# Persian: Pronunciation of  ژوئیه



## Daffodil100

Hello,

My question is how to pronounce ژوئیه. 

 ژوئیهis denoted as [jhooiye] in my textbook , and it is exactly what I heard from my audio file. Do you think the pronunciation is correct?

And I was told ژوئن is pronounced [zho’an]. And ئ  is pronounced [a]. I did hear [a] from my audio file about this word.


However, I don’t hear [a] is pronounced in ژوئیه. Do native speakers actually pronounce [a] in this word? 



Please advise. 

Thank you!


----------



## Aryamp

ئ is not a vowel it's a consonant ,I think in one of your earlier questions we talked about the role of "hamze"  when you asked about آ and ا  

So ئ is only a glottal stop if I mark the vowels and consonants you'll understand better : 

ژوئیه = joo'iye 

so as you can see ئـ is only functioning as a glottal stop which i marked by an apostrophe

ژوئَن = ژوئـ ـ‌َ ن

joo'an


----------



## Daffodil100

Thank you very much for your help. I got it.


----------



## mannoushka

Daffodil100, the question you raise about _Juillet_, whether the hamze in the middle of the word is actually ever pronounced, is one that can be settled quite nicely if you change the spelling, which you can do without committing an infraction. 
The Persian word for Autumn, _paa'eez _(پائیز), is an example. This word is spelt with the obligatory hamze that represents the 'a' sound; my question is, where is the 'a' sound most of the time when the word is spoken by a native? What we mostly hear, and what we actually do say nine times out of ten, is more a _paayeez _(پاییز). So, personally I always go for the the second spelling when I'm writing this word, which is also correct and has the extra advantage of being closer to the actual pronunciation (though, as I said, both pronunciations are in use, albeit not to the same degree). 
In the same way, it must be possible to forget about the hamze altogether when writing or saying Juillet, like so: ژوییه

I think perhaps the rule ought to be: (1) Use the hamze when it's actually part of the etymology of the word AND the sound of the vowel can ALWAYS be heard. (2) Definitely replace the hamze with a 'ی' if you NEVER hear the 'a' sound, which is mostly when the hamze is followed by a 'ی'. (The sound expected from adjacent 'ی's is similar to that heard in the English word 'yield'. Isn't that what you can hear on your podcast, too?)

Now that I've managed to make things really complicated, let me go all the way and add this aside: In reality, it's better to have as fewer strict rules as possible when it comes to spelling, in Persian, that is. I find it adds something to our already idiosyncratic language that we can be open-minded about spelling, not to mention its being quite useful sometimes. I can hear non-natives brace themselves: Let them spell Juillet and Payeez according to their whim! We shall yet decode their writings!


----------



## Daffodil100

Hi Mannoushka,


Thank you very much for your input. 


I found the words for the months of Gregorian Calendar are not adopted in some Persian Dictionary. Aryamp explained that is because they are transliteration, and some Irani people even never use them. 

Since that, I might not consider them as core Persian words I have to grasp exactly. Educated Irani people are supposed to know pronunciations and spellings in English for the name of the months in Gregorian Calendar, are they? 

Yes, native people do have capacity to decode wrong spellings and pronounciations from the context. عالی است. 


خیلی ممنونم


----------



## Aryamp

> Daffodil100, the question you raise about _Juillet_, whether the  hamze in the middle of the word is actually ever pronounced, is one that  can be settled quite nicely if you change the spelling, which you can  do without committing an infraction.
> .
> .
> .




The nature of Persian language is such that two vowels rarely come adjacently therefore in almost all words which are Persian by origin there's no need for _Hamze_.  Indeed _Payiz_ is the most natural pronunciation of the word for autumn therefore according to modern grammar it's wrong to write it as پائیز

Also : 
پایین and not پائین
آیین and not آئین
etc

Again I've to emphasize hamze does not have a sound whatsoever, it's not A or O or E etc , it simply indicates a glottal stop and the vowel that follows determines if it's A, E, O etc.

In Perso-Arabic script vowels can never be written on their own, for example in English the word "React" has a glottal stop where vowel* A *comes right after the vowel_ *E* _,  if I want to write that in Persian script I cannot write it like this :
 ریـ َکت   with the short vowel 'a' hanging in the air.  it needs a _seat _therefore : ریئَکت but then such pronunciation is not in accordance with the norms of Persian pronunciation therefore a word like Reactor is actually written and pronounced as : راکتور



> In the same way, it must be possible to forget about the hamze altogether when writing or saying Juillet, like so: ژوییه



‌Hamze must be written for foreign words which are actually pronounced with a glottal stop, so how you should write Juillet depends on how you think it is pronounced or should be pronounced, perhaps in case of Juillet we can be lenient and regard both pronunciations as acceptable, but then for ژوئن it's definitely wrong to pronounce it as ژوین and there are so many other foreign words that require Hamze : سوئد  ٬ ونزوئلا  



> I find it adds something to  our already idiosyncratic language that we can be open-minded about  spelling, not to mention its being quite useful sometimes.




