# Persian: conversation



## ISLAMABAD

Is the Persian word for conversation goftogoo spelled گفتگو or گفت و گو? Does the pronunciation change according to the spelling? o vs va?


----------



## PersoLatin

ISLAMABAD said:


> Is the Persian word for conversation goftogoo spelled گفتگو or گفت و گو?


Both spellings are used and correct and the choice to use which, is the user's.



ISLAMABAD said:


> Does the pronunciation change according to the spelling? o vs va?


goft*o*gu and گفت و گو are the original pronunciation and spelling, respectively. In my experience you can use goft*o*gu or goft*e*gu as the correct pronunciation for either of گفتگو or گفت وگو.

Bur bear in mind it is never 'goft va gu'

گفتگو/گفت و گو is equivalent to roft*o*rub, رفت  و روب, (cleaning) in its make up. I can't think another that follows, the 3rd person simple past +  و + imperative of the same verb. Of course there plenty of  other types like xzadoxord زد  و خورد etc.


----------



## molana

ISLAMABAD said:


> Is the Persian word for conversation goftogoo spelled گفتگو or گفت و گو?


Unfortunately, there is no homogeneity in writing this word. You can find both orthography. It's the same situation for the word جست و جو/جستجو.



ISLAMABAD said:


> Does the pronunciation change according to the spelling? o vs va?


No, there is no difference between the pronunciation of گفت و گو and گفتگو . However, in daily conversations, you can hear that جست و جو/جستجو is sometimes pronounced as [jost-ju] or [jos-ju] instead of [josto-ju] or [joste-ju].



PersoLatin said:


> In my experience you can use goft*o*gu or goft*e*gu as the correct pronunciation for either of گفتگو or گفت وگو.


Now that I'm bringing to my mind the different pronunciations, I see that it is also pronounced as gofte-gu. Moreover, I can remember that it's sometimes pronunced as [goft-gu]


PersoLatin said:


> the 3rd person simple past +  و + imperative of the same verb


In a sense, you are right. However, in grammar, we say:  _بُنِ مضارع_ +_ و_ + _بُنِ ماضی_ (root=_بُن_) .


----------



## colognial

molana said:


> Unfortunately, there is no homogeneity in writing this word. You can find both orthography. It's the same situation for the word جست و جو/جستجو.



Hi, molana. I would consider this lack of consistency a fortunate thing, personally. Writing in Persian, at least as it must have been practiced in the past, is as much about communicating as about fitting words on to a line, fitting lines of the written text on to a page. The economy of the medium must have had a role in forcing the different spellings, making one spelling preferable to another according to which one of them fits, literally. More importantly, the choice as to whether to join or not to join potentially gives us a tool to create specific meanings, not to mention suitable verse meters (provided the pronunciation changes accordingly), where there may seem to be a need for them. Not everything that seems disorderly is without rhyme or reason!


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> The economy of the medium must have had a role in forcing the different spellings, making one spelling preferable to another according to which one of them fits, literally. More importantly, the choice as to whether to join or not to join potentially gives us* a tool to create specific meanings, not to mention suitable verse meters *(provided the pronunciation changes accordingly), where there may seem to be a need for them. Not everything that seems disorderly is without rhyme or reason!


Hi colognial, I agree that the variation of spellings available for such words, does add spice to life, so to say. However the reasons for those variations, in my view, are more to do with lack of explicit short vowels in Perso-Arabic. Over time, this has led to ambiguity, which in turn has created a loop-hole. The explicit va in گفت *و* گو - goft *va* gu, has changed sound to o, then dropped completely in favour of the short version in goft*o*gu - گفتگو, and this has left it open to further change (misuse), as in goft*e*gu or as molana has said, goftgu. (more variations to look forward to: g*a*ftgu/g*e*ftgu). Of course the shorter versions offer the reader or the author, some economy.


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin, what do you mean by "lack of explicit short vowels in Perso-Arabic"? The reason why گفت و گو and گفتگو both hold, is because they convey the same sequence of sounds. What's lacking in the word as it's written, in your opinion?


----------



## molana

colognial said:


> Not everything that seems disorderly is without rhyme or reason!


“It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a facade of order - and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order.”
 Douglas R. Hofstadter
In this way I modify my statement. The heterogeneous orthography of some Farsi words can be_ a fortune as well as a misfortune_.


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> PersoLatin, what do you mean by Hi colognial, I do go on about this topic quite a bit, as I'm sure you know Arabic"lack of explicit short vowels in Perso-Arabic"? The reason why گفت و گو and گفتگو both hold, is because they convey the same sequence of sounds. What's lacking in the word as it's written, in your opinion?


