# Persian: مران روز را روز نو خواندند



## Dib

Here are two lines from Shahname:
به جمشید بر گوهر افشاندند 
مران روز را روز نو خواندند

Could some kind soul, please, explain what مران would mean in this verse? I came across these lines in Persian wikipedia on Jamshid:
جمشید - ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد


----------



## Mnemon

I think the word "مران" here could be composed of the two components: "مر" + "آن"
I suppose you know the meaning of "آن". It would make perfect senses, in terms of meaning, if you'd say, "آن روز را روز نو خواندند ". Then a question arises and the question is that what the function of "مر" here is?



> *مر*
> */mar/*
> *معنی*
> نشانه‌ای زاید که برای زینت کلام به کار می‌رفته است: ◻︎ مر او را رسد کبریا و منی / که ملکش قدیم است و ذاتش غنی (سعدی۱: ۳۴).​*فرهنگ پارسی عمید*​


----------



## fdb

In early New Persian the circumposition _mar…rā_ indicates the direct or indirect object. Later _mar…rā_, or just _mar_ on its own, is used by the poets as an archaism, often without any meaning. You can read all about it in Lazard.


----------



## Qureshpor

Dib said:


> Here are two lines from Shahname:
> به جمشید بر گوهر افشاندند
> مران روز را روز نو خواندند
> 
> Could some kind soul, please, explain what مران would mean in this verse? I came across these lines in Persian wikipedia on Jamshid:
> جمشید - ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد


Please refer to the threads below in which fdb has kindly privided a detailed insight into the particle "mar". I for one do not accept the notion that it is for "ziinat-i-kalaam". One often finds this explanation when either the true use of a word is no longer known or has become forgotten.

Persian: مر

Classical Persian: The significance of the particle "mar"


----------



## Dib

Thank you all very much for your competent and excellent replies. I should have searched the forum more carefully. I had stupidly only looked for مران . Anyways, it's as clear as daylight now.


----------



## PersoLatin

Ferdôsi has used مران and مراو in many of his poems and depending on the context, it seems to mean که او/ آن (that she/it) and پس او/ آن (then he/it) also و او/ آن (and she/it), in these cases, removing it affects the meaning a bit, but in other cases the مر/mar part of مران and مراو, only helps the rhyme and meter with no discernible meaning.

Ferdôsi also uses also مر/mar on its own; in many places as a rhyming filler for فر/far, in others as a filler only.

Does any one know if مر was was before Ferdôsi's time and by whom?


----------



## Mnemon

Qureshpor said:


> I for one do not accept the notion that it is for "ziinat-i-kalaam". One often finds this explanation when either the true use of a word is no longer known or has become forgotten.


You are just overthinking this, Mr.Qureshpor.


> مر. [ م َ ] ( ) حرفی  است  که  به  نظر فرهنگ نویسان  برای  زینت  و تحسین  کلام  یا برای  اقامه ٔ وزن  در شعر یا برای  افاده ٔ حصر و تحدید یا برای  تأیید در جمله  ذکرمی شود و به  عقیده ٔ گروه  دیگر از لغت نویسان  از جمله  کلمات  زایده  است  و حذفش  هیچ  لطمه ای  به  جمله  نمی زند.​





PersoLatin said:


> Does any one know if مر was was before Ferdôsi's time and by whom?


It was used before him, by Rudaki & Abu-Shakur Balkhi:


> پسند باشد مر خواجه  را پس  از ده  سال
> که  بازگردد پیر و پیاده  ودرویش
> رودکی





> بیاموز تا بد نیایدت  روز
> چو پروانه  مر خویشتن  را مسوز
> بوشکور


----------



## fdb

It seems to have been a feature of Khurasanian Persian.


----------



## PersoLatin

Mnemon said:


> You are just overthinking this, Mr.Qureshpor.


I also believe مر/mar must have had a meaning,  otherwise we are saying some poet randomly chose this word for his/her convenience and others copied it, also if that were the case (مر/mar had no meaning) then one would expect other poets to have invented their own.


----------



## Derakhshan

Steingass:


> before the nominative it emphasises, as: _mar ān_, That very person or thing



So,

به جمشید بر گوهر افشاندند
مران روز را روز نو خواندند
They showered Jamshid with jewels
and_ *that very*_ day, they called "New Day".

Basically, here, it has a similar meaning to همان.



> Does any one know if مر was was before Ferdôsi's time and by whom?


It comes from the word's sense of "number, account" but had not yet been grammaticalized into a preposition in Middle Persian.


----------



## PersoLatin

I never checked Dehkhoda which says:
مر. [ م َ ] (اِ)شمار. تعداد. اندازه . حد. شماره . حساب :
پس اندرنهادند ایرانیان
بدان لشکر بی مر چینیان

More examples of this sense are given there.

As well as its 'decorative' function.


