# Persian: historical sound changes



## PersoLatin

I believe به and با are different and distinct from one another, in meaning and therefore in use.

In English به can mean:

1 -  To, examples:
سر بسر، پا بپا، در بدر، به انجا، به شهر، به ديوار، به تو/من چه، بپاى او افتاد

2 - In, examples:
به اين روش، بحالت عادى، بزبان فارسى، بجاى من رفت

3 - Also in, at or on, examples:
بوقت، به روز، بزودى، بتنهايى ،كلاه به سر، كاكل به سر
به بيمارى/مريضى مبتلا شد
سرش بدار رفت، بفروش رسيد
به چه معنى/دليل/حساب

(please note, this thread is not about the exact meaning or variety of meanings of به in English)

In the above examples, you cannot replace به with با, at least not without changing the meaning, or making them sound wrong altogether.

However in the following example types, با and به seem to be interchangeable:
4 - بخوبى، بخوشى، بسختى، بنام خدا، به زور، به لطف شما، اميدوارم بسلامتى برسى، به مرور زمان
To me it looks like these started off with با and over time, due to closeness of sounds, changed to به.

As an example, do these have the same, or subtly different meanings? And if they are different, has that difference developed because of accidental misuse of به?
به سختى/زور این کار را کرد and با سختى/زور این کار را کرد
جشن به خوبی/خوشی انجام شد and جشن با خوبی/خوشی انجام شد
به مرور زمان and با مرور زمان
به لطف شما and با لطف شما

what is your view on this?


----------



## farasso0

این کلمات در گذشته با به استفاده می شدند.

من با آچار با سختی بازش کردم............من با آچار به سختی بازش کردم.
جشن با حضور آقای شهردار با خوبی خوشی به پایان رسید.........جشن با جضور آقای شهردار به خوبی و خوشی به پایان رسید.
با مرور زمان با هم واکنش دادند.....به مرور زمان با هم واکنش دادند.
با لطف شما توانستم با مادرم صحبت کنم....به لطف شما توانستم با مادرم صحبت کنم.
با سلامت، با سلامت برسید(که من نشنیدم تا حالا)....به سلامت برسید، به سلامت

من فکر می کنم پیشینیان ما دلیل خوبی داشتند برای اینکه از حرف اضافه متفاوتی برای اینها استفاده کنند.


----------



## Treaty

Historically, با (Middle Persian _abāg_) mainly meant "[together] with", while "به" (Mid. Pers. _pad_) had a wide range of meaning as explained by PersoLatin. For example, in Shahname, a person usually hits another person به a weapon not با it. However, we can see that later (1200AD onwards), با is also used to connote "by". Meanwhile, using به for this meaning has become less and less frequent (it will be confusing if I say من درخت را به تبر زدم).

Considering your examples, it is possible to picture some of them with both با and به. For example با خوبی و خوشی به پایان رسید implies an end accompanying joy, while به خوبی و خوشی may imply the result of ending. Same goes for با مرور and به مرور. In the context, they become so semantically close that they are used interchangeably without notice. It indeed matters how the semantic context is defined. For example if I see روش as a process, I may be comfortable to use با (I do actually say با این روش as I also use با این راه).


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> For example, in Shahname, a person usually hits another person به a weapon not با it. However, we can see that later (1200AD onwards), با is also used to connote "by". Meanwhile, using به for this meaning has become less and less frequent (it will be confusing if I say من درخت را به تبر زدم).


So what I said below is the opposite of what has actually happened? Although 'closeness of sound' as a reason for the change, may still be valid (?).


PersoLatin said:


> To me it looks like these started off with با and over time, due to closeness of sounds, changed to به.


----------



## Treaty

I can only say the change from به to با for when it means "by". I don't know the reason (though closeness of sound makes sense, especially considering that this semantic change happened long after very different _abāg _and _pad _changed to more similar _bā _and_ ba _in Dari).


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> especially considering that this semantic change happened long after very different _abāg _and _pad _changed to more similar _bā _and_ ba _in Dari


That's if you believe that Persians ever pronounced the final 'g' or 'k', in this and many similar words, you will find in Pahlavi and Avesta text.


----------



## Treaty

I think this has already been discussed in another thread. Anyway, an evidence for the pronunciation comes from the ج (e.g., نموذج برنامج طازج) or ق (e.g., فستق خندق ابستاق) at the end of Persian loans in Arabic; although, I have no idea if this k/g pronunciation applied to all k/g endings and if all Middle Persian accents had it.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> I think this has already been discussed in another thread.


You are right, I raised that thread, unfortunately, at the time, it was not thoroughly discussed, one forum member repeatedly took the focus away from the main point.



Treaty said:


> Anyway, an evidence for the pronunciation comes from the ج (e.g., نموذج برنامج طازج) or ق (e.g., فستق خندق ابستاق) at the end of Persian loans in Arabic; although


I'm sure you'd agree, one of the most likely routes for these into Arabic (& other languages), is via the written, rather than the spoken form. In fact, more of this word group survived in Arabic than in Persian, which may well be proof that, the transfer aoccurred in a relatively short period of time, between the time of Arab invasion and adoption Arabic script, during which time, text books in Pahlavi were translated & used by the Arabs.



Treaty said:


> I have no idea if this k/g pronunciation applied to all k/g endings and if all Middle Persian accents had it.


There are many hundreds of these words, just consider the past participle of around 800-900 Persian verbs. The point of my thread was, that the k/g (ending) applied only to words that ended in a long vowel i.e. ā, u, i & é/a (eh), and that k/g, very likely, was a marker to tell the reader, the word ended in a strong vowel, and was never intended to be pronounced, e.g. āhug (āhu), bināg (binā), ruzig (ruzi), satārag (setāré/satāra).

I don't think anyone can convincingly argue that, for example the original ستاره, for a period of a few hundred years (duration of MP) was pronounced ستارگ, then it changed back to ستاره, without leaving any trace in spoken Persian, not even in one village, in the outer reaches of Iran, and also, it mysteriously disappeared in written Persian too, as soon as, or soon after, the Arabic script was adopted, it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> I'm sure you'd agree, one of the most likely routes for these into Arabic (& other languages), is via the written, rather than the spoken form. In fact, more of this word group survived in Arabic than in Persian, which may well be proof that, the transfer aoccurred in a relatively short period of time, between the time of Arab invasion and adoption Arabic script, during which time, text books in Pahlavi were translated & used by the Arabs.



I am curious to know why you think so. I wouldn't guess that Pahlavi literacy (which is essential to understand its spelling conventions) was ever common among Arabs. On the other hand, if it was native Persians who introduced these words into Arabic, they would certainly know the proper Persian pronunciation of these words and spell them in Arabic accordingly? Yes, some residual orthographical conventions may get transplanted through transliteration, like writing setare*h *with a silent h in the end also in English, but it works only because an "h" in that context in English would also be silent. Using j/q as silent letters in Arabic spelling sounds really far-fetched to me.

My guess is that the standard theory would suggest chiefly pre-Islamic borrowings from (Middle) Persian to Arabic (mostly through Aramaic).



> There are many hundreds of these words, just consider the past participle of around 800-900 Persian verbs. The point of my thread was, that the k/g (ending) applied only to words that ended in a long vowel i.e. ā, u, i & é/a (eh), and that k/g, very likely, was a marker to tell the reader, the word ended in a strong vowel, and was never intended to be pronounced, e.g. āhug (āhu), bināg (binā), ruzig (ruzi), satārag (setāré/satāra).



For the (early MP?) endings -ik/-ak (> ig/ag > ī/a), there are clear Sanskrit parallels in -ika/-aka as well. So, New Persian setāre parallels the extended Sanskrit tāra-ka- = star (also unextended tārā- = star), the initial s- is a so-called IE s-mobile which does not show up in this Sanskrit form, though it does show up in other attestations (e.g. Rigveda 2.2.5 stṛ-bhiḥ = with stars), proving that we are indeed dealing with the same root.

Also, remember, the unextended past participles in -ta of OP evolved into the simple past of Modern Persian having lost the final -a (and voicing t to d in specific contexts, like intervocalic among others). This form still acted as past participle in Middle Persian. So, to take fdb's example from the other thread (zāta-), its exact reflex in modern Persian is zād (Sanskrit jāta). Similarly OP kṛta- (Cf. Sanskrit kṛta-) > modern Persian kard, etc. The new Persian past participle (zāde, karde,...) was obviously an extended form. I am curious, does this extended past participle occur at all in MP? I expect their precursors (i.e. adjective formations not yet interpreted as past participles) in -ag to appear though (Cf. Sanskrit adjective derivations in part participle+ka-, e.g. jātaka- new-born, kṛtaka- artificial).

This does not cover āhug (āhu), bināg (binā), for which I don't know the etymology to suggest one way or the other.



> I don't think anyone can convincingly argue that, for example the *original ستاره*, for a period of a few hundred years (duration of MP) was pronounced ستارگ, then it changed back to ستاره, without leaving any trace in spoken Persian, not even in one village, in the outer reaches of Iran, and also, it mysteriously disappeared in written Persian too, as soon as, or soon after, the Arabic script was adopted, it doesn't make sense.



Could you provide a reference to the Old Persian form? I suppose that's what you mean by pre-MP "original"? I couldn't locate any attestation.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> ... without leaving any trace in spoken Persian, not even in one village, in the outer reaches of Iran, and also, it mysteriously disappeared in written Persian too, as soon as, or soon after, the Arabic script was adopted, it doesn't make sense.


The simplification of a language, especially dropping of endings, usually occurs first in the spoken and local variants and then is reflected in the formal and written language. The Arab invasion effectively ended the formal Middle-Persian and paved the way for local variants (e.g., Dari). When Pahlavi writers used g/k endings, many Persian dialects had probably already lost them (like in Sogdian which has words with both k and y endings).

For example, when Latin was still the official language, people had long departed from it (or its related proto-local-dialect) and spoken with local dialects. Almost no trace of Latin s/m endings is left in modern Romance languages. Would you consider words like German zentr*um* or English stimul*us *only took m/s endings because of the written but not pronounced in Latin?

By the way, I consider forms like zende*g*i and zende*g*an as possible traces of that g ending.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> The Arab invasion effectively ended the formal Middle-Persian and paved the way for local variants (e.g., Dari). When Pahlavi writers used g/k endings, many Persian dialects had probably already lost them (like in Sogdian which has words with both k and y endings).


Or you could see it as: "many Persian dialects had never had them in the first place, or not fully" (like in Sogdian which has words with both k and y endings)"



Treaty said:


> By the way, I consider forms like zende*g*i and zende*g*an as possible traces of that g ending.


That is absolutely correct, and if someone who is not totally familiar with M and N Persian looks at these exact examples, s/he'd assume the noun form of zende*g*i is zende*g*, because s/he knows the formula says, 'to get the noun/singular, drop the i or the plural marker ān'. I believe that same thing has happened. Other examples, setare*g*ān becomes setare*g*, hama*g*i and hama*g*, and many many others of this type. So the g/k was for liaison purposes only, but someone got it wrong.


There are far too many of this group of words, in Persian, to ignore or explain away with one formula (not suggesting you did). I believe this is an error, made by modern scholars, and they used the presence of those few words, found in Arabic (as well as, a few actual Persian words like tajik, tarik), as proof that they are right, and ignored that New Persian lacked any such form.

Let’s look at this from a different angle; do you not think that Ferdôsi (& his contemporaries) would have been aware of this g/k ending, even if it had completely disappeared, from spoken Persian, by his time? Ŝāhnamé is full of references to history of Sāsāsniān, which, relatively speaking, was contemporary to Ferdôsi, and all(?) written in Pahlavi, he must have been an expert in reading Pahlavi, why did he not use setara*g*, hama*g* or zāda*g* etc., in his poetry? He claims and we believe that he revived Persian; wouldn’t keeping the g/k ending be more consistent with this ideal?


----------



## PersoLatin

Thanks Dib.



Dib said:


> I am curious to know why you think so. I wouldn't guess that Pahlavi literacy (which is essential to understand its spelling conventions) was ever common among Arabs. On the other hand, if it was native Persians who introduced these words into Arabic, they would certainly know the proper Persian pronunciation of these words and spell them in Arabic accordingly?


I am trying to convey the idea, but let's take your suggestion that those few words entered Aramaic first, and in that case, it is reasonable to assume that the text books would have been translated without intervention/presence of Persians, therefore g/k ending were assumed to be correct.



Dib said:


> For the (early MP?) endings -ik/-ak (> ig/ag > ī/a), there are clear Sanskrit parallels in -ika/-aka as well. So, New Persian setāre parallels the extended Sanskrit tāra-ka- = star (also unextended tārā- = star), the initial s- is a so-called IE s-mobile which does not show up in this Sanskrit form, though it does show up in other attestations (e.g. Rigveda 2.2.5 stṛ-bhiḥ = with stars), proving that we are indeed dealing with the same root.


Do -ik/-ak endings mean anything, for example, are they diminutive makers, or do they function in exactly the same was as g/k ending in MP? And do you have examples other than setāré/setāra, in both Persian and Sanskrit?



