# Persian: What Noun+Yaa (ى) Really Means



## farzan

Hi. This thread stems from a recent conversation (here), where the side question was raised as to whether or not the combination 
يِك (= one, a) + noun + ى 
(e.g. يك مردى)
while quite common informally, formally constituted a grammatical error.

Persian grammarians have always and — as far as I am aware — unanimously maintained that there are, among different combinations of noun + _yaa_, two that are distinctly opposite to each other in function, with the functions being those of making a noun definite (معرفه) and also indefinite (نكره). Examples provided in grammar books look like these:

For definite nouns, 
دلى كه غيب نماى است و جامِ جم دارد
ز خاتمى كه دمى گم شود چه غم دارد

Key here, of course, is the little word كه (= that), which connects, say, the “heart” to the distinguishing or adjectival clause “is clairvoyant and possessed of insight”, before the main sentence “will not mind the temporary loss of a mere mark of distinction by the so-called magical powers” is spelled out. So what makes the nouns دل and خاتم definite here is the presence of the clauses كه غيب نماى است و جامِ جم دارد and كه دمى گم شود, respectively.

Now, for an example of the indefinite _yaa_, which can be demonstrated in the sentence,
روزى ز سرِ سنگ عقابى به هوا خاست
= One day an eagle took off into the air from the summit of a rock.

Here, the nouns روز and عقاب are taken to be indefinite and of course also singular, as it happens.

I am always a little puzzled by this manner of differentiation that has, I suspect, crept into Persian grammar from other languages. The puzzling part is that while it is not wrong, this way of determining the function of an attached _yaa_ is a bit too broad and fails to take into account a seemingly insignificant detail, namely, the intention of the speaker.

For surely ANY information provided by the sentence, regardless of syntax, about a noun, is good enough, in that the noun is raised up and made more prominent by the information provided, even if it is generic and/or singular in appearance?

So in my mind I have always thrown away the notion of definite versus indefinite, for Persian at any rate. (Can’t really speak for other languages.) The idea put out the way it is in books of grammar confuses me, even though I swallow it easily enough when I consider the same distinction in English. In English, it is clearcut, in Persian, well, not so much, not for this humble native speaker.

And why? I think it is because a native speaker would just know when, where, and how a noun began to be specific. If I say مردى به خانه ى ما آمد (= a man came to our house) and then stop there, the listener and I both become aware that there already is some information about the man — he, who, I admit, was and is at this moment not familiar, came to our house — and that more information might have followed, except that I, the speaker, chose not to divulge it in my sentence. 

Furthermore, if I say يك مرد به خانه ى ما آمد (= there came one man to our house), I am laying emphasis on singularity, on the fact of the number being one and no more. 

So far I am in agreement with official grammar. My point of departure is that in Persian singularity and indefiniteness are intertwined through the attached _yaa_ and so speakers find a natural way to make their intention clear by saying يك مردى به خانه ى ما آمد, and that the concept of indefiniteness is a bit useless where there is information to be given and received, which there always is, in a real situation, that is.

What is a true mark of a noun being this, that, or the other, lies in the notion of its distance from generic-ness, if that is a word. In the beginning, there was noun, and noun was generic, as it were! We are all able to say در روز ز سرِ سنگ عقاب به هوا خاست, which, notwithstanding the tense of the verb, demonstrates once and for all that in Persian, at any rate, generality or genericity or generic-ness, is the starting point. If the intention is to emphasize singularity, we are inclined to say يك روز ز سرِ يك سنگ يك عقاب به هوا خاست, although we can easily do exactly as the poet Naasser-Khosro does (if we are such good versifiers) and opt for the attached _yaa_, no sweat, no risk of the sentence sounding as though we wanted to emphasize the idea of indefiniteness, because this particular idea pales before the notions of generality and singularity, and also in light of there always being information there to elevate the noun above indefiniteness. 

So I am suggesting that native speakers do understand and appreciate indefiniteness, do even have something akin to the indefinite article for it, but the concept is transitive and could arguably be dismissed as insignificant. 

I am rambling on, I know, and I apologize to all. Do allow me to finish by giving just one last set of examples and ask the question.

(1) خانه خريده ام
(2) يك خانه خريده ام
(3) خانه اى خريده ام
(4) يك خانه اى خريده ام

These are all commonly acceptable sentences. (1) suggests that what is important to the speaker is that they have gone out and forked out the money and bought a house. The indefiniteness is there but is not important. The singularity is not so apparent; the speaker may have done the unlikely thing and bought two houses at the same time. (2) ensures that the information is precise: one single house has been purchased by the speaker. (3) mixes the idea of singularity and indefiniteness together in a way that either could be important in the mind of the speaker. It is just impossible to know which is the intention or has precedence. 

My question: isn’t (4) what a speaker will say to ensure that both singularity and indefiniteness are intended as separate clues to the truth, and for good reason, which is that the sentence truly is the length and breadth of the information that is on the table, as it were. And, therefore, isn’t it good that this way of communicating the exact intention exists, which may happily be taken to be correct, despite what the rules of grammar may lay down? (The point is, more than one intention per speech often leads to a lie or, better, is rooted in a lie, hence the need to point out in plain Persian that the double intention is for once not a lie but the precise way things stand in the mind of the speaker.)

Really sorry about this headache I have shared! Your views and answers will be highly appreciated.


