# Persian: Difference between یک and -ی Indefinite Article



## 10qwert23

Hello everyone,

In persian -ی  can be added to mean multiple things (one, any, some). For example: کتابی داری؟ Can mean, "do you have *a* book" or "do you have *any* books". There is amiguity.

Can یک also take the meaning of "any" or "some" ? Or does it only ever mean a/one. 

Thank You!


----------



## Qureshpor

The following thread may (emphasis on may) be useful. 

Persian: The ye of indefiniteness


----------



## mannoushka

10qwert23 said:


> Can یک also take the meaning of "any" or "some" ? Or does it only ever mean a/one.



Hi, 10qwert23. _Yek_ + noun can stand for ‘a’, ‘any’, or ‘some’. There may be a nuance, though, which is best shown through the intonation. The examples below reflect more the presence of nuances than of a straightforward usage. (Really the plainest and closest thing in Persian to ‘do you have any/some books?’ is کتاب داری؟)

Examples:

یک کتاب دارم
I have a book.
I have one book.
I do have the one book.

یک کتابی دارم!
I have some book!

یک کتاب‌هایی دارم.
I do have some books.

یک کتاب داری؟
Do you have a book?
Do you have any books?
Do you have even one book?

یک کتاب ندارم
I don’t have just the one book.
I don’t have a book even.


----------



## PersoLatin

----یک plus noun plus ی always means “some”:
I heard some noise یک صدایی شنیدم
Today some boy (random) came here  امروز یک پسری آمد اینجا

----Noun plus ی in most cases is the same as یک plus noun and is equivalent to English “a”:
I heard a noise  یک صدا شنیدم / صدایی شنیدم
Today a/one boy (not a girl) came here  امروز یک پسر/پسری آمد اینجا
Did anyone come today امروز کسی آمد؟

----Noun plus ی can also mean "some", unspecified amount of the noun when noun is not countable:
He entered and had some food / او وارد شد و غذایی خورد (can also be  یک غذایی)
As soon as we arrived we went out for some air تا رسیدیم رفتیم بیرون هوایی بخوریم (can also be  یک هوایی)

----Other examples:

I heard a sound  صدایی شنیدم/ یک صدا شنیدم
I heard some noise  یک صدایی شنیدم
I heard the noise  صدا را شنیدم

We‘ve had food غذا خورده ایم
We had some food غدایی خوردیم/ یک غدایی خوردیم

She said one thing only فقط بک چیز گفت

And how about یکی بود یکی نبود?


----------



## taraa

PersoLatin said:


> ----یک plus noun plus ی always means “some”:
> I heard some noise یک صدایی شنیدم
> Today some boy (random) came here  امروز یک پسری آمد اینجا
> 
> ----Noun plus ی in most cases is the same as یک plus noun and is equivalent to English “a”:
> I heard a noise  یک صدا شنیدم / صدایی شنیدم
> Today a boy (not a girl) came here  امروز یک پسر/پسری آمد اینجا
> Did anyone come today امروز کسی آمد؟
> 
> ----Noun plus ی can also mean "some", unspecified amount of the noun when noun is not countable:
> He entered and had some food / او وارد شد و غذایی خورد (can also be  یک غذایی)
> As soon as we arrived we went out for some air تا رسیدیم رفتیم بیرون هوایی بخوریم (can also be  یک هوایی)
> 
> ----Other examples:
> 
> I heard a sound  صدایی شنیدم/ یک صدا شنیدم
> I heard some noise  یک صدایی شنیدم
> I heard the noise  صدا را شنیدم
> 
> We‘ve had food غذا خورده ایم
> We had some food غدایی خوردیم/ یک غدایی خوردیم
> 
> She said one thing only فقط بک چیز گفت



Many thanks for this wonderful explanation!!!


----------



## Qureshpor

What would the significance be if a word like کتابی is preceded by چہ ، کدام، ھر ، ھیچ، این، آن etc ?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> And how about یکی بود یکی نبود?


One version is:  یکی بود، یکی نبود، زیر گنبد کبود، غیر از خدا هیچکس نبود

I take the meaning in the following sense.

