# Final -e as definite article in Persian



## Treaty

Hi,

In colloquial Persian _-e_ (sometimes _-he_) is added to the end of single nouns to make them definite. For example, _mard_ (man) becomes _marde_ (the man, or that man). There is no equivalent for this in formal Persian. Where did it come from?

Thanks


----------



## asanga

It comes from the OP demonstrative _aiva_, MP_ ē(w)_.


----------



## Treaty

Thanks,

Anyway it is interesting that this structure is remained in colloquial but omitted in formal language.


----------



## asanga

This may be a fairly recent state of affairs. Salemann and Shykovski's _Persische Grammatik_ from 1889(where I got this from) says: "In Laut und Schreibung ganz mit den eben besprochenen [unbestimtimmte Artikel یای وحدت] identish ist der bestimmte Artikel." (p.35) "In speech *and writing* the definite article is identical with the just described indefinite article."

They mention that the definite particle is called یای اشارت  or یای تعریف.


----------



## CapnPrep

asanga said:


> "In speech *and writing* the definite article is identical with the just described indefinite article."


That seems like a rather undesirable state of affairs for a language…  But I thought the indefinite article was unstressed _-i_.


----------



## Wolverine9

asanga said:


> It comes from the OP demonstrative _aiva_, MP_ ē(w)_.



Is this the same word as _aiva_- "one"?


----------



## Treaty

asanga said:


> This may be a fairly recent state of affairs. Salemann and Shykovski's _Persische Grammatik_ from 1889(where I got this from) says: "In Laut und Schreibung ganz mit den eben besprochenen [unbestimtimmte Artikel یای وحدت] identish ist der bestimmte Artikel." (p.35) "In speech *and writing* the definite article is identical with the just described indefinite article."
> 
> They mention that the definite particle is called یای اشارت  or یای تعریف.



I'm a bit confused here. یای وحدت is similar to "a" in English and it is indefinite. یای تعریف is similar to "the" but *only *used before که. It is like "*the* noun *that*" in English. In colloquial Persian both are pronounced [i:] like in formal Persian. However, what I say is never used before که and is pronounced [e]. 

Considering a similar _ekû _used in Behbahani dialect for the same reason I guess you may be right if we consider _ekû _is similar to Persian _-ī ke_ (یای تعریف). However, again there is a problem: The Behbahani version is never used like the Persian یای تعریف with که. Please consider below:

یای تعریف : pesar-ī *ke *āmad ... = The/A boy *who *came ...
یای وحدت : pesar-ī āmad. = A boy came.
my ه : pesar-e āmad. = The boy came
ekû : pesar-ekû āmad. = The boy came. (The pronunciation is changed to ease comparison).


----------



## Qureshpor

What asanga is describing is the Classical Persian "e" which is now pronounced as "-ii-" in Modern Persian. This "e" is added to a noun to make it "indefinite". Modern linguists describe it as a "specifier" if I remember correctly.

mard-e = a man/ some man or other/ a certain man

marde kih iinjaa aamad, dost-i-man ast.

The man who came here is my friend.

In other contexts, even after kih, this "-e" imparts the meaning of "A x who/that" or "Such an x who/that".

What Treaty is asking about is the "e" suffix added to nouns without "kih" in colloquial speech. I don't know about its etymology. Neither am I aware if this is connected with the Classical "-e-" (modern -ii-) or not. So, I think we are back to square one!


----------



## fdb

The suffix –ē (Western Persian –ī) attached to a noun has two functions in the New Persian written language:
(1) An indefinite (or perhaps better: individualising) article, from the number (not demonstrative) OP aywa-, MP ēw, meaning “one”.
(2) A particle to mark the antecedent of a relative clause (mard-ē ki…. “the man who”). This structure is not attested before the New Persian stage, but it seems to have
 developed out of (1): originally “a man who …”, then “a particular man who…”, then “the man who”.
The colloquial mard-e (with short e) “the man” must have a different origin.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> The suffix –ē (Western Persian –ī) attached to a noun has two functions in the New Persian written language:
> (1) An indefinite (or perhaps better: individualising) article, from the number (not demonstrative) OP aywa-, MP ēw, meaning “one”.
> (2) A particle to mark the antecedent of a relative clause (mard-ē ki…. “the man who”). This structure is not attested before the New Persian stage, but it seems to have
> developed out of (1): originally “a man who …”, then “a particular man who…”, then “the man who”.
> The colloquial mard-e (with short e) “the man” must have a different origin.


