# Persian: آسیب پذیر



## PersoLatin

I am coming across آسیب پذیر quite often these days, on Persian languages TV programs etc, which is used to mean 'vulnerable', but I don't believe it sounds right, for instance comparing it to the much more established word دلپذیر/del-pazir, one can see پذیر/pazir here is means g pleasant & positive one's accepts, rather than pain, injury and harm which someone vulnerable can be potentially subjected to.

If we use آسیب پذیر we then have call the 'vulnerable' who have been harmed  آسیب پذیرفته and that sounds very wrong. Looks like آسیب ناپذیز was used as a model, but in that case what is the opposite of شکست ناپذیز/"one who doesn't accept defeat", شکست پذیز/one who accepts defeat?

I think آسیب دیدنی/آسیب بین are more accurate for 'vulnerable' & آسیب بینایی/vulnerability, what do other members think?


----------



## Qureshpor

In Urdu the suffix "paziir" is often used for the English suffix "-able". So your "shikast-paziir" would mean "defeatable". I suppose, on the current Persian model of "aasiib-paziir" (vulnerable), its plural would be "aasiib-paziiraan/paziirhaa".


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> In Urdu the suffix "paziir" is often used for the English suffix "-able".


Thank you Qureshpor, is there many examples of this in Urdu, could you provide a few popular ones please?


----------



## Qureshpor

دل پذیر Agreeable

چارہ پذیر Remediable

فرمان پذیر Obedient

درمان پذیر / علاج پذیر Curable

زوال پذیر susceptible to decline

فنا پذیر Mortal

عُذر پذیر Excusable

اِرتِقا پذیر evolutionary

ترقّی پذیر Developing (as in developing countries as opposed to ترقّی یافتہ developed)


(If there isn't in Urdu a word such as شکن پذیر to mean "breakable/fragile", there ought to be.)


----------



## Alfaaz

A few more compounds from quite a long list in dictionaries!

آمیزش پذیر - _miscible_, نفوذ پذیر - _diffusible_, نقل پذیر - _replicable; movable/mobile_, تسخیر پذیر - _superable_, سفوف پذیر - _pulverescent_, اثر پذیر - _susceptible_, کشش پذیر - _attractable_, فریب پذیر - _deceivable_, تبخیر پذیر - _vaporable_, تطعیم پذیر - _inoculable_, وسعت پذیر - _expansible_, تعمیم پذیر - _generalizable_, اختتام پذیر - _terminable_, سرایت پذیر - _permeable_, سُراغ پذیر - _traceable_, انعطاف پذیر - _refractable/refractile_, معائرہ پذیر - _titratable_, افزایش پذیر - _cumulative_, انحطاط پذیر - _degenerating_, شمار پذیر - _countable_,_ enumerable_, حیات پذیر - _viable_, تردید پذیر - _refutable_, اظہار پذیر - _expressible_, تسکین پذیر - _satiable_, گریز پذیر - _eludible_, تقلیل پذیر - _degressive_, توافق پذیر - _adapatative_, ایصال پذیر - _transmittable_, تربیت پذیر - _docible, teachable_,  خنک پذیر - _cauldrife_, خیال پذیر - _thinkable_; وغیرہ -_ etc._


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you Qureshpor & Alfaaz,

There seems to be a lot more in Urdu than in Persian, maybe the idea has come from Urdu.



Qureshpor said:


> (If there isn't in Urdu a word such as شکن پذیر to mean "breakable/fragile", there ought to be.)


شکننده, شکستنی are already in Persian.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you Qureshpor & Alfaaz,
> 
> There seems to be a lot more in Urdu than in Persian, maybe the idea has come from Urdu.
> 
> شکننده, شکستنی are already in Persian.


If you search a Persian literature (poetry) site, you will find the following.

دل پذیر
درمان پذیر
فرمان پذیر
نشان پذیر
خرامش پذیر
جنبش پذیر
دانش پذیر
افسون پذیر
ھستی پذیر
پند پذیر

صحبت پذیر
نصیحت پذیر
خلل پذیر
مِنّت پذیر
تدارک پذیر
دوا پذیر
زینت پذیر
عکس پذیر
حقائق پذیر
رونق پذیر
صورت پذیر
تَحَیُّر پذیر
عُذر پذیر

... the list goes on and on!


