# Persian: زنه



## G_mut

Hi everybody. I have another question regarding the sentence in my previous thread. I wasn't sure I could ask there so I created a new thread. The sentence is the following:

ننه نفسش بند اومد و سلفه کرد، پا شد، دید بچه رو از روش برداشته و باباهه داره با زنه
دعوا میکنه.

And my question is about the word _زنه_. Does the _ه_ suffix in this case represent the Tehrani definite article? Couldn't _زنش _be used instead? Thank you!!!


----------



## colognial

You could use زنش, but the sense would change. The 'e' at the end of زنه acts as a definite article (as in 'the woman/the wife'). The 'sh' at the end of زنش is a possessive adjective - or is it pronoun? - put there to inform the reader that the woman is the wife of the father.


----------



## G_mut

Thanks a lot colognial!!! By the way, is this definite article a feature of Tehrani colloquial only, or is it used around the country? How about in Dari/Tajik?


----------



## eskandar

G_mut said:


> By the way, is this definite article a feature of Tehrani colloquial only, or is it used around the country? How about in Dari/Tajik?


As day by day, the Tehrani dialect is eroding and replacing all other dialects in the country, it isn't always easy to identify what's only used in Tehran and what's used across Iran anymore. I don't know if any other Iranian dialects use this feature 'natively' (ie. not under Tehrani influence). It's not used in Afghan or Tajik dialects to my knowledge.


----------



## kloie

When I was learning Persian many years ago I was told that I spoke it the tehranian way I forgot what the young man meant by that but I think most websites and books teach it that way.


----------



## PersoLatin

kloie said:


> tehranian


I like this & prefer it to Tehrani, it is consistent with Iranian.


----------



## colognial

As far as Persian and other languages spoken by Iranians go, I believe that in Kurdish the definite article is _éké_ and not just _é_, while in many dialects of the southern regions an _u _attached to the end of the noun ensures the noun refers to a known thing. Around Esphahan in Central Iran the _é _denotes the definite article, the same as up in Tehran. This is all the information I could gather, which is not nearly enough.


----------



## G_mut

colognial said:


> As far as Persian and other languages spoken by Iranians go, I believe that in Kurdish the definite article is _éké_ and not just _é_, while in many dialects of the southern regions an _u _attached to the end of the noun ensures the noun refers to a known thing. Around Esphahan in Central Iran the _é _denotes the definite article, the same as up in Tehran. This is all the information I could gather, which is not nearly enough.



Thanks a lot


----------



## arsham

Just to complete the list: -eka in Nahâvandi and -a in Dezfuli/Shushtari.

By the way, this contrast marker, which is usually used with demonstratives, is a colloquialism. I would avoid it in formal conversations.


----------



## Derakhshan

-_eku_ in Behbehani, Bakhtiari, Bushehri and probably other Luri and Luri-influenced dialects.

-_u_ and sometimes -_e_ in most other southern dialects.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> -_eku_ in Behbehani, Bakhtiari, Bushehri and probably other Luri and Luri-influenced dialects.
> 
> -_u_ and sometimes -_e_ in most other southern dialects.





arsham said:


> Just to complete the list: -eka in Nahâvandi and -a in Dezfuli/Shushtari.


Please provide some examples of these in a similar context as in the OP, I have been looking for such examples for a while


----------



## Derakhshan

Their useage doesn't really differ from Tehrani _-e _as far as I know.

_masjedeku injaan _[=_injaast_] (a mosque that was mentioned before at some point to the listener)

_tehruniku injaa bide_ [=_bude_] ("that Tehrani had been here", it's assumed the listener knows this person)


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> _masjedeku injaan _[=_injaast_] (a mosque that was mentioned before at some point to the listener)
> 
> _tehruniku injaa bide_ [=_bude_] ("that Tehrani had been here", it's assumed the listener knows this person)


Thank you.

To me, _Tehruniku_ sounds like it is made up of _Tehruniŷ ké u or un/تهرونی‌ای که او- اون _(_the Tehrâni who_ or _that Tehrâni who_) which makes sense and_ masjedeku -> masjedi ké/_مسجدی_ که, _(the mosque that), does that sound about right?

What’s the equivalent of تهرونیه/زنه رفت please?


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you.
> 
> To me, _Tehruniku_ sounds like it is made up of _Tehruniŷ ké u or un/تهرونی‌ای که او- اون _(_the Tehrâni who_ or _that Tehrâni who_) which makes sense and_ masjedeku -> masjedi ké/_مسجدی_ که, _(the mosque that), does that sound about right?


Well, their meanings differ to my ears.

_tehruni-ku_ = The [specific, mentioned] Tehrani.
_tehruni-i ke_ = The/a Tehrani that...

Another example,

"The [specific, mentioned] dog escaped."
Tehrani: _sag-e faraar kard/gorixt_.
Bushehri/Behbehani/et al: _sag-eku goruxt_.

"_sag-i ke goruxt_" isn't even an independent clause, like the former two are.

If your question is whether _-eku_ evolved out of _-i ke_, perhaps, but_ -eku_'s usage is identical to Tehrani _-e_.

Someone in a previous thread suggested it might be from diminutive _-ak_.

Also, Sorani has -_aka_ as a definite marker; is there any information on that? Albeit, that's somewhat different from what's being discussed here, which is a marker of specificity for a noun in a context where it's been mentioned before to the listener.


PersoLatin said:


> What’s the equivalent of تهرونیه/زنه رفت please?



