▪ SLQ_1 : Ehret1989 #21 suggests to analyse ¹
salaqa (
u,
salq) ‘to loosen the flesh from the bones’ as an extension in »intensive (effect)« *
-ḳ from a pre-protSem 2-rad. basis *SL
1
‘to draw out or off’. Semantic proximity to other such assumed extensions, like ↗
salaḫa (
a u,
salḫ, from *
sl + »extendative fortative« *
ḫ) ‘to skin, flay, throw off the slough; undress’, is indeed striking. – Alternatively, one may interpret the meaning ‘to lacerate the skin’ as a development from SLQ_2 ‘to remove (hair, etc.) with boiling water’, which in its turn may be a semantic extension based on SLQ_3 ‘to boil, cook in boiling water’. Such a development may have happened under the influence of ↗
salaḫa ‘to skin, flay, etc.’. – Cf., however, Leslau2006 who thinks that one may have to compare Ar ¹
salaqa ‘to peel off (flesh) from (the bone)’ to Akk
šalāqu ‘to cut’ (CAD: ‘to cut open, split’), Gz
śalaqa (var.
salaqa) ‘to grind fine, crush, peel, husk’, Tña
säläqä, Amh
sälläqä, Gur
säläqä ‘to grind fine’, Amh
šäläqqäqä ‘husk, shell, hull’, etc. It is tempting to reconstruct from these forms a protSem root *ŠLḲ ‘to cut, crush, peel off’, which, however, would be homonymous with protSem *
ŠLḲ ‘to boil, cook’ (see SLQ_3), rather reliably reconstructed on the basis of fairly wide attestation (Kogan2011).
▪ SLQ_2 : The value ‘to remove (hair, etc.) with boiling water’ is perh. a specialization, developed from one of the primary meanings of
salaqa, namely SLQ_3 ‘to boil, cook in boiling water’.
▪ SLQ_3 ‘to boil, cook in boiling water’: value attested in major branches of Sem (Akk, Aram, Ar, ?EthSem), which allows reconstruction of protSem *
ŠLḲ ‘to boil, cook’ (Kogan2011). — According to Dolgopolsky2012#2053, ³
salaqa ‘to boil, cook in boiling water’ is based on CSem *
šlḳ ‘to cook, broil, boil’, akin to (and extension from?) WSem *
c̣ly (*
-c̣lay-) ‘to roast’ [> Ar ↗
ṣalà (
yaṣlī,
ṣaly) ‘to roast, broil, fry’,
ṣaliya (
yaṣlà,
ṣalan/
à,
ṣulīy,
ṣalāʔ) ‘to burn (intr.), be exposed to the blaze (
bi of’)], with cognates also in Berb and Cush, ultimately from a hypothetical Nostr *
s̄i˻ʔ˼L˅ ‘to roast, fry, cook’.
▪ SLQ_4 ‘to scald (plants; said of excessive heat)’, in ClassAr also said of harsh cold ‘burning’ plants: with all likelihood special use of SLQ_3, perh. in an earlier meaning of ‘to burn’, cf. SLQ_3, above.
▪ SLQ_5 ‘to hurt (s.o.,
bi-lisānih with one’s tongue)’: ClassAr lexicographers interpret this meaning as fig. use of
†SLQ_13 ‘to pierce (with a spear)’, but it is not inconceivable that both depend on SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate the skin (with a whip)’ (> ‘to hurt’). – Or perh. contamination with, or influenced by,
†ṣalaqa (with
ṣ) ‘to attack (a tribe); to smite s.o. (sun); to strike s.o. (
bi with a stick)’? The adj.s
†mislaq and
†mislāq ‘eloquent (speaker); sharp (tongue)’ which seem to belong to ‘hurting (tongue)’, both exist in a variant with initial
ṣ :
†miṣlaq,
miṣlāq (pl.
maṣālīqᵘ) ‘eloquent (speaker)’ (Lane1872, Hava1899)… – In contrast, Leslau2006 puts the value together with Gz
tasālaqa ‘to joke, scoff at, deride, mock, ridicule, make fun of, make fun of one another’, remarking that Margoliouth (
JRAS 1939: 61) derived Ar
salaqa in Surah 33:19 from this Gz
(ta)sālaqa and that »the root represents a metathesis in relation to Hbr
qilles ‘to jeer at’. Zammit2002 shares this view, adding Ug and Aram parallels to the Hbr and Gz forms as alleged ‘cognates’ of Qur’anic Ar
salaqa (interpreted as ‘to abuse’).
