn't copied to Wiktionary — That's deliberate.  Much of that etymological information was, to put it kindly, dubious at best.  Several different dictionaries had conflicting etymologies, other etymologies were disputed, and practically no-one cited any references at all.  Moreover, in a number of cases what Wikipedia had was downright worse than the existing etymologies that already were at Wiktionary.  Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * To find the etymology of a word you have click on the word in the category list. — If clicking on a hyperlink in a list to find more information is hard, then wikis are not for you. And it is incorrect to imply that this is any different to how things were when these dictionaries were at Wikipedia, since in many cases they too were just lists of hyperlinks. On Wiktionary, of course, what is linked to can, and indeed should, be a full dictionary definition (complete with etymologies, translations, definitions, alternate spellings, and inflections), whereas on Wikipedia that is exactly what should not be the case. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * This move to Wiktionary has demonstrably weakened Wikipedia — Rubbish. There's no evidence for that at all. There's clear evidence that it has demonstrably strengthened both Wikipedia (by forcing people to concentrate upon writing encyclopaedia articles instead of debating the minutiae of the definitions of individual words – something not appropriate to Wikipedia – and by increasing the number of cross references to Wiktionary) and Wiktionary (by increasing its stock of words by some several hundred, so far, increasing the number of cross references to Wikipedia, increasing its stock of language categorizations, and demonstrating by example the power to construct arbitrary dictionaries that the categorization mechanism that Wiktionary has) Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * it isn't supported by precedent — There's ample precedent.  What did you think that the transwiki system was all about? Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" [...] has the very narrow meaning that Wikipedia articles themselves shouldn't be just definitions — Wrong.  WP:WIN is very clear on the point that Wikipedia articles are not "lists of such definitions".  It has those exact words, even.  In boldface. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that lists of lexical information do not belong on Wikipedia. — Yes, there is.  There is the consensus that brought about WP:WIN in the first place.  (It didn't get to be official policy out of thin air.)  There's an overwhelming consensus that comes up time and again for dictionary definition articles to be deleted, and there was an overwhelming consensus that came up for two of these articles to be deleted, which actually resulted in the deletion of one.  Please pay attention to the evidence staring you in the face. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * No dictionary that I've ever seen lists words by language of origin. — That's false.  Wiktionary does. And you've just said that you've seen it. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * There is no solid policy that you can point to that indicates that these lists of etymologies do not belong on Wikipedia. —  Rubbish.  This must be at least the twentieth time, including the great big yellow notices on the articles, that I've pointed to WP:WIN.  Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * The way the lists were earlier was that they were lists of English words — Which, as several others have pointed out, was quite simply the wrong approach, and why the articles were incorrectly titled. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * I move that all these lists be restored. — I suggest instead that you get yourself an account at Wiktionary, and get yourself over to its tea room, where you'll be very welcome for any contribution that you can provide.  If you want to, as above on this very talk page, have long arguments about what the criteria are for categorizing words, every category at Wiktionary has its own talk page.  If you want to, as above, talk in detail about the etymologies of certain words, every word at Wiktionary has its own talk page.  If you want to, as above, talk at length about what the inclusion criteria for dictionaries should be (and the fact that this is practically the only other thing talked about on this page is a giant red flag in itself) then feel free to contribute to Wiktionary:Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion. Wiktionary is there for exactly this sort of business, and welcomes it. Concentrate your efforts in a project where what you want to do is the primary goal of the project, rather than lobbying for the continued capability to do such business in entirely the wrong place. Uncle G 18:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that lists of minutiae are not appropriate for the content of Wikipedia articles. There are hundreds of such lists and the consensus for their existence can be demonstrated by the many times they have been listed on VfD and not deleted. See list of lists for many examples. The fact that there is another project Wiktionary which might contain this same information is not in and of itself reason that they shouldn't exist here. The "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy does not mean that information about lexical minutiae does not belong on Wikipedia. The second paragraph of that policy ("Wikipedia articles are not lists of definitions") does not apply to these articles because they are not lists of definitions. They are lists of etymologies. Show me the policy that says that Wikipedia articles are not lists of etymologies. Until you can do that, these articles should stay. Nohat 19:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that lists of minutiae are not appropriate for the content of Wikipedia articles. — I've no idea where you're getting that from.  I've clearly and repeatedly stated that it is the fact that these are lists of dictionary entries – i.e. dictionaries — that is the problem, not that they are minutiae.  Other people have stated this, and so does policy. I'm implementing the consensus that has been reached to follow policy and have the dictionaries in Wiktionary, where they belong.  Your blanket reversions are counter to policy. Uncle G 20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of such lists — False.  There are not.  There are lists of terms, and list of topics, but there are not lists of words.  Lists of words fail VFD.  The evidence of List of English words of Latin origin is right there.  How many more times must I point out the elephant in the centre of the room? Uncle G 20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of that policy does not apply to these articles because they are not lists of definitions. They are lists of etymologies. — An etymology is simply a part of a dictionary entry.  You don't even need to look at the "Etymology" section of Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Entry layout explained to see this.  Not only does it say "a free multilingual dictionary [...] with [...] etymologies" right at the very top of Main Page, it also says "Many dictionaries also provide [...] word derivations, histories, or etymologies" in the Wikipedia dictionary article.  Using your very own "I've never seen a dictionary" argument, I point out that you've almost certainly seen a dictionary that lists etymologies for words at some point in your life. I don't see how there can be any confusion whatever upon this point except for a deliberate and contrived misunderstanding of policy to the effect that only the parts of dictionary entries that specifically define words are excluded, and that all of the other parts of dictionary entries – namely pronunciations, etymologies, translations, citations, inflections, and the like – are fair game, and that it's thus all right to have a list of words with their etymologies, or their translations, or their pronunciations – a dictionary – in Wikipedia as long as we don't inhale there are no definitions given. Uncle G 20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy that says that Wikipedia articles are not lists of etymologies. — WP:WIN. Yet again.  If you don't understand the word "dictionary" in "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", then please read dictionary. Uncle G 20:04, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * If you're so convinced that the policy obviously applies to these articles, then why don't you try editing WP:WIN to be more explicit that these articles are to be excluded? If it's an obvious application of the policy, then no one will contest the change. Nohat 18:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * "there are not lists of words"
 * list of American English words not used in British English
 * list of British English words not used in American English
 * list of Dacian words
 * list of English words with disputed usage
 * list of English words without rhymes
 * list of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names
 * list of Norfuk words and English meanings
 * list of Puerto Rican phrases, words and slangs
 * list of archaic English words and their modern equivalents
 * list of borrowed words in Indonesian
 * list of fictional curse words
 * list of frequently misused English words
 * list of two-letter English words
 * list of words having different meanings in British and American English
 * list of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"
 * list of words of disputed pronunciation
 * Nohat 20:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And I would say that some of them, such as List of English words without rhymes, have wrong titles: they are not lists; they are regular articles that discuss particular parts of English vocabulary. Mikkalai 21:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a trifle disingenuous, both for the reason that Mikkalai points out and that, for starters, list of Dacian words was one of the articles that I explicitly noted in Votes for deletion/List of English words of Greek origin as being worth a long hard look at because it, too, belongs in Wiktionary. Uncle G 11:09, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