----------



## PersoLatin

I’m afraid “the list goes on and on” because more than 95% (a moderate estimate) of those are not compound words which is what we are talking about here.

I went through 23 pages of ‘search results’ on Ganjoor and found only two legitimate compounds دلپذیر & فرمان‌پذیر which incidentally were formed correctly, i.e. the constituent parts were separated with a half-space or a non-joining-space (zero-width non-joiner)

The rest of 23 the pages which also included most of your examples above, were normal combination of nouns with پذیر as the verb, in 3rd person singular imperative form, also, the context of which left no doubt they were not compounds, the spacing was also agreement with their use i.e. separated with a full space.

انعطاف‌‌پذیر “flexible” or more accurately  "receptive to flex” mentioned in Alfaaz’ list, is used in modern Persian.

In my search I also came across دل‌ناپذیر which I had not heard before, only in words play,  but which made perfect sense.

 پذیر- as a compound maker, can not automagically be used to mean -able, it sometimes happens to translate that way in another language, so ‘receiving’ and ‘accepting’ as the meaning, it can be used with any noun when it makes make sense, otherwise in future پذیرفتن will take on a tertiary meaning of ‘to be able to’


----------



## Alfaaz

PersoLatin said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot more in Urdu than in Persian, maybe the idea has come from Urdu.
> ...
> I’m afraid “the list goes on and on” because more than 95% (a moderate estimate) of those are not compound words which is what we are talking about here.
> ...
> is used in Persian but as a modern compound.


That is interesting. Many of the compounds listed above in posts 4, 5 & 7 are also present here in واژہ یاب with similar definitions and English translations. However, it could be that some of them are modern/recent formations as you suggest...?!


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> That is interesting. Many of the compounds listed above in posts 4, 5 & 7 are also present here in واژہ یاب with similar definitions and English translations. However, it could be that some of them are modern/recent formations as you suggest...?!


The list I posted (#7) is based in classical Persian poets!


----------



## Alfaaz

Qureshpor said:
			
		

> The list I posted (#7) is based in classical Persian poets!


Yes. (I was referring to the compounds used for technical/scientific terminology.)


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> The list I posted (#7) is based in classical Persian poets!


The fact that I searched Ganjoor (so all classical poets & more) & found almost none seems to have been ignored, could you please supply one or two examples.

The 23 pages of search results, included no less than  Saedi, Ferdôsi, Molavi & Hâfez and many others.


----------



## PersoLatin

Alfaaz said:


> That is interesting. Many of the compounds listed above in posts 4, 5 & 7 are also present here in واژہ یاب with similar definitions and English translations. However, it could be that some of them are modern/recent formations as you suggest...?!


Thank you Alfaaz, I can see those & many more on that link, most of them must have been added wholesale fairly recently. 

Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any interest or appetite for a robust discussion about this or many similar topics amongst native Persian speakers and I can’t argue against so many examples that have flooded the online dictionaries, I would not understand most of these if I see them, of course I don’t expect to understand the technical ones but most of the rest are still baffling.


----------



## truce

PersoLatin said:


> I think آسیب دیدنی/آسیب بین are more accurate for 'vulnerable' & آسیب بینایی/vulnerability, what do other members think?


To me "آسیب بین" means "someone who inspects harm/damage" like دوربین، ذره بین، کوته بین، خوش بین، بد بین،
Actually the part of speech of "آسیب پذیر" is similar to "صفت فاعلی" and means someone who is prone to receiving harm and damage. In fact "پذیرفتن" in that word means "to receive" not "to accept".


----------



## PersoLatin

truce said:


> To me "آسیب بین" means "someone who inspects harm/damage" like دوربین، ذره بین، کوته بین، خوش بین، بد بین،


آسیب دیدن means ‘to be harmed” so آسیب‌بین makes perfect sense as someone/thing that can be harmed, it may be confusing but it is not inaccurate.

To be honest this is a classic case of opening a “can of worms”, there are now so many compounds using پذیر that seem inaccurate that آسیب‌پذیر appears perfectly suited..


