The words listed in the title seem to be rather uninteresting Turkish loanwords in some Balkan languages. In reality, however, they offer quite a lot of inspiration for both Slavic and Turkish linguistics.

It was Petar Skok who principally correctly classified the Croatian and Serbian (= CS) word nȅimār ∼ neìmār ∼ màjmor along with Bosnian naimar as reflexes of a Turkish etymon (Skok 1972: 358 s.v. màjmor). Forty years later the topic was also discussed by Snežana Petrović (2012) in her detailed study. The problem is, however, that both scholars take different stances.

Skok’s explanation can be rendered in two claims: 1) the Turkish etymon was meymar (< Arabic mi˓mar [!, pro: mi˓mār = معمار ] ‘architect’); 2) the CS n- results from a dissimilation of nasal consonants: Tksh. m – m > CS n – m. We are skipping in what follows the explanation of -or (in Serb. majmor) as the result of a contamination of Tksh. meymar with Serb. majstor ‘master, foreman’ because it does not influence our understanding of the etymology and borrowing channels of the Turkish word. The more so because the form majmor occurs in one folk riddle only, and, in addition, it forms a rhyme with another Serbian word in -or, i.e., pet majstora, pet majmora ‘five foremen, five architects’ (Petrović 2012: 329). It is only surprising that Skok chose exactly that hapax as a headword of the dictionary entry.

Petrović’s opinion is different: 3) the Turkish etymon was mimar (< Arabic mi˓mār) and further: > Serb. *nimar > neimar (Petrović 2012: 328, 333); 4) the Serbian n- could have resulted from a contamination of the Turkish etymon mimar with Serbian naimati, najmiti ‘to hire, engage’ (ibid.: 330).

It is conspicuous that one question has been omitted in both studies, namely the alternation -e- ∼ -a- in the first syllable (neimar ∼ maimar). It is true, Petrović could easily have construed the -a- variants as results of the influence of the Serbian verb najmiti. However, the usual Serbian variant has -e- (neimar), while Serb.