Talk:Karbala/Archive 1

Archive 1

untitled comments

This city is referred to as "Karbala", "Karbela" and "Kerbela" in miscellaneous articles. English is a dreadful language. -Itai 22:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tell me about it. ;-) Comparative results from Google:

• Karbala - 128,000
• Kerbala - 25,000
• Kerbela - 2,050
• Karbela - 168

-- ChrisO 10:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Chalder, I have the utmost respect for Syriac Christian Arabs, but your cite has no etymological information on it. Also, your name for God isn't even right - it's ælah-a and pre-Islamic elah-a. Not only that, but the construction of the name you allege isn't correct either. In comparison, Karbala is Arabic for Soft Earth, which describes the land upon which the city is built. em zilch\

Anybody that knowns Syriac (ask user Garzo, who is a mode and not a "Syriac Christian, but known Syriac) knowns that Karb means close to in Aramaic. And of course Ala (corrupted from Allaha) is God. I gave you a source. Where is your source claiming "soft earth" ? Chaldean 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Chaldean asked me to hve a look at the etymology of Karbala. I'm not too convinced with the source material presented so far: neither site offers a full etymological break down. The Arabic is كربلاء (karbalā'). I had always imagined, without ever looking it up, that the name was derived from the word كرب (karb), meaning 'worry, grief'. The Syriac word for 'near' is ܩܪܒܐ (qrāḇā). Now, it is not unknown for there to be historical corespondence between qāf and kāf, but it does make this explanation less probable. Actually, Syriac does have the word ܟܪܒܐ (krāḇā) that means 'fallow or ploughed ground'. Therefore appealing to an Aramaic origin actually seems to support the derivation by Yaqut al-Hamawi. Can anyone offer anything better than these sources? — Gareth Hughes 20:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any of the languages involved, but it seems to me that the cite from the university professor, Dr. Godlas, traced to an Arab geographer, has the best chance of being correct. Chaldean seems to be determined to come up with an etymology, ANY etymology, that challenges the "soft earth" derivation. I have a suspicion that the town's name attracts folk etymologies simply because of its strong emotional significance. Folk etymologies are based on sound resemblances, not historical research. "It sounds like this, so it must be so!" None of the alternative candidates have the historical depth of the al-Hamawi reference. Al-Hamawi could have been wrong, of course, but we don't have enough info to tell. We're getting into original research here.

I'd be willing to have the etymology moved OUT of the flow of the article narrative and put into a separate etymology section. Give all the theories, but also give enough info for readers to evaluate the authority and the sources of the person proposing the etymology. Zora 21:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

but it seems to me that the cite from the university professor, Dr. Godlas, traced to an Arab geographer, has the best chance of being correct. - Who are we to filter and say who's right and who's wrong? Since when did Wikipedia became selective? Yaqut al-Hamawi is an arab, so of course his going to have arab-baistism. That is why I think the best way to settle this is to list all the options out there, with the first one being the one that is believed by the most in the world. Chaldean 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that any etymology that advances a claim for an Arabic origin for the word is suspect? Why? Are there sides to this issue? An Arabic and a Syriac/Aramaic side? Also, how are we to determine which is "believed most"? Zora 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

how are we to determine which is "believed most"? - The same method that was used to determine the most common spelling of the city (see above.) And by the way, if we follow your ideology of not practicing "It sounds like this, so it must be so!" - then the page Republic of Macedonia should not really be Republic of Macedonia...but nobody seems to be stopping that train. Chaldean 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we are all in general agreement that the etymology of the name of Karbala: that the evidence to support either interpretation is not available. I agree with Zora that the circumstantial evidence surrounding Yaqut al-Hamawi's interpretation is more convincing. However, with Chaldean, I would conclude that this is purely circumstantial: we do not yet have full and complete evidence for this. I would support moving any talk about the etymology of the name further down the article, so that it may be given a fuller treatment after what is factually relevant has been dealt with. There is a Shi'a tradition that when Hussein asked the name of the town and was told it is Karbala, he replied, "Surely this is the plain where my Holy Grandfather has prophesied that I, with my faithful companions, shall lay slain after suffering three days of hunger and thirst. We will not move from here; we have reached our destination".[1] I don't know if anyone knows more about this. — Gareth Hughes 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

There was a similar edit war a few months ago on the Bitola page over the conflicting Greek and Macedonian etymologies. Why don't we just create a separate Etymology/Name section and list all the different theories? That's how the conflict was solved over there. —Khoikhoi 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Again with the etymology. The versions are ahistorical, religiously charged and unverifiable. The first example gives "The Ancient Assyrian language", links to Akkadian, and then gives words that do not exist in Akkadian. Qerbum with qaaf means "near", but you can't make a noun-noun construction with it, you'd use the preposition idi, and the word for God (sic - no such concept as cap-g God, closest would be Assuur) is il as in Baab-Il "gate of the gods". If they meant Syriac instead, it's still nonsense. Folk etymologies should not be listed in scholarly format except as interesting information, i.e. "Folk etymologies have connected the name to meanings such as 'Close to God' or 'Suffering Place'"... until my edit, it read like there was some kind of actual information encoded in the folk notions listed there. PoV bias, in my humble opinion, and the information is really not relevant to the topic at hand... who cares what the folk etymology of Karbalaa' is? Let it also be known I'm a Muslim, and respect the Ahlu l-Bayt, to forestall immediate claims of bias. em zilch (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)