یکی بود، یکی نبود = یکی آمد، دیگری رفت

زیر گنبد کبود = در این جھان

غیر از خدا هیچکس نبود = غیر از خدا ھیچ چیز نخواھد ماند

That is to say, the time frame in which the story teller's narrative relates to is of days gone by. From that time to the present, people have come (been born) and gone (died) from under the blue sky  (our world). One constant factor is that God was always there in this coming and going and will contine to exist in this coming and going. This formula یکی بود یکی نبود as we all know is usually translated as "Once upon a time...".


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> One version is: یکی بود، یکی نبود، زیر گنبد کبود، غیر از خدا هیچکس نبود
> 
> I take the meaning in the following sense.
> 
> یکی بود، یکی نبود = یکی آمد، دیگری رفت
> 
> زیر گنبد کبود = در این جھان
> 
> غیر از خدا هیچکس نبود = غیر از خدا ھیچ چیز نخواھد ماند
> 
> That is to say, the time frame in which the story teller's narrative relates to is of days gone by. From that time to the present, people have come (been born) and gone (died) from under the blue sky (our world). One constant factor is that God was always there in this coming and going and will contine to exist in this coming and going. This formula یکی بود یکی نبود as we all know is usually translated as "Once upon a time...".


Thank you for this interpretation Qureshpor sir, I do agree with it. I did however pose that question rhetorically, it was a reminder that یک  can take ی without a noun in between, but it follows the same rule, so یکی simply means “someone/somebody”


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> What would the significance be if a word like کتابی is preceded by چہ ، کدام، ھر ، ھیچ، این، آن etc ?


These need context as meaning can change, especially since most of these can be followed by که which will make کتاب a specific object e.g. : ....آن کتابی که - the book that..... but if you can provide an example where آن کتابی (or any other noun) is not followed by a که that references it , then that'll be good although I don't expect the meaning to change from a non specific noun..

Although I believe in these cases, i.e. noun plus ی followed که, the noun (کتاب) should be followed by /_é_/ sound like /e/ in English 'bed' or /a/,
so _ ân ketâbé/ketâba ké_
and not_ ân ketâbi ké _

These days this style (_ketâbé/ketâba_) has moved to colloquial speech only, e.g. mard_é goft _مرده گفت "the man said", i.e. a man all sides of conversation know about.

کتابی preceded by هر, چه ،کدام, ھیچ  means any, every or whichever book, e.g. :
!!چه حسابی چه کتابی “what account(s) what book(s) !!!”, so non specific book or account.


----------



## mannoushka

Qureshpor said:


> What would the significance be if a word like کتابی is preceded by چہ ، کدام، ھر ، ھیچ، این، آن etc ?


Well, they basically qualify the noun کتابی. That would be the function of these words, generally speaking. Do they stand in for ‘some’ or ‘any’? The word هیچ may be used so, as in,
 هیچ کتابی داریم؟ 
Do we have any books?
هیچ کتابی نداریم
We haven’t got any books.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> These need context as meaning can change, especially since most of these can be followed by که which will make کتاب a specific object e.g. : ....آن کتابی که - the book that..... but if you can provide an example where آن کتابی (or any other noun) is not followed by a که that references it , then that'll be good although I don't expect the meaning to change from a non specific noun......


Thank you PersoLatin. My question concerns constructions without که. We have discussed constructions like کبایکه in the other thread I have provided a link to in my earlier post. Perhaps, the moderators can merge these two threads.

I have words like این یکی، آن یکی  in mind as well as other nouns affixed with this ی. Here are two examples to provide the full context.

*این یکے* شیر است اندر بادیه
و آن دگر شیر است اندر بادیه
*این یکے* شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد
و *آن یکے* شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد

*مولانا جلال الدّین رومی*

سرود رفته باز آید کہ ناید
نسیمے از حجاز آید کہ ناید
سرآمد روزگارِ* این فقیرے*
دگر دانای راز آید کہ ناید

*اقبال*


----------



## mannoushka

It seems to me that in “_in yeki sheer ast_” the _yaa_ serves to turn the adjective _yek_ into a noun.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> سرآمد روزگارِ* این فقیرے*


فقیری here means "poverty" or فقر and the ی on it is not the type under discussion here, or am I misunderstanding the meaning?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> فقیری here means "poverty" or فقر and the ی on it is not the type under discussion here, or am I misunderstanding the meaning?


