# Persian: بانوان



## seitt

Greetings


Re بانوان, please, what is the exact pronunciation?


Also, apart from being the literary equivalent of بانوها, is it ever used in the colloquial language in a specialized meaning of any kind, please? I'm sure I've heard it used when I would have expected a simple “بانوها”. Unfortunately I can't remember any examples.


Best wishes, and many thanks,


Simon


----------



## fishcurl

Hi. This is how it is pronounced: *baa/no/vaan*, with the accent on the last syllable. It is not unusual for this plural form to be used in spoken, informal Persian, though it is far more common to use خانم ها (*khaa/nom/haa*).


----------



## seitt

Many thanks – so would بانوها (and for that matter خانمان) actually be wrong?


----------



## fishcurl

I've not heard خانمان used much, but both بانوها and خانمان make perfect sense, and are, grammatically speaking, permissible, hence potentially functional. If there's ever a specific need for them, these words will be there to serve the purpose at hand, most assuredly.


----------



## PersoLatin

seitt said:


> and for that matter خانمان


As well as the plural of خانمان ,خانم is the short form of خانه و مان i.e. the house, its occupants & contents so 'home' in its classic meaning.


----------



## seitt

Many thanks - what is the exact pronunciation of خانمان when it stands for خانه و مان?


----------



## PersoLatin

seitt said:


> Many thanks - what is the exact pronunciation of خانمان when it stands for خانه و مان?


_xânemân & xânomân_, so the latter is the same as the plural of خانم.


----------



## Pouriya

seitt said:


> Many thanks – so would بانوها (and for that matter خانمان) actually be wrong?


Hi, خانمان is wrong. We use خانم ها.
بانو is a bit old-fashioned. We don't use it that much in everyday Persian.It is more preferred in written Persian.


----------



## fishcurl

I could be awkward and claim that _I_ have in the past used خانُمان as the plural form of خانم or that I personally use it from time to time (which, to be truthful, I don't particularly recall having done, but may have done and could do, depending on the situation I was in). 

It would not be possible to dismiss such idiosyncratic speech by saying that under no circumstances and in no possible context, would people be able to understand the sense of the word, or that the rule used for constructing it did not exist (given the word خانم is by now 'Persian' enough to be pluralized by its taking on the ان), or that the spelling/pronunciation was wrong. No strict wrongness can be attached to such usage. All one can rightly say is that it is not at all a commonplace occurrence. "Wrong" is just too strong a word here, I feel.

In Iranian Persian one does not normally come across میوگان [meevegaan], سبزیان [sabziaan], or فریادان [faryaadaan]. But actually, these may have (had) usages never before (or since) thought of, and they may come to represent a new or newish concept. An example is this: when we hear جاهل ها [jaahel ha], we normally picture men of a certain cultural background with their own distinct 'lingo', who typically dress in white shirts and black suits, wear the black 'chapeau', hang a white shawl around their necks, carry knives in their pockets, frown a great deal in order to appear macho, and hang out in gangs in the streets of rundown urban districts or in bars. But when we change the plural suffix and say جاهلان, nobody cries foul, because this form also has its own sense, which is 'the ignorant'. Furthermore, the two forms do from time to time, though not frequently, replace each other without the intended sense having become lost on the interlocutors.

I rest my case here, hoping I have made it easy rather than difficult for seitt to process and integrate all the posts in this thread, contradictory as they may appear, to find the answer.


----------



## seitt

Much obliged - just wondering why I can't find the مان of خانه و مان in the dictionary: I've looked in both Aryanpour and Hayyem. Is it perhaps very colloquial?


----------



## PersoLatin

seitt said:


> I can't find the مان of خانه و مان in the dictionary


Mân/مان is the present stem of mândan/ماندن, to stay/remain, which I am sure you already know about, (bemân/stay!, mândegâr/lasting)

This is from Dehkhoda:
مان . (اِ) خانه را گویند و نیز خان و مان اتباع است . (لغت فرس اسدی چ اقبال ، ص 397). به معنی خانه باشد که عربان بیت خوانند. (برهان ). خانه . (آنندراج ) (ناظم الاطباء). پهلوی ، مان (خانه ، مسکن ) پارسی باستان ، مانیا ۞ (خانه ، سرای ). در پهلوی به جای نمانه ۞ اوستایی کلمه ٔ مان (خانه ) را به کار برده اند. مانیشن ۞ ، مانیشت ۞ (منزل )، مانپان ۞ ، مانیستن ۞ ، مانیشتن ۞ (منزل کردن ). و «ماندن » فارسی نیز ازهمین ریشه است . (حاشیه ٔ برهان چ معین ) :
که چون او بدین جای مهمان رسد
بدین بینوا میهن ومان رسد...

فردوسی .
همه پادشاهید برمان خویش
نگهبان مرز و نگهبان کیش .
فردوسی .


*men- (3)

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to remain." It forms all or part of: maisonette; manor; manse; mansion; menage; menial; immanent; permanent; remain; remainder.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Persian mandan "to remain;" Greek menein "to remain;" Latin manere "to stay, abide."


----------



## seitt

Many thanks, how fascinating! I'm certainly aware of the verb you mention, I just don't quite see how “house and stay” comes to mean “house plus occupants plus contents”. It seems like quite a jump.


----------



## PersoLatin

seitt said:


> I just don't quite see how “house and stay” comes to mean “house plus occupants plus contents”. It seems like quite a jump.


I don't think so, consider the English household, _hold _means "what's held in the house", _Mân_/مان could be interpreted as "what stays in the house"


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> I don't think so, consider the English household, _hold _means "what's held in the house", _Mân_/مان could be interpreted as "what stays in the house"


I recently came across this in McKenzie Pahlavi dictionary


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> I recently came across this in McKenzie Pahlavi dictionary
> 
> View attachment 45794


Thank you for this PersoLatin.  Platts gives a similar explanation.

P خانمان _ḵẖān-mān_ (for _ḵẖān-o-mān_ = _ḵẖāna_, q.v.+_mān_, 'family'; furniture, &c.), s.m. House and home, household furniture, everything belonging to the house; household, family: — _ḵẖān-mān āwāra_, A wanderer from home: — _ḵẖān-mān-ḵẖarāb_, adj. Having a ruined or desolated home; ruined, desolated. 

Other relevant/related words are  خانواده and خاندان


----------



## Derakhshan

MP _mān_ "house" < OP *_māna_ "house", compare with Young Avestan _nmāna_, Old Avestan _dəmāna, _from Proto-Indo-Iranian _*dmáHnas _"building, dwelling, house".


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> MP _mān_ "house"


The primary meaning of MP _mān_ must have been, to _live/dwell (stay to live, stop migrating)_, no point having مان in خانمان if it just meant 'house', so خانمان  in its basic form means _house/place to live/stay in (dwelling)_.

also see from McKenzie Pahlavi dictionary:


----------



## Derakhshan

Well the only meaning of the noun _mān_ was "house", and this noun survives in NP if you look in dictionary, along with the common Kurdish word for "house".

However, it seems two roots coalesced here: PIE *_men_- "to remain, dwell" and Indo-Iranian *_dmāna_- "house, dwelling", from a different PIE root.

Thus in MP we have:

1. _mān_- "to remain", from *_men_-
2. _mān_- "to live, dwell", a denominative from _mān_ "house"


----------