Dib said:


> Could you provide a reference to the Old Persian form? I suppose that's what you mean by pre-MP "original"? I couldn't locate any attestation.


Yes I did mean pre-MP & I will look for it, however fdb's zāta example is good enough to prove the g/k was not present on this word which is a past participle, and maybe by extension, we can say, not present on words of similar category.



fdb said:


> What PersoLatin writes is partially, but only partially correct.


In fact, I never asked (fdb) or worked out, in what part I was correct or incorrect (thread,).


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> Or you could see it as: "many Persian dialects had never had them in the first place, or not fully" (like in Sogdian which has words with both k and y endings)"


The issue is, as Dib explained, that Persian had this k/g ending in many of these words. The suffix(es) had a range of meaning connoting hypocorism, belonging, relation, and "instance of". It is natural to assume the ancestor of all Persian dialects had it as well and among them the formal Persian was the last Persian dialect to submit to its omission. You can compare it to ی-ending in words like فرمای نمای جوی بوی شوی etc. They have been disappeared from Persian dialects apart from the more conservative literary register. If it wasn't because of poems it would have been easy to argue that the ی in بفرمایم is only for liaison. 

As for fdb's post, I think he meant that your hypothesis (of mute k/g) is true for post-Islamic Pahlavi writings but not true for Sassanid Pahlavi writings (this was why it was "partially" true). 


PersoLatin said:


> ... and they used the presence of those few words, found in Arabic


And in Aramaic and Armenian. It is a well-established practice in etymology because the borrowing languages don't go through the same sound changes as the source language does. For example, 'margharet' or خزن are closer to the original words than مروارید and گنج.


PersoLatin said:


> Let’s look at this from a different angle; do you not think that Ferdôsi (& his contemporaries) would have been aware of this g/k ending, even if it had completely disappeared, from spoken Persian, by his time? He claims and we believe that he revived Persian; wouldn’t keeping the g/k ending be more consistent with this ideal?


You have a great faith in him. I don't believe he revived Persian. Persian was already the lingua franca of the Samanids and Ghaznavids. I'm not sure he believed so either. I don't believe he was a linguist. He knew what he knew and spoke his own Persian (that is Dari, very different from Sassanid Middle Persian). I'm not sure he had access to or knew Pahlavi language or sources.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> The issue is, as Dib explained, that Persian had this k/g ending in many of these words. The suffix(es) had a range of meaning connoting hypocorism, belonging, relation, and "instance of".


But you know by now that the g/k we are talking about, represent none of these general connotations: "hypocorism, belonging, relation, and "instance of"", even if we believe they were actually pronounced, they had no meaning, I'm more than happy to know what you think these connoted, other than what I believe, i.e. markers and liaisons.



Treaty said:


> And in Aramaic and Armenian.


The number of borrowing languages is not important, in fact they could be used to prove my theory, the same error copied faithfully by many others, and in a similar period.



Treaty said:


> As for fdb's post, I think he meant that your hypothesis (of mute k/g) is true for post-Islamic Pahlavi writings but not true for Sassanid Pahlavi writings (this was why it was "partially" true).


But wouldn't that be stating the obvious? At least that's not how I read it but are you (or fdb) actually  saying there were two flavours of Pahlavi script, a Sassanid and a post Islamic one? I'm asking as I don't know.



Treaty said:


> You have a great faith in him. I don't believe he revived Persian. Persian was already the lingua franca of the Samanids and Ghaznavids. I'm not sure he believed so either. I don't believe he was a linguist. He knew what he knew and spoke his own Persian (that is Dari, very different from Sassanid Middle Persian). I'm not sure he had access to or knew Pahlavi language or sources.


His claim, as I understand it, whether true or not, is not that he made Persian the lingua franca of the Samanids and Ghaznavids, or rescued it from certain destruction, but that he took it back to the way it was used and spoken, before the influence of Arabic. Whatever our views of Ferdôsi, you can not know for sure what his knowledge of Pahlavi was, some accounts of his historical facts, despite being fanciful (Herodotus comes to mind, here) are accurate and although some came from oral traditions, the rest must have come from Pahlavi sources, and by the way, the spoken Dari and MP could not have been different, at least not in pronouncing this group of words. And you don't have to be a linguist to work out what the g/k ending represented and question why only one set of words have them and others don't.


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> [...] and in that case, it is reasonable to assume that the text books would have been translated without intervention/presence of Persians, therefore g/k ending were assumed to be correct.



Why is that? Achaemenids were one of the key figures in spreading Aramaic in the middle east. I don't know the status of Aramaic scholarship in Sassanid Persia, but I doubt it died out, given that they wrote half their roots in Aramaeograms (huzvarishn). Could you throw some light on that?



> Do -ik/-ak endings mean anything, for example, are they diminutive makers, or do they function in exactly the same was as g/k ending in MP?



Quoting from Whitney's Sanskrit Grammar section 1222:
"[ka] has been, on the one hand, specialized into an element forming dimunitives; and, on the other hand, and *much more widely*, attenuated into an element without definable value, *added to a great many nouns and adjectives to make others of the same meaning*..."

The -ika was commonly used to derive adjectives, just like Middle Persian -ig > New Persian -ī. It is abundant in classical Sanskrit, but admittedly it was rarer in the older stages of the language, but existent.



> And do you have examples other than setāré/setāra, in both Persian and Sanskrit?



Of course, like I already mentioned: Modern Persian zād~zāde / Sanskrit jāta~jātaka; Modern Persian kard~karde / Sanskrit kṛta~kṛtaka; etc. As a matter of fact, it seems this past participle in -ta + -ka formation was similarly generalized in both Persia and India in the last 1500 years or so (coincidence?), e.g. Punjabi past tense kitā goes back to "kṛta-ka" or something similar.



> however fdb's zāta example is good enough to prove the g/k was not present on this word which is a past participle, and maybe by extension, we can say, not present on words of similar category.



You probably missed my comment on this:
"... the unextended past participles in -ta of OP evolved into the simple past of Modern Persian having lost the final -a (and voicing t to d in specific contexts, like intervocalic among others). This form still acted as past participle in Middle Persian. So, to take fdb's example from the other thread (zāta-), its exact reflex in modern Persian is zād (Sanskrit jāta). Similarly OP kṛta- (Cf. Sanskrit kṛta-) > modern Persian kard, etc. The new Persian past participle (zāde, karde,...) was obviously an extended form."

*EDIT:*
So, yes, the standard past participle forms of Old and Middle Persian had no -ka: OP zāta- > MP zād. Obviously, New Persian past participle (zāde) is an extended (i.e. suffixed) version of it. To find what the source of that suffix was, you have to take recourse to middle Persian philology. I am, of course, unqualified to pass judgement on that, but the standard suggestion that it is a descendent of OP -ka makes sense to me because:
1) I'd expect -ka extension to be common in this context, given how it behaved in Sanskrit
2) How attested Old Persian -aka ending evolved, e.g. OP bandaka (cuneiform spelling: b(a)-d(a)-k(a)) > Modern bande.


----------



## eskandar

PersoLatin said:


> His claim, as I understand it, whether true or not, is not that he made Persian the lingua franca of the Samanids and Ghaznavids, or rescued it from certain destruction, but that he took it back to the way it was used and spoken, before the influence of Arabic.


Where did Ferdowsi ever say that? Or are you reading all that into the utterly ambiguous عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی ? That's not how the line is typically interpreted, as far as I know. Serious studies of the work have contended that he did not deliberately avoid using Arabic words, and in any case, عجم here refers to the Persian people, not the Persian language.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> But wouldn't that be stating the obvious? At least that's not how I read it but are you (or fdb) actually  saying there were two flavours of Pahlavi script, a Sassanid and a post Islamic one? I'm asking as I don't know.


Script systems reflect the spoken language at the time when they were invented. Over time, the spoken language changes while the written form remains intact. For example, we used to pronounce و in خور (xwar-) and خواب (xwāb-). However, we haven't dropped it from the spelling despite we no longer pronounce it. Some other examples are "gh" in English, or "h" in French or Spanish.


PersoLatin said:


> ..., the spoken Dari and MP could not have been different, at least not in pronouncing this group of words.


The hubs of Dari and formal Middle Persian are separated by 1000Km and 300 years. Would you say so about, for example, 1700s Tajiki and modern Tehrani?


eskandar said:


> the utterly ambiguous عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی ?


This line is not even by Ferdowsi.


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi Dib,
Thanks for the contributions in post #9 & 15,  I am trying to understand and digest the information about -ika/aka relating to past participle, they make good sense. Maybe we should separate past participles from the rest, because so far there hasn't been anything convincing said about those, I will provide a list of the latter.


----------



## PersoLatin

eskandar said:


> Where did Ferdowsi ever say that? Or are you reading all that into the utterly ambiguous عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی ? That's not how the line is typically interpreted, as far as I know. Serious studies of the work have contended that he did not deliberately avoid using Arabic words, and in any case, عجم here refers to the Persian people, not the Persian language.


Yes عجم refers to Persians, that's fairly obvious. It is amazing that how much is read into what I said. I never said he avoided Arabic words in his works, or quoted عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی.



Treaty said:


> This line is not even by Ferdowsi.


Ok, no problem, taking credit away from Ferdôsi automatically makes عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی more credible, but so what, anyway. Whoever wrote عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی, perhaps you can tell everyone, to me it means: "I made Persians aware of this (correct) Persian", again before I am misunderstood, 'correct Persian' doesn't mean 'void of Arabic' but maybe more authentic, and yes, less Arabic.



Treaty said:


> Script systems reflect the spoken language at the time when they were *invented*. Over time, the spoken language changes while the written form remains intact. For example, we used to pronounce و in خور (xwar-) and خواب (xwāb-).


You can count words with xwar- spelling, on fingers of one hand, words ending in g/k in Pahlavi script, amount to many hundreds, yet xwar- spelling survived but none of the group with g/k spelling did (in NP), apart from a handful in Arabic/Armenian etc.



Contributors to this diverted thread are knowledgeable in language matters, so my question is,  *are we happy saying "languages change...the same happened to language x or y .. this is a normal pattern, etc", and still not expect to see any residual effect of g/k words in spoken NP?  *After all, some people, in/outside Iran, still pronounce that handful of xwar- words, (i.e. as they are written), but not even one reliable word ending in g/k has survived in the script or the spoken form. You need a cataclysmic event to cause this.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> Ok, no problem, taking credit away from Ferdôsi automatically makes عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی more credible,


This verse doesn't exist in most and oldest Shahname manuscripts. The couplet could have been made by a "nationalist" for propaganda, to make you presume (or simply reflect his own view) not only Ferdowsi's intent but also the linguistic outcome of his work. This makes your logic circular.


PersoLatin said:


> You can count words with xwar- spelling, on fingers of one hand, words ending in g/k in Pahlavi script, amount to many hundreds, yet xwar- spelling survived but none of the group with g/k spelling did (in NP), apart from a handful in Arabic/Armenian etc.


I'm not sure which of us can't understand the other. The number is not really important. It is about principle and common sense. There are three simplified principles:

If the sound [X] existed when the script Y was adopted, then the letter X would be included in Y.
If the sound [X] disappeared while the script Y was still in use, then it is likely that the letter X continues to remain in Y.
If the sound [X] has disappeared before the script Y is adopted, the letter X will not be in the script Y.
Basically, if you see mute و in xw- words, it is a case of principles [1] and [2]. If you don't see و in xw- words (e.g., xwadāy خدای or xwurd خرد) it would be a case of [3]. As for g/k words, if you see them in Pahlavi script it is a case of [1]. However, if after a while (mainly post-Islamic) they don't read it in Pahlavi but still write it, it is a case of [2]. Now, if you don't see g/k in Arabic script, it is a case of [3]. Same procedure has happened in a number of other languages including Persian itself (for t/θ letter before [r]: it was pronounced when Pahlavi was adopted and so was included in the script [1], it was gradually disappeared but still fairly remained in the script [2], however, by the time of Perso-Arabic adoption it had totally disappeared (from all Persian dialects) and so not included in the script [3] and replaced by هـ).


PersoLatin said:


> are we happy saying "languages change...the same happened to language x or y .. this is a normal pattern, etc", and still not expect to see any residual effect of g/k words in spoken NP?


This is not the only evidence. As I said, we have another similar change happened in Persian (t/θ in above example). But I doubt you'd say this was never pronounced. We have a number of loanwords in other languages which for some reason you keep dismissing (there are much more than just a handful). We have some of them in related languages (including older stages of Iranian, and I assume Balochi with all those -g endings, though an expert should verify this). The issue of not existing in any extant Persian dialect (if true) is not necessarily a problem because as I said, there are many other instances where a feature completely disappeared from child or related languages.


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> *are we happy saying "languages change...the same happened to language x or y .. this is a normal pattern, etc", and still not expect to see any residual effect of g/k words in spoken NP?  *After all, some people, in/outside Iran, still pronounce that handful of xwar- words, (i.e. as they are written), but not even one reliable word ending in g/k has survived in the script or the spoken form. You need a cataclysmic event to cause this.