----------



## Qureshpor

Hi Farzan. I am away from my station and as a consequence I am unable to fully participate in this thread due to not having computer access. I started a similar thread a while back and like you, am not fully in the picture with regard to the extent of meanings of this very versatile suffix.

Persian: The ye of indefiniteness


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi farzan,

I have read your comments, the main message I get is that you, as a native speaker, have some issues with indefinite 'ye', I myself don't think I have but that maybe because I haven't realised that I too have the same issue. I am going to tackle your 4 questions, as a start:


farzan said:


> (1) خانه خريده ام
> (2) يك خانه خريده ام
> (3) خانه اى خريده ام
> (4) يك خانه اى خريده ام



(1) خانه خريده ام - Here خانه is definite - This sentence as is, is the shortest but carries the most information, also it doesn't translate to English simply, 'I have bought a house' won't do here, this says, I have bought a house that is going to be my home, my main abode/residence.
(2) يك خانه خريده ام - Here خانه is indefinite - 'I have bought a house', a house that I may repair/remodel to keep as my home, to sell, to rent out or.... This is usually followed by a كه/چون etc., for further qualification.
(3) خانه اى خريده ام - This is exactly the same as (2) except it is more formal, but in normal conversation this sounds odd unless the speaker has a regional accent & maintains the same formal register through the rest of their conversation.
(4) يك خانه اى خريده ام - This is incomplete as it is, but in the correct context اى acts as a 'definite maker' in the same away as ى does in دلى in the example دلى كه غيب نماى است و جامِ جم دارد, after all if you add یک to it, دل remains 'definite': *یک* دلى كه غيب نماى است و جامِ جم دارد

*یه خونه  خریده م باید ببینی تا باور کنی* - this is the same as (2) i.e. *خونه *is indefinite - I have bought a house, you must see it to believe it
or
*یه خونه ای خریده م که باید ببینی تا باور کنی* - this is (4) modified & *خونه *is *definite* - I have bought *this *house, you must see it to believe it


----------



## farzan

Hi, PersoLatin. I understand your analysis including your point about (4) appearing incomplete, and agree that the reason for its sounding so is as you’ve explained.

I happen to think that example (1)  is not so much pointing to the ‘house’ as definite as more procured. In other words, the act of purchasing the property and its apparent consequence ie ownership are what matter most to the speaker.

My issue with indefiniteness in nouns is that I don’t quite get it, sensing, perhaps wrongly, that nothing is as indefinite as all that!

Thanks very much for your detailed reply. I appreciate the other, much more sober view, as I am able to learn from it.

To Qureshpor: thank you very much for the link, Qureshpor. (You will get to read this when you get back, hopefully.)

Singular noun+(Def./Indef.) _yaa_ must originally have just meant “one of (that noun)”. The distinction must have been added on by grammarians, I feel. But I don’t know this for sure.


----------



## PersoLatin

I am learning quite a bit from this thread and find examples always help.



farzan said:


> My issue with indefiniteness in nouns is that I don’t quite get it, sensing, perhaps wrongly, that nothing is as indefinite as all that!


Please supply an example here.



farzan said:


> Singular noun+(Def./Indef.) _yaa_ must originally have just meant “one of (that noun)”.


I believe both *یک *+ 'noun' and 'noun' + *ی *are always Indefinite never Definite and analogous to English 'one' and 'a'. Unless we are looking at *دلى كه* غيب نماى است و جامِ جم دارد  here *ی (*with help from *كه)* means 'that/the heart', so Definite,

In colloquial Persian we have another Definite maker which is the silent 'h' in مرده/mardé (that/the man), درخته/deraxté (that/the tree) which are often used with اون to add stress. I must admit that I am yet to find the name or etymology of this construct.


----------



## Qureshpor

For what it's worth, here is my take on this as a non-native.

1) خانہ خریدہ ام

Here the implication is that I have bought "a house" or "houses" and NOT, for example, a tractor or tractors!

2) یک خانہ خریدہ ام

Here I am letting you know that I am buying one sample of an object known as "house" and NOT more than one. One can say, "I have bought a/one house".

3) خانہ ای خریدہ ام

For me this is the most complex and it conveys a variety of meanings depending on context.

a) I have bought a house. i.e one house.

b) I have bought a house/some house or other/any house/ no particular house. Just a house and nothing more to add. An unspecified house.

c) I have bought a certain house/ a particular house/ a specific house.

When کہ is added to the meaning encompassed in c) it becomes even more specified. One can then translate ... خانہ ای کہ خریدہ ام as...

The house that I have bought... or

A (particular) house that I have bought

دلی کہ غیب نما است

 The heart/ A heart that discloses what is hidden.

4) یک خانہ ای کہ خریدہ ام

Here we are picking out one unit of 3)

I know things are never black and white with clearly defined sharp boundaries but this is my humble submission from my mobile phone.

There are of course two more possibilities that occur in the Classical language.

یکی خانہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔ and یکی خانہ ای۔۔۔۔۔۔ but we'll leave these for the moment.

One of my many shortcomings is that I perform micro-surgery on grammatical constructions. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that one should look at a sentence in context and provide the most suitable equivalent in the second language. And not worry about the intricacies!


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> There are of course two more possibilities that occur in the Classical language.
> 
> یکی خانہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔ and یکی خانہ ای۔۔۔۔۔۔ but we'll leave these for the moment.


