# Persian: vocative ending ا



## zj73

Hi

Was the vocative ending ا originally يا, as in Arabic?

Like كريما which occurs in a famous poem by Saadi.


----------



## Qureshpor

zj73 said:


> Hi
> 
> Was the vocative ending ا originally يا, as in Arabic?
> 
> Like كريما which occurs in a famous poem by Saadi.


No, the vocative is not یا but ا. 

In کریما it is also ا.


----------



## PersoLatin

Persian vocative article  'ا' comes at the end of, where the Arabic vocative 'يا' comes before, the noun.


zj73 said:


> Like كريما which occurs in a famous poem by Saadi.


As can be seen in these examples یارا, حافظا, خدایا and كريما, please note خدایا is خدا+ی+ا where ی always  acts as a liaison before a long vowel, here the 'ا' article.

There's of course another Persian vocative 'ای/ey' which comes before the noun, as in: ای خدا ,ای حافظ, ای یار

See here.


----------



## Ali Smith

The Persian vocative particle ا could be a borrowing from Aramaic, cf מַלְכָּא _malkā_ 'O king!'.


----------



## PersoLatin

Ali Smith said:


> The Persian vocative particle ا could be a borrowing from Aramaic, cf מַלְכָּא _malkā_ 'O king!'.


That’s interesting & very likely as it is used only formally, in less formal situations ای/ey is used which, to me , is more authentic Persian. 

Has it survived in any of the other Semitic languages?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> That’s interesting & very likely as it is used only formally, in less formal situations ای/ey is used which, to me , is more authentic Persian.


I don't know how one can say one is "more authentic Persian" than the other. For me, both are equally authentic Persian, whatever the origin of the vocative suffix.



PersoLatin said:


> Has it survived in any of the other Semitic languages?


A very good question.

A question from me.

Is this suffix also used with plural nouns? Can we have, for example, مردانا O men?


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> I don't know how one can say one is "more authentic Persian"


The fact it is only used in formal & poetic Persian points to its non-Persian origin, I believe that’s a fair comment to make on a linguistic forum, my observation may not be accurate or correct but I’m hoping someone will enlighten us all.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> The fact it is only used in formal & poetic Persian points to its non-Persian origin, I believe that’s a fair comment to make on a linguistic forum, my observation may not be accurate or correct but I’m hoping someone will enlighten us all.


What about خدایا? Isn't this used in ordinary everyday speech?


----------



## Aryamp

Qureshpor said:


> What about خدایا? Isn't this used in ordinary everyday speech?


Yes it is. In any case everyday speech would be a very bad measure for the origin of the words.


----------



## Qureshpor

Aryamp said:


> Yes it is. In any case everyday speech would be a very bad measure for the origin of the words.


This has not been suggested by me.


----------



## PersoLatin

Aryamp said:


> Yes it is. In any case everyday speech would be a very bad measure for the origin of the words.


Everyday spoken speech is way way older than formal speech, formal speech is standardised spoken speech after all.


----------



## Aryamp

PersoLatin said:


> Everyday spoken speech is way way older than formal speech, formal speech is standardised spoken speech after all.


Spoken language is dynamic and ever-changing. We cannot draw any conclusion about the origin of words or expressions based on their current usage status in colloquial speech. It is just wrong to say some word or affix is of foreign origin if its current usage is limited to formal or poetic language, especially when we're dealing with a time scale of more than a thousand years! By that logic thousands of Persian words would have to be considered non-Persian, and vice versa.

 I think you’re referring to prescribed language, like sometimes the Academy of Persian language invents a new word but it fails to find currency among speakers so it remains a prescribed word in official documents.


----------



## fdb

The suffix -ā is common in poetry, not only after nouns but also after verbs and other words, e.g. in guftā “he said”. It is not (exclusively) vocative, at best mildly emphatic. It has no parallel in Semitic.


----------



## PersoLatin

fdb said:


> The suffix -ā is common in poetry, not only after nouns but also after verbs and other words, e.g. in guftā “he said”. It is not (exclusively) vocative, at best mildly emphatic. It has no parallel in Semitic


Thank you for clarifying this fdb.

Could the Aramaic ending mentioned in post #4  (מַלְכָּא _malkā) _be of Persian origin instead?


----------



## fdb

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you for clarifying this fdb.
> 
> Could the Aramaic ending mentioned in post #4  (מַלְכָּא _malkā) _be of Persian origin instead?


The determinate suffix is already in Old Aramaic. It does not occur in Persian until the Middle Persian stage.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you.


fdb said:


> The determinate suffix is already in Old Aramaic. It does not occur in Persian until the Middle Persian stage.


How does one know MP didn't borrow it from Old Aramaic?


----------



## fdb

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you.
> 
> How does one know MP didn't borrow it from Old Aramaic?


Possible yes, likely no.


----------