As far as sound-changes are concerned, more often than not, they apply across the board in a given speech community at a given time. So, residuals are indeed not usual to find, not to imply that they are _never_ found(1). There are instances of what is called "sporadic" sound changes, but they are typically far less common in the long term than "regular" sound changes. This whole principle holds true strictly for close-knit speech communities only. However, roads and empires (and now mass media) lead to large scale homogenization of languages by spreading linguistic norms of important trade/administrative centres by bringing people together on the market places, in armies, etc. It is hard to predict to what geographical extent any given sound change would end up travelling under such conditions. Making things even less predictable in case of cross-linguistically common sound-changes, the same change may start at different geographical centres quite independent of each other as well. In the long term, these factors can play together to make certain sound changes (and other linguistic changes in general) quite universal over large geographical tracts.

As far as I understand the political history of New Persian, it is basically the Khorasani dialect which eventually displaced all the other dialects from *urban* areas, e.g. the would-be Larestani in Pars, the so-called Median dialects in Esfahan-Tehran stretch, Bactrian, etc. in the East, Sogdian, etc. in the North. So, any sound-change that would have occurred to Khorasani Persian before this spread (i.e. around/just after the Islamic conquest?) would be expected to be shared all over the Persian speaking urban world, and the loss of word-final -g seems to fit that bill; xw- > x- is a post-spread change, and hence not shared everywhere. If you do want to look for survival of word final -g, you'll need to look for it in the rural dialects, hopefully isolated enough from the spread of "Standard" Persian for the past 1000 years or more. So, my favourite hunting ground would be the rural dialects in the Larestani belt, not urban Persian variants. But I know virtually nothing about them to inform you whether the feature indeed survives in any of them.

---------

(1) Apart from sporadic changes, there may be other "apparent" residuals. Regular sound changes are often phonetically conditioned, i.e. they take place in certain phonetic conditions (e.g. -g at the end of the word, in our case) and not others (e.g. -g- between vowels in our case). They are still "regular" because they seem to follow this "rule" of phonetic context. Within this framework, "zendengī" is taken to retain the "g", because it didn't fulfill the required phonetic condition (being word-final) for its deletion, but "zende" lost it because its g fulfilled. Historically, this sort of sound changes are an important source of the so-called "liaison" consonants. French liaison "t", for example in "Y a-t-il ...?" (is there ...?), is, historically speaking, the retention of an older "t" which was lost otherwise. Same for the 'n' in 'an apple'. Brand-new liaison consonants (i.e. not retained or derived from an older consonant) between two vowels are otherwise usually restricted to glides like y, w and maybe glottal stop and h.

Another irregular source of apparent residual is analogical influence from related forms. If modern zende was replaced by a back-formation in *zendeg from the form zendegī, that would look like a residue. Such things do occur from time to time, but they are very unpredictable even when they do occur in terms of which items they would affect. By the way, if Middle Persian was something similar to Modern Persian in the relevant respects, it should have allowed a formation like "zende-ī" which is allowed in Modern Persian, when the -ī is the indefinite marker.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> I'm not sure which of us can't understand the other. The number is not really important. It is about principle and common sense. There are three simplified principles:
> 
> If the sound [X] existed when the script Y was adopted, then the letter X would be included in Y.
> If the sound [X] disappeared while the script Y was still in use, then it is likely that the letter X continues to remain in Y.
> If the sound [X] has disappeared before the script Y is adopted, the letter X will not be in the script Y.


Life is complicated enough so simple is very good, thank you, this makes sense.



Treaty said:


> However, if after a while (*mainly post-Islamic*) they *don't read it* in Pahlavi but still write it, it is a case of [2].


What tangible evidence is there that in this period g/k was NOT pronounced? (Of course we already know it was written)



Treaty said:


> If the sound [X] existed when the script Y was adopted, then the letter X would be included in Y.


If we apply this principle to OP, when cuneiform was adopted, we should then expect to see g/k in OP text, but is that the case?

I'd expect the answer to be yes, because, based on principle 1, MP must have included this in its writing system (Pahlavi), because spoken OP (replaced by MP) already had these sounds. This, by extension, implies that g/k was part of most, or all flavours of Persian from the start. (You might at point say, hallelujah, he's finally got it, but...)


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> As far as sound-changes are concerned, more often than not, they apply across the board in a given speech community at a given time. So, residuals are indeed not usual to find, not to imply that they are _never_ found(1).


There are certainly some around e.g. تاریک ,نزدیک or تاجیک and some others, but I don't know who's side of this argument, they help. But they clearly don't follow the rules that Pahlavi had in place, (if you believe in those, of course). I explain, the ik in nazdik, is an adjective marker, acting on nazd (close) to give 'closeness', but in NP, nazdik means 'close' and 'closeness' is nazdiki, i.e. overloading it with the NP rule for adjective making, and completely ignoring the 'ik'. The same applies to the other two. 



Dib said:


> So, my favourite hunting ground would be the rural dialects in the Larestani belt, not urban Persian variants.


What will be really interesting, and maybe helpful to find, is a dialect that uses a word like 'nazdik', in its Pahlavi sense, i.e.  'closeness' and not 'close'.




Dib said:


> (1) Apart from sporadic changes, there may be other "apparent" residuals. Regular sound changes are often phonetically conditioned, i.e. they take place in certain phonetic conditions (e.g. -g at the end of the word, in our case) and not others (e.g. -g- between vowels in our case). They are still "regular" because they seem to follow this "rule" of phonetic context. Within this framework, "zendengī" is taken to retain the "g", because it didn't fulfill the required phonetic condition (being word-final) for its deletion, but "zende" lost it because its g fulfilled. Historically, this sort of sound changes are an important source of the so-called "liaison" consonants. French liaison "t", for example in "Y a-t-il ...?" (is there ...?), is, historically speaking, the retention of an older "t" which was lost otherwise. Same for the 'n' in 'an apple'. Brand-new liaison consonants (i.e. not retained or derived from an older consonant) between two vowels are otherwise usually restricted to glides like y, w and maybe glottal stop and h.
> 
> Another irregular source of apparent residual is analogical influence from related forms. If modern zende was replaced by a back-formation in *zendeg from the form zendegī, that would look like a residue. Such things do occur from time to time, but they are very unpredictable even when they do occur in terms of which items they would affect.


To me it looks like, 'g', as a liaison (e.g. in zendengī), has been wrongly used in words ending in strong vowels e.g. āhūg آهو (gazelle), bānūg بانو (lady) or ārzōg آرزو (desire, wish). brūg ابرو (eyebrow) -- āsyāg آسیا (mill), āŝkārāg آشکارا (obvious, evident), as this group don't generally have adjective forms to need 'g' for liaison, nor to use for plurals. There's something odd about these.


Does Aramaic (or also Arabic) have any word(s), of any form, that ends in a strong vowels, like ā آ ('a' in English car) and u و ('oo' in English moon)?


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> There are certainly some around e.g. تاریک ,نزدیک or تاجیک and some others, but I don't know who's side of this argument, they help.



I don't know their etymology, but if they really retain MP -ik/-ig, rather than gaining the ending from another source, then that would need some explaining under the standard principles of historical lingustics.



> But they clearly don't follow the rules that Pahlavi had in place, (if you believe in those, of course). I explain, the ik in nazdik, is an *adjective* marker, acting on nazd (close) to give '*closeness*',



You certainly mean a "noun marker", because "closeness" is a noun. But, in the sense you are looking for, the MP suffix was -ih, not -ik, as we have already learnt in the other thread:


Treaty said:


> I'm sure that Middle Persian had two suffixes for converting adjectives and nouns to each other: īg made relational noun or adjective and īh made essential nouns. For example, if you add īg to noun rōz it gives you rōzīg meaning "daily" or "of day", while adding īh to rōz makes rōzīh that (if existed) means "day-hood" or "quality of being day".



However, either way, I am not sure how this evidence fits together with your claim that the word-final k/g was purely orthographic and not pronounced in MP.



> What will be really interesting, and maybe helpful to find, is a dialect that uses a word like 'nazdik', in its Pahlavi sense, i.e.  'closeness' and not 'close'.



In light of what Treaty said, and I have verified independently, about the endings -ig/-ih, your assumption seems to be wrong.



> To me it looks like, 'g', as a liaison (e.g. in zendengī), has been wrongly used in words ending in strong vowels e.g. āhūg آهو (gazelle), bānūg بانو (lady) or ārzōg آرزو (desire, wish). brūg ابرو (eyebrow) -- āsyāg آسیا (mill), āŝkārāg آشکارا (obvious, evident), as this group don't generally have adjective forms to need 'g' for liaison, nor to use for plurals. There's something odd about these.



As you yourself acknowledge the oddity of these words in your framework, how would you explain that (i.e. use of a "liaison" spelling, where liaison never occurs)? Note that in the standard framework, these words are no oddity. They are simply proposed to have lost the final once-pronounced g through a regular sound-change. A much smaller group of words (nazdīk, etc.) would be the odd ones requiring a special explanation, why they haven't lost it (if it is indeed a case of retention, rather than a different derivation).



> Does Aramaic (or also Arabic) have any word(s), of any form, that ends in a strong vowels, like ā آ ('a' in English car) and u و ('oo' in English moon)?



Final -ā was very common in Aramaic. I believe, at some point, almost all nouns in Aramaic ended in an -ā (I faintly remember, it evolved from an earlier definite article or something, spelt by "alif"). For the exact timelines of this evolution, you have to consult someone else. Classical Arabic also has enough words in final -ā, e.g. those in "alif maqṣūra", though they may have evolved from earlier diphthongs -ay/-aw. I don't know about final -ū's.

*EDIT*: I just remembered some final ū's in Arabic, e.g. construct state of plurals in -ūna and some other words like 'abū (father). There are also 3rd person masculine plural perfect verb forms in -ū but they are spelt in a weird way with a "silent" alif after the wāw.

*EDIT*: I made a quick search in MacKenzie's Pahlavi dictionary. It seems the derivation goes like this:
tār (darkness) > tārīk/g (dark) > tārīkīh (darkness)
nazd (near) > nazdīk (near) > nazdīkīh (nearness)

Indeed, I am curious to find out the standard explanation of tārīk, nazdīk surviving with the final k into Modern Persian.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> What tangible evidence is there that in this period g/k was NOT pronounced? (Of course we already know it was written)


I don't know. I reiterated fdb's implication.


PersoLatin said:


> If we apply this principle to OP, when cuneiform was adopted, we should then expect to see g/k in OP text, but is that the case?


OP texts are very rare. There are however a few instances, discussed here:
Outcomes of the Indo-Iranian suffix *-ka- in Old Persian and Avestan


----------



## Dib

Treaty said:


> PersoLatin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What tangible evidence is there that in this period g/k was NOT pronounced? (Of course we already know it was written)
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. I reiterated fdb's implication.
Click to expand...


fdb provided some evidence in the other thread for the closely related Manichaean script. Let me quote:


fdb said:


> And we even have a few texts in the New Persian language, but written in Manichaean script. In these we have a purely graphic –g not only in Persian words like rēša (written ryšg), but even Arabic words like jumla (written jwmlg, where the –g is totally un-etymological). You can read about it here: Dictionary Of Manichaean Vol 2 : Francois de Blois, Nicholas Sims-Williams : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive pp. 89 sqq.


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> You certainly mean a "noun marker", because "closeness" is a noun


Thanks Dib, yes I did.



Dib said:


> In light of what Treaty said, and I have verified independently, about the endings -ig/-ih, your assumption seems to be wrong.


Yes, I have seen some words which have both -ih and -ig endings and having different meanings, but does that then mean, whilst we have kept -ih in NP with-i, we have lost the function that -ig provided in MP, so it is not just the case that the word-final k/g was purely orthographic and not pronounced in MP?



Dib said:


> *EDIT*: I made a quick search in MacKenzie's Pahlavi dictionary. It seems the derivation goes like this:
> tār (darkness) > tārīk/g (dark) > tārīkīh (darkness)
> nazd (near) > nazdīk (near) > nazdīkīh (nearness)
> 
> Indeed, I am curious to find out the standard explanation of tārīk, nazdīk surviving with the final k into Modern Persian.


Also, we should expect to see tārih (darkness), and nazdih (nearness, closeness) but they seem to be missing in MP.


----------



## PersoLatin

If this is true:


Dib said:


> *EDIT:*
> So, yes, the standard past participle forms of *Old and Middle Persian had no -ka:* OP zāta- > MP zād. Obviously, New Persian past participle (zāde) is an extended (i.e. suffixed) version of it.


then can this be?


Treaty said:


> I think this has already been discussed in another thread. Anyway, an evidence for the pronunciation comes from the ج (e.g., نموذج برنامج طازج) or ق (e.g., فستق خندق ابستاق) at the end of Persian loans in Arabic;


At least one, maybe two, of these words is a past participle; خندق is the Arabized of کنده (pp of کندن, to dig/excavate) which must have existed as 'kandag' to give خندق.


