Hindi and Farsi counting words are identical

***@yahoo.com wrote ...

They're not identical:
http://www.zompist.com/numbers.htm
Hindi ek do t?n c?r p?~c chai s?t ?th nau das
Farsi yak do se ?ah?r panj ?e? haft ha?t noh dah

Post by w***@yahoo.com
Does this imply that the 2 languages diverged much more recently than
estimated (it's estimated at 5000 years ago that the two languages
diverged)?

No; they weren't identical ~3000 years back either:
http://www.zompist.com/oldnum.htm
Sanskrit éka dvá trí catúr páñca s.as. saptá as.tá náva dáça
Avestan aeva- dva- thri- chathwa:ra: pañcha xshvash hapta ashta nava dasa

Aazar T

2004-11-29 14:53:37 UTC

1. The English name for Parsi (not Farsi) is Persian.
2. The reason for the numbers being Persian is because the language
became the de facto language of the Indian courts roughly from the
Mongol times (middle ages) until the colonial times when English
substituted it. You can find many internet resources on the rule of
Persians and Mongols in India (more accurately one should say
Turco-Persian or Turco-Iranian but Indian scholars classed everythign
under Mogal or Mughal). For example tbe name of Punjab is really
Persian or Panj Aab (literally 5 waters or where 5 rivers). Also don't
forget that a number of languages in the area are subsets of Persian
(Pashtu etc.).

Post by w***@yahoo.com
Does this imply that the 2 languages diverged much more recently than
estimated (it's estimated at 5000 years ago that the two languages
diverged)?
French and Spanish diverged around 2000 years ago from each other
(both came from Latin Vulgaris), and their counting numbers are very
different.
Perhaps the Indians and/or the Farsis had a continuous migration from
both sides which made their numbers identical?

Pacifist

2004-11-29 16:12:33 UTC

Post by Aazar T
1. The English name for Parsi (not Farsi) is Persian.

Why do you say "Parsi (not Farsi)"? Everybody in Iran calls it "Farsi"
and even during the Shah's time it said "Farsi" on the school books not
"Parsi".

Post by Aazar T
2. The reason for the numbers being Persian is because the language
became the de facto language of the Indian courts roughly from the
Mongol times (middle ages) until the colonial times when English
substituted it.

The reason you give is irrelevant. The languages had common roots and
the courtly language of the Mughals does not account for most of the
common words between the two languages like "Namak" (Salt) and "Khoon"
(Blood).

Post by Aazar T
You can find many internet resources on the rule of
Persians and Mongols in India (more accurately one should say
Turco-Persian or Turco-Iranian but Indian scholars classed everythign
under Mogal or Mughal). For example tbe name of Punjab is really
Persian or Panj Aab (literally 5 waters or where 5 rivers). Also don't
forget that a number of languages in the area are subsets of Persian
(Pashtu etc.).

Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
languages and not loan words from one into the other.

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-11-29 17:30:34 UTC

In sci.lang Pacifist <***@hotmail.com> wrote in <***@mygate.mailgate.org>:

: Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
: languages and not loan words from one into the other.

the particular forms of the words are persian.

Big Ben

2004-11-29 17:43:13 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
: languages and not loan words from one into the other.
the particular forms of the words are persian.

Are you, as the other poster is suggesting, saying that the Hindis and
Punjabis couldn't count to five and had to wait for the Persians to turn
up and teach them?

ikk, do, tinn, chaar, punj in Punjabi
yek, do, seh, chaahaar, panj in Persian.

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Peter T. Daniels

2004-11-30 00:06:48 UTC

Post by Big Ben

Are you, as the other poster is suggesting, saying that the Hindis and
Punjabis couldn't count to five and had to wait for the Persians to turn
up and teach them?
ikk, do, tinn, chaar, punj in Punjabi
yek, do, seh, chaahaar, panj in Persian.

Those words -- and the English one, two, three, four, five -- and all
the other Indo-European ones -- go back to the same Indo-European roots.

The Indic languages and the Iranian languages are very closely related
indeed. Avestan and Vedic are very similar.

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-01 02:48:31 UTC

Post by Big Ben
ikk, do, tinn, chaar, punj in Punjabi
yek, do, seh, chaahaar, panj in Persian.

Those words -- and the English one, two, three, four, five -- and all
the other Indo-European ones -- go back to the same Indo-European roots.
The Indic languages and the Iranian languages are very closely related
indeed. Avestan and Vedic are very similar.

Some Dravidian and Uralic (FinnoUgric) words for numbers seem similar:

One is /okati/ in Telugu and /*ykte/ in protoUralic.
Four is /nAlugu/ in Telugu and /neljä/ in protoUralic.
http://www.zompist.com/euro.htm#dravidian
http://www.zompist.com/oldnum.htm

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-11-30 00:54:03 UTC

In sci.lang Big Ben <***@hotmail.com> wrote in <***@mygate.mailgate.org>:
: "Yusuf B Gursey" <***@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
: news:cofmbq$cet$***@pcls4.std.com

:> In sci.lang Pacifist <***@hotmail.com> wrote in <***@mygate.mailgate.org>:
:>
:> : Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
:> : languages and not loan words from one into the other.
:>
:> the particular forms of the words are persian.

: Are you, as the other poster is suggesting, saying that the Hindis and
: Punjabis couldn't count to five and had to wait for the Persians to turn
: up and teach them?

NO.

: ikk, do, tinn, chaar, punj in Punjabi
: yek, do, seh, chaahaar, panj in Persian.

harmony

2004-11-30 20:09:56 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> : Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
:> : languages and not loan words from one into the other.
:>
:> the particular forms of the words are persian.
: Are you, as the other poster is suggesting, saying that the Hindis and
: Punjabis couldn't count to five and had to wait for the Persians to turn
: up and teach them?
NO.

actually, the south indians taught them. the trouble is hindis and poonjabis
rather loot the treauries than learn to make honest living.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: ikk, do, tinn, chaar, punj in Punjabi
: yek, do, seh, chaahaar, panj in Persian.

Neeraj Mathur

2004-11-29 21:12:13 UTC

I wonder quite a bit about those sorts of words. I thought that 'namak' and
'lekin' (= 'but') were Arabic in origin, and that their only route into
central Hindi/Urdu was through the Mughals. Have they gone the other way -
were they borrowed into Arabic from Persian? Did Arabic borrow much from
Persian?

Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
languages and not loan words from one into the other.

There's a clear way to solve the problem. Can anybody provide the earliest
reference to the region as 'Panjab' (and the other one as the 'Doab', the
region of the Ganga and the Yamuna)? It's certain that it's not Sanskrit
(where the word for water was 'a:p', not 'a:b'), but whether it's Persian or
Panjabi should be solveable from chronology. It is clear that many of the
common names are Persian in origin, as 'Hindi' itself (from the Persian
sound change of initial s > h, Skt. 'sindha-').

Neeraj Mathur

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-11-30 09:23:54 UTC

They came from Arabic.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
Did Arabic borrow much from
Persian?

I've read a piece indicating that it borrowed some before Mohammed
came on the scene, but I don't remember the details. Be that as it
may, it didn't borrow lekin and such.

Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
languages and not loan words from one into the other.

Neeraj Mathur

2004-11-30 17:44:06 UTC

Post by Neeraj Mathur
I wonder quite a bit about those sorts of words. I thought that 'namak' and
'lekin' (= 'but') were Arabic in origin, and that their only route into
central Hindi/Urdu was through the Mughals. Have they gone the other way -
were they borrowed into Arabic from Persian?

They came from Arabic.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
Did Arabic borrow much from
Persian?

I've read a piece indicating that it borrowed some before Mohammed
came on the scene, but I don't remember the details. Be that as it
may, it didn't borrow lekin and such.

Thanks. I keep getting surprised by how many words of Hindi (which is an L1
for me, along with English) are Arabic in origin. I remember, in discussions
about the relationship of Grk 'kai' and Hittite 'kati', my tutor said 'do
you really think you can borrow a word for "and"?' I countered with lekin,
and my point carried.

Is there any way to explain the different vocalisms of Arabic-origin words
by the time they get to Hindu/Urdu? I mean, the Arabic [E:] (long 'a')
usually ends up as an [a:] in Hindi, and I assumed that these words left
Arabic before it had a chance to raise that long vowel; still, we have
'lekin', not 'la:kin'. Why?

