# Persian: روزى ده رهنماى



## lingue turche

Hello, everybody! I am new to this forum. I am interested in Turkish and Persian and am currently studying for a degree in the latter.

Can somebody tell me what these two lines mean and why there is no و va ("and") between روزى ده and رهنماى?

خداوند نام و خداوند جای

خداوند روزی ده رهنمای


----------



## Treaty

Welcome to the forum! 

There is no need for it. و is usually used when the adjectives can't be together wholly (e.g.,توپ سرخ و سفید _red and white ball_, but not توپ سرخ سفید _red white ball_, because the latter doesn't make sense); or when the adjectives are used after the indefinite ی (e.g., یک توپ بزرگ سفید but توپی بزرگ *و* سفید, _a big white ball_). I other cases that I think of, و is not necessary.


----------



## colognial

Hi, linque turche. 

In principle, an adjective following another and linked to it via a _kasre_ (as in "roozideh*-e* rahnemay") signifies a logical connection between the two attributes (example: آفتابِ سرد پاییزی), whereas if the link is made using a 'va' (= and), the suggestion is that the two adjectives refer to attributes that are coincidental and perhaps connected only by subjective association. (Example: آفتابِ سرد و غم انگیز.)

Here's a translation:
The Lord of names, and of space,
He who feeds and guides.


----------



## PersoLatin

I believe 'va' is not used for metering purposes only, and you can only get away without it because of grammatical principals explained by Treaty & colognial, above.


----------



## Hocharabisch

So you mean that if I wanted to say "the big old house" I could say either:

خانۂ قدیمیِ بزرگ

or

خانۂ قدیمی و بزرگ

and there would be absolutely no difference in meaning?


----------



## lingue turche

Thank you all! So it should be pronounced with اضافہ?

khodAwand-e ruzi deh-e rahnomAy


----------



## colognial

Hocharabisch said:


> So you mean that if I wanted to say "the big old house" I could say either:
> 
> خانۂ قدیمیِ بزرگ
> 
> or
> 
> خانۂ قدیمی و بزرگ
> 
> and there would be absolutely no difference in meaning?



Well, what I am trying to convey is that yes, both phrases are correct and no, they don't mean quite the same thing. The difference is imperceptible, though.

The former phrase suggests to me that the house is old and, as may be expected with an old house, large. The two attributes are complementary. But when I hear the latter phrase with the 'and' in between the two adjectives, my notion of a large old house is shattered, or at least dented. Here is a house, I say to myself, that is old and which happens to be large as well. Chance has brought the two attributes together in one and the same object.


----------



## colognial

lingue turche said:


> Thank you all! So it should be pronounced with اضافہ?
> 
> khodAwand-e ruzi deh-e rahnomAy



Yes, it should. The giving of food (ruzidehesh or ruzidehi) is itself complemented by the giving of guidance (rahnemaaee), i.e. providing the means of finding the right path, even before the noun (khodaavand) is complemented by the second adjective. This is the purpose the kasre or ezaafe serves: it imparts something of one quality to the other and vice versa.


----------



## le golfe Persique

rahnomaay or rahnemaay or rahnamaay?


----------



## persiano

le golfe Persique said:


> rahnomaay or rahnemaay or rahnamaay?



I think all three pronunciations of رھنمای are correct, but the one with ضمہ is the most formal and literary.

By the way, I think that in normal Persian you don't have a یا at the end. The word for "giver of guidance" is رھنما, not رھنمای, you see.


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> he former phrase suggests to me that the house is old and, as may be expected with an old house, large


hi colognial, what if it was خانه قديمىِ كوچك?


----------



## PersoLatin

Hocharabisch said:


> So you mean that if I wanted to say "the big old house" I could say either:
> 
> خانۂ قدیمیِ بزرگ
> 
> or
> 
> خانۂ قدیمی و بزرگ
> 
> and there would be absolutely no difference in meaning?