Hi colognial, I do go on about this topic, I know , but as you aware there is no representation for the short vowels, e/a/o in Arabic and by extension in Perso-Arabic. This gives the unfamiliar reader the opportunity to fill missing unwritten vowels, with a short vowel that only 'seems' to fit (with 33% chance of getting right). So I was thinking when گفت *و *گو became گفتگو (maybe for brevity), the intention was to read it as goft*o*gu, but that increased the chances of it being pronounced as goft*e*gu, I see this as a result of misreading of گفتگو, due to unwritten short vowels, than any other reason. Another example is the word نو - new, when this was first transliterated into Perso-Arabic, an explicit و was added, to force the reader to pronounce it correctly, but due to unfamiliarity, this has led to the Turkic version of this word to become nev as in Nevrooz.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> goft*o*gu and گفت و گو are the original pronunciation and spelling,





molana said:


> In a sense, you are right. However, in grammar, we say: _بُنِ مضارع_ +_ و_ + _بُنِ ماضی_ (root=_بُن_)





PersoLatin said:


> The explicit va in گفت *و* گو - goft *va* gu, has changed sound to o,


Before discussing the reason of dropping و, may I ask what evidence you have that there was a و in the middle originally?


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Before discussing the reason of dropping و, may I ask what evidence you have that there was a و in the middle originally?


You may, and the answer is, I don't have any, but you knew that as asking for evidence with regards to old languages, is a 'big ask', so to say. We can only go by what we have, which may or may not even be correct. I am going by presence of و in similarly constructed terms. It makes sense and is reasonable to see *و*, meaning 'and', between گفت  and گو, to suggest, at least, a two way discussion/conversation, similarly in: زد  و خورد or رفت وآمد or بزن وبکوب, even with Arabic words جر ‏و ‏بحث.


----------



## molana

Treaty said:


> Before discussing the reason of dropping و, may I ask what evidence you have that there was a و in the middle originally?



:ترکیبِ مادۀ(=بُن) ماضی با مادۀ مضارع از یک فعل با حرف پیوند "و" که مجموع آنها مفهومِ اسمِ مصدر دارد
(مثال: "چهار چیز بر شما میراث گذاشتیم: _رفت و روی، شست و شوی، جست و جوی، گفت و گوی"_(اسرار التوحید
(از کتاب _دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی_ نوشتۀ دکتر پرویز ناتل خانلَری، به کوشش عفت مستشارنیا، فصل سوم(ساخنمان کلمه)، مبحثِ ترکیبات فعلی)​


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin, hi. Your idea that short vowels, namely _zir_, _zebar_, _pish_, creep in for lack of an explicit vowel such as an ا or a و does not hold in the case of گفت و گو, I'm afraid, since there originally was a و in گفت و گو. The و must at some point have been supplanted by a _pish_ ( ُ  ) for the reason that the short and the explicit 'o' symbols sound the same, one, and two, because گفتگو must have been preferred as it was just that little bit shorter and easier to inscribe. 

I realize that you do not dispute the reasons for such a modification, but I don't think the "misreading" you refer to is inescapable, because there's always a chance that people who are interested enough in Persian will undertake to learn how to read and write it.

I'm sure the argument for and against transcribing will continue, but no one can contradict the fact that learning helps, just as it is obvious that remembering to inscribe the diacritic marks where necessary helps. Just think, PersoLatin: even with the special symbols you have taken pains to devise - which, by the way, I do greatly appreciate - to teach learners of Persian how some word is to be pronounced, you still need to take time to teach those symbols to newcomers before the new alphabet can begin to serve it purpose.


----------



## Treaty

The instances of گفتگو and جستجو are also as old as those of گفت و گو  and جست و جو. So, my question is how can we be sure that the same structure (with o) has made those as well, not a separate one? Or, how can we say that o/u in those compounds is not a product of vowel harmony (all of these verbs have o/u in their stem)?


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> The instances of گفتگو and جستجو are also as old as those of گفت و گو and جست و جو.





colognial said:


> because گفتگو must have been preferred as it was just that little bit shorter and easier to inscribe.


My point was about misreading of گفتگو and جستجو from their original goft*o*gu/jost*o*ju to goft*e*gu/jost*e*ju. گفت و گو and جست و جو 



colognial said:


> I realize that you do not dispute the reasons for such a modification, but I don't think the "misreading" you refer to is inescapable, because there's always a chance that people who are interested enough in Persian will undertake to learn how to read and write it.


Of course in an ideal situation when you have experts in Persian available, yes, but when you only have text to read, and no means of checking, misreadings like 'nev' for نو - new, will happen and has happened.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> misreadings like 'nev' for نو - new, will happen and has happened.