Neeraj Mathur

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-11-30 22:25:29 UTC

Post by Neeraj Mathur
Is there any way to explain the different vocalisms of Arabic-origin words
by the time they get to Hindu/Urdu? I mean, the Arabic [E:] (long 'a')
usually ends up as an [a:] in Hindi, and I assumed that these words left
Arabic before it had a chance to raise that long vowel; still, we have
'lekin', not 'la:kin'. Why?

I don't know that it is [A] in Arabic. I once heard an Arab lady
working for Gulf Air pronounce "lekin" just like in Hindi while
speaking in Arabic.

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-11-30 22:40:52 UTC

They came from Arabic.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
Did Arabic borrow much from
Persian?

I've read a piece indicating that it borrowed some before Mohammed
came on the scene, but I don't remember the details. Be that as it
may, it didn't borrow lekin and such.

That's not and; it's but. I don't know of a use for more than two
words for and* whereas there are uses for many variants of but;
English has although, albeit, however, nevertheless, etc. Borrowing is
more likely if there is a use for many shades of meaning.

* Hindi has only one word, but <kaR> performs the function of the
other. Example: <vah muskurAya auR kahA> = "He smiled and said" <vah
muskurAkar kahA> = "He said with a smile" (the smiling and saying
occur concurrently).
In one of the artificial langauges (Klingon?), the second "and" is
"kai"/"kaj", a separate word (conjunction) from the other "and". Using
this conjunction indicates that what follows it occurs concurrently
with what precedes it.

I once heard an Arab speaking Arabic say "lekin" just like in Hindi.
How did you get the idea that it was [A] in Arabic?

Neeraj Mathur

2004-12-01 02:40:26 UTC

Post by Neeraj Mathur
Thanks. I keep getting surprised by how many words of Hindi (which is an L1
for me, along with English) are Arabic in origin. I remember, in discussions
about the relationship of Grk 'kai' and Hittite 'kati', my tutor said 'do
you really think you can borrow a word for "and"?' I countered with lekin,
and my point carried.

That's not and; it's but.

Yes, I know. 'And' and 'but' are both co-ordinative conjunctions, and
essentially perform the same purpose (with a slight semantic difference).
Therefore, we assumed that a language that was resistant to borrowing 'and'
would resist borrowing 'but'.

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
I don't know of a use for more than two
words for and* whereas there are uses for many variants of but;
English has although, albeit, however, nevertheless, etc. Borrowing is
more likely if there is a use for many shades of meaning.

These are interesting - but they are all homegrown, aren't they? I can't see
a non-Germanic root in any of these words. That would reinforce the idea
that co-ordinating conjunctions are rarely borrowed.

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
* Hindi has only one word, but <kaR> performs the function of the
other. Example: <vah muskurAya auR kahA> = "He smiled and said" <vah
muskurAkar kahA> = "He said with a smile" (the smiling and saying
occur concurrently).

I wouldn't consider this to be related to a co-ordinate conjunction at all.
Rather, it is a morphological category - the absolutive - which essentially
acts in a way similar to a participle, to introduce clauses that are
subordinate.

I once heard an Arab speaking Arabic say "lekin" just like in Hindi.
How did you get the idea that it was [A] in Arabic?

I didn't get that idea. I don't think I was very clear. Normally, in words
that are pronounced [E] in Arabic, Hindi has [A]. An example would be
'a:shiq' 'lover', which is pronounced with [E] in Arabic (at least in that
song 'Habibi Ya Nur el 'Ayn' by Amr Diab).

My question was, why is there this inconsistency in the way the words have
been borrowed into Hindi? I wanted to do it chronologically: by saying that
the Arabic word for 'lover' was once pronounced just like the Hindi word,
and that the vowel was raised later. This means that 'lekin' was borrowed
later, after the change had happened. I did not suggest - or did not mean
to - that the word is pronounced 'lakin' in Modern Arabic, which appears to
be the way you took my writings. Sorry for the confusion.

Neeraj Mathur

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-01 07:14:29 UTC

In sci.lang Neeraj Mathur <***@hotmail.com> wrote in <cojaur$pb1$***@news.ox.ac.uk>:

: "M. Ranjit Mathews" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:***@posting.google.com...

:>> Is there any way to explain the different vocalisms of Arabic-origin
:>> words
:>> by the time they get to Hindu/Urdu? I mean, the Arabic [E:] (long 'a')
:>> usually ends up as an [a:] in Hindi, and I assumed that these words left
:>> Arabic before it had a chance to raise that long vowel; still, we have
:>> 'lekin', not 'la:kin'. Why?
:>
:> I once heard an Arab speaking Arabic say "lekin" just like in Hindi.
:> How did you get the idea that it was [A] in Arabic?

: I didn't get that idea. I don't think I was very clear. Normally, in words
: that are pronounced [E] in Arabic, Hindi has [A]. An example would be
: 'a:shiq' 'lover', which is pronounced with [E] in Arabic (at least in that
: song 'Habibi Ya Nur el 'Ayn' by Amr Diab).

: My question was, why is there this inconsistency in the way the words have
: been borrowed into Hindi? I wanted to do it chronologically: by saying that
: the Arabic word for 'lover' was once pronounced just like the Hindi word,
: and that the vowel was raised later. This means that 'lekin' was borrowed
: later, after the change had happened. I did not suggest - or did not mean
: to - that the word is pronounced 'lakin' in Modern Arabic, which appears to
: be the way you took my writings. Sorry for the confusion.

/3a:*sh*iq/ is not that common in colloquial arabic, but fairly common in
persian and its cultural area. persian borrowed from some medieval NE
arabic tradiition of recitation of standard arabic, developed its own
tradition of recitation of standard arabic and spread it, with local
adaptions.

the phonemes /a:/ and /a/ where quite variable as to exact quality, with
variablity due to both consonantal background and dialect, early in the
hostory of arabic. I doubt that Hindi would be a good clue to these.

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-01 18:39:07 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:>> Is there any way to explain the different vocalisms of Arabic-origin
:>> words
:>> by the time they get to Hindu/Urdu? I mean, the Arabic [E:] (long 'a')
:>> usually ends up as an [a:] in Hindi, and I assumed that these words left
:>> Arabic before it had a chance to raise that long vowel; still, we have
:>> 'lekin', not 'la:kin'. Why?
:>
:> I once heard an Arab speaking Arabic say "lekin" just like in Hindi.
:> How did you get the idea that it was [A] in Arabic?
: I didn't get that idea. I don't think I was very clear. Normally, in words
: that are pronounced [E] in Arabic, Hindi has [A]. An example would be
: 'a:shiq' 'lover', which is pronounced with [E] in Arabic (at least in that
: song 'Habibi Ya Nur el 'Ayn' by Amr Diab).
: My question was, why is there this inconsistency in the way the words have
: been borrowed into Hindi? I wanted to do it chronologically: by saying that
: the Arabic word for 'lover' was once pronounced just like the Hindi word,
: and that the vowel was raised later. This means that 'lekin' was borrowed
: later, after the change had happened. I did not suggest - or did not mean
: to - that the word is pronounced 'lakin' in Modern Arabic, which appears to
: be the way you took my writings. Sorry for the confusion.
/3a:*sh*iq/ is not that common in colloquial arabic, but fairly common in
persian and its cultural area. persian borrowed from some medieval NE
arabic tradiition of recitation of standard arabic, developed its own
tradition of recitation of standard arabic and spread it, with local
adaptions.
the phonemes /a:/ and /a/ where quite variable as to exact quality, with
variablity due to both consonantal background and dialect, early in the
hostory of arabic.

Wouldn't they have been consonants in early Arabic? Can a word start
with a vowel in classical Arabic? I've heard Arabic /a/ pronounced as
[a"] like in Sanskrit; I heard "Ar Zaqadiq" pronounced [a" za"qE"Diq],
so Arabic /a/ doesn't seem to be [E]/[&_] in all contexts. I heard
/aDAn/ pronounced as not exactly [EDa:n] but more like [&_Da:n] (which
is admittedly quite similar). [&_] occurs as an allophone of /aI/ in
Hindi and is used in pronouncing borrowed English words like "bank".

