# Persian: Definition and Usage of Ravȃ (روا) as a Suffix



## colognial

Hi. My question concerns the word ravȃ as it is found in words such as Hokmravȃ (حکمروا) and Farmȃnravȃ (فرمانروا): What does it mean? Are there any other examples in literature where this suffix forms part of the word? Has ravȃ the potential to be used to form new words, and, finally, has there been an instance of such a neologism in our time? Thank you in advance.


----------



## Alfaaz

I just wanted to say that this is a really interesting thread! 

Persian-speaking forum members will hopefully shed light on these questions, but in the meantime here is an entry in لغت نامه دهخدا that provides examples from literature along with definitions.

There are two definitions listed in _Feroz-ul-Lughaat (Jaami3)_ Urdu dictionary for usage in مرکبات: 

_ one that completes, fills, provides adequately, satisfies, etc. (as in Haajat-ravaa)_
_ one that passes, issues, enforces, etc. (as in farmaan-ravaa)_
Apart from the ones you have mentioned, there are also the following compounds: کام روا، کار روا، نا روا، وغیرہ


----------



## colognial

Thank you very much, Alfaaz, for the definitions and for the link to the source. If I may pile up more questions on to the ones above: کارروا is the only compound word I've not seen in use before and of the meaning for which I cannot be sure. Is there an equivalent for کارروا in English? Also, what does ravaadaari (رواداری) mean in Urdu? Thanks.


----------



## Alfaaz

colognial said:
			
		

> Is there an equivalent for کارروا in English? Also, what does ravaadaari (رواداری) mean in Urdu?


 This is what Platts lists for کارروا:


> —_kār-rawā_, adj. Fit for use, useful:—_kār-rawāʼī_, s.f. Usefulness; working, operation; carrying on of a business; occupation, employment; management, conduct, execution, performance; process, proceeding, procedure;


 رواداری - _approbation; tolerance_


----------



## PersoLatin

Ravâ روا is derived from رفتن raftan (to go) literally, something/one that is capable of 'going', or just 'goes', and depending on the context it can have negative or positive connotations.

in حكمروا & فرمانروا, it means 'any thing they order, goes' or will be obeyed (absolutism) even in كامروا, 'anything they wish, goes, or they will chase & get', despite people using it to as a good luck wish, as in كامروا باشيد.

When you say اين روا نيست it means 'this action is not befitting/correct/appropriate' but ultimately it means 'this action does not go'


----------



## colognial

Thank you both very much for the insights you have shared. I realize that, strictly speaking, the word _ravȃ_ (روا) is not a suffix, but a stand-alone entity with the capacity to be used in various combinations. 

To ask your highly valued opinions, do you think I might use _ravȃ_ in the translation of the term 'nation-state', thus:
مملکت ملت روا or حکومت (دولت) ملت روا?

I'm doing a translation and would like, if possible, to avoid using the more literal Persian equivalent دولت-ملت, a coinage which, though not wrong at all, does nevertheless sound and look a bit awkward.


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> to avoid using the more literal Persian equivalent دولت-ملت, a coinage which, though not wrong at all, does nevertheless sound and look a bit awkward.



Hi colognial, from what I read, one of the tenets of a nation-state is, that the 'state' represents the 'nation' and دولت-ملت to me is meaningless, 'nation-state' might have been viewed like that, at the start, but it is still much better than just throwing دولت and ملت together, which is what you are trying to avoid.

*روا *is good but should apply to the 'state' as it is the state that needs to be befitting/suitable of the 'nation' so دولتی که روای مردم است and if دولت مردم روا says that, then all's good, دولت will need an ezâfé though.

1 You may consider using garâ گرا  so* حکومت ‏مردم ‏گرا* or *دولت مردم گرا* (with ezâfé)
2 Maybe *حکومت از مردم* or *دولت از مردم* or *دولتِ مردم* (dôlate mardom)

There's also *نما* namâ 'representing' or *تاب* tâb 'reflecting'.


----------



## Alfaaz

colognial said:
			
		

> I'm doing a translation and would like, if possible, to avoid using the more literal Persian equivalent دولت-ملت, a coinage which, though not wrong at all, does nevertheless sound and look a bit awkward.


Would/could something like قومی ریاست be used in Persian? 

Apart from this, it might make more sense if دولتِ ملت is used with an _izaafat_...?!


----------



## Aloyalfriend

دولت ملی یا ملت- دولت
These two make sense and are natural.


