# Persian: I am writing him a letter



## Abu Talha

Possessive suffixes can be used for direct objects. Can they also be used if the object is prefixed by به ? Can I say for "I am writing him a letter" 

نامه‌ای می‌نویسمش

or do I have to say

نامه‌ای باو می‌نویسم

Thanks.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> Possessive suffixes can be used for direct objects. Can they also be used if the object is prefixed by به ? Can I say for "I am writing him a letter"
> 
> نامه‌ای می‌نویسمش
> 
> or do I have to say
> 
> نامه‌ای باو می‌نویسم
> 
> Thanks.



I would go for the second choice but although I am not 100% certain, I believe the first version is also correct. By the way, you could be writing a letter to a "her" too!

In the modern language of Iran, the verb "daashtan" is employed for an on going action.

daaram naameh-ii be-uu mii-naviisam

I am writing a letter to her/him.


----------



## marrish

What about ''daaram behesh naameh minevisam"?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> What about ''daaram behesh naameh minevisam"?



Agreed. However "naameh" on its own could imply "letters" in general! (I am writing letters to her/him)


----------



## marrish

It gives me courage that you agree. On my turn I agree with your reservation. In this sentence however one would not expect the plural, which would be specified otherwise. Am I right in my reasoning?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> It gives me courage that you agree. On my turn I agree with your reservation. In this sentence however one would not expect the plural, which would be specified otherwise. Am I right in my reasoning?



Yes, "naameh miinaviisam" would imply I am writing letters (as opposed to writing cards/e-mails etc). naameh-haa mii-naviisam, I would suggest would imply, "I am writing (lots of) letters".


----------



## marrish

Thank you.


----------



## Abu Talha

Thanks Qureshpor, Marrish Sahibs. Would you say that به is the only preposition that can be done away with in this way?





QURESHPOR said:


> In the modern language of Iran, the verb "daashtan" is employed for an on going action.


I think I'll start another thread to discuss in in a little more detail.


marrish said:


> What about ''daaram behesh naameh minevisam"?


Thanks. I did not know that you could attach the possessive suffix to به. Could you also say من بزرگ‌تر ازشم for "I am bigger than him"?


----------



## triggercut

Hi all,

I have most often heard the following:

دارم یه نامه واسش می نویسم

This sentence makes use of واسه instead of برای with the ه being dropped to make way for the ش indicating third-person singular pronoun. The pronunciation is "vaasash."

adam


----------



## searcher123

> This sentence makes use of واسه instead of برای


واسه is colloquial form of براي.


----------



## fdb

marrish said:


> What about ''daaram behesh naameh minevisam"?



In Persian you definitely cannot say “behesh”. The ـه in به is purely graphic, it is not pronounced as “h” in any combination. In classical Persian you can say bad-ō بدو .


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> In Persian you definitely cannot say “behesh”. The ـه in به is purely graphic, it is not pronounced as “h” in any combination. In classical Persian you can say bad-ō بدو .



There appear to be plently of examples in the colloquial language displayed on the net, e.g.  *بهش* بگو


----------



## fdb

All right. I thought we were talking about literary Persian....


----------



## searcher123

QURESHPOR said:


> There appear to be plently of examples in the colloquial language displayed on the net, e.g.  *بهش* بگو


----------



## marrish

marrish said:


> What about ''daaram behesh naameh minevisam دارم بھش نامہ مینویسم"?


Is this sentence finally correct or wrong?


----------



## searcher123

marrish said:


> Is this sentence finally correct or wrong?


It is correct.


----------



## marrish

Thank you for your confirmation, dear searcher123!


----------



## Abu Talha

Can you attach the suffixes to other prepositions? For example,  من بزرگ‌تر ازشــم or من بزرگ‌تر ازش هستم for "I am bigger than him"?


----------



## eskandar

Yes. To sound more natural, you should just change the order of the sentence a bit: من ازش بزرگتر هستم or من ازش بزرگترم (both are correct).


----------



## Phosphorus

On the difference between "behesh" and "baraash"/"vaasash" it is noteworthy that while all of them are correct in the colloquial language "behesh", to me", is a non-Persian coinage (most likely due to the Azerbaijani speaking folk in Tehran, who almost comprise some 40 to 50 percent of the city population, in whose language there is originally no distinction between "to" and "for" in terms of "propositions" or "adverbs": "men-e" means both "to me" and "for me"). So if you use "behesh naameh miinviisam" one might consider you to be of Azerbaijani origin; nonetheless, as fdb pointed out, "beh-" + "pronoun" is totally a recent as well as wrong conversational phenomenon which does not occur in the formal language at all.