It'll be good if you could provide examples for this in classical prose, I don't believe this topic can be critically examined by looking at poetry alone, in fact the liberal use of ی in poetry can add to the confusion example:

ناگاه *یکی کوزه* برآورد خروش - suddenly a/one* pot*
کو کوزه‌گر و کوزه‌خر و کوزه فروش
Of course ناگاه *یک کوزه* برآورد خروش has the exact same meaning but without this *ی *the rhythm & meter of the verse is ruined. *یکی *could also mean some nondescript pot.


Of course there is a style where ی is taken from the 'noun' and put on یک


یکی itself can be seen as  'noun' + *ی *which makes یکی indefinite & meaning 'someone':

1- Colloquial:  این کار رو نکن *یکی *میاد بهت یه چیزی می‌گه /don't do that *someone *will come and tell you off

2- یکی بود یکی نبود which is said at the start of a story, equivalent to 'once upon a time'.


----------



## Qureshpor

aaqaa ye PersoLatin I am of the view that nothing in any language is superfluous, be it poetry or prose. The suffix -e (ے /ی) similarly served a purpose other than mere padding for the sake of "vazn". If this knowledge has been erased from the psyche of the native speakers, then this is another matter. A classic example of this in Persian is the particle مر which no one seems to know exactly what it means. I know that  Indian and Pakistani authors writing on Persian matters get away inexplicable content of the language as زائد and /or all this exists for تزئین. I am afraid I don't buy this. I could be wrong of course.

As for providing examples of یکے خانہ and یکے خانہ اے from Persian prose, I am away from notes and books. So, I am afraid I am currently unable to assist. Perhaps aaqaa ye fdb might be able to provide a difinituve answer to your challenging query.

I hasten to add that this suffix in the Classical language, Indo-Persian and I think Afghan Persisn is مجہول.


----------



## farzan

Hello, again! I am cutting in, I am afraid, so, with your permission, will try to be concise and  give a general answer.

Supposing you hear or read,
فرشته اى در رويا بر او نازل شد
Is this the end of the story? One expects there will be more. So, not taking grammar into account, this is not just any angel. For one thing, we already know it appeared in the person’s dream. For another, we expect further developments.

شَمّه اى از آن چه گذشت در زير خواهم آورد
The expectation is, the writer will choose the fragment with the specific goal of making that fragment a useful sample of the whole history. And this fragment is really not just any; we already know it is part of some specific occurence and we are also aware that this representative fragment will follow the introductory sentence.

دل ز تنهايى به جان آمد، خدا را همدمى
This one seems trickier than the other two. Haafez Jaan is on the surface not specific: any companion will do, for heavens’ sakes. But isn’t some criterion already in place? This is going to have to be such company as to help the poet snap out of his solitude. 

In all the above examples, the grammatical attribute of each noun (همدمى, شمه اى, فرشته اى) is indefinite, I agree.

However, the indefiniteness, is, in an ungrammatical sense, transitory and more or less insignificant, since information of a sort is already there and more information may be forthcoming.

It is not without rhyme or reason, I feel, that the indefinite ى is able, without much prior notice, so to speak, to lend its services to the cause of definiteness:
فرشته اى در رويا بر او نازل شد كه دو بالِ بزرگ 
داشت
شمه اى از آن چه گذشت در زير خواهم آورد كه از آن مى توان نتيجه اى كلى گرفت
دل ز تنهايى به جان آمد، خدا را همدمى كه جان ام را نجات دهد

The reason for this easy yet huge transformation must be that indefiniteness is in reality only a stepping stone to definiteness. The ى is always the same ى, but it wears different hats. AND, this very same ى is basically used to point to the unitary nature of the entity; in other words, it is intrinsically a ياىِ وحدت, which distinguishes between the specific and the generic.

Finally, a native speaker subconsciously knows all about this. Which is why speakers will say يك فرشته اى بر او نازل شد to ensure that it is clear that only one single angel descended from heaven, and also, that the angel was unfamiliar to the dreamer in the beginning, even though soon enough the dreamer and the angel were chatting in the dream like they were old friends. I really don’t feel يك فرشته اى is wrong; I think it is a double device rigged up in spoken Persian to provide each function with its own special mark of the function in a very clear way.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> The suffix -e (ے /ی) similarly served a purpose other than mere padding for the sake of "vazn". If this knowledge has been erased from the psyche of the native speakers, then this is another matter.


As a native speaker I was not aware of, nor was I taught, this classification which I only knew as Persian. All intricacies of 'classic Persian' are fairy well understood by myself and millions of Iranians who on a daily basis listen to, read and recite poetry from those early days, after the Arab invasion. So nothing has been 'erased from the psyche of the native speakers', and this classification never entered their psyche.

Also, the reason farzan has asked the question about this illusive *ی *is not about its use in 'classic Persian' but in modern Persian which as I'm sure you agree is the same as in 'classic Persian' when you look at the examples, of course except sometimes in poetry which I maintain has a different set of rules when it comes to 'embellishment without loss of meaning'.

So it will be interesting to see some of the examples you had in mind so we can assess them, of course when you can access them.



Qureshpor said:


> A classic example of this in Persian is the particle مر which no one seems to know exactly what it means.


I believe this is kind of helpful to my side the argument.