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

Dib said:


> مران روز را روز نو خواندند


مر before object with sign of را is part of classic grammar. Generally (as @Derakhshan said) is for emphasis. Normally in classic literature you can find it a lot in many poems and pros.
جهان مر جفا را تو مر صابری را. ناصرخسرو.
بی هنران مر هنرمندان را نتوانند دید همچنانکه سگان بازاری مر سگ صید را

So the meaning is: دقیقا" آن روز را ( که فردوسی تاکید خاصی هم روی آن دارد ) همان روز خجسته و فرخنده را، روز نو یا نو روز خواندند


----------



## Derakhshan

It was apparently used in some 15th century texts as a way to remove ambiguity between direct and indirect objects. See here.


----------



## Qureshpor

Mnemon said:


> You are just overthinking this, Mr.Qureshpor.


Well I would suggest that as the "farhaNg-naviisaan" did not know the true meaning of the word "mar" (and other such words, for example the verbal prefix "bi"), they came up with the fancy terms of "taHsiin/ziinat-i-kalaam" and "zaa'id". It is a good ploy to offer this explanation when they have n't got any credible and logical explanation.


----------



## Qureshpor

Derakhshan said:


> به جمشید بر گوهر افشاندند
> مران روز را روز نو خواندند
> They showered Jamshid with jewels
> and_ *that very*_ day, they called "New Day".
> 
> Basically, here, it has a similar meaning to همان.


This is what I have indicated in the Classical Persian: The significance of the particle "mar" thread.


----------



## Mnemon

Qureshpor said:


> Well I would suggest that as the "farhaNg-naviisaan" did not know the true meaning of the word "mar" (and other such words, for example the verbal prefix "bi"), they came up with the fancy terms of "taHsiin/ziinat-i-kalaam" and "zaa'id"


I'm afraid, I don't think so. On the contrary, I believe that those <"farhaNg-naviisaan"> elucidated the matter very well. I am not sure, perhaps you have not read my post <#7>.


			
				Mnemon said:
			
		

> مر. [ م َ ] ( ) حرفی  است  که  به  نظر فرهنگ نویسان  برای  زینت  و تحسین  کلام  یا برای  اقامه ٔ وزن  در شعر یا برای  افاده ٔ حصر و تحدید یا برای تأیید در جمله  ذکرمی شود و به  عقیده ٔ گروه  دیگر از لغت نویسان  از جمله  کلمات  زایده  است  و حذفش  هیچ  لطمه ای  به  جمله  نمی زند.
Click to expand...

The aforementioned quote was taken from Dehkhoda Dictionary. Let me break it down to the cardinal items. It asserts:
"mar" could be utilized:
1. for ornamentation and it could serve as a beautifier.
2. for adjusting the meter of a poem.
3. by being beneficial to the poem via imposing limits.
4. for confirmation and reinforcement.
It also affirms that some lexicographers believe that its removal would breed no problem at all.


Qureshpor said:


> It is a good ploy to offer this explanation when they haven't got any credible and logical explanation.


To me, as a native speaker of Persian language, it is both logical and credible. Yet you are free to disagree, I can only inform.


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

Derakhshan said:


> It was apparently used in some 15th century


تو گفتی سیه بنده‌ای کرده جرم
دهد خواجه اکنون مر او را جزا
ملک الشعرا
in contemporary literature!!!
Today also can be seen here or there in literature. Rarely but can be found



Qureshpor said:


> did not know the true meaning of the word "mar"


I think, if Nafisi can find a meaning for را so he will  find a meaning for مر, these are preposition and sign of object.

لغت نویسان از جمله کلمات *زایده است* و حذفش هیچ لطمه ای به جمله نمی زند
there is simple answer for above view: How many poems wrote by Sadi or Ferdosi as masters of Language without مر?Do you believe, they could not make some more without using this preposition !!!! Why they have used it with object?
No it was *part of grammar and part of expression as well.*



PersoLatin said:


> Does any one know if مر was was before Ferdôsi's time and by whom?


I am sure you know that, words specially prepositions are not something all of the sudden come to a language. مر is one of them. For a long period of time, considered as part of correct usage of grammar. for example in حنظله باد غیسی one of forerunner in Persian literature says:
یارم سپند اگــر چه در آتـش همی فکند
از بهـــر چشـــم تا نـرسد *مرو را* گزند
او را ســپند و آتــش نـاید هــمی به کار
با روی همچو آتش و باخال چون سپند


----------



## PersoLatin

This has led me to question the form of مرا, I know مرا is short for من را but why has ن been dropped? It seems unusual especially when compared with آن را which hasn’t been shortened to آرا.


----------



## PersoLatin

Eastern Ludicrous Writer said:


> یارم سپند اگــر چه در آتـش همی فکند
> از بهـــر چشـــم تا نـرسد *مرو را* گزند
> او را ســپند و آتــش نـاید هــمی به کار
> با روی همچو آتش و باخال چون سپند


To me replacing مرو with او doesn't change the reading of first two lines at all, does anyone agree?


