# Persian/Urdu: The existence or absence of e/i



## Qureshpor

I don't know if this topic has been touched upon in this Forum or not but I wonder if those friends who have knowledge of Persian language can help me here. There are some Persian words which, at least to my ears, seem to have an extra i/e vowel after a consonant that is preceded by a long vowel-aa. These do not exist in the same words when they are used in Urdu. I can think of at least three words at the moment.

P: aasemaan
U: aasmaan

P: paadeshaah/baadeshaah
 U: baadshaah

P: shaademaan
U: shaadmaan

Am I imagining this vowel in Persian pronunciation or is it really there?


----------



## marrish

I can't offer any answer for now but it should be noted in this thread that you are not alone with this perception, it is in fact a common feature of the Persian language, I imagine, just in order to facilitate the pronunciation. But it is my impression I've been under so our Persian speaking sisters and brothers, do comment.


----------



## Aryamp

You're not imagining it, there's really a tendency in Persian language to have an i/e vowel between the two consonants in those words and that's to do with facilitating the pronunciation as Marrish pointed out.  It's just a matter of characteristics and qualities of Persian pronunciation which makes people pronounce some words in certain ways which are more conforming to the natural flow of the pronunciation.


I should say it's also perfectly alright to pronounce them without that extra vowel just like the urdu version in your post. However I think if an Urdu speaker were to hear me say "aasmaan"  he would still feel I'm having a sort of short vowel after S  because to me it seems if this is the visual representation of Persian : ~~~  then Urdu would be ^^^


----------



## tonyspeed

Aryamp said:


> it seems if this is the visual representation of Persian : ~~~  then Urdu would be ^^^



Smooth versus harsh? Yes, the vowel does soften the word.


----------



## Qureshpor

tonyspeed said:


> Smooth versus harsh? Yes, the vowel does soften the word.


No, I think Aryamp is saying that Persian is like Mount Damavand whereas Urdu is like the K2 or Everest!


----------



## marrish

Please do continue the discussion in plain English, if possible since this thread is multilingual and even I am not able to follow!


----------



## Aryamp

lol I meant Persian is more smooth and like melodic where as Urdu is maybe more rhythmic, or maybe Persian is like a canter where as Urdu is more like gallop. 

But I don't know, that was just my impression, I might be wrong, in fact I listened to the pronunciation of Asman in Urdu and it seemed like the transition from s to m was fine but  the long vowels where shorter than I'd pronounce them, like I would say AAAAASeMAAAAN  but the Urdu speaker said like AaSsMaan ,   well I hope you get what I mean, so hard to represent sounds with letters lol

But then maybe that justifies the need for a short e vowel somewhere there, when you come from a very high steep hill , you don't wanna come to a sudden stop and then change course (hence the tendency to have a short e vowel) , but when the hill is not that high (as in urdu) you can afford to come to a full stop and have another long vowel.


----------



## UrduMedium

Is this not a case of lacking a cluster like "sm", "dsh", or "dm" in Persian (per the original examples)? 

Curious. Because in that case it would be natural to insert a slight vowel. Spelling wise the extra vowel seems unwarranted. 

Similarly I have noticed that many of my Egyptian friends have a hard time saying an English word like co*nst*itution. Invariably they insert a vowel between the "n" and the "s" making it co*nist*itution.


----------



## Treaty

UrduMedium said:


> Is this not a case of lacking a cluster like "sm", "dsh", or "dm" in Persian (per the original examples)?
> 
> Curious. Because in that case it would be natural to insert a slight vowel. Spelling wise the extra vowel seems unwarranted.
> 
> Similarly I have noticed that many of my Egyptian friends have a hard time saying an English word like co*nst*itution. Invariably they insert a vowel between the "n" and the "s" making it co*nist*itution.



No, it's not the lack of it. For example ریسمان _risman_ and باسماتی _Basmati_ are never pronounced like _riseman_ or _basemati _(Even _asman_ is sometimes pronounced without _e_ in between). There is no problem in pronouncing three consonants in a row: پنج گانه _panjgaaneh_ or گرمسیر _garmsir_, or _anstitu_ (from French _institute_). I think it is more complicated than just saying "Persian" tends to put an _e_ in the word. It may depend on the dialect and accent or even attitude.