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi farzan,

The three examples you have given are the same as you have eluded yourself so I have answered the first one only.



farzan said:


> فرشته اى در رويا بر او نازل شد
> *Is this the end of the story? One expects there will be more. So, not taking grammar into account, this is not just any angel. For one thing, we already know it appeared in the person’s dream. For another, we expect further developments.*


I can't see how this is different to '*an* angel appeared to him in her dream', and that the comments in *bold* equally apply to the English version. اى is the same 'an' which makes the angel indefinite i.e. some angel but here it is 'one' angel only because of absence of the plural maker ها not because of اى.



farzan said:


> The ى is always the same ى, but it wears different hats. AND, this very same ى is basically used to point to the unitary nature of the entity; in other words, it is intrinsically a ياىِ وحدت, which distinguishes between the specific and the generic.


That اى in فرشته اى is exactly the same یی in فرشته ها* یی* در رويا بر او نازل شدند  so it can't be ياىِ وحدت, and فرشته ها یی is 'some angels' and indefinite.



farzan said:


> Finally, a native speaker subconsciously knows all about this. Which is why speakers will say يك فرشته اى بر او نازل شد to ensure that it is clear that only one single angel descended from heaven


یک is not added to demystify the function of اى, it is not necessary and in my view, it is used when the speaker is not sure the function of اى is understood by the listener, or the speaker doesn't know the same.


----------



## farzan

PersoLatin said:


> I can't see how this is different to '*an* angel appeared to him in her dream', and that the comments in *bold* equally apply to the English version.


 My comments in this part of the argument may be universally applicable, regardless of what language we may be dealing with. Information supplied is information in any language. The question is whether or not the presence of information about an indefinite noun in the same sentence as contains it can be said to weaken the degree of indefiniteness attributed to that noun.



PersoLatin said:


> That اى in فرشته اى is exactly the same یی in فرشته ها* یی* در رويا بر او نازل شدند  so it can't be ياىِ وحدت, and فرشته ها یی is 'some angels' and indefinite.


This is all very true, and yet, in Persian one may write
فرشته ها در رويا بر او نازل شدند where the subject is plural and its status as regards definite/indefiniteness actually depends on the context.



PersoLatin said:


> یک is not added to demystify the function of اى, it is not necessary and in my view, it is used when the speaker is not sure the function of اى is understood by the listener, or the speaker doesn't know the same.


 Yes. Either يك or the attached ى may be omitted. But the speaker most likely knows what their own intention is, so it must be the other reason you state. I quite agree.



Qureshpor said:


> For what it's worth, here is my take on this as a non-native.
> 
> 1) خانہ خریدہ ام
> 
> Here the implication is that I have bought "a house" or "houses" and NOT, for example, a tractor or tractors!
> 
> 2) یک خانہ خریدہ ام
> 
> Here I am letting you know that I am buying one sample of an object known as "house" and NOT more than one. One can say, "I have bought a/one house".
> 
> 3) خانہ ای خریدہ ام
> 
> For me this is the most complex and it conveys a variety of meanings depending on context.
> 
> a) I have bought a house. i.e one house.
> 
> b) I have bought a house/some house or other/any house/ no particular house. Just a house and nothing more to add. An unspecified house.
> 
> c) I have bought a certain house/ a particular house/ a specific house.
> 
> When کہ is added to the meaning encompassed in c) it becomes even more specified. One can then translate ... خانہ ای کہ خریدہ ام as...
> 
> The house that I have bought... or
> 
> A (particular) house that I have bought
> 
> دلی کہ غیب نما است
> 
> The heart/ A heart that discloses what is hidden.
> 
> 4) یک خانہ ای کہ خریدہ ام
> 
> Here we are picking out one unit of 3)
> 
> I know things are never black and white with clearly defined sharp boundaries but this is my humble submission from my mobile phone.
> 
> There are of course two more possibilities that occur in the Classical language.
> 
> یکی خانہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔ and یکی خانہ ای۔۔۔۔۔۔ but we'll leave these for the moment.
> 
> One of my many shortcomings is that I perform micro-surgery on grammatical constructions. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that one should look at a sentence in context and provide the most suitable equivalent in the second language. And not worry about the intricacies!


Quite so. I see it all as you do.


----------



## PersoLatin

farzan said:


> This is all very true, and yet, in Persian one may write
> فرشته ها در رويا بر او نازل شدند where the subject is plural and its status as regards definite/indefiniteness actually depends on the context.


The same in English:
For فرشته ها* یی* در رويا بر او نازل شدند you say '*some angels* appeared in her dream'
and
فرشته ها در رويا بر او نازل شدند  you say '*angels *appeared to in her dream'

Basically the same issue, if there ever was any in the first place.


I feel you are not happy with me answering your questions at all, or you are not really looking for concrete answers, either way it looks like you have your answers.


----------



## farzan

PersoLatin said:


> The same in English:
> For فرشته ها* یی* در رويا بر او نازل شدند you say '*some angels* appeared in her dream'
> and
> فرشته ها در رويا بر او نازل شدند  you say '*angels *appeared to in her dream'
> 
> Basically the same issue, if there ever was any in the first place.
> 
> I feel you are not happy with me answering your questions at all, or you are not really looking for concrete answers, either way it looks like you have your answers.


 Happy I certainly am, as well as thankful. It occurs to me that the question is still there, and I should be glad for it to remain so, especially if as you suggest it can be raised in languages other than Persian as well. Thanks, PersoLatin!


----------



## PersoLatin

farzan said:


> It occurs to me that the question is still there, and I should be glad for it to remain so, especially if as you suggest it can be raised in languages other than Persian as well.


