# Persian: John his house is big.



## Treaty

Hi,

In an earlier thread, I stumbled on a sentence structure I couldn't find a name for it. I wonder what others may think of it. It is as follows:

[noun] [subject]+[possessive pronoun of the noun] [rest of the sentence: object/complement verb for the subject]. You may put a comma after the noun.

Example:
جان خانه اش بزرگ است = John his house is big = John's house is big (You may put a comma after جان).

It is not a:
_surprise_: "John?! His house is big."
_suspense_: "John[?] ... [let me think] ... his house is big."
_emphasis_: "*John*'s house is big" (though it can also serve this purpose in proper context).

What kind of sentence structure is this? (Does it have a   name? Or is it a structure at all? Or something is omitted in it?)

I'd also like to see if this structure exists in other IIr languages   (and Arabic) as well as its probable usage in OPers and MPers. If anyone   thinks these topics will shed a light on this thread, I will really   appreciate their suggestions.

Thanks,

Treaty


----------



## asanga

It's called the "his genitive":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive

This was a common way to express possession in English for a brief period from the late 1500's to the early 1600's. It's standard in Afrikaans, & remains very common in colloquial Dutch and some German dialects.


----------



## Treaty

Thank you asanga!

It is interesting. Does it have a name in German or Dutch where it is still common? (I couldn't find its name in German Wikipedia).


----------



## asanga

German calls it a _Dativ-Possesiv-Konstrution_, because the antecedent noun is in the dative:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dativ#Possessiv-Konstruktionen

http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/SynAlm/Possessivkonstruktionen im Deutschen.pdf

(The pdf includes some theories why this construction is so persistent in German dialect.)

Strangely enough given how common it is in the spoken language, there doesn't seem to be an official term for it in Dutch. The official style-guide onzetaal.nl doesn't even mention its existence (if only to condemn it!) in the section on possessive pronouns. The only reference I can find is "noun or proper noun before possessive pronoun":

http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.Po06

Nowegian calls it a _garpegenitiv_:

http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garpegenitiv


----------



## Treaty

Thank you again. 

There is a slight difference between the Persian and Germanic usage. In Persian the construction is only used as the subject, while in Germanic it seems to get other roles as well. I wonder if the Persian case have originated from some other trend.


----------



## asanga

Yes, the Germanic constructions can function as both subject and (in)direct object. _John zijn huis_ is just a colloquial alternative to standard Dutch _Johns huis/huis van John_; it's possible to say _ik ga naar John zijn huis_ "I go to John's house" instead of _ik ga naar het huis van John/ ik ga naar Johns huis_. While, if I understand you correctly, in Persian it's impossible to say من به* جان خانه اش* میروم .

Having just read the original thread with Persian examples, it sounds like the construction is used to emphasize the possessor: "As for John, his house is big." The Germanic construction doesn't imply any special emphasis, and in the OP you mentioned that the Persian is also used without implying emphasis. What exactly is the difference between جان خانه اش بزرگ است and خانه جان بزرگ است?


----------



## Treaty

It is difficult to say what the difference is, if there is any. I've an idea that it may contribute to the sentence's logical organisation by defragmenting sentence components. Please consider the following example:

حیاطِ خانۀ من بزرگ است = the courtyard of my house is big. (the sentence starts with an _unknown _"courtyard" then it is associated with "my house")
خانۀ من، حیاطش بزرگ است = my house, its courtyard is big. (the sentence starts with a _known _"house" then a property of it is defined) 

It seems to me that it may define a conceptual hierarchy (but not an emphasis). However, it is not like that people deliberately choose this construction to connote such a hierarchy.


----------



## Qureshpor

aaqaa-ye-Treaty, a few simple examples from Arabic.

1) 3aaSimatu miSr al-qaahirah
The capital of Egypt is Cairo

2) 3aaSimatu miSr hiya_l-qaahirah
The capital of Egypt, it is Cairo

3) miSr 3aasimatuhaa al-qaahirah
Egypt, its capital is Cairo

4) al-qaahirah hiya 3aasimatu_lmiSr
Cairo, it is the capital of Egypt


----------



## Treaty

Qureshpor said:


> aaqaa-ye-Treaty, a few simple examples from Arabic.
> 
> 1) 3aaSimatu miSr al-qaahirah
> The capital of Egypt is Cairo
> 
> 2) 3aaSimatu miSr hiya_l-qaahirah
> The capital of Egypt, it is Cairo
> 
> 3) miSr 3aasimatuhaa al-qaahirah
> Egypt, its capital is Cairo
> 
> 4) al-qaahirah hiya 3aasimatu_lmiSr
> Cairo, it is the capital of Egypt



Thanks,

#3 is interestingly similar to the matter of this thread. I wonder if there is a particular context for it or it is used generally.


----------



## Qureshpor

Treaty said:


> Thanks,
> 
> #3 is interestingly similar to the matter of this thread. I wonder if there is a particular context for it or it is used generally.



It might be worth posting this sentence in the Arabic forum, posing the question about the circumstances when this format might be used as opposed to the normal order, as per example 1.