_tehruni-ku/zan-eku raft._


----------



## farasso0

colognial said:


> You could use زنش, but the sense would change. The 'e' at the end of زنه acts as a definite article (as in 'the woman/the wife'). The 'sh' at the end of زنش is a possessive adjective - or is it pronoun? - put there to inform the reader that the woman is the wife of the father.


Why do some people add it to people's names even when it is clear which person they are talking about? For example they say : سارائه or جودته


----------



## fishcurl

farasso0 said:


> Why do some people add it to people's names even when it is clear which person they are talking about? For example they say : سارائه or جودته



Because, I expect, it's a habit of the tongue. This is one good enough reason. 

Then there is the simple fact that even proper nouns can be common - there are so many Saras in the world, after all. 

But, then, as we know, it is not totally unheard of for a speaker to go so far as to talk of 'Everest_eh_', the Everest. 

So the final and main reason why this habit of the tongue will not leave our nouns alone must be, in my view, that a lot of the time a speaker may wish to avoid using 'this' or 'that', since these tend, in Persian, to wrongly place the object at a specific physical distance from the speaker, or worse, to actually make the noun/object appear as one of many, when that is clearly wrong, too. As an example, imagine someone saying 'in Everest zibaast'. The stress in the sentence falls equally on the first and the second words, so it's as though the speaker were implying that this particular Everst, when compared to the other Everests around, was beautiful.


----------



## farasso0

fishcurl said:


> Because, I expect, it's a habit of the tongue. This is one good enough reason.
> 
> Then there is the simple fact that even proper nouns can be common - there are so many Saras in the world, after all.
> 
> But, then, as we know, it is not totally unheard of for a speaker to go so far as to talk of 'Everest_eh_', the Everest.
> 
> So the final and main reason why this habit of the tongue will not leave our nouns alone must be, in my view, that a lot of the time a speaker may wish to avoid using 'this' or 'that', since these tend, in Persian, to wrongly place the object at a specific physical distance from the speaker, or worse, to actually make the noun/object appear as one of many, when that is clearly wrong, too. As an example, imagine someone saying 'in Everest zibaast'. The stress in the sentence falls equally on the first and the second words, so it's as though the speaker were implying that this particular Everst, when compared to the other Everests around, was beautiful.


Thanks.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> Well, their meanings differ to my ears.
> 
> _tehruni-ku_ = The [specific, mentioned] Tehrani.
> _tehruni-i ke_ = The/a Tehrani that...


Sorry, I wasn't clear, I understand that you saying, _tehruni-ku_ means the 'specific' Tehrani, i.e. exactly the same as _tehrunié/تهرونیه _does.

For a long time I have tried to find the original, non-contracted form of تهرونیه or زنه_,  _and now your examples have provided some clues. It seems that colloquial Persian is a 'no no' subject when it comes to serious research, there are no references, books etc., maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

تهرونیه doesn't have any obvious clues whereas _tehruni-ku_ has, and that's why I tried to break it down to its original form.

So in Behbehani/Bakhtiari/Bushehri dialect, _sag-eku, mard-eku, zan-eku &, masjed-eku, tehruni-ku, _are equivalent to the Tehrani colloquial: سگه، مرده، زنه، مسجد، تهرونیه or 'The' dog, man, woman, mosque & Tehruni.

As far as I can work out, the formal modern Persian of زنه رسید /_zané resid_ (The woman arrived) should be(?), آن زن رسید/_ân zan resid_, maybe this type of sentence was much longer in older Persian, something like, *او*/*آن زن که.....، رسید* then *او** زن که.....، رسید* to *او زنه* and eventually contracted to *زنه*. (where in the dotted area, the speaker explains the context that identified the woman to a single individual)

او زن که is not too different to zan-eku or zan-e-ke-u/*زن-ه-که-او*


----------



## farasso0

به نظرم گاهی این کلمات می تونند کمی بار تحقیر  داشته باشند. مطمئن نیستم.


----------



## PersoLatin

farasso0 said:


> کمی بار تحقیر


Of course you are right, that type of use, especially for *زن*, has pejorative/demeaning connotations, but that's no fault of the words, and it's no worse than 'that woman' in English.

I used *زنه* as opposed to *مرده *in my examples, because the latter may have been misread as mordé, plus it is 'the title' of the thread.


----------



## farasso0

PersoLatin said:


> Of course you are right, that type of use, especially for *زن*, has pejorative/demeaning connotations, but that's no fault of the words, and it's no worse than 'that woman' in English.
> 
> I used *زنه* as opposed to *مرده *in my examples, because the latter may have been misread as mordé, plus it is 'the title' of the thread.


بله. منظورم این بود که لحن گوینده می تونه روی معنی اش تاثیر بذاره.


----------



## PersoLatin

farasso0 said:


> بله. منظورم این بود که لحن گوینده می تونه روی معنی اش تاثیر بذاره


* درسته،‏ البته در این مثال (زنه) لحن گوینده فقط مینونه بد رو بدتر بکنه *


----------



## fishcurl

farasso0 said:


> به نظرم گاهی این کلمات می تونند کمی بار تحقیر  داشته باشند. مطمئن نیستم.





farasso0 said:


> بله. منظورم این بود که لحن گوینده می تونه روی معنی اش تاثیر بذاره.



The tone and the circumstances always matter, of course. And Persian is notorious for such colourings as come about through intonation alone, to say nothing of intention being disclosed through the changes made to the syntax, or to nouns by the addition of the 'ـِه', such as appear in the original example quoted in this thread.

Fortunately one can almost always tell wherever the 'ـِه' appears in a written or spoken context, whether or not the noun to which the little suffix is attached has been belittled.


----------