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I doubt that Hindi would be a good clue to these.

Hindi /a/ too is often pronounced [E], although perhaps not in all the
same contexts as Arabic /a/. For example, "Taj Mahal" is typically
pronounced [tAj^ mEhE"l].

Neeraj Mathur

2004-12-01 22:51:25 UTC

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
I've heard Arabic /a/ pronounced as
[a"] like in Sanskrit; I heard "Ar Zaqadiq" pronounced [a" za"qE"Diq],
so Arabic /a/ doesn't seem to be [E]/[&_] in all contexts. I heard
/aDAn/ pronounced as not exactly [EDa:n] but more like [&_Da:n] (which
is admittedly quite similar).

Arabic /a:/ is pronounced like in Sanskrit in the vicinity of emphatic
consonants or /r/. This doesn't apply in either of 'lakin' or '9ashiq'
though - both are rendered [E].

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I doubt that Hindi would be a good clue to these.

Hindi /a/ too is often pronounced [E], although perhaps not in all the
same contexts as Arabic /a/. For example, "Taj Mahal" is typically
pronounced [tAj^ mEhE"l].

In Hindi, the sound /h/ after a vowel causes changes - I don't know them
systematically, because I've never studied Hindi from a linguistic
perspective (it's a first language for me). What you've given is one
pronunciation; I tend to make the second vowel significantly shorter than
the first, and I'm not really clear as to how to represent how exactly I
render that (not knowing ASCII IPA well enough!).

It is interesting that this /h/ is involved in these sound changes - it
appears to be an unstable phoneme in the region, since it is part of what
has given rise to phonemic tone in Panjabi. Can anybody offer a reference or
two for this, for tone in Panjabi, or for the /h/ phoneme across the
North-Western India dialect continuum?

Of course, this discussion - interesting in its own right - is not really
relevant to the question at hand, since the two words I am asking about do
not contain the /h/ phoneme. I am wondering, why is it that one has arrived
in Hindi with a long /a:/, but the other with an /e/ (note: not /E/ as the
Arabic has it!)? I think the answer Yusuf has kind of suggested - correct me
if I've understood poorly - is that 9a:shiq is essentially a word that the
Persians acquired through 'book' learning, and so it has a Persian
pronunciation which the Hindi shows. That's fine; the next question then is
why 'but' came through with /e/, when Persian has no such long vowel? Why
does Hindi not have /la:kin/?

Neeraj Mathur

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-02 01:16:25 UTC

In sci.lang Neeraj Mathur <***@hotmail.com> wrote in <colhtc$l7e$***@news.ox.ac.uk>:

: "M. Ranjit Mathews" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:***@posting.google.com...
:> I've heard Arabic /a/ pronounced as
:> [a"] like in Sanskrit; I heard "Ar Zaqadiq" pronounced [a" za"qE"Diq],
:> so Arabic /a/ doesn't seem to be [E]/[&_] in all contexts. I heard
:> /aDAn/ pronounced as not exactly [EDa:n] but more like [&_Da:n] (which
:> is admittedly quite similar).

: Arabic /a:/ is pronounced like in Sanskrit in the vicinity of emphatic
: consonants or /r/. This doesn't apply in either of 'lakin' or '9ashiq'
: though - both are rendered [E].

la:kin may be imalized to a certain extent because of /l/. 3a:*sh*iq has a
pharyngeal which gives a slight tafkhim (back pronounciation), though not
as strong as with an emphatic.

:>> I doubt that Hindi would be a good clue to these.
:>
:> Hindi /a/ too is often pronounced [E], although perhaps not in all the
:> same contexts as Arabic /a/. For example, "Taj Mahal" is typically
:> pronounced [tAj^ mEhE"l].

: In Hindi, the sound /h/ after a vowel causes changes - I don't know them
: systematically, because I've never studied Hindi from a linguistic
: perspective (it's a first language for me). What you've given is one
: pronunciation; I tend to make the second vowel significantly shorter than
: the first, and I'm not really clear as to how to represent how exactly I
: render that (not knowing ASCII IPA well enough!).

: It is interesting that this /h/ is involved in these sound changes - it
: appears to be an unstable phoneme in the region, since it is part of what
: has given rise to phonemic tone in Panjabi. Can anybody offer a reference or
: two for this, for tone in Panjabi, or for the /h/ phoneme across the
: North-Western India dialect continuum?

: Of course, this discussion - interesting in its own right - is not really
: relevant to the question at hand, since the two words I am asking about do
: not contain the /h/ phoneme. I am wondering, why is it that one has arrived
: in Hindi with a long /a:/, but the other with an /e/ (note: not /E/ as the
: Arabic has it!)? I think the answer Yusuf has kind of suggested - correct me
: if I've understood poorly - is that 9a:shiq is essentially a word that the
: Persians acquired through 'book' learning, and so it has a Persian

most arabic words are from bookish learning.

: pronunciation which the Hindi shows. That's fine; the next question then is
: why 'but' came through with /e/, when Persian has no such long vowel? Why
: does Hindi not have /la:kin/?

both /la:kin/ and le:kin (said to be mor ecommon) are listed by Platts
(which is for pre-partition Urdu), orthographically distinguished. I
presume more arabizing registers of Urdu may prefer /la:kin/, which would
be absent in Hindi.

this got me to thinking about persian. classical persian, Kabuli persian
("dari") and Indian persian (bookish recitations of persian in India) have
the old "majhul" vowels /e:/ and /o:/ which are orthogrpahically not
distinguished from from /i:/ and /u:/ and (pronounced such in modern
iranian persian). and lo! Steingass (concentrating on classical persian
and giving romanizations indicating the majhul vowels) has both /la:kin/
and /le:kin/ (orthographic /lykn/). it is *possible* that le:kin was
obtained by persian form some "Old Arabic Dialect" which was strongly
imalizing.

: Neeraj Mathur

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-02 01:47:55 UTC

for more discussion of ima:la in arabic see:

From: ***@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey)
Newsgroups: alt.languages.arabic,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Alif Baa- pronouncing Alif
Date: 1 Dec 2004 11:53:32 -0800
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

and related posts.

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-02 03:52:57 UTC

Arabic /a:/ is pronounced like in Sanskrit in the vicinity of emphatic
consonants or /r/. This doesn't apply in either of 'lakin' or '9ashiq'
though - both are rendered [E].

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I doubt that Hindi would be a good clue to these.

Hindi /a/ too is often pronounced [E], although perhaps not in all the
same contexts as Arabic /a/. For example, "Taj Mahal" is typically
pronounced [tAj^ mEhE"l].

Apparently, there's no notation for it. I wrote it as [E"] rather than
[V"] to attempt to make it short. The other short allophone of Hindi
/a/ is [I"], that is often omitted in transliteration to English
unlike the short [E"] which is always left in (i.e., not omitted) and
transliterated as "a". For examples of omission, <apanA> pronounced
[a"pI"nA] is transliterated as "apna" and <sahani> pronounced
[sa"hI"ni] is sometimes transliterated as "Sahni".

Post by Neeraj Mathur
It is interesting that this /h/ is involved in these sound changes - it
appears to be an unstable phoneme in the region, since it is part of what
has given rise to phonemic tone in Panjabi. Can anybody offer a reference or
two for this, for tone in Panjabi, or for the /h/ phoneme across the
North-Western India dialect continuum?
Of course, this discussion - interesting in its own right - is not really
relevant to the question at hand, since the two words I am asking about do
not contain the /h/ phoneme. I am wondering, why is it that one has arrived
in Hindi with a long /a:/, but the other with an /e/ (note: not /E/ as the
Arabic has it!)? I think the answer Yusuf has kind of suggested - correct me
if I've understood poorly - is that 9a:shiq is essentially a word that the
Persians acquired through 'book' learning, and so it has a Persian
pronunciation which the Hindi shows. That's fine; the next question then is
why 'but' came through with /e/, when Persian has no such long vowel? Why
does Hindi not have /la:kin/?

