Lexicology/Lexicologie

LEXICOLOGY/LEXICOLOGIE

PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

In continuation of the series on loans in English, this collection of 600 loans is analyzed and supplemented by 238 distant loans ultimately motivated by Per- sian items, to be followed by a complementary article (in this journal) on the sometimes overlapping Turkish loans. Persian has had more lexical influence than was previously thought. The data emend dictionary information about temporal and regional labels, etymologies, and “earliest” records, especially any Persian corpus retrieved through OED2 CD-ROM, besides showing mutual influences among languages in contact over the centuries.

This article continues a series of studies about lexical items borrowed into the English language, as collected from standard general monolingual dictionaries. There are book-length studies on German, Arabic, and Japanese (PFEFFER - CANNON 1994; CANNON 1994a; 1996, respectively), and articles on Chinese, Malay, and Turkish (CANNON 1988; 1992; 1999). These are complemented by delimited articles on post-1949 items: two on Spanish, plus Japanese, Arabic, and German (CANNON 1994b; 1995a; 1995b; 1997; 1998a). As in the previous studies, the 600 Persian loans include both loanwords and loan translations. The corpus began with the electronic retrieval of headwords in the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series, New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Webster’s Third New International Dictio- nary of the English Language, and Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dic- tionary (OED, 1989; O-A1 and O-A2, 1993; O-A3, 1997; NSOED, 1993; W3, 1961; W10, 1993, respectively). The data throw light on (1) the importance of using a closed corpus in historical studies, where native speakers are unavailable and perfor- mance rather than projection is the focus; (2) the importance of stan- dardizing procedures in loan studies when possible, especially to permit comparisons of data; and (3) the implications of multiple languages in direct or indirect contact, where lexical transmission by two or more transferring languages may reveal mutual influences. We begin with the collecting procedure, the chronological and semantic aspects, the degree of naturalization within a four-degree scale reflecting the currency, and the labels, particularly correction of the temporal and regional ones. Next we consider variants and graphemics — phonology, word classes, 148 G. CANNON word formation and productivity (inflection and derivation, functional shift, and compounding), transmission via translation or loanword or reborrowing, distant (i.e., not transmitted by Persian) and multiple- source loans, and emendation of existing etymologies and “earliest” dates. Finally, we compare our corpus with that generated by OED2 CD- ROM when Persia(n)/Iran is clicked on, and assess the place of Persian items in the general English lexis and in their modern rate of transfer. The collecting of our corpus from dictionaries posed three problems for a normally fairly straightforward procedure. That is, some items from the language-intermixed Middle East and South Asia might also be from Turkish, Arabic, and/or Hindi/Urdu, rather than solely from Per- sian. Our manual searches expanded the Oxford and MERRIAM - WEB- STER data with additional items from the other seven continuously updated college dictionaries and new-word collections like the Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English (B3, 1991) and Barnhart Dictio- nary Companion (BDC, 1982-), and in Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language (F&W, 1963), Random House Dic- tionary of the English Language (RH, 1987), and five older works (Noah WEBSTER’s American Dictionary of the English Language [1858], Cen- tury Dictionary [1889-91], Universal Dictionary of the English Lan- guage [UD, 1897], and Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language [W1, 1909; and W2, 1934]). The obvious first problem was verification of the dictionary etymologies. There were few questions if the item came only from one language, as did peshcush from Persian. But if transmitted through an intermediary language that did not substantively change the sense and/or form, it might still be accepted into our corpus if at least one of its newly discovered citations contextually documents a second language-source, or an existing citation is not language-specific and can fit this second language. The loan is then analyzed as having two sources constituting a single transfer. Four examples from Sir John MALCOLM’s History of Per- sia (1815) will illustrate. MALCOLM’s Farsee (= Farsi) documents the Persian source, but FRASER’s 1838 identical spelling adds the dual Ara- bic one (Per. & Ar. farsi). OED2 etymologizes gholam (< Ar.) as coming from Arabic, though the citations (1820 to 1882) refer to Persia; MALCOLM uses ghulam (< Per. ghulam), which OED2 lists as a variant, thereby acknowledging this second source. W3 derives ‘urf “Persian customary law” from Arabic (i.e., < Per. & Ar. ‘urf), whereas Malcolm heard his urf in Persian areas. OED2 (1855), NSOED, and W2 cite Turk- ish and Persian jointly for Sheriyat (i.e., Turk. sheri‘at < Ar. shari‘ah); MALCOLM’s Persian source gives Sherrâh. Any loan substantively altered by an intermediary language was excluded from our corpus. This became a distant loan, which is a non- PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 149 direct, supplemental one. For example, Arabic added an article in bor- rowing Per. nil; the resulting Ar. hybrid an-nil was then taken by French as anil. As French, not Persian, gave English the considerably altered anil, Persian was relegated to a distant source. Further, as anil was transferred from a common European language and seems to have been per- ceived as an ordinary loan, it should not be considered an exotic item from the Middle East. While such perception must be taken into account, distant loans shed light on language contacts and should not be disregarded. Our Appendix 2 lists 238 Persian distant loans and their transmitters. Second, unabridged dictionaries like Century (subtitled Encyclopedic Lexicon), W1, W2, and RH include some proper nouns belonging in atlases, encyclopedias, or research studies. So all the names found there had to be checked to see if they should be discarded as encyclopedic items. Deleting purely geographical or biographical terms like Hamadan “Iranian city” and Yezdegird III “last Sassanian monarch of Persia”, which are omitted from OED2 and W3 on principle, we accepted Hamadan as the name of a kind of rug woven there. Similarly, the suf- fixation Yezdegirdian (see MUFWENE 1988) provides insights into Eng- lish word-formation. In abandoning MERRIAM - WEBSTER’s encyclopedic coverage in W1 and W2, W3 eliminated their pearl section, where “minor words, foreign words and phrases [i.e., wholly unadapted loans often given the double- track lines indicating complete foreignness], abbreviations, etc.” were placed in reduced size at the bottom of the page (see CANNON 1998b). These pearl sections have provided us with valuable information about words’ history in their English naturalization. W3 does formulaically record the unchanged adjective use of place-names, such as Teheran “in the manner of Teheran …”. As this reveals only the fact of functional shift from the noun, implicitly hiding the contrast with the form Tehrani (which we retained), we excluded such adjectives. F&W similarly rejected 63,000 of the 513,000 items examined because they were dead or obsolescent, “of little or no use”, or too rare or specific [p. xi]. We deleted all 15 items denoting an essentially ethnic nomenclature, as recorded only in Century, W1, W2, and/or RH: abadi, Ardebil, artaba, asar, azam, bisti, Dagestan, dung, izafat, jerib, kanara, kasbeke, Teheran “carpet”, Zardushti, and Zohak. In the travellers’ accounts where some of these items were employed as an aid to local color, the words were usually italicized and glossed, further motivating our deci- sion. We also deleted all but ‘alif of the 28 letter-names of the Arabic writing system, which RH recorded on principle. The Orientalist Sir William JONES (1746-1794) used them in his Grammar of the Persian Language (1771) as Persian letter-names, and so probably justifying a 150 G. CANNON joint Arabic and Persian source for the pairs of names that are pro- nounced similarly. We retained ‘alif because of its inclusion in W3 and two college dictionaries. Ya, the 28th letter-name, was deleted because JONES’s conversion to the Persian pronunciation ye changed the Arabic name too phonetically, despite W2’s inclusion of Ar. ya. Similarly, though W2 and OED2 record Ar. waw, dated 1916, we dropped it because JONES’s vau transcribed the Per. vav. No general dictionary records the four letter-names that JONES had to add to complete the Per- sian alphabet: pe, cim, ze, and gaf, representing /p, c, z, g/, respectively. The last problem arose from errors contained in etymology and labeling and our antedating of dictionary entries. The etymological errors com- monly appear for borrowings from related or juxtaposed languages, as his- torically explained by the chronology of the unified Persian empire in the Middle East until the Arab Muslim conquest in the 7th century, the Turk- ish Seljuks’ control of the area until the Mongols brought Mongolic into the language patchwork beginning in the 13th century, the Ottoman Turks under the Persianized Turkish literati, and the concurrent occupation of the Indian subcontinent by the Persian-speaking Moguls. The form and meaning of some older loans are thereby so similar in Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and/or Hindi/Urdu, that loans like tekke should be attributed jointly to Arabic, Turkish, and Persian. Further, the persons introducing the words into English had to transliterate all of them, excepting the romanized Turkish ones after the Arabic script was altered for Turkish. Our etymological emendation principally changes a single-language attribution to the actual joint transfer, and/or credits Persian as the underlying source (not a distant loan) even though only Turkish (e.g., para = Turk. & Per. parah) or Hindi/Urdu (akhund = Hindi & Per. akhund) is the attested direct source. The OED’s sometimes bewildering listing of a loan’s variants can provide the key to such reanalysis, as we will see. There is usually enough difference between the Turkish and Persian pronunciations to differentiate those sources, just as the Persian, Turkish, and Urdu adaptation of the “closed t” ending of the Arabic feminine noun differentiates those forms from their Arabic source (PERRY 1991: xiii). Urdu presented the largest complications. As it developed from a 16th-century influx of Arabic and Persian words into chiefly Muslims’ northwest Indian prakrits, some older Urdu words are almost identical with Persian or even Arabic ones. Urdu is written in a modified Perso- Arabic script, which, like Persian, contains some letters not used in Ara- bic. But since all our Persian loans appear in transliteration, this poten- tial discriminating device is lost, apart from examples like Persian and Urdu words with /p/, as in pashm (most Arabic dialects lack /p/). Some rekhta “Hindi and Urdu poetry” contains a deliberate scattering of many PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 151