 * Since there are unconciliable opinions, I suggest to move this discussion to the Requested moves page. My opinion: these articles were created when there were no categories and no easy interewiki references. Now these lists of totally unrelated words seem spurious. Good articles about the ways how foreign words entered English from the respective languages are of course welcome. So, even while I have been an active creator and defender of the List of English words of Russian origin, I no longer see its utility as a list. Mikkalai 20:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't just an article title dispute, though. It's an article content dispute also. Note that Nohat has just edited all of the articles putting the dictionaries, that have already been excised in favour of Wiktionary, back in to Wikipedia, and deleting the proto-encyclopaedia articles pointing to the Wiktionary categories that were put in their place to grow. And what's the very next thing that happens? Someone comes along to Talk:List of English words of Norwegian origin with another suggested dictionary entry. Nohat reinstated the dictionary definition magnets, and - Lo! - another dictionary definition was attracted within less than 4 hours. Uncle G 11:17, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * Roget's Thesaurus defines a dictionary as An alphabetical list of words often defined or translated. Clearly, that is what these articles constitute.  Also, there was a very clear consensus against these sorts of articles during the List_of_English_words_of_Latin_origin VfD.  However, I doubt that there is anything that myself or others can say that will resolve this issue here.  I propose a consensus-building discussion, such as the recent ones for Local Politicians and Maltese Nobility. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  22:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * I honestly don't see why there has been serious resistance to the idea that this should be in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. It's not like Wiktionary is a euphemism for "The circular file" or anything like that. It's just a different webspace. The information wouldn't be going away, just moving.   — Gwalla | Talk 02:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why there is such a serious push to remove anything vaguely linguistically-related from Wikipedia, as though Wikipedia were to be a repository of all human knowledge except linguistic knowledge, which must be relegated to the Wiktionary ghetto. The two projects are separate; I see no reason why there can't be overlap. The "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy was devised because people were creating articles on a single word whose content was nothing but a definition of that word, with no possibility of enlargement. The policy was implemented to discourage that type of article. It was NOT invented to ensure that all linguistic or vaguely lexicographic information be forever excised from Wikipedia. Relying on the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy to support the removal of articles that are not described by that policy is bogus. Until the policy says "Wikipedia does not include lists of etymologies", the lists stay.

Also, I note that some of the lists were deleted without actually moving the information first, and that was "explained" by saying that the etymologies didn't have references. If you think something is dubious, bring it up on the talk page, but don't just delete it without comment. Deleting content without explanation is something which is definitely not supported by consensus of policy. Nohat 02:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Gwalla suggests, this information does belong in Wiktionary rather than here. The Wiki foundation and its volunteers are putting loads of information on the web, but for information to be useful it must be locatable. The distinction between the various projects (Pedia, Tionary, Travel, Source etc) is very clear, and there is rarely a reason for them to overlap. Since the words mentioned in all these articles are already in Wiktionary (at least most of them are), the information here would merge far better with that already present there. Radiant! 09:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * By Starblind's suggestion, I've added a consensus talk page at Deletion_policy/Lists of words. Radiant! 09:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is appropriate to move these lists to wiktionary, as they are not encyclopedic information. I think that this particular article could be deleted and re-worked using categories or anther wikipedia organising tool. The lists listed in this page could be improved by including more encyclopedic information and allowing pages such as http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_derivations handle the listing of words. For example the article on French influences on English mentions the invasion of Normandy but could also mention that French was used for law and governance and by nobility, and so most English words related to justice come from Old French (e.g.curfew, debt, just), and English words from French generally denote a higher style (compare ask and inquire). The wikipedia article on French words could then include just a link to it's sister article on wiktionary, which lists words of French origin. Pvt_Parts 24 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.33.14 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are you Uncle G?
Can you add a user page to introduce yourself to the rest of the wikipedian communicty? You seems to represent the authority in the wikipedia. Looks like you can decide everything because you said so. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a few years and you are probably the most Big-brother type wikipedian I've encountered. Is the moniker Uncle-G derived from Uncle Sam and G-men? I don't really care if you delete everything as you please, I truely believe someone else will differ from your standpoint and your deletion will be restored. I don't feel that you get the consensus here. Perhaps a vote is in order. Can you hold off your house-cleaning until you get the consensus? I apologize if this comment appears to be rude, but honestly I think coming in with a shotgun to blow away other people's contribution is even ruder. Kowloonese 21:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for you linguists
Consolidate the lists for languages which have provided very few loan words to English. Example: there are very few loan words from ancient Egyptian. You would have guessed that, probably, but its of some interest to know that the word "bark" (as in a type of sailing ship) may be derived from the ancient egyptian word for boat (via Greek writers), and the name "Susannah" is said to be of ancient Egyptian origin.---CH (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD - Romanian loanwords
Hello all,

I've put up List of English words of Romanian origin for deletion, and I thought people here might be interested. The deletion debate here Articles_for_deletion/List_of_English_words_of_Romanian_origin. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I just came across that article. There are only a few English words of Romanian origin as far as I know, not counting toponyms, anthroponyms, and so on, which would be long. I would rather have the list redirected, and a link in this page (Lists of English words of international origin) can direct to Lexicon:English words of Romanian origin which I plan on starting, just as there is for example Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Dutch index, Wiktionary:Appendix:1000 basic Dutch words. Alexander 007 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
In the RfC for List of English words of Latin origin (the article was subsequently deleted), some dude from Brazil (User:JoaoRicardo) said "I think all such lists should be removed from Wikipedia" (to paraphrase). I tend to agree. The only argument against this that I deemed acceptable was that in Wiktionary, it would be done by categories, rather than a list on a page, permitting text. But that's not the only option. These are such long accepted pages as Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Dutch index which lists words on one page and can allow text, though text would belong more in a lexicon, not an index. My proposal (not necessarily in this order): move Lists of English words of international origin to English words of international origin, and rather than link Wikipedia lists, it will link Wiktionary glossaries (as yet uncreated), and the lists will be redirected (not even deleted) to English words of international origin. Disadvantages: no significant disadvantage; because the glossary pages will be able to have everything that the Wikipedia pages have, including links to Wikipedia articles. Advantages: everything can be linked in Wiktionary, including words and phrases which would be perpetual red links in Wikipedia (unless you make an inter-Wiktionary link); also, Wiktionary tends to attract people more fluent with lexicons and languages, and less stray poorly informed individuals, generally speaking. It's rare to have a nationalist in Wiktionary sticking words on a list just to inflate it, as often happens in Wikipedia (see List of English words of Persian origin's edit history, for example). These lists are barely fit for an encyclopedia anyway. What remains is for the Wiktionary Lexicons to be approved in Wiktionary, and for Wikipedians to agree (consensus/majority) with allowing Wiktionary to do it, if Wiktionary accepts. Alexander 007 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For me, it's not quite a matter of getting these lists out of the way; rather, I'm on Wiktionary a lot lately and having these lists in Wiktionary is having them in the right place, where they will be overseen by more qualified people, on average. Also, it can only improve the "work-place ethic" in Wikipedia: if you're in Wikipedia, do something encyclopedic, like maybe, even, contribute a paragraph of text to an actual article; if you want to fiddle with placing words on a list, go to Wiktionary :-) Alexander 007 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * In Wiktionary, I made the proposal at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Lexicons: A Proposal. The response so far is positive. No one has objected. So it will probably fall to a few Wikipedians to let go of ultra-inclusionist tendencies and realize that this will be better for the word-lists themselves, since having them in Wiktionary will lead to them being more reliable, since Wiktionary has far less contributors per hour; and by percentage, more that are competent with lexicons. Think about it. The word-lists here in Wikipedia often look like piles of shit, full of errors. Alexander 007 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * To rephrase: would you rather have shitty lists in Wikipedia that are barely reliable (thus, barely fulfilling their purpose to inform us of the actual words deriving from a certain language), or let go of them and simply go to Wiktionary (via upcoming links in this article) to Lexicons which will be more reliable and will not have any drawbacks to them whatsoever? Alexander 007 01:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, sorry if I offend you by saying this or something but I think that a list like this seems to be very helpful in the encyclopedia. If you don't think that this list barely fulfills the purpose to inform people of the words imported from other languages, why not edit it and make it better instead of proposing a deletion on the entire list? Moving something like this to Wiktionary is a good idea, though... eh this is still a good list to have.