Hindi has no long fronted [a]; its <A> is a mid [a":] to back [A]
vowel, so Hindi speakers would tend not to discern [la:kin] as
<lAkin>. Even if Farsi has no [e:], a vowel close to it might be heard
as [e:]. Look up Eurofarsi (a putative Romanised Farsi standard). It
has an umlauted a, pronounced something like [E:] which pronunciation
might've sounded to Indians more like /e:/ than like any other long
vowel Indians had. Indeed, I heard the Arab's (albeit not Iranian's)
lekin as [le:kin], not particularly noticing its first vowel being
more open than in Hindi.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-02 06:50:34 UTC

In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:

: Hindi has no long fronted [a]; its <A> is a mid [a":] to back [A]
: vowel, so Hindi speakers would tend not to discern [la:kin] as
: <lAkin>. Even if Farsi has no [e:], a vowel close to it might be heard
: as [e:]. Look up Eurofarsi (a putative Romanised Farsi standard). It
: has an umlauted a, pronounced something like [E:] which pronunciation

Hindi / Urdu borrowed form "Indian persian" not modern iranian persian.

: might've sounded to Indians more like /e:/ than like any other long
: vowel Indians had. Indeed, I heard the Arab's (albeit not Iranian's)
: lekin as [le:kin], not particularly noticing its first vowel being

I just came from an arabic (classical langauge but modern) poetry recital
by a palestinian - syrian proffessor. the imala's did not go so far. this
is the high standard pronounciation rivaled only by Qur'an recitations.

classical persian le:kin came from an imalizing old dialect. Indian
persian preseved it and this was passed to Urdu / Hindi.

: more open than in Hindi.

r***@yahoo.com

2004-12-02 04:50:11 UTC

why /e/, when Persian has no such long vowel? W

1) I found one comment that Parsi vowels are drawled (made long).
2) Farsi has [e]:
http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/nl-ipa/farsiipa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-02 06:41:02 UTC

In sci.lang ***@yahoo.com wrote in <***@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

: Neeraj Mathur wrote:

:> why /e/, when Persian has no such long vowel? W

: 1) I found one comment that Parsi vowels are drawled (made long).
: 2) Farsi has [e]:
: http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/nl-ipa/farsiipa.html
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language

these charts show modern iranian persian (the iranian gov. uses "Farsi")
with the six vowel scheme with modern Tehrani values. it does not show
classical persian, Kabuli persian (gov. name "Dari") or indian persian
with less central /i/ and /u/ (not as close to closed [e] and closed [o])
with the additional vowels /e:/ and /o:/ (in iranian persian merged with
/i:/ and /u:/ as in the orthogrphay). the vowel in le:kin is /e:/
(written plene with ya' and not with just kasra)

the vowel /e/ in those charts are classical /i/.

Neeraj Mathur

2004-12-02 16:10:05 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
these charts show modern iranian persian (the iranian gov. uses "Farsi")
with the six vowel scheme with modern Tehrani values. it does not show
classical persian, Kabuli persian (gov. name "Dari") or indian persian
with less central /i/ and /u/ (not as close to closed [e] and closed [o])
with the additional vowels /e:/ and /o:/ (in iranian persian merged with
/i:/ and /u:/ as in the orthogrphay). the vowel in le:kin is /e:/
(written plene with ya' and not with just kasra)
the vowel /e/ in those charts are classical /i/.

Okay, I think I get it now, maybe! I was happy with the six vowels of modern
Tehran - that's how my grammar (Lambton) taught it. I always assumed -
completely without justification of course - that these represented an
earlier system with basically three qualities and a phonemic length
difference. This I now realise was too simple!

What were the vowels of Classical Persian?

What are the vowels of Dari?

By 'Indian Persian', do you mean the speech of the Zoroastrian communities
in Bombay/Gujurat? Or do you mean the assumed values of the Mughal courts?
What are either of these, so that I can compare with Classical Persian,
Dari, and Tehran?

But I think we've come closer to an answer to my question at least. Hindi
has lekin but a:shiq because that's more or less what Persian had. But then
the focus of the question is all that has moved: why did Persian borrow
these two words with different vowels when in Arabic they had the same
vowel? Is chronology relevant?

What were the vowels of Arabic during the Islamic conquest of Iran?

Sorry to ask so many questions - thanks to everybody who's been replying for
your insight!

Neeraj Mathur

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-03 06:37:36 UTC

Okay, I think I get it now, maybe! I was happy with the six vowels of modern
Tehran - that's how my grammar (Lambton) taught it. I always assumed -

see Thackston's "An Introduction to Persian" which gives more detail
and has comments on Classical Persian, variant pronouciation and some
history of the changes.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
completely without justification of course - that these represented an
earlier system with basically three qualities and a phonemic length
difference. This I now realise was too simple!
What were the vowels of Classical Persian?

the vowel phonemes are: /a/, /u/, /i/, /a:/, /u:/, /i:/, /o:/, /e:/

(/o:/ not being distinguished orthographically from /u:/ and similarly
for /e:/ and /i:/)

for example *sh*i:r "milk" vs. *sh*e:r "lion" (acc. to Enc. Iranica
"tiger" in Dari / Afghanistan). both *sh*i:r in iranian persian.

*sh*e:r is "lion" in kurdish also. "my dog's name is *sh*e:r meaning
"lion", in kurdish, not "Cher" or "chere" etc." I was once told by a
kurdish lady.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
What are the vowels of Dari?

same phonemes as in classical persian, the short vowels in some aras
being pronounced more like iranian persian (i.e. /u/ insome areas
tending towards closed [o], in some areas as an open [u]. similarly
for /i/. see Enc. Iranica "Afghanistan" for details. Dari ranges from
close to Iranian persian to the Kabul dialect to Tajiki in spoken
form.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
By 'Indian Persian', do you mean the speech of the Zoroastrian communities
in Bombay/Gujurat? Or do you mean the assumed values of the Mughal courts?

I don't know what you mean by "assumed values". "Indian Persian" is
the tradition of recitation of persian that was in the Mughal court or
indian scholars reciting persian poetry etc. ("Indian" in the
pre-partition meaning, of course).

Post by Neeraj Mathur
What are either of these, so that I can compare with Classical Persian,
Dari, and Tehran?

(there is also the rather divergent Tajiki to add, which I haven't got
into, which is based on the local vernacular and rather independent
from Classical Persian)

there are also some other differnces: in vocabulary, usage, different
grammatical constructions, preservation of classical xwa:- in Dari
(xA:- in Iranian persian), foreign /q/ becomes [k] in Dari but [*gh*]
in Iran (acc. to Enc. Iranica and other sources), differneces in
vocabulary etc.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
But I think we've come closer to an answer to my question at least. Hindi
has lekin but a:shiq because that's more or less what Persian had. But then
the focus of the question is all that has moved: why did Persian borrow
these two words with different vowels when in Arabic they had the same
vowel? Is chronology relevant?

they have the same phoneme in arabic. le:kin seems based on an Old
Dialect, the rest on the standard recitation.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
What were the vowels of Arabic during the Islamic conquest of Iran?

you might want read C. Rabin "Ancient West Arabian" for a
reconstruction of the vowels in various Old Dialects of Classical
Arabic.

basically the medieval grammarians of classical arabic (some of whom
were persian) made a rough decision on what *ought to be* recited by
picking and choosing from various idioms and rejected the extremes of
ima:la for "correct" recitation, though a rough consensus for
"correct" recitation probably may have existed before.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
Sorry to ask so many questions - thanks to everybody who's been replying for
your insight!
Neeraj Mathur

Peter T. Daniels

2004-12-02 13:39:33 UTC

Post by Neeraj Mathur
Of course, this discussion - interesting in its own right - is not really
relevant to the question at hand, since the two words I am asking about do
not contain the /h/ phoneme. I am wondering, why is it that one has arrived
in Hindi with a long /a:/, but the other with an /e/ (note: not /E/ as the
Arabic has it!)?

Arabic doesn't have /E/; [E] is an allophone of /a(:)/.

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

Neeraj Mathur

2004-12-02 15:56:27 UTC

Arabic doesn't have /E/; [E] is an allophone of /a(:)/.

Sorry, misbracketed! Thanks for pointing it out.

Neeraj

Peter T. Daniels

2004-12-02 21:18:02 UTC

Arabic doesn't have /E/; [E] is an allophone of /a(:)/.

Sorry, misbracketed! Thanks for pointing it out.

And in my Arabic class, it didn't go higher than [&:]. (Our native
consultant was Egyptian.)