No, the poet is talking about himself. The word is فقیرے "a faqiir" and not فقیری poverty.

The lines translate into English something like:-

The bygone song, will it come back or not?
A  breeze from Hijaaz, will it come or not?
Days of this dervish have come to an end
Will another knower of secrets come or not?


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> *این یکے* شیر است اندر بادیه
> و آن دگر شیر است اندر بادیه
> *این یکے* شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد
> و *آن یکے* شیر است کی آدم مے خورد


In Persian این دوتا means "these two" and آن پنج‌ تا "those five" but آن یکی "that one",
so why not آن یکتا for “that one” and آن پنجی for “those five”. But that doesn’t answer the question and only highlights some exceptions at play which I can’t quite explain it but maybe مولانا started that exceptional trend.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> No, the poet is talking about himself. The word is فقیرے "a faqiir" and not فقیری poverty.
> 
> The line translates into English something like
> 
> The bygone song, will it come back or not
> A breeze from Hijaaz, will it come or not
> Days of this dervish have come to an end
> Will another knower of secrets come or not


Now I understand but not by reading it, basically I don’t understand the construct این فقیری in the context.

آن دختر means "that girl" but آن دختری is meaningless unless it is followed by که.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Now I understand but not by reading it, basically I don’t understand the construct این فقیری in the context.
> 
> آن دختر means "that girl" but آن دختری is meaningless unless it is followed by که.


I would say این فقیرے/این فقیری means "this particular dervish" and آن دخترے/آن دختری "that particular girl".


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> In Persian این دوتا means "these two" and آن پنج‌ تا "those five" but آن یکی "that one",
> so why not آن یکتا for “that one” and آن پنجی for “those five”. But that doesn’t answer the question and only highlights some exceptions at play which I can’t quite explain but will think about it.



این یکے *شیر* است اندر بادیه
و آن دگر *شیر* است اندر بادیه
این یکے شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد
و آن یکے شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد

iin yake *shiir* ast andar baadiyah
va aan yake *sher* ast andar baadiyah
iin yake shiir ast kih aadam me-xvarad
va aan yake sher ast kih aadam mexvarad

This particular one is *milk* inside a goblet
And that other one is a *lion* inside a forest
This particular one is milk that consumes man
That particular one, a lion that consumes man


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you.



Qureshpor said:


> iin yake *shiir* ast andar baadiyah
> va aan yake *sher* ast andar baadiyah
> iin yake shiir ast kih aadam me-xvarad
> va aan yake sher ast kih aadam mexvarad


I appreciate the pronunciation style is classical Persian, however I don’t understand the reason you have two versions  in me-xvarad & mexvarad, surely these two are pronounced the same, classical or not, can you explain this please.

Also baadiah is a bowel with no handles or lid, goblet is a bit too poetic for milk.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I appreciate the pronunciation style is classical Persian, however I don’t understand the reason you have two versions  in me-xvarad & mexvarad, surely these two are pronounced the same, classical or not, can you explain this please.


Yes, I can PersoLatin. They are both the same. I did not place a dash in one of them.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> I did not place a dash in one of them.


Sorry, did not or did? It doesn’t matter really but there is one there.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Sorry, did not or did?


To clarify, I should have written both of them, either as me-xvarad or mexvarad. I put a dash in to indicate that "مے me" is a prefix. I should have put in the dash for the second one too! Basically, a typo on my part.


----------



## PersoLatin

Ok thanks.

Another one, is mexvarad a classical Persian pronunciation, although going off-topic?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Ok thanks.
> 
> Another one, is mexvarad a classical Persian pronunciation, although going off-topic?


Yes. The prefix was "hame" and "me" (ھمے / مے).

خو xv only later became xu as in xush.