An* answer* is either wrong in which case it should be flagged as such, or it is correct in which case the *question* should go away, stalemate won't do. I tried to bring some of the questions into the realm of 'black and white' at least the ones that I have answered, that way we will be left with 'grey' ones only, but treating all as 'grey' won't get us to an end.


----------



## farzan

PersoLatin, I have already duly “flagged” one, so I haven’t exactly been remiss in expressing my views.

If I think the question is still hanging in there, it is because I am still mulling over the contents of this particular thread, as well as many more examples of noun+ى that have been cropping up elsewhere during the course of our discussion. One such example is عجب هوايى, said when it is perhaps particularly fine or maybe bitter cold.


----------



## PersoLatin

farzan said:


> One such example is عجب هوايى, said when it is perhaps particularly fine or maybe bitter cold.



A very good example and good examples will get us there.

In this example عجب هوايى/what weather!! (in English 'what a weather!!' is more common), ى is definite as the speaker is referring to a known weather condition.

Similar examples:
مرد بدی بود/marde badi bud - he was (a) bad man - Identity of the man is known to the speaker and, by extension, to the reader/listener - ی can be moved from the adjective to the noun مردی بد بود with no change in the meaning.

چه چشم انداز زیبا یی/what beautiful view!! - The speaker is referring to a known/definite 'view', and rearranged : چه چشم اندازی زیبا


----------



## farzan

PersoLatin said:


> A very good example and good examples will get us there.
> 
> In this example عجب هوايى/what weather!! (in English 'what a weather!!' is more common), ى is definite as the speaker is referring to a known weather condition.
> 
> Similar examples:
> مرد بدی بود/marde badi bud - he was (a) bad man - Identity of the man is known to the speaker and, by extension, to the reader/listener - ی can be moved from the adjective to the noun مردی بد بود with no change in the meaning.
> 
> چه چشم انداز زیبا یی/what beautiful view!! - The speaker is referring to a known/definite 'view', and rearranged : چه چشم اندازی زیبا


Are you sure the exclamatory phrase does not in fact emphasize the particularity?


----------



## PersoLatin

farzan said:


> Are you sure the exclamatory phrase does not in fact emphasize the particularity?


Definite, which is what I said it is, means known therefore a ‘particular’ weather condition.


----------



## farzan

OK, thank you very much, PersoLatin.


----------



## Qureshpor

farzan said:


> ......Persian grammarians have always and — as far as I am aware — unanimously maintained that there are, among different combinations of noun + _yaa_, two that are distinctly opposite to each other in function, with the functions being those of making a noun definite (معرفه) and also indefinite (نكره). Examples provided in grammar books look like these:
> 
> For definite nouns,
> 
> دلى كه غيب نماى است و جامِ جم دارد
> ز خاتمى كه دمى گم شود چه غم دارد
> 
> Key here, of course, is the little word كه (= that), which connects, say, the “heart” to the distinguishing or adjectival clause “is clairvoyant and possessed of insight”, before the main sentence “will not mind the temporary loss of a mere mark of distinction by the so-called magical powers” is spelled out. So what makes the nouns دل and خاتم definite here is the presence of the clauses كه غيب نماى است و جامِ جم دارد and كه دمى گم شود, respectively.
> 
> .... I think it is because a native speaker would just know when, where, and how a noun began to be specific.....


Logic dictates that native speakers of a language would correctly perceive all the intricacies of their language and consequently understand and use them accurately. Both of you no doubt would use and comprehend all the examples you have provided. But the problem occurs when native speakers begin to elucidate their thoughts using terminology such as definite, indefinite, specific, particular etc. This has become apparent in this thread and the thread that I began sometime back.

People often talk about Persian being simple and straight foreword , a mere "child's play". Nothing could be further from the truth. Papers have been written on the topic we are discussing. I too have read a few and as a consequence, have not got any closer in understanding this issue.

I don't believe the existence of the   noun + ye + the explanatory ke phrase necessarily denotes a definite noun, e.g

خوش ھوائی است فرح بخش، خدایا بفرست
نازنینی که به رویش مےء گلکون نوشیم

حافظ

Here نازنینی که does not imply the نازنین who..... but a نازنین who....

As a side comment, ھوائی can be read as An atmosphere or The atmosphere.

There is a pleasing, refreshing atmosphere....O God please send

or

The atmosphere is....

Here is an example of an "indefinite" noun that does not bear a ی.

کافرِ بیدار دل، پیشِ صنم
به از دینداری که خفت اندر حرم

اقبال

A disbeliever with an awakened heart, before an idol

Is better than دینداری که A believer who has fallen asleep in the Holy Sanctury!


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> As a native speaker I was not aware of, nor was I taught, this classification which I only knew as Persian. All intricacies of 'classic Persian' are fairy well understood by myself and millions of Iranians who on a daily basis listen to, read and recite poetry from those early days, after the Arab invasion. So nothing has been 'erased from the psyche of the native speakers', and this classification never entered their psyche.
> 
> Also, the reason farzan has asked the question about this illusive *ی *is not about its use in 'classic Persian' but in modern Persian which as I'm sure you agree is the same as in 'classic Persian' when you look at the examples, of course except sometimes in poetry which I maintain has a different set of rules when it comes to 'embellishment without loss of meaning'.
> 
> So it will be interesting to see some of the examples you had in mind so we can assess them, of course when you can access them.


