It’s not terribly difficult to determine whether a source should be considered reliable. (Whether or not it’s right on any particular point can be very difficult, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.) And if you’re not sure, presenting it as a question, rather than as authoritative, avoids the problem. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “this book says this, but I’m not sure if it’s correct. Does anyone know?”
In my previous comment I submitted a link from a source which I think seems quite reliable. I will present it now as a questionable source. Is it reliable? Does anyone know?
Kurwamac stated: No, it doesn’t. It means gypsy. It may derive from Ἀθίγγανοι, a name of an obscure religious sect, and that name itself may have originally meant ‘untouchable’. But frankly it seems rather unlikely to me.
Furthermore, the word would be transliterated into English as Tsinganoi
Below there is information that seems to dispute this.
The most widely accepted hypothesis in the 19th and 20th centuries is that the words athinganoi/thinganoi are of Greek origin, being variants of atsiganos/tsinganos, which in turn are said to have derived from the word athingánōs, meaning ‘untouchable, intangible’ (cf. the privative preﬁx a + vb. thingánō ‘to touch, to hurt’). Therefore, the terms athinganoi/thinganoi had the following possible meanings: ‘untouchable, intangible, pagan, impure’ or ‘someone who should be treated with caution’ – from thingánō ‘to touch, to move’ (in relation to feeling). According to this hypothesis, the privative preﬁx a- was subsequently lost and only the word tsigganos was preserved in Greek. However, this idea is contradicted by the fact that both terms still exist in Greek, as well as other languages. Since it overlooks the initial and subsequent mention of the two terms in several languages (Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian etc.) after 1348, their practical equivalence and, implicitly, the optional use of one of them, this approach seems to be an oversimplification.
It has also been said that neither the word țigan (‘Gypsy’), nor any similar forms exist in the Romany language, but were borrowed from other European languages. In my view, this is a questionable statement. In the Gypsy language, the word țigan is used under the form o tsigano (‘the Gypsy’), which is indeed very similar to its equivalent in other European languages: tsiganos/atsiganos (Greek), çiganinu/açiganinu (Slavic), Zigeuner (German), tziganiok (Hungarian), țigan/ațigan (Romanian), cigain (French) etc. Yet the very existence of almost identical versions in all European languages may point to the fact that the word was borrowed by these languages from the Gypsies themselves as they came to Europe. It may have been the term tsigan used in order to distinguish themselves from people outside their communities. In contrast, within the communities the identification occurs via the word rrom (‘Romany’). There is a subtle difference between being a member of the Gypsy community and belonging to the Gypsy ethnic group, since not everyone who is part of the former is necessarily a Gypsy by ethnicity. Someone’s direct identification, their belonging to a Gypsy community is expressed by the phrase san rrom? (‘are you one of us?’). If, on the other hand, the focus is on the person’s membership in the Gypsy ethnic group, the phrase san rrom tsiganiako! (‘you are a true, a genuine gypsy’) is used.
I start from the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gypsies, albeit in a small number, were present in Byzantium in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries AD, as the manuscript at Mount Athos and later references conﬁrm, and that their descendants are the ones who appear in Central and East European documents starting from the 13th century, under various names: tsiganos/atsiganos, çiganinu/ açiganinu, tsigan/atsigan or cengari, secani, suyginer.
The present paper analyses the etymology of the words țigan ‘Gypsy’ and (r)rom ‘Romany’. Previous approaches trace back the term țigan to the Greek word athingánōs, meaning ‘untouchable, pagan, impure,’ and (r)rom to the homonymous Persian term with the sense ‘man, husband, master of the house.’ I argue that, despite their long-established influence, these etymologies are misleading and partially inconsistent. I postulate instead that the two words are of Sanskrit origin. On this view, țigan goes back to the term at(i)-ingā-nin (‘a person who is on the move, a traveller, a nomad’). In Indian culture, nomadism and lack of purity were understood as two complementary dimensions of intangibility, a characteristic attributed to the so-called pariahs and the lower caste sudra. Due to close commercial and cultural relations between India and Byzantine Greece under the Seleucid dynasty, at(i)-ingā-nin may have entered the Greek language under the form athinganoi, with its original negative connotations enhanced by the local Christian context. As far as the word (r)rom and its variants dom and lom are concerned, a number of phonetically similar Sanskrit terms can be identified, all of which converge towards the meaning ‘lord, master of the house, husband.’ If we also take into account historical information related to the migration of the gypsy population from India, it is plausible to ascribe the term (r)rom a Sanskrit instead of a Persian origin.
Bold emphasis added.