گل ھمین پنج روز و شش باشد
وین گلستان ھمیشه خوش باشد

سعدی

gul hamiin panj r*o*z u sh*ash* baashad
viin gulistaan ham*e*shah xv*ash* baashad

پس از عمرے که دل خونابه میخورد
خرد بیرون شد و دل کار میکرد

عبید زاکانی

جمله را میآورد میپروَرَد
میکشد در خاک و خونش میخوَرَد

عطّار


----------



## eskandar

Qureshpor said:


> این یکے شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد
> 
> iin yake shiir ast kih aadam me-xvarad
> 
> 
> This particular one is milk that consumes man


This should be "this particular one is milk that *man consumes*", no? That's how I understand the meaning.


----------



## Qureshpor

eskandar said:


> This should be "this particular one is milk that *man consumes*", no? That's how I understand the meaning.


Yes, this is exactly the meaning. I have tried to word it in such a way to convey the same ambiguity which Rumi has done by missing out را.


----------



## eskandar

Got it. Unfortunately the ambiguity is impossible in English, which has stricter word order (SVO) than Persian, so "milk that consumes man" will necessarily be understood as milk being the subject and man the object.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> این یکے *شیر* است اندر بادیه
> و آن دگر *شیر* است اندر بادیه
> این یکے شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد
> و آن یکے شیر است کہ آدم مے خورد


In modern Persian شیری که آدم میخورد can be interpreted as:
The lion that devours people
Or
The milk that people devour

آدم خوردن does not need را  the verb is a compound, we have آدم‌خور “man-eater” or علف‌خوار/علف‌خور ‌”herbivore”

For English speakers maybe the better translation is what follows. One must bear in mind that in Persian the word for milk & lion which is shir, is spelt exactly the same way (شیر). The point Molavi is making is that “one must not go by appearances alone”, here the identical spelling, and uses shir once for lion & once for milk.

This one is *shir* (milk) inside a bowel
[While] that one is *shir* (lion) in the woods
This one is *shir* (milk) that human devours
[While] that one is *shir* (lion) that devours human (is a man-eater)


----------



## Qureshpor

eskandar said:


> Got it. Unfortunately the ambiguity is impossible in English, which has stricter word order (SVO) than Persian, so "milk that consumes man" will necessarily be understood as milk being the subject and man the object.


Sure, but with a little poetic licence, one can get away with murder, believe you me! What say you?


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> gul hamiin panj r*o*z u sh*ash* baashad
> viin gulistaan ham*e*shah xv*ash* baashad


I cannot  see how shash and xvash keep the rhythm, is xvash one syllable? Unless xvash is pronounced as خش/xash


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> I cannot  see how shash and xvash keep the rhythm, is xvash one syllable? Unless xvash is pronounced as خش/xash


xv was just one consonant. So, to answer your question directly, no it was not pronounced "xash" but "xvash". Just as "sh" in "shash" is one consonat, "xv" in "xvash" is one consonant.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> xv was just one consonant. So, to answer your question directly, no it was not pronounced "xash" but "xvash". Just as "sh" in "shash" is one consonat, "xv" in "xvash" is one consonant.


I suppose since خور is cognate with  English _swallow_, you can see how its /x/ & /v/ merge the way /s/ & /w/ do, the move from xvash to xosh must be, in big part, because of Arabic script, خوش can be read as xvash, xvesh, xosh or xowsh.


----------



## Derakhshan

It was probably a labialized /x/, or /xʷ/. It was reckoned as one consonant.

Listen to it here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Labialized_voiceless_velar_fricative.ogg



PersoLatin said:


> the move from xvash to xosh must be, in big part, because of Arabic script, خوش can be read as xvash, xvesh, xosh or xowsh.


Not likely. Written language didn't really affect spoken language, since the vast majority of people were illiterate. We see the /xwa/ > /xo/ change in some other Western Iranian languages which weren't even written down until recently.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> Written language didn't really affect spoken language, since the vast majority of people were illiterate.


Ok I can accept that to a large extent for Persian words and Persians, but how about Persian words that were introduced into other languages via text only?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Now I understand but not by reading it, basically I don’t understand the construct این فقیری in the context.
> 
> آن دختر means "that girl" but آن دختری is meaningless unless it is followed by که.


A couple of examples from Rumi's Masnavi.