----------



## Treaty

Qureshpor said:


> It might be worth posting this sentence in the Arabic forum, posing the question about the circumstances when this format might be used as opposed to the normal order, as per example 1.


I'm doing this right now!


----------



## mannoushka

Treaty said:


> Thank you again.
> 
> There is a slight difference between the Persian and Germanic usage. In Persian the construction is only used as the subject, while in Germanic it seems to get other roles as well. I wonder if the Persian case have originated from some other trend.



The 'oddity' seems to occur __ I'd never noticed it before! __ where there is a possessive adjective involved. 
Eg. _I my health is fine. You your husband adores cheese cake. _Somehow the speaker seems to feel the need to emphasize WHOSE <noun> he/she is referring to. Perhaps the feeling arises from the fact of the possessive adjective actually consisting of a mere one-syllable suffix that adheres itself to the end of the noun somewhere roughly in the middle of the sentence. The introductory 'subject' doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than emphasize the adjective.

Another odd habit of Iranian Persian speakers is their frequest use of the possessive adjective without there being any point of reference, eg. ketaab_*esh*_ khoondanie (= _*its* _book is readable). Here, the speaker may or may not be referring to someone's, some publisher's, or some author's book. This, I must say, is strictly vernacular Farsi, never to be found in a formal context and/or written text.


----------



## mannoushka

Treaty said:


> It is difficult to say what the difference is, if there is any. I've an idea that it may contribute to the sentence's logical organisation by defragmenting sentence components. Please consider the following example:
> 
> حیاطِ خانۀ من بزرگ است = the courtyard of my house is big. (the sentence starts with an _unknown _"courtyard" then it is associated with "my house")
> خانۀ من، حیاطش بزرگ است = my house, its courtyard is big. (the sentence starts with a _known _"house" then a property of it is defined)
> 
> It seems to me that it may define a conceptual hierarchy (but not an emphasis). However, it is not like that people deliberately choose this construction to connote such a hierarchy.



A fine observation! I think you are right, Treaty; somehow, we feel we must introduce the house first, the features inside the house next, even if they form the real point of interest in our sentence.


----------



## Aryamp

mannoushka said:


> A fine observation! I think you are right, Treaty; somehow, we feel we must introduce the house first, the features inside the house next, even if they form the real point of interest in our sentence.



It's just a matter of how we organize our thoughts, for example suppose you're talking about your houses with a friend, he says he has a small courtyard, and you want to say something that in english would be "as for my house" then obviously in persian you say "خانه من" first.  Just as Asanga pointed out earlier, such construction is _more often_ used where you want to put emphasis on one part of a sentence (then again it's all very relative depending on your chain of thoughts) : 



			
				asanga said:
			
		

> Having just read the original thread with Persian examples, it sounds like the construction is used to emphasize the possessor : "*As for John*, his house is big."






			
				mannoushka said:
			
		

> Somehow the speaker seems to feel the need to emphasize WHOSE <noun> he/she is referring to. Perhaps the feeling arises from the fact of the possessive adjective actually consisting of a mere one-syllable suffix that adheres itself to the end of the noun




Yes that's a very relevant fact, in Persian unlike English the possessive pronoun comes in form of a small suffix therefore in a phrase like "خانه ام " if I want to give emphasis to "MY"  instead of "house"  like when we're talking about different houses and I want to say something about MY house  obviously we have to resort to putting من at the beginning, because in that form it's not even possible to give emphasis to suffix in pronunciation like we can't say  khaneAM. (note how if we say خانه‌ی من instead of خانه ام the _problem_ is solved)

In english therefore it's odd to say "I, my house is big"  _my _is already there at the beginning and you can add as much emphasis or accent to it as you want. 

On the other hand in English it's not uncommon to hear a phrase like "my house, it has a big courtyard"!  or "My wife, she goes over there all the time"

Now  in Persian it's just odd to have that kind of pause or repetition because when you say something like خانه ام or همسرم the emphasis is already there, you don't need to have a pause or start with a pronoun again to emphasize even more.


----------



## mannoushka

Aryamp said:


> ...  in a phrase like "خانه ام " if I want to give emphasis to "MY" instead of "house" like when we're talking about different houses and I want to say something about MY house obviously we have to resort to putting من at the beginning, because in that form it's not even possible to give emphasis to suffix in pronunciation like we can't say khaneAM. (note how if we say خانه‌ی من instead of خانه ام the _problem_ is solved)



Aryamp, the use of the introductory pronoun may have something to do with laying emphasis on the possessive adjective as opposed to the noun it is associated with, but not necessarily every time. This kind of emphasis can almost be described as 'emphasis for the sake of having emphasised'. It's often very nearly equivalent to a polite little cough with which a speaker might announce their intention to begin speaking! The other sort of emphasis, the one made to exclude other possibilities in favour of the one intended, is generally made using the tone of voice. Change of intonation is then the dominant device, even if added to the introductory pronoun.


