# Persian: Use of Arabic consonants to write Persian names



## Qureshpor

I think there are three Arabic consonants (se, saad and to'e) which have been employed in words where siin and te would have been the obvious choice. For example..

کیومرث for کیومرس 
اصفهان for اسفهان 
طهران for تهران 
طوطی  for توتی 

I know that for some words, in the modern language, to'e and saad have reverted to te and siin but I am curious as to why this was done in the first place. Also I find the spelling کیومرث very intriguing. I know there was "zaal in the older language for sure but was there a se as well in the Classical and pre-Classical language? Can anyone shed some light on this topic please.


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> I think there are three Arabic consonants (se, saad and to'e) which have been employed in words where siin and te would have been the obvious choice. For example..
> 
> کیومرث for کیومرس
> اصفهان for اسفهان
> طهران for تهران
> طوطی  for توتی
> 
> I know that for some words, in the modern language, to'e and saad have reverted to te and siin but I am curious as to why this was done in the first place. Also I find the spelling کیومرث very intriguing. I know there was "zaal in the older language for sure but was there a se as well in the Classical and pre-Classical language? Can anyone shed some light on this topic please.


 This (it was طوطا,غلطیدن etc.) we discussed *here*, post #5 and later.


----------



## mannoushka

Salaam, Qureshpor. Are you asking if certain sounds heard in Arabic pronunciation were in existence among Persian speakers in the past, even though there's barely any trace of those sounds left in the present-day pronunciation? If that's what you're asking, then I'm tempted to challenge you to prove it one way or the other way. Because, really, who can tell: it may be possible to make intelligent guesses based on kinship of languages or roots of certain words, but can anyone be reasonably expected to reproduce the precise pronunciation of characters or words going back literally millenia? The letter  ث is found in the other ancient name of 'تهمورث' (pronounced today Tah-moo-ress) as well. Is it because the Arabic pronunciation was the same or close to one in Old Persian system of phonetics? Could the letter have been accidentally introduced into the language without a justifiable reason, or was there a good reason for it which we can only guess at today? I have no proper knowledge of roots or phonetics, so I couldn't really answer your question, if, that is, I've understood your question correctly. But I have a gut feeling that in old Dari Persian there was nothing like Arabic pronunciation and hence there were no such characters as ث, but that once the Arabic alphabet had been fully adopted, or throughout the process of 'adoption', literate Persian speakers adjusted certain words from the past so those Arabic letters that were redundant in Persian because they didn't represent any existing sound could be put to some use.


----------



## Qureshpor

No, I am merely asking why some Persian words were and (a few still are*) written with the letters saad and to'e when the logical choice would have been siin and te respectively. Secondly in a king's name (kiyumars), I wonder why a "se" has been used in place of siin or even saad. I have gone onto say that there was indeed zaal in existence in the older repertoire of Persian consonants. Was there a "se" as well? If yes, this (kiyunars with a se) might have been a reminiscence of that. I hope my questions are clearer now.

* sad (hundred), shast (sixty)


----------



## mannoushka

Qureshpor said:


> No, I am merely asking why some Persian words were and (a few still are*) written with the letters saad and to'e when the logical choice would have been siin and te respectively. Secondly in a king's name (kiyumars), I wonder why a "se" has been used in place of siin or even saad. I have gone onto say that there was indeed zaal in existence in the older repertoire of Persian consonants. Was there a "se" as well? If yes, this (kiyunars with a se) might have been a reminiscence of that. I hope my questions are clearer now.
> 
> * sad (hundred), shast (sixty)



sad was originally written with a س; now most of us Irani people write it with a ص. Why? I haven't a clue, but do please take a second _ or would it be first?!_ look at my answer above, if you would. I've made some conjectures up there, which I think the example of 'sad' does to some extent support. There was no real reason to change سذ to صد, but the spelling was altered all the same. Was it because someone said, now what shall we do with this ص? We need to find employment for it ... and so on and so forth? Maybe we thought we might in this way sabotage the language of the Arabs: let them think they've changed our script, we shall yet make a hodge podge of their pronunication! Of course, we could not touch their language and the last joke was on us, of course, as you have very well noticed!


