# Persian: فرهنگ بزرگ یک جلدی پیشرو آریان پور



## seitt

Greetings

This is the one-volume Āryānpur Progressive Persian-English Dictionary’s name in Persian:
فرهنگ بزرگ یک جلدی پیشرو آریان پور

My question: please could you give me the exact pronunciation of پیشرو here? I imagine there must be an extra kasre after it, but why isn’t it written i.e. why isn’t it پیشروی?

All the best, and many thanks,

Simon


----------



## Jervoltage

Hi,



> please could you give me the exact pronunciation of پیشرو here?



pishro-ye aaryaanpur



> but why isn’t it written i.e. why isn’t it پیشروی?



It should be. It's a common mistake.


----------



## seitt

Ah, thank you. This is interesting.

So, when the final و is short, as in پیشرو, we need a kasre written ی.
But does this stay the same when the final و is long? I.e. what would be the case it it were فرهنگ بزرگ یک جلدی نو آریان پور?

I realise that this is complicated by the fact that in modern colloquial speech, where و used to be pronounced as a long O (sometimes transcribed OW), it is now pronounced as a short O (as I believe - please let me know if I'm wrong).


----------



## Jervoltage

The final vowel sounds in پیشرو and نو are identical: سال نوی میلادی



> I realise that this is complicated by the fact that in modern colloquial  speech, where و used to be pronounced as a long O (sometimes  transcribed OW), it is now pronounced as a short O (as I believe -  please let me know if I'm wrong).



The distinction between /o/ and /ou/ is apparently preserved in standard Eastern Persian, but I don't see how it can affect the spelling for نو or پیشرو plus kasre.


----------



## seitt

Many thanks, all clear now.


----------



## Dib

I am wondering in the same line as seitt: given that historically the word ended in -raw maybe Aryanpour didn't make a mistake, but made a conscious choice to have a consonantal vaav implicitly? But at the first glance, the lack of the ی was indeed striking.


----------



## Treaty

The formal Persian acknowledges both pronunciations (and the respective writing) of -_oe_ and -_oye_ for adding _ezaafe_ to -_o_ endings. In colloquial Persian, some use the former and others use the latter. So, there is no problem with فرهنگ پیشروِ آریان پور


----------



## seitt

Thank you all, most enlightening. I note that if I pronounce ‘oe’ together, I involuntarily place a kind of W sound between the two consonants – do you find yourselves doing this as Persian speakers?


----------



## Treaty

you're welcome.

It is like _o'e_ but with a very weak glottal stop (that is not unlike a weak _w_).


----------



## Jervoltage

Dib said:


> ...maybe Aryanpour didn't make a mistake...



Actually, I don't think Aryanpours titled this version themselves.



Treaty said:


> The formal Persian acknowledges both pronunciations (and the respective writing) of -_oe_ and -_oye_ for adding _ezaafe_ to -_o_ endings. In colloquial Persian, some use the former and others use the latter. So, there is no problem with فرهنگ پیشروِ آریان پور



The final syllable including the kasre in پیشرویِ calls for an extra ی (the same goes for خانه یِ as opposed to خانهِ). There is no such diphthong as oe in Persian.


----------



## fdb

In recent years there has been a serious effort to standardise Persian orthography. If you look at older publications (to say nothing of manuscripts) you will see not only خانه ى but also     خانۀ  ; similarly پيشروى but also پيشروِ. There is lots of fluctuation.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> In recent years there has been a serious effort to standardise Persian orthography. If you look at older publications (to say nothing of manuscripts) you will see not only خانه ى but also     خانۀ   and  خانه اى ; similarly پيشروى but also پيشروِ. There is lots of fluctuation.


Is n't this different in meaning from the first two?


----------



## fdb

You are right. I have changed it.


----------



## Jervoltage

fdb said:


> In recent years there has been a serious effort to standardise Persian orthography. If you look at older publications (to say nothing of manuscripts) you will see not only خانه ى but also     خانۀ  ; similarly پيشروى but also پيشروِ. There is lots of fluctuation.



Of course خانه ی/    خانۀ distinction is of a different nature. The symbol used in خانۀ is after all a minuscule version of ی.


----------



## Qureshpor

Jervoltage said:


> Of course خانه ی/    خانۀ distinction is of a different nature. The symbol used in خانۀ is after all a minuscule version of ی.


I did n't know that. I thought it was a fully fledged hamza (2), bearing in mind the older pronunciation to be more a vowel than a consonant.

e.g. xaanah-2i-xudaa, daanaa-2i-raaz, garmii-2i-maHfil, bo-2i-moliyaan, ruu-2i-zamiin, mai-2i-naab,


----------



## Jervoltage

Qureshpor said:


> I did n't know that. I thought it was a fully fledged hamza (2), bearing in mind the older pronunciation to be more a vowel than a consonant.
> 
> e.g. xaanah-2i-xudaa, daanaa-2i-raaz, garmii-2i-maHfil, bo-2i-moliyaan, ruu-2i-zamiin, mai-2i-naab,



No, it's not. I found this, knowing that you speak Persian very well:


> حال ببینیم این همزه یا همزه نما از کجا و به چه ترتیب داخل رسم الخط پارسی  شده است؟ پارسی نویسان قدیم یعنی سده چهارم و پنجم هجری که هم با اطلاع و  هم به درست نویسی مقید بودند در پهلوی ها‌ی‌ بیان حرکت در حال وصف و اضافه یایی کوچک و بی نقطه (خانه ی من - نامه ی شریف ) و در اتصال به یا‌ی‌ نکره و  وحدت و خطاب و نسبت »یی « کوچک و بی نقطه (خانه یی خریدم - نامه یی خواندم  ) رسم میکردند، پس از چندی این دو حرف را که جز دوعلامت برای نشان دادن  طرز تلفظ نبود اندکی بالاتر ودر جلو ها‌ی‌ نوشتند. رفته رفته کاتبان بی  اطلاع این دوحرف یا علامت کوچک را به سبب مشابهتی که به همزه داشت همزه  پنداشتند و در کتابت به صورت همزه درآوردند و جای آن را هم تغییر دادند و  درست در بالای ها‌ی‌ نوشتند.


 
Full article

As for the expressions you provided being previously pronounced with hamza, it's news to me!


----------



## Qureshpor

Jervoltage said:


> [..]As for the expressions your provided being previously pronounced with hamza, it's news to me!


Perhaps, I ought to have been clearer. I did n't mean the Arabic hamza/glottal stop. What I meant was that it is the hamza symbol to convey a sound which was not a ی in the past, but more like a vowel.

PS:

I just read the paragraph you quoted. But I am not convinced that the kaatibs mistook a ye for a hamzah over a period of time.


----------