Hi PersoLatin, 

Apologies for the delay in replying.  Due to being away from my usual location, I am forced to use my mobile and this has not been an easy task

I am of course fully aware that Farzan has the modern language in mind but I provided the additional two constructions merely to complete the picture as it were.

When Persian is recited by modern day Persians, they recite it with the pronunciation of today's language, not the way it was pronounced in the classical language. I assure you, most modern day Persians would be totally oblivious of certain features of the classical language of their ancestors and these features indeed have been wiped clean from their psyche over a period of time. If you care to start a thread on this topic in mid February, I will be more than glad to put my money where my mouth is!

As for providing examples from Persian prose for such constructions as یکی آبگیر and یکی پہلوانی , I am not sure I will be able to assist but I shall most certainly do my utmost best!


----------



## farzan

Qureshpor said:


> ... the problem occurs when native speakers begin to elucidate their thoughts using terminology such as definite, indefinite, specific, particular etc. This has become apparent in this thread and the thread that I began sometime back.



Because their notions of these terms, having been shaped in and by their native tongue, may in fact be different to the way these same terms are understood and used by non-natives? This _is_ a bit of a (cultural) problem, and to avoid it one should explain and elaborate without naming? I totally agree. The exception is, if the question actually involves the concepts behind rules of grammar, then one has not much choice but to bring grammar into it, unfortunately.


----------



## farzan

“Mere child’s play”? Persian? Are you sure this is what some say, Qureshpor? ... for they do not know what they are saying ... as this is definitely a perilous case of playing with the tail of the lion!

In نازنينى كه به روى اش مىِ گل گون نوشيم you provide a good example of how grammar evidently has a basic rule, which is, look at definitions and criteria, then consider a part of a text or sentence in total abstraction, then decide in a perfunctory manner! It works, too, in a way. If grammar has anything to do with this نازنين, the noun ought to be judged as defined. But on a deeper level you are right: It is actually “a lovely person”. This is why I think it is safer and closer to reality to let all ى’s be ياهاىِ وحدت to begin with.


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi Qureshpor,

I don’t deny our ancestors spoke differently, but I don’t believe their flavour of language was any more sophisticated than ours now, for example in the use of this ‘elusive’ ی, almost all examples can be explained by us now but when they can’t, then they are  either embellishment as in poetry or mistakes in prose. Setting a president shouldn’t automatically make that president valid, so we can question them.

re:ی,  do we believe numerous meanings have been lost 1) but how can that happen to a continuously spoken language? 2) what other possible meanings are there that are humanly possible?

ی has a variation of uses in Persian and that clearly can be confusing, yet it has added to its enigma, but deep down that is a flaw.

There is at least one unexplained suffix  which may explain one of these ی’s and that is the silent ‘h’ added as an article maker e.g. دختره/doxtaré - *the* girl.



Qureshpor said:


> If you care to start a thread on this topic in mid February, I will be more than glad to put my money where my mouth is!


I raised one  a couple of years ago but I remember it didn’t generate much interest, I haven’t found it yet.


----------



## farzan

Qureshpor said:


> Here is an example of an "indefinite" noun that does not bear a ی.
> 
> کافرِ بیدار دل، پیشِ صنم
> به از دینداری که خفت اندر حرم



Qureshpor,

Thanks for sharing your ideas. I read this _beit_ as,
كافرِ بيداردل پيشِ صنم
به زِ دين دارى كه خفت اندر حرم
Am I right? Or, is it without doubt از?

I think by noun not bearing an indefinite ى you are referring to كافر as well as صنم and حرم. Well, these are, in my understanding, generic nouns. They generalize, naturally. 

One of my thoughts all along has been that maybe the distinction is primarily to be made between the generic and the specific. There are ways to make a noun specific. One  is to attach the ياى وحدت to the end of the noun. This sigularity will not always have to be taken literally. All the learner will have to be aware of is that the noun is now no longer general, having become singular and thus particular.

Where do we go from here, though? Well, I am not so sure myself, but I guess you look at examples and think about the sense and the intention in order to decide if a noun is definite or indefinite. In كسى كه كنارِ من ايستاده بهترين دوستِ من است the idea of definiteness is obviously the intention, whereas if you hear كسى كه كنارم بايستد دوستِ من است, you immediately know, grammar aside, that the condition set for friendship goes only so far in specifying the _kass_. Anyone could come along and fill the position. So the noun remains indefinite in sense if not in grammar, even though there is some specificity.

I shall stop now and bore you no longer, as I feel we are somewhat in agreement and since I have just been repeating myself over and over throughout this thread without having reached the point of absolute certainty. Thanks so much!


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> خوش ھوائی است فرح بخش، خدایا بفرست
> نازنینی که به رویش مےء گلکون نوشیم
> 
> حافظ
> 
> Here نازنینی که does not imply the نازنین who..... but a نازنین who....


 I agree that not all "noun + که + ی" combinations should be treated the same and here نازنینی که does mean 'a نازنین who' but /a/ in English like /ی/ in Persian, implies 'some/any' and not unit one, so 'send some/a/any beauty', of course 'one beauty' is the intention here, but not because of presence of ی but because of the absence of a plural marker.