▪ SLQ_6 : As Kogan2015 remarks, the isolated position of Ar ¹
tasallaqa ‘to ascend, mount, climb, scale’ (as also of ClassAr
†salaqa ‘do.’, now obsol.) within Ar »makes one wonder about a possible Aram origin« of these items. If so, ¹
tasallaqa may be denom. from
sullāq ‘Ascension (of Christ)’, almost certainly borrowed from Aram
sūlqā ‘do.’ (so already Fraenkel1886: 277). – Given the Hbr and Aram ‘cognates’, Dolgopolsky2012#300 reconstructs a CSem *√SLḲ ‘to ascend, climb’ (in his view ancestor not only of Ar ¹
tasallaqa ‘do.’, but also of
†SLQ_18
†salaqa ‘to run’, but perh. – deglottalization? – even ↗
salaka ‘to travel, go along’), to which he juxtaposes IndEur (NaIE) *
slenk (~ *
sleng ) ‘to creep, crawl, trudge, amble’ (> , e.g., AngSax
slincan ‘to creep’ > nEngl ‘to
slink’, oHGe
slango, nHGe
Schlange ‘snake’; oHGe
zuo-slingan ‘to slide away’, mHGe
slingen ‘to crawl along’, etc.), all ultimately from a hypothetical Nostr *
c'oLḲ˅ (~ *
c'oLk˅) ‘to advance with effort (to creep, to crawl, to climb etc.)’. – Another view is put forward in BDB1906 where the authors interpret values SLQ_6 ‘to ascend’ and SLQ_4 ‘to scald, burn’ as interdependent, associating Hbr *
śālaq ‘to kindle, burn’, (*Š-stem)
hissîq ~
hiśśîq ‘to make a fire, burn’ with Aram
slaq ‘to ascend’, (*Š-stem) ‘to cause to go up (in flame), offer sacrifice’, Syr
sleq, Palm
slq , Ar
salaqa ‘to ascend’. – In contrast, Kogan2015: 386 #15 points to the scarcity of the Hbr vb. (a
hapax in the Bible) and the isolated position of ‘ascending’ within Ar and concludes that both with all likelihood are Aramaisms, i.e., neither the Hbr nor the Ar item can count as genuine cognates, and Aram SLḲ is itself isolated within Sem. Speculating about the obscure origin of protAram *
slḳ ‘to go up’ Kogan then »wonders whether a clue to the etymology of this root can be found in its highly peculiar morphological behavior, viz. the unexpected assimilation *
sl- >
ss- [Ps 139:8 shows a 1sg.impf Hbr
ʔässaq instead of *
ʔäslaq], probably betraying the secondary origin of
l . It is, therefore, tempting to follow P. Haupt (1910: 712‒713) who compared protAram *
slḳ with Akk
šaḳu ‘to grow high, rise, ascend’ and Ar ↗
šqy ‘to grow’,
šāqiⁿ ‘high, inaccessible’. If valid, this comparison would imply that the lateral *
ś was split into the combination
s-l at some early stage of the linguistic history of Aramaic.
2
– ProtAram *
slḳ has replaced protSem *
ʕly/*
ʕlw ‘to go up’ [> Ar ↗
ʕalā], which is only marginally preserved in Aram.«
▪ SLQ_7 ‘a variety of chard’: EgAr
salq, also
salqāyaẗ (BadawiHinds1986), ClassAr
silq looks as if it could be identical with
†SLQ_21
†¹
silq ‘red garden-beet’ (now obsolete) (see below). – The remark, made in ar.wiki, that the plant, popular all over the Mediterranean, originally came from Sicily, makes it tempting to assume a relation to this island, although the Ar name of Sicily most often shows initial
ṣ (
Ṣiqilliyaẗ,
Ṣiqilliyyaẗ) rather than
s (
Siqilliyyaẗ) (both from Grk Σικελία) and
q ll instead of
l q (result of metathesis?); moreover, one would have to explain the
faʕl/
fiʕl pattern that would be rather unusual if ‘chard’ originally was *‘the Sicilian (vegetable)’. – Any relation to
†²
salīq ‘what falls off from trees (leaves, etc.)’ (SLQ_27),
†⁴
salīq ‘pot herbs’ (SLQ_29), or to
†sallaqa ‘to collect herbs’ (SLQ_19, prob. denom.)? – The specifications
silq al-barr ‘
Rumex, sour-dock’ and
silq al-māʔ ‘
Potamogeton, pond-weed’ certainly belong here.