I think you are best to use either "baraash" or "vaasash" in your given context-colloquial Persian ("vaaseh" is also not used in the formal language, some consider it of Arabic origin, "waasiTah", but one may also bear in mind Mazandarani "-sse" ~ "for" or "vesse" ~ "for it/him/her"). Note that in the Persian syntax, particularly in its conversational form, you usually right a letter "*for*" someone and not "_to_" someone, this is why "baraa(y)" and "vaaseh" are best choices (it is probably due to the verb "neveshtan" ~ "to write" which accepts "for" ~ "baraam benevis" ~ "write me").


----------



## eskandar

Phosphorus said:


> On the difference between "behesh" and "baraash"/"vaasash" it is noteworthy that while all of them are correct in the colloquial language "behesh", to me", is a non-Persian coinage (most likely due to the Azerbaijani speaking folk in Tehran, who almost comprise some 40 to 50 percent of the city population, in whose language there is originally no distinction between "to" and "for" in terms of "propositions" or "adverbs": "men-e" means both "to me" and "for me"). So if you use "behesh naameh miinviisam" one might consider you to be of Azerbaijani origin; nonetheless, as fdb pointed out, "beh-" + "pronoun" is totally a recent as well as wrong conversational phenomenon which does not occur in the formal language at all.


Do you mean that 'behesh minevisam' is an (originally) Azeri coinage, or 'behesh' altogether? If you mean the latter, I disagree. In any case I think you've overstated the number of Azeris living in Tehran. A 2010 census indicated that 67% of Tehranis identify themselves as ethnically Persian - not to mention the fact that not all of the Azeri population in Tehran is fluent in Azeri (most of the Tehrani Azeris I know who were born in Tehran or came to the city when they were young are now more comfortable in Persian, which they speak with a standard Tehrani accent, than Azeri, and many of them cannot even speak Azeri at all) so the percentage of Azeri-speakers in Tehran is even smaller.


----------



## Phosphorus

eskandar said:


> Do you mean that 'behesh minevisam' is an (originally) Azeri coinage, or 'behesh' altogether? If you mean the latter, I disagree.



No I did not say the latter.



eskandar said:


> In any case I think you've overstated the number of Azeris living in Tehran. A 2010 census indicated that 67% of Tehranis identify themselves as ethnically Persian -



I was not really precise with giving odds such as 40% or 50%, just expressing my personal feeling. But as a matter of fact I can assure you that your aforesaid percentage, 67% ethnic Persians, is not reflecting the truth in any ways. Many people in Tehran, due to the issue of prestige or cultural assimilation caused by the cultural centralism over there, actually consider  themselves Tehrani and subsequently Persian. By the way "ethnic Persian" is just a misleading term when you observe any data from Iran, since they have considered Luri-Bakhtiyar and even Gilaki or Mazandarani (let alone the Semnani, Raji, Tati, etc.) populations as ethnic Persians in practice! Maybe the case of the last Shah of Iran is an ironic example in this case: he himself was a Mazandarani-Azerbaijani blend while his wife was of Azerbaijani-Gilaki origin, but both of them were preoccupied with boasting about the glory of the Persian ethnicity and if you ask their son about his ethnicity he would most likely say "Persian".

Unfortunately there is, due to the lingering centralist policies, no accurate ethnolinguistic data for Iran, but in accordance with the current data at hand it is safe to hold that the Turcophone Iranians (Southern Azerbaijani, Qashqai, Khorasani Azerbaijani, and Turkmen speakers) comprise at least up to 25% of the populace. I think every one who has lived in Tehran agrees that their concentration in the capital is fairly up to that percentage. As a matter of fact you see a significant number of Azerbaijani idioms that have been making their way into the Tehrani Persian continuously (very recent examples I recall are "gulaakh" and "gorkhidan")-a case that does not happen for other languages of Iran in Tehran.



eskandar said:


> not to mention the fact that not all of the Azeri population in Tehran  is fluent in Azeri (most of the Tehrani Azeris I know who were born in  Tehran or came to the city when they were young are now more comfortable  in Persian, which they speak with a standard Tehrani accent, than  Azeri, and many of them cannot even speak Azeri at all) so the  percentage of Azeri-speakers in Tehran is even smaller.



It is a matter of fact that not only Azerbaijani speaking people but most individuals descended from an originally non-Persian speaking folk cannot speak their mother tongue fluently. But beware not to be misled by this fact, that is to say it actually has nothing to do with language contamination. In this case people learn the dominant language, but in fact their speech is significantly influenced by the former language they originally belonged to. This is not restricted to Tehrani Persian, but is also found almost everywhere on the globe: plenty examples of Occitan terms in Parisien French, the emergence of the Cairo accent as a blend of local Egyptian Arabic varieties in the last century, or the Isfahani Persian which is influenced by the original Central Iranian variety spoken in Isfahan-a speech belonging to the Northwestern branch as opposed to Persian which is linguistically a Southwestern Iranian language.