As you mentioned, it's interesting that Arabs tend to put a _i_-like sound between two consonants while in most of Persian dialects they pronounce those Arabic words without putting a sound in the middle.


----------



## aisha93

There are words without the "e" sound like: پاسگاه/آرمان/پاسبان...etc.

As for Arabic, it is true that in informal speech we add an "e" sound in between like: 3aqel/fajer...etc.


----------



## fdb

These words all have different explanations. In _p__ādi__šāh_ the ­_–i-_ is (I think) authentic (Middle Persian _p__ādix__šāy_), but the _–h_ is by false analogy to _šāh_. _­b__ādi__šāh _is an Indian corruption. In _āsim__ān_ the unetymological _–i-_ seems to have originated in the Indian (not Persian) custom of inserting a “_n__īm fat__ḥ_” after overlong syllables when reciting Persian poetry.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> These words all have different explanations. In _p__ādi__šāh_ the ­_–i-_ is (I think) authentic (Middle Persian _p__ādix__šāy_), but the _–h_ is by false analogy to _šāh_. _­b__ādi__šāh _is an Indian corruption. In _āsim__ān_ the unetymological _–i-_ seems to have originated in the Indian (not Persian) custom of inserting a “_n__īm fat__ḥ_” after overlong syllables when reciting Persian poetry.


I find this rather surprising since in all Indian languages, as far as I know, the p sound is there. It does not make sense to convert a p to a b. Unless of course, in India the "baadshaah" has come from Arabic sources, which I think is unlikely. As Treaty has mentioned, there was a migration of poets during Safavid rule to Mughal India. But, long time before that we have Mas'ud Sa'd Salman who was born in Lahore (1046-1120) whose parents came from Hamadan. I can not imagine "paadshaah" changing to "baadshaah" within one generation.

I have read about niim-fatHah in "A Manual of Classical Persian Prosody" by professor Finn Thiesen. I don't remember if he assigns this to Indian mode of Persian recitation. But, if I can get hold of the book, I shall double check it. I don't believe this is the case, however.


----------



## Wolverine9

The baadshaah form might have been under Turkic influence since Turkish has both paashaa and baashaa from my recollection.

It would be interesting if the i of aasimaan originated in India but became more prevalent in the Persian pronunciation of the word instead


----------



## Treaty

This trend is not limited to _āsem__ān _but a large number of words with these structures: -_ā--__ā- _or -u--ā- or -x---_ā-_. Consider following words:
_s__āzem__ān, dudem__ān, __āzeg__ār, s__āzeg__ār, ruzeg__ār, __p__āseb__ān, __āp__ārtem__ān, k__ārev__ān, nardeb__ān, ...


_


----------



## fdb

Wolverine9 said:


> The baadshaah form might have been under Turkic influence since Turkish has both paashaa and baashaa from my recollection.



If I am not mistaken, _b__āšā_ is the Arabic (e.g. Egyptian) pronunciation of Turkish _pa__şa_, which in turn comes from Persian _p__ād__šāh._


----------



## Wolverine9

fdb said:


> If I am not mistaken, _b__āšā_ is the Arabic (e.g. Egyptian) pronunciation of Turkish _pa__şa_, which in turn comes from Persian _p__ād__šāh._



I've seen an Arabic origin attributed to that but then there is this:

pasha 
Turkish honorary title formerly given to officers of high rank, 1640s, from Turk. pasha, earlier basha, from bash "head, chief" (no clear distinction between -b- and -p- in Turk.), Earlier in English as bashaw (1530s). 
     Online Etymology Dictionary

Although the etymology is more likely to be from Persian rather than genuinely Turkish, it mentions the confusion between p and b.