Also, why is the list of Italian loanwords gone? I mean, if you have a list of two loanwords from Romanian why not a far bigger list of Italian loanwords? 173.79.68.101 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)  An IP :D
 * Articles for deletion/List of English words of Italian origin. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How it looks in Wiktionary
Here is a look, just started. It will have everything the Wiki article has (except for the errors) and more:Lexicon:English terms of Persian origin. Alexander 007 02:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Danish
We still need a list of words with Danish origin. There are quite a few of them. --Sangild 13:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and start it! 惑乱 分からん 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

List --> Category
Please, let me first start with don't panic. I am about to suggest something; if you read it hurriedly you could panic, but if you read it carefully I think you will see that I mean no harm. I came across both this article (Lists of English words of international origin) and also Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin. There is a great deal of overlap here and it appears that there is very little/no annotation with the article, primarily only the header. This article is, for all intents and purposes, "just" a list of lists. As such, I think that this purpose is better served by the category instead of an article. To be clear, I am not suggesting that any of the lists be deleted and I am not suggesting that anything is not encyclopedic. I am suggesting that the header text be copied to the category header and that all of the lists that are in this article that are not currently in the category be added to it. After that, this article could either be deleted or redirect to the Category. Note, I know that some of these articles have been "attacked" in the past and I am not taking any unilateral action here; I'm just (hopefully) starting a conversation. --After Midnight 0001 19:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote?
I just noticed a quote before the lead in the article. Is this standard article procedure? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but I personally don't see why it shouldn't stay. It's relevant to the subject, and adds a little humor to an otherwise (in my opinion) rather dry website. 74.227.223.23 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of English words of Anglo-Saxon origin?
Is there one of these, or should there be one? Count Truthstein (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked and a category already exists on Wiktionary, so now I don't think there should be. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of English words of Catalan and Occitan (Occitano-Romance) origin
What about adding a new list of English words of Catalan and Occitan (Provençal) origin? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

oooh! that sounds good, but I don't have the authority to allow you to do that.... but that sounds like a great idea! 173.79.68.101 (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)  An IP

If you've got reliable citations, that'd be good. The difficulty is finding reliable evidence that it's Occitan or Catalan rather than any other Romance language that gave it to English (the absence of a cognate in another living Romance language isn't enough, as it may have been present in an older form of another Romance language.

I'm not aware of any clear candidate word other than "troubadour".

On a related topic, shouldn't there be some grouping of the Romance languages together?

Prof Wrong (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but French is in that list, and French is the 2nd biggest foreign contributor to English. Maybe the Romance languages besides French put together? I think that would be a good idea considering there are only two words in the romanian section...

Also, why was the Italian loanword section deleted? Additionally, couldn't we merge this with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.68.101 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Articles for deletion/List of English words of Italian origin. 2) I don't think Finnish is a Scandinavian language. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 * 2)According to Wikipedia.org it's not. ;-) Prof Wrong (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Ok, looks like you're right as far as the Finnish loanword article! Still, the Italian language has contributed some words to English like biscotti, amaretto, ciabatta, cappuccino, neutrino, influenza, torso, panini, parmesan, gelato, etc. etc. I think from the amount of words that it's contributed it should have an article. As for the "dictionary-esque list" that got deleted, I mean that could be changed into a better article.... could it not? 173.79.68.101 (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC) The IP from earlier in the section....

 * As has been said, none of these lists is encyclopedic. An article based around categories and types of loanwords might be more successful.  EG. Most Italian loanwords are the names of foodstuffs particular to Italy or otherwise associated with Italy.(citation needed)  And whether the majority of Latinate words came via French or directly from Latin (citation needed) etc etc.
 * But that would be a big job and would require very reliable citations. Prof Wrong (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why only the "Italian List" has been erased?
Comment (from the Discussion about the deletion). I have no opinion on the merits of this particular article, but am wondering why it is the only one AfD'd from the whole Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 16:17 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at a handful. Quite a few I tagged as potentially not notable, needing references or needing more references. I encourage you to do the same. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This list came to my attention because it was linked from another AfD. I'd be happy to vote to delete any other mini-dictionary lists. And I certainly have nothing against Italy. Borock (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the next one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Korean origin. Borock (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

'''As of may 2013 the "List of English words of Korean origin" has NOT been deleted. So only the Italian list remains erased after 2 years. WHY? May be this is a kind of Antiitalianism? BD''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.242.206 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a pretty stupid of them to delete that article. I voted to Keep it, but alas, common sense doesn't always win the day, it all up to the opinions of whatever random group shows up to comment in AFDs and any personal bias of the closing administrator.  You can take this to deletion review if you want.  That administrator had other decisions of his reversed at deletion review, and I think they might've taken away his administrative powers.  Not sure.  He hasn't edited Wikipedia in a year.   D r e a m Focus  17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


text:
Shabbir Ahmed (cricketer)

Shabbir Ahmed Khan (شببر احمد خان; born 21 April 1976) is a Pakistani former cricketer who played for the Pakistani national cricket team between 2003 and 2007 before got banned for an illegal bowling action.

He was a line-and-length pace bowler who took eight wickets for 109 runs on his Test debut against Bangladesh in the first of their 2003–04 three-Test series, including five wickets in the second innings. He also had an impressive start to his One-Day International career after picking up three wickets (all three bowled out) with two wickets in his first over, in his debut against the West Indies at Toronto.

Style
Shabbir Ahmed is a tall (6'5"), Pakistani fast bowler. He extracts a great deal of bounce, even on lifeless wickets, and bowling from close to the stumps – much like Glenn McGrath – allows him to stick to a tight wicket-to-wicket line. He seams and cuts more than he swings, often sharply and both ways and is a sound exponent of reverse swing.

One year ban
Shabbir had taken 51 wickets in 10 tests, when in 2005 after playing the first Test against England he was reported to the ICC for an illegal bowling action. Following an investigation into his action, Ahmed was banned from cricket for one year in December 2005.