----------



## Abu Talha

eskandar said:


> Yes. To sound more natural, you should just change the order of the sentence a bit: من ازش بزرگتر هستم or من ازش بزرگترم (both are correct).


Thanks, Eskandar.


----------



## eskandar

Phosphorus said:


> As a matter of fact you see a significant number of Azerbaijani idioms that have been making their way into the Tehrani Persian continuously (very recent examples I recall are "gulaakh" and "gorkhidan")-a case that does not happen for other languages of Iran in Tehran.


What do these words mean? Are there other examples of Azeri words that have found their way into Tehrani Persian you can think of?


----------



## Phosphorus

eskandar said:


> What do these words mean? Are there other examples of Azeri words that have found their way into Tehrani Persian you can think of?



"Gulaakh" has various meanings, but I find it in sense of a "huge guy (who is also unsavory)" (e.g. "دیدی اون دافه با چه گولاخی می پره؟"). This word in Azerbaijani Turkish means "ear" (cf. Turkish "kulak").

"Gorkhidan" is a "مصدر جعلی" from Azerbaijani Turkish "gorkhmaakh" ~ "to be afraid" (with a present stem of "gorkh-", cf. Turkish "korkmak"), equal to Persian "tarsidan" (e.g. "جونه حاجی بدجوری گورخیدیم").

Well there a significant number of Azerbaijani Turkish loans, I can recall "topoq zadan", "paatoq", "sertegh", "bibi", "chokhles". And for syntax may be "(be kesi) keshidan" might be of Azeri origin: "(bir kasa) chahmakh" (as opposed to "be kesi raftan; e.g. "این بچه به کی کشیده انقد تخسه؟" vs. "این بچه به کی رفته انقد تخسه؟").


----------



## marrish

I'd heard the phrase I wrote (behesh...) many a times from speakers from Shiraz with no Azeri background.


----------



## Phosphorus

It is not improbable for such a structure occurring in other Persian varieties too. But as far as the colloquial standard of Tehran (Tehrani Persian) is concerned, I personally believe "براش نامه می نویسم" is proper while "بهش نامه می نویسم" sounds contaminated by Azerbaijani Turkish.

Do not know if the Shirazi proper is contaminated by a Turkic source or not but one should bear in mind that there are significant number of "Qashqai" people living in Shiraz and its vicinity, whose language is a Turkic variety pretty similar to Azerbaijani. Also the conversational Persian speech in the huge cities, such as Shiraz, is continuously influenced by that of Tehran. Nowadays Iranian youth in the large cities are wholly aware and use Tehrani idioms-a considerable number of which being Turkish in origin.


----------



## marrish

Thanks for this elucidation, aaqaa-ye Phosphorus, the influence of Teherani speech on the youth of other big cities like Shiraz seems to be the case here.

By the way, I see you prefer 'baraa' to 'be' in this sentence.


----------



## Phosphorus

marrish said:


> Thanks for this elucidation, aaqaa-ye Phosphorus, the influence of Teherani speech on the youth of other big cities like Shiraz seems to be the case here.
> 
> By the way, I see you prefer 'baraa' to 'be' in this sentence.



Welcome Marrish SaaHiib.

Yes it is because I personally prefer to observe it in the context of "neveshtan" which is always accompanied by "baraa(y)" to convey the sense of "to write someone" ~ "neveshtan baraa(y-eh) kasii" rather than "neveshtan beh kasii". But note that it is not wrong to use "behesh naameh miinevisam", nonetheless I find it as an improper syntax.


----------



## Qureshpor

Phosphorus said:


> It is not improbable for such a structure occurring in other Persian varieties too. But as far as the colloquial standard of Tehran (Tehrani Persian) is concerned, I personally believe "براش نامه می نویسم" is proper while "بهش نامه می نویسم" sounds contaminated by Azerbaijani Turkish.
> 
> Do not know if the Shirazi proper is contaminated by a Turkic source or not but one should bear in mind that there are significant number of "Qashqai" people living in Shiraz and its vicinity, whose language is a Turkic variety pretty similar to Azerbaijani. Also the conversational Persian speech in the huge cities, such as Shiraz, is continuously influenced by that of Tehran. Nowadays Iranian youth in the large cities are wholly aware and use Tehrani idioms-a considerable number of which being Turkish in origin.


Perhaps a little strong with negative connotations but I know you did n't mean it in this sense. All languages have such influences and these almost invariably enrich the language in question. Just think of the amount of Arabic "contamination" in Persian. Is it possible to write a line of Persian these days without bringing in an Arabic word or two?


