# Persian: The development of چرا - čerâ



## PersoLatin

According to Dehkhoda, چرا is made up of چه + را but it then says را means براى which doesn't make sense. Is the following a more reasonable explanation: چرا started life as چه برا (no ى), literally 'what for', and over time changed to the current form چرا?


----------



## Treaty

I think را implies "cause" and "root", and so, چه را means "what cause". If so, it is not from چه برای.


----------



## sepinarc

In most of the translations that I looked for "را", they say that it is the sign or symbol of explicit object of the sentence. Like: "خانه را خریدم" meaning "I bought the house". There was only one part referring to "را" as a preposition that might have come from the word "برای" which itself is the combination of "به + را" that are prepositions themselves and are distinct from "برای" that means "for". 

Going back to the question word "چرا", I am not sure why your dictionary says it is made up of " چه + را" because in that sense it does not any more mean "why". "چرا"  as a whole means "why" it means "for what reason". Therefore, when answering a question that starts with "چرا" you should provide reasons. Whereas, if you divide the word into the parts "چه " and "را" it means "what", when you are asking about the explicit object of the sentence. Below are some examples:

I bought a house because it was nice and cheap. = من خانه را خریدم زیرا زیبا و ارزان بود.
- What did you buy? = چه چیز را خریدی؟ = چه را خریدی؟ 
- The house. = خانه را خریدم. = خانه را

- Why did you buy the house? = چرا خانه را خریدی؟
- Because it was nice and cheap. = چون زیبا و ارزان بود.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> I think را implies "cause" and "root", and so, چه را means "what cause". If so, it is not from چه برای.


i don't know how the very early languages (any) developed but I think it is reasonable to assume 'چه-what' and 'برا-for' where developed well before 'چرا-why' and the Persian را. Also I can't get the sense of 'why' from چه & را, however hard I try, as it always sounds like 'what' (as sepinarc has also said)


----------



## PersoLatin

sepinarc said:


> There was only one part referring to "را" as a preposition that might have come from the word "برای" which itself is the combination of "به + را" that are prepositions themselves and are distinct from "برای" that means "for".


Persian براى/برا is cognate with, equivalent words in at least Latin & Germanic branches of IE languages, e.g. per, for, pour, für, para etc., so it can't be made up of two propositions.


----------



## Stranger_

> but it then says را means براى which doesn't make sense.


Why? it makes perfect sense! One of the meanings of this "را" is "برای", so the word "چرا" means "برای چی؟". It is fairly simple and clear, is it not?



> چرا started life as چه برا (no ى), literally 'what for', and over time changed to the current form چرا?


We never say "چه برا(ی)" in Persian, do we?


----------



## Dib

I believe Dehkhoda is basically right, though the coinage may have happened before New Persian, and therefore, before the elements assumed their modern shape. I hope somebody adequately familiar with Middle Persian and Early New Persian can clarify this with more details. But, basically, NP rā derives from Old Persian rādiy (on account of, for, etc.). Even in Early NP, the semantic field of rā still covered elements, relatively close to this, e.g. indirect object, possessor, experiencer in constructions like خوش آمدن , etc. So, semantics is not really the problem here.


----------



## PersoLatin

Stranger_ said:


> Why? it makes perfect sense! One of the meanings of this "را" is "برای", so the word "چرا" means "برای چی؟". It is fairly simple and clear, is it not?


Of course, that's exactly what it says, but it doesn't say how را comes or is derived from برا, which is the reason for this thread.



Stranger_ said:


> We never say "چه برا(ی)" in Persian, do we?


Not in the last 2000-3000 years (guessing), that's the whole point, we may have have, at some point.


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> But, basically, NP rā derives from Old Persian rādiy (on account of, for, etc.).


Thank you Dib, are rādiy and the mdern barâ-برا etymologically linked?



Dib said:


> Even in Early NP, the semantic field of rā still covered elements, relatively close to this, e.g. indirect object, possessor, experiencer in constructions like خوش آمدن , etc.


Could you please elaborate on this, especially on خوش آمدن?


----------



## Dib

Hi PersoLatin, maybe this will serve to give a basic idea (section 3.6.2):
The Major Languages of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa

I don't know the etymology of برا, but the above book seems to vaguely suggest that it is derived from را.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> Persian براى/برا is cognate with, equivalent words in at least Latin & Germanic branches of IE languages, e.g. per, for, pour, für, para etc., so it can't be made up of two propositions.


If the above statement is roughly correct, then can how can برا be derived from را?


Dib said:


> I don't know the etymology of برا, but the above book seems to vaguely suggests that it is derived from را.


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> If the above statement is roughly correct, then can how can برا be derived from را?



It cannot. Only one of them can be correct, or neither. Anyway, given that برا requires ezāfe, I'd expect it to be a relatively new preposition, rather than an old inheritance.


----------



## fdb

The postposition _rā_, older _rāy_, originally means “for” (indirect object), and later becomes the marker for the direct object in New Persian. It derives ultimately from Old Persian _rādī_, as Dib has explained very nicely. I add only that according to Thieme it is probably cognate with Latin _rādīx_ “root”.

The pseudo-preposition _barā-yi_ is not found before the New Persian period. I think it originated with the preposition+noun+postpostion group _ba X rāy_ “for X, for the sake of X” (this is quite common in Early NP; see Lazard, _La langue..._ p. 369). It would then seem that at some point _X rāy _was reinterpreted as a possessive phrase (possessed noun + possessor noun) and that consequently _ba X rāy_ was restructured as _ba rāy-i X_. In any event, _barā-yi _derives from _rā(y)_, not the other way round.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you fdb, Dib & Treaty.


----------



## PersoLatin

According to MacKenzie Pahlavi dictionary, MP for 'why' (چرا - čerâ) is ĉim + rāy, (ĉim: reason, cause, purpose, meaning) and also čē + rāy


----------

