As it's an Aramaic loan-word, Ishinan, just as it is in Hebrew, the Arabs seem to have been justifiably unsure whether the root is mdn or dyn, often a sign of a loan-word even without other evidence. In Aramaic, of course, mdīnā has the dual meaning of 'district' and 'city', while Arabic seems to have initially borrowed it more narrowly to mean a 'citadel' or 'walled city district'; it alternatively means a miSr, or 'capital', at least in former Sasanian territory where it perhaps signifies the shahrestān (provincial capital) of a district (shahr), what in New Persian becomes itself a shahr. Or so I gather. Interestingly, shahrestān is itself spelled מדינא in Middle Persian's Aramaizing orthography. Hebrew, of course, took the other course and borrowed מדינא for its administrative meaning of 'district'. I was myself surprised to hear this distinction a few months ago on a discussion on the learned Sogdian-L from scholars whose opinion I respect. Still, treat it with a grain of caution.
Sorry, Ishinan, I don't buy that. The root mdn is a denominal root from madīna, not the other way round. In Aramaic, of course, the root is dwn. John Leake Open University |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.