# Persian: همخوان - consonant



## PersoLatin

I saw همخوان in a recent thread, it is Persian for 'consonant', at least a modern word for it. I don't believe it is the best translation for what a consonant or non-vowel letter, is.

'consonant' itself has come to mean "sound other than a vowel," but its real meaning is 'sounding together' so not a very accurate description of a non-vowel anyway, therefore not a good model to use for translations, which is what the creators of همخوان have done. 

What's the view on this and is there a better word?


consonant (n.) 


early 14c., "sound other than a vowel," from Latin consonantem (nominative consonans), present participle of consonare "to sound together, sound aloud," from com "with, together" (see com-) + sonare "to sound" (see sonata). Consonants were thought of as sounds that are only produced together with vowels.


----------



## eskandar

Though I have seen همخوان , the term I think I have encountered the most is صامت (contrasted with مصوت 'vowel').


----------



## Treaty

Another way is بی صدا and صدادار. Anyway, the accuracy of meaning depends on someone's opinion. There is always a point of view to render something (in)accurate. However, for an absolute majority of words in both Persian and English, the speaker relates to the word as a whole not a combination of parts.


----------



## Dib

Treaty said:


> Another way is بی صدا and صدادار.



Wouldn't those be more appropriate for voiceless/voiced?


----------



## Treaty

They would be, but I have heard them for consonant/vowel.


----------



## molana

Dib said:


> Wouldn't those be more appropriate for voiceless/voiced?


Yes, they used to be the equivalents of *voiceless/voiced*. But in new phonetic/phonological books, they are replaced by
*واک دار/بی واک. *Have a look at واژه‌نامه – دستورِ زبانِ پارسی, please.

BTW, *واک *and voice seem cognates. Is it right?


----------



## eskandar

Dib said:


> Treaty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another way is بی صدا and صدادار.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't those be more appropriate for voiceless/voiced?
Click to expand...

These are translations, or calques, of the Arabic صامت and مصوّت which mean the same thing. I think صامت and صدادار have a comparable etymology to the English "vowel", ultimately derived from Latin _vox_ "voice".


----------



## molana

molana said:


> Yes, they used to be the equivalents of *voiceless/voiced*.


My mistake.

واژه‌نامه – دستورِ زبانِ پارسی
I forgot to say that this website is at the same time in Persian, English and German. It has different parts, including phonology, morphology, terminology, roots of Persian verbs, and grammar in a very real sense.


----------



## PersoLatin

molana said:


> BTW, *واک *and voice seem cognates. Is it right?


It is right, molana:  

voice (n.) 


late 13c., "sound made by the human mouth," from Old French voiz "voice, speech; word, saying, rumor, report" (Modern French voix), from Latin vocem (nominative vox) "voice, sound, utterance, cry, call, speech, sentence, language, word" (source also of Italian voce, Spanish voz), related to vocare "to call," from PIE root *wekw- "give vocal utterance, speak" (source also of Sanskrit vakti "speaks, says," vacas- "word;"* Avestan vac- "speak, say;"* Greek eipon (aorist) "spoke, said," epos "word;" Old Prussian wackis "cry;" German er-wähnen "to mention").


----------



## PersoLatin

molana said:


> Yes, they used to be the equivalents of *voiceless/voiced*. But in new phonetic/phonological books, they are replaced by
> *واک دار/بی واک. *Have a look at واژه‌نامه – دستورِ زبانِ پارسی, please.


Very good site. They use the following:
واكه      => vowel
همخوان => consonant
واک دار => voiced
بى واک => voiceless


----------



## Alfaaz

In addition to all of the options discussed above, is حرفِ صحیح used in Persian for _consonant_?


----------



## PersoLatin

Alfaaz said:


> In addition to all of the options discussed above, is حرفِ صحیح used in Persian for _consonant_?


Hi Alfaaz, I haven't heard this option in that context before. I take it صحيح is used in the sense of complete or whole, not just correct. So حرف غلط or حرف نا صحيح for a _vowel_?