آن زنی می خواست تا با مُولِ خود 
بر زند در پیشِ شویِ گُولِ خود

آن حکیمی گفت دیدم هم تکی
در بیابان زاغ را با لکلکی


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> A couple of examples from Rumi's Masnavi.
> 
> آن زنی می خواست تا با مُولِ خود
> بر زند در پیشِ شویِ گُولِ خود
> 
> آن حکیمی گفت دیدم هم تکی
> در بیابان زاغ را با لکلکی


When I read this I understand clearly that مولوی is saying "this/a woman wanted/intended to cover up her extra marital affair...." so ی function is to make زن indefinite, the same goes for حکیم.

I don't see the same clarity in *این فقیرے* below,  maybe that's just me.


Qureshpor said:


> سرود رفته باز آید کہ ناید
> نسیمے از حجاز آید کہ ناید
> سرآمد روزگارِ* این فقیرے*
> دگر دانای راز آید کہ ناید


----------



## Qureshpor

A couple of more examples.

مترجمین بہ *چنین دستورھائی* احتیاج داشتہ اند

Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study - Gernot. L. Windfuhr

   و ابوالحسن بن یحییٰ اندر کتاب معالجت بقراطی (کہ اندر طبّ کس* چنان کتابی* نکردہ است) بر شمرد از ائمّہ و حکما و فضلا و فلاسفہ کہ چند از ایشان بدان علّت معلول گشتہ اند۔ 

 چہار مقالہ


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Now I understand but not by reading it, basically I don’t understand the construct این فقیری in the context.
> 
> آن دختر means "that girl" but آن دختری is meaningless unless it is followed by که.


Here are a few examples from عطّار

داشت ریشی بس بزرگ آن ابلهی
غرقه شد در آب دریا ناگهی

گشت عاشق بر ایاز آن مفلسی
این سخن شد فاش در هر مجلسی

منطق الطّیر

از درونت چون بر آید آن دمی
این جھانت آن جھان گردد ھمی

مصیبت نامه


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> Ok I can accept that to a large extent for Persian words and Persians, but how about Persian words that were introduced into other languages via text only?


It seemingly did occur. I made note of one case here.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> Here are a few examples from عطّار
> 
> داشت ریشی بس بزرگ آن ابلهی
> غرقه شد در آب دریا ناگهی
> 
> گشت عاشق بر ایاز آن مفلسی
> این سخن شد فاش در هر مجلسی


In the above examples ی- (on ابلهی & ناگهی only) is used purely for style it has no added meaning,  removing them should prove it.



Qureshpor said:


> از درونت چون بر آید آن دمی
> این جھانت آن جھان گردد ھمی


ی- on دمی here is added to keep the weight & rhyme on همی & has no other meaning.

I look forward to hearing what your interpretation is which must be different to mine.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> It seemingly did occur. I made note of one case here.


Yes thanks, an example of Perso-Arabic being misread. There are also examples of Pahlavi text being misread. 

However I find the diminutive ending you mention in that link unfamiliar, maybe you had to put it that way in order not to confuse the audience, as that suffix is simply -a suffix which primarily means ‘like’ especially is the case of example in OP, the diminutive sense of -a is secondary.

I didn’t reply to the post there as the forum is not relevant.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> In the above examples ی- (on ابلهی & ناگهی only) is used purely for style it has no added meaning,  removing them should prove it.
> 
> 
> ی- on دمی here is added to keep the weight & rhyme on همی & has no other meaning.
> 
> I look forward to hearing what your interpretation is which must be different to mine.


I hope I am not going to waste your and my time over this but I have produced this evidence as you had problem with Iqbal's usage of این فقیری (see your quote in #38) because it had a demonstrative before the word ending in an indefinite ی marker. I had provided examples of this from Maulavi and others in the past and am providing further examples from عطّار 's works this time.

The ی (majhuul in all the examples) has a very distinct purpose imparting individuality and particularity to the meaning of the word. It has nothing to do with style or weight and rhyme. That's all I am going to say about this matter. However, if you wish to see scholarly evidence with regard to what I have said, I can do this.