Persian words. The philologist John SHAKESPEAR commented on the language complexity: “In India, extensive as it is, and peopled by many different races of men, variety of dialect must be expected to occur in the most prevalent colloquial language, whether denominated zaban-i- urdu, rekhta, hindi, Hindustani, or Dakhani” (1834: v). He was particularly conversant with the linguistic situation in Bengal, where JONES had founded the Asiatic [Asiatick] Society in 1784 primarily to investigate India’s culture. JONES, Charles WILKINS, and some other members were Persian scholars, often presenting papers on Persian history, music, etc., and even reading papers in Persian. Their studies, widely reprinted and translated from their journal, Asiatick Researches, contain many transliterated loanwords never admitted to general dictionaries. At that time, the Persian items were still so recently borrowed into Urdu, Bengali, and Hindustani, that the phonology, inflections, and def- initions were little changed. The Mogul officers required Indians to present their petitions and letters in Persian translation, which “familiarised to their ears such of the Persian terms as more immediately concerned their several affairs; and by long habit, they learnt to assimilate them to their own language, by applying the Bengal inflexions and terminations” (HALHED 1778: 208). Long after the Europeans conquered the subcontinent, Persian remained the common medium of negotiation among the states of Hindustan. Modern English dictionaries have compounded the problem of these old loans. The OED and NSOED usually cite Urdu, whereas American collections prefer Hindi, in opposition to the 17th- century term Hindustani used for many of the same words in Bengal, all of which we have generalized as Hindi/Urdu. YULE’s valuable regional collection, Hobson-Jobson (1903), cites the Persian or Arabic etyma of many Hindi/Urdu words. Our relabeling of items found to be no longer obsolete or regional (but still so labeled by OED2), and the antedating or first dating of numerous items also correct or leave omissive parts of any Persian corpus retrieved from OED2 CD-ROM. Besides the likely earlier oral use of our items by JONES’s Orientalist colleagues and their successors, English-speaking travelers and officers must have used the items in now-lost letters and reports. Comparatively, 29.8% of the Arabic loans in English, and 18.8% of the Japanese ones are indeterminately dated or undated (CAN- NON 1994a: 35; 1996: 27). Dictionaries record only 68 Persian loans (11.33%) for which we could not find an early date: 22 earliest in W2 (by 1934, Dehwar); 16 in Century (1889, koftgar); 10 in W3 (1961, Tajiki); 9 in F&W (1963, zalil); 5 in UD (1897, ahu); and 3 each in W1 (1909, amani) and NSOED (1993, Pasdar). In dating our loans, we should note that several early ones were indirect, even though the items were subsequently borrowed directly from 152 G. CANNON

Persian. OED2 records a Genoese form of bazaar in c. 1340, with Ital- ian and Turkish forms, and the first English form not until 1599. Khan presumably first appeared via a European language and Arabic; OED2’s English form of c. 1400 is alchan, which retains the article al, though nobody in England was reading Arabic in 1400. Adrop almost certainly first came via Latin and perhaps one or two other languages. With that caveat, our earliest dated Persian loans are khan “inn” (1400) and adrop (1471). There are 2 items in the period 1534-40 (Sophy, charpoy) and 35 in 1555-99 (miskal, bazaar). The sharp rise to 72 in 1600-48 (ferash, Seljukian) is followed by a drop to 62 in 1653-98 (syce, surpoose), and then to 22 in 1700-48 (burgoo, dustak). The next two fifty-year periods peak at 101 in 1753-99 (subah, serang, including 21 items from JONES), and 112 in 1800-49 (dafadar, Mazhabi). A decline then begins: 62 in 1850-99 (Babi, chiragh), 43 in 1900-48 (Kabistan, jube), and the largest drop to 19 in 1950-85 (ayatollah, Party of God). Figure 1 compares the 532 dated loans with the dated totals from some other languages (CAN- NON 1994a: 36-42; 1996: 27-30; 1992: 140).

825-1499 1500-99 1600-99 1700-99 1800-99 1900-90 Per. 2 37 134 123 174 62 Ar. 119 214 267 240 503 258 Jp. 0 6 61 60 416 613 Malay 1 19 28 43 142 50

Figure 1: Chronology of Loans into English

Some semantic classifications were arbitrary, as in our selecting Taxes rather than Law or Religion for the single definition of zakat as “the part of Islamic law requiring an alms tax”. As the multiple senses of 30 Persian loans require two or three categories, the total senses in our analysis do not equal the total items in the corpus. Twenty-six fit into two categories plus some minor, unclassified senses; and 4 items like afghan require three categories (Clothing, Rugs, Zoology). Evi- dently afghan constitutes a single loan, with the blanket/shawl sense recorded in 1833, extended to the carpet one in 1877, the hound one in 1895, and finally to the coat one in 1973, along with the undated, unclassified sense of a Chippendale color. The most common dual-category items first denoted Ethnology and, later, Linguistics (Turanian, 1777 and 1836). Almost all the items classified in only one category have only one definition. Overall, this limited productivity remains fairly close to the exotic context rather than extending to more universal contexts, as is true for all the Asian languages treated in this series of loan studies (cf. German and Spanish). PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 153

Religion, the largest Persian category, is represented by 52 items, with 25 referring to Islam (ziarat) and 18 to the Parsi, plus 3 to the Sikh (khalsa), 2 each to the Bahai and Christians (giaour), and Hindu and kismet. This proportion contrasts with the Islamic preponderance in the Arabic (68.9%) and Turkish (80.7% vs. 19.3% Christian) corpora. Cloth and clothing account for 45 items, among which we find 24 kinds of cloth ranging from the rich silk culgee to the muslin mulmul, and 11 outer garments like caftan, along with pajamas, cummerbund, shawl, and slippers, caps, and trousers (papoosh, taj, shalwar). Politics contains 37 items, with 20 defining early dynasties, Mogul Indian provinces, and British India (Sassanid, subah, pargana). In modern Iran we find secret police, militant groups, chieftains, and criticism of the U.S. (SAVAK, Hezbollah, tumandar, Great Satan). The Military accounts for 36 items, where 19 relate to British India (sowar, dixie) and 5 to the Ottomans (topchee), besides the viceroy ban, World War I shelter tamboo, opposition to Israel (mujahidin), etc. In the onomastic 5th category, Rugs, 28 of the 34 items derive from names: city/area/region (Shiraz, Kurdistan), people who make the rugs (Afshar), or person being named (Shah Abbas), plus various designs and piles (guli hinnai, kali). All but the dis- paraging Feringhee and roumi (ult. < L. = non-Muslim) of the 34 Eth- nology items are names of tribes or peoples (Hubshee, Tatar). Linguistics, represented by 30 items, includes sounds, scripts, and especially names of Iranian languages (hamza, shikasta, Tajiki, respectively). Titles relate to 29 items, 15 of which are Indian and/or Islamic (nizam, khoja), 5 concern the shah, and the others are various titles of rulers, respect, etc. (amir, baba). The 27 Household terms designate attendants, rooms, containers, and furnishings (chakar, serdab, carboy, charpoy). Food and drink, the 10th category, is represented by 25 items, of which all but sherbet and kaveh-khaneh of the 8 referring to drinks are alcoholic (shrab). The foods consist of bread, vegetables, rice, main dishes, spices, and dessert (nan, sabzi, zarda, kofta, masala, mast), possibly served on china. The 20 Zoology terms relate to 5 horses or ponies, 3 deer or antelopes, 2 elephants, 6 other wild animals, 2 cattle or sheep, birds, etc. (Turki, ahu, must, syagush, Sindhi, bulbul). Botany also has 20 items, with 9 trees or fruits (sadr, mogul), 8 flowers (kenaf), roots (cuscus), etc. The 19 Money items define 15 old coins little known in the West today (mahmudi) and 4 modern monetary units (rial). The 18 Music items name 9 stringed and 4 wind instruments (tanbur, kerana), plus 3 others (zel), ghazal, and the music master ustad. Commerce and Law each have 17 items. There are inns, markets, products, and labor (khan, gunge, nefte, begari), as well as contracts, judges, parliaments, and police (benami, munsif, shura, kotwal). The 13 Occupation items denote clerks, laborers, servants, tailors (sheristadar, mazdoor, duftery, darzi), etc. 154 G. CANNON

There are 12 each of Agriculture (qanat) and Geography terms (doab); 9 each of Taxes (jizya) and Mythology ones (peri); 8 Boats (sandal); 7 each of Smoking and Transportation (kalian, araba); 6 Lit- erature (qasida); and 5 each of Sociology and Sports (kamboh, shaheen). Among the 76 unclassified items, 3 each signify Measures and Weights (guz, abbasi) or Climate (serab — cf. the 20 Arabic items) and Health (tap — cf. the 195 German items). Figure 2 compares our largest areas, in descending order, with those of some other suppliers:

Per. Religion, Cloth-Clothing, Politics, Military, Rugs Ar. Botany, Religion, Cloth-Clothing, Chemistry, Astronomy Chin. Food-Drink, Zoology, Geography, Arts, Religion Ger. Mineralogy, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Titles Jp. Botany, Food-Drink, Religion, Martial Arts, Politics Malay Botany, Zoology, Ethnography and Geography, Titles

Figure 2: Semantic areas from six languages

Partly to define the term “(non)household word” more objectively, this series of loan studies has developed a four-degree scale of naturalization that helps to identify the household words (see CANNON 1997: 178-179). The scale permits temporal change, as when currency can temporarily raise or lower the otherwise rather mechanically determined degree (thus Hezbollah becomes a [4]), or when the change reflects a rise or decline over many decades, as evidenced by various items in the four-volume OED Supplement (OEDS, 1972-86). A [1] in the scale designates new transfers or older or even obsolete items like pazar “bezoar”, which is recorded only in YULE and in OED2’s citations at 1563 and 1774. Typifying [2], imbat has OED citations from 1625 to 1819, plus appearance in Century, W2 and W3, F&W, NSOED, and a college dictionary. Seer, as a [3], has OED citations extending from 1618 to 1902, and appears in the collections recording imbat as well as in W1, RH, and six college dictionaries. Seer has two Weight senses, and its spelling and pluralization now fit the English pat- tern. But it lacks grammatical productivity, and its historical nature may block advancement to [4]. Kurd illustrates a [4], where the fully configured word is a part of general international English. Kurd appears in all the dictionaries recording seer, as well as in all eight college dictionaries and continuously in the English media worldwide. After its original noun transfer by 1595, it functionally shifted to an adjective by 1882, and has noun and adjective derivations with -ish. Nevertheless, its somewhat limited productivity blocks it from the elite level of [4], reserved for words with high pro- PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 155 ductivity and semantic extension like the old classical loans art and desk. Overall, our corpus contains 397 items meriting a [2], 113 a [4], 30 a [1], and 60 a [3]. Figure 3 compares the percentages from four sets of loans.