--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-03 02:47:00 UTC

(note: not /E/ as the Arabic has it!)?

Arabic doesn't have /E/; [E] is an allophone of /a(:)/.

Sorry, misbracketed! Thanks for pointing it out.

And in my Arabic class, it didn't go higher than [&:]. (Our native
consultant was Egyptian.)

Mine was Egyptian too and she didn't go higher than that either.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-02 00:51:18 UTC

In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:
: Yusuf B Gursey <***@TheWorld.com> wrote ...

:>
:> the phonemes /a:/ and /a/ where quite variable as to exact quality, with
:> variablity due to both consonantal background and dialect, early in the
:> hostory of arabic.

: Wouldn't they have been consonants in early Arabic? Can a word start

no, vowels are vowels and consonants are consonants regardless of their
graphic representation.

: with a vowel in classical Arabic? I've heard Arabic /a/ pronounced as

in classical no word starts with a vowel, there is at least a glottal stop
which may either be phonemic or "euphonic" (hamzat-ul-waSl), the second
case being elided when in context (non-sentence-inital)

: [a"] like in Sanskrit; I heard "Ar Zaqadiq" pronounced [a" za"qE"Diq],
: so Arabic /a/ doesn't seem to be [E]/[&_] in all contexts. I heard

exactly. it has a wide range of "imala" (fronting) and tafkhim" (back
pronounciation).

: /aDAn/ pronounced as not exactly [EDa:n] but more like [&_Da:n] (which

such differences are not phonemic in standard arabic, so it really doesn't
matter.

: is admittedly quite similar). [&_] occurs as an allophone of /aI/ in
: Hindi and is used in pronouncing borrowed English words like "bank".

:> I doubt that Hindi would be a good clue to these.

: Hindi /a/ too is often pronounced [E], although perhaps not in all the
: same contexts as Arabic /a/. For example, "Taj Mahal" is typically
: pronounced [tAj^ mEhE"l].

in arabic /maHall/ tends to be somewhat back because of the pharyngeal
/a/.

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-03 15:55:43 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Hindi /a/ too is often pronounced [E], although perhaps not in all the
: same contexts as Arabic /a/. For example, "Taj Mahal" is typically
: pronounced [tAj^ mEhE"l].
in arabic /maHall/ tends to be somewhat back because of the pharyngeal
/a/.

Is it originally an Arabic word? How about Mohalla?

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-03 20:10:31 UTC

Is it originally an Arabic word? How about Mohalla?

yes. /H/ , the pharyngeal, is a typically semitic sound.

from Halla "he untied" maHall is a place where a bedouin pauses and
unties his baggage, hence a "locality." maHalla(t) is the feminine,
also in modern usage
"a neghborhood". in medieval texts the owrds may be seen in their
original bedouin / nomadic usage.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-03 20:12:25 UTC

ta:j of course in old loanword in arabic from middle persian ta:g

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-04 05:17:12 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: [a"] like in Sanskrit; I heard "Ar Zaqadiq" pronounced [a" za"qE"Diq],
: so Arabic /a/ doesn't seem to be [E]/[&_] in all contexts. I heard
exactly. it has a wide range of "imala" (fronting) and tafkhim" (back
pronounciation).

How is "the Azeri schwa"* pronounced?
* a misnomer - it isn't a schwa but looks like an IPA schwa.

Is it an allophone of /a/?

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-04 06:54:48 UTC

In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:
: Yusuf B Gursey <***@TheWorld.com> wrote ...
:> In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote :

:> : [a"] like in Sanskrit; I heard "Ar Zaqadiq" pronounced [a" za"qE"Diq],
:> : so Arabic /a/ doesn't seem to be [E]/[&_] in all contexts. I heard
:>
:> exactly. it has a wide range of "imala" (fronting) and tafkhim" (back
:> pronounciation).

: How is "the Azeri schwa"* pronounced?
: * a misnomer - it isn't a schwa but looks like an IPA schwa.

: Is it an allophone of /a/?

Azeri is a turkic language, very close to Turkish.

Azeri @ (for want of a better representation) is the turkic phoneme /a"/
(i.e. a quite open e), in Turkish /e/. Azeri e represents closed e. which
is much rarer, usually only in the first syllable. the phonemic status of
/e./ within Turkic is in dispute, perhaps an allophone of Old Turkic long
a" i.e. /a":/ in certain positions. nearly all modern turkic languages
(except Tu"rkmen, Yakut, Khalaj and sporadically in others) have
shortened PTurkic long vowels, long vowels reappear either due to a loss
of a consonant or in loanwords. the back vowel /a/ is a seperate phoneme.

however, AFAIK Azeri renders most (perhaps with some exceptions)
perso-arabic /a/ as a" while Turkish quite carefully (few expcetions) the
Arabic imala rules in the rendering of loanwords.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-04 07:06:44 UTC

In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in <cormvo$c2$***@pcls4.std.com>:

: however, AFAIK Azeri renders most (perhaps with some exceptions)
: perso-arabic /a/ as a" while Turkish quite carefully (few expcetions) the
: Arabic imala rules in the rendering of loanwords.

rather in Turkish, arabic /a/ is rendered as /e/ UNLESS arabic has tafxi:m
(as a back vowel), in which case it is rendered as Turkish /a/.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-04 07:20:17 UTC

In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in <cornm3$6uv$***@pcls4.std.com>:
: In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in <cormvo$c2$***@pcls4.std.com>:

: : however, AFAIK Azeri renders most (perhaps with some exceptions)
: : perso-arabic /a/ as a" while Turkish quite carefully (few expcetions) the
: : Arabic imala rules in the rendering of loanwords.

: rather in Turkish, arabic /a/ is rendered as /e/ UNLESS arabic has tafxi:m
: (as a back vowel), in which case it is rendered as Turkish /a/.

but arabic /a:/ is rendered consistently as turkish /a/ (occasionaly with
length as well, consistent with persian pronounciation.

borrowings from colloquial arabic (and without the filter of persian) are
few. turkish agel "the rope to secure an arab headdress, worn on the crown
of the head" is classical arabic 3iqa:l (ditto), borrowed from a strongly
imalizing bedouin (as apparent from the voiced pronounciation of /q/)
dialect, and for this item appropriately so.

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-04 21:39:23 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
AFAIK Azeri renders most (perhaps with some exceptions)
perso-arabic /a/ as a" while Turkish quite carefully (few expcetions) the
Arabic imala rules in the rendering of loanwords.

Do you mean that Turkish phonology follows Arabic imala rules for
pronouncing Arabic loanwords or that Turkish orthography follows imala
rules in spelling Arabic loanwords? WRT the latter, Turkish <a> is
[a"]/[A], <e> is [e]/[E], and there's nothing that's regularly
pronounced as [&], so how are Arabic [&_]/[a:] rendered in Turkish
orthography? As <e> or <a>?

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-05 14:03:57 UTC

Do you mean that Turkish phonology follows Arabic imala rules for
pronouncing Arabic loanwords or that Turkish orthography follows imala

I later corrected myself and stated it as following he rules of
"non-imala",
i.e. rules of tafkhim (pronouncing fatHa back), but /a:/ is
consistently rendered as /a/, sometimes with length.

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
rules in spelling Arabic loanwords? WRT the latter, Turkish <a> is
[a"]/[A], <e> is [e]/[E], and there's nothing that's regularly

I don't know what you mean by a" . I mean a front low (quite open)
unrounded vowel. turkish /a/ is consistently a back vowel, slightly
fronted only in a few arabic loanwords (and usually in educated,
conservative speech), when there is both an emphatic and a
non-emphatic in the syllable.

turkish (and turkic in general) has back allophones of consonants with
back vowels, arabic has back allophones of vowels with emphatic and
pharyngealized consonants, educated ottoman turks were aware of this,
so literary borrowings from arabic were read utilizing this
similarity. when the representation of the arabic consonants
disappeared with the change in script, but the differences of the
vowels were noted, because this was part of speech.

in ottoman script writing of turkish words, alif is used for turkish
/a/ (unless it is apparent from the consonantal background, in which
case fatHa is used with some other excpetions that are rather
complicated) while fatHa represents turkish /e/ unless it is obvious
from the consonantal background to be read /a/.