----------



## Phosphorus

QURESHPOR said:


> Perhaps a little strong with negative connotations but I know you did n't mean it in this sense. All languages have such influences and these almost invariably enrich the language in question. Just think of the amount of Arabic "contamination" in Persian. Is it possible to write a line of Persian these days without bringing in an Arabic word or two?



Yes all languages have been leaving similar influences on each other throughout the history. But here we were talking about the probability of a recent contamination which occurs in the presence of the original structure (i.e. "برای کسی نوشتن" vs. "به کسی نوشتن") and the very fact that we are better off using the genuine sense.

By the way I ceaselessly think of Iranian languages, including Persian, Kurdish, Mazerouni, etc., to be purified in terms of Arabic loans. And as a matter of fact I am not the first one to contemplate this way, one of the major objectives of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature has always been the purification of Persian and getting rid of Arabic (and totally non-Iranian) words-of course those which we can find pure counterparts for them.

Firdawsi is most likely the first one in this regard to attempt writing in pure Persian (without major Arabic contamination). He believed he has managed to (عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی); nonetheless, since he had the faintest idea about etymology and linguistics, he actually replaced Arabic borrowings with words that were mainly of Eastern Iranian origin (particularly from Sogdian, e.g. آغازیدن or فام). But no doubt he get rid of many Arabic loans anyways. I for now remember Ahmad Kasravi, an Azeri personage, who carried out a great job in terms of identifying the original Iranian language of Azerbaijan, namely Tati (a.k.a Azari), as well as writing in *pure Persian*-without using any Arabic words. As a matter of fact there are practically innumerous lines in *Paarsii-yeh sareh* (~ pure Persian).


----------



## eskandar

Thanks for the examples of Azeri words used in Tehrani vernacular, I hadn't encountered any of them before.

I agree with agha-ye Qureshpor that the use of the word 'contamination' here is too strongly negative. In my own view it exemplifies a type of تعصب for which I have no sympathy, especially as it's often based on misinformation and spurious logic.



Phosphorus said:


> By the way I ceaselessly think of Iranian languages, including Persian, Kurdish, Mazerouni, etc., to be purified in terms of Arabic loans.


Why? What harm is caused by words like سلام or حال that are such an integral part of our language and have been for over a millennium? On another recent thread, the beautiful poetry of Mawlana Rumi and Hafez was discussed; what good would it do to render their poetry, and the poetry of hundreds (if not more) of others of our most celebrated poets, unintelligible by abandoning the many Arabic words they use? There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost. Right now, we are having this discussion in English, an incredibly versatile and useful language that has become the most influential language on Earth. (Of course, that has more to do with imperial power and economics than with linguistics, but that's not the point). English has more French loanwords than Persian has Arabic words, yet no one suggests ridding English of its French vocabulary. Languages are enriched by foreign vocabulary, not damaged. It is the fact that we can say both 'freedom' (Germanic) and 'liberty' (Latinate) in English that gives it is versatility, just as Persian's marvelous versatility is due to the fact that you can say both روشن (Iranic) and واضع (Semitic).



> Firdawsi is most likely the first one in this regard to attempt writing in pure Persian (without major Arabic contamination).


This is a popular myth which has been debunked (see here). Works by Ferdowsi's contemporaries also had a relatively low number of Arabic borrowings, partially because New Persian had simply not yet absorbed as much Arabic as it would later, not necessarily because of the choices made by poets like Ferdowsi or others.



> As a matter of fact there are practically innumerous lines in *Paarsii-yeh sareh* (~ pure Persian).


The actual examples of writing like this are the best evidence of why no one needs to strip Persian of its Arabic loanwords. So-called "pure Persian" writing tends to be utterly soulless, awkward, and artificial-sounding when compared to the great works of Persian literature composed by people who wrote normally. Most ordinary Iranians, and even well-educated Iranians who did not study Arabic, do not know which Persian words are of Iranic origin and which come from Arabic. They might be able to identify the obvious ones (ie. words written with ض , etc.) but would be surprised to learn that ordinary words they use like خیلی or موز are not 'originally' Persian and would have to be abandoned by advocates of so-called "pure Persian."


----------



## Phosphorus

eskandar said:


> Thanks for the examples of Azeri words used in  Tehrani vernacular, I hadn't encountered any of them before.




You're  welcome. I see, you would most likely have bumped against one or a  couple of Tehrani guys using these idioms if you still lived in Tehran.



eskandar said:


> I agree with agha-ye Qureshpor that the use of  the word 'contamination' here is too strongly negative. In my own view  it exemplifies a type of تعصب for which I have no  sympathy, especially as it's often based on misinformation and spurious  logic.