[1] [2] [3] [4] Persian 5.0% 66.2 10. 18.8 Arabic 22.4 43.3 12.9 21.4 Japanese 21.9 59.2 9.3 9.6 Malay 12.1 58.7 20. 9.2

Figure 3: Degree of naturalization of loans from four languages

The smaller percentage of Japanese and Malay loans meriting a [4] indicates their smaller number of household words. Of the 113 Persian items with a [4], probably only 33 are household words: Afghan, afghan, amir, attar, ayatollah, baksheesh, bazaar, caravansary, china, cummerbund, adj. cushy, adj. Hindi, Hindu, Iran, jackal, kabob, khaki, kismet, Kurd, Mogul, adj. Mogul, pajamas, peri, pilau, roc, seersucker, shah, shawl, sherbet, sitar, Taj Mahal, Tatar, and Urdu. Proportionately, the percentage of household words from Persian and Arabic is close. The limited currency of all four sets of words suggests that most are marginal in English (cf. French, Latin, Greek, or even German loans). Now we turn to the labels, where corrections were needed for dozens of Persian items chiefly recorded in OED2, principally because the key- boarding used to make the OED machine-readable transferred every- thing to OED2, including the originally correct OED1 labels unless there was manual correction. That is, the double-track lines denoting incomplete naturalization were transferred to 257 of the 477 items (53.88%) that we retrieved from OED2, despite the changes that the adding of modern OEDS citations should have triggered. That is, the anomaly is often self-revealing, as in the double-tracked caftan, which includes a modern passage from Vogue and then from major newspapers of 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969, together with a citation from 1972. The egregious double-tracking of some other entries is further invalidated because of their appearance in the latest editions of at least six college dictionaries, where space is precious and there is no tagging for incomplete naturalization: baksheesh, charpoy, cummerbund, dewan, dinar, giaour, Hindi, houri, khaki, khan “caravanserai”, Pashto, pilau, sarod, seer, serai, and tamboura. Indeed, some are household words. Our temporal corrections include deleting several “obsolete” labels for items supposedly lacking any citation since 1755 except in poetry or historical contexts. Six keyboarded labels should be deleted from items 156 G. CANNON with OED2 citations dating from 1784 to 1829; and double-track lines should be added if they were not already affixed, since several dictionaries record some of chawbuck, keffekil, nil, soosy, surpeach, surpoose, without any indication of temporal restriction. We also delete OED2’s “obsolete” label on cheyney and gubber, which lack a post-1755 citation but appear in 20th-century dictionaries without temporal tagging. Twelve of OED2’s items deserve their existing labels, comprising the literarily archaic gul “rose” and 11 obsolete items. All but nefte and sherbaff appear in at least one other dictionary, which tags the obsoles- cence: abassi, abbasi, keiri, lascaree, ormuzine, pazar, sambouse, visney, and yam. Only the first of from two to five senses of culgee and sircar is obsolete, with later citations showing that the items were semantically productive even as the original sense was dying. The currency of these twelve essentially historical items has now declined to [1], but they can cast light on earlier word-formation. Ormuz, equally strategic today as Hormuz, was a famous Portuguese trading mart and populous Persian city where ormuzine, a prized silk fabric, was sold. This unique record in 1625 shows that Renaissance hybridization was utilizing the suffix -ine. John Milton so liked the name Ormuz that he used it to symbolize the exotic East in Paradise Lost (1667). OED2’s regional labels, especially the many old “Indian (subcontinent)” labels retained from OED1, were sometimes impossible to verify, as YULE worked in India and as modern dictionaries seldom provide additional (and dated) citations. The checking was instructive. For example, OED2 analyzes tabla as coming from Hindi (< Ar.), with a first, Indian citation in 1865 and a 1975 one from OEDS, whereas W10, omitting any Indian limitation, repeats the etymology and 1865 date. How- ever, as writers like James Grey JACKSON (1810) heard and recorded tabla in their travels in Persia, we have expanded the etymology of tabla to a joint transmission from Persian (< Ar.) and mainly Hindi/Urdu. We label 108 items as Indian, with bund qualified as “chiefly Indian”, and daye and kulah as Indian and Persian. Five are (chiefly) British (dixie, khyber, kofta, pashm, pyjamas), plus the U.S. spelling variants bang and pajamas, and Persian yakdan. Because of the numerous Indian labels, the regional labels (19.33%) greatly exceed those on the other loan corpora that we have studied. The slippery status labels include the general slang term tamboo and two general colloquialisms (gup, tamasha “commotion, fuss”), as well as the U.S. slang bang, rhyming British slang khyber, colloquial Indian English zari, and the derogatory giaour (made famous in Byron’s 1813 poetic romance). We have mainly had to rely on the Oxford data for the phonetic- graphemic and grammatical information, particularly in determining the standard modern spelling, if there is one, along with any still viable vari- PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 157 ants. NSOED was often critical in the determination, as the OED’s pre- 1933 evidence might indicate one spelling as the most frequent form, which W3 informally challenged by selecting a different form in 196l, only to be rechallenged by RH in 1987. Then the updated Oxford files used by NSOED in 1993 became the determinant, as qualified by the spelling in the latest college dictionaries. In view of the often centuries- long language changes since the English form of our items first appeared in a writing system lacking several of the consonants that were transliterated, we can hardly be surprised to find that only 190 items have not had at least one recorded variant at some time. This total is probably low because 123 of our items are not in OED2, which, though it never sought comprehensiveness in listing variants, would likely have cited variants that other dictionaries have omitted. Besides the 68 multiply spelled or punctuated headwords, we find that 342 items have had at least one variant, many of which have long been superseded. There are a few punctuational variants like Mirza and syah- gush (= mirza, syagush). The graphemic ones like zakah and zakkat (= zakat) include 20 with at least 10 variants over the decades. The most frequent are pilau, for which there are 19 superseded forms + pilaw, pilao, pulao; hajji, 18 + hadji, Hajji, haji; miskal, 16 + miscal, mithkal; shahbandar, 14 + -bender, -bunder; jackal, 16; sherbet, 15 + sherbert; mullah, 14 + mulla, mollah; sebundy, 14 + Sebundee, sebundee; Mus- sulman, 13 + Mus(s)alman, Musulman; and khoja, 12 + khojah, khodja, hodja. The 22 onetime variants of pilau can be compared with the 26 of Ar. mosque, which are usually Romance-language influenced. Most of the surviving Persian non-headword variants differ so triv- ially that the words are easily recognizable, as in padishah and Padshah (= Padishah), beebee (bibi), attar (athar), mughul (mogul), and Hindoo (Hindu). There is little influence from common English words, as in chicken (= chikan) and cheese (probably < chiz). But a dozen or so alter- nations of k(h) ~ c, h ~ kh, k ~ q, dj ~ j, w ~ v, etc., are so different that until the meanings are paired, one might conclude that two different items are involved. Thus dictionaries include khus-khus as a cross-refer- ence for cuscus, hanum (khanum), kanat (qanat), kedjave (kajawah), and Safawid (Safavid). Only three of the 68 “multiple” headwords do not have two choices: Gabar/Ghebre/Gheber, khilat/khalat/killut, and soorkee/-ki/-ky. Except- ing a few punctuational pairs like Kohinoor/Koh-i-noor, most involve a vowel (as exhibited in the triplets above). There are some consonant dif- ferences, as in adding an h after an unfamiliar consonant or terminally (burkha/burka, hamzah/hamza), doubling a consonant (Ghuzz/Ghuz), or an alternation of c ~ k ~ q (sircar/sirkar, qasida/kasida) or k ~ g (Uzbek/Uzbeg). Three pairs exhibit expansion, where a noun was added 158 G. CANNON for internal definition, as in Tudeh (Party) to help identify Tudeh (< tuda, lit., “mass, heap”) as the name of a political party. Scholars should investigate the variants in a loan’s phonetic history, as an early spelling may be the only evidence that there was joint transfer. For example, if we overlook the little used hanjar (< Turk. hancher < Per.-Ar. khanjar), we are unlikely to know that Turkish gave English this somewhat different form of our Perso-Arabic khanjar. In view of the early Persian political and military power, our 600-item corpus is surprisingly small, in contrast with the 5,380 known loans from German, 2,338 from Arabic, and 1,425 from Japanese. Only 38 Persian loans cannot be tabulated purely as nouns; however, 19 of these are jointly adjective (or attributive) and noun (Sehna), and chawbuck is jointly verb and noun, because the pair came into English in identical form at about the same time. There are three Persian acronyms (KHAD, SAVAK, Savama); and khyber “arse” presents a meaning shifted from the original geographical one of the Khyber Pass. Our corpus contains the interjection shabash, the adverb bas, and 16 adjectives. The adjectives include 6 names borrowed as an attributive before undergoing Eng- lish functional shift to use as a noun (Hindi), 3 hybrid forms that gained a high-frequency English suffix at the time of transfer (cushy, Gelalaean, Yezdegirdian), and Hamadan as the only trade name. Disre- garding the joint noun/adjective/verb transfers, Figure 4 compares our corpus with CANNON’s 1,029 recent loans (1987: 69-97) and other data (1996: 76), showing that the Persian percentages fall within normal parameters.