I'm not sure I quite follow what you're trying to say here, but I think Persian spelling and pronunciation rules are relatively quite straightforward.


----------



## Treaty

Aryamp;13369586
In Perso-Arabic script vowels can never be written on their own said:
			
		

> _A _[/B]comes right after the vowel_ *E* _,  if I want to write that in Persian script I cannot write it like this :
> ریـ َکت   with the short vowel 'a' hanging in the air.  it needs a _seat _therefore : ریئَکت but then such pronunciation is not in accordance with the norms of Persian pronunciation therefore a word like Reactor is actually written and pronounced as : راکتور



*رآکتور *is borrowed from French _réacteur,_ not from English _reactor. _In fact, it follows the Persian norms which are also found in words like قرآن and مآب.


----------



## Aryamp

Thank you for the reminder, I'm aware most _western _loanwords come from French but I just wanted to give an example of a word with a glottal stop in English and how it would be represented in Persian script so it didn't matter which language راکتور was originally borrowed from, though still in French I assume there's indeed a glottal stop anyway.

 رآکتور is a wrong spelling, most people pronounce such a word as "Râktor"  and hence it must be written as راکتور , still there are people who want to be faithful to the original pronunciation of the word, in that case the correct spelling is : رئاکتور ， just like رئالیسم  and not  رآلیسم 

for a full explanation of orthographic rules regarding Hamze you can read this useful page : 

http://aryaadib.blogfa.com/post-519.aspx


----------



## mannoushka

Aryamp said:


> رآکتور is a wrong spelling, most people pronounce such a word as "Râktor" and hence it must be written as راکتور , still there are people who want to be faithful to the original pronunciation of the word, in that case the correct spelling is : رئاکتور ， just like رئالیسم and not رآلیسم
> 
> for a full explanation of orthographic rules regarding Hamze you can read this useful page :
> 
> http://aryaadib.blogfa.com/post-519.aspx



I would question your assertion that رآکتور is incorrect. It isn't incorrect at all, if one is to remain faithful to the borrowed pronunciation. Surely when a word is borrowed and transliterated, spelling becomes a matter of preference, so long, of course, as the basic rules are not flouted and the sounds are faithfully represented?


----------



## Aryamp

mannoushka said:


> I would question your assertion that رآکتور is incorrect. It isn't incorrect at all, if one is to remain faithful to the borrowed pronunciation. Surely when a word is borrowed and transliterated, spelling becomes a matter of preference, so long, of course, as the basic rules are not flouted and the sounds are faithfully represented?



Spelling is not just a matter of preference, there are certain rules, guidelines and conventions which help us determine how a word should be spelled and if neglected the result will be chaos and inconsistency in writing. This has happened to a certain extent to a word like "ایده آل"  which can also be found as ایدآل and  ایدئال . (the reason we see spellings such as رآکتور and ایدآل is that some people believe "hamze" does not belong to Persian alphabet and must be omitted wherever possible but I think that just adds to pronunciation ambiguities, see :‌http://m-sepanta.blogfa.com/cat-6.aspx )

If you care to read the link in my previous post you'll find a thorough explanation on this subject. Also another link http://journals.ut.ac.ir/page/article-frame.html?articleId=1137766  throws some light on the usage of hamze.

The reason a word like _réacteur _should be transliterated as رئاکتور and not رآکتور （according to the rules as explained by Morteza Kakhi )  I think is that generally in Persian language آ is only used at the beginning of a word and all the words that use hamze in middle of the word are in fact arabic in origin. And arabic orthography has certain rules which are explained in the link above. Also I think for Persians the most difficult combination of vowels to pronounce is "e" next to long "a"  as in تئاتر which is often pronounced as "tâ'âtr"  therefore using ئـ instead of آ will be more encouraging in pronouncing it correctly. 

And finally it's just a matter of convention and consistency, we write ایدئولوژی and not ایدالوژی also رئال and not رآل  etc
So it's better to write رئاکتور rather than رآکتور which will only result in people ignoring the tilde and pronouncing it as راکتور anyway.