I disagree. They may easily use the term in a  linguistic context to show an original element, be it lexical or  semantic, being affected by another language (however everything could  ultimately be relative on a theoretical ground).

And as for bias, I can only say: may the Omnipotent preserve us all from bias, prejudice, and ignorance.



eskandar said:


> Why? What harm is caused by words like سلام or  حال that are such an integral part of our language and have been for  over a millennium? On another recent thread, the beautiful poetry of  Mawlana Rumi and Hafez was discussed; what good would it do to render  their poetry, and the poetry of hundreds (if not more) of others of our  most celebrated poets, unintelligible by abandoning the many Arabic  words they use? There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost. Right  now, we are having this discussion in English, an incredibly versatile  and useful language that has become the most influential language on  Earth. (Of course, that has more to do with imperial power and economics  than with linguistics, but that's not the point). English has more  French loanwords than Persian has Arabic words, yet no one suggests  ridding English of its French vocabulary. Languages are enriched by  foreign vocabulary, not damaged. It is the fact that we can say both  'freedom' (Germanic) and 'liberty' (Latinate) in English that gives it  is versatility, just as Persian's marvelous versatility is due to the  fact that you can say both روشن (Iranic) and واضع (Semitic).




Bro  I regard all languages of mankind as "intangible human heritage". So I  favor any efforts in order to preserve them as what they originally are.  This is similar to restoring a historical building where a wrong break  is once put in the facade. You, as a pro conservator, take a photograph  and record the qualities of that break and then replace it with a  reconstructed break that is made in accordance with the original. This  is how I picture it. However the process of purification and  standardization of language have their own rules and regulations. For  example when I find a Mazerouni word such as "hap/ferzuen" ~ "to  purify", I favor its usage against the originally Arabic "tasfiya  hakorden"-via New Persian "tasfiyeh kardan". This is language  restoration. However it is obvious that in a significant number of  cases, stinky nationalistic obsessions are ingrained with linguistic  purism considerations in many countries. But it certainly can not  justify letting go the conservation of human heritage anyways.

Indeed  this is, in a way or another, is the official policy in many countries  for the very fact that these languages do not benefit a position same as  that of English-which is an outstanding language in terms of  globalization. That is its extinction ain't looming in the horizon. When  my younger relative saw some pyramids in a video game and told me "inaa  piraamidan, piramidaa tu ijept mishan" (he is originally Azeri so his  Persian is semantically contaminated by his mother tongue), I got  personally assured that English, as the chosen language of the so-called  Mac World, is gonna replace many local languages in fact (note that my  relative was by that time 8 years old and he had been introduced with  "pyramid" and "Egypt" for first time in his English class).




eskandar said:


> This is a _popular myth_ which has been debunked (see here).  Works by Ferdowsi's contemporaries also had a relatively low number of  Arabic borrowings, partially because New Persian had simply not yet  absorbed as much Arabic as it would later, not necessarily because of  the choices made by poets like Ferdowsi or others.




This is no myth. Please read my words carefully, I have affirmed "without major Arabic contamination" not "without _any_  Arabic contamination". And as a matter of fact Firdawsi's magnum opus  is kind of peerless in terms of the low frequency of Arabic loans in  relation to its voluminousness.

Your provided link only puts an  end to the popular myth in Iran that Firdawsi has not employed any  Arabic loans in his Shahnama, and nothing more. Even a fellow scholar,  as the Iranica article holds, named Moinfar has arrived only at an odd  less than 3 percents for Arabic loanwords frequency in Shahnama.

I  think they generally agree that no doubt Firdawsi favored Persian words  (actually Iranian words) over Arabic borrowings, no matter how much and  how come he might have been influenced by his fellow countrymen poets  at the time. However I personally do not take him as a mere nationalist  (~ actually something equivalent to modern nationalism), but rather an  honorable man that yearned for a purported grace, which he believed was  shattered by hands of the _Tazi_ invaders:


*دریغ این سر و تاج و این داد و تخت
*​ *دریغ این بزرگی و این فر و بخت*​ *کزین پس شکست آید از تازیان
*​ *ستاره نگردد مگر بر زیان*



*
*​The following couplets may confirm that he was seeing his nation not in a nationalistic way, but in a realistic one:


*به گیتی کسی رانماند وفا
*​ *روان و زبانها شود پر جفا*​ *از ایران وز ترک وز تازیان*​ *نژادی پدید آید اندر میان*​ *نه دهقان نه ترک و نه تازی بود*​ *سخنها به کردار بازی بود*​ *همه گنجها زیر دامن نهند*​ *بمیرند و کوشش به دشمن دهند
* *زیان کسان از پی سود خویش*
*بجویند و دین اندر آرند پیش*