n. adj. v. others 1987 data 89.% 8. 1.2 1.8 Persian 96.9 2.76 0. 0.34 Japanese 96.7 2.5 0.1 0.7 Malay 95.7 4.1 0.03 0.17 Arabic 93.6 4.4 0.9 1.1 German 88. 9.2 1.1 1.7 Chinese 83. 15. 1.9 0.1

Figure 4: Word-classes in seven sets of loans

Such statistics indicate that languages like English mainly borrow nouns, routinely discarding any grammatical gender. Five of our Persian nouns were transferred as plurals (mammodis, pajamas, and shamsi-yeh, with Rubáiyát and mujahidin retaining the Persian/Arabic plural), though kabobs and zills are the most common usage. Most of the singular nouns normally pluralize with the English -(e)s. Nine take -Ø PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 159

(namaz), and another 30 take either -Ø or -(e)s (Baluchi). The alternation with a -Ø plural for singular forms transferred into English is less than that for Arabic and Japanese (1994a: 96-97; 1996: 77; see CANNON 1984). The -men/-mans used for Persian Mussulman was influenced by the English plural system. Four nouns either take -s or retain the native inflection (mujtahidun, Pasdaran, silladari, and the feminine singular roumia). In word formation the loans exhibit 8 suffixations: 4 items with -ian (Turanian), 2 with -ite (mazdakite), Gelalaean, and Sassanid. Tower of silence displays the terminal English noun added during the transfer. Once the loans came into English, 162 (27%) have been grammatically productive. This is a major index to their currency, though 88.3% of our dated items have been in English for at least a century and have had ample time to provide new English forms, as evidenced by the fact that 40% of the productive items merit a [4] in naturalization. Eighty-six (14.38%) have undergone functional shift (cf. the 3.5% of the Japanese corpus, and 6.3% of the German). A noun shift to an adjective (65 like Bahai) is the predominant kind in all three loan corpora (see the overall statistics in CANNON [1985] and [1987: 46-57]). Our nouns jackal, shawl, and shikar have shifted to both adjective and verb use, with khaki furnishing both adjective and adverb use in 1863 and 1900, respectively. Seven other nouns have shifted to verb use (kabob). Eight adjectives have provided nouns (Hindi); the interjection shabash, a noun; and the adverb bas, an interjection. Twenty-nine of the items providing functional shifts have also undergone derivation and/or compounding, making them the most productive of our corpus. A total of 106 items (17.67%) have undergone derivation and/or compounding. Shawl has been the most productive, with two functional shifts, participles (-ed, -ing), affixations (-less, -ie, -like, beshawled), and numerous compounds like shawl-goat. The many deriv- atives utilize high-frequency suffixes and combining forms, as in banal, amirate, shahdom, Tatarian, kismetic, Kurdish, Bahaiism, sitarist, mofussilite, Iranize, Mussulmanly, cushiness, Ayatollology, zamindar- ship, and killadary. Excepting beshawled, there is no prefixation or infixation (cf. the Romance loans). Fifty-five items have produced at least one compound, usually by adding a terminal noun (Shiraz lamb). But much of this compounding was motivated by the need to define the loanword. Thus gatchwork identifies gatch as a plaster used in Iranian architecture; afghani rupee, the old Afghan coin; chenar tree, an Oriental plane tree; and lac-dye, the dye made from the scale insect’s resinous secretion. There are a few semantically freer compounds like khaki election, mogul locomotive, sepoy crab, and Tatarian honeysuckle, along with big cheese and three 160 G. CANNON phrases (go must, in yarak, on shikar). Historical familiarity probably accounts for the three shortenings (Taj < Taj Mahal, Mir < the Persian place-name Mirabad denoting a fine Saraband rug, and mull, a name for muslin that has superseded the original mulmul). Broadly, loans are transferred as translations or loanwords. In sharp contrast to the 14.7% of the German items that came into English in at least partial translation, the 4 Persian items (0.67%) that were rendered compare with the 1% of the Arabic ones that were so transmitted. Great Satan, Party of God, and Prophet’s flower are loan translations. The fourth, tower of silence, is an expanded rendering of Per. dakhma “tower”. Our ten reborrowings are loanwords that involve a renewed transfer from the given etymon. This provides a different meaning from the one first transmitted, thereby giving English a new term rather than being a semantic extension of the first meaning. Thus English and Per- sian borrowed the Arabic sense of shura as “consultation, a meeting of imams to resolve a religious problem or question”. Persian extended this sense to denote “the elected law-making assembly of the Afghan people: parliament or grand assembly”. When English borrowed this new sense from Persian, it had two loans from essentially the same form. A check of the “paired” items in our Appendix 1 will identify the reborrowings. Three not only add a new meaning but also an adjectival use additional to the original noun one (Kabuli, Mogul, Seljuk). A reborrowing differentiates the two senses, as in the transfer of hammam from Ara- bic by 1625 to denote “Oriental bathing house”, followed by the differ- ing spelling hamam from Persian in a 1970 London Times specifying “public bathhouse in Iran”. In considering the languages other than Persian that transmitted some of our loans, we had to make two more sets of corrections. The etymological corrections are mainly explained by the long intermingling of Sassanians, Zoroastrians, Arabs, Turkic peoples, Ottomans, and Mon- gols in the Middle East, plus the Central Asian Muslim conquerors’ mix- ing with Indians in the Indian subcontinent. The consequent, sometimes confusing interborrowing is best indicated by our separating the Persian distant loans as a supplement to the actual loans, although these substantively altered forms would not have come into existence without direct Persian influence on Hindi, etc. Distant loans offer insights into the intermediate language’s word-formation, as when Hindi borrowed Persian bala “above” and later suffixed Hindi ghat “a pass” to form the hybrid balaghat that English borrowed. If a dictionary economizes on space by omitting the Persian element, one might wrongly assume that balaghat is an Indian compound possibly descended from Sanskrit. Distant loans also exhibit the mutual influences of successive languages in contact. They evince the intermediate transfer of Persian ele- PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 161 ments into English during various periods of at least 2l different languages, led by French, with 81 items; Hindi/Urdu, 46; Latin, 36; Turk- ish, 25; Arabic, 11; German, 6; etc. As 10 of the languages are spoken in Europe and account for 142 (59.67%) of our distant loans, we see how one language can lexically impact another within a whole continent, even when the two are not geographically contiguous. Thus Ger. Meer- schaum illustrates two successively paired contacts, by first going into a German loan translation (lit., “sea foam” < Per. kaf-i-darya “foam [of] sea”). Meerschaum then became an English loanword. Since our distant loans contain a higher percentage of household words (azure, bronze, caravan, carcass, chess, hazard, etc.) than do the actual loans, we have further evidence that Persian shows qualities of an international language, though not comparable to the scale of English, French, or Span- ish. By contrast, there was little European transmission of our actual loans, which are mainly exotic items, as evinced by the low currency exhibited of the 71.2% of our corpus accorded a [1] or [2] in degree of naturalization. Dictionaries’ etymological descriptions of Persian transfers from single languages require few corrections. But the 200 loans transferred solely from Persian reveal an indirect linguistic effect of the U.S. efforts to isolate Iran politically and commercially: English, which has so influenced languages like Japanese especially in the 20th century, hardly affects Persian now. Only Per. komiteh (< committee) came from English before being borrowed back into English in its new spelling and meaning about 1979, along with a few loan translations like Great Satan coming into English from both Persian and Arabic. Another 116 items came solely through Hindi/Urdu, where the Eng- lish spelling of Urdu words in the few subcontinent dictionaries that use non-Roman script may exactly duplicate the transcription of the Persian source. As said, the necessary transliteration has usually eliminated what could be a straightforward differentiation. That is, an English loanword borrowed from writing rather than speech would be in Devanagari if from Hindi, but in modified Perso-Arabic if from Urdu, though the two words might be essentially identical in speech. Fifteen items came solely through Turkish, which is often easy to dis- tinguish. Turks pronounce the Per. /-d-/ as /-t-/ in selictar (< the Persian hybrid form denoting, lit., “weapons-holder”, formed < Ar. silah + Per. -dar). Its single variant, selihhtar, shows that Persian was not a direct transmitter. But kismet, though accurately transliterated from Turkish (< Per. qismat < Ar.) and principally transferred therefrom, should be analyzed as having a dual source, because the -a- in the variant kismat shows Persian’s early, reinforcing influence. Arabic supplied 9 items (kemancha). Our other single-language items are the Latin-transmitted 162 G. CANNON parasang, Fr. badian, Kashmiri shikara, Port. bhang, and Russ. yam. So 349 items have a one-language source. The 251 jointly transmitted items require dozens of etymological corrections, usually by adding Hindi/Urdu and/or Persian and/or Turkish to the often otherwise solely Arabic source for burkha, hamza, sumbul, etc. We will cite some typical examples. Hindi surely gave tanjib to English, but only when we know about the superseded variant tanzib (< Per. tanzib) do we find that Persian reinforced the principally Hindi loan. There is a /d ~ z/ alternation in several items, as in the Turkish and Per- sian adaptation of Ar. Ramadan as Ramazan. Many Arabic loans can be identified by the Arabic feminine marker, the “closed t”. These are dif- ferentiated from some 1,500 Persian (and Turkish and Urdu) words borrowed from Arabic (7% of contemporary Persian) by the fact that this terminal marker was adapted to either a final h or a t with the usual elon- gated flourish (PERRY 1991: xiii). French is rightly cited as the source of OED2’s 1737 citation for houri; however, George SALE earlier used houri in his 1734 English translation of the Koran directly from the Ara- bic, and several early British travelers in Iran used the Persian form huri (a surviving English variant, ult. < Ar.). So all three languages are joint sources. Similarly, most English dictionaries etymologize Arabic as the sole source of ghazal, whereas this is the usual spelling of both the Ara- bic and the Persian words; JONES used ghazal in 1771 to designate this Persian word, 29 years before OED2’s earliest Arabic-based citation. Sometimes the evidence for joint transfer is so convincing that lexi- cographers list several languages, as in W10’s deriving kabob from Per- sian, Hindi, Arabic, and Turkish. For tabasheer, OED2 cites Arabic, Persian, and Urdu (cf. NSOED’s specification of Portuguese, Persian, and Urdu; W2’s Arabic, Persian, and Hindi; and W3’s Hindi and Per- sian). Four of our items come jointly from four languages: kabob; Kurd and Kurdistan from Persian, Kurdish, Turkish, and Arabic; and zakat from Persian, Hindi/Urdu, Turkish, and Arabic (first in 1734). The 18 items with three sources include 8 from Persian, Turkish, and Arabic (ulema); 5 from Persian, Hindi/Urdu, and Arabic (Sindhi); and 5 from a variety, including Persian, Latin, etc. (keiri). We find dual sources for 137 items from Persian and Hindi/Urdu (nakhoda), 45 from Persian and Arabic (Sophy), and 23 from Persian and Turkish (serai). There are also 5 from Persian and Pashto (pul), 4 from Arabic and Hindi/Urdu (minar), 3 from French and Persian (caravansary), and 12 from a variety, of which 5 are not directly from Persian (Punjabi). Our emendations reveal that 26% of our Persian corpus was not directly transmitted by Persian. Hindi/Urdu account for most of these. The second set of corrections (1) antedates entries chiefly dated in OED2; and (2) specifies an earlier, actual year for some items dated PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 163 formulaically in CANNON (1994a) as appearing, say, “by 1889” (i.e., first known in the Century dictionary). Our emendations mainly come from YULE, W10, JONES (9 of his 21 items are in The History of the Life of Nader Shah, 1773), and in 18th- and 19th-century travel books that dictionary readers/markers have overlooked over the decades. An aster- isk identifies the antedated items in our Appendix 1. Excluding the 68 formulaically dated items that our reading program did not find, 124 of the remaining 532 items (23.31%) now have earlier dates, 83 of which antedate OED2 citations. These roughly compare with the proportion discovered during the revisions for OED3 to date: “Revised entries show earlier usages (to take just one aspect) for one in every four sub- senses of each word covered, in many cases of fifty or more years” (OED News, July 1997: 1). Some of YULE’s citations in Hobson-Jobson are beclouded by his goal of wide utility. That is, he included his own translation of numerous medieval Persian and Arabic passages, as though he were quoting from an English book, when actually the words in question were not recorded in English until centuries later. For example, his earliest use of Afghan is dated at c. 1020, but his bibliography shows that this was in a Persian passage first translated into English in Sir Henry Miers ELLIOT’s History of India as Told by Its Own Historians (1867-1877). YULE cites seven more early Persian uses of Afghan, before his 1767 one that is the actual, first known use in English. W10 supplies 21 antedatings, 7 of which are trivial corrections of three to six years (bund, mohur). There are 4 items with dates earlier than 10 to 17 years (lascar, kabob); 3, of 20-24 years (Kurd); and 4, of 36 to 44 years (mogul). W10’s largest corrections are for china (1579, from 1653), narghile (1758, from 1839), and bulbul earlier by 119 years (1665, from 1784). W9 predates dewan from OED2’s 1690 to 1610. This antedating and other corrections significantly affect a corpus produced by the OED2 CD-ROM, which has 536 hits for Persia(n)/Iran. Primarily, as only 477 of our 600 loans are in OED2 (79.5%), 123 items had to be located in other dictionaries. OED2’s remaining hits mainly retrieve some of our 238 distant loans, which were not Persian-transmitted. Besides the emended dates and etymologies, we have seen the problem with labeling, caused when originally correct OED1 labels were not deleted to acknowledge the supplemented modern and sometimes nonre- gional citations. So use of the present CD-ROM to project the English lexical indebtedness to Persian would produce an occasionally incorrect, incomplete picture. The OED Additions Series does add masala, shisha, shura, zarda, and zari; but shura was already in our corpus because it is recorded in two other dictionaries. Overall, our multidisciplinary study offers expanded insight into the history of the English-speaking world’s knowledge of the Persian (and 164 G. CANNON

