# Persian, Urdu: Arabic compounds, compound names



## James Bates

How do you pronounce names like عبدالعزیز and نصرالدین in Persian? Specifically, is the vowel at the end of the first member of the compound ضمہ or فتحہ or کسرہ? I heard an Iranian say "molla nasreddin" today. In Urdu we always put a ضمہ at the end of such words, e.g. Rasoolullah, Azeezurrahman.


----------



## colognial

Hello, James. You ask a really tough question to answer correctly. With Persian, it seems to me to be Nasr*e*ddin, but Abd*o*lazeez, Abd*o*llah, Fath*o*llaah, only to go back to Fakhr*e*ddin, etc. The 'o', I would say, is more prevalent with 'allaah', while with 'din' we tend to go for the 'e' sound more.


----------



## James Bates

Thank you!


----------



## eskandar

In Persian as in Urdu there should be a ضمه at the end of the first word of such compounds. It's a safe bet to assume that rule for all cases (Ruhollah, Abdorrahman, and so on); Nasreddin should be the only exception. I've only ever heard Fakhroddin Razi (not Fakhreddin) but if some people pronounce it that way, it may be on analogy with Nasreddin.


----------



## James Bates

Thanks!


----------



## colognial

eskandar, as I think more about this question, I'm almost sure that with names ending in 'din', the tendency is to go for the _kasre_ (that is, the 'e' sound, as is found in the English word 'let') to connect up the two parts of the name. I can't recall ever having heard "Seid Jamaal*o*ddin Assadabadi", for instance. It's always been 'jamaal*e*ddin', in my experience anyway. The reason may have to do with the relative ease with which you can perform the 'liaison' when speaking these particular names.


----------



## eskandar

I don't see why -eddin should be easier to pronounce than -oddin, though. I think that _if_ it is the case that people tend to say -eddin more than -oddin, it's on the basis of analogy with نصر الدین (popularly 'Nasreddin') or analogy with the Persian ezaafe (eg. جمال الدین becomes جمالِ دین _jamaal-e din_).


----------



## colognial

Yes, the Persian ezaafe may be a reason for this trait, if, that is, as you suggest, it is a trait of any linguistic significance. I wonder if such names, having come from Arabic, change in meaning if the pronunciation changes. For instance, is there a difference in meaning between Abdollah and Abdellah, or between Shahaabeddin and Shahaaboddin? Arabic is a very precise language, I think. So maybe names are given to people in accordance with some rule in Arabic, one which is ignored in Persian through force of habit, since Persian is not so precise when it comes to pronunciation of vowels.


----------



## eskandar

colognial said:


> I wonder if such names, having come from Arabic, change in meaning if the pronunciation changes. For instance, is there a difference in meaning between Abdollah and Abdellah, or between Shahaabeddin and Shahaaboddin?


In Arabic, 'Abdollah becomes 'Abdellah, Shahaaboddin becomes Shahaabeddin, etc., in certain grammatical constructs. For example:

خَرَجَ شَهَابُ الدِینِ مِن بَیْتِ عَبْدِ الله _kharaja shahaabuddini min bayti 'abdillaah _"Shahaaboddin left 'Abdellah's house" - here 'Abdollah becomes 'Abdellah because it's part of an ezaafe construct.



> So maybe names are given to people in accordance with some rule in Arabic, one which is ignored in Persian through force of habit, since Persian is not so precise when it comes to pronunciation of vowels.


I think that's basically it. Arabic compound names (when standing on their own) are always in this format, in accordance with Arabic grammar: فلانُ الفلان _folaaan-ol-folaan. _But Persian doesn't have case endings like in Arabic, _folaan-ol-folaan_ can become _folaan-el-folaan_ etc. when pronounced by those who don't know better.


----------



## cherine

Hi,

We had a similar thread in the Arabic forum a few years ago, here.


colognial said:


> I wonder if such names, having come from Arabic, change in meaning if the pronunciation changes. For instance, is there a difference in meaning between Abdollah and Abdellah, or between Shahaabeddin and Shahaaboddin?


No, the meaning does not change. But, in Standard Arabic العربية الفصحى, the function of the name changes according to its place in the sentence. Like in the example given by Eskandar:
خرج شهابُ الدين : Shihabu'ddiin is the subject of the verb
بيتِ عبدِ الله: Abdi'llaah is a مضاف إليه, the owner of the house.

But in colloquial Arabic, we don't even have this distinction. And I can't think of a fixed rule for pronouncing these names. But I think عبد الله is always 3Abdallah in colloquial (at least in my dialect, Egyptian Arabic), while عبد الرحمن is always 3Abderra7maan, شهاب الدين is Shehaabeddiin.
I don't think we have any compund names with the "o" except for the short form, used as nickname: 3Abdo عبده.


----------



## James Bates

Thanks!


----------



## PersoLatin

In Arabic proper, isn't the definite article *ال* always pronounced as *al*, wherever it appears? And never as, el, ol or ul, therefore *عبد ‌الله* ,*روح ‌الله* ‏,*نصرالله *should always pronounced as nasr*a*llah, ruh*a*llah & abd*a*llah and never as xxollah, xxellah or xxullah? And that el, ol & ul were introduced by Persians(el & ol), Turks(el, ul) & North Africans(el) & others, in such compound words?