----------



## Derakhshan

I found a very interesting (and long) paper, I'll have to give it a reread but the gist is that:

In the vernacular language there is a "deictic -_i_" that is stressed, unlike یای نکره and is often used adverbially: _in yek-i_ "this one", _sobh-i_ "this morning", _avval-i_ "the first one". This "deictic -_i_" does not have an indefinite value
This "deictic -_i_" may be present in the Classical language
Examples are given:

_Mardom *nikutarin yādgār‑i* soxan dānestand_ ‘Men have regarded the (sapiential) word as the best monument’.
- Prose Shahnameh

_Va bāyad ke pārsā bāši ke malek‑e nāpārsā‑rā ḥormat nabāšad va *avval kār‑i* ān koni ke xazāne‑rā va beyt al‑māl‑rā ābādān dāri ... va *mohemmtar kār‑i* ān‑ast ke_ ... ‘You should be pious, for an impious ruler receives no respect; and, irst of all, you should keep the private and public treasuries in a prosperous    condition    ...    and    the    most    important    thing    is    that    ...’
- Pandnāme‑ye Soboktagin

The same examples @Qureshpor has cited from منطق الطير are also mentioned:

"A couple of examples of the suffix -_i_ (of indetermination) after a substantive preceded by the demonstrative _ān_, from ʿAṭṭār’s Manṭeq al‑Ṭeyr, are also given by Abo l-Qāsemi. This author quite surprisingly attributes an indeterminate meaning to these expressions, without giving any explanation whatsoever. the reason for this statement may simply be that Abo l-Qāsemi interprets the suffix _-i_ in these forms as an occurrence of the _yā‑ye nakere_; therefore, even a phrase like_ ān ablah‑i_ ‘that fool’ would have an indeterminate value.

"It is true that, in ʿAṭṭār’s poem, there are a number of passages where a substantive preceded by _ān _and followed by _-i_ appears at the beginning of a new story (_ḥekāyat_): _*ān ġarib‑i*‑rā vezārat dād šāh_ ‘the king appointed a certain foreigner as minister’; _dāšt riš‑i bas bozorg *ān ablah‑i*_ ‘A foolish man had a very long beard’; _gašt ʿāšeq bar Ayāz *ān mofles‑i*_ ‘A poor wretch fell in love with Ayāz’;* ān morid‑i*_ šeyx‑rā goft_ ... ‘A certain disciple said to the sheikh ...’.10 However, these forms cannot be interpreted as endowed with an indefinite value, even though what is being spoken of is mentioned for the first time only at that point. In this connection, we might also compare the use – typical in stories – of the “definite” forms _inyek‑i_ and _ānyek‑i_ in example [7], where the wet-nurse asks ‘this one’ or ‘that one’ for help, even though they are obviously persons who are not known and cannot be identified, or in example [16], where Hātefi uses the pronouns _inyek‑i_ ‘this one’ and _ān _‘that one’ to refer to two not really determinated persons, so as to make the description of the party more vivid.10

...

"Another use of ‑_i_ unknown to the contemporary language and already pointed out by Meier and others (see above) is the addition of the suix to a substantive preceded by a demostrative (e.g._ *ān ablah‑i* _‘that fool’) or a substantive with determinate value as *hodhod‑i* ‘the/that hoopoe’ and* kudak‑i* ‘the/that child’ in the examples ofered by Moʿin (see § 3). Instances of this usage have also been found by Judith Josephson in late Pahlavi and early Judaeo-Persian texts. 133

"For literary New Persian, the only instances adduced so far are from ʿAṭṭār’s Manṭeq al‑Ṭeyr. this suggests that we have to do with a spoken or possibly dialectal feature which only occasionally gets into literary texts. In such occurrences, the -_i_ corresponds exactly with the so-called “determinative article” -_e _of the contemporary spoken variety (see § 2.7). The following example, also taken from the Manṭeq al‑Ṭeyr, is especially clear and provides further evidence that this sufix was formerly a long _ē_, as it rhymes with _hami_, earlier _hamē_: [38]

_"Az darun‑at cun bar āyad *ān dam‑i* / in jahān‑at ān jahān gardad hami_ ‘When that breath (*ān dam‑i, the last breath*) exhales from you, this world becomes the other world for you’.1"

From what I can see, this sort of thing occurs frequently in منطق الطير and cannot be regarded as simply "stylistic". Its presence in the text may reflect that the text was closer than usual to the contemporary spoken language.

