[400]. In the Arab. “Rajul Khuzari” = a green-meat man. [The reading “Khuzarí” belongs to Lane, M.E. ii. 16. and to Bocthor. In Schiaparelli’s Vocabulista and the Muhít the form “Khuzrí” is also given with the same meaning.—St.]
[401]. [In text “Farárijí,” as if the pl. of “Farrúj” = chicken were “Farárij” instead of “Faráríj.” In modern Egyptian these nouns of relation from irregular plurals to designate tradespeople not only drop the vowel of the penultimate but furthermore, shorten that of the preceding syllable, so that “Farárijí” becomes “Fararjí.” Thus “Sanádikí,” a maker of boxes, becomes “Sanadkí,” and “Dakhákhiní, a seller of tobacco brands,” “Dakhakhní.” See Spitta Bey’s Grammar, p. 118.—St.]
[402]. In the Arab. “Al-Májúr,” for “Maajúr” = a vessel, an utensil.
[403]. In text, “shaklaba” here = “shakala” = he weighed out (money, whence the Heb. Shekel), he had to do with a woman.
[404]. [The trade of the man is not mentioned here, p. 22 of the 5th vol. of the MS., probably through negligence of the copyist, but it only occurs as far lower down as p. 25.—St.]
[405]. A certain reviewer proposes “stained her eyes with Kohl,” showing that he had never seen the Kohl-powder used by Asiatics.
[406]. [“Bi-Má al-fasíkh ’alà Akrás al-Jullah.” “Má al-Fasíkh” = water of salt-fish, I would translate by “dirty brine” and “Akrás al-Jullah” by “dung-cakes,” meaning the tale should be written with a filthy fluid for ink upon a filthy solid for paper, more expressive than elegant.—St.]
[407]. “Al-Janínáti;” or, as Egyptians would pronounce the word “Al-Ganínátí” [Other Egyptian names for gardener are “Janáiní,” pronounced “Ganáiní,” “Bustánjí,” pronounced “Bustangi,” with a Turkish termination to a Persian noun, and “Bakhshawángí,” for “Baghchawánjí,” where the same termination is pleonastically added to a Persian word, which in Persian and Turkish already means “gardener.”—St.]
[408]. A Koranic quotation from “Joseph,” chap. xii. 28: Sale has “for verily your cunning is great,” said by Potiphar to his wife.
[409]. I have inserted this sentence, the tale being absolutely without termination. So in the Mediæval Lat. translations the MSS. often omit “explicit capitulum (primum). Sequitur capitulum secundum,” this explicit being a sine qua non.