# Pahlavi words ending in a vowel



## PersoLatin

I have taken the following list (not exhaustive) of M.Persian/Iranian words, from ‘A CONCISE PAHLAVI DICTIONARY by D. N. MAcKENZIE’, they are in (transliterated) Pahlavi. I have added the modern equivalents, myself. Note, all Pahlavi words end in a 'g' and the modern equivalents, end in a vowel. This is a consistent pattern, which must have also been applied to the past participle of MP verbs, but my reference didn’t list any PP's, most dictionaries don’t.

The theory (below) may have already been proved to be correct, or incorrect, by someone else, but I can't find any evidence of it. There may be well be inaccuracies and I am sure they’ll be pointed out, so I'm hoping the forum can shed some light on this.


_My theory:_

_Regarding the above group of words only, I don't believe the final 'g' was ever pronounced in MP speech, and it was only used in written form, and purely to help pronounce the final vowel, much like a convention. The original Aramaic which Pahlavi was based on, most probably lacked single letters which could be used to represent vowels at the end of MP words, therefore this convention was devised. In fact if you look at the original Pahlavi, for any of the above, you will see, 2, sometimes 3 letters, including the 'g', representing the final vowel._

_Most examples I've given, have I.E. roots, some like setâré (star), (zânu) knee, hafté (week, hept), âšnâ (known) & piâdé (on foot) are very obviously PIE. Also these words have nothing in common with one another, except for their vowel ending. So which of the change rules (sound or form), applicable to PIE, is responsible for this? I don't believe any is. So I think this final 'g' needs a rethink and should be banished._

In modern Persian, the same 'g' acts as a liaison in words of group 4, e.g. plural of setâré to setâregân (star, stars) or zendé to zendgi (alive, life).

When Arabic became the mainstream script for Persian, the written representation of these words changed to the current, modern version, with exception of group 4. In order to force the reader pronounce the end ‘a’ or ‘e’ vowel sound, the Arabic h (ه) was added at the end of such words:  hafté - هفته(week), setâré - ستاره(star) or piâdé - پیاده (on foot)

1- Known - âšnâg ==> âšnâ
    Visible - paydāg ==> peydâ
    Visionary - wēnâg ==> binâ

2- Charactor/nature - xôg ==> xu خو
    Sorcery - jâdug ==> jâdu
    Desire/wish - ârzôg ==> ârezu
    Knee -zânûg ==> zânu

3- Ship - kaštig ==> kašti

4- Week - haftag ==> hafté 
   All - hamag  ==> hamé
   Alive - zandag ==> zendé
   Star - setârag ==> setâré


----------



## CyrusSH

I just mentioned in another thread that Arabic _rezq_ is a loanword from Middle Persian _ruzig_ (modern Persian _ruzi_), it seems to be obvious that "g" was pronounced in Middle Persian.


----------



## fdb

What PersoLatin writes is partially, but only partially correct.

Let us take a simple example: the word for “child” starts off in Old Iranian as zāta- (a verbal adjective from the zero-grade of the root zan- “to  engender”, pre-Iranian *zṇH-), then, with suffix, zātaka-, then zātak, then (at the latest in the 3rd century AD) Middle Persian zādag, then (perhaps from the early 9th century) New Persian zāδa, and finally modern Western Persian zāde. In Zoroastrian Middle Persian (Pahlavi) this word is written zʼtk, which is a historic spelling for spoken /zādag/, but in Manichaean Middle Persian it is spelt phonologically (at least as far as the consonants are concerned) as zʼdg. This development can be confirmed by the many West Iranian loanwords in Old Aramaic (with –k-), Armenian (with –k), Syriac (with –g), and later Arabic (with –j or –q).

Zoroastrian Pahlavi books written during the Islamic period still write zʼtk, although their authors were surely reading it as zāδa. In this case you can say that the final –k is purely graphic. And we even have a few texts in the New Persian language, but written in Manichaean script. In these we have a purely graphic –g not only in Persian words like rēša (written ryšg), but even Arabic words like jumla (written jwmlg, where the –g is totally un-etymological). You can read about it here: https://archive.org/details/DictionaryOfManichaeanVol2 pp. 89 sqq.


----------



## PersoLatin

'partially correct' is great, sharing my thoughts on the forum, on this, is greater. I'm afraid I'm going to go on a bit.

Doesn't 'partially correct' suggests g/k is valid for most of these words, whilst it is not, for the rest? I can't see how that can be, these words are all the same, i.e. they all end in a vowel, in modern Persian. Unless there is another classification that I have not considered.