----------



## Dib

Under the standard disclaimer:



Dib said:


> So, yes, the standard past participle forms of Old and Middle Persian had no -ka: OP zāta- > MP zād. Obviously, New Persian past participle (zāde) is an extended (i.e. suffixed) version of it. To find what the source of that suffix was, *you have to take recourse to middle Persian philology. I am, of course, unqualified to pass judgement on that*, ...



and the observation:



Dib said:


> Also, remember, the unextended past participles in -ta of OP evolved into the simple past of Modern Persian having lost the final -a (and voicing t to d in specific contexts, like intervocalic among others). This form still acted as past participle in Middle Persian. So, to take fdb's example from the other thread (zāta-), its exact reflex in modern Persian is zād (Sanskrit jāta). Similarly OP kṛta- (Cf. Sanskrit kṛta-) > modern Persian kard, etc. The new Persian past participle (zāde, karde,...) was obviously an extended form.



I'd speculate:



Dib said:


> I am curious, does this extended past participle occur at all in MP? I expect their precursors *(i.e. adjective formations not yet interpreted as past participles)* in -ag to appear though (Cf. Sanskrit adjective derivations in part participle+ka-, e.g. jātaka- new-born, kṛtaka- artificial).



which would then be the source of forms like خندق.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thanks Dib.

Any thoughts on?


PersoLatin said:


> Yes, I have seen some words which have both -ih and -ig endings and having different meanings, but does that then mean, whilst we have kept -ih in NP with-i, *we have lost the function that -ig provided in MP, *so it is not just the case that the word-final k/g was purely orthographic and not pronounced in MP?


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> Yes, I have seen some words which have both -ih and -ig endings and having different meanings, but does that then mean, whilst we have kept -ih in NP with-i, we have lost the function that -ig provided in MP, so it is not just the case that the word-final k/g was purely orthographic and not pronounced in MP?



No. You still have both the functions performed by one single suffix, -ī, in New Persian (e.g. bāzār > bāzārī, that's the function of MP -īg; xūb > xūbī, that's the function of MP -īh). If the thesis of dropping of final MP -g is correct, then it's a simple case of phonetic merger of the two MP suffixes -īg and -īh through regular sound changes. In Modern Iranian Persian, there is also the third -ī suffix (or probably a clitic?) that marks indefiniteness, which derives from early New Persian -ē (you may ignore this, since you are majhul-sceptic, without the loss of the general overview) from Middle Persian -ēw from Old Persian aiva (one), spelt a-i-v(a) in cuneiform.


----------



## PersoLatin

^ Thank you Dib.



Dib said:


> Persian -ēw from Old Persian aiva (one), spelt a-i-v(a) in cuneiform.


Very interesting, this is just a thought, is it possible that the NP for one, i.e. yek, has also been subjected to -ik?


I think there are three groups of MP words ending g/k:
1 - Words that in NP, end in eh(é) and in OP, most probably end in 'a', example: zendé/zendag, setāré/setārag etc.
2 - Words ending in -ig, examples: ruzig, arzānig (worthy) or angustarig (ring).
3 - And these: āhūg آهو (gazelle), bānūg بانو (lady) or ārzōg آرزو (desire, wish). brūg ابرو (eyebrow) -- āsyāg آسیا (mill), āŝkārāg آشکارا (obvious,evident), etc.

For groups 1 & 2, you have provided very good arguments, enough to keep me out of trouble for a good while, but for the third group, there hasn't been much said. What functional role, if any, does g/k play in these?


----------



## Treaty

We have some of the group 3 words in New Persian ending with ی (e.g., آهوی) even when not followed by an ezaafe. So, it is possible that -g has changed into -y and then disappeared (I know only one word with final g>y: bag>bay "god" but there are other examples of disappeared g in favor of a y-like vowel: tigr>tīr, dagr>dēr). The final y is disappeared even when it doesn't correspond with g (e.g., روی>رو, پای>پا). 

Of course the question is how those g in group 3 got there in the first place. The OP suffix is -ka that can attach to all types of ending (including even consonants, like huška خشک). In this case, there wouldn't be any difference between 1 and 3 (that is if your examples in 3 are made by the same suffix).

Nevertheless, it should be noted that apart from loanwords and a few conjunctions and pronouns, there is almost no word in MP ending with a vowel. There is always a [g], [k] or [y] at the end of what we now pronounce with a vowel ending. While this brings suspicion (i.e. possible compensating the lack of [a]-letter by final [g], or differentiating two ī suffixes by  and [g], though this pedanticness betrays the looseness of the script), the [g] ending didn't make sense for words final [ā] and round vowels as there were letters representing them.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> 1 - Words that in NP, end in eh(é) and in OP, most probably end in 'a', example: zendé/zendag, setāré/setārag etc.
> 2 - Words ending in -ig, examples: ruzig, arzānig (worthy) or angustarig (ring).
> 3 - And these: āhūg آهو (gazelle), bānūg بانو (lady) or ārzōg آرزو (desire, wish). brūg ابرو (eyebrow) -- āsyāg آسیا (mill), āŝkārāg آشکارا (obvious,evident), etc.



I think in all above groups, g represented i/y/ی and nothing else, but the function was slightly/subtly different.



Treaty said:


> We have some of the group 3 words in New Persian ending with ی (e.g., آهوی) even when not followed by an ezaafe.


Exactly, g represents i/y/ی,  and never pronounced as g, only by misreading or misunderstanding of its function by later people. And when used with i, i.e. in -ig, it just stretched i as in your very good example ( *tigr>tīr*, dagr>dēr) and many more like them. It looks like that -ig  can really be represented by the modern ē.


With reference to the following well put-together excerpt, from Dib's post:


Dib said:


> You still have both the functions performed by one single suffix, -ī, in New Persian (e.g. bāzār > bāzārī, that's the function of MP -īg; xūb > xūbī, that's the function of MP -īh). If the thesis of dropping of final MP -g is correct, then it's a simple case of phonetic merger of the two MP suffixes -īg and -īh through regular sound changes. In Modern Iranian Persian, there is also the third -ī suffix (or probably a clitic?) that marks indefiniteness, which derives from early New Persian -ē (you may ignore this, since you are majhul-sceptic, without the loss of the general overview) from Middle Persian -ēw from Old Persian aiva (one), spelt a-i-v(a) in cuneiform.



In NP, we currently have 3 i's, which act as; indefinite marker (bāzārī - a market) , noun marker (xubi - goodness/good deed) and associative marker (bāzārī - from/of the bāzār (-ig)). An indefinite 'person from the bāzār', is bāzārī-i (an indefinite 'good deed', is xubi-i). It is not too hard to believe that Pahlavi provided a g mechanism, for MP speakers, to make a distinction between these, purely as a marker to tell the difference, especially, when such constructions were used (MP) arzānigih.

Also,


Dib said:


> Same for the 'n' in 'an apple'. Brand-new liaison consonants (i.e. not retained or derived from an older consonant) between two vowels are otherwise usually restricted to* glides like y*, w and maybe glottal stop and h.


What Dib said above is correct and very evident in NP , i.e. y as liaison, xodā*y*ā, pā*y*e man, begu*y*am etc. How is that relevant to this group? So if we accept g was really a different i/y, we can see that it provides a liaison function in this group, but again as a i/y. As for its persistence in NP (zende*g*i, setāre*g*ān), I can image we can site the same reason we use for those few words that have survived (nazdik, tārik, tājik, خندق).


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> As for its persistence in NP (zende*g*i, setāre*g*ān), I can image we can site the same reason we use for those few words that have survived (nazdik, tārik, tājik, خندق).



Wait a minute. In your scheme of things, these are not survivals. You are proposing (something like) y where these words have g/k. So, you need a mechanism to explain how y became k/g. That is not a common sound change. You need to propose the intermediate stages involved and produce historical evidence of their presence. Or, am I missing something?


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> I think in all above groups, g represented i/y/ی and nothing else, but the function was slightly/subtly different.
> Exactly, g represents i/y/ی, and, in my view, nothing else, i.e. not ever pronounced as g, only by misreading or misunderstanding of its function by later people


It is true that in Book Pahlavi, the letters for [g] and [y] were similar and so your theory would have made sense. Indeed in Manichaean texts, most of these endings were written by this dubious letter. However, the problem with your suggestion is that in other Book Pahlavi texts (as well as Sogdian texts), they used the letter [k] for these endings. In other terms, it seems they deliberately used [k] in order not to misread it as [y] or they genuinely pronounce the [k] not [g] (and definitely not [y]). In addition, in Inscriptional Pahlavi, [g] and [y] had separate letters. In early Sassanid inscriptions, they used the letter [k] for those endings, not [y] or [g].


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> Wait a minute. In your scheme of things, these are not survivals.


They act as evidence that g/k was read as g/k, rather than what was the intended sound, i.e. i/y.



Dib said:


> So, you need a mechanism to explain how y became k/g.


If this was a convention, chosen by the experts of the time, it will not be subject to the normal sound change rules.



Dib said:


> You need to propose the intermediate stages involved and produce historical evidence of their presence. Or, am I missing something?


Well, this is not yet a fully functional and working proposal, the missing parts will hopefully be filled.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> However, the problem with your suggestion is that in other Book Pahlavi texts (as well as Sogdian texts), they used the letter [k] for these endings. In other terms, it seems they deliberately used [k] in order not to misread it as [y] or they genuinely pronounce the [k] not [g] (and definitely not [y]). In addition, in Inscriptional Pahlavi, [g] and [y] had separate letters. In early Sassanid inscriptions, they used the letter [k] for those endings, not [y] or [g].


The current accepted theory about g/k, explains a general idea but at detail level, it falters, I refer you to words in group 3. Given time I can extract scores of these, of course you may say, sheer numbers don't prove anything and you'd be right but with a high number of group 3 words, OP conversations must have sounded a little odd, as every few words ended in g, and peppered with scores of common words with -ig. In fact it is not too hard to reconstruct a piece of contemporary text, in that style. Of course, old languages will sound odd to us but...

The MP word anōŝag (hamiŝé - immortal/always), has the obligatory g, but it seemingly goes missing in anoushirvan (immortal spirit, title of a Sassanid king) but at closer inspection, you will see it as an i, i.e. anōŝēravān or anōŝīravān. Of course as ravān doesn't start with a vowel, there's no need for g as a liaison. However when you add the noun marker i, to anōŝa, you'd see the g, which was meant to be i/y, but it has remained in the word as g, so hamiŝe*g*i.

The MP word for Avestā, i.e. abestāg is interesting, I would imagine if g was pronounced, there was no way later priests would drop it, whatever the reason.

These g in these is unexplained: ŝagr (ŝir, lion), sagr(sir, satiataed), dagr (dir, late), tigr (tir, arrow). but this explanation fits: *'ag' represented ē and, as said before, 'ig' represented ī*. I have seen this list of words, in the discussions about classical Persian pronunciation.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> These g in these is unexplained: ŝagr (ŝir, lion), sagr(sir, satiataed), dagr (dir, late), tigr (tir, arrow). but this explanation fits: *'ag' represented ē and, as said before, 'ig' represented ī*. I have seen this list of words, in the discussions about classical Persian pronunciation.


In fact, your examples are evidence that 'g' was a part of the word and pronounced at some stage (apart from sagr which I don't know its etymology):
- as for dagr and šagr, it is a metathesis of rg>gr (e.g., Av. darǝɣa, Parth. šarg, Sogd. šarɣu).
- as for tīr and sīr (garlic) [g] was a part of their etymology (OP _ti-ga-ra _cognate of تیغ, and _θa-i-ga-ra_).

Basically, there is a pattern of [g] being disappeared (e.g., nagan>nān نان) or turned into a gliding sound [y] or [w] in Persian (e.g., raga>ray ری). The questions are whether, where and when letter 'g' was pronounced /g/ with stop or something more liquid on the way to /j/. However, saying _ag_ represented [ē] is more problematic as most of words with [ē] are represented by letter 'y'. There was no reason to use a longer and confusing 'ag' for this function.


PersoLatin said:


> The MP word anōŝag (hamiŝé - immortal/always)


anōšag comes from an (not) ōš + (death) + ag, while hammēšag is ham (for emphasis like همینک?)+ mēšag (always). If you accept that there was a g>y shift MP as shown above, then anōšagruwān would have naturally turned into anōšēruwān overtime.


PersoLatin said:


> The MP word for Avestā, i.e. abestag is interesting, I would imagine if g was pronounced, there was no way later priests would drop it, whatever the reason.


Just remember that the name of their god was changed from ahūramazda to hurmuz in Persian. I don't think a final [g] really mattered to them.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> - as for tīr and sīr (garlic) [g] was a part of their etymology (OP _ti-*ga*-ra _cognate of تیغ, and _θa-i-*ga*-ra_).


Please don't forget, evidence like this, is exactly the type that's under question here, and doesn't help neither side of the argument, least of all, the opposing one.



Treaty said:


> If you accept that there was a g>y shift MP as shown above, then anōšagruwān would have naturally turned into anōšēruwān overtime.


I don't believe it is a shift, I believe g was a y in the first place. Of course you are going to see a g, in anōšagruwān, in MP, but isn't that the whole point of this discussion. The work of *correction* (not shift) of g to y happened, as evidence shows in post Islamic Pahlavi, and around the time of Perso-Arabic adoption, which is probably when the discrepancy between the pronunciation such words by of the masses, and Pahlavi script was spotted.