----------



## molana

PersoLatin said:


> It is right, molana:
> 
> voice (n.)
> 
> 
> late 13c., "sound made by the human mouth," from Old French voiz "voice, speech; word, saying, rumor, report" (Modern French voix), from Latin vocem (nominative vox) "voice, sound, utterance, cry, call, speech, sentence, language, word" (source also of Italian voce, Spanish voz), related to vocare "to call," from PIE root *wekw- "give vocal utterance, speak" (source also of Sanskrit vakti "speaks, says," vacas- "word;"* Avestan vac- "speak, say;"* Greek eipon (aorist) "spoke, said," epos "word;" Old Prussian wackis "cry;" German er-wähnen "to mention").


Thank you.



PersoLatin said:


> I saw همخوان in a recent thread, it is Persian for 'consonant', at least a modern word for it. I don't believe it is the best translation for what a consonant or non-vowel letter, is.
> 
> 'consonant' itself has come to mean "sound other than a vowel," but its real meaning is 'sounding together' so not a very accurate description of a non-vowel anyway, therefore not a good model to use for translations, which is what the creators of همخوان have done.
> 
> What's the view on this and is there a better word?


I have a theory:

As you know, one of the meanings of the verb "sound" is _to pronounce. _And I think it is this sense that has been considered at the time of the coinage of the Persian word.
The verb *خواندن *in Persian may also mean _to pronounce._
One may hear that: " این کلمه باید اینطور خوانده شود",_ i.e._ "این کلمه باید اینطور تلفظ شود". If it is the case, then it is, I believe, a good coinage.

But in my opinion, there is another problem: *همخوان *is ambiguous. It can also mean *سازگار*(=congruent). The noun *همخوانی *sounds familiar to our ears to mean *سازگاری*.
_

_


----------



## PersoLatin

molana said:


> But in my opinion, there is another problem: *همخوان *is ambiguous. It can also mean *سازگار*(=congruent). The noun *همخوانی *sounds familiar to our ears to mean *سازگاری*.


That's a exactly the point, intuitively, for a Persian speaker, *همخوان *conjures up many things none of which is 'consonant'. As you say, consonance, congruence, (concord), *همخوانی* and *سازگاری*, all mean the same thing.

In fact using *همخوان* makes this a specialized/technical word, of course sometimes this can't be avoided but in this case it could have been & still can be. 

I think واكه works well for _vowel_, so how about نا واكه or بی واكه or even *نواكه - navâké* for consonant? 
(واک دار & بى واک are used for other purposes)


----------



## molana

PersoLatin said:


> I think واكه works well for _vowel_, so how about نا واكه or بی واكه or even *نواكه - navâké* for consonant?


I buy your first coinage.
*
بی واكه* is too near to the word *بی واك*(=voiceless) and I think it can be troublesome, at least in speaking if not in writing.

I don't why *نواكه *brings to my mind the word *نواله*.


----------



## Alfaaz

PersoLatin said:
			
		

> Hi Alfaaz, I haven't heard this option in that context before. I take it صحيح is used in the sense of complete or whole, not just correct. So حرف غلط or حرف نا صحيح for a _vowel_?


 حرفِ علّت is used for (ا، و، ی) _vowel_.


----------



## molana

I think حروف علّه/صحّه are used in Arabic grammar.


----------



## Alfaaz

I had found examples here from what appears to be a Persian grammar book (Corrections/information would be appreciated!). However, it could be that the author wasn't a native Persian speaker...?!


----------



## molana

The book is in Turkish (the Turkish of Iranian Azerbaijan and not that of Turkey, I mean).
*Šerḥ-i Qavāʿid-i farsīye *means *شرح قواعد* *فارسی* (=_Persian Grammar_).
The explanations in parentheses are in Persian. And the writer seems to be an Iranian who is quite familiar with both Persian and Turkish.
Writing of the book has been finished in 1267 ََAH, _i.e._ nearly 165 years ago, exactly 1 year before the establishment of دارالفنون(=Polytechnic University). (I'm hoping to be right. I'm a newbie at Turkish).

It seems that the book has been under the influence of Arabic grammar, and it is natural; for it is only after the establishment of دارالفنون which Iranians get gradually acquainted with European human and technical sciences.

Anyway,  *حروف علّت/صحیح*, and also *حروف صدادار/بی صدا*, are not in use in any book anymore, and they are replaced by *صامت/همخوان* and *مصوّت/واکه.* The use of *صامت *and *مصوّت *is even paling down.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the detailed post and so much information! 

(I didn't realize the book was in Azerbaijani Turkish, so please excuse my previous posts and interruptions. I hope I haven't derailed the thread/discussion!)


----------