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
pronounced as [&], so how are Arabic [&_]/[a:] rendered in Turkish
orthography? As <e> or <a>?

arabic /a:/ is conssitently represented as turkish /a/, sometimes
with length.

M. Ranjit Mathews

2004-12-06 02:51:19 UTC

Do you mean that Turkish phonology follows Arabic imala rules for
pronouncing Arabic loanwords or that Turkish orthography follows imala

I later corrected myself and stated it as following he rules of
"non-imala", i.e. rules of tafkhim (pronouncing fatHa back), but /a:/ is
consistently rendered as /a/, sometimes with length.

Ah! How about imala? Does Turkish never spell Arabic /a/ as <e>, even
if it always spells Arabic /a:/ as <a>?

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
rules in spelling Arabic loanwords? WRT the latter, Turkish <a> is
[a"]/[A], <e> is [e]/[E], and there's nothing that's regularly

I don't know what you mean by a" .

Central vowel one cardinal position opener than [@]. I heard "Aya"
(Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n sArnic^I]]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I mean a front low (quite open)
unrounded vowel. turkish /a/ is consistently a back vowel, slightly
fronted only in a few arabic loanwords (and usually in educated,
conservative speech), when there is both an emphatic and a
non-emphatic in the syllable.
turkish (and turkic in general) has back allophones of consonants with
back vowels, arabic has back allophones of vowels with emphatic and
pharyngealized consonants, educated ottoman turks were aware of this,
so literary borrowings from arabic were read utilizing this
similarity. when the representation of the arabic consonants
disappeared with the change in script, but the differences of the
vowels were noted, because this was part of speech.

Interesting!

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-06 21:32:23 UTC

In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:
: ***@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote ...
:> ***@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
:> > Yusuf B Gursey <***@TheWorld.com> wrote ...
:> >
:> > > AFAIK Azeri renders most (perhaps with some exceptions)
:> > > perso-arabic /a/ as a" while Turkish quite carefully (few expcetions) the
:> > > Arabic imala rules in the rendering of loanwords.
:> >
:> > Do you mean that Turkish phonology follows Arabic imala rules for
:> > pronouncing Arabic loanwords or that Turkish orthography follows imala
:>
:> I later corrected myself and stated it as following he rules of
:> "non-imala", i.e. rules of tafkhim (pronouncing fatHa back), but /a:/ is
:> consistently rendered as /a/, sometimes with length.

: Ah! How about imala? Does Turkish never spell Arabic /a/ as <e>, even
: if it always spells Arabic /a:/ as <a>?

read my corrected post carefully. arabic /a/ is interpreted as turkish
/e/ EXCEPT when arabic /a/ is pronounced further back, in which case it
is rendered as /a/ in turkish. IN BOTH SPEECH AND WRITING.

this goes for the literary loans, which accoutn for the oevrwhelming
majority of arabic loanwords in turkish.

:> > rules in spelling Arabic loanwords? WRT the latter, Turkish <a> is
:> > [a"]/[A], <e> is [e]/[E], and there's nothing that's regularly
:>
:> I don't know what you mean by a" .

: Central vowel one cardinal position opener than [@]. I heard "Aya"
: (Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n sArnic^I]]

sounds like bad turkish or a minority speaker. the vowels in < aya > ought
to be approximately the same, perhaps with a slight differnce in
non-phomemic stress.

turkish /a/ is distinctly a back vowel, but with no lip rounding. perhaps
you unconciously map these vowels into your speech habits differently.

it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the second
(except in rural speech where the first is more closed), except in a
difference of non-phonemic (but morphological) stress. the second e (which
you wrote as /a/) does not have length but stress (you seem to have
intepreted as length) the three a's (you mark it is 4) are identical
(except for morphological stres), the two I's (you have an i and I) are
back vowels (the last one differs only with positional stress), the
letter c is pronounced as *dj* not *ch*

:> I mean a front low (quite open)
:> unrounded vowel. turkish /a/ is consistently a back vowel, slightly
:> fronted only in a few arabic loanwords (and usually in educated,
:> conservative speech), when there is both an emphatic and a
:> non-emphatic in the syllable.
:>
:> turkish (and turkic in general) has back allophones of consonants with
:> back vowels, arabic has back allophones of vowels with emphatic and
:> pharyngealized consonants, educated ottoman turks were aware of this,
:> so literary borrowings from arabic were read utilizing this
:> similarity. when the representation of the arabic consonants
:> disappeared with the change in script, but the differences of the
:> vowels were noted, because this was part of speech.

: Interesting!

r***@yahoo.com

2004-12-07 01:12:00 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
read my corrected post carefully. arabic /a/ is interpreted as

turkish

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
/e/ EXCEPT when arabic /a/ is pronounced further back, in which case it
is rendered as /a/ in turkish. IN BOTH SPEECH AND WRITING.

Ah, OK. Where it is interpreted as /e/, is it always spelt <e>?

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
this goes for the literary loans, which accoutn for the oevrwhelming
majority of arabic loanwords in turkish.
:> I don't know what you mean by a" .
: (Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n

sArnic^I]]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
sounds like bad turkish or a minority speaker. the vowels in <aya>

ought

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
to be approximately the same, perhaps with a slight differnce in
non-phomemic stress.
turkish /a/ is distinctly a back vowel, but with no lip rounding. perhaps
you unconciously map these vowels into your speech habits

differently.

Possibly, but I'm still remember 2 a's.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the second
(except in rural speech where the first is more closed), except in a
difference of non-phonemic (but morphological) stress. the second e (which
you wrote as /a/) does not have length but stress (you seem to have
intepreted as length)

Interesting; apparently so. [a"], [E] & Sampa [3] are allophones of <a>
in Malayalam; an <a> in that position would be far from stressed; it
would be a very short (with a breve) [3].

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the three a's (you mark it is 4) are identical
(except for morphological stres), the two I's (you have an i and I) are
back vowels (the last one differs only with positional stress), the
letter c is pronounced as *dj* not *ch*

I know, but I heard it as the latter. I hear it as [j^] in <Can>
(John). FYI, Malayalam <c> is pronounced [c^] word-initially, close to
[j^] intervocalically and as an extra-strongly voiced [j^] in borrowed
words.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:> I mean a front low (quite open)
:> unrounded vowel. turkish /a/ is consistently a back vowel,

slightly

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:> fronted only in a few arabic loanwords (and usually in educated,
:> conservative speech), when there is both an emphatic and a
:> non-emphatic in the syllable.
:>
:> turkish (and turkic in general) has back allophones of consonants with
:> back vowels, arabic has back allophones of vowels with emphatic and
:> pharyngealized consonants, educated ottoman turks were aware of this,
:> so literary borrowings from arabic were read utilizing this
:> similarity. when the representation of the arabic consonants
:> disappeared with the change in script, but the differences of the
:> vowels were noted, because this was part of speech.
: Interesting!

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-07 02:25:03 UTC

In sci.lang ***@yahoo.com wrote in <***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote :

:> read my corrected post carefully. arabic /a/ is interpreted as
: turkish
:> /e/ EXCEPT when arabic /a/ is pronounced further back, in which case
: it
:> is rendered as /a/ in turkish. IN BOTH SPEECH AND WRITING.

: Ah, OK. Where it is interpreted as /e/, is it always spelt <e>?

if it is actually pronounced win turkish ith /e/ it is written so, which
usually is the result of such an interpretation.

:> this goes for the literary loans, which accoutn for the oevrwhelming
:> majority of arabic loanwords in turkish.

:> :> I don't know what you mean by a" .
:>
:> : Central vowel one cardinal position opener than [@]. I heard "Aya"
:> : (Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n
: sArnic^I]]
:>
:> sounds like bad turkish or a minority speaker. the vowels in <aya>
: ought
:> to be approximately the same, perhaps with a slight differnce in
:> non-phomemic stress.
:>
:> turkish /a/ is distinctly a back vowel, but with no lip rounding.
: perhaps
:> you unconciously map these vowels into your speech habits
: differently.

: Possibly, but I'm still remember 2 a's.

but you wrote three a's.