----------



## mannoushka

Aryamp said:


> Spelling is not just a matter of preference, there are certain rules, guidelines and conventions which help us determine how a word should be spelled and if neglected the result will be *chaos and inconsistency *in writing. ...
> ... The reason a word like _réacteur _should be transliterated as رئاکتور and not رآکتور （according to the rules as explained by Morteza Kakhi ) I think is that generally in Persian language آ is only used at the beginning of a word and all the words that use hamze in middle of the word are in fact arabic in origin. And arabic orthography has certain rules which are explained in the link above. Also I think for Persians the most difficult combination of vowels to pronounce is "e" next to long "a" as in تئاتر which is often pronounced as "tâ'âtr" therefore using ئـ instead of آ will be more encouraging in pronouncing it correctly.
> 
> And finally it's just a matter of convention and consistency, we write ایدئولوژی and not ایدالوژی also رئال and not رآل etc
> So it's better to write رئاکتور rather than رآکتور which will only result in people ignoring the tilde and pronouncing it as راکتور anyway.



Chaos and inconsistency, and panic and emptiness, of course! But Aryamp, the Persian script thrives on chaos and inconsistency! Indeed it does. Look at all the texts written only going back, say, forty years. How the tendency was then to string up the parts of words that are today written, not by all, mind, as separate parts within the word. Rules have been introduced very recently __ dare I suggest by people who, though learned men and women they be in adulthood, must have suffered a history of poor marks in their dictation when they were but school-children. But some of these rules are already defunct anyway, because, if you look at Farsi textbooks taught at elementary schools nowadays, you'll spot variations in spelling, put there, I should imagine, deliberately in order to make kids understand that there are more ways to spell a word than just one standardized way. There are no standards, really. Some of these fairly recent rules and conventions are actually useful, I admit, and these are the ones that take their cue from the grammar. For instance, to separate the 'mi' at the beginning of many verb conjugations, is a welcome thing. But, the point, or shall I say the rule that governs all the rules, is that ultimately there is no standard script in Persian.

As for the particular reasons you cite for preferring to transliterate _reacteur_ using a hamze, I must say that though they are good reasons, all they do is support your 'preference'; they are far from sufficient for turning the whole body of the Persian-writing population around. Because, since when have we started spelling words exactly as we pronounce them? The case that begs to be recalled here is that of the funny 'v' or 'o' in the middle of words such as khaahesh, khaahar, etc., where the sound that is represented by the letter of alphabet 'و' is never reproduced in speech. 

While saying all that I've said above, I've been keeping one thing till last, which is, I think this chaos and inconsistency is actually better than too many rules. Too many rules will simply fail to be acknowledged in practice, will empty Persian script of its character, and will certainly make dictation lessons more, not less, monstrously hard than they already are.


----------



## Aryamp

mannoushka said:


> Chaos and inconsistency, and panic and emptiness, of course! But Aryamp, the Persian script thrives on chaos and inconsistency! Indeed it does.



Why do you say so? Nothing thrives on chaos!
اگر ئینتور بود الئان مع لوم نبود ما چه طر باید حرف همرو میفه میدیم
we're not talking about an abstract painting where chaos will produce variations in artistic impression! 

If today we can read almost any text without difficulty it's because there are rules and there have been people who cared to stick to the rules! 



> Look at all the texts written only going back, say, forty years. How the tendency was then to string up the parts of words that are today written, not by all, mind, as separate parts within the word. ...



Times change and we change with them, you're basically referring to an inherent quality of everything, language itself changes , but just because the laws of a country change  doesn't mean the country is lawless**.I think it's specially important to value the views of experts in every field and I always prefer harmony over chaos, and harmony must be based upon reason , it's not just a matter of preference, there's a reason why Persian Academy endorses a specific orthographic style (you can read the decree of Persian Academy here ) , and if some experts hold different views they must also provide reason, no one can say I want to write رآکتور or رآلیسم just because I can or even worse just becasue Persian writing is chaotic!

=-=-=-=-=-=
**
In fact there are good reasons why in the past people wrote some words differently and then later the schools adopted new rules and started teaching students different spellings. I think we've made some good improvements that must be recognized and acknowledged. I mean just look at the letter of an MP some 60 years ago : http://emhashtad.persiangig.com/image/ahmadakhgar.jpg 

It's full of inconsistencies which indeed seem to suggest persian script is chaotic, but in fact even the most basic aesthetic rules of persian script which have been established for hundreds of years are not observed in this letter : the correct spacing of words, which suggests there's more than just chaotic nature of persian script to blame here. ( I think a full analysis of the reasons behind that requires scrolls of writing)

Also some other interesting examples of such inconsistent writing in the past : 
http://i11.tinypic.com/2hi56a0.jpg
http://i14.tinypic.com/6pp0a5w.jpg

However I don't think such variations of می and به are that important, I mean of course now we must abide by the new rules which definitely are better than the situation in the past, but still what makes these samples readable to us is the fact that 99% of the words are written according to well defined rules of Persian orthography.