▪ SLQ_8 : In today’s SyrAr, ¹
salīqaẗ is known as the name for a ‘dish made of grain cooked with sugar, cinnamon and fennel’. Originally, the word is a pseudo-PP from SLQ_3 ‘to boil, cook in boiling water’ and thus simply meant ‘boiled food; what is cooked with hot water (herbs, leguminous plants, and the like’. However, also more specific usage is attested already in ClassAr; e.g., in addition to the general meaning, Lane1872 also mentions ‘millet bruised and dressed by being cooked with milk; a preparation of dried curd with which are mixed certain plants’, and Wahrmund1887 has
†¹
salīq ‘geschälte Gerste u. Speise daraus’.
▪ SLQ_9 : There is no self-evident semantic connection betw. ²
salīqaẗ ‘inborn disposition, instinct’ and any of the other values represented in the root. However, given that, morphologically,
salīqaẗ is (the f. form of) a quasi-PP, one may think of ‘inborn disposition, instinct, natural trait’ as fig. use of either SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate, skin’ or SLQ_2 ‘to remove (hair, etc.) with boiling water / through boiling in water’ (< SLQ_3 ‘to boil, cook in boiling water’), implying that it is what remains, or comes out, after ‘skinning’ or ‘peeling off’ the outer layers concealing/covering the inner nature of s.th.; cf. also
†SLQ_14, below, with the pl.
†salāʔiqᵘ ‘marks made by the feet of men and by the hoofs of horses or the like on the road (or marks made by thongs upon the belly of a camel etc.)’, from
†⁸
salaqa ‘to leave prints (on the soil; foot, hoof)’ , which is akin to SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate, flay, skin’ (and thereby leave marks on the body).
▪ SLQ_10 ‘red lead, minium’: Ar
salaqūn is found also as
saliqūn or
sariqūn and in EgAr also as
salaq͗ōn and
zalaq͗ōn. Given the variability of R₁ (
s/
z) and R₂ (
l/
r), a relation to Ar ↗
zarqūn ‘bright red’ does not seem unlikely. BadawiHinds1986 thinks the EgAr words may be from Tu
sülüğen/
süleğen ‘do.’, but the reverse is prob. the case, i.e., the Tu words are from Ar (or both from Pers
zargūn ‘gold-coloured’). In contrast, Nişanyan_1Jul2017 (s.v. Tu
süleğen) would not exclude an origin in Grk συρικόν
syrikón, which would suggest an interpretation of minium as ‘the Syrian (mineral), the (red) substance from Syria’, an idea that could be corroborated by the Ru Ukr name for minium,
súrik. But Nişanyan adds himself that such an etymology is rather uncertain. (The mineral is first mentioned in Tu sources in the anon.
Câmiʕü'l-Fürs, 1501, as
sülegen.)
▪ SLQ_11 : The term ¹
salūqī for a specific kind of greyhound or hunting dog, as ‘saluki’, derives from the place name
Salūq, a town located by ClassAr lexicographers either in Yemen or Armenia. But there are also other places that may be identified with this
Salūq; ultimately, there may be a connection to the Seleucia and the Seleucid Empire. For details see s.v.
▪
†SLQ_12 :
†⁶
salaqa,
u (
salq) ‘to prostrate s.o. on the back of his neck, throw s.o. down; to push, repell’ is the first value mentioned in BadawiAbdelHaleem2008 as well as in Lane1872, as though it was a/the primary one. It can, however, not be related to any of the other values, nor does it seem to have cognates in Sem or outside. A clue to its etymology may be the fact that the verb appears with this meaning not only in the form
†salaqa, but also with the variant
†salqà (vn.
silqāʔ). This latter may be the reflex of an archaic *Š-stem, a causative from ↗√LQY, giving more or less the same meaning as the common vb. IV,
ʔalqà (vn.