Treaty said:


> anōšag comes from an (not) ōš + (death) + ag, while hammēšag is ham (for emphasis like همینک?)+ mēšag (always).


Although this is incidental in this discussion, it is possible that two words that sound and mean (almost) the same, come from two completely different sources.



Treaty said:


> ahūramazda to hurmuz in Persian. I don't think a final [g] really mattered to them.


Of course it would, they were the definition of 'conservatism', ok in time, they might have accepted it, but a footprint of the old name, will always be recorded somewhere.

If you drop the short vowels (a) from ahūramazda, you'd get hurmuzd and you can't prove those vowels were ever there, so hurmuzd is much closer to the original pronunciation. You just have to look at bozorg (great) in cuneiform, v-z-r-g,  we are told it was pronounced vazaraga, which is just as valid as a pronunciation as ahūramazda, is.




Treaty said:


> - as for dagr and šagr, it is a metathesis of *rg>gr* (e.g., Av. darǝɣa, Parth. šarg, Sogd. šarɣu).


The MP word dagrand (long, derived from dagr/dēr) which I am sure is the modern dērang (derang), has gone through more than the above shift which to me looks like a correction, I'm not doubting the shift, in other words like hagriz to hargez,  but tigr, sagr, dagr and šagr can't be explained by it.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> OP _ti-ga-ra _cognate of تیغ


Can you please expand on the etymology of tēx تیغ and tigr تیر.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> Please don't forget, evidence like this, is exactly the type that's under question here...
> Can you please expand on the etymology of tēx تیغ and tigr تیر.


This is the answer for that question. Check here. Some other examples are "Av. _taēɣa-_, _taēža-_ `sharp ... sharpness', _G_erm. _*Þī̆hstila-_ `thistle'" (from Pokorni II 1015-6). 





PersoLatin said:


> The MP word dagrand (long, derived from dagr/dēr) which I am sure is the modern dērang (derang)


I'm not sure. We have دیرند in NP that has the same meaning as MP's dērind/dagrind. I'm not sure if it is the same word as NP derang.


PersoLatin said:


> I'm not doubting the shift, in other words like hagriz to hargez, but tigr, sagr, dagr and šagr can't be explained by it.


Why? Because it doesn't fit your theory even if they have "_be recorded somewhere_" evidence which you emphasize on?


PersoLatin said:


> Of course it would, they were the definition of 'conservatism', ok in time, they might have accepted it, but a footprint of the old name, will always be recorded somewhere.


Would you explain this conservatism about the following religious terms and figures: spanta-*d*ā*t*a>esfand*y*ā*r*, *vī*štāspa>*gu*štāsp, wa*r*hrā*n*>wahrā*m*, zaraθušt*r*a>zartušt? Or did those magi have some special attachment for that [g] (which was naturally fading according to my theory) so that they were expected to declare jihad for this one but not to all of the other terms?


----------



## PersoLatin

I think one point at a time is the best way:


Treaty said:


> Why? Because it doesn't fit your theory even if they have "_be recorded somewhere_" evidence which you emphasize on?


Please explain how changes in sagr, dagr and šagr, fit the main stream/your shift theory?

I'll try answering it in my way & I am hoping you will correct my mistakes: I would switch g and r (1), take out the vowels (2), and get srg, drg and šrg, then I remove g (3), and I get sr, dr, šr, I then have to add at least one vowel, I add an 'i' (e, o, a & their variants should work too)(4), I get sir, dir and šir, these look and sound like the NP versions so the theory must be correct.


----------



## Treaty

I recommend to ask it in etymology forum to get scholarly answers. My answers are based on a limited corpus of articles and dictionaries available to me (this handy article focuses exclusively on sound change. Examples for ag>ē are presented on page 9). The problem is that for every single word in your question, there is a post-long story. But the most important thing about etymology is not that how many times a word is found in a language, but how many languages have that word (or cognates). For example, regarding šagr, only one old language (Middle Persian) has the sequence šgr while four others (both western and eastern Iranian, in addition to, rarely in Persian itself) have the šrg(w) sequence. This points to a significantly higher probability of šrgw to be the original Iranian word (I wonder if šarza شرزه, if not Arabic, is a cognate but saved from metathesis because of an earlier g>z). This would explain OP *šargu- in two personal names written in Elamite (to mean شیرزاد and شیرکش). Why this particular [rg] became [gr] (only in šarg and darg- but *not* sagr and others which were [gr] originally), while others (marg, barg, gorg) were retained, is another thread-worthy question (maybe it was just a sporadic change, or maybe it was because the origin of the others was, if I'm not wrong, [rk] not [rg]). 



PersoLatin said:


> I'll try answering it in my way & I am hoping you will correct my mistakes: I would switch g and r (1), take out the vowels (2), and get srg, drg and šrg, then I remove g (3), and I get sr, dr, šr, I then have to add at least one vowel, I add an 'i' (e, o, a & their variants should work too)(4), I get sir, dir and šir, these look and sound like the NP versions so the theory must be correct.


If you only had these three words, and only in Persian, then your proposal would have been intriguing.


----------



## PersoLatin

As I said, one point at a time, and I'm certainly not ignoring your contributions in the above post (#44):


PersoLatin said:


> 3 - And these: āhūg آهو (gazelle), bānūg بانو (lady) or ārzōg آرزو (desire, wish). brūg ابرو (eyebrow) -- āsyāg آسیا (mill), āŝkārāg آشکارا (obvious, evident), etc.


How is this group of words explained by the the main stream/your theory, please? (I appreciate you have already made some comments on these, so a short answer will be sufficient)


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> Please explain how changes in sagr, dagr and šagr, fit the main stream/your shift theory?



I am not familiar with these etymons. But it looks like a simple sound change of MP -agr- > early NP -ēr-. We need more examples to verify, strengthen or refute this proposition.



> I'll try answering it in my way & I am hoping you will correct my mistakes: I would switch g and r (1), take out the vowels (2), and get srg, drg and šrg, then I remove g (3), and I get sr, dr, šr, I then have to add at least one vowel, I add an 'i' (e, o, a & their variants should work too)(4), I get sir, dir and šir, these look and sound like the NP versions so the theory must be correct.



So, where are all these changes taking place? In writing, or in speaking? I doubt you can seriously "take out the vowels (2)" in speaking. So, I assume you mean in writing/reading. Now, tell me, how many 2 years old Persian children were reading books back then in order to learn to speak, that they would pick up specific characteristics of the spelling in their speech?



PersoLatin said:


> The current accepted theory about g/k, explains a general idea but at detail level, it falters, I refer you to words in group 3. Given time I can extract scores of these, of course you may say, sheer numbers don't prove anything



How is group 3 such a problem? Their modern Persian reflex can be explained by the same rule as the other 2 groups: word-final g after a vowel is lost. Simple. So, finding scores of counter-examples is certainly more significant than having one or two stray instances, but here there is no counter example. The real counter-examples are "nazdik", et al. If you find more of those, that would be a challenge to this theory.



> and you'd be right but with a high number of group 3 words, *OP* conversations must have sounded a little odd, as every few words ended in g, and peppered with scores of common words with -ig.



Please be careful about the stages of languages when talking etymology and history of languages. OP and MP are very distinct stages. When you confuse them, it becomes all that more difficult to take your ideas seriously. These are MP, not OP. OP would have inflectional endings after those stems. As a matter of fact, as far as the pronunciation can be reconstructed, there were no words in OP that ended in a consonant other than m/n (+maybe glides y/w), or even if they did, those final consonants were not written.

In any case, on the one hand we have your feeling of weirdness*, on the other we have actual written k/g's in the texts in 2 traditions - Pahlavi and Manichaean - using clearly distinct spelling conventions, i.e. not simply copying from the other. In addition, we have a good etymological theory, where this written k/g might have come from (PIA *-ka-). On top of that, we need only one single sound-change to explain why this word-final post-vocalic k/g does not survive in Modern Persian. Words like sagr/dagr also follow the same logic (written attestation, known etymology with -g-), but understandably their g has a slightly different evolutionary path to NP because of its phonetic environment.



> In fact it is not too hard to reconstruct a piece of contemporary text, in that style. Of course, old languages will sound odd to us but...



So what?



> The MP word anōŝag (hamiŝé - immortal/always), has the obligatory g, but it seemingly goes missing in anoushirvan (immortal spirit, title of a Sassanid king), but at closer inspection, you will see it as an i, i.e. anōŝēravān or anōŝīravān.



I don't really know its MP form. But this wiki page suggests it was Anōš*ag*ruvān:
Anushirvan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a matter of fact, here also the MP -agr- > eNP -ēr- sound change seems to be working. If the g was not present in the MP form, then the bolded vowel in Anōŝ*ē*rvān would be expected to be an /a/.

======

* I suspect, you are grossly exaggerating the frequency of -vowel+g words in Middle Persian. Here is a piece I found from "Kār-Nāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pābagān" as quoted in wikipedia:
pad kārnāmag ī ardaxšīr ī pābagān ēdōn nibišt ēstād kū pas az marg ī alaksandar ī hrōmāyīg ērānšahr 240 kadag-xwadāy būd. spahān ud pārs ud kustīhā ī awiš nazdīktar pad dast ī ardawān sālār būd. pābag marzobān ud šahryār ī pārs būd ud az gumārdagān ī ardawān būd. ud pad staxr nišast. ud pābag rāy ēč frazand ī nām-burdār nē būd. ud sāsān šubān ī pābag būd ud hamwār abāg gōspandān būd ud az tōhmag ī dārā ī dārāyān būd ud andar dušxwadāyīh ī alaksandar ō wirēg ud nihān-rawišnīh ēstād ud abāg kurdān šubānān raft.


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> How is this group of words explained by the the main stream/your theory, please? (I appreciate you have already made some comments on these, so a short answer will be sufficient)



Are you asking how their (āhūg آهو (gazelle), bānūg بانو (lady) or ārzōg آرزو (desire, wish). brūg ابرو (eyebrow) -- āsyāg آسیا (mill), āŝkārāg آشکارا (obvious, evident)) subsequent evolution to New Persian is to be explained, or their history in pre-MP? I think the first part has been amply explained. For the second, you should better start etymology thread for each of them in the etymology forum.


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> How is group 3 such a problem? Their modern Persian reflex can be explained by the same rule as the other 2 groups: word-final g after a vowel is lost


But it was not lost, it was corrected to its intended sound i.e. the misrepresented i/y. As for numbers, there are scores & scores of them, please search a Pahlavi dictionary for āg, ūg and ōg, you'll get tired of pressing the search button soon and you are still on words starting in h, you'll need many hours, if you also search for words ending ig and ag, and ones containing agr and igr (not many of these, 7-8), of course extra time is required as you'll need to know which qualifies which doesn't.



Dib said:


> I suspect, you are grossly exaggerating the frequency of -ag/-ig words in Middle Persian.


please refer to above and judge for yourself.



Dib said:


> please be careful about the stages of languages when talking etymology and history of languages. OP and MP are very distinct stages.


Yes, sorry, I meant MP.



Dib said:


> In any case, on the one hand we have your feeling of weirdness*, on the other we have actual written k/g's in the texts in 2 traditions - Pahlavi and Manichaean - using clearly distinct spelling conventions,* i.e. not simply copying from the other.*


I'm not being difficult for the sake of it, but can we really be sure of this?



Dib said:


> The real counter-examples are "nazdik", et al. If you find more of those, that would be a challenge to this theory.


I remembered more: *Manichaean *- Māni was the religious leader's name, g (y really) was added to make Manig/Manich and the Westernise version of the name, added another assocative suffix to arrive at Mani*+*ch+aean. We also have *Mazdak*, *bārik *(narrow, thin), *doruq *(lie, drō in MP), I'll add more as I come across them, maybe other members can help here.



Dib said:


> I don't really know its MP form. But this wiki page suggests it was Anōš*ag*ruvān:


Its MP form is anōš*ag*ruwān, but isn't the presence of 'ag' the whole point of this discussion?



Dib said:


> As a matter of fact, as far as the pronunciation can be reconstructed, *there were no words in OP that ended in a consonant other than m/n* (+maybe glides y/w), or even if they did, those final consonants were not written.


I don't understand this, can you please explain the bold part for me, with a couple of examples?


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> But it was not lost, it was corrected to its intended sound i.e. the misrepresented i/y.



That's your theory. The standard theory believes the Middle Persian spellings in this case, because there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.



> As for numbers, there are scores & scores of them, please search a Pahlavi dictionary for āg, ūg and ōg, you'll get tired of pressing the search button soon and you are still on words starting in h, you'll need many hours, if you also search for words ending ig and ag, and ones containing agr and igr (not many of these, 7-8), of course extra time is required as you'll need to know which qualifies which doesn't.



Sure, but within the standard theory, they are no challenge. We simply acknowledge that Middle Persian sounded different from Modern Persian.



> Dib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect, you are grossly exaggerating the *frequency* of -vowel+g words in Middle Persian.
> 
> 
> 
> please refer to above and judge for yourself.
Click to expand...