----------



## Qureshpor

aaqaa-ye-Treaty, as I have indicated in a private communication to you, my understanding is that this kind of structure is called the "Nominative absolute". Please see this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute

I first became aware of it in my quest to learn Arabic, in this book, which I enjoyed immensely*. (Page 45, section 81). Unfortunately, the online version is only a portion of it.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YBRPNqbphI0C&pg=PA37&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

* Arabic Grammar: A First Workbook by G. M. Wickens.


----------



## Treaty

Qureshpor said:


> aaqaa-ye-Treaty, as I have indicated in a private communication to you, my understanding is that this kind of structure is called the "Nominative absolute". Please see this link.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute
> 
> I first became aware of it in my quest to learn Arabic, in this book, which I enjoyed immensely*. (Page 45, section 81). Unfortunately, the online version is only a portion of it.
> 
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YBRPNqbphI0C&pg=PA37&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> * Arabic Grammar: A First Workbook by G. M. Wickens.



Thank you again, Qureshpor.

_Nominative absolute_ and _nominal absolute_ (which you mentioned in that message) are different structures. 

Nominal absolute, based on Wickens' book, is for describing the subject in another term. As far as I know, its closest Persian concept is called بدل _badal_. 

Nominative absolute is a full sentence whose verb (usu. "to be") is omitted or changed into an adjective which gives additional hints. A slightly similar structure in Persian is like the following example (an "is/است" is missing where I've put asterisks):
آب در کوزه و ما تشنه لبان می گردیم = _āb dar kûzeh * o mā tešneh labān mī-gardīm_ (water * in the pitcher and we're wandering thirstily). 

Considering our case, it is not a nominal absolute because "his house" is not another term for "John". It is not also a nominative absolute because there is no verb missing after "John" (it is not like "John exists. His house is big"). 
However, you may say it was originally "consider John". This is exactly what we were discussing in this thread so far. We'd like to know what kind of "consideration" it is. Is it an emphasis, focus or organising hierarchy? Or is it just another way to say the genitive construction?


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> aaqaa-ye-Treaty, as I have indicated in a private communication to you, my understanding is that this kind of structure is called the "Nominative absolute". Please see this link.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute
> 
> I first became aware of it in my quest to learn Arabic, in this book, which I enjoyed immensely*. (Page 45, section 81). Unfortunately, the online version is only a portion of it.
> 
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YBRPNqbphI0C&pg=PA37&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> * Arabic Grammar: A First Workbook by G. M. Wickens.


 Interesting links! Except these are terms from "Western" grammatical traditions and looking at Wickens' examples esp. I would describe them very differently and also give a different grammatical breakdown as per "Eastern" (or Arabic) grammatical tradition.


----------



## Faylasoof

Treaty said:


> Originally Posted by *Qureshpor*
> aaqaa-ye-Treaty, as I have indicated in a  private communication to you, my understanding is that this kind of  structure is called the "Nominative absolute". Please see this link.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute
> 
> I first became aware of it in my quest to learn Arabic, in this book,  which I enjoyed immensely*. (Page 45, section 81). Unfortunately, the  online version is only a portion of it.
> 
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y...page&q&f=false
> 
> * Arabic Grammar: A First Workbook by G. M. Wickens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you again, Qureshpor.
> 
> _Nominative absolute_ and _nominal absolute_ (which you mentioned in that message) are different structures.
> 
> Nominal absolute, based on Wickens' book, is for describing the subject in another term. As far as I know, its closest Persian concept is called بدل _badal_.
> 
> Nominative absolute is a full sentence whose verb (usu. "to be") is omitted or changed into an adjective which gives additional hints. A slightly similar structure in Persian is like the following example (an "is/است" is missing where I've put asterisks):
> آب در کوزه و ما تشنه لبان می گردیم = _āb dar kûzeh * o mā tešneh labān mī-gardīm_ (water * in the pitcher and we're wandering thirstily).
> 
> Considering our case, it is not a nominal absolute because "his house" is not another term for "John". It is not also a nominative absolute because there is no verb missing after "John" (it is not like "John exists. His house is big").
> However, you may say it was originally "consider John". This is exactly what we were discussing in this thread so far. We'd like to know what kind of "consideration" it is. Is it an emphasis, focus or organising hierarchy? Or is it just another way to say the genitive construction?
Click to expand...

 This would make sense and I've seen examples (I recall mostly Arabic) where the equivalent of "consider" here becomes محذوف _maHzuuf_. Now is the result an emphasis / organizing hierarchy / just another way to say the genitive construction might depend on the context. I think  محذوف _maHzuuf _forms of sentences are used in rhetoric to draw attention. 

As to some of the sentences presented above, I observed the following: 
جان خانه اش بزرگ است 
المصر عاصمتها القاهرة *
خانه جان بزرگ است
(* Here we need to define مصر ,i.e. المصر = Egypt, while مصر  = a / any metropolis, hence مصر القاهرة miSr-ul-qaahirah = The metropolis of Cairo.)

I see 4-5 grammatical layers in the first two and 3-4 layers in the last one as per Arabic grammatical tradition. It depends on which grammatical tradition(s) / theory (theories) one chooses to follow to analyze these sentences.


----------