----------



## eskandar

Alfaaz said:


> Would/could something like قومی ریاست be used in Persian?


Don't forget that Persian word order is the opposite of Urdu: the adjective follows the noun and is linked by an izaafat, so Urdu قومی ریاست would become ریاستِ قومی in Persian - except that ریاست is used to mean "management" or "authority" rather than "state" in contemporary Persian, and ملی would be preferred in this context to قومی.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for the corrections and information eskandar SaaHib. 

What are your views about روا and the possible Persian translations of _nation-state_ that have been discussed by everyone thus far in this thread?


----------



## Aloyalfriend

.حکومتor دولت متشکل از یک ملت


----------



## eskandar

Alfaaz said:


> Thanks for the corrections and information eskandar SaaHib.
> 
> What are your views about روا and the possible Persian translations of _nation-state_ that have been discussed by everyone thus far in this thread?


No problem. As far as روا goes, I have nothing particular to add. I think the definitions you posted from Feroz-ul-Lughat capture the meaning well. As far as 'nation-state' goes, we would do well to remember that it is a neologism in English, being barely more than a century old. When such a concept is introduced, it's bound to sound awkward at first; therefore I don't think the fact that دولت-ملت in Persian sounds awkward is necessarily a reason to avoid its use. When it catches on, it will eventually sound no more awkward than other neologisms like جهانی شدن . However, I do like دولتِ ملی for 'nation-state' a little better, and it also seems to be used, at least from what I could tell from searching.


----------



## colognial

دولت ملی is a fine choice, eskandar. The reason why دولت ـ ملت has been chosen by professional translators, I suspect, is because the idea of a nation state is that the dividing line between the two traditional sides, i.e. the masses and the governing class or body, is no longer in place or quite so solid as before. Presumably the hyphen somehow puts the two words on a par and helps to demonstrate what is meant by a 'nation state'. But I'm not sure.

Thank you all very much for your help and advice.


----------



## Alfaaz

Thanks for answering once again eskandar SaaHib!


----------



## PersoLatin

Please bear in mind that دولتِ ملى is currently used to mean 'national government'.

I accept what eskandar says, i.e. a newly coined word is initially awkward & once it catches on it will not be too awkward, but if we can pick the best choice at the start, the concept of nation-state will be understood by a much arger proportion of people, who are not familiar with the English version & it's history.


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin, thanks for providing the equivalent. What is a national government? Is by it meant the government ruling in a nation state?


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi colognial, I suppose what I'm saying is that, when the notion of nation-state was conceived, 'national government' could have been picked for its name but was not and now they co-exits and mean slightly different things, although I myself struggle to define the difference.

Maybe دولت ملتى could be considered, with or without zir on دولت


----------



## colognial

I see. Thank you very much for the explanation, PersoLatin. I'm really not confident about my grasp of the meaning of nation state yet, so couldn't presume to pick an equivalent, even though one might at least try to think about it.

Briefly, it appears that a people, i.e. a group of humans made up of families and communities all speaking the same language and living and working within the same boundaries, may require official unification and governance, and their country would then automatically be a nation state; the Kurdish people living in Iran and our neighbouring countries provide a good example. In some cases, diverse nations or ethnic groups governed by a single ruling body may still constitute a nation state if they take great measures to be really unified as a nation, and these measures will include adopting a single official language and accepting the rule of the same law. There are, of course, in-between cases such as Province of Quebec in Canada. (I hope I'm correct in my examples; don't want to trigger off a blazing discussion about the political will of various nations around the globe!)

So, you see, the idea of a nation state may have arisen from the actual existence of a people, but it may equally well have come about because there already was a government strong and attractive enough for peoples to have wished to act and behave, for all intents and purposes, as if what they called their country (with a national government in power) was a nation state. 

When it comes to picking an equivalent for this very nebulous term, we as Persian speakers ought first, I feel, to exhaust the possibilities provided in the language before we are satisfied with a literal translation. This is why I've been thinking and thinking. Personally I've been considering the word کشور as having a role to play in the lingual construct to be forged; governments may be attractive and strong one day, not so attractive or strong another, so to bring the word دولت or حکومت into it may not indicate good foresight. But I don't know. 

Thank you very much for your help, PersoLatin. My deep gratitude, too, to Alfaaz for providing the exhaustive definitions for روا. Ultimately, the solution, for me alone, will lie in becoming better acquainted with Persian.


----------