The above tells us the "number of items" in a dictionary. It's not same as how frequently they actually appear in a discourse, and make that discourse "sound odd", as you put it. I am not claiming that the text-excerpt I quoted is representative, but it has around 70 words excluding the ī's and ud's, and around 95 including them. Of these only 9 end in vowel+g. If you have a more representative statistic, I'd be interested to see.



> Dib said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have actual written k/g's in the texts in 2 traditions - Pahlavi and Manichaean - using clearly distinct spelling conventions, i.e. not simply copying from the other.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not being difficult for the sake of it, but can we really be sure of this?
Click to expand...


They clearly have significant differences in spellings, which - within the standard theory - is consistent with the fact that the Pahlavi tradition starts around 3rd century BCE and the Manichaean around 3rd century AD. The Pahlavi spellings seem to be archaic in ways that are consistent with the reconstruction of the evolution of the language. There are also other differences, like usage of huzvarishn, etc. In our particular case of word final vowel+k/g, Pahlavi has -k (which is consistent as an older form, if Indo-Iranian *-ka- is indeed the source), while Manichaean has -g, which would then be the "classical" Sassanian Middle Persian value (3rd century AD onwards). I found one exception: our old nemesis - "nazdīk", which has -k in Manichaean as well.



> I remembered more: *Manichaean *- Māni was the religious leader's name, g (y really) was added to make Manig/Manich and the Westernise version of the name, added another assocative suffix to arrive at Mani*+*ch+aean.



Source of your claim? Wiki seems to disagree. It says Greek Manikhaios is from Syriac "_Mānī ḥayyā_" (The living Mani).



> We also have *Mazdak*, *bārik *(narrow, thin),



Good. So, now we have a _potential_ counter-example list of nazdīk, tārīk, bārīk, Mazdak. What exactly is Mazdak though? Also, let me add, Modern Persian diminutive -ak. Though I doubt it is a survival from MP, it is worth investigating further.



> *doruq *(lie, drō in MP)



It is a different breed. The MP form has no final -k/g. So, it doesn't belong here. Maybe discussed in a separate etymology thread, though.



> I'll add more as I come across them, maybe other members can help here.



That would be great.



> Its MP form is anōš*ag*ruwān, but isn't the presence of 'ag' the whole point of this discussion?



Okay, I reread what you said. Seems, I misunderstood you. Anyways, this word's MP>NP development is naturally explained in "my" theory (MP -agr- > NP -ēr-) as well as yours (MP g represents y in this word). I prefer mine because the MP spelling fits it naturally without any jugglery.



> Dib said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, as far as the pronunciation can be reconstructed, *there were no words in OP that ended in a consonant other than m/n* (+maybe glides y/w), or even if they did, those final consonants were not written.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this, can you please explain the bold part for me, with a couple of examples?
Click to expand...


Actually I forgot another consonant that OP words frequently end in: -š.

Consider this text for example (Darius Behistun I.1-15):
TITUS Didactica: Old Persian Text Sample

I am making a couple of small changes to the phonetic interpretation given on the linked page to fit it to the way I prefer it, plus adding punctuation:

adam dārayava(h)uš xšāyaϑiya vazr̥ka, xšāyaϑiya xšāyaϑiyānām, xšāyaϑiya pārsai, xšāyaϑiya dahyūnām, vištāspahyā puça, aršāmahyā napā, haxāmanišiya.
ϑātiy dārayava(h)uš xšāyaϑiya:
manā pitā vištāspa. vištāspahyā pitā aršāma. aršāmahyā pitā ariyārāmna. ariyārāmnahyā pitā čispaiš pitā haxāmaniš.
ϑātiy dārayava(h)uš xšāyaϑiya:
avahya-rādiy vayam haxāmanišā ϑahyāmahay. hačā paruviyata āmātā a(h)mahī. hačā paruviyata hyā a(h)māxam taumā xšāyaϑiyā āha.
ϑātiy dārayava(h)uš xšāyaϑiya:
(aštā) manā taumāyā tyay paruvam xšāyaϑiyā āha. adam navama. (navā) duvitāparanam vayam xšāyaϑiyā a(h)mahī.
ϑātiy dārayava(h)uš xšāyaϑiya:
vašnā a(h)uramazdāha adam xšāyaϑiya ahmiy. a(h)uramazdā xšaçam manā frābara.
ϑātiy dārayava(h)uš xšāyaϑiya:
imā dahyāva tyā manā patiyāiša vašnā a(h)uramazdāha, adam-šām xšāyaϑiya āham: pārsa, (h)uvja, bābiruš, aϑurā, ārabāya, mudrāya, tyaiy drayahyā - sparda yauna [māda] ārmina ...


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> As I said, one point at a time, and I'm certainly not ignoring your contributions in the above post (#44):
> How is this group of words explained by the the main stream/your theory, please? (I appreciate you have already made some comments on these, so a short answer will be sufficient)


In Book Pahlavi (non-Manichaean), Inscriptional Pahlavi and Sogdian texts all of these ending were written by [k] despite they also had [g] and [y] letters. This means they were (or had been) pronounced as [k]. 

Why they disappeared? Sound shift.

Why some were left intact or with little change? Maybe sporadic change, considering how *few *these exceptions are (دروغ is not one of them). So, the list is so far:
تاریک بزرگ تاجیک باریک and maybe خوراک پوشاک. Of these examples, تاجیک had lost it adjective construct and turned into a demonym, and بزرگ was probably saved by a metathesis of ra>ar (vazrak>vazark) and so the final [k] was saved. تاریک does actually have its other version تاری.


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> That's your theory.


Of course, that's my theory, as I have said many times. I think it is helpful in these discussions, to acknowledge it as such until it is proven to be wrong. BTW, it is no different to the mainstream view which itself is a theory, granted, the subscription to mine, is one presently, and it is viewed highly suspiciously by the mainstream believers.



Dib said:


> What exactly is Mazdak though?


Mazdak was a Zoroastrian prophet.



Dib said:


> Source of your claim? Wiki seems to disagree. It says Greek Manikhaios is from Syriac "_Mānī ḥayyā_" (The living Mani).


I used the formula which conforms with the mainstream view, i.e. Mānī + ig, the associative suffix.



Dib said:


> It is a different breed. The MP form has no final -k/g. So, it doesn't belong here. Maybe discussed in a separate etymology thread, though.


Correct, but the MP drōzan (liar) & druxtan (to lie), seem to have some evidence of g/z/x.



Dib said:


> Actually I forgot another consonant that OP words frequently end in: -š.
> 
> Consider this text for example (Darius Behistun I.1-15):
> TITUS Didactica: Old Persian Text Sample
> 
> I am making a couple of small changes to the phonetic interpretation given on the linked page to fit it to the way I prefer it, plus adding punctuation:


Now I understand you, but I find this theory unbelievable, what theory you might say, the theory that the OP script was peppered with vowel 'a', almost randomly. None of those a's are represented in the cuneiform text. Yes there were some real vowels where those a's are, and some could even be a's. The scholars have assumed that all letters of OP alphabet, ended in an a, this is ridiculous.

So if you want to see real OP, remove 100% of a's, then compare them to their equivalent words in NP (there are many), you are very likely to find those missing vowels, you can then apply a 'reasonable' sound change rule and working backwards, find the OP pronunciations. You don't seriously believe OP didn't have any words with consonant endings (bar three).

This is another topic worthy of its own thread, but I can see how that will go if I raise it (& I have been tempted  to do so this for while), I will claim "There were no a's in the OP text....", and I will be inundated with people disagreeing with it, I will have no backing, and not because I'm wrong on that point.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> OP script was peppered with vowel 'a', almost randomly


OP is deciphered using Avestan and Sanskrit because of their proximity (both in time and linguistically). The other two languages (and every recorded ancient IE language) have vowel endings. OP closely matches vocabulary, morphology and grammar of Avestan. So, it would have been random if they _hadn't_ considered that the [a] ending.


PersoLatin said:


> You don't seriously believe OP didn't have any words with consonant endings (bar three).


In Avestan, apart from a few words ending with certain suffixes (which themselves end only with -sh, -m and -t), almost every single word ends with a vowel. Same goes to ancient Greek (n, s) and Latin (s, m, t, r, apart from prepositions). Same goes for ancient Arabic (only n, except for a few words; though for another reason). Why do you think this can't be serious about OP?


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Why do you think this can't be serious about OP?


Don't you think this idea (all, or most OP words ended in a vowel) has a direct impact on the topic we are discussing? It creates an unexplained gap between the way OP & MP words were pronounced, of course I'm talking about the g/k ending in MP, and the fact they didn't exist in OP, if we were to believe, all or most OP words ended in a vowel.



Treaty said:


> In Avestan, apart from a few words ending with certain suffixes (which themselves end only with -sh, -m and -t), almost every single word ends with a vowel. Same goes to ancient Greek (n, s) and Latin (s, m, t, r, apart from prepositions). Same goes for ancient Arabic (only n, except for a few words; though for another reason).


And did all words of all these languages end in 'a'? I'd say the answer is no.


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> Of course, that's my theory, as I have said many times. I think it is helpful in these discussions, to acknowledge it as such until it is proven to be wrong. BTW, it is no different to the mainstream view which itself is a theory, granted, the subscription to mine, is one presently, and it is viewed highly suspiciously by the mainstream believers.



Well, neither theory can be *proven* right or wrong, short of inventing a time-machine. All we can do is evaluate how well the evidence fits the theories, or equivalently how much explanatory power the theories have, i.e. how many observed phenomena they can explain.

The "standard" theory makes only one assumption that there was a Proto-Indo-Iranian *-ka- suffix in various meanings, including (almost) no meaning. Then using normal behaviours of language change (common sound changes, morphological generalization), it can explain the following *6 to 8 separately observed phenomena*:
1) Sanskrit -ka- suffix in various meanings, including almost no meaning.
2) Avestan -ka- suffix.
3) Old Persian suffix spelt -k(a)- in cuneiform, e.g. v-z-r-k- (great), a-r-š-t-i-k- (spear-thrower < a-r-š-t-i- / Skt ṛṣṭi- = spear), a-r-i-k- (enemy, Skt. ari-), m-r-i-k- (young man, Skt marya(ka)-), b-d-k- (servant, Skt. bandhaka- < *OP band-/Skt. bandh- = to bind) etc. I am not vocalizing them here beyond what appears in spelling, because it is not important for our discussion.
4.a) Why the ending under discussion was written -k in Pahlavi. (Because that was the late BC pronunciation)
4.b) and where it might have come from. (Morphological generalization of OP -k(a)-).
5) Why the ending was written -g in Manichaean. (Because that was the 3rd century AD pronunciation)
6.a) Why this -k/g does not exist any more in most New Persian words (because it was lost after vowel),
6.b) but it still exists in others, e.g. bozorg, xošk, etc. (because after consonant).

The _probable_ counterexamples to this theory awaiting analysis here, as noted before, are:
NP bārīk, tārīk, nazdīk, tājīk, Mazdak, -ak dimunitives (seemingly violate 6.a).

What observations does your theory explain or fit to? I guess no. 6. Any other?



> Correct, but the MP drōzan (liar) & druxtan (to lie), seem to have some evidence of g/z/x.



They do derive from OP d-r-u-g- (a lie) etc. However, the noun differs from the class of words we are discussing in two ways:
a) It does not contain a -k(a)- in OP. (point 3 above)
b) It does not contain a -g in Sassanian time Middle Persian. (point 4/5 above)



> Now I understand you, but I find this theory unbelievable, what theory you might say, the theory that the OP script was peppered with vowel 'a', almost randomly. None of those a's are represented in the cuneiform text. Yes there were some real vowels where those a's are, and some could even be a's. *The scholars have assumed that all letters of OP alphabet, ended in an a, this is ridiculous.*



*EDIT:* I Removed my comments about the reconstruction of final -a vowel in OP, because whether there are final -a's was really a passing comment. We can discuss that in a separate thread if needed. The main point I wanted to make was:


Dib said:


> *OP would have inflectional endings after those stems.*


in reply to your assertion that:


PersoLatin said:


> ... OP conversations must have sounded a little odd, as every few words ended in g, and peppered with scores of common words with -ig.


As explained before the -g was a MP feature. The corresponding OP would have been -k(a)-. My point was that stems like b-d-k- would often show up in other grammatical forms like b-d-k-m (acc sing), b-d-k-a (nom/acc plu, inst/abl sing,...), b-d-k-h-y-a (gen sing), b-d-k-a-n-a-m (gen plu), b-d-k-i-y(-a) (loc sing), etc. I am not sure if all of these forms were actually attested for b-d-k- but that's the general idea. The k wouldn't be the final element all that often, no matter whether there is an implied final -a or not.



PersoLatin said:


> Don't you think this idea (all, or most OP words ended in a vowel) has a direct impact on the topic we are discussing? It creates an unexplained gap between the way OP & MP words were pronounced, of course I'm talking about the g/k ending in MP, and the fact they didn't exist in OP, if we were to believe, all or most OP words ended in a vowel.