Islamic) world as viewed lexicographically. Our corpus greatly expands the known quantity of sometimes rather marginal Persian loans in the general English lexis, identifying some 33 household words plus dozens more transmitted as distant loans. What is the Persian ranking in this lexis? Still one of the most detailed collections of English loans ever made, FENNELL’s Stanford Dictionary of Anglicised Words and Phrases (1892: xi) tabulates Latin’s 3,797 items as the leading lender, followed successively by French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, “Hindoo”, Arabic (225), German, and Persian (162). Two decades later, Walter SKEAT listed 21 directly transferred Persian items, adding 77 other items not directly transferred (1910: 774). Considering that FENNELL totals these distant loans alongside the actual loans, that we have collected 62 20th- century transfers besides others in the latter 1890s that he would not have known, and that some of our still formulaically dated items were probably in written use by 1892, FENNELL’s 1892 placement of Persian as the 9th leading supplier is not unreasonable. But as the modern inflow of Japanese and Chinese items elevates them a good bit higher than FEN- NELL’s overall ranking of 22nd and 23rd places, respectively, Persian today probably ranks no higher than 11th place in overall quantity and may be lower. A 1987 study of 1,029 loans recorded in English new-word dictionaries has measured the modern inflow of borrowings from at least 84 languages. Persian, Bengali, Danish, Indonesian, and Korean were each found to have contributed 5 transfers since 1960, in a tie for 22nd place. Our updated total of 19 Persian transfers since 1949 has significantly raised this rate of supply, but the fact that the latest loan was in 1985 suggests that the U.S. sanctions against Iran have helped shrink the Per- sian lexical infusion to a relatively minor status. Whether President Muhammad Khatami’s call for a people-to-people dialogue will bear fruit remains to be seen. At present, French seems to be the chief supplier to English, followed in descending order by Japanese, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Latin, and Arabic (CANNON 1987: 89; 1997: 187). Nonetheless, the Arab and Iranian possession of petrol reserves are likely to play a role in keeping those languages influential in the West. PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 165