ʔilqāʔ), see ↗
laqiya. Cf. also the corresponding intr. vb.s, as rare and unusual as
†salqà itself: ClassAr
ĭslanqà (pattern
ĭFʕanLà) ‘to lie, or sleep prostrate on one’s back’, with the var.
ĭstalqà, which latter can be analysed as a t-stem of both
†salqà and
ʔalqà (<*
šalqà).
▪
†SLQ_13 : The value ‘to pierce (with a spear)’ of
†⁷
salaqa (
u,
salq) may be a specialized development from dependent on SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate the skin (with a whip)’ (> ‘to hurt’). Or should we assume contamination from, or influence of,
†ṣalaqa (with
ṣ ) ‘to attack (a tribe); to smite s.o. (sun); to strike s.o. (
bi with a stick)’? – In its turn, ‘to pierce (with a spear)’ seems to have given rise to value SLQ_5 ‘to hurt (with one’s tongue)’, still in use in MSA, prob. due to its Qur’anic origin (see above).
▪
†SLQ_14 : ‘to leave prints (on the soil: foot)’:
†⁸
salaqa,
u (
salq); cf. also
†salāʔiqᵘ (pl., from sg.
†³
salīqaẗ) ‘marks made by the feet of men and by the hoofs of horses or the like on the road’. The pseudo-PP
FaʕīLaẗ pattern of ³
salīqaẗ suggests an interpretation of those ‘marks’ as *‘the scratched ones’ so that the value can be related to SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate, skin, peel off’. One detailed explanation of the meaning of SLQ_1 also connects the latter with ‘traces’: ‘to peel off (flesh from the bone), remove its hair or fur (with hot water,
leaving the traces thereof remaining [!])’ (Lane iv 1872). The old n.
†salq ‘mark\scar (of a gall), sore, on the back of a camel, when it has healed, and the place thereof has become white; mark made by the [plaited thong called]
nisʕ upon the side of the camel, or upon its belly, from which the fur becomes worn off’ (Lane1872) matches very well here, too. ClassAr lexicographers would explain the latter as secondary, an extension from ‘marks left on the road’, but the reverse is more likely to be the case. – DaṯAr
slq ‘semer; to cultivate, plough, till’ is prob. based on *‘to make furrows in the soil’ (< * ‘to “scratch” the earch’); note, however, that ‘furrow’ in DaṯAr is
sāliq (PA, i.e., ‘the carving\scratching one’), not *
salīq (quasi-PP). – See also below, SLQ_22 ‘wolf’ and SLQ_25 ‘even plain’.
▪
†SLQ_15 ‘to oil, grease (a leathern water-skin, etc.), to smear (a camel all over with tar)’: etymology obscure. A misreading for
†salafa (
u,
salaf) ‘to grease (a skin)’? Or akin to, or dependent on,
†SLQ_25
†salaq ‘even plain, smooth, even tract, of good soil, etc.’? The latter also exists in a variant with initial
ṣ :
†ṣalaq, pl.
ʔaṣlāq,
ʔaṣālīqᵘ, ‘even plain’; cf. also
†ṣalīq, ‘even, smooth’. – Or should one consider Hbr ²
šālaq ‘to make smooth, trim’ (Klein1987) as a cognate? According to Klein1987, the item is of uncertain origin, perh. a šiphʕel formation from
ḥālaq ‘to be smooth’.
▪
†SLQ_16 ‘(
al-ǧuwāliqᵃ) to insert one of the two loops of the sack called
ǧ. into the other’; ‘(
al-ʕūd fī ’l-ʕurwaẗ) to insert the stick into the loop [of the
ǧ.]’: etymology obscure.