There is a gap, yes. But, it is unexplained only if you believe languages do not change


----------



## PersoLatin

You assert:


Dib said:


> *6 to 8 separately observed phenomena*:





Dib said:


> 2) Avestan -ka- suffix.
> 3) Old Persian suffix spelt -k(a)- in cuneiform, e.g. v-z-r-k- (great), a-r-š-t-i-k- (spear-thrower < a-r-š-t-i- / Skt ṛṣṭi- = spear), a-r-i-k- (enemy, Skt. ari-), m-r-i-k- (young man, Skt marya(ka)-), b-d-k- (servant, Skt. bandhaka- < *OP band-/Skt. bandh- = to bind) etc. I am not vocalizing them here beyond what appears in spelling, because it is not important for our discussion.
> 4.a) Why the ending under discussion was written -k in Pahlavi. (Because that was the late BC pronunciation)
> 4.b) and where it might have come from. (Morphological generalization of OP -k(a)-).
> 5) Why the ending was written -g in Manichaean. (Because that was the 3rd century AD pronunciation)


But I think 3 to 5 are very closely linked, i.e. are based on the same single assumption, hence, in my view, don't add more weight to your argument.

Also some inconsistencies:
1


Dib said:


> b-d-k- (servant, Skt. bandhaka- < *OP band-/Skt. bandh


This is not directly relevant to this thread, but I just noticed there is an 'n' missing in the OP b-d-k, how can this 'n' be present, in Skt bandhaka, (pre OP) and MP & NP (post OP)? Aside from that, the *-ak in bandak could be the diminutive marker*, maybe to make the 'servant' even lowlier than the Great King.

2


Dib said:


> 6.b) but it still exists in others, e.g. bozorg, xošk, etc. (because after consonant).


I don't believe every NP (& some OP) word ending in g/k, come under this discussion, at least not my side of it. My theory applies to words ending in strong vowels (i, aa, oo) and the silent h (e or é sound), so *bozorg, xošk do not qualify,* as well as many others: sabok, ĉâbok, ordak, nik (nikōg qualifies) dōk (spindle), kōdak, pāk, zirak, xunak, xāk, sag, namak etc.

3 K is diminutive marker in m-r-i-k- meaing small or young man,

There's not enough evidence to prove g/k words existed in OP, so this shortcoming has been explained by bridging  1) Sanskrit -ka- suffix in various meanings, including almost no meaning. *and * 4.a) Why the ending under discussion was written -k in Pahlavi. (Because that was the late BC pronunciation)



Dib said:


> The _probable_ counterexamples to this theory awaiting analysis here, as noted before, are:
> NP bārīk, tārīk, nazdīk, tājīk, Mazdak, -ak dimunitives (seemingly violate 6.a).


I believe we can add yek (one), and Treaty's خوراک and  پوشاک



Dib said:


> As explained before the -g was a MP feature.


I have already said,  I meant MP and not OP. However the idea of most OP words ending in 'a', would make OP sound odder than MP, with many g/k words.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> Also some inconsistencies ... an 'n' missing in the OP b-d-k, how can this 'n' be present, in Skt bandhaka, (pre OP) and MP & NP (post OP)?


OP cuniform comes short of marking nasals (m, n) after [a] (e.g., _k-b-u-ji-i-y_ Cambyses, or _z-r-k_, Drangiana زرنج), however, these nasals are attested in other contemporary languages (Aramaic, Greek and Elamite). 


PersoLatin said:


> so *bozorg, xošk do not qualify,*


You can't simply ignore evidence when it doesn't fit your theory. In these words, [k]/[g] is not a part of etymology and not also a diminutive suffix. Therefore, it is the same type of [k] in our topic.


PersoLatin said:


> *not* sag ... [but] Mazdak,  yek (one), and Treaty's خوراک and  پوشاک


In fact "sag" (Av. spa-ka from PIE *kwon) should be included in this list. I'm not sure about yak (one), as k could have come from w>g shift. I'm not sure about خوراک and پوشاک anymore. I was under the impression that they are like بینا but on the second thought, the former group are passive nouns and the latter is active. So, they can be of a different phenomenon. The -ak in Mazdak can also be (or mistreated as) a diminutive suffix (little Mazda) or even if it wasn't, the word is a proper noun. Proper nouns may not necessarily follow rules.


PersoLatin said:


> ... would make OP sound odder than MP, with many g/k words.


This is a very subjective opinion. OP speakers could have said the same thing about us. They might have not been able to pronounce NP properly because of all the stops at the end of the words. It would have been like how many ESL speakers have difficulty pronouncing the ends of English words. Either they drop it (e.g., East Asians) or  add a vowel at the end (e.g., Italians). Even us Persians have problem with pronouncing these endings (e.g., _has, raf_ and _gof _instead _hast_, _raft _and _goft_. Or omitting 3rd sing. -_d_ from the present verbs).


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> You can't simply ignore evidence when it doesn't fit your theory.


Please don't forget there's no personal agenda behind this, I just want to get to the truth of the matter, and like yourself, when you doubted خوراک and پوشاک, I can dismiss bozorg and xošk, until I can be given a convincing reason not to do so, therefore saying the above (again) doesn't help. I said bozorg and xošk don't fit the rules, I set out in the original thread & also in this one, but if bozorg and xošk do fit, and the k ending is the same category, then great.

In order to move on, I'd appreciate it if you could identify (follwing list) which word fits which category(1): alak(sieve), barg, ĉâbok, ĉâk, ĉak, dōk (spindle), farhang, kōdak, mang (dizyy), maŝk, meŝk, namak, nik (nikōg qualifies), ordak, pāk, rag (vein), rang, sabok, sang, tāk, xāk, xunak, zirak.

EDIT: tagarg, tang, tong, nang
EDIT: tumbag (drum, NP dombak )

(1) - It is reasonable to assume, that not all words ending in g/k belong to the group under discussion, or the diminutive group, so we should have Normal, g/k  and Diminutive.

I took '*sag*' out of this list and will add it to the other, also I now think *Mazdak *should belong to the diminutive group.

I think the suffix nâk, added to these Arabic words *asaf*nâk, *xatar*nâk, is important, although I can't find early recorded use of these.




Treaty said:


> This is a very subjective opinion. OP speakers could have said the same thing about us. They might have not been able to pronounce NP properly because of all the stops at the end of the words. It would have been like how many ESL speakers have difficulty pronouncing the ends of English words. Either they drop it (e.g., East Asians) or add a vowel at the end (e.g., Italians). Even us Persians have problem with pronouncing these endings (e.g., _has, raf_ and _gof _instead _hast_, _raft _and _goft_. Or omitting 3rd sing. -_d_ from the present verbs).


The reason I mentioned this was because there was a suggestion (withdrawn now) that all OP words ended in 'a' with exception of a few words. I am familiar with the phenomenon you are describing.




Treaty said:


> OP cuniform comes short of marking nasals (m, n) after [a] (e.g., _k-b-u-ji-i-y_ Cambyses, or _z-r-k_, Drangiana زرنج), however, these nasals are attested in other contemporary languages (Aramaic, Greek and Elamite).


I just want to make sure the established sound rules changes, are not being ignored, just to get a word in a category (something I get accused of).

I'm asking as I don't know. Is it normal to see an unwritten nasal m/n,  as in say, OP and be fully pronounced and written in MP, without breaking any sound change rule? Bearing in mind that  Skt. bandhaka (with 'n') must have been closer to OP version, so, in effect, we went from full 'n' (pre OP) to nasal 'n' (OP) then back to full 'n' (MP & NP).


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> I can dismiss bozorg and xošk, until I can be given a convincing reason not to do so,


Have you read the link in post #25? It provided the etymology for both. _bozorg_ comes from _vazra + ka_ and _xošk _from _haos_- + _ka_. Basically, the topic of this discussion is when the apparent -ka suffix which is retained until MP but lost in NP, which you argue wasn't there in MP at all. So, your list includes the words which have this -ka in both MP and NP, minus the diminutive -ka. These two -ka are not definitely diminutive and so should fall into your category. I don't understand why you don't find this convincing.


PersoLatin said:


> kōdak, mang (dizyy), maŝk, meŝk, namak, nik (nikōg qualifies), ordak, pāk, rag (vein), rang, sabok, sang, tāk, xāk, xunak, zirak.


kodak and zirak are probably diminutives. sang, rang and rag have g as a part of their root. namak and xonak can be either of -k suffixes. I don't know about others.


PersoLatin said:


> I think the suffix nâk, added to these Arabic words *asaf*nâk, *xatar*nâk, is important, although I can't find early recorded use of these.


No idea about it.


PersoLatin said:


> I'm asking as I don't know. Is it normal to see an unwritten nasal m/n,  as in say, OP and be fully pronounced and written in MP, without breaking any sound change rule? Bearing in mind that  Skt. bandhaka (with 'n') must have been closer to OP version, so, in effect, we went from full 'n' (pre OP) to nasal 'n' (OP) then back to full 'n' (MP & NP).


Please note that both [m] and [n] are nasal. We don't have a non-nasal [n]. Anyway, Persian (even now) has at least two qualities of ن pronunciations. Before vowels, it is pronounced with full alveolar contact (that is [n]) while before consonants, the contact is reduced (like اخفاء in Arabic). Writing it seems to have been a matter of how strong they perceived this difference and how mindful they were of their language morphology (well, of course I can't read their mind).

By the way, please note that Manichaean and Sassanian MP are not necessarily descendant of Royal Achaemenid OP, but a general OP whose only attested dialect/accent is the Royal Achaemenid OP (inscriptions and loanwords) plus sporadic instances of personal names, some of which, possibly including pre-Darius kings, might have been of another OP dialect/accent.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Have you read the link in post #25? It provided the etymology for both. _bozorg_ comes from _vazra + ka_ and _xošk _from _haos_- + _ka_. Basically, the topic of this discussion is when the apparent -ka suffix which is retained until MP but lost in NP, which you argue wasn't there in MP at all. So, your list includes the words which have this -ka in both MP and NP, minus the diminutive -ka. These two -ka are not definitely diminutive and so should fall into your category. I don't understand why you don't find this convincing.


I am afraid you misunderstood me, please read what I wrote again, fully:


PersoLatin said:


> Please don't forget there's no personal agenda behind this, I just want to get to the truth of the matter, and like yourself, when you doubted خوراک and پوشاک, I can dismiss bozorg and xošk, until I can be given a convincing reason not to do so, therefore saying the above (again) doesn't help. I said bozorg and xošk don't fit the rules, I set out in the original thread & also in this one, but if bozorg and xošk do fit, and the k ending is the same category, *then great*.





Treaty said:


> kodak and zirak are probably diminutives. sang, rang and rag have g as a part of their root. namak and xonak can be either of -k suffixes. I don't know about others.


Thank you.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Have you read the link in post #25?


I can not access this, is there another way to get this please: 
Outcomes of the Indo-Iranian suffix *-ka- in Old Persian and Avestan


----------



## PersoLatin

Would you believe Turk is in the e/k category, as Tur & Turân are the geographical areas and Turag is the associative vesion.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> I can not access this, is there another way to get this please:
> Outcomes of the Indo-Iranian suffix *-ka- in Old Persian and Avestan


You simply need to sign up in the website and download it (both are free). You can even connect to it with Facebook without signing up for the website. Anyway, you should also be able to read it online without signing in. Otherwise, you may need to update or change your browser (unless the problem comes from country-based copyright). Alternatively, you can download another more-related article by the same author (even without signing in). It has information about some of those words you asked me about (I was incorrect about _sang_).


PersoLatin said:


> Would you believe Turk is in the e/k category, as Tur & Turân are the geographical areas and Turag is the associative vesion.


Turk (a Turkish word) and Tur (an Iranian word) are very likely to be unrelated, both etymologically and ethnologically. There is no reason to believe in their relation. However, تورج (is Turag the MP versian?) is the associative/diminutive version of Tur, comparable to Iraj (Av. airika) that is of Air/Arya.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Turk (a Turkish word) and Tur (an Iranian word) are very likely to be unrelated, both etymologically and ethnologically.


This image is the basis of my #post 61, which shows three consecutive lines from MacKenzie Pahalavi dictionary. Unless this dictionary is no longer viewed as reliable/accurate.

Also from here:
tūrestān name of a land < *tu*gr*a-stāna- (cf. Parth. tu*gr*estān). This is just an observation, it seem the modern word ترکستان hasn't changed much.



Treaty said:


> تورج


Either way, تورج then can be added to the list.



Treaty said:


> However, تورج (is Turag the MP versian?) is the associative/diminutive version of Tur, comparable to Iraj (Av. airika)


Would be correct to say Iraj refered to an Iranian, airika and Turaj to someone from the land/people of Tur which, by all accounts, spoke Turkish?


----------



## Treaty

During the middle ages, Persian did confuse between the identity of ancient Turs in Avesta and contemporary Turks, which were considered as hostile to Iranians as the Turanians. So, if تور/تورج is used to connote Turk, it is not an etymological connection but an anachronic confusion by Iranians. It's not helpful in our discussion.

Tugrestan (Tugran, Turgestan or Turestan) was a land in modern Balochistan/Pakistan. It is different from Turkestan of Central Asia. I don't know about its etymology (my dictionary suggests possible connection to Tochar).


----------



## PersoLatin

Found this here (p15):
xiŝt ‘brick’ < *iŝta- (cf. OPers. iŝti-, Av. iŝtya-, Parth. hiŝtig).