​As a matter of  fact Firdawsi was living in northeast Iran, Khorasan, where was  linguistically a Northeastern Iranian territory throughout the history.  Duly a considerable number of Firdawsi's so-called Parsi words are  actually of Eastern Iranian origin (words such as "بسیج" or "آغاز"  which indeed had already Arabic counterparts which Firdawsi was for  sure aware of them). Also this is why you find the great Persian poet  composing such a couplet in commemoration of east Iranian lands and  their lost glories:

*
بخارا و خوارزم و آموی و زم
بسی یاد داریم با درد و غم*​




eskandar said:


> The actual examples of writing like this are the _best evidence_  of why no one needs to strip Persian of its Arabic loanwords. So-called  "pure Persian" writing tends to be utterly soulless, awkward, and  artificial-sounding when compared to the great works of Persian  literature composed by people who wrote normally. Most ordinary  Iranians, and even well-educated Iranians who did not study Arabic, do  not know which Persian words are of Iranic origin and which come from  Arabic. They might be able to identify the obvious ones (ie. words  written with ض , etc.) but would be surprised to learn that ordinary  words they use like_خیلی_ or _موز_ are not 'originally' Persian and would have to be abandoned by advocates of so-called "pure Persian."




I  did not mention how much Paars-iyeh Sareh works, but I pointed out the  possibilty of writing a bulk of lines in pure Persian. And as for the  purification of Persian language I have to affirm that however words  such as "engaareh", "cham", "sepantaa", etc. have not replaced the  respectively Arabic loans "farziyeh", "ma'ni", and "moqaddas"; but many  words, such as "paalaayeshgah", "vizhegi", "vizheh", "daadgostari",  "bimaarestaan", "chistaan", "peymaan", "darkhaast", "vaakonesh",  "daanesh", "daaneshamuz", "shahrdaary", "barkenaari", "behbud", etc.,  have established their position even in the colloquial language to the  point that if you today say "daaram miram pishe tabib" (a common  sentence in the _pre-Academic_ era) everybody would laugh at you for you have not use "pezeshk" (or "doktor") instead of Arabic "tabib"!

By the way banana is not a fruit indigenous to  Iran, so it is no big deal to use a foreign term for it. And "xeyli" is  majorly replaced with "besyaar" and "besyaari" in many cases in the  formal language.


----------



## Qureshpor

I think that now that both sides of the viewpoint have been provided, it is probably best to leave this topic. But before doing so )), just a small addition.

Pride in one's language is natural. If there is already a word in one's language, there is no need to replace it with one from another language. But, if words have made their way into a language, whatever the background might be, I do not feel there is a need to throw them out by replacing them with words which will sound foreign and artificial even if they are part and parcel of your own heritage.

I wonder if both of you gentlemen are aware of an intellectual exercise which Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib (an Urdu and Persian poet 1797-1869) undertook whilst he was serving a prison sentence imposed by the British. He decided to write a work (dastanbu) that would be free from any Arabic words whatsoever. I have n't read it, simply because I am not up to it. I have enjoyed greatly reading the Safar Naamah by Nasir Khusrau (1004-1088) perhaps because it is written in a natural language. Here it is. See what you make of it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38882563/Dastanbu-by-Mirza-Ghalib-in-Farsi

By the way Phosphorus SaaHib, one of the couplets you quoted actually goes some thing like this.

بخارا وخوارزم وآموی و زم
 بسی یاد دارمی با درد و غم


----------



## Phosphorus

QURESHPOR said:


> I think that now that both sides of the viewpoint have been provided, it is probably best to leave this topic. But before doing so )), just a small addition.
> 
> Pride in one's language is natural. If there is already a word in one's language, there is no need to replace it with one from another language. But, if words have made their way into a language, whatever the background might be, _I do not feel there is a need to throw them out by replacing them_ with words which will sound foreign and artificial even if they are part and parcel of your own heritage.
> 
> I wonder if both of you gentlemen are aware of an intellectual exercise which Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib (an Urdu and Persian poet 1797-1869) undertook whilst he was serving a prison sentence imposed by the British. He decided to write a work (dastanbu) that would be free from any Arabic words whatsoever. I have n't read it, simply because I am not up to it. I have enjoyed greatly reading the Safar Naamah by Nasir Khusrau (1004-1088) perhaps because _it is written in a natural languag_e. Here it is. See what you make of it.
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/38882563/Dastanbu-by-Mirza-Ghalib-in-Farsi



Dear Qureshpor SaaHiib, this is not a matter of me or you. It is a fact that in many countries they generally agree on language purification. Some, such as me, observe it through preservation of cultural human heritage, and many, unfortunately, may deal with it in a nationalistically biased context. Although I do love it, as I might love many other languages, but I am not proud of my language (I simply find nationalism as a puerile idea which is going to be no more than a fossil in the new era at hand), I am actually proud of English language that has enabled us all communicating with each other in a globe teemed with innumerable diverse speeches.