▪
†SLQ_17 : As in SLQ_15, the value that ClassAr lexicography often gives as the secondary one – ‘to slap and scratch one’s face (mourning woman)’ – may in fact be the primary one from which the other meaning – ‘to call out, cry out, shout vehemently (esp. after the death of a person or at a calamity)’, which tends to be given first – is derived. – Cf. also
†¹
silqaẗ (pl.
sulqān,
silqān,
silq) and
sāliqaẗ (pl.
sawāliqᵘ) ‘weeping loudly (woman), slapping her face; long-tongued and vehemently clamorous, foul, evil, lewd’ (whence [
†SLQ_22 ]
†²
silqaẗ ‘she-wolf’, m.
†²
silq ‘wolf’?). With the latter notion, SLQ_17 comes close to SLQ_5 ‘to hurt (with one’s tongue)’. – Influenced by
†ṣalaq, pl.
ʔaṣlāq, ‘shriek of distress’ (> denom.
†taṣallaqa ‘to scream in child-birth’) and
†ṣalaqa (
i,
ṣalq), vb. I, ‘to call out, cry out, shout vehemently; to raise one’s his voice on the occasion of a calamity, and of a death’ (Lane1872)̀?
▪
†SLQ_18 ‘to run’ (
†¹²
salaqa), ‘quick, swift (she-camel)’ (
†saylaq): etymology obscure. – Barth1902 is convinced that the value »certainly« has to be seen together with
tasallaqa ‘to climb’ (i.e., SLQ_6), interpreting
saylaq as, properly, *‘the climbing one’ (»‘stark laufende (eigentl. ‘steigende Kamelin’«), but this is little convincing.
▪
†SLQ_19 :
†sallaqa, vb. II, in the sense of ‘to collect herbs’ is prob. denominative from
†²
salīq ‘what falls off from trees (leaves, etc.)’ (
†SLQ_27) or
†⁴
salīq ‘pot herbs’ (
†SLQ_29), both of which are of obscure etymology (perh. *‘peeled, scratched off’, from SLQ_1?). – OrelStolbova1994#380, finding ‘cognates’ of Ar
slq ‘to gather’ in Eg
sꜣḳ (*
-l >
-ꜣ ) ‘do.’, and CCh
caḳal (metathesis) ‘to gather, collect’, dare to assume Sem *
s˅l˅ḳ ‘to gather’ and even reconstruct AfrAs *
calaḳ ‘to gather’. But the basis for such reconstruction seems too weak.
▪
†SLQ_20 : The value ‘to be(come) restless, agitated, in a state of commotion, fret (from grief, anxiety, pain)’ of the form V vb.
†²
tasallaqa is perh. due to confusion with
†taṣallaqa (with
ṣ) ‘do.’, unless the reverse is the case (
†taṣallaqa seems to be denom. from
†ṣalaq, pl.
ʔaṣlāq, ‘shriek of distress’; but this item, too, is without proper etymology).
▪
†SLQ_21 : According to Fraenkel (1886: 143), the Ar term
†¹
silq (pl.
sulqān) for ‘red garden-beet’ is from Aram Syr
silqā ‘do.’, in itself of unknown origin. The word looks as if it could be identical with the term, still in use, EgAr
salq or
salqāyaẗ and ClassAr MSA
silq for ‘a variety of chard’ (see SLQ_7, above). For Aram Syr
silqā, some have argued that it might be a borrowing (with metathesis) from Grk
sikelós ‘Sicilian’ – see, e.g., Fraenkel, as also Dozy, s.v., where the author remarks that already »Théopraste dit que la variété blanche de la Beta vulgaris s’appelle
sicilienne«. – On another note, there are also Ar
salǧam ‘turnip’, EgAr ‘rape’, Tu
şalgam, Arm
šoġkam ‘do.’, which, accord. to Nişanyan_13Apr2015, all go back to Pers
šalġam ‘turnip, rape’ – could also Ar
salq~
silq be akin to, or even derive, from this Pers word?
▪
†SLQ_22 : The term
†²
silq (pl.
sulqān,
silqān) for ‘wolf’ and
†²
silqaẗ for ‘she-wolf’ looks as if it was a very basic word. However, the common Sem term for ‘wolf’ is protSem *
ḏiʔb (> Ar ↗
ḏiʔb), so that
†²
silq, f.