I couldn't see if this has already been discussed/resolved etc., but apologies if has.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> As a native speaker I was not aware of, nor was I taught, this classification which I only knew as Persian. All intricacies of 'classic Persian' are fairy well understood by myself and millions of Iranians who on a daily basis listen to, read and recite poetry from those early days, after the Arab invasion. So nothing has been 'erased from the psyche of the native speakers', and this classification never entered their psyche.
> 
> Also, the reason farzan has asked the question about this illusive *ی *is not about its use in 'classic Persian' but in modern Persian which as I'm sure you agree is the same as in 'classic Persian' when you look at the examples, of course except sometimes in poetry which I maintain has a different set of rules when it comes to 'embellishment without loss of meaning'.
> 
> So it will be interesting to see some of the examples you had in mind so we can assess them, of course when you can access them.
> 
> I believe this is kind of helpful to my side the argument.


Here is an example of yak + noun + ye from تاریخ بلعمی۔ زندگی نامۂ پیامبر اسلام

و دیگر عالیه دختر ظبیان۔ یک چندے در خانۂ پیامبر ببود۔



PersoLatin said:


> That اى in فرشته اى is exactly the same یی in فرشته ها* یی* در رويا بر او نازل شدند  so it can't be ياىِ وحدت, and فرشته ها یی is 'some angels' and indefinite.


We have seen that فرشته اے for example, can have one of three meanings.

1) an angel = one angel

2) an angel = some angel or other / any angel

3) an angel = a certain/ particular angel 

In the case of ی added to a plural noun, does one impart all three meanings to it?

1) some angels ( NOT all)

2) some angels or other/ any angels

3) particular/certain angels



farzan said:


> This is all very true, and yet, in Persian one may write
> فرشته ها در رويا بر او نازل شدند where the subject is plural and its status as regards definite/indefiniteness actually depends on the context.


I believe the general consensus is that the plural marker makes the noun definite.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> ere is an example of yak + noun + ye from تاریخ بلعمی۔ زندگی نامۂ پیامبر اسلام
> 
> و دیگر عالیه دختر ظبیان۔ یک چندے در خانۂ پیامبر ببود۔


Good example but not so unfamiliar, it is the same as یک مدتی در خانۂ پیامبر ماند/بماند which is used in modern Persian, it means: _she stayed 'an undefined period of time' at the house of the prophet_, so ی makes it the period (چند/amount) indefinite and presence of یک  makes no difference to the meaning.



Qureshpor said:


> We have seen that فرشته اے for example, can have one of three meanings.
> 
> 1) an angel = one angel
> 
> 2) an angel = some angel or other / any angel
> 
> 3) an angel = a certain/ particular angel
> 
> In the case of ی added to a plural noun, does one impart all three meanings to it?
> 
> 1) some angels ( NOT all)
> 
> 2) some angels or other/ any angels
> 
> 3) particular/certain angels


 No, ای in فرشته ای آمد always means 'some/any' and not one physical angel, but of course we are talking about only one single angle and, as I'd said before, only because فرشته is singular and not because of presence of ای.

With فرشته ها یی آمدند nothing changes except we saying 'some angels came' and none are particular, so یی make angels indefinite.

Whereas 
فرشته ها  آمدند = the angels came - so definite/known angels
and 
فرشته آمد = the angel came - so a definite/known angel


----------



## Qureshpor

Your last example also could mean:

An angel/Angels came (in the generic sense).

I have differences with your interpretation of the ی suffix added to both the singular and the plural noun but I shall not dwell on it.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> An angel/Angels came (in the generic sense).


Ok with some context we can make it definite and specific, ما در معبد بودیم که فرشته آمد

As a matter of  interest, without context فرشته ای can also mean:_ you are [an] angel _and this time ای stands for هستی.



Qureshpor said:


> I have differences with your interpretation of the ی suffix added to both the singular and the plural noun but I shall not dwell on it.


I'd like to know what those are, when you get time to explain them.


----------



## PersoLatin

These examples of use of ی are also good to look at:

1) فردوسی شاعری که همه ایران با اشعارش آشنائی دارند، در طوس بخاک سپرده شده - Ferdosi is *the *poet who... 
ی on شاعر means: 'the' so known/definite implying 'a particular poet'

2)نام شاعری به ذهنت میاد؟  Does *any *poet's name come to [your] mind?
ی on شاعر means: 'any' so indefinite, implying any single poet's name will do

3)فردوسی شاعریست که همه ایران با اشعارش آشنائی دارند Ferdosi is *a *poet who...
ی on شاعر means: 'a' but known/definite, as his name is mentioned so one among the poets.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> These examples of use of ی are also good to look at:
> 
> 1) فردوسی شاعری که همه ایران با اشعارش آشنائی دارند، در طوس بخاک سپرده شده - Ferdosi is *the *poet who...
> ی on شاعر means: 'the' so known/definite implying 'a particular poet'...



Why can't this be read as....

Firdausi, a poet with whose poetry the whole of Iran is familiar, was buried at Tus.


----------



## Qureshpor

[QUOTE="PersoLatin, post: 17966257, member: 747655]
I'd like to know what those are, when you get time to explain them.[/QUOTE]

Let me provide you an example where the meaning of noun+ی = one

زنی چون این سخن شنید خاموش ماند و زنِ دیگر شور و فریاد کرد۔۔۔۔۔۔

When one woman heard these words, she remained silent and the other woman made hue and cry and lamented.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> Why can't this be read as....
> 
> Firdausi, a poet with whose poetry the whole of Iran familiar, was buried at Tus.