APPENDIX 1: 600 PERSIAN LOANS IN ENGLISH

These items appear in monolingual, nonspecialized English dictionaries; non- nouns are specified. For multiform headwords, the most frequent form is given if known. Some items were transferred with little or no change by an intermediate language, not directly from Persian; and the origin of a few like (big) cheese is disputable. The date is the first known recorded one in English, usually from OED2 or W10. As 120 of our dates antedate the earliest dated source or are first dates if the item is not in the OED or dated elsewhere, these are asterisked, with the source identified and paginated in the References. See the formula “By date 1XXX” in the References, as used for unlocated and thus necessarily generalized dates, which refer to a non-citation, dictionary entry. Thus “by 1934” refers to Webster’s Second (1934), though the item may have been used long before 1934. The number at the end of each entry specifies the degree of naturalization, on a scale of [1-4] (= rare to frequent currency). abassi 1753-1 attar-gul 1813-2 abbasi 1753-1 Avesta 1773 (J) - 4* abdest 1847-2 ayatollah 1950-4 abkar - by 1889-2 Azerbaijani 1888-2 abkari 1797-2 Bab - by 1889-3 achar 1697-2 baba 1685 (Y) - 2* adrop 1471-2 Babi 1850-4 Afghan 1767 (W10) - 4 babul 1780 (W10) - 4 afghan 1833-4 badgir 1872 (Y) - 2* afghani 1834 (Burnes) - 4* badian 1847-2 Afshar 1773 (J) - 2* badmash 1843-2 aftaba - by 1889-2 baft 1598-2 Ahriman 1773 (J) - 4* Bahadur 1770 (Dow) - 3* ahu - by 1897-2 Bahai 1889-4 Aissor - by 1934-2 Bairam 1599-3 akhund 1824 (Morier) - 1 Bakhtiari 1773 (J) - 2* akhundzada - by 1934-2 Bakshaish - by 1934-2 alif 1771 (J) - 2* baksheesh 1625-4 amani - by 1909-2 Baku - by 1934-2 amildar 1778-2 balakhana 1840-2 amir 1614-4 Baluchi 1616-4 anderoon 1840-2 Baluchistan 1816-2 araba 1829 (QR) - 2* ban 1614-2 as - by 1961-2 barsom - by 1934-2 ashraf - by 1963-1 bas, adv. - by 1961-2 ashrafi 1832 (Y) 1* bast 1824 (Morier) - 2 attar 1798-4 basti 1923-1 166 G. CANNON bazaar 1599-4 chick 1673 (Y) - 3* bazaari 1978 (B3) 1 chikan 1880-2 bazigar - by 1934-2 chillum 1781-4 begar 1882 (Y) - 2* chillumchee 1715-2 begari 1673 (Y) - 2* china 1579 (W10) - 4 bellum 1901-2 chiragh 1889-2 benami, adj., 1854 (Y) - 2* chobdar 1701-2 benamidar - by 1909-2 choga 1834 (Burnes) - 2* b(h)ang 1563-4 cooja 1871-2 bhisti 1781-2 cossid 1682-2 bibi 1816-2 culgee 1688-2 bijar - by 1961-2 cummerbund 1616-4 bildar 1847 (Y) - 2* cuscus 1810-3 biryani 1932-3 cushy, adj., 1915-4 budzat 1866 (Y) - 2* cuttanee 1622-2 buksheekhana - by 1963-1 dafadar 1800-2 bukshi 1615-2 daftar 1776-2 bulbul 1665 (W10) - 4 dakhma 1865-2 bund 1810 (W10) - 4 Dari 1773 (J) 2* bunder 1673-2 daroga 1634-2 bundobust 1776-2 darvesh 1632-2 bundook 1886-2 darzi 1812-3 burghul 1764-2 dasht 1834 (Burnes) - 2* burgoo 1700 (W10) - 4 dastur1 1630-2 burkha 1829 (Burckhardt) - 3* dastur2 1680-2 caban 1693-2 dasturi 1681-2 caftan 1591-4 daye 1782-2 calean 1739-2 defterdar 1589-2 calender 1614-3 Dehwar - by 1934-2 canaut 1625-2 dev 1843-2 caravansary 1599-4 dewan 1610 (W9) - 4 carboy 1712-4 dewani 1770 (Dow) - 2* carcoon 1770 (Dow) - 2* dinar 1634-4 chadar 1614-4 disdar 1768-2 chakar 1810 (Y) - 2* div 1773 (J) - 2* chakari - by 1934-2 divan “collection of poems” 1783 (Y) chalan 1858-2 - 4* chappow 1834 (Burnes) - 2* dixie 1879-3 chaprassi 1828-2 doab 1803-2 charka 1880-4 dubba 1698-2 charpoy c. 1540 (Yule) - 4 duftery 1810 (Y) - 2* chawbuck, n. & v., 1673 (Y) - 2* dumba 1834 (Burnes) - 2* cheese 1818-4 dumpoked, n. & adj., 1673 (Y) - 2* chenar 1634-2 durbar 1609-4 cherassi 1823 (Thornton) - 2* durgah 1782 (Y) - 2* cheyney 1634-2 durwan 1773-2 chiaus 1595 (W10) - 3 Durzada - by 1934-2 PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 167 dustak 1748-2 Hindi, adj., 1801 (W10) - 4 enam 1803-2 Hindu 1662-4 enamdar 1850-2 Hindustani 1662-4 ezan 1753-2 hircarra 1747-2 farsang 1613-2 hom 1842 (Fraser) - 2* Farsi 1815 (Malcolm) - 4* houri 1737-4 fatwa 1834 (Burnes) - 3* Hubshee 1601-2 fedai 1875-2 huma 1841-2 Feraghan 1929-2 huzoor 1776-2 ferash 1600-2 hyleg 1625-2 Feringhee 1634-2 idgah 1792 (Y) - 2* firman 1616-3 imbat 1763-2 foujdar 1683-2 Iran 1773 (J) - 4* foujdari, adj. & n., 1862-2 Irani, n. & adj. - 1824 (Morier) - 2 Gabar 1662-2 ishan 1921-2 gambroon 1831-2 ispaghul 1810-2 gatch 1886-2 Ispahan, n. & adj., 1931-2 Gelalaean, adj., 1780-2 jackal 1603-4 ghazal 1771 (J) - 1* jagir 1684-2 gholam 1815 (Malcolm) - 2* jagirdar 1770 (Dow) - 2* ghorkar 1842 (Fraser) - 2* jairou - by 1963-1 Ghuzz - by 1934-2 jama 1776-2 giaour 1564-4 jamabundi 1772-2 gomashta 1747-2 jamdani 1858-2 Gombroon 1698-2 Jamshid 1773 (J) - 2* Great Satan 1981-3 jamwar 1721-2 gubber 1711-1 jawan 1839-3 gul1 1771 (J) - 2* jezail 1838-3 gul2 - by 1993-2 jizya 1683-2 guli hinnai - by 1961-2 jube 1948-2 gulmohar 1877 (Y) - 2* Kabistan 1900-2 gunge 1772 (Y) - 2* kabobsaj 1673 (W10) - 4 gup c.1806-3 Kabuli, adj., 1887-2 guz 1698-2 Kabuli 1895-2 Hadjemi - by 1934-2 kadkhoda 1934-2 hafiz 1662-3 Kadmee - by 1889-2 hajji 1585-4 Kafiri 1901 (W10) - 3 halalcor 1662-2 kafsh - by 1889-2 Hamadan, adj., 1901-2 Kaisar-i-Hind - by 1934-2 hamam 1970 (B3) - 1 kajaveh 1678-2 hamzah 1771 (J) - 4* kajawah 1634-2 hatti(-humayun) 1876-2 kalamdan 1842 (Fraser) - 2* hatti(-sherif) 1688-2 kalamkari - by 1889-2 havildar 1698-3 kalaskeh - by 1963-1 Herat 1917-2 kali - by 1889-2 Hezbollah 1960-4 kalian 1794 (Russell) - 3* Hezbollahi 1981-2 kamboh - by 1934-2 168 G. CANNON kanoon 1794 (Russell) - 2* kotwalee 1845-2 Karadgh, adj., 1900-2 kran 1882-2 karez 1875-2 Kuba 1900-2 Kashan, n. & adj., 1905-2 kulah 1834 (Burnes) - 2* kashi - by 1934-2 kuphar 1800-2 kaveh-khaneh - by 1963-1 Kurd 1595 (W10) - 4 kavir 1881-2 Kurdistan - by 1889-4 keffekil 1758-2 kurta 1913-3 keiri 1578-2 kusti 1842 (Fraser) - 2* kemancha - by 1961-2 lac 1598 (W10)- 4 kenaf 1891-3 lari 1588-3 kerana - by 1897-2 lascar 1615 (W10) 4 Kermanji 1882-1 lascaree 1712-2 khabar 1828 (Y) - 2* lasque 1678-2 KHAD 1984-1 lungi 1634-4 khaki 1857-4 mah 1857 (FitzGerald) - 2 Khaksar - by 1961-2 mahal 1911-2 khalsa 1776-2 Mahi 1857 (FitzGerald) - 2 khan “inn” c.1400-4 mahmudi 1625-2 khanjar 1684-2 Mahsud 1873-2 khankah - by 1934-2 maidan 1625-3 khansama c.1645-2 majlis 1821-3 khanum 1824-2 malikana 1846-2 kharif 1845-2 mamanite 1865-2 khatun 1834-2 mammodis 1828-2 khidmatgar 1765-2 maral 1863-2 khilat 1684-2 markhor 1851 (Y) - 4* khoja 1625-2 masala 1780 (O-A3) - 2 Khorassan 1900-2 mast 1819-2 khorjin - by 1963-1 maund 1584-3 khyber 1943-2 mazdakite - by 1909-2 kilim 1881-4 mazdoor - by 1961-2 killadar 1778-2 Mazhabi 1849-2 kincob, n. & adj., 1712-3 mehmandar 1623-2 Kirman, n. & adj., 1876-4 mehtar 1662-2 Kirmanshah 1900-2 minar 1665-2 kismet 1824 (Morier) - 4 Mir1 1625-2 kist 1799-2 Mir2, n. & adj., 1900-2 koft 1880-2 mirza 1613-3 kofta 1888-3 miskal 1555-2 koftgar - by 1889-2 mobed 1789 (J) - 2* koftgari 1874-3 mofussil 1781-2 Kohinoor 1684 (Y) - 3* Mogul 1588 (W10) - 4 komiteh 1979 (B3) - 1 Mogul, adj., 1617-4 koomkie 1807 (Y) - 2* mohur 1690 (W10) - 4 kotal 1880-2 mujahidin 1922 (W10) - 3 kotwal 1582-2 mujtahid 1815-2 PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 169 mullah 1613-4 peri 1777-4 mulmul 1676-2 peshcush 1634-2 munshi 1776-3 peshwa 1698-2 munsif 1812-2 phota 1616-2 Mushtari 1857 (FitzGerald) - 2 pilau 1612-4 musnud 1763-2 pir 1672-2 mussalchee 1610-2 posteen 1815-2 Mussulman 1563-4 post 1698-2 must, adj. & n., 1871-4 Prophet’s flower 1834-2 nakhoda 1605-2 pul 1883 (Y) - 3* namaz - by 1897-2 Punjabi 1801-4 nan 1948 (W10) - 3 purdah 1800-4 narghile 1758 (W10) - 4 Qajar 1883-2 nargil 1866 (Y) - 2* qanat 1616 (Y) - 2* nastalik 1795-2 qasida 1771 (J) - 2* Nauruz 1698 (Y) - 2* Qum, adj., 1953-2 nawab 1758-4 rabi 1772 (Y) - 3* nay 1756 (Russell) - 2* rahdar 1623-2 nazar 1776-2 rahdaree, n. & adj., 1685-2 nazir 1678-2 Ramazan 1599-3 nefte 1598-1 rayat 1818-2 nihang 1903 (Y) - 2* rekhta - by 1934-2 nil 1597-2 reng 1929-2 nilgai 1770-4 rezai 1784 (Y) - 2* nizam 1838 (Fraser) - 4* rial 1932-4 nuphar 1845-2 rissala 1758-2 Omarian, n. & adj., 1898-2 rissaldar 1800-2 Ormazd 1603 (W10) - 4 roc 1579-4 ormuzine 1625-1 romal 1683-2 Padishah 1612-4 roumi 1576-2 Pahlavi 1771 (J) - 4* Rubáiyát 1859-2 pahlavi - by 1934-2 russud 1873 (Y) - 2* pajamas 1800-4 ryot 1625-4 papoosh 1682-2 ryotti, n. & adj., 1770 (Dow) - 2* para 1687-2 ryotwar 1827-2 parasang 1555-4 ryotwary, adj., 1834-2 pargana 1617 (Y) 3* sabzi - by 1889-2 Parsee 1615-4 sadr - by 1889-2 Party of God 1985 (BDC) - 2 Safavid, adj., 1911-2 parwanah 1682-2 sailab 1916-2 pasan 1774-2 saj1 1839-2 Pasdar - by 1993-1 saj2 1829 (Burckhardt) - 1* pashm 1880-3 saki 1771 (J) - 2* pashmina 1885-2 sambouse 1609-1 Pashto, n. & adj., 1784-4 samosa 1955-3 Pazand 1772-2 sanad 1759-2 pazar 1563-1 sandal “boat” 1742-3 170 G. CANNON sang - by 1961-2 sheristadar 1775-2 santoor 1756 (Russell) - 3* Sheriyat 1815 (Malcolm) - 2* Saraband, n. & adj., 1901-2 sherwani 1911-3 saraf 1598-2 shikar c.1610 (W10) - 4 sarangousty - by 1889-2 shikara 1875-2 sarod 1865-4 shikargah 1831 (Y) - 2* Sarouk 1900-2 shikari 1827-4 Sassanid 1773 (J) - 4* shikasta 1771-2 SAVAK 1967-2 shikra 1839-2 Savama 1980 (BDC) - 1 Shiraz, n. & adj., 1634-2 saz 1870-2 shisha, adj., 1957 (O-A1) - 2 sea-cunny 1800-2 shisham 1849-2 sebundy 1782-2 shor 1888-2 seer “weight” 1618-3 shrab 1662-2 seersucker 1722-4 shura 1960 (O-A1) - 2 Sehna, n. & adj., 1901-2 shutur sowar 1834-2 selictar 1684-2 sicca 1619-2 Seljuk, a., 1770 (Dow) - 4* silladar, adj., 1803-2 Seljukian 1603-4 simurg 1773 (J) - 2* sepoy 1717-4 Sindhi 1815-3 serab 1835-2 sircar 1619-2 serai 1609-4 sirdar 1595 (W10) - 4 serang 1799-3 sitar 1845-4 Seraskier 1684-2 sitringee 1621-2 serdab 1842-3 soorchi 1824 (Morier) - 1 serpaw 1671-2 soorkee 1777 (Y) - 2* shabash, interj., 1834 (Burnes) 2* soosy 1621-2 shadi 1893-2 Sophy 1534 (W10) - 3 shah 1566-4 sowar 1802-2 Shah Abbas, n. & adj., 1901-2 sowarry 1776-2 Shahanshah 1815-2 subadar 1698-3 shahbandar 1599-2 subah 1753-3 Shahbanu 1915-2 Sudder 1787-2 shaheen 1839-2 sumbul 1771 (J) - 2* shahi 1566-2 surai 1672-2 shahidi - by 1961-2 surma 1687-2 shahnai 1914-2 surnai 1662-2 shahzadah 1662-2 surpeach 1753-2 shalwar 1824-2 surpoose 1698-2 shamiana 1609-2 surwan 1821-2 shamshir 1634-2 syagush 1727-2 shamsi-yeh - by 1963-1 syce 1653-4 shawl 1662-4 tabasheer 1598-2 sheesheh - by 1889-2 tabla 1810 (Jackson) - 4* Shenshai - by 1889-2 taboot 1622-2 sherbaff 1619-1 Tabriz, adj., 1900-3 sherbet 1603-4 tahsil 1846-3 PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 171 tahsildar 1799-3 Turanian 1773 (J) - 4* tahuti 1982 (BDC) - 1 Turki 1782-4 taj 1838 (Fraser) - 3* Turkmen 1927-4 Tajik 1815-4 Turkoman 1595 (W10) - 4 Tajiki, n. & adj. - by 1961-3 tykhana 1789 (Y) - 2* Taj Mahal 1684 (Y) - 4* ulema 1688-4 takht 1979-2 Urdu 1796-4 Takhtadjy - by 1934-2 {urf 1815 (Malcolm) 2* takhtrawan 1753 (Y) - 2* ustad 1903-2 taliq 1771-2 Uzbek 1616-4 taluk 1793-3 visney 1733-2 talukdar 1772 (Y) - 2* wakeel 1794 (Russell) - 2* talukdari 1801-2 yabu 1753-2 tamam 1857 (FitzGerald) - 2 yakdan 1824-2 tamasha 1623-3 yam 1569-2 tamboo 1916-2 yarak 1855-2 tamboura 1585-4 yesawal 1834 (Burnes) - 2* tanbur - by 1934-2 Yezdegirdian - by 1897-2 tanga 1740-2 youse - by 1889-2 tangi 1854-2 yurga - by 1963-1 tanjib 1727-2 Yusufzai 1815-2 tap 1882-2 zakat 1802-2 tar 1893-2 zalil - by 1963-1 tarkashi 1878-2 zamindar 1683-4 Tatar 1788 (J) - 4* zamindari 1757-3 tebbad - by 1897-2 zarda 1889 (O-A2) - 2 Tehrani 1939-2 zari 1969 (O-A2) - 2 tekke 1668-2 zel 1817-2 temacha - by 1934-2 zenana 1760 (W10) - 4 timar 1601-2 Zend 1715-4 toman 1566-3 Zend-Avesta 1630-4 topchee 1623-2 Zendik 1842-2 Topkhana 1656-2 ziarat 1776-2 tower of silence - by 1889-2 zill 1973 (B3) - 2 tranky 1727-2 zillah 1772 (Y) - 3* Tudeh 1946-2 zindan 1889-2 tuman 1816-2 zumbooruk 1789 (Y) - 2* tumandar 1907-2 zumboorukchee 1838 (Fraser) - 1* tumbak 1794 (Russell) - 2* 172 G. CANNON