----------



## fdb

گيومرث is a spelling mistake for گيومرت (Avestan gaiiō.marəta-)
 طهمورثis a spelling mistake for طهمورب (Avestan taxma.urupi-)


----------



## fdb

شصت probably originated in an attempt to avoid confusion between شست and بيست , which are nearly identical in unpointed script.


----------



## Treaty

I think there are some reasons for this happening:

1. For a Persophone there is no great difference between ص and س or ت and ط. While the Arab listener might have understood differently when a Persian said "س" in two words. 
2. The letters ص، ط and ق might be used instead of common word-making letters of ت، س and ک (in both Persian and Arabic) to avoid confusion with other words or to highlight its foreign/non-conventional origin. We can also see it in Greek loanwords.
3. Considering both higher prestige and extensive usage of Arabic in fields like geography and history, it is probable that Persians continued using those letters for making their places more Arabic (like طهران).
4. Indeed, Perso-Arabic letters are very confusing as many of them are just differ by replacing dots. Some of them are also close phonetically (ب-پ, ت-ث, فـ-خـ).


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> گيومرث is a spelling mistake for گيومرت (Avestan gaiiō.marəta-)
> طهمورثis a spelling mistake for طهمورب (Avestan taxma.urupi-)


Thank you. I presume you meant to write the second طهمورب with a te?


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you everybody for your valuable contributions.


----------



## fdb

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you. I presume you meant to write the second طهمورب with a te?



It seems that it is always written with ط . This, and similar names, became known to Muslim Persians through the Arabic translations of the _Xwaδāy-nāmag_, not through folk memory. That is why it has this Arabicised spelling.


----------



## marrish

If I may chime in, it is quite plausible that proper names could have been written with ط to make them appear Arabic, but I am wondering why a common noun utaaq/otaagh used to be written اطاق but nowadays it is اتاق


----------



## Treaty

marrish said:


> If I may chime in, it is quite plausible that  proper names could have been written with ط to make them appear Arabic,  but I am wondering why a common noun utaaq/otaagh used to be written  اطاق but nowadays it is اتاق



For اتاق both ط and ق are not Persian. Maybe it was written so to look like طاق.


----------



## fdb

_otak_ is Turkish (actually: an Old Turkish loan from Sogdian); in Arabo-Turkish orthography the consonants in back syllables are represented by Arabic emphatic consonants, where available.


----------



## marrish

^ Thanks both of you. I found this spelling in Persian texts from the first half of the 20th century. Treaty and fdb, are you suggesting that qaaf is not used in Persian in this word?


----------



## Treaty

marrish said:


> If I may chime in, it is quite plausible that proper names could have been written with ط to make them appear Arabic, but I am wondering why a common noun utaaq/otaagh used to be written اطاق but nowadays it is اتاق



Since last century there has been a tendency to  de-Arabize Persian by changing ق to غ and ط to ت in non-Arabic words  (including Turkish words). Some of words have undergone this process while  some kept their Arabic-like spelling. Some other are accepted in both spelling. However, it is probable that both spelling existed before 1900s for a few words.



fdb said:


> _otak_ is Turkish (actually: an Old Turkish loan from Sogdian); in Arabo-Turkish orthography the consonants in back syllables are represented by Arabic emphatic consonants, where available.



How vast is Arabo-Turkish? Considering there were two centers of Turkic people (Khwarazm and Anatolia) around Iran, did both used this orthography?


----------



## Qureshpor

Another word with a to'e is tabiristaan.


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> How vast is Arabo-Turkish? Considering there were two centers of Turkic people (Khwarazm and Anatolia) around Iran, did both used this orthography?



The same spelling convention is followed both by Ottoman Turkish and by Chaghatay (old Uzbek).


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> If I may chime in, it is quite plausible that proper names could have been written with ط to make them appear Arabic, but I am wondering why a common noun utaaq/otaagh used to be written اطاق but nowadays it is اتاق


tapiidan is one verb which has been written with a to'e in the past.


----------