----------



## mannoushka

Aryamp said:


> اگر ئینتور بود الئان مع لوم نبود ما چه طر باید حرف همرو میفه میدیم



But I just did! I could read and understand you! And I'm sure, so would any child or adult capable of reading Persian texts suited to them from the point of view of the subject matter discussed! You actually prove my point when you introduce drastic spelling variations as in the above quote.


----------



## mannoushka

Aryamp said:


> ... harmony must be based upon reason , it's not just a matter of preference, there's a reason why Persian Academy endorses a specific orthographic style (you can read the decree of Persian Academy here ) , and if some experts hold different views they must also provide reason, no one can say I want to write رآکتور or رآلیسم just because I can or even worse just becasue Persian writing is chaotic!



Naturally, the tendency, in the midst of chaos, is for order to be introduced into a system, and vice versa. My reason for spelling the borrowed words in the quote above is not that chaos is the order of the day, no. The reason is, there are already other, older examples in existence. Eg. فرنگی مآب Would you suggest we cross out this quite logical and correct version of the word, and opt for the hamze instead just so as to make this older word's spelling consistent with your version of 'reactor'? You wouldn't, would you? So, it seems, just by this single example, which can hardly be said to be exceptional, that different rules apply to different cases. Anyone suggesting we bring the words into line by going for one or the other way of writing a word such 'reactor', is in fact making an arbitrary decree. Chaos can have its own reasons!


----------



## mannoushka

Aryamp said:


> However I don't think such variations of می and به are that important, I mean of course now we must abide by the new rules which definitely are better than the situation in the past, but still what makes these samples readable to us is the fact that 99% of the words are written according to well defined rules of Persian orthography.


Unlike you, I tend to think that the best rules, the ones that make sense to the general public and are therefore more likely to be adopted by those who write in Persian, are those that corroborate some point of Farsi grammar. Finally, please consider that fact that questions such as joining vs. not joining, spelling with a hamze or using some other device, or sustaining vs. dropping the letters that aren't pronounced (eg. writing 'hatta' instead of 'hatti', meaning 'even') are, and should be, questions of convenience rather than matters for policy and decree. I put it to you that these and other questions point to devices we have at our disposal to make our writing more, not less, comprehensible and beautiful. It would be a shame for any individual not to see this, not to appreciate the democratic nature of our script, and to opt instead for uniformity that could not possibly hold because it will not cater to all the needs of all the people who do write.


----------



## Aryamp

mannoushka said:


> But I just did! I could read and understand you! And I'm sure, so would any child or adult capable of reading Persian texts suited to them from the point of view of the subject matter discussed! You actually prove my point when you introduce drastic spelling variations as in the above quote.



من گمان کردم شما مقصود من را از این مثال درک می‌کنید! شک نداشتم که این جمله را می‌توانید بخوانید اما مطمئناً نه آنقدر راحت و روان! حال فرض کنید یک کتاب اینگونه نوشته شود و اگر موضوع جمله به همین سادگی نباشد چه؟ شما اهمیت درست نوشتن و بر اساس اصول و معیارهای مشخص نوشتن را متاسفانه دست کم می‌گیرید من حتی ادعا می‌کنم جان افراد گاهی به درست نوشتن  بستگی دارد. 
خواندن سریع و روان و پیدا کردن واژه ها و درک ارتباط معنایی و انسجام جمله و صدها نکته مهم دیگر به درست نوشتن و یکدست نوشتن بستگی دارد.




mannoushka said:


> The reason is, there are already other, older examples in existence. Eg. فرنگی مآب Would you suggest we cross out this quite logical and correct version of the word, and opt for the hamze instead just so as to make this older word's spelling consistent with your version of 'reactor'.



If you read the articles in the links I gave before, you will find the answer. They've sufficiently explained the rules and the reasons.



mannoushka said:


> Finally, please consider that fact that questions such as joining vs. not joining, spelling with a hamze or using some other device, or sustaining vs. dropping the letters that aren't pronounced (eg. writing 'hatta' instead of 'hatti', meaning 'even') are, and should be, questions of convenience rather than matters for policy and decree.



I would have loved to serve my convenience in school and spell words the way I preferred but then I guess I would have never learned to spell properly and probably end up writing like that chaotic example, but then apparently you think it's fine to write like that. 

And obviously the question of whether systematic spelling is important is one that transcends Persian language and can be applied to all languages including English as well.

You might want to take a look at these interesting articles : 
A very educative interview which is totally related to our topic of discussion and explains not only the importance of proper spelling but also why in the past there was a tendency to write words attached: 
http://www.farkhari.com/My%20Web%20Site/Interviews/Emlaa2.htm

Also another article of the importance of spelling in English :
http://www.spellingcity.com/importance-of-spelling.html


----------