Return to cricket
As of 21 December 2006, having completed his one-year term, Shabbir was once again eligible to play International Cricket. However, the clause was that if Shabbir was reported again, he would be suspended from bowling at international level until his action is reassessed.

Shabbir played in the Pakistani domestic competition till 2013 after which he called it quits.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Shabbir Ahmed (cricketer)


text:
Talk:Blat

From VfD:
Dictdef of a Russian language slang term. RickK 06:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was a very commonly used term in Soviet era and I could this eventually being a good article. Andris 12:20, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge: Honestly, I think this could be great information, but I'd love to see it in an article on the Soviet black market, the Russian "mafia" (in Russia...the concept of 'mafia' there is not what it is anywhere else), or even Soviet economics.  As a stand-alone, I feel like we're losing good informationg by scattering it.  Andris, can you think of a larger concept where this information can operate in a context of a larger discussion?  Geogre 13:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I agree with Geogre. This seems like it would be more appropriate in an entry for more of a "big picture" topic. If possible, I would merge and redirect. If there is no corresponding article and no one wishes to create one, I have to vote delete. Skyler 02:20, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Randomly, BLAT is also the name of an email utility. http://www.blat.net/ Has no real bearing on this article... SarekOfVulcan 04:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Other
BLAT also refers to Broad Level Access Term in controlled vocabulary development and management Musidora 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Blat" is also a term for a horrendous note on a brass instrument (including [saxophones]) usually produced by blowing too hard. Not sure if there's a good place for it, but there you have it. --Duneflower, resident weirdo 11:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable reference for this meaning? see Attribution and Reliable sources. Also, it seems that this meaning is not for encyclpedia (wikipedia), but for wiktionary. `'юзырь:mikka 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Blat (software)" was deleted
The link "Blat (software)" is now effectively a broken link - that article was deleted.

--Mortense (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blat


text: Category:Arsenides

title: Category:Arsenides


text:
Talk:List of English words of Persian origin

Untitled
American Heritage Dictionary, online edition 4, says kismet is "Turkish, from Persian qismat, from Arabic qisma, lot, from qasama, to divide, allot. See qsm in Semitic Roots.]"
 * good, then the word probably belongs here (among other places) Lethe | Talk

 * It's a Persian borrowing from Arabic, then, isn't it, as it's a parallel English borrowing. From Persian? or directly from Arabic? I don't know. A long long list of English words of Persian origin flatters cultural vanity. A shorter list, of words directly borrowed from Persian, would be more interesting, because it actually would tell us something. "Lilac" for instance may indeed have a Persian root, but it entered English in the 16th century, when the rooted cuttings first were imported from Constantinople. "Lilac" is a word borrowed from Turkish, not from Persian.

 * As it stands, this vanity list is pointless. Do people understand why I say this? or do people think I'm "anti-Persian" or something?--Wetman 02:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to disagree with Your Wetness. Sure, perhaps the creation of this list was motivated by vanity or Persian chauvanism, and some of the etymologies are false (or like peach, not directly derived from Persian, but instead allude to the fact that the thing described came from Persia).  Still, most of these words are genuinely of Persian origin, many Wikipedians might not know that, and some of them may be desirious of knowing.  Shall we delete the list simply because some of the entries are incorrect and not all Wikipedians care about the subject? Shall we delete it because the motives of the person who started it aren't 100% point-of-view pure?  No, that would be arrogant and violate don't be a d*** policy, which you seem to endorse on your Userpage.

And as far as personal feelings go, we're supposed to maintain an NPOV in writing articles, not in creating them. People tend to contribute to articles about things they care about. I haven't made any contributions to Art Nouveau or carp because I care not a whit about them, and I know very little. I leave it to others who are more knowledgable and motivated than me to write them. Why can't deletionists do that? If you don't like this list, don't read it. I do like it, and I find it useful, and I'll bet there are many others who do as well. So don't you dare try to delete it! --Jpbrenna 23:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem is, the list isn't actually useful(except for ego-stroking) if it is riddled with errors and half-truths. At that point, you might as well simply suggest that all English words are Persian in origin. The any Iranian who wants to can tape a Persian dictionary page by page to their wall and imagine that English people use all of those words everyday, just because Persians are so great. I don't know how much of this is actually vanity, but if that is the case, or if it's here simply because someone "likes it", well, it is still false information, and should be tagged as such.

Please realize that most of these words are not used in English. If ever they are/were it is in extremely rare cases. rare enough that they would better be called"improper translations of Persian words", or something of the sort. I am a native English speaker with a fairly extensive vocabulary, and I have never heard anyone speak at least eighty percent of the words on this list. This page is lying to the readers. I am very interested in linguistics, yet disappointed in Wikipedia when I discover pages like this: just list of Persian words disguised an accurate example of etymology. I mean, why not make a list which is actually a list of actual words used in English, whose origins are actually Persian, instead of filling up hyperspace with disinformation? That would be useful.Knowon (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is about being sourced and the information is sourced. The average vocabulary of a person is 5000 to 10000 words.  Thus the information is sourced from reputable dictionary.   --Nepaheshgar 06:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cognates
These words which were recently added do not belong here: they are only cognates (via Indo-European), not borrowings. Bogdan | Talk 18:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Brother: From Persian Baraadar
 * Father: From Persian Paedar (Similar to Spanish Padre)
 * Mother: From Persian Maadar (Similar to Spanish Madre)

 * But the list is full of cognates. And Arabic words borrowed by Persian that English got through Spanish...

Observation
Just an observation. Many words in Old Persian/Avestan are formed by replacing the 's' in the corresponding Sanskrit word with an 'h'. Examples:

 * Ahura - Asura
 * Homa - Soma
 * Hind - Sind
 * Namaha - Namasa

I found many more, but can't recall right now.

 * Not sure about the other examples, but Ahura is not borrowed from Asura. They're genuine cognates from Indo-Iranian (at least).  Similarly, the Persian word for 10 dah didn't come from Sanskrit das or dáça.   OTOH, Hind is indeed borrowed from the Sanskrit Sindh, meaning river.  --jonsafari 14:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

the s-h phoneme change is a common one in Indo-Iranian. The 's' seems to be the original Indo-Iranian (and Indo-European) form, while Iranian is showing an innovation by substituting 'h'. This is regular and known (see any standard Indo-European language book such as Meier-Brugger's for a full explenation). Another innovation of Persian (but not accross the board in Iranian) is the replacement of 'd' for the Iranian 'z' (often but not always Sanskrit 'j') from Indo-Iranian '*g' (eg. Persian dast from Iranian *zasta (cf. Avestan zast-)--Khodadad 08:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Devil
Mani1 has mass reverted the article to a ridiculous level, and the fact that he also reverted my removal of Devil from the list indicates that he was just suspicious of all my edits. There is no question that English devil is from Late Latin diabolus, in turn from Greek diabolos. In Romanian, the word is found as diavol and in Spanish diablo, etc. No authoritative linguistic reference questions this. Alexander 007 12:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