A good case of this type of change, is *ابالفضل *abalfazl, in Iran it is mainly spelled as *ابولفضل  *or *ابوالفضل* abolfazl. In an international tournament, there were some red faces, when the Iranian heavy weight champion lifter appeared with *یاابولفضل *on his vest.


----------



## cherine

PersoLatin said:


> In Arabic proper, isn't the definite article *ال* always pronounced as *al*, wherever it appears? And never as, el, ol or ul


Correct. But when the word starting with ال is preceded with another word, they're kind of linked together for ease of pronunciation, like the "liaison" in French. So, the "a" in "al" is dropped, and the "l" is preceded with the ending vowel of the word that precedes it. To use your example:
أبو الفضل رجلٌ Abu'l-Fazl rajulun (Abul-Fazl is a man)
رأيتُ أبا الفضلِ ra2aytu aba'l-Fazli (I saw Abul-Fazl)
سمعت عن أبي الفضلِ sami3tu 3an abi'l-Fazl (I heard of Abul-Fazl)
As you can see, the vowel at the end of the word precending الفضل changes according to its function in the sentence (مبتدأ topic, مفعول به object, مجرور majruur (?) ) so it can't remain Abolfazl in all cases. (which answers your question: no, it's not the Persians, Turks and/or North Africans that changes "u", it's an inherent part of Arabic grammar).

Anyway, those changes are only in Standard Arabic, in colloquial, Abu doesn't change. Unless there's a dialect that changes it, but I don't know of a dialect that does. You can still check the thread in the Arabic forum for more details if you're interested.


----------



## colognial

I think what we're witnessing here is a new thread being born! ...

I'll just say this, PersoLatin: _allaah_ is one single word, not an _al_ added to a _laah_; at least, I strongly suspect it of being one word, a word without an article, that is.


----------



## colognial

Alright, maybe I spoke too soon and posted my thoughts too late! Allah has never seemed to me to contain an article, but obviously it does. I stand corrected, PersoLatin.

Cherine and eskandar, thank you both very much for your full explanations. I didn't know about these rules of grammar, nor about the colloquial way of pronouncing compound names.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thanks you cherine, I can see how it works in your examples, and in the case of *عبد ‌الله* ,*روح ‌الله* ‏,*نصرالله*, which is the correct or more common pronunciation (formal & colloquial), considering nasr, ruh & abd end in consonants?


----------



## Khaanabadosh

In Urdu, we pronounce all these names, in my experience, with -ul .e.g Abd-ul-llah , Nasr-ul-llah, rooh-ul-laah, nasr-ud-din - though Cherine's explanation is correct in terms of Standard Arabic.


----------



## colognial

If I'm not mistaken, I think, Khaanabadosh, this is the convention for transcriptions as well, that the transcription in Latin letters of alphabet has been standardized the Urdu way. James Bates's opening post suggests it as well.


----------



## fdb

Basically I agree with eskandar. What we should take into consideration is that Nesreddin (Nesrettin) Hoca is the hero of a very famous Turkish folk legend. It is thus not excessively surprising that this one name should appear in Persian in its Turkish form.


----------



## James Bates

Interesting!


----------



## Alfaaz

James Bates said:
			
		

> In Urdu we always put a ضمہ at the end of such words ...





			
				eskandar said:
			
		

> In Persian as in Urdu there should be a ضمه at the end of the first word of such compounds. It's a safe bet to assume that rule for all cases ...


If it is appropriate to ask here*, why do ذوالقرنین، ذوالفقار، وغیرہ use a ضمہ, while ذوی الاحترام، ذوی العقول، وغیرہ are listed with a کسرہ in Urdu dictionaries?

* Understanding this probably requires at least elementary knowledge of Arabic grammar (concepts like مرفوع vs. مجرور perhaps...?), so this thread might not be an appropriate place to ask this question...?!


----------



## colognial

Alfaaz, my guess is that with the words in your examples the sound is determined by the spelling of the prefix, or by the presence of the 'a+l' article at the beginning of the word that comes next, whereas with the words we were discussing earlier the pronunciation of the first word turned out to be ultimately determined by the phrase in which it appeared. And don't such Arabic-origin borrowings become 'acclimatized' once they have taken leave from the Arabic language/culture to be pronounced by natives of other tongues, e.g. Turkish, Persian, Urdu, who, as eskandar judiciously put it, don't know any better (notwithstanding the colloquialism and regional accent variation which are apparently also prevalent in Arabic speaking lands)? I have been struck by eskandar's intelligent guess about the 'ezaafe' playing a part in turning quite sensible 'o's into fatuous 'e's for no good reason at all other than it's perhaps because Persian speakers feel more affinity towards the 'e' of the 'ezaafe'. Or are such suggestions just too precarious to hang a general conclusion on? Back to the panel!


----------



## cherine

If I may guess, compound names don't necessarily function the same way as other compound words. ذو القرنين and ذو الفقار are names, but ذوي الاحترام، ذوي العقول are not.


P.S. It's ok to discuss this here, the thread is about Arabic and Persian (and I added Urdu to the title, as it seems to be linked) so it makes sense to discuss them all in one place. But for those who are interested in more in-depth discussions of Arabic grammar, they are of course welcome to check the Arabic forum.


----------



## Alfaaz

colognial: Thanks for answering!  Yes, regional accent variation could certainly play a role. 

cherine: Thanks for the suggestions!


----------