APPENDIX 2: 238 NON-PERSIAN LOANS CONVEYING PERSIAN ELEMENTS

At least 238 loans containing one or more Persian elements have come into English via an intermediate language. Though these cannot be considered as Persian because A significantly changed the Persian form and/or meaning, and sometimes the origin is disputed, they should not be disregarded, as they motivated the borrowings into A and represent indirect lexical influence on English. All are recorded in nonspecialized, monolingual dictionaries. Their direct language-source into English is specified or symbolized: A = Arabic; (O/M)F = French; G = German; (N)Gk = Greek; H = Hindustani, Hindi, and/or Urdu; It = Italian; (Med/N)L = Latin; Pg = Portuguese; R = Russian; Sp = Spanish; and T = Turkish. acinaces - L baluchithere NL afreet A baluchitherium NL afridi Pashto bardash MF ahung Chinese barracan F alkekengi MedL bashaw T alphenic F basti “Indian slum” H Al-shain A bedeguar MF altincar H beige F ambaree H belleric F angary L bezesteen T anil F bezique F anilide G bezoar MF aniline G bhumidar H ankus H bobachee H ardass F bombast MF ardassine F borax MF arsenic MF bostangi T arsenide F boza T asa- NL brinjal Pg asadulcis NL bronze F asafetida MedL bulgur T assogue F burkundaz H aubergine F cadilesker T azadirachta NL calabash F azedarach F calabaza Sp azure OF camaca MF babouche F caravan It balagan R carcass MF balaghat H cassock MF balas MF cebratane Sp PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 173 ceterach MedL karabe F chakdar Panjabi kebaya Malay charshaf T keftedes Gk chaukidari H kehaya T chebule F kermes F check MF khagan T checkmate MF khanjee T chess MF khedive F chikandozi H kinjal A choga T kiosk T chokidar H Kis Kilim T chota hazri H lacca NL ciclatoun OF lacquer Pg cidaris L lake “color” OF curcuma NL lakh H dai H lamasery F daric Gk lambardar H demitasse F lapis lazuli MedL dervish T lascarine Pg dogana It lilac F doronicum NL lycopersicin NL douane F magic adj. MF ek dum H Magus L emblic NL malguzar H fennec A manticore L fers MF mate MF finjan A meerschaum G fistic MedL meze T galingale MF mezereon MedL garam masala H mirdaha H gherkin Dutch mithraeum NL gigerium NL mull “muslin” H gizzard OF mummy MF Guebre F murra L gymkhana H musk MF hakdar H neftgil G hanjar T nenuphar MedL hazard MF numdah H haznadar T numnah H izzat H orange MF jalebi H pabouch T jasmine F pagoda Pg jemadar H parangi Singhalese jezailchee H pasar Malay julep MF penide OF kala-azar H percale F kaladana H percaline F 174 G. CANNON perse MF sub-cheese H Persian MF suclat H persiennes F sugar MF Persism Gk sugar candy F phanariot NGk Susian L phansigar H tabor OF pheran Kashmiri taffeta MF pistachio It tambour F popinjay MF tandoor H Powindah Pashto tandoori H pyke H tarafdar H rastik T taraxacum NL Razakar H tarboosh A rogan josh H tarcays OF rook MF tarragon MF rose “flower” L Tartar MF saffian R tass MF sandal “sandalwood” MF teapoy H sangar H thanadar H sansa A timariot F saraband F tincal Malay sarbacane F Tirshatha Hebrew satrap L tophaike T scarlet OF Topkhana T Scheherazade A trabant G scimitar MF trehala F sebesten A trehalase NL sesban F tulip NL setwall OF turanite R shahtoosh Panjabi turanose G shalwar-kameez H turban MF shere khan H turpeth NL sherryvallies Polish tutty MF sheshbesh T usnea NL sicca rupee H yuft R sidi A Zakka Khel Pashto sjambok Afrikaans zarnich A soda MedL zedoary MedL softa T zerda A Sogdian L zermahbub T spahi MF zerumbet H spinach MF zurna T PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 175