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

PersoLatin said:


> To me replacing مرو with او doesn't change


We are talking about 1000 years ago style of writing and speaking.

To be, or not to be, that is the question
 Get *thee *to a nunnery…… Hamlet


----------



## PersoLatin

Eastern Ludicrous Writer said:


> We are talking about 1000 years ago style of writing and speaking.


I’m afraid that’s a cop out. We have 2500 year old cuneiforms that can be deciphered, we have thousands of unambiguous words from a 1000 years ago except maybe for this one.

Anyway I had never seen those 4 four lines of poetry you posted yet I had no problem understanding every word & its message, except for the exact meaning of مر (but که fits well)


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

PersoLatin said:


> rom a 1000 years ago except maybe for this one


I think, I misunderstood you .

فروزانفر


----------



## Derakhshan

_az ... mar_ in MP meant "on account of":

_èē hamāg nēst-tisīh *pid-kēnīh ud adōšagīg be ō mardōmān *az ān mar* mad ka-šān az  jud šahr ud az jud rōstāg ud az jud deh mard āmad hēnd u-šān zan kard ud ka-šānzan be burd pid dud mād griyist hēnd pad ēn kū-mān duxt pad wardagīh hamē barēnd _

"For all poverty (_nēst-tišīh_, lit. not having anything), and hatred of parents (_pid-kēnīh_) and un-lovingness (_adōšagīg_) came to mankind *on the account*, when men came to them from an alien land and from an alien province and from an alien country, they married (_zan kard_), and when they take their wives away (_zan bur_), the fathers and mothers (i.e. of the women) wept (_griyist_), with these (words): ‘They are taking our daughter into captivity/slavery (_wardagīh_).’"

In Early Judeo-Persian, this grammaticalized into a pre/circumposition _az mar-i ... (rā)_ "for, because of", *and* as a way of marking the direct/indirect object (so equivalent to CP را):

_agar... az mar-aš bi-kuš-ī_
"if... you kill it"

There are still dialects today which use a preposition meaning "for, to" as a way of marking the direct object, in a similar way to the quote above.

Perhaps, in the ENP of Khorasan and Transoxania, _mar ... rā _through some evolution had grammaticalized from the MP _az ... mar _"on account of", similarly to EJP.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> _az ... mar_ in MP meant "on account of":
> 
> _èē hamāg nēst-tisīh *pid-kēnīh ud adōšagīg be ō mardōmān *az ān mar* mad ka-šān az jud šahr ud az jud rōstāg ud az jud deh mard āmad hēnd u-šān zan kard ud ka-šānzan be burd pid dud mād griyist hēnd pad ēn kū-mān duxt pad wardagīh hamē barēnd _
> 
> "For all poverty (_nēst-tišīh_, lit. not having anything), and hatred of parents (_pid-kēnīh_) and un-lovingness (_adōšagīg_) came to mankind *on the account*, when men came to them from an alien land and from an alien province and from an alien country, they married (_zan kard_), and when they take their wives away (_zan bur_), the fathers and mothers (i.e. of the women) wept (_griyist_), with these (words): ‘They are taking our daughter into captivity/slavery (_wardagīh_).’"
> 
> In Early Judeo-Persian, this grammaticalized into a pre/circumposition _az mar-i ... (rā)_ "for, because of", *and* as a way of marking the direct/indirect object (so equivalent to CP را):
> 
> _agar... az mar-aš bi-kuš-ī_
> "if... you kill it"


Thank you, this is what is needed, please let's have some more.


----------



## PersoLatin

In most examples _mar....rā_ seems to stand for or is a variation of bar..rā/ بر..را or barā/برا so e.g. mar u rā/مر او را can be read as barā u/برا او,  simply "for him", please see example (4) post #13 and in (6) _mar dust rā_/مر دوست را to _bar dust rā_/بر دوست را to modern  Persian _ barāye dust_/برای دوست "for friend", as can be seen the author has also used "for" in the English translation.

You can see in example (5) the author switches to barāye to/برای تو rather than _mar tu rā/_مر تو را,_ as it would look & _sound odd so:
حق ‏تعالی مرا برای تو آفرید rather than حق ‏تعالی مرا مرتورا  آفرید

To me, in most other examples given under different headings (in the link from post #13), _mar...ra_ essentially means the same i.e.   ....برای/for....


----------



## Derakhshan

برای itself is from _pad rāy ī_ "on account of". In MP _pad rāy ī _and _az mar ī _both seem to mean "because of, on account of".

_be abzāyēnd *pad rāy ī *Wahman ka-šān andar miyān šawēd_
"they increase on account of Wahman, when he exists among them"

_ud andar wizend ī *az mar ī* duš-xwarrah alaskandar ō ērān-šahr ud dēn ud xwadāyīh mad_
"and the harm that came upon Ērānšahr because of Alexander of evil fortune"


----------