†²
silqaẗ prob. is fig. use pointing to a characteristic feature of the animal. From among the value spectrum covered by √SLQ , two values could be promising candidates: a ‘wolf’ may either be *‘the mangy one’, from SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate the skin’ (see also
†salq ‘mark\scar, sore, on the back of a camel, when it has healed; mark left on the skin by a thong making the fur looking worn off’, cf. SLQ_14), or *‘the howling one’, akin to
†SLQ_17 ‘to call out, cry out, shout vehemently’. The latter seems to be more likely, as ClassAr has the proverbial expr.
ʔaslaṭᵘ min silqaẗ ‘more clamorous than a she-wolf’ where ‘shouting, howling’ is regarded as a characteristic, ‘proverbial’ feature; moreover, some ClassAr lexicographers would even regard
silqaẗ in the sense of ‘clamorous (woman), shouting vehemently, long-tongued, foul, evil, lewd’ as dependent on ‘she-wolf’ (Lane1872: »she-wolf…
hence[!], a woman…«). – However, if none of these options should be valid and
†²
silq be of foreign origin nevertheless, the only non-Sem candidate for the place of the etymon seems to be Grk λύκος
lúkos ‘wolf’. Unprovable, but also unfalsifiable. If valid, one would have to assume a metathesis *(
lks >)
lḳs >
slq.
▪
†SLQ_23 ‘female lizard; female locust, when she has laid her eggs’:
†³
silqaẗ. – Of obscure etymology. Should one consider Eg
snḥm (> Copt
sanneḥ) ‘locust’, itself borrowed from Sem (cf. Hbr
sālʕām ‘kind of locust’, hapax in the Bible;
slʕm ‘to swallow, consume, devour’, Aram
salʕem ‘to swallow, destroy’ – ErmanGrapow1921: 147, Klein1987)?
▪
†SLQ_24 ‘water-course, channel in which water flows, between two tracts of elevated, or elevated and rugged, ground’:
†⁴
silqaẗ. – Etymology obscure. Perhaps *‘furrow carved in the earth\soil by flowing water’, thus perh. related to
†SLQ_14 ‘to leave prints (on the soil\road: foot, hoof)’ (< SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate, scratch’). Any relation to
†SLQ_18 ‘to run (
†¹²
salaqa); quick, swift (she-camel)’ (
†saylaq) or
†SLQ_25 ‘even plain, low tract that produces herbage, meadow’ (
†salaq)?
▪
†SLQ_25 : The value ‘even plain, smooth, even tract of good soil, in which are no trees; low tract, depressed land that produces herbage, meadow’ (Lane1872) is represented in ClassAr by both
†salaq (pl.
ʔaslāq,
sulqān) and a form with initial
ṣ :
†ṣalaq (pl.
ʔaṣlāq, pl.pl.
ʔaṣālīqᵘ) (Hava1899); for the latter, cf. also
†ṣalīq ‘even, smooth’ and the n.f. (nominalized adj.?)
†ṣalīqaẗ (pl.
ṣalāʔiqᵘ) ‘thin bread; slice of roasted meat’ (Hava1899). Thus, we can think of
†salaq either as a contamination of
†ṣalaq (which in itself is of obscure etymology) or as akin to SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate the skin’ and
†SLQ_14 ‘to leave (foot\hoof) prints (on the soil)’, as well as the old n.
†salq ‘mark\scar, sore, on the back of a camel, mark made by a thong upon the skin where the fur becomes worn off’. If such a ‘kinship’ is valid, the ‘even plain’ would originally be *‘tract of land from which most vegetation on the surface has been “scraped off”, “lacerated” region’.
▪
†SLQ_26 : For ClassAr
†sulāq we find several descriptions, the most comprehensive perh. in BK1860: ‘
1 tumeur qui se forme sur les bords des paupières et fait tomber les cils (tumor that forms on the edges of the eyelids and causes the eyelashes to fall out; Hava1899: lippitude of the eyelids);
2 déchaussement des dents, maladie des gencives, qui fait que les dents n’étant plus retenues par les gencives tombent (loosening of teeth, gum disease, which causes teeth no longer held by the gums to fall out: Wahrmund1887: Lösung d Zahnfleischs);
3 tubercule à la racine de la langue (tubercle at the root of the tongue; Lane1872, Hava1899: pimples, pustules that come forth upon the root \ on the tip of the tongue);
4 enflure (swelling)’; cf. also
†al-ʔasāliq ‘what is next to the
lahawāt [pl. used as sg., meaning the ‘uvula’] of the mouth, internally, or the upper parts of the interior of the mouth, those to which the tongue rises’ (Lane1872). – The basic notion here is prob. the ‘falling out’ or ‘loosening’ of s.th. (eyelashes, teeth) due to a disease, an idea that is similar to the ‘falling off (of leaves, etc.) from trees’ (
†SLQ_27) and which seems to be akin to SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate the skin, peel off, etc.’.