If we accept the current understating, then setârak (ستارک) and kaštik (کشتیک) will be correct, how would we then form their diminutive, setârakak (little star ستارکک), kaštikak (little ship کشتیکک)?



fdb said:


> Let us take a simple example: the word for “child” starts off in Old Iranian as zāta- (a verbal adjective from the zero-grade of the root zan- “to engender”, pre-Iranian *zṇH-), then, with suffix, zātaka-, then zātak, then (at the latest in the 3rd century AD) Middle Persian zādag, then (perhaps from the early 9th century) New Persian zāδa, and finally modern Western Persian zāde. In Zoroastrian Middle Persian (Pahlavi) this word is written zʼtk, which is a historic spelling for spoken /zādag/, but in Manichaean Middle Persian it is spelt phonologically (at least as far as the consonants are concerned) as zʼdg. This development can be confirmed by the many West Iranian loanwords in Old Aramaic (with –k-), Armenian (with –k), Syriac (with –g), and later Arabic (with –j or –q).



Your example demonstrate the journey of zâdé (*زاده*), from zāta to zātaka to zātak to zādag to zāδa and finally to zāde or as I write it, zâdé. We started with no g/k and ended up with no g/k. So this 'spelling error' crept in, and when, finally common sense prevailed, it was removed.
fdb - Could you please provide some rough dates, for each of the above changes?

Isn't it safe to assume, that nobody, other than the scholars who originally transliterated the first Iranic language, into Pahlavi/Aramaic, was aware of the added g/k, and it's function? And as time went by, the understanding of function of g/k was lost, but its unsightly presence stayed in text. As for the the rest of the population, they never pronounced these words, with g/k, and why would they? Those who could read, had limited or no access to books. And thank goodness for the ordinary folk.

Can you imagine how the classical Persian poetry would sound like with these words all over the place. Our poor poets would have had no words ending with a vowel, to work with. In fact rhyming would become quite easy, as there would have been an unproportional number of words ending in g/k, to use.

Some of these words (rozig to رزق & others) did find their way into Aramaic, Arabic etc, and surely through the written word, so the recipient had no reason to question the suspect g/k. I don't think we can site this set of words, to disprove this theory.

Manichaean (the name) itself seems to be a victim to this anomaly, 'k' (Latin ch) was added, as Mâni مانی, (the founder's name) ends in a vowel !!

I'm sure with some effort, we can draw a timeline which shows; the introduction of g/k into the Iranian written text, it's transfer to other Iranian & non-Iranian languages and finally its demise.


----------



## CyrusSH

What do think about tarik, barik, nazdik, ...?


----------



## PersoLatin

There is something odd about these words:

târ means dark/hazy, with addition of ik, it changes to târik to, supposedly, mean darkness/haziness, except that târik in current Persian means dark/hazy. But because of that 'anomaly', we have to add yet another i to get târiki, which on the face of it,  achieves the correct meaning of darkness/haziness. Very odd, don't you think?

So, as târi was written târik in Pahlavi, someone included that g/k in the transliteration (by now, to Arabic) & got us into this muddle.

Same goes for nazdik.

I don't know why you included bârik, perhaps you can let me know.


----------



## CyrusSH

What is strange about "barik"?! The original meaning is "weighty" from "bar" (burden), so it can be related to "porbar", Persian synonym is "sanjideh", like "nokt-e barik" = "nokt-e sanjideh", so the suffix "-ik" has not changed to "-eh" in this word.


----------



## PersoLatin

I didn't say it was strange, I just couldn't relate bâr (weight) with narrowness, still can't. I'm happy with the etymology of bâr & its link to burden,



CyrusSH said:


> Persian synonym is "sanjideh", like "nokt-e barik" = "nokt-e sanjideh", so the suffix "-ik" has not changed to "-eh" in this word.



but I don't get the above section at all, please rephrase it for me, as I'd really like to know.

And, please keep in mind the bigger picture, and, that one example can not dismiss a whole idea.

I'd appreciate it, if in your reply, you can let me know your views on what I said about târik, nazdik and رزق, so we can either move on, or discuss them further.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> I didn't say it was strange, I just couldn't relate bâr (weight) with narrowness, still can't. I'm happy with the etymology of bâr & its link to burden



Of course "barik"with the meaning of "narrow" relates to another "bar", do you know what "rudbar" means?  Old Dutch _baerm_, English _berm_: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/berm a narrow ledge of ground, generally the level banks of a river.



> but I don't get the above section at all, please rephrase it for me, as I'd really like to know.
> 
> And, please keep in mind the bigger picture, and, that one example can not dismiss a whole idea.
> 
> I'd appreciate it, if in your reply, you can let me know your views on what I said about târik, nazdik and رزق, so we can either move on, or discuss them further.



I think after the Arab conquest, Iranians preferred to use the Arabic suffix "-i" to form nouns from adjectives than Middle Persian "-ig/-ik".


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi Cyrus,

I really struggle to understand some of your posts, and I don't want to resort to guessing. In post #8, I asked you 2 questions regarding points you raised in your posts #5 & 7, and in return, I got some confusing information. It's not at all clear why you quoted the etymology of those words. To me, they are not relevant. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but that's where I am at.