REFERENCES

The occasional symbols and page numbers identify locations of antedatings or first known datings of items in the Persian corpus, when indexes, glossaries, etc., in the given book do not locate the item. The formula “By date 1XXX” (q.v.) refers to one of nine dictionaries, to identify the generalized source and date given in Appendix 1 for an item where the dictionary entry contains no dated citation.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 19923. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. B3. BARNHART, Robert K. - STEINMETZ, Sol - BARNHART, Clarence L. (eds.). 1991. Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English. New York: H.W. Wil- son. BDC. The Barnhart Dictionary Companion. 1982-. Ed. David K. BARNHART. Cold Spring, NY: Lexik House. BURCKHARDT, John Lewis. 1829. Travels in Arabia Comprehending Those Ter- ritories in Hedjaz Which Mohammedans Regard as Sacred. London: Henry Colburn. [Reprint: London: Frank Cass, 1968.] [Pp. 166, 389.] BURNES, Alexander. 1834. Travels into Bokhara; Being the Account of a Jour- ney from India. London: John Murray. [Pp. 1. 120, 143, 146, 194, 343; 2. 134, 174, 259, 438.] [By 1858 = Noah WEBSTER; 1889-91, Century; 1897, UD; 1909, W1; 1934, W2; 1961, W3; 1963, F&W; 1987, RH; and 1993, NSOED.] CANNON, Garland. 1984. “Zero Plurals among the Japanese Loanwords in Eng- lish”. American Speech 59. 149-158. —. 1985. “Functional Shift in English”. Linguistics 23. 411-431. —. 1987. Historical Change and English Word-Formation. New York: Peter Lang. —. 1988. “Chinese Borrowings in English”. American Speech 63. 3-33. —. 1992. “Malay(sian) Loanwords in English”. American Speech 67. 134-162. —. 1994a. Arabic Loanwords in English: An Historical Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —. 1994b. “Modern Spanish-Based Lexical Items in English”. Dictionaries 15. 117-131. —. 1995a. “Recent Borrowings from Spanish into English”. In: Félix RODRIGUEZ (ed.), Spanish Loanwords in the English Language, 41-60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 1995b. “Recent Japanese Borrowings into English”. American Speech 69. 373-397. —. 1996. Japanese Loanwords in English: An Historical Dictionary. Wies- baden: Harrassowitz. —. 1997. “90 Post-1949 Arabic Loans in Written English”. Word 48. 171-194. —. 1998a. “Post-1949 German Loans in Written English”. Word 49. 19-54. —. 1998b. “Antedating Primarily Arabic Loans in English”. Dictionaries 19. 97-123. —. 1999. “Turkish Loans in the English Language”. Orbis 41. 176 G. CANNON

Century. Century Dictionary: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Lan- guage. 1889-91. Ed. William Dwight WHITNEY. New York: Century. [6 vols.] Chambers Dictionary, The. 1993. Edinburgh: Larousse PLC. Collins Dictionary of the English Language. 19862. Ed. Patrick HANKS. Edin- burgh: Collins. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 19959. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. DOW, Alexander. 17702. The History of Hindostan. London: T. Becket and P.A. De Hondt. [3 vols.] [Pp. 1. 89, 132; 3. xxix, lv, cii, 408, 410.] FENNELL, C.A.M. (ed.). 1892. The Stanford Dictionary of Anglicised Words and Phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FITZGERALD, Edward. 1857. The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. [Verses 51, 75, 101.] FRASER, James B. 1838. A Winter’s Journey (Tâtar) from Constantinople to Tehran. London: Richard Bentley. [Pp. 1. 162, 308, 320; 2. 103.] —. 1842. Historical and Descriptive Account of Persia. New York: Bradley. [Pp. 48, 119, 120, 283.] F&W. Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language. 1964. Ed. Isaac K. FUNK. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. HALHED, Nathaniel Brassey. 1778. A Grammar of the Bengal Language. Hoogly, Bengal. J = JONES, Sir William 1771. A Grammar of the Persian Language. London: W. and J. Richardson. [Pp. 2-3, 11, 18, 19, 58, 125, 132.] —. 1773. The History of the Life of Nader Shah. London: Thomas Cadell. [Pre- face, Pp. iii, xx, xxxix, l, 1, 21, 69, 154, 159.] —. 1788. “Fifth Anniversary Discourse”. In: Works 3. 74. —. 1789. “Sixth Anniversary Discourse”. In: Works 3. 112, 117. —. 1807. The Works of Sir William Jones. London: John Stockdale - John Walker. [13 vols.] JACKSON, James Grey. 1810. An Account of the Empire of Marocco, and the District of Suse. Philadelphia: Francis Nichols. [P. 140.] Longman Dictionary of the English Language. 1991. New ed. London: Long- man. MALCOLM, Sir John. 1815. The History of Persia, from the Most Early Period to the Present Time. London: John Murray. [Pp. 1. 202; 2. 438, 447.] MORIER, James. 1824. The Adventures of Hajji Baba. London: John Murray. [3 vols.] MUFWENE, Salikoko S. 1988. “Dictionaries and Proper Names”. International Journal of Lexicography 1. 268-283. NSOED. New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. 1993. Ed. Lesley BROWN. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2 vols. O-A1, O-A2, O-A3. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series. 1993, vols. 1- 2, ed. John SIMPSON and Edmund WEINER; 1997, vol. 3, ed. Michael PROF- FITT. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OED(2). The Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [20 vols.] PERSIAN LOANS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 177

OEDS. 1972-86. A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Robert W. BURCHFIELD. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [4 vols.] The Oxford English-Turkish Dictionary. 19782. Ed. Fahir IZ and H.C. HONY. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Oxford Turkish-English Dictionary. 19843. Ed. H.C. HONY and Fahir IZ. Oxford: Clarendon Press. PERRY, John R. 1991. Form and Meaning in Persian Vocabulary: The Arabic Feminine Vocabulary. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda. PFEFFER, J. Alan - CANNON, Garland. 1994. German Loanwords in English: An Historical Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PHILLOTT, Douglas Craven (ed.). 1914. Colloquial English-Persian Dictionary in the Roman Character. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. PLATTS, John T. (ed.). 1960. A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Reprint of 1884 ed.] QR. Quarterly Review. 1829. Rev. in vol. 41. 465. RH. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. 19872. New York: Random House. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, The. 1991. New York: Random House. RUSSELL, Alexander. 1756. The Natural History of Aleppo, and Parts Adjacent. London: A. Millar. [P. 93.] —. 17942. Revised by P. RUSSELL. London: G.G. and J. Robinson. [Pp. 1. 122, 124, 152; 2. 41.] SADIE, Stanley (ed.). 1984. The New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments. New York: Macmillan. [3 vols.] SERJEANTSON, Mary S. 1935. A History of Foreign Words in English. London: Kegan Paul. SHAKESPEAR, John (ed.). 18343. A Dictionary, Hindustani and English. London: J.L. Cox and Son. SKEAT, Walter W. (ed.). 1910. An Etymological Dictionary of the English Lan- guage. New ed., revised. Oxford: Clarendon Press. STEINGASS, Francis (ed.). 1974. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. [Reprint of 1892 ed.] THORNTON, Thomas. 1823. The East Indian Calculator; Or Tables for Assisting Computation. London: Kingsbury, Parbury, and Allen. [P. 476.] UD. Universal Dictionary of the English Language. 1897. Ed. Robert HUNTER and Charles MORRIS. New York: Peter Fenelon Collier. [4 vols.] WEBSTER, Noah (ed.). 1858. An American Dictionary of the English Language. Rev. of 1847 ed. by Chauncey A. GOODRICH. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam. W1. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language. 19091. [Reprint 1911.] Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam. W2. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language. 19342. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam. W3. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. 1961. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam. W9. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1983. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam. 178 G. CANNON

W10. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 199310. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam. Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English. 1994. Updated reprint of 3rd college ed. of 1988. Ed. Victoria NEUFELDT - David GURALNIK. Cleve- land: Simon and Schuster. WILSON, Horace Haymen (ed.). 1968. A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms, and of Useful Words Occurring in Official Documents Relating to the Administration of the Government of British India. Delhi: Devendra Jain. [2nd ed. of 1855 ed.] Y = YULE, Sir Henry - BURNELL, A.C. 1903. Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Col- loquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases. 2nd ed. by William CROOKE. London: John Murray.

Texas A&M University. Garland CANNON. College Station, Texas, USA.