:> it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the second
:> (except in rural speech where the first is more closed), except in a
:> difference of non-phonemic (but morphological) stress. the second e
: (which
:> you wrote as /a/) does not have length but stress (you seem to have
:> intepreted as length)

: Interesting; apparently so. [a"], [E] & Sampa [3] are allophones of <a>
: in Malayalam; an <a> in that position would be far from stressed; it
: would be a very short (with a breve) [3].

whatever, turkish is not Malayalam.

:> the three a's (you mark it is 4) are identical
:> (except for morphological stres), the two I's (you have an i and I)
: are
:> back vowels (the last one differs only with positional stress), the
:> letter c is pronounced as *dj* not *ch*

: I know, but I heard it as the latter. I hear it as [j^] in <Can>

in which case either your informant had a bad accent (or you heard it
while the person was speaking English and for some reason rendered it
such) or there is something amiss in your intepretation or memory.

: (John). FYI, Malayalam <c> is pronounced [c^] word-initially, close to

the proper name Can is not "John" but the common noun can (persian ja:n),
meaning "soul" or "life-force". English "John" woudl be interpreted as
*Con (as in the slang expression for "American" Coni i.e. Johnny).

: [j^] intervocalically and as an extra-strongly voiced [j^] in borrowed
: words.

:> :> I mean a front low (quite open)
:> :> unrounded vowel. turkish /a/ is consistently a back vowel,
: slightly
:> :> fronted only in a few arabic loanwords (and usually in educated,
:> :> conservative speech), when there is both an emphatic and a
:> :> non-emphatic in the syllable.
:> :>
:> :> turkish (and turkic in general) has back allophones of consonants
: with
:> :> back vowels, arabic has back allophones of vowels with emphatic
: and
:> :> pharyngealized consonants, educated ottoman turks were aware of
: this,
:> :> so literary borrowings from arabic were read utilizing this
:> :> similarity. when the representation of the arabic consonants
:> :> disappeared with the change in script, but the differences of the
:> :> vowels were noted, because this was part of speech.
:>
:> : Interesting!

r***@yahoo.com

2004-12-07 03:55:14 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: Possibly, but I'm still remember 2 a's.
but you wrote three a's.

I mean, I still remember [A] & [a"] in <Aya>. I'd have to hear it again
to know whether the 2 a's sound the same.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:> it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the second
:> (except in rural speech where the first is more closed), except in a
:> difference of non-phonemic (but morphological) stress. the second e
: (which :> you wrote as /a/) does not have length but stress (you

seem to

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
:> have intepreted as length)
: Interesting; apparently so. [a"], [E] & Sampa [3] are allophones of <a>
: in Malayalam; an <a> in that position would be far from stressed; it
: would be a very short (with a breve) [3].
whatever, turkish is not Malayalam.

Just explaining why I might have discerned it that way. I wrote sArnicI
because the 1st i seemed more fronted than the last one, not because
the first vowel was [i]. It might have been something like [sArnI_c^w]
(w meaning turned m). Only the last sounded like a back vowel; the
first one was a little forward of central as far as I remember. Part of
the reason why I heard <c> as [c^] might be that at the time, I didn't
know it was pronounced [j^].

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
the proper name Can is not "John" but the common noun can (persian ja:n),
meaning "soul" or "life-force".

Ah! Same meaning in Hindi but not used as a name.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-07 05:22:27 UTC

In sci.lang ***@yahoo.com wrote in <***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

:>
:> whatever, turkish is not Malayalam.

: Just explaining why I might have discerned it that way. I wrote sArnicI
: because the 1st i seemed more fronted than the last one, not because
: the first vowel was [i]. It might have been something like [sArnI_c^w]

well, a little better.

: (w meaning turned m). Only the last sounded like a back vowel; the
: first one was a little forward of central as far as I remember. Part of

what can I say. I am a native speaker and for whatever reason such a
pronounciation encroaches on the sound values of other phonemes and would
thus be considered "bad turkish". there is a differnce in positional
stress, which may be what you noticed.

: the reason why I heard <c> as [c^] might be that at the time, I didn't
: know it was pronounced [j^].

:> the proper name Can is not "John" but the common noun can (persian
: ja:n),
:> meaning "soul" or "life-force".
: Ah! Same meaning in Hindi but not used as a name.

r***@yahoo.com

2004-12-08 02:47:53 UTC

: Only the last sounded like a back vowel; the
: first one was a little forward of central as far as I remember. Part of
what can I say. I am a native speaker and for whatever reason such a
pronounciation encroaches on the sound values of other phonemes and would
thus be considered "bad turkish".

Very well; if a Turk heard "crisper" with something approaching* a BrE
pronunciation [krIsp@] in the sentence "It is crisper", would he
transcribe it as <krispI> or <krIspI>?

* I pronounce it [kr.IspU-] where
[r.] = retroflexed back-alveolar (alveolar but close to postalveolar)
[I] = a little more centralized than IPA [I]
[U-] = unrounded upsilon (unrounded vowel about as far back and about
as open as IPA upsilon)

there is a differnce in positional
stress, which may be what you noticed.

It looks like I consistently perceived stress as a difference in
quality and/or length.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-08 16:28:16 UTC

In sci.lang ***@yahoo.com wrote in <***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> In sci.lang ***@yahoo.com wrote :

:> : Only the last sounded like a back vowel; the
:> : first one was a little forward of central as far as I remember.
: Part of
:>
:> what can I say. I am a native speaker and for whatever reason such a
:> pronounciation encroaches on the sound values of other phonemes and
: would
:> thus be considered "bad turkish".

: Very well; if a Turk heard "crisper" with something approaching* a BrE
: pronunciation [krIsp@] in the sentence "It is crisper", would he
: transcribe it as <krispI> or <krIspI>?

I don't really know Br. Eng. but Turks here approximate it as krispIr .

crisp itself is rendered as krisp by an english - turkish dictionary and
chips is now a loanword in turkish as c,ips .

: * I pronounce it [kr.IspU-] where
: [r.] = retroflexed back-alveolar (alveolar but close to postalveolar)
: [I] = a little more centralized than IPA [I]
: [U-] = unrounded upsilon (unrounded vowel about as far back and about
: as open as IPA upsilon)

:> there is a differnce in positional
:> stress, which may be what you noticed.

: It looks like I consistently perceived stress as a difference in
: quality and/or length.

r***@yahoo.com

2004-12-08 02:48:21 UTC

there is a differnce in positional
stress, which may be what you noticed.

It looks like I consistently perceived stress as a difference in
quality and/or length.

r***@yahoo.com

2004-12-08 02:48:37 UTC

there is a differnce in positional
stress, which may be what you noticed.

It looks like I consistently perceived stress as a difference in
quality and/or length.

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-08 18:17:49 UTC

In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in <cp2j57$i75$***@pcls4.std.com>:
: In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:
: : ***@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote ...
: :> ***@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
: :> > Yusuf B Gursey <***@TheWorld.com> wrote ...
: :> >
: :> > > AFAIK Azeri renders most (perhaps with some exceptions)
: :> > > perso-arabic /a/ as a" while Turkish quite carefully (few expcetions) the
: :> > > Arabic imala rules in the rendering of loanwords.
: :> >
: :> > Do you mean that Turkish phonology follows Arabic imala rules for
: :> > pronouncing Arabic loanwords or that Turkish orthography follows imala
: :>
: :> I later corrected myself and stated it as following he rules of
: :> "non-imala", i.e. rules of tafkhim (pronouncing fatHa back), but /a:/ is
: :> consistently rendered as /a/, sometimes with length.

: : Ah! How about imala? Does Turkish never spell Arabic /a/ as <e>, even
: : if it always spells Arabic /a:/ as <a>?

: read my corrected post carefully. arabic /a/ is interpreted as turkish
: /e/ EXCEPT when arabic /a/ is pronounced further back, in which case it
: is rendered as /a/ in turkish. IN BOTH SPEECH AND WRITING.

: this goes for the literary loans, which accoutn for the oevrwhelming
: majority of arabic loanwords in turkish.

: :> > rules in spelling Arabic loanwords? WRT the latter, Turkish <a> is
: :> > [a"]/[A], <e> is [e]/[E], and there's nothing that's regularly
: :>
: :> I don't know what you mean by a" .