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> This trend is not limited to _āsem__ān _but a large number of words with these structures: -_ā--__ā- _or -u--ā- or -x---_ā-_. Consider following words:
> _s__āzem__ān, dudem__ān, __āzeg__ār, s__āzeg__ār, ruzeg__ār, __p__āseb__ān, __āp__ārtem__ān, k__ārev__ān, nardeb__ān, ...
> 
> 
> _



Let us forget about _āp__ārtem__ā_n, which is a broadly correct representation of French _appartement_. With most of the other words on this list, it is possible that at an older stage of the language they indeed had the compounding particle –i-, which is later elided. For example, the older form of _k__ārz__ār_ “battle” is clearly _k__āriz__ār_ (Manichaean Middle Persian kʼryzʼr). So, here at least, we are not dealing with the insertion of an unetymological –i-, but the omission of an etymological –i-.


----------



## Treaty

fdb said:


> Let us forget about _āp__ārtem__ā_n, which is a broadly correct representation of French _appartement_


Sorry, I thought that the middle e in original French word is not pronounced.


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> These words all have different explanations. In _p__ādi__šāh_ the ­_–i-_ is (I think) authentic (Middle Persian _p__ādix__šāy_), but the _–h_ is by false analogy to _šāh_. _­b__ādi__šāh _is an Indian corruption. In _āsim__ān_ the unetymological _–i-_ seems to have originated in the Indian (not Persian) custom of inserting a “_n__īm fat__ḥ_” after overlong syllables when reciting Persian poetry.


But where does "shaah" come from? Am I wrong in thinking that "shaah" is merely a contraction of "paadshaa"? This "h" is found in "shaahanshaah" too.

In poetry, both forms are found. I don't know if the version without the "h" depicts the word in its so called correct form or whether it is the poet making use of his poetic licence.

به جان پادشا سوگند خوردم 
که نزد پادشاه جز پادشا نیست 

خاقانی


----------



## Qureshpor

QURESHPOR said:


> I find this rather surprising since in all Indian languages, as far as I know, the p sound is there. It does not make sense to convert a p to a b.


I don't know how true this is but Nur-ul-Lughaat, a well known Urdu to Urdu dictionary states that because "paad" in the local language (Urdu) means "fart", the word "paadshaah" became "baadshaah"! Here is the exact quote, included in the "baadshaah" entry.

"yih lafz baa-i-Farsi se saHiiH hai lekin is vajh se kih baa-i-Farsi se juz-i-avval ba-ma3nii riiH hai, 3umuum-an zabaanoN par baadshaah hai.


----------



## fdb

QURESHPOR said:


> But where does "shaah" come from? Am I wrong in thinking that "shaah" is merely a contraction of "paadshaa"? This "h" is found in "shaahanshaah" too.
> 
> In poetry, both forms are found. I don't know if the version without the "h" depicts the word in its so called correct form or whether it is the poet making use of his poetic licence.
> 
> به جان پادشا سوگند خوردم
> که نزد پادشاه جز پادشا نیست
> 
> خاقانی



šāh is from Old Persian xšāyaϑiya-. The –h is from –ϑ- (like voiceless English th). It is not a contraction of pādšāh, which as mentioned, is from Middle Persian pādixšāy. Both contain the root xšāy-, but they are different formations.


----------



## Wolverine9

McGregor says this: _baadshaah _[Persian _paadshaah_; ? x Hindi _baadii_] with _baadii _meaning "speaking, affirming."

So is the form _baadshaah _(or _baadeshaah_) not used in Persian at all?


----------



## Qureshpor

Wolverine9 said:


> McGregor says this: _baadshaah _[Persian _paadshaah_; ? x Hindi _baadii_] with _baadii _meaning "speaking, affirming."
> 
> So is the form _baadshaah _(or _baadeshaah_) not used in Persian at all?


As you are aware McGregor defines ? x = doubtful, conflated with
Yes it is.


----------



## dragon warrior 3

It's strange that my dictionary gives only paadeshaah. It is even stranger than it gives only aasmaan and shaadmaan. I thought that it would give the colloquial pronunciations for each too.


----------