I cordially feel your intended point brother, but as a matter of fact Nasir Khusraw's magnum opus is presently regarded as _unnatural_. Languages can change. Just as once the original Middle Persian "nemroz" got replaced with Arabic "zohr", now they have revived the former, to some degrees, through the Persian media and when nowadays they say "akhbaar-eh niimruzii" nobody feels alienated.



QURESHPOR said:


> By the way Phosphorus SaaHib, one of the couplets you quoted actually goes some thing like this.
> 
> بخارا وخوارزم وآموی و زم
> بسی یاد _دارمی_ با درد و غم



Maybe it is due to different editions (~ تصحیحات) of Shahnama but since I cited it from Dr. Yadollah Mansouri's book on Chorasmian language, namely ده گفتار درباره ی زبان خوارزمی (actually a translation of Henning, Mackenzie, etc. articles on the language of Khwarazm); and this person is himself an outstanding linguist in Iran, so I believe he would rarely quote an incorrect poem from Firdawsi. Also Dehkhoda actually cites this couplet in the very same form too:

http://www.vajehyab.com/dehkhoda/آموی


----------



## eskandar

Phosphorus said:


> Bro  I regard all languages of mankind as "intangible human heritage". So I  favor any efforts in order to preserve them as what they originally are.  This is similar to restoring a historical building where a wrong break  is once put in the facade. You, as a pro conservator, take a photograph  and record the qualities of that break and then replace it with a  reconstructed break that is made in accordance with the original. This  is how I picture it.


Agha-ye mohtaram, I disagree with this analogy. First of all, you compare the addition of Arabic words to New Persian to a rupture in the facade of a building. However, a rupture is a purely destructive thing, whereas the addition of Arabic has been quite productive. As I mentioned in my above post, it is with the addition of Arabic vocabulary that New Persian gained its strength, versatility, and poetic beauty; without it, we would not have the literature of Hafez, Mawlana Rumi, or any of our many other beloved poets and writers. Secondly, many of the proposed "pure Persian" replacements from Arabic words are not restoring the language to how it "originally" was because they are neologisms that never existed in the language before. Thirdly, language is not a monument that exists simply to looked at. Let us use your building analogy; let's say there is a centuries-old apartment building that has slowly been updated over time, adding new parts from different countries (a concrete staircase replaces the old wooden staircase; electric lamps replace the candles that used to light it). That is the case of Persian. What you are proposing is to tear out all of the modern parts (electricity, running water, concrete, etc.) and replace them with parts that were used to build the building 1400 years ago. There is simply no reason for it! Finally, your argument is about preserving human heritage. Certainly I can respect that. But is the Persian language and literature of the last 1400 years not part of human heritage as well? Shouldn't we preserve that? 



> Indeed  this is, in a way or another, is the official policy in many countries  for the very fact that these languages do not benefit a position same as  that of English-which is an outstanding language in terms of  globalization. ... I got  personally assured that English, as the chosen language of the so-called  Mac World, is gonna replace many local languages in fact (note that my  relative was by that time 8 years old and he had been introduced with  "pyramid" and "Egypt" for first time in his English class).


The official policy in the countries you refer to (for instance, France) is not to remove words that have been used in the language for over a thousand years, but to coin official 'native' replacements for brand-new words like 'computer' or 'Internet' so that the language retains its character.

Also, a small note: the word صاحب is properly transliterated as SaaHib with one 'i' indicating a kasra and not ***SaaHiib with two 'i's which suggests a non-existent word صاحیب .


----------



## Phosphorus

eskandar said:


> Agha-ye mohtaram, I disagree with this analogy.  First of all, you compare the addition of Arabic words to New Persian  to a rupture in the facade of a building. However, a rupture is a purely  destructive thing, whereas the addition of Arabic has been quite  productive.... Thirdly, language is not a monument that exists simply to  looked at. Let us use your building analogy; let's say there is a  centuries-old apartment building that has slowly been updated over time,  adding new parts from different countries (a concrete staircase  replaces the old wooden staircase; electric lamps replace the candles  that used to light it). That is the case of Persian. What you are  proposing is to tear out all of the modern parts (electricity, running  water, concrete, etc.) and replace them with parts that were used to  build the building 1400 years ago. There is simply no reason for it!