----------



## Alfaaz

truce said:
			
		

> To me "آسیب بین" means "someone who inspects harm/damage" like دوربین، ذره بین، کوته بین، خوش بین، بد بین،
> ..."آسیب پذیر" ... means someone who is prone to receiving harm and damage.





			
				PersoLatin said:
			
		

> آسیب‌بین makes perfect sense as someone/thing that can be harmed, it may be confusing but it is not inaccurate.





> بين _bīn_ (imperat. of _dīdan_), See thou; (in comp.) seeing, discerning, comprehending, as — _ḥaq-bīn, ḥaqīqat-bīn_, Discerning the truth, &c.


This (explanation by truce) is what I was thinking as well. It could perhaps be said (as PersoLatin seems to be suggesting): آسیب بین - _one who sees/witnesses _آسیب → _one who suffers/faces_ آسیب. However, wouldn't this too indicate a _survivor_, rather than necessarily suggesting _vulnerability_...? Please excuse the موشگافی and confusion! 


			
				PersoLatin said:
			
		

> To be honest this is a classic case of opening a “can of worms”, there are now so many compounds using پذیر that seem inaccurate that آسیب‌پذیر appears perfectly suited..





			
				truce said:
			
		

> Actually the part of speech of "آسیب پذیر" is similar to "صفت فاعلی" ...


Steingass (1892) and Platts (1884) document the following. In light of the definitions, it doesn't seem that many of the compounds (except perhaps for the ones developed for technical/scientific terminology) are very recent and their usage seems to make sense (as truce has elaborated).


> پذير _paẕīr_ (imp. of _paẕīraftan_, in comp.), Receiving, accepting, admitting; having, being possessed of, endowed with; as _ishtibāh-paẕīr_, Admitting of doubt, doubtful; — _pozish-paẕīr_, Accepting an apology, &c.





> P پذير _paẕīṛ_, _piẕīr_, part. adj. (from _paẕīruftan_, 'to take,' &c., see next), Taking, receiving, accepting, admitting; being possessed of or endowed with, capable (of), susceptible, liable (used as the last member of compounds, e.g. _iṣlāḥ-paẕīr_, adj. Capable of correction or amendment, remediable).


----------



## PersoLatin

Alfaaz said:


> This (explanation by truce) is what I was thinking as well. It could perhaps be said (as PersoLatin seems to be suggesting): آسیب بین - _one who sees/witnesses _آسیب → _one who suffers/faces_ آسیب. However, wouldn't this too indicate a _survivor_, rather than necessarily suggesting _vulnerability_...?


Hi Alfaaz, of course that's the most obvious observation but I am hoping we, collectively and by now, could look beyond the obvious. I have said all I can say on this part of it.



Alfaaz said:


> Please excuse the موشگافی and confusion!


I welcome موشگافی as that's what has got me questioning this. Also no dictionary helps here as I have said many times,  a dictionary author has to include every possible meaning for a word, even if that word has only been used by one person once with that particular meaning, you see that in Dehkhoda often.

This use of پذير in the following is as it should be so no dispute here despite the fact I have never used or heard these before but I can understand their use.


> پذير _paẕīr_ (imp. of _paẕīraftan_, in comp.), Receiving, accepting, admitting; having, being possessed of, endowed with; as _ishtibāh-paẕīr_, Admitting of doubt, doubtful; — _pozish-paẕīr_, Accepting an apology, &c.


----------



## PersoLatin

As a native speaker, I see paziroftan/پذیرفتن in all its meanings, inherently as something you a have a choice in, you choose to receive/accept/take/… so it only happens voluntarily, and without going into why people become vulnerable in the first place, there's no choice in being 'vulnerable'. If the majority view disagrees with this then I have nothing else to add and that concludes the matter for me.


----------



## Alfaaz

Alfaaz said:
			
		

> PersoLatin: Thanks for the comprehensive answer and please excuse the delayed response in this and other threads! (I was waiting to see if other forum members would contribute anything. However, it seems many forum members are either currently not active in the forum or perhaps did not find the topics to be of interest.)


----------