The OP and Av. versions, are missing the g ending, is this consistent with the mainstream theory?


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> Found this here (p15):
> *xiŝt* ‘brick’ < *iŝta- (cf. OPers. iŝti-, Av. iŝtya-, Parth. hiŝtig).
> The OP and Av. versions, are missing the g ending, is this consistent with the mainstream theory?


So is the *MP *word. You seem to have forgotten what you were reading.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> So is the *MP *word. You seem to have forgotten what you were reading


So are you saying Parth. haštig is not MP? I was trying to say that the mainstream theory claims that the g/k ending was in prevalent in OP & Avesta too, but that's not the case with xišt.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> So are you saying Parth. haštig is not MP? I was trying to say that the mainstream theory claims that the g/k ending was in prevalent in OP & Avesta too, but that's not the case with xišt.


Parthian is technically MIr not MP, but it's irrelevant. Suffix -ka was common in OP and Avestan but this doesn't mean we have all their -ka words available to us (though in this case we have Skt. _iśtika _"brick"). Neither all the g/k words in MP had an existing -ka ancestor in OP. For example, گاه was common in early and classical NP; however, this doesn't mean they had the word زایشگاه which is found in Modern Persian. To put it another way, what you are doing in regard to gotcha-comparing MP and OP seems the wrong approach.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> (though in this case we have Skt. _iśtika _"brick").


Thank you, I can see the mistake.



Treaty said:


> To put it another way, what you are doing in regard to gotcha-comparing MP and OP seems the wrong approach.


May be the reason for this is, the seemingly contradictory information that this thread may be suffering from . There was an assertion by Dib (post #54), that g/k existed in OP and that (fact) is then used to add weight to the mainstream argument, which says (or does it?), g/k ending didn't just appear in MP and was the continuation of a process, started in previous language(s). Anyway isn't the case that the Av. script was developed sometime in the MP period?



Treaty said:


> For example, گاه was common in early and classical NP; however, this doesn't mean they had the word زایشگاه which is found in Modern Persian.


I was hoping, by now, I have earned enough credit such that you don't have to use examples like this to make a point, (I need to try harder).


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> May be the reason for this is, the seemingly contradictory information that this thread may be suffering from . There was an assertion by Dib (post #54), that g/k existed in OP and that (fact) is then used to add weight to the mainstream argument, which says (or does it?), g/k ending didn't just appear in MP and was the continuation of a process, started in previous language(s).


I don't see any contradictory information, apart from the etymology of some of the examples (which comes from my lack of knowledge), and a dozen of exceptions. Dib's claim was about the continuity of the suffix, not the continuity of every word with that suffix.  


PersoLatin said:


> Anyway isn't the case that the Av. script was developed sometime in the MP period?


Yes it was. However, you should note that the accurate and correct pronunciation of Avestan words (as well other recited religious languages like Quranic Arabic and Sanskrit) was of utmost importance and religious duty (this is the only thing that Magi were really conservative about). The magi, like their Hindu counterparts, were trained from childhood to recite every single verse in Avesta by heart and accurately. It only makes sense for them to show the same pedanticness to its transliteration. The systematic and accurate corresponding between Gathic and Vedic, which were separately gone through transliteration, attests to this pedanticness even 1500-2000 years after those two languages.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> apart from the etymology of some of the examples (which comes from my lack of knowledge)


I, I hope, like others, allow for this. Anyway, I really can't think of many of these, if you are referring to your examples of خوراک and پوشاک, then I certainly believe they belong to the group under discussion, to me they are good, but if some are not 'good' they'll stay under discussion. Anyway the good few words we've  collectively found, haven't affected the wholesale mainstream theory, yet.



Treaty said:


> The magi, like their Hindu counterparts, were trained from childhood to recite every single verse in Avesta by heart and accurately.


I don't know this, do you know if in modern recitations of Av., these g/k endings are still used?


----------



## Dib

I took the previous couple of days away from here to educate myself a bit more on Middle Persian. One of the things, I realized, is that the MP situation is quite complicated, and with my almost zero knowledge (beyond some grammar) of MP and Avestan, and rather basic knowledge of OP and NP, I can't possibly contribute to this discussion too much that is meaningful as well as accurate. Check this paper out to get a sense of the complications, we are talking about:
C.Ciancaglini. "Variability of Middle Persian continuants of the Old Iranian suffix *-ka-"

So, I'll wind down my participation on this thread, and move to being more of an observer than contributor.



PersoLatin said:


> There's not enough evidence to prove g/k words existed in OP



The -k(a)- suffix is attested in OP, as has been given examples of in this thread. I hope you could also access Ciancaglini's other paper, the first one that Treaty linked to. It contains a good survey of the attested forms. If you haven't still been able to get it, let me know. I can send it to you. Also note, it seems to me (of course, I may be wrong) that you are distinguishing between diminutive -k and other (meaningless) -k. Within the standard theory, they are not distinguished. That's why I listed NP diminutive -ak as a difficulty for the theory, as it should have been lost. They are taken to belong to the same range of meanings of the -ka- suffix. The basic marker of its usage in Old Indic and Iranian (with a small set of exceptions) seems to have been low sociolinguistic status. However, it is true that OP -k(a)- suffix is relatively rare, which is not unexpected given the formal/administrative characters of the bulk of the attestations of the language. Ciancaglini addresses this point in this paper as well.

With this reservation in mind, I think your folowing idea is basically correct:



PersoLatin said:


> ... so this shortcoming has been explained by bridging  1) Sanskrit -ka- suffix in various meanings, including almost no meaning. *and * 4.a) Why the ending under discussion was written -k in Pahlavi. (Because that was the late BC pronunciation)


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi Dib,

Without what you brought to this (and Treaty) we wouldn't have got this far, some might argue we haven't moved at all, but I believe we have. You certainly know a huge amount more than I do about all of these languages, but that won't stop me, unless of course I get thrown out of the forum. Thank you for your contributions so far, and I hope in the future. BTW, any information is good, it opens up the discussions, and in most cases, when not good/accurate, leads to accidental finds.

This is very apt:


Dib said:


> Check this paper out to get a sense of the complications, we are talking about


 I tested & can access your link.



Treaty said:


> especially considering that this semantic change happened long after very different _abāg _and _pad _changed to more similar _bā _and_ ba _in Dari


I believe the 'unexplained' *د* -d, in the following three words بدان, بدین, بدو standing for به آن, به این, به او, is the legacy of the /d/ in the MP word for 'to' i.e. 'pad'. I said 'unexplained' as I have not seen any explanation of this *د* -d before.
So far, I can only think of 3 words (mentioned before), that fall in this category. The survival of *د* -d in those words, is very interesting and my theory is that, the /d/ in was added as a liaison when it was used before a word starting with a vowel, like آن, این, او. It is also interesting that it hasn't survived in similar words like به من or به تو as بد من and بد تو, since these don't start with a vowel.

Edit: In fact I just thought of another possible word بداسمان standing for به آسمان and after a quick search, I found it here, with a similar explanation,


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> I believe the 'unexplained' *د* -d, in the following three words بدان, بدین, بدو standing for به آن, به این, به او, is the legacy of the /d/ in the MP word for 'to' i.e. 'pad'.



Yes. I believe so too. This MP 'pad' in its turn, I guess, would have derived from Old Persian pati(p-t-i-y)=various meanings including to, at, etc.


----------



## Derakhshan

MP _*xāyag*_ "egg" has survived in Iranian dialects as _*xāg, *_and this form is listed in dictionaries too. Would this count as evidence of final -_g_ being pronounced?


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> MP _*xāyag*_ "egg" has survived in Iranian dialects as _*xāg, *_and this form is listed in dictionaries too. Would this count as evidence of final -_g_ being pronounced?


Yes that appears to be the case, although why did /_*ya/ *_disappear?  Is it possible that *xāg *was re-borrowed say, from Armenian, where some words with g/k ending have survived? In this case shortened too.

It is interesting that *xāg *survives in modern Persian in the form of خا گینه/xâginé/xâgina, an omelette made from beaten eggs only.


----------



## Derakhshan

Also, there is MP _paristōg _"swallow", which in NP is usually _parastu_, but the form _*parastuk*_ exists as well (and in some dialects _farastuk_/_faraštuk_).


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> but the form _*parastuk*_ exists as well (and in some dialects _farastuk_/_faraštuk_).


Where does it exit and which dialects please & if possible provide some more info.


----------



## Derakhshan

پرستوک is listed in dictionaries as an alternative form of پرستو.

Southern Lori has _faraštuk_.

Edit: there's even a form _farastog_ فرستگ is listed in Dehkhoda.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> پرستوک is listed in dictionaries as an alternative form of پرستو.
> 
> Southern Lori has _faraštuk_.
> 
> Edit: there's even a form _farastog_ فرستگ is listed in Dehkhoda.


Thanks, I saw them.

More and more of these word types, where g/k ending are pronounced, are appearing, I don't know which side of the argument this supports.


----------



## Derakhshan

Treaty said:


> and بزرگ was probably saved by a metathesis of ra>ar (vazrak>vazark) and so the final [k] was saved.


Another example of this is MP _brūg_ "eyebrow" > Lori _borg_, the final -_g_ in Lori was saved by metathesis.


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> بزرگ was probably saved by a metathesis of ra>ar (vazrak>vazark) and so the final [k] was saved.



Or else OP w-z-r-k is not wazraka- but wazṛka-, with syllabic ṛ, becoming wazurk- and then wuzurg-.


----------



## Derakhshan

More evidence of final -_g_:

بیوگ _bayūg_, alternative form of بیو _bayū_ "bride" (< MP _wayōg_).

Occurs in Bushehri as _beyg_.

Lari _sāg_ "shadow" < _sāyag_

Khargi _hamseyg_ "neighbor" < _hamsāyag_

All of these dialectal forms were preserved through deletion of the final vowel.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> Occurs in Bushehri as _beyg_.


Is this not the Turkish بیگم and بیگ?



Derakhshan said:


> Lari _sāg_ "shadow" < _sāyag_
> 
> Khargi _hamseyg_ "neighbor" < _hamsāyag_


As you know some words of this kind were re-imported into Persian from Arabic, Armenian, I am not saying _sāyag_ is definitely one of them but the geography of Kharg points that way.


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> Is this not the Turkish بیگم and بیگ?


It is from بیوگ _bayūg_ "bride" (look this up in the dictionary), from MP _wayōg _"bride". It occurs in Lori as _bayū_ and Lari as _baü_ or _bay_ with same meaning. Seems to be one of those rare words that didn't completely drop final -_g _from all it's forms, like فرستگ above.

Both words have a -_ōg _ending (_wayōg, faristōg_) so perhaps that has something to do with it?

More on MP _wayōg,_ you can see here that it's from proto-Indo-Iranian _ *wedʰ-úHs_ “bride” and in fact cognate with _wedding_: Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wedʰ- - Wiktionary

If you mean that Bushehri _beyg_ in particular is from Turkish, I doubt it since it carries the same meanings (both "bride" and "doll") as عروس and عروسک.



> As you know some words of this kind were re-imported into Persian from Arabic, Armenian, I am not saying _sāyag_ is definitely one of them but the geography of Kharg points that way.



Doubt it since I haven't heard of همسایه ever being borrowed into Arabic, and if it were then we should expect something like همسايج or همسايق, while these words retain a [g].

_sāyag_ > _sāg_ also mirrors the development of _xāyag_ > _xāg_ discussed in a post above.


----------



## Derakhshan

Oh, another good one:

MP _dīg_ and _parīg _(دیروز and پریروز) still retain the final -_g_ in some dialects such as Kazeruni and Lori. In Kazeruni they are _dīgru_ and _parīgru_.


----------



## Treaty

Turkic (or Mongolian?) بیگ is used for men (the ـم suffix makes it for women, cf. خان vs خانم). It is definitely not the same Iranian words for "bride".


----------



## PersoLatin

I am adding two more words to the tally of words which kept their g/k ending:
روا borrowed into Arabic as ‏رواج where the g/k ending changed ج,  reborrowed into Persian 
آواز the same as آوا, with a non-etymological /z/ ending which must have come from g/k ending


----------



## fdb

PersoLatin said:


> آواز the same as آوا, with a non-etymological /z/ ending which must have come from g/k ending



This is a bit more complicated. There is a sound-law in proto-Indo-Iranian that says that /k/ becomes /č/ before IE front vowels. Thus the term for “voice, word”, with the root *wak in ablaut with *wāk, has the nominative singular *wākš (Avestan vāxš, like Latin vox) and the accusative singular *wāčam (Avestan vāčəm; compare Latin vocem). Middle and New Persian āwāz is from the accusative, with pre-verb ā and the regular MP change of post-vocalic /č/ to /z/. This is all perfectly regular. What is irregular and non-etymological is the loss of the final consonant in the (poetic?) NP form āwā.


----------



## PersoLatin

Many thanks for the clarification fdb.

In fact before posting I looked for آواختن/āwāxtan with آواز/āwāz being its present stem, but couldn't find anything. I have since found واژیدن/wāžidan "to speak/talk" in Dehkhoda.


----------