▪
†SLQ_27 : Morphologically a quasi-PP,
†²
salīq ‘what falls off from trees (leaves, etc.)’ may well be *‘what has been scratched off (from a tree) (and left it bare, like lacerated skin)’. If this is true, the value, like also the preceding, SLQ_26, developed from SLQ_1 ‘to lacerate the skin, (Ehret1989: to loosen the flesh from the bones)’.
▪
†SLQ_28
†³
salīq ‘honey which the bees build up along the length of their hive, or habitation’: etymology obscure.
▪
†SLQ_29
†⁴
salīq ‘pot herbs | Kücherkräuter’: etymology obscure. Identical with SLQ_27 ‘what falls off from trees (leaves, etc.)’? Or akin to SLQ_7 ‘a variety of chard’? Or, properly meaning *‘what is going to be cooked in hot water’ (from SLQ_3 ‘to boil, cook in boiling water’)?
▪
†SLQ_30
†⁵
salīq ‘side of a road’: etymology obscure. – Perh. properly *‘the bare (slopes) along a road’? Or should one see it together with
†salaq ‘even plain, low tract, depressed land, meadow’ (
†SLQ_25)?
▪
†SLQ_31 : Like ¹
salūqī ‘greyhound, hunting dog, saluki’ (SLQ_11), also
†²
salūqī, a term for ‘(a sort of) coat of mail’, seems to be related to
†Salūq, the name of a town of uncertain location (Yemen, Armenia, …?). For Fraenkel1886: 242 it is clear that this is ancient Seleukia (as already assumed by Yāqūt). – Cf., however, Hbr (*Š-stem)
hislîq ‘to hide (arms) in a cache’ and modHbr
sᵊlîq ‘arms cache’, which Klein1987 would regard as belonging to Hbr √SLQ ‘to go up, ascend’ (< Aram
slaq ‘to come up’), Ar ¹
tasallaqa ‘to ascend, mount, climb’ (SLQ_6).
▪
†SLQ_32 : One could be tempted to connect ‘sitting-place of the
rubbān [or captain] of a ship, sitting-place of a pilot’ to SLQ_1, as *‘place left free (< “scraped off”) for the captain\pilot)’, but the form of
†salūqiyyaẗ – obviously a f. nisba formation from
salūq – does not seem to allow such an interpretation. Thus it looks as if
†salūqiyyaẗ is based on the same town name
†salūq from which ¹
salūqī ‘greyhound, hunting dog, saluki’ (SLQ_11) and
†²
salūqī ‘(a sort of) coat of mail’ (
†SLQ_31) prob. are derived. Further details obscure.
▪
†SLQ_33 (DaṯAr) ‘natte de folioles de palmier’: perh. < *‘leaves falling off (or taken from) the trees’ (SLQ_27), thus based on SLQ_1.
▪
†SLQ_34 ‘ruines’ (DaṯAr
mislāq): obscure.
▪
†SLQ_35
(kalām) †salīqī ‘natural, untaught, uninflected (speech)’: borrowed from Grk σολοικισμός
soloikismós ‘incorrectness in the use of language, solecism’, in analogy to ↗
ʔiʕrāb (prob. calqued on Grk
hellēnismós) ‘use of desinential inflection, thereby producing correct, clear, sound Arabic’; (nominalisation:)
†salīqiyyaẗ ‘dialect in which the speaker thereof proceeds loosely, or freely, according to his nature, without paying much attention to desinential syntax, and without avoiding incorrectness’ (Lane1872) ▪
†SLQ_ ‘…’:
… ▪ …
EtymArab
ʔ