Sorry but I did not liken it to a  destructive rupture, but to a break which is not original and can be  replaced by a new one-reconstructed in the same way as the original. And  for your given example I must assert that nothing is going to be  removed (and its role being left alone), unless replaced by an  equivalent (which is often a case that was once actually in use).

Please read more about linguistic purification in order to avoid further misconception.




eskandar said:


> Finally, your argument is about  preserving human heritage. Certainly I  can respect that.



Yes all I care for in this regard is preserving human heritage as original as possible.




eskandar said:


> As I mentioned in my above post, _it is with the addition of Arabic  vocabulary that New Persian gained its strength_, versatility, and poetic  beauty; without it, we would not have the literature of Hafez, Mawlana  Rumi, or any of our many other beloved poets and writers. Secondly, _many_  of the proposed "pure Persian" replacements from Arabic words are not  restoring the language to how it "originally" was because they are  neologisms that never existed in the language before.



I  have but to disagree most heartedly. The golden age of Persian  literature and poetry is not achieved due to the addition of Arabic  words, or actually replacement of original Iranian words in many cases;  but it is rather brought about by the intellectual and spiritual  improvements in the post-Islamic Iran. Just as the so-called freedom of  speech in the early centuries of Hegira was replaced by canonized  penalties for heretics, you observe that great poets (who were actually  either mystics or philosophers) disappear from the stage to the point  that from the elaborately esoteric poems of Hafiz or Khayyam's  exquisitely skeptic rubaiyyat (which both found admiration and  acceptance all around the world and for instance respectively inspired  formidable figures in the modern era such as Wolfgang Goethe and Mark  Twain), we arrive at Bahar or Iraj Mirza's poetry which are, regardless  of their popularity and poetic beauty, but very loose compared to their  medieval predecessors:


گو نام ما ز یاد به عمدا چه می بری / خود آید آنکه یاد نیاری ز نام ما (حافظ

رندی دیدم نشسته بر خنگ زمین / نه کفر و نه اسلام و نه دنیا و نه دین
نی حق، نه حقیقت، نه شریعت، نه یقین / اندر دو جهان کرا بود زهره ی این؟

​Versus the following from Bahar:


ای دیو سپید پای در بند / ای گنبد گیتی ای دماوند

​Or this one from Iraj Mirza:


هی گو که حسین کفن ندارد / هی پاره بکن قبای ژنده
!گر زنده نشد عنم به ریشت / گر شد، عن تو به ریش بنده 
​
The mysticism, philosophy and poetic elaboration eflected in the medieval Persian literature has the vaguest thing to do with borrowing from Arabic lexicon.

By the way this is fairly fallacious to consider the academically proposed counterparts for Persian to be mostly neologism.  Words such as "pezeshk", "behbud", "hamsar", "mostmand", "nimruz",  "shamgah", "bamdad", "miyaneh", "vizheh", "no(w)", "amuzesh", "amuzgar",  etc. are no neologies indeed.




eskandar said:


> But  is the Persian language and literature of the last 1400 years not part  of human heritage as well? Shouldn't we preserve that?



If you had honored me by reading my words carefully you would notice your answer in the way I described a _pro conservator_  somewhere else. All words once attested in the language are in fact to  recorded and preserved in the language treasures forever. Dehkhoda and Moin have already managed such a purpose in Persian. 



eskandar said:


> The official policy in the countries you refer  to (for instance, France) is not to remove words that have been used in  the language for over a thousand years, but to coin official 'native'  replacements for brand-new words like 'computer' or 'Internet' so that  the language retains its character.



I did not actually mean France, but for example Turkish language (however one may find its purification by TDK a disaster).  However they, after centuries of establishing a language academy, do not  seek similar policies in French anymore but for this regard I can name  Francois de Malherbe that is said to be preoccupied with reusing  obsolete French words in order to purify the language. This Wikipedia  article is good to know more about linguistic purism and its various  kinds and purposes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism#Forms_of_purism


And indeed you can, and will be most welcomed if, once frame your future methodologically  inferred arguments, regarding linguistic purism, in shape of a  scientific article and revolutionize linguistic policies in Iran and  countries the like.




eskandar said:


> Also, a small note: the word صاحب is properly transliterated as SaaHib with one 'i' indicating a kasra and not ***SaaHiib with two 'i's which suggests a non-existent word صاحیب .



Thanks for your correctional note.


----------



## eskandar

I think we have very different, and most likely irreconcilable, views on what it means to conserve a language and its heritage and so perhaps it's best to leave it at that, especially as this discussion has gone far off-topic.


----------



## Phosphorus

eskandar said:


> I think we have very different, and most likely irreconcilable, views on what it means to conserve a language and its heritage and so perhaps it's best to leave it at that, especially as this discussion has gone far off-topic.



Yes indeed pal.


----------