New article
The new article, as per what appears to be a consensus that Wikipedia should not duplicate Wiktionary, will not have a list of words but many examples can be discussed within the text rather than listed. If someone wants to see a list they can see the list in Wiktionary, Category:Persian derivations, then they can click on each individual word for an etymology. Alexander 007 15:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * How incredibly tedious. Why would I want to make 2 clicks for every word (which, for the Wiktionary version of this page, would come out to well over 200 carefully-executed clicks), when I could read all of them on one page without any clicking at all? Nohat 06:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If there are not too many of them, then no problem. However, if the list becomes too long:Wiktionary. If we accept these lists, then someone should restart List of English words of Latin origin, which was deleted by consensus that there would be too many to list, and Wiktionary would be better. Alexander 007 07:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, who wants to restart List of English words of Latin origin? Nohat? Alexander 007 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Words from Latin form a substantial stock of all English vocabulary because words were borrowed from Latin into English regularly and under ordinary circumstances. The number of words in English borrowed from Latin is too large to list reasonably on a single page or set of pages. However, the number of words in English of Persian origin is finite and enumerable; words were borrowed into English from Persian only under extraordinary circumstances. Therefore it is reasonable to enumerate all the words borrowed from Persian on a single page. In all likelihood, the vast majority of such words are already on this page, and it will not likely grow much more, although it is not unreasonable to assume a few more words borrowed from Persian might be uncovered. Nohat 07:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I no longer oppose these lists for most languages, but I do oppose them for Latin, and probably even French and Greek. In fact, any language where a one-page listing would be much too long.Alexander 007 07:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree wholeheartedly: the French and Greek pages should be changed to be general discussions of the conditions by which words from those languages get borrowed into English, which is extensive enough to merit a discussion. On the other hand, the conditions by which words were borrowed from Persian are not very interesting, and amount to just random chance. The most interesting thing to say about words borrowed from Persian is simply to enumrate them. Nohat 07:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I guess with me it was more an aesthetic issue, but not everyone agrees with my aesthetics, which I was pushing onto Wiki in this case. I agree having them on one page is an advantage, so if for no other reason, these shorter lists have an excuse to be in Wikipedia. Alexander 007 07:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Words originally Sanskrit origin
Many words in the list are parallel borrowings from Sanskrit into Persian and Hindi -> English. Example, the word for Sugar. See also List of English words of Sanskrit origin, List of English words of Hindi origin deeptrivia (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There aren't too many modern Persian words that derive from Sanskrit. Many derive from Old Persian and some from Avestan, both of which were contemporary languages of Sanskrit, all of which come from a common Indo-Iranian branch of PIE.  See the heading Observation for more discussion on this topic.   --jonsafari 06:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's exactly not what I meant. The article is about English words from Persian, so probably we can leave out any words that might be derived from Avestan, etc. This is similar to having a separate List of English words of Sanskrit origin, and List of English words of Hindi origin. In case of cognates present all over the IE family, deriving from a common PIE source, it is not appropriate to say that those words are of Persian origin. E.g., it's true that modern Persian Ariya derives from Avestan, which is a contemporary of Sanskrit, but the English word Arya derives from Sanskrit word Arya. deeptrivia (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * My references also derive the English word from Sanskrit. Alexander 007 06:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What about words that were borrowed into Persian from Sanskrit, eg, Sugar. Sugar then went on into Arabic, so Persian is in the middle, neither was it the origin, nor the language from which the word was directly borrowed into English. Do such words belong here? deeptrivia (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've been debating that also. Orange is another example. I think they should be listed especially if: the passage through Persian is a vital part of a given word's development into an English word. Alexander 007 07:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Would make sense to also mention where the word is originally derived from. deeptrivia (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course. Alexander 007 17:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * At what point do we go back to? For example, the List of English words of French origin lists café, but obviously it's not ultimately from French.  It could very well be in the Italian list (under a liberal definition of origin, eg. if a given language contributed somewhere along the path to bring the word into English), as well as the Turkish list, not to mention the Arabic list.  In fact, very few of the words on the French list, for example, would survive your original derivation requirement.  We should also take out khaki and pajamas from the Hindi list, by this same requirement.  Many words wouldn't even survive on the Latin or Sanskrit list, if you want to go back as far as possible.  Either all the 'words of ... origin' articles should standardize on the ultimate derivation requirement, or they should all standardize on a more liberal definition of origin.  As it stands now there is an inconsistent mixture found on this page, and most other like pages (including Hindi and Sanskrit).   I'm ok with either definition, as long as all the origin lists conform to a standardized definition of origin.  --jonsafari 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I find two sources important. One is the immediate source, like the French sucre in the sugar example, and one the ultimate source, (Sanskrit sharkara in the sugar example.) We can list, for example, sugar in French, Arabic, Persian origin lists, but with the mention that ultimately it derives from Sanskrit. Otherwise, it will be misleading. deeptrivia (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal names

 * Esther is included here and this goes against the norm as far as the other lists of English etymology. I think this is a valid area of study, but I'm not sure if it belongs on this exact page.  Does anyone have any feelings on this or know of an existing page which would be better suited to an entry like this?  Or, does anyone have a proposal for starting a new page?  I don't think Persian would have enough entries to justify a whole page, but maybe in conjunction with another language(s) it would.--Hraefen 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Major re-writing
I made it only down to "c", but this article has so many mistakes or short-comings (Bactria, Caravan, etc.) that I think we better just scrap the whole thing and write it anew.

In writing these things, one should really use something besides the online sources. No one bothers with etymological dictionaries and other sources apparently. Come on! Being wiki does not mean being wacky too. If you are giving knowledge, make sure it is at least correct!--Khodadad 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Algorithm is not Persian
Al-Khwarezmi was Persian, but his name, which the word algorithm is derived, is Arabic. So, I think algorithm should be deleted.

 * Where is your source on that? As far as I can tell, the word Khwarezm is of some central Asian origin.  --jonsafari 18:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezm is the name of the birthplace of this Iranian scientist. Khwarezm has been part of Iran at that time and now it's in Uzbekistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezm --alijsh 27 Nov 2006

Khawramieh is the name of the Persian town where the scientist came from on the Eastern front of Persia: KHOR = sun + AZ = from + MIYAA = cometh, therefore, in Persian, "where the sun comes from" or EAST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlands555 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized
I have capitalized each word as per the general convention in a dictionary entry. --Bhadani 12:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

this list should be double checked
the word "bad" has the same meaning in both persian and english, but this as with other words does not imply it came from one or the other. the oed only goes as far as middle english, listing its appearance as after 13th century. if bad there was question, the oed would say so. are there linguists out there who can verify words on this list? --Ampersand 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed words
I have removed many entries from the page because they do not meet the criteria. I have copied them here and organized them by reason for deletion. If anyone can find a reliable source that shows that these words are (a) English words and (b) of demonstrably Persian origin, then I am willing to entertain putting them back in.