"*It has been noticed that, in Early and Classical New Persian, the yā‑ye ešārat or yā‑ye taʿrif was not always followed by a relative clause.*1 Moʿin himself took the suix in _hodhod‑i_ ‘the/that hoopoe’ and _kudak‑i_ ‘the/that child’ as the suffix corresponding to our -i rel, which in turn he considered as a specialization of the _yā‑ye nakere_ (see § 3). So, exx. [30]-[43] can be interpreted as containing instances of the _yā‑ye ešārat_ or_ yā‑ye taʿrif_ in its absolute use, not subjected to the presence of a subsequent relative clause.

"In Early and Classical New Persian, then, the suffix of _yā‑ye ešārat_ could be used in the following cases:

1) in adverbial and pronominal forms such as _āngah‑i_ ‘then, that (very) time’, _emruz‑i_ ‘just today, only today’, _šabāngah‑i_ ‘this evening’, _inyek‑i/ānyek‑i_ ‘this/ that one’, _folān‑i_ ‘that person’, _digar‑i_ ‘another/the other’, that are today continued in analogous forms (§§ 2.1 and 2.2);

2) after a noun preceded by a superlative, the adjective _avval _‘first’, or a demonstrative, or simply when the noun was determined by the context (_hodhod‑i_ ‘the/that hoopoe’, _kudak‑i_ ‘the/that child’) or its reference was pragmatically individuated (_yā narjes‑i_ ‘O narcissus’). This use is no more alive in standard New Persian of Iran, to such an extent that sometimes, in classical and pre-classical texts, occurrences of the _yā‑ye ešārat_ in this usage raise problems of identification.

It is probable that such contemporary spoken forms as _ān vaqt‑i _‘then, at that (very) time’,_ ān ruz‑i_ ‘on that (very) day’, _cahāršanbe‑i _‘on Wednesday’, _ṣobḥ‑i _‘on this/that morning’, _(ham)ānṭowr‑i _‘thus, in the same way’,_ folān‑i_ ‘that person’ represent crystallized survivals of forms with _yā‑ye ešārat_ in its absolute use. In early and Classical new Persian the forms with _yā‑ye ešārat_ could, and in contemporary new Persian still can be followed by a relative clause introduced by ke: (ān) mard‑i ke ... ‘the man who’,_ zeštarin ṣurat‑i ke_ ... ‘the ugliest igure that ...’, _(ān) ruz‑i ke_ ... ‘that day, in which ...’, _(ān) vaqt‑i ke_ ... ‘when ...’, _hamānṭowr‑i ke_ ... ‘at the same way that ...’,_ folān‑i ke_ ... ‘the person who ...’, _ān kas‑i ke_ ‘the person who’,_ avval ciz‑i ke_ ... ‘the first thing that ...’, _ey šāh‑i ke_ ... ‘oh king who ...’.

*In Early and Classical New Persian the use of the suffix in these cases and with this value (yā‑ye ešārat) was optional and redundant, whether such expressions were followed by a relative clause or not. On the other hand, in contemporary New Persian the presence of ‑i rel after a noun determined by a relative clause is mandatory."*


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> Yes thanks, an example of Perso-Arabic being misread. There are also examples of Pahlavi text being misread.
> 
> However I find the diminutive ending you mention in that link unfamiliar, maybe you had to put it that way in order not to confuse the audience, as that suffix is simply -a suffix which primarily means ‘like’ especially is the case of example in OP, the diminutive sense of -a is secondary.
> 
> I didn’t reply to the post there as the forum is not relevant.


It was -_ūya_ and not just -_a_, otherwise how do you explain the -_ūy_- in _sīb-ūy-a_?

There's a wiktionary page on it here. This suffix is very common in placenames in the southern provinces of the country, and you're right that its value is not always diminutive, but simply descriptive. A town named گچویه means "place where there is gypsum", for example.


----------



## Qureshpor

Derakhshan said:


> I found a very interesting (and long) paper


Thank you @Derakhshan. This is exactly the paper I had in mind.


----------



## Derakhshan

Derakhshan said:


> It was -_ūya_ and not just -_a_, otherwise how do you explain the -_ūy_- in _sīb-ūy-a_?