There is also"-e" for habitual and irrealis. I don't know if this has any connection with the above mentioned suffixes.


----------



## fdb

No, we are talking about nouns, for the moment.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> No, we are talking about nouns, for the moment.


Point taken.


----------



## asanga

Salemann & Shukovski claim function 1 comes from "altem _aiva _'ein'", whereas function 2 is "ursprünglich ein altes Pronomen _aiva _'dieser'", which I assumed was a variant of _hauv_/_ava_-. I'm in awe of 19th century (German) philologists, but I guess I shouldn't trust them unquestioningly.

They state that, while it's currently pronounced î, it's "eigentlich یای مجهول ê". They also give an example without که from the Jawâmi ul-Hikâyât: سیه فامانی ازعنبرسرشته "those black-colored ones [i.e. Africans] [who are] made out of amber".

I thought this kind of construction could easily come to mean "the black-colored ones made out of amber"  in informal speech, and eventually be used entirely independently of adjective phrases.


----------



## fdb

Salemann was a first-rate Iranist (incidentally a Russian, though of Baltic-German descent), but our knowledge of
 Iranian languages has moved on a bit since his day.


----------



## Qureshpor

Gernot. L.Windfuhr in an article in "The Major Languages of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa" (1987) gives this suffix a passing mention without providing any etymological details.

"The colloquial language in Iran has developed a focalising suffix -e, e.g sag-e "the dog mentioned".


----------



## aisha93

Hello

In some southern dialects I know they use a long (u) at the end of the word.
For example: marde = mardu = the man.
Some others use (iku) as Treaty said.

I think the (u) at the end of یارو (which is a very common word) is also the same. 
Though I sometimes hear یاروئه (yaru-e) the last (e) seems to be the same as in "marde" which is superfluous I think since there is already the definite (u). What do you think of this word Treaty?

Thanks


----------



## Treaty

aisha93 said:


> Hello
> 
> In some southern dialects I know they use a long (u) at the end of the word.
> For example: marde = mardu = the man.
> Some others use (iku) as Treaty said.
> 
> I think the (u) at the end of یارو (which is a very common word) is also the same.
> Though I sometimes hear یاروئه (yaru-e) the last (e) seems to be the same as in "marde" which is superfluous I think since there is already the definite (u). What do you think of this word Treaty?
> 
> Thanks



Well said! There are dialects that pronounce it [u:]. I guess the _-ek_ part of -_eku_ can be the belittling suffix _-ak_. Therefore, it is probable that the _-e_ in central Iranian Persian is pronounced _-u_ in southern Persian dialects (though this is a wide generalisation of geographic location). It is interesting that in dialects which use _-u_ the other types of yā are still pronounced like ī or ē. 



asanga said:


> They state that, while it's currently pronounced î, it's "eigentlich یای مجهول ê". They also give an example without که from the Jawâmi ul-Hikâyât: سیه فامانی ازعنبرسرشته "those black-colored ones [i.e. Africans] [who are] made out of amber".
> 
> I thought this kind of construction could easily come to mean "the  black-colored ones made out of amber"  in informal speech, and  eventually be used entirely independently of adjective phrases.



Here it means "Zoleykha had ... *some* amber-made Africans". Actually, my problem with this poem is the earlier couplets where the یای مجهول is not used but implied.


----------



## asanga

Treaty said:


> Here it means "Zoleykha had ... *some* amber-made Africans". Actually, my problem with this poem is the earlier couplets where the یای مجهول is not used but implied.



May I ask how you managed to find the passage? Is there a searchable e-text available on-line?

Is this usage as *some*, rather than *a*, or *the* + relative clause, common in classical NP texts? It at least suggests the article was used less rigidly in the past.


----------



## fdb

In classical as in modern Persian the “indefinite” suffix is frequently added to a plural noun, e.g. mard-ān-ē (Western Persian mardānī) “some men” (the stress is on –ān-; the suffix is enclitic).


----------



## Treaty

asanga said:


> May I ask how you managed to find the passage? Is there a searchable e-text available on-line?



ganjoor.net is the most complete online database of the Persian poems. However, it uses edited versions which may differ from the original in a few minute details. I search that phrase in Google and ganjoor was the top result for me.


----------