No Persian origin listed in OED etymology

 * Absinth/Absinthe
 * Algorithm: variant of algorism influnced by the word Arithmetic (<Middle English < Old French < Latin < Greek)
 * Algorism : <Middle English algorisme <Old French <Medieval Latin algorismus< Al-Khwarizmi, a Persian mathematician, named after Khwarezmia, a former state in what is now Uzbekistan
 * Armenia: from Persian Arman.
 * Arsenic: from Middle Persian zarnikh
 * Aubergine : from Persian بادنجان Bâdinjân itself maybe originally from Sanskrit.
 * Better : from "behtar" or "بهتر"
 * Best : from "behest" or "بهست". but "behest" comes from "behesht" or "بهشت"
 * bombast : from pambak "cotton".
 * Bronze : Perhaps ultimately from Pers. birinj "an alloy of copper (mainly) and ..." :: copper and Zinc
 * Cameo : from Pers. chumahan "agate."
 * Caviar : from Khâg-âvar ("bringer of eggs")
 * Cumin : from Kerman
 * Ghoul : from "Ghoul" or "غول"
 * Guitar : from ancient Greek kithara, perhaps from Persian sitaar "Three snares".
 * Henna : Zie.
 * Jasper (boy's name): from Persian meaning "treasure master".
 * Jasper (stone): from Persian Yashp
 * Jujube : from Pers. zayzafun meaning "soft candy with date-like flavor"
 * Lacquer : through Ar. lakk, from Pers. lak from Prakrit lakkhā from Sanskrit lākşā "red dye"
 * Mihrab: from Persian Mihr (the God Mithra)
 * Mummy : from Pers. mumiya "asphalt," from mum "wax."
 * must (n): via Urdu mast "intoxicated, in rut," from Pers. mast, lit. "intoxicated"

Not listed in OED at all

 * Ahriman: from Persian Ahriman.
 * Ahura Mazda : from Old. Persian (Zoroastrian god)
 * Angra Mainyu : older version of Ahriman
 * Asmodeus : evil spirit, prince of demons, from L. Asmodaeus, from Gk. Asmodaios, from Talmudic Heb. Ashmeday, from Avestan (Old-Iranian) Aesh-ma-dæva, lit. "Aeshma the deceitful." Aeshma is the Zoroastrian daeva of wrath. This trait association was also passed on.
 * Casper : from Persian Jasper
 * Chador : from châdor "tent"
 * Cyrus: from Persian Kurosh, diminutive: Cy
 * Darius: Daryoosh
 * Darya -e- noor : Sea of light
 * Euphrates : O.E. Eufrate, from Gk., from Avestan (Old-Iranian) huperethuua "good to cross over," from hu- "good" + peretu- "ford."
 * Georgia: from Persian Gurjistan.
 * Julibrissin : from Gul-i Abrisham (Silk flower).
 * Khedive : from Pers. khidiv "prince," derivative of khuda "master, prince," from Old-Persian khvadata- "lord,"

Nohat 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So far I have gotten through J. I will continue through the rest of the alphabet.Nohat 22:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Khedive is listed in OED. Ellipi (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Words not of Persian origin, but themselves borrowed in Persian
etc.
 * Arya, Aryan : Could at best be called of Avestan origin. Came into use in English through Sanskrit.
 * aubergine: Sanskrit
 * orange: Dravidian origin
 * satrap: Avestan, closely related to Sanskrit kshathrapavan. kshatra = area of land, as in kshatriya, van = guardian. Okay, this one also exists in Old Persian as such.
 * Sugar: Sanskrit origin

Also, are we including proper nouns like Afghanistan? Then why not also include Tehran, Yazd, Ahmedinijad, etc? Also, "-stan" is a very common suffix in many laguages. Having it doesn't make a word of Persian origin. deeptrivia (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, the reason these are on the list is because the Online Etymology Dictionary says they are of Persian origin. You have to remember that Indo-Iranian languages have many similarities, so it is possible that a lot of these words are present in other places too.Khosrow II 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The Online Etymology Dictionary doesn't say they are of Persian origin, but that the way from Sanskrit to English was through Persian (one of the many intermediate language the word travelled through) Examples from the dictionary:

 * sugar : from O.Fr. sucre -> from M.L. succarum -> from Arabic sukkar -> from Pers. shakar -> from Skt. sharkara
 * aubergine : Fr. --> from Catalan alberginera -> from Arabic al-badinjan "the eggplant," -> from Pers. badin-gan -> from Skt. vatin-ganah.
 * orange : from O.Fr. orenge -> from M.L. pomum de orenge -> from It. arancia, originally narancia (Venetian naranza) -> alt. of Ar. naranj -> from Pers. narang -> from Skt. naranga-s "orange tree,"

So, for words like these, Persian is an intermediate language (so are Arabic, Italian, French, Catalan, and so on). These cannot be called words of Persian origin. deeptrivia (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, my point is, we should have a consistent policy on this. For example, either we should include the word "Orange" in lists of all the intermediate languages, i.e., "List of English words of French origin", "List of English words of Latin origin", "List of English words of Italian origin", "List of English words of Arabic origin", "List of English words of Persian origin", and "List of English words of Sanskrit origin", or as the definition of the word "origin" suggests, include it only in the language from which the word originated. deeptrivia (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe we can convert this page to "List of words in the English language from Iranic languages". Therefore, we can compile a list of all words of the english language that origionated within Iranic/Aryan languages. This would mean adding Kurdish, Persian, Pashtu, etc... words. And then we can lable all of them. What do you think?Khosrow II 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * If by Iranic you mean Indo-Iranian languages, then I think it will be far too wide a scope, covering hundreds of languages spoken by over a billion people. Perhaps a "List of words in the English language originating from Iranian languages" will be more practical. This will exclude words that are from Indo-Aryan languages, and thus the words mentioned above. deeptrivia (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Could you please not make any changes until I confer with the other Iranian wikipedians and see what we want to do collectively?Khosrow II 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, and meanwhile, take a look at List of English words of Urdu origin. Most words there are of Persian origin. In my opinion that page shouldn't even exist. Also, please look at List of English words of Hindi origin to rid that page of any such entries. deeptrivia (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You seem to be right about Orange and Sugar and aubergine.. Although I do want to do an extensive check. Arya is found in Old Persian as well and also Middle Persian as Er ..The list of Urdu words is not sound since almost all Urdu words are ultimately a mixture of Hindi(and other Indian languages) and Persian and Arabic.  --alidoostzadeh 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * "Angel" should be removed. This has nothing to do with etymology at all.

 * It is from Merriam-Websters Dictionary and they suggested "Perhaps" and related some sanskrit and Old Persianw ords to it.. --alidoostzadeh 10:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't get Angel either —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlands555 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Idries Shah the Sufi writer has said that Orange is from Naranj نارنج i.e. Na-Ranj نا - رنج meaning 'no pain' and is purely Persian. I haven't got the reference to hand but could dig it up if interested.10:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Wool Bridge (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wool Bridge (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Some resources

 * http://www.jazirehdanesh.com/find.php?a=10.153.547.en - about guitar and some other instruments. look at the photos at the bottom of the page.

 * http://www.jazirehdanesh.com/find.php?item=10.153.544.fa - about chess words

 * http://www.jazirehdanesh.com/find.php?item=10.153.545.fa - about some chemical words

 * http://www.jazirehdanesh.com/find.php?item=10.153.534.fa - about some proper names

Canal
Canal is also a Persian word. Suez canal was first finished by the Persian king Darius I and he named it canal. It's from present stem of kandan (to dig) plus suffix -âl. kan+âl. we have -âl in words like changâl, gowdâl, etc.