By the way, there is no misreading in case of نو. It is a perfect example of sound change a>e (e.g., _rajab>recep_) and w>v that gave us _naw>nev_ or _mawlana>mevlana_. You are giving too much credit to reading and misreading. 90+% of people were illiterate before 1900s. There was little opportunity for any case of (mis)reading to affect how a word was colloquially pronounced.


PersoLatin said:


> My point was about misreading of گفتگو and جستجو from their original goft*o*gu/jost*o*ju to goft*e*gu/jost*e*ju. گفت و گو and جست و جو


My point is that this ambiguity seems to only apply in this construct (past + (o) + present of the _same_ verb) not similar cases (e.g., past + o + past (رفت و آمد) or past + o + present (جست و خیز) of _different_ verbs ). This is why I am skeptic of that گفت و گوی was the (only) original form.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> It is a perfect example of sound change a>e (e.g., _rajab>recep_) and w>v that gave us _naw>nev_ or _mawlana>mevlana_.


Sound changes are usually gradual, I don't believe the Turkish speakers who first came across such words as _rajab, naw or mawlana_, started off pronouncing them correctly then changed gradually to their later versions. Other examples in Turkish favour my point, e.g. omid>umit, (مسعود)maseud>mesut, or محمود mahmud>mahmut. in these cases, the o/u sound has been preserved because they could not be misread (e.g. as mesved or mahmved), unlike _مولانا>mevlana and _نو>nev.




Treaty said:


> You are giving too much credit to reading and misreading. 90+% of people were illiterate before 1900s. There was little opportunity for any case of (mis)reading to affect how a word was colloquially pronounced.


I don't think so, one bad teacher or a misreading, is enough to provide a pattern for others to follow. A modern example is the English boycott (/ˈbɔɪkɒt/), some bright spark in Iran first pronounced this as /bāykot/ and now it is the official pronunciation in Iran.



Treaty said:


> My point is that this ambiguity seems to only apply in this construct (past + (o) + present of the _same_ verb) not similar cases (e.g., past + o + past (رفت و آمد) or past + o + present (جست و خیز) of _different_ verbs ). This is why I am skeptic of that گفت و گوی was the (only) original form.


Yes, I see.

.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> A modern example is the English boycott (/ˈbɔɪkɒt/), some bright spark in Iran first pronounced this as /bāykot/ and now it is the official pronunciation in Iran


A minor correction: A modern example is the English boycott (/ˈbɔɪkɒt/) Russian бойкот (baykot), some bright spark in Iran first pronounced this correctly as /bāykot/ and now it is the official pronunciation in Iran.


PersoLatin said:


> Sound changes are usually gradual, I don't believe the Turkish speakers who first came across such words as _rajab, naw or mawlana_, started off pronouncing them correctly then changed gradually to their later versions. Other examples in Turkish favour my point, e.g. omid>umit, (مسعود)maseud>mesut, or محمود mahmud>mahmut. in these cases, the o/u sound has been preserved because they could not be misread (e.g. as mesved or mahmved), unlike _مولانا>mevlana and _نو>nev.


I'm totally lost here. Why cannot the و in محمود be misread as _v_ (_mahmevd_) but in مولانا can? Aren't both with the same letter و? What you presented here is a strong evidence for my suggestion. Turkish doesn't mispronounce Persian/Arabic _aw_ as _ū_, or _ū_ as _v/w_ despite their similar spelling. It sometimes even goes as far as adding an extra vowel (_qawm>_kavim_, dawr>_devir). This simply shows the writing wasn't a source of (mis)pronunciation, otherwise we wouldn't have had this consistency.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> A minor correction: A modern example is the English boycott (/ˈbɔɪkɒt/) Russian бойкот (baykot), some bright spark in Iran first pronounced this correctly as /bāykot/ and now it is the official pronunciation in Iran.


If that's how they pronounce it in Russian, then something was lost when it was transliterated into Russian, and if us Iranians have copied the Russian version (I trust you know that, as a fact), as opposed to the English version, then that validates my point below:


PersoLatin said:


> one bad teacher or a misreading, is enough to provide a pattern for others to follow.






Treaty said:


> Why cannot the و in محمود be misread as _v_ (_mahmevd_) but in مولانا can? Aren't both with the same letter و?


I can think of one reason, محمود. مسعود and امید are male names which would have come across through contact over a long period of time, and usually you get to like a name because of the way it sounds, so you try to mimic it as perfectly as your language allows. Whereas _naw, mawlana, qawm, dawr _(and many more) most likely came across via literature therefore prone to misreading.




Treaty said:


> It sometimes even goes as far as adding an extra vowel (_qawm>_kavim_, dawr>_devir).


Other than for your honesty, I can't see why you included these, as they prove how screwed-up words can get when they are misread.


I think this subject is wider than the scope of this thread.


----------