I appreciate replies to my questions.

Of course accept my apologies, if you intended to reply, at some point.


----------



## CyrusSH

I said, Arabic _rezq_ is a loanword from Middle Persian _ruzig_ (modern Persian ruzi), in Persian _-i_ suffix means "a, one" and can be considered as indefinite sign, so "ruzi" means "one day" but the word _ruz_ with Arabic nisba suffix _-i_ means "related to day" and "sustenance", I believe it doesn't relate to Middle Persian _-ik/-ig_ suffix, because we use it for Arabic origin words too, like قضا and قضایی.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you, that's one answer.

I'm still unclear about:
1 - bârik & how you link it to bâr (load), or indeed if you are making that link. I'm ok with its sense of narrow/narrowness, so all good there.
2 - Your thoughts on what I said about târik & nazdik?

Once I have those answers I will reply to your post #11


----------



## Treaty

I think if there was a suffix for "one" it should have been ē (or ēw) not īg in Middle Persian. I'm sure that Middle Persian had two suffixes for converting adjectives and nouns to each other: īg made relational noun or adjective and īh made essential nouns. For example, if you add īg to noun rōz it gives you rōzīg meaning "daily" or "of day", while adding īh to rōz makes rōzīh that (if existed) means "day-hood" or "quality of being day". All of them (īh, īg and ē) are pronounced ī in Iranian Persian, but I guess there may be a slight difference between the last one and the other two in Tajik, Dari and some regional dialects.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you, that's one answer.
> 
> I'm still unclear about:
> 1 - bârik & how you link it to bâr (load), or indeed if you are making that link. I'm ok with its sense of narrow/narrowness, so all good there.
> 2 - Your thoughts on what I said about târik & nazdik?
> 
> Once I have those answers I will reply to your post #11



I explained in post #9 that barik with the meaning of narrow relates to bar (berm).

Persian _tar_ means "obscure, hazy" but _tarik_ means "dark" (with no light), they have a relation similar to _ruz_ and _ruzig_, the same thing can be said about  _nazd_ ("beside") and _nazdik_ ("near").


----------



## PersoLatin

I really give up with you Cyrus. Surely, you must read what you write before you post it, never mind reading anyone else's.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> I really give up with you Cyrus. Surely, you must read what you write before you post it, never mind reading anyone else's.



Would you please tell me what you would expect that I haven't said? Of course there can't be some exact English words for some Persian words but you know what I meant.


----------



## PersoLatin

Ok Cyrus, here's the thing:

I understand what târik, bârik & nazdik mean, so when I ask for clarification, I don't expect their meaning. Ok granted, sometimes you have to include the meanings, for completeness and sake of others, but only if you accompany it with relevant information, counter arguments, ideas etc, If you look at post #14, your last paragraph lists the meaning of those commonly used Persian words.

Your question (*What do think about tarik, barik, nazdik, ...?*) was very relevant, but the consequent conversations, not much. 

In the next post I will ask the same question (rephrased)


----------



## PersoLatin

My issue with târik and nazdik, is that, at least to me, they don't seem to comply with the normal rules of Persian.

So for a moment, let's forget the topic of this thread. To convert an adjective to a noun, a suffix is added, let's pick 'ik' out of the 3 possible ones: ig, ik or i. Now, add ik to târ(dark, hazy) and get târik. By normal rules of Persian, we expect târik to mean: darkness/haziness/obscurity, BUT as we know, in contemporary Persian, târik means dark, hazy, i.e. the same as târ. So this time, to make sure, we add the more sensible suffix 'i', but to târik, and not to, târ. Do we agree that we have applied two lot of suffixes, i.e. târ + ik + i, where one in usually enough?

The same exact argument, applies to nazdik (near, close by, close etc).

Both نزدیک nazdik and تاریک târik are used by Ferdôsi, so we can assume they were established by his time, as the norm.

Incidentally, does any one know if any of these words (list in post #1) are currently in use in a, dialect, or another branch of Iranian, where g/k is written and pronounced?


----------



## CyrusSH

OK, for English suffix "-ness", we have "-ih" in Middle Persian, so there is "tarikih" which means "darkness", but "-ik" suffix is used for indicating abundance or excess, as I said _tar_ means "obscure, hazy" but _tarik_ means "dark" (with no light), of course in most cases we already use Arabic nisba suffix _-i_ or Persian prefix _por-_, like _porbar_ that I mentioned above as synonym of _barik_, there can be both Arabic suffix and Persian prefix, like _porkar_ and _kari_, or just Arabic one, like _nam_ (name) and _nami_ (famous), ... it can be used for Arabic words too, like _qaht_ (famine) and _qahti_ (starvation).


----------



## PersoLatin

I found "Allomorphic variability in the Middle Persian continuants of the Old Iranian suffix *-ka-" here.


----------