 * On the Online Etymology Dictionary, it lists canal in this sense as arising in 1673, and coming from the Latin root canalis. Kandan might have a shared origin with canalis, as 'to dig' and 'groove' are similar enough meanings. --Tha Pyngwyn (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mihrab is a Persian word
We have more words in which the suffix âb are found: sardâb, garmâbe. âb(e) means structures having concave ceiling and not water. Sardâb must be free from any trace of water or it's useless. It's older form is âv(e) that we have in the name of these cities: âvaj, sâve (se+âve).

I don't think it puts Islam in danger if we accept that it has a word from Mithraism. So let's stop coining a different etymology for this word. Seems we have forgotten that namâz is also a Zoroastrian term.

Indo European Languages
English is not an Indo European language as the article suggests, but Germanic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.151.230 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Germaic is a branch of IE which English also belongs to. --alidoostzadeh 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good page
Very educational article. Badagnani 00:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these are not "English" words
As a native English speaker, I recognise only a small fraction of these words as "English". Inclusion in an English-language dictionary does not automatically make a word "English". In my view the article either needs extensive culling or it should be renamed. 86.133.245.72 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I'll have to agree. However, this is not because they are not common to the everyday speaker, but because many of these words do not appear in the dictionary. For example, look what happens when I type in Daftarfar in the Oxford dictionary.
 * They are in other dictionaries (Merriam Webster Classic version). You need to look at the Oxford classical dictionary for some of the other words.  A good portion of the terms are from British India and are not used in common English, but can occasionally pop up in novels and books.  But they are used for the British English at its own time.  Just like may other English words from 200 years are not used anymore.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I just don't buy it. The fact that a word "occasionally pops up" in (English) novels or books doesn't make it "English" either. The fact is that a large number of these words are exclusively used to refer to people, articles, customs etc. in Persian-speaking areas, or other adjacent areas, and are just romanisations of the local terms. The fact that I might, in English text, refer to a French gendarme, or a Venezuelan llanero, does not mean that gendarme or llanero are "English words", any more than large numbers of the words listed here are "English words". An instructive comparison is to look at List of English words of Dutch origin, nearly all of which are "English words". 86.133.242.251 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Well they are sourced and are in the classical Merriam Webster's dictionary. Not all words survive in a language and become obsolete while others are recurrent.  For example Pajama is currently used in the English language but Daftardar was used during the British colonization of India but now has become obsolete.  Overall, this is a comprehensive list and as long as it occurs in valid dictionaries (as sourced in the article), then it is acceptable.  Note again, you need the classical Oxford or unabridged Merriam-Webster to obtain some of the words that are not used but were used at one time.  Also remember the average vocabulary of a person is probably 5% (if that) of that is included in a dictionary.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that at least one word was improperly sourced, see chakari below. --Bejnar (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do another culling of this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like instead of culling, this needs mining. Pick out the words that ARE in English. Proper names, variant spellings, just horrible list filled with words nobody ever uses. 76.168.4.212 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Chakari
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002, does not support chakari as a Persian originated word. It is true that the underlying chakar is supported as a Persian originated word; however, chakari, according to Webster's originated in Hindi. This is consistent with the practice of chakari, or attendance on a patron, which originated in Nepal. See, for example, Bista, Dor Bahadur (1994) Fatalism and development: Nepal's struggle for modernization Orient Longman, Calcutta, India, pages 89-92, ISBN 81-250-0188-3. The Oxford English Distionary, online edition, does not list chakari. Chakari, "institutionalised sycophancy", has been defined in the Nepali context as etymologically coming from 'to wait upon, to serve, or to seek favour from a god', a derived usage from chakar. Hutt, Michael (1994) Nepal in the nineties: versions of the past, visions of the future Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, page 118, ISBN 0-19-563441-1. That usage and the sense of waiting attendance upon a patron are more common in the scanty English usage that chakari sees, rather than in the sense of a domestic service. See also, Agrawal, Hem Narayan (1976) The administrative system of Nepal: from tradition to modernity Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, India, page 123, ISBN 0-7069-0395-1. I am not saying that chakari isn't a Persian word, it is just unsupported by the provided source as of Persinate origin, and such origin is undermined by other extrinsic evidence. Its English meaning appears to come from Hindi, as indicated by the provided source. --Bejnar (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently a mess of falsehoods and has been for years
During the past few days somebody inserted "Betruger" into the article as a word having Persian etymology whereas no word "betruger" exists in English language, and the German word "betruger" (which means deceiver in German) has no Persian etymology. I was going to remove this item of vandalism, but then I started to review the rest of the article and I found longstanding errors all over the place. Here are some words that the article has been claiming -- since at least 15 August 2008 -- to be of Persian origin and that are not at all of Persian origin: SEER SHAME RANK NAVY CALENDER CASH CARCASS ... and that's a casually compiled and very incomplete list of the errors in the article. Somebody needs to got through the list word for word to clean up the article. But it's not going to be me. Sorry about that. Seanwal111111 (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Back in the year 2005 somebody inserted that the word Sherry (the drink) comes "from Jerez in Spain, from Pers Shiraz, from the time of Rustamid empire in Spain" whereas in truth Sherry comes from Spainish vino de Xeres "wine from Xeres," modern Jerez near Cadiz. And the town name Xeres/Jerez comes from the Latin "urbs Caesaris" (Caesar's city) and all of the etymology dictionaries say that. This tells me there hasn't been a scrupulous editor at this page since 2005. Seanwal111111 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Persian is wrong, It's Iranic
Apart from Indic and Semitic words labelled as of Persian origin, the Persian words form not more than 5-10% of the words listed currently in the article. The guy who created this page has probably no clue about what etymology is, neither about phonological developments of Persian dialects. He probably confused Persian with Iranic, as obviously has listed Parthian, Soghdian, Avestan, Scythian and other northern Iranic words as Persian! Farso777 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Persian is the root of "Iranic", Same as Persia becoming Iran on International maps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.18.46.224 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Balkan is not persian
The word "Balkan" is not from persian orign,in the source "http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=-EuFwLQhvYMC&pg=PA27&dq=balkans+etymology+persian&hl=en&ei=Xgm4TqebCpSy8QORstjoBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=balkans%20etymology%20persian&f=false"

it doesn't says its persian,it says there is possibility about the words orign. please don't play with words and please don't make here persian propaganda,try to be polite,objective and polite!--88.255.183.34 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

== Need for such article? = The tow Indo-Iranian, Avesta ( Old Persian) and Veda have little difference except for a few. Dialect differences and etymologically correlating with Indo-European roots