What I can say is that, only when the house is *both old AND large*, you can you zir/ezâfé without 'va'. The two adjectives can be completely independent but they need to be consistent in their description, and physically possible, e.g. قديمىِ بزرگ/روزى دهِ رهنماى/بخشندهِ مهربان/بي تربيتِ احمق/بي رحمِ خونخوار are ok. You don't tend to say, پدرِ مهربانِ فراموشكار but پدرِ مهربان و فراموشكار, or ديوارِ كوتاهِ بلند

The difference between the two is in the context of use, similar to English as in 'an old large house' and 'an old and large house'. Imagine you are looking for an old large house & some agent is showing you houses, and all day she's shown you old but small/average houses, now she want to show you another old, but this time a large house, how should she describe it? To impress you, she'll use 'va' because this is the first large house she's shown you, as you may have assumed it is another wrong sized house. The version with zir/ezâfé won't have the desired effect.


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin said:


> hi colognial, what if it was خانه قديمىِ كوچك?



Hello, PersoLatin! I have nothing against such a house! I am not insisting that an old house should be automatically large too. I'm saying, the speaker makes it seem as if an old house is automatically large too by choosing to omit the 'and' and inserting the ezaafe in between the two adjectives.


----------



## colognial

persiano said:


> I think all three pronunciations of رھنمای are correct, but the one with ضمہ is the most formal and literary.
> 
> By the way, I think that in normal Persian you don't have a یا at the end. The word for "giver of guidance" is رھنما, not رھنمای, you see.



I agree unreservedly. But there is also the fact that in day to day Persian, it is hardly ever 'r*a*hnemaa', this being the literary form. We tend to say 'r*aa*hnamaa' or 'r_*aa*_hnemaa' (راهنما).


----------



## Teutophile

colognial said:


> I agree unreservedly. But there is also the fact that in day to day Persian, it is hardly ever 'r*a*hnemaa', this being the literary form. We tend to say 'r*aa*hnamaa' or 'r_*aa*_hnemaa' (راهنما).



But why is there a ی at the end of this word in خداوند روزی ده رهنمای?
By the way, I don't think you can pronounce it with a ضمہ. I have to disagree with persiano here.


----------



## colognial

Teutophile said:


> But why is there a ی at the end of this word in خداوند روزی ده رهنمای?
> By the way, I don't think you can pronounce it with a ضمہ. I have to disagree with persiano here.



Teutophile, I couldn't be absolutely sure, but I think there are in fact two possible infinitives involved: nemoudan (نمودن) and nemaaeedan (نماییدن). In a similar way, you have آسودن (to rest, to be tranquil, to reach a state of peace), but you can also make up آساییدن. In each case the latter versions do seem a bit false, I have to admit. What you have is a _possible_ construction, that's all I'm prepared to say about نماییدن and آساییدن; also, they sound as if they are already 'present tense' versions of the other two infinitives! Other similar-sounding infinitives in Persian are: پاییدن (to watch over, to keep under surveillance), خاییدن (to bite into something, to munch something or to masticate).

Now, in order to arrive at the Present Stem of the verb, the basic part with which you can conjugate the imperative verbs, you drop the ending. The ending can be ییدن, but it can also be یدن. If you omit the ییدن, you end up with نما. If you chop off a bit less, you have نمای. It is this latter stem that is then attached to ره to make up رهنمای.

The reason why 'noma' sounds wrong is because it is harder to pronounce than 'nama' or 'nema'. I would say the true vowel, if it is not a pure 'a', is a strange combination of 'o' and 'e'. But I've heard very learned people say 'noma', as if to suggest that this is the correct pronunciation. So I don't know, and it doesn't really matter much among native Iranians, either. We are not oversensitive about vowel pronunciation, really.


----------



## PersoLatin

Teutophile said:


> But why is there a ی at the end of this word in خداوند روزی ده رهنمای?


The last ى in رهنماى is a poetic or literary way of saying رهنما, it is generally iapplied to Persian words that end in â or u. So you will see words like موى, جاى, پاى, جوى, كوى or روى mainly in poetry. As has been said, this version (of these words), is not used in day-to-day conversation.

You will also see this extra ى added, for the same category of words, as a liaison, e.g. راهنماى من-rânamâye man or مويش-muyaš.


----------