It certainly can, the point is ی in that example is definite/known.

In English the following two are very similar and I suppose the context may decide which to use over the other.

Firdausi, *the* poet with whose poetry the whole of Iran is familiar, was buried at Tus.
Firdausi, *a* poet with whose poetry the whole of Iran is familiar, was buried at Tus.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> زنی چون این سخن شنید خاموش ماند و زنِ دیگر شور و فریاد کرد۔۔۔۔۔۔


Yes I agree this ی  is definitely unit one.

If it was زنی چون این سخن بشنود و خاموش بماند و زن دیگری شور و فریاد کند then ی mean 'any' woman, so the tense makes it different


----------



## Qureshpor

Further to my post 6, Farzan please allow me to provide actual examples from literature.

1. خانہ خریدہ ام

بازرگان جواب داد کہ راست میگوئی۔ مُوش آھن سخت دوست دارد

a mouse/mice (generic)

2. یک خانہ خریدہ ام

آنجا یک دکانِ کباب پزی دائر کرد

a kabab (cooking) shop

3 a) رفت و چون بسرِ کوی رسید پسرے را از آنِ او ببُرد

a boy/ one boy

و ھوسش آن بودے کہ ھر جنازہ اے کہ از در شہر بیرون بردندے وی سنگے در آن کوزہ افگندے

a stone/ one stone

صد من آھن داشت۔ درخانۂ دوستے بر سبیلِ ودیعت نھاد و برفت

a friend/one friend

3b در شہرے مردے درزی بر دروازۂ شھر دوکان داشتے بر در گورستان

in some city or other

3c مالیخولیا علتے است کہ اطبا در معالجت او فروماندند۔

a certain condition/such a condition

پیرے را دید نود سالہ کہ گوز در زمین مینشاند۔

a certain old man

آوردہ اند کہ بازرگانے بود اندک مایہ و میخواست کہ سفرے کند

a certain merchant

سائر حکما از تعبیرِ این فروماندند مگر درویشے کہ خدمت بجای آورد و گفت۔

except a (particular) darwesh

بازرگان بخندید در شہرے کہ نوش صد من آہن بتواند خورد بازے کودکے را بمقدار
دہ من برتواند گرفت۔

in a (particular) city where...

a falcon/one falcon
a child / one child

Also note:

خیرے کن ای فلان و غنیمت شمار عمر
زان پیشتر کہ بانگ برآید فلان نماند

Do a little goodness

Note 2) appears to be equivalent to 3a)


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> It'll be good if you could provide examples for this in classical prose, I don't believe this topic can be critically examined by looking at poetry alone......


Examples of یکے خانہ

یکے مردرا گفتم کہ حال چیست (تاریخ بیہقی

از بزرگی و فخر اوی یکے آن بود کہ ہنوز 140 سال بیش نبود یکے اژدھا را کہ چند کوھے بود تنہا بکشت بفرمان ضحاک (تاریخ سیستان

Examples of یکے خانہ اے

یکے روزے بامدادی خبر افتاد کہ دوش فلان قصّاب بمرد ( چہار مقالۂ نظامی عروضی

یکے وزیرے از ترکستان آمدہ بود۔ او وردانِ خداست۔
(تاریخ بخارا ای نرشخی)


----------



## Qureshpor

An interesting combination of یایِ نکرہ attached to the adjective following a noun with a یایِ نکرہ ..  

فیضے عجبے یافتم از صبح ببینید
ایں جادۂ روشن رہِ میخانه نه باشد

or in Modern Persian reckoning..

 فیضی عجبی یافتم از صبح ببینید
 این جادۂ روشن رہِ میخانه نه باشد

آقا رضی مسرور قزوینی

where one would have expected فیضی عجب.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> where one would have expected فیضی عجب.


Another example of embellishment as that ی is grammatically unnecessary.


----------



## Dib

Qureshpor said:


> An interesting combination of یایِ نکرہ attached to the adjective following a noun with a یایِ نکرہ ..
> 
> فیضے عجبے یافتم از صبح ببینید
> ایں جادۂ روشن رہِ میخانه نه باشد
> 
> or in Modern Persian reckoning..
> 
> فیضی عجبی یافتم از صبح ببینید
> این جادۂ روشن رہِ میخانه نه باشد
> 
> آقا رضی مسرور قزوینی
> 
> where one would have expected فیضی عجب.



There is an alternative (and more attractive - in my opinion) explanation to this one. Ganjoor has this version:
فیض عجبی یافتم از صبح ببینید
این جادهٔ روشن ره میخانه نباشد

Note that the ezafe -e in "feyz-e 'ajabi" is here metrically long - it occupies the same slot in the meter as the long "aa" of "jaade". So, in recitation it may sound like a long majhool -e, and that is what the scribe has probably written. This "mistake" (if it is one) would be possible only by a scribe whose dialect contains the majhool long -e.


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> This "mistake" (if it is one) would be possible only by a scribe whose dialect contains the majhool long -e.


Hi Dib, this is from 400-430 years ago & the author is from north west of Iran & linked to court of Shah Abbâs, most likely in Esfâhân, so the original could be around, or at least survived for a long time, also no major foreign invasions & book burning has occurred since then. Also the scribes very likely would have been from central parts of the then Persia. Unless in your comment above you are referring to a scribe from the subcontinent.
.


----------