I had a fast review on the article and I observed most of the words are in fact place names. I do not think place names as proper names can be considered as loan words. Suppose an English cartographer is making a list over Indian villages. If he want to create English names for every village it is a century work and at the end his map or list is just garbage because no one can find a village name. He must use the current Indian names. If India has some 600 000 villages, does it mean that English has more than 600 000 Sanskrit words? There are also words which is used in very specialized subjects like in Persian literature. These, I believe ar not loan words either. I have seen many of these words in Wikipedia referring to some customs but those same words do not appear in major English dictionaries. Some other words are not Persian like kismet which is Arabic and those words which are common between Persian and Sanskrit. I am not an etymologist so I do not think it is proper to discuss those words. Are you etymologist and you have sources in one of older versions of Persian. please enlighten us. Otherwise it is a waste of time and in fact unnecessary. When you delete all these words, the remaining words which are Persians and have daily use in English are very few. Too few to be worth an article. By loan word i mean a word like "check" in English. This a word which is widely used in English and is Persian. As a Persian speaker, i believe Persian is a beautiful and great language. While the nature of the language is beautiful but it is the huge amount of high quality literature work which has made it great. By trying to put as many words in such list like this, if some people try to show the importance of Persian, they are in the wrong path.19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)MoghBaba (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of English words of Persian origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220074821/http://www.bartleby.com/61/ to http://www.bartleby.com/61/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Jockey?
The prevailing etymology seems to be that it came from Jock, but given the Persian influence on medieval Polo (the Ayyubid & Mameluk Sultans had a Jocken-dar جوكندار as a high ranking official), it seems rather a coincidence that this would be a false friend, no?--عبد المؤمن (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Old Persian script
Several words are listed as coming from an Old Persian word, which is written in the Arabic script. Old Persian was not written in the Arabic script, which hadn't been invented yet. It was written in its own cuneiform alphabet. Old Persian words should be written in the Old Persian script, with transliteration. phma (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


text:
Anthicidae

The Anthicidae are a family of beetles that resemble ants. They are sometimes called ant-like flower beetles or ant-like beetles. The family comprises over 3,500 species in about 100 genera.

Description
Their heads constrict just in front of the pronotum, forming a neck, and the posterior end of the pronotum is usually narrow as well. Legs and antennae are slender, heightening the ant-like appearance, and the body is sparsely covered with small hairs, called setae.

Biology
Adult beetles are omnivorous, being known to consume small arthropods, pollen, fungi, and whatever else they can find. Some species are of interest as biological control agents, as they can eat the eggs or larvae of pests. Larvae are either omnivorous, predators, or fungus-eaters; the young of one species of Notoxus have been observed boring into sweet potato tubers.

Many members of the family are attracted to cantharidin, which they seem to accumulate and that deters possible predators.

Taxonomy
Synonyms of the family include Notoxidae and Ischaliidae. The earliest known members of the family are from the Early Cretaceous (Barremian) aged Lebanese amber, including Camelomorpha of the subfamily Macratriinae.

title: Anthicidae


text:
Superbill

A superbill is an itemized form, used by healthcare providers in the United States, which details services provided to a patient. It is the main data source for creation of a healthcare claim, which will be submitted to payers (insurances, funds, programs) for reimbursement.

There is no standard format for a superbill but it usually covers certain key information about the provider, the patient, and the type of care.

title: Superbill


text:
Roselyn Sánchez

Roselyn Milagros Sánchez Rodríguez (born April 2, 1973) is a Puerto Rican singer-songwriter, dancer, model, actress, producer, and writer. On television, she is best known for her roles as Elena Delgado on the CBS police procedural Without a Trace (2005–2009), as Carmen Luna on the Lifetime comedy-drama Devious Maids (2013–2016), and as Elena Roarke on the new Fantasy Island (2021–2023). In film, Sánchez has appeared in Rush Hour 2 (2001), Boat Trip (2002), The Game Plan (2007), and Act of Valor (2012).

Early life
Sánchez was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and is the youngest of four siblings, having three older brothers. She received her primary education in San Juan. At a young age, she showed an interest in both dancing and acting and would put on shows for her family. Sánchez enrolled in the University of Puerto Rico, where like her father and brothers she was to study marketing. However, after three years she left the course. In 1991, at the age of eighteen, Sánchez moved to New York City, where she took classes in dancing, acting and singing. She returned to Puerto Rico and, in 1992, she made her movie debut, having landed a small part as an island girl in the movie Captain Ron, which was partly filmed in Puerto Rico.

Career
In Puerto Rico, Sánchez gained public attention as a dancer and as co-host of a variety show called Qué Vacilón. At that time, in 1993, Sánchez won the Miss Puerto Rico Petite contest and, in 1994, she won the international title of Miss American Petite, bringing her international fame. Sánchez has been named in numerous annual lists of beautiful women including Maxim Magazines "Hot 100" in 2001, 2002 and 2006; AskMen.com's "Top 99 Most Desirable Women" in 2005 and 2006; and FHMs "100 Sexiest Women" in 2005 and 2006.

In 2001, Sánchez was cast as Isabella Molina, an undercover United States Secret Service agent who was Jackie Chan's love interest in the hit movie Rush Hour 2. In 2003, she played the role of Lorena in the movie Chasing Papi, starring alongside Jaci Velasquez and Sofia Vergara. Sánchez has acted in some 20 movies, including as Maria in Edison and as Karen Lopez in Underclassman. She starred in the Puerto Rican film Cayo, released in 2005.

In 2003, her first musical recording, Borinqueña, was released. The album's first single, "Amor Amor", gained a lot of attention as well as a Latin Grammy nomination for Best Music Video. She appeared in Craig David's music videos "Hidden Agenda" and "Personal", and in the Fabolous video for the song "Make Me Better".

In the fall of 2005, Sánchez joined the cast of the CBS television series Without a Trace, where she played Agent Elena Delgado to 2009. She composed the musical Yellow, about a singer/dancer/actress who leaves Puerto Rico to hit the big time in New York, in which she played the principal part. The movie was filmed in 2005 and released in 2007. Also in 2007, she acted as Monique, the ballet teacher, in The Game Plan, and in 2009, starred in The Perfect Sleep, a neo-noir drama, co-starring Patrick Bauchau, Tony Amendola, Isaac Singleton, and Peter Lucas. In 2011, Sánchez made a guest appearance on TNT's Rizzoli & Isles, playing villainous attorney Valerie Delgado. In 2012, Sánchez was cast opposite Ana Ortiz of ABC comedy-drama pilot Devious Maids, created by Marc Cherry. On May 14, 2012, the pilot was not picked to series by ABC for the 2012–13 United States network schedule. However, on June 22, 2012, Lifetime picked up the pilot with a thirteen-episode order. The series premiered June 23, 2013 on Lifetime.

Personal life
From August 9, 1998, to April 15, 2001, Sanchez was married to English actor, former boxer, and former model Gary Stretch. After her divorce, she started a relationship with Puerto Rican salsa singer Víctor Manuelle. In December 2005, she announced that she had ended their relationship.

Sánchez became engaged to actor Eric Winter in December 2007 after two years of dating and they married on 29 November 2008, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Sánchez gave birth to their daughter Sabella in January 2012 (she miscarried Sabella's twin early in the pregnancy). The couple welcomed a son, Dylan, in November 2017. Both children were conceived with the help of IVF.

Sánchez has spoken openly about her struggles with endometriosis and infertility while trying to get pregnant later in life.

Sánchez is the spokesperson of the Fundación de Niños San Jorge, which assists sick children from poor families.

Discography

 * 2003: Borinqueña

title: Roselyn Sánchez