My guess is that you're interpreting his name as _sīb-būy-a _"apple-scented"? I've heard that interpretation before in real life_. _But _-ūya _is a known suffix with dozens of examples given on the page I linked. (Well, it's not really known to most modern speakers, but was very productive in Classical Persian names)


----------



## Qureshpor

Derakhshan said:


> My guess is that you're interpreting his name as _sīb-būy-a _"apple-scented"? I've heard that interpretation before in real life_. _But _-ūya _is a known suffix with dozens of examples given on the page I linked. (Well, it's not really known to most modern speakers, but was very productive in Classical Persian names)


In Punjabi, we use a Persian word "bad-roy-ah" ( one with bad-face = ugly) where "ro" is face (the old pronunciation). Similarly I would suggest (guess) that Sibawah's name (title) could have been "seb" (apple - with a mjhuul ye) + "boy" (scent- with majhuul vaa'o) resulting in seb-boy > seboy

Finally seboy + ah (indicating possession) = seboyah (one with scent of apple)

I am not in anyway negating the existence of the ویه suffix.


----------



## Derakhshan

فرهنگ نامها actually gives both interpretations:

به معنی* سیب کوچک *یا* بوی سیب
*
So I don't know. After some googling, it seems there isn't really a consensus on this.


----------



## Derakhshan

Derakhshan said:


> It seemingly did occur. I made note of one case here.


I'm now calling this into question (see latest post in that thread).

----

I'm now convinced that it does *not *derive from سيب بوى "apple fragrance" at all, as I explained in that thread. But this is offtopic, so let's keep it in the other thread.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> _"Az darun‑at cun bar āyad *ān dam‑i* / in jahān‑at ān jahān gardad hami_ ‘When that breath (*ān dam‑i, the last breath*) exhales from you, this world becomes the other world for you’.1"


I appreciate this is from that paper/source/article.

Anyway I completely disagree with the above translation/interpretation, it is simply wrong, it ignores the pivotal function of _hami _on _gardad_. Please tell me what's poetic about stating the obvious which the above interpretation does. "When that breath exhales from you this world becomes the other world for you", wow how deep & poetic is this description of death!! We need to give our poets a lot more credit.

از درونت چون بر آید آن دمی
این جھانت آن جھان گردد ھمی

This is saying, almost literally: as e_very breath comes out from your within, this world becomes the other (hami/repeatedly)_

ھمی/_hami _here gives us the repeated action and therefore _every_. In other words, you are only away from death by one breath. This is not my take of it this is what is being said.

Of course many will disagree with me but I can see this misinterpretation has led to a search for a deeper meaning for _-i_ in _dam‑i_ and of course there isn't any, it's added so it rhymes with _hami_.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Anyway I completely disagree with the above translation/interpretation, it is simply wrong, it ignores the pivotal function of _hami _on _gardad_. Please tell me what's poetic about stating the obvious which the above interpretation does.





PersoLatin said:


> Of course many will disagree with me but I can see this misinterpretation has led to a search for a deeper meaning for _-i_ in _dam‑i_ and of course there isn't any, it's added so it rhymes with _hami_.


I know your comments are addressed to @Derakhshan but please allow me to make a comment. No doubt @Derakhshan will respond to you at his leisure.

From my personal perspective, it matters not what the translation/interpretation is, its poetic merit and what the function of "hame" is (which I know pretty well) and whether you regard the addition of ی in the samples provided as superfulous or not. All I am doing is providing you with examples from the best of the best Persian writers of ی (majhuul) added to a word preceded by این، آن، چنین، چنان etc to back Iqbal's usage. (By the way, the same paper writer gives an example from Shah Naamah too). So, Iqbal's usage of این فقیری is perfectly fine and follows a millenium of such usage.

سرود رفته باز آید کہ ناید
نسیمے از حجاز آید کہ ناید
سرآمد روزگارِ* این فقیرے*
دگر دانای راز آید کہ ناید


----------



## PersoLatin

You choose to ignore what I say, that of course is your prerogative. I just wish there was someone on this forum who would contribute to this topic & stop this torture for both of us.

Also my comments, as I tried to make clear, were addressed to the references derakhshan provided.


----------