: : Central vowel one cardinal position opener than [@]. I heard "Aya"
: : (Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n sArnic^I]]

: sounds like bad turkish or a minority speaker. the vowels in < aya > ought
: to be approximately the same, perhaps with a slight differnce in
: non-phomemic stress.

: turkish /a/ is distinctly a back vowel, but with no lip rounding. perhaps
: you unconciously map these vowels into your speech habits differently.

: it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the second

OTOH I did just find Yerebatan SarnIc,I (sarnI*ch*I) in an english
gudievbook which is not the grammatically recommended (voicing *ch*
intevocallically is recommended and it's etymologically a < c > i.e. *dj*
anyway, but perhaps the form with /c,/ is a recent solecism (I went there
recently but didn't notice it. at any rate, the more traditional name is
Yerebatan SarayI i.e. the Underground ("Sunken") Palace rather than the
"Undergoround Cistern". most cisterns are underground anyway. although it
is a cistern, it was percieved by the Turks in popular culture as a
Palace, and had ceased to be used as a cistern sometime after the
Conquest.

: (except in rural speech where the first is more closed), except in a
: difference of non-phonemic (but morphological) stress. the second e (which
: you wrote as /a/) does not have length but stress (you seem to have
: intepreted as length) the three a's (you mark it is 4) are identical
: (except for morphological stres), the two I's (you have an i and I) are
: back vowels (the last one differs only with positional stress), the
: letter c is pronounced as *dj* not *ch*

: :> I mean a front low (quite open)
: :> unrounded vowel. turkish /a/ is consistently a back vowel, slightly
: :> fronted only in a few arabic loanwords (and usually in educated,
: :> conservative speech), when there is both an emphatic and a
: :> non-emphatic in the syllable.
: :>
: :> turkish (and turkic in general) has back allophones of consonants with
: :> back vowels, arabic has back allophones of vowels with emphatic and
: :> pharyngealized consonants, educated ottoman turks were aware of this,
: :> so literary borrowings from arabic were read utilizing this
: :> similarity. when the representation of the arabic consonants
: :> disappeared with the change in script, but the differences of the
: :> vowels were noted, because this was part of speech.

: : Interesting!

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-08 18:41:31 UTC

In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <***@theworld.com> wrote in <cp2j57$i75$***@pcls4.std.com>:
: In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:
: : ***@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote ...
: :> ***@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote ...
: :> > Yusuf B Gursey <***@TheWorld.com> wrote ...
: :> >
: :> > > AFAIK Azeri renders most (perhaps with some exceptions)
: :> > > perso-arabic /a/ as a" while Turkish quite carefully (few expcetions) the
: :> > > Arabic imala rules in the rendering of loanwords.
: :> >
: :> > Do you mean that Turkish phonology follows Arabic imala rules for
: :> > pronouncing Arabic loanwords or that Turkish orthography follows imala
: :>
: :> I later corrected myself and stated it as following he rules of
: :> "non-imala", i.e. rules of tafkhim (pronouncing fatHa back), but /a:/ is
: :> consistently rendered as /a/, sometimes with length.

: : Ah! How about imala? Does Turkish never spell Arabic /a/ as <e>, even
: : if it always spells Arabic /a:/ as <a>?

: read my corrected post carefully. arabic /a/ is interpreted as turkish
: /e/ EXCEPT when arabic /a/ is pronounced further back, in which case it
: is rendered as /a/ in turkish. IN BOTH SPEECH AND WRITING.

: this goes for the literary loans, which accoutn for the oevrwhelming
: majority of arabic loanwords in turkish.

: :> > rules in spelling Arabic loanwords? WRT the latter, Turkish <a> is
: :> > [a"]/[A], <e> is [e]/[E], and there's nothing that's regularly
: :>
: :> I don't know what you mean by a" .

: : Central vowel one cardinal position opener than [@]. I heard "Aya"
: : (Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n sArnic^I]]

: sounds like bad turkish or a minority speaker. the vowels in < aya > ought
: to be approximately the same, perhaps with a slight differnce in
: non-phomemic stress.

: turkish /a/ is distinctly a back vowel, but with no lip rounding. perhaps
: you unconciously map these vowels into your speech habits differently.

: it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the second

OTOH I did just find Yerebatan SarnIc,I (sarnI*ch*I) in an english
gudiebook, which is not the grammatically recommended (voicing *ch*
intevocallically is recommended in this word and it's etymologically
a < c > i.e. *dj* anyway, but perhaps the form with /c,/ is a recent
solecism (I went there recently but didn't notice it. at any rate, the
more traditional name is Yerebatan Saray i.e. the Underground (litt.
"Sunken") Palace. Yerebatan SarnIcI would be exactly: the Cistern of
"Yerebatan" ("Underground", the name of the district named by it). most
cisterns are underground anyway. although it is a cistern, it was
percieved by the Turks in popular culture as a Palace, and had ceased to
be used as a cistern sometime after the Conquest.

: (except in rural speech where the first is more closed), except in a
: difference of non-phonemic (but morphological) stress. the second e (which
: you wrote as /a/) does not have length but stress (you seem to have
: intepreted as length) the three a's (you mark it is 4) are identical
: (except for morphological stres), the two I's (you have an i and I) are
: back vowels (the last one differs only with positional stress), the
: letter c is pronounced as *dj* not *ch*

well, I would also consider the possibility that some may only weakly
voice this particular c, in this position and in this word.

: :> I mean a front low (quite open)
: :> unrounded vowel. turkish /a/ is consistently a back vowel, slightly
: :> fronted only in a few arabic loanwords (and usually in educated,
: :> conservative speech), when there is both an emphatic and a
: :> non-emphatic in the syllable.
: :>
: :> turkish (and turkic in general) has back allophones of consonants with
: :> back vowels, arabic has back allophones of vowels with emphatic and
: :> pharyngealized consonants, educated ottoman turks were aware of this,
: :> so literary borrowings from arabic were read utilizing this
: :> similarity. when the representation of the arabic consonants
: :> disappeared with the change in script, but the differences of the
: :> vowels were noted, because this was part of speech.

: : Interesting!

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-01 13:37:58 UTC

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: : (Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n sArnic^I]]
: it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the second
OTOH I did just find Yerebatan SarnIc,I (sarnI*ch*I) in an english
gudiebook, which is not the grammatically recommended (voicing *ch*
intevocallically is recommended in this word and it's etymologically
a < c > i.e. *dj* anyway, but perhaps the form with /c,/ is a recent
solecism (I went there recently but didn't notice it.

I've looked into it in some more detail.

Because of the <Y> next to it, the first <e> was more closed and
therefore similar to the realization of Malayalam /e/ (which is 1/3 a
cardinal position opener than [e] and is also retracted). The second
<e> was similar to [E_] which is an allophone of Malayalam /a/. That
might be one reason why I heard it as Yera rather than Yere. A Hindi
speaker too might conceivably hear it that way.

As for my reading of the s in <sarnIci>, look at this webpage:
http://www.onlineturkish.com/pronun.asp
The s sound to me like they're halfway between [I] & either [i"] or
[u"]. Consider the Turkish word <kIrIk> and the Malayalam word
<kiRukku->.
The s in <kIrIk> sound similar to the closed central vowels [i"]
&[u"] in <kiRukku->. None of the s, in any of the words on this
page, sounds like the [u-] in <kiRukku-> even though descriptions of
Turkish describe as [u-] (turned m).

BTW, your <kIrIk> looks like it's derived from Greek kyrios, meaning
Lord, which is spelt with and in Malayalam; only some know to
pronounce the former as a centralized u (I consider it a central
neutral vowel, 1 cardinal point more closed than IPA [@]).

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-01 15:25:09 UTC

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
"Aya"

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: : (Sofia) as [Aja"] and "Yerabatan Sarnici" as [jEra":ba"ta"n

sArnic^I]]

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
: it's Yerebatan SarnIcI the first /e/ is no different than the

second

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
OTOH I did just find Yerebatan SarnIc,I (sarnI*ch*I) in an english
gudiebook, which is not the grammatically recommended (voicing *ch*
intevocallically is recommended in this word and it's

etymologically

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
a < c > i.e. *dj* anyway, but perhaps the form with /c,/ is a recent
solecism (I went there recently but didn't notice it.
I've looked into it in some more detail.

Because of the <Y> next to it, the first <e> was more closed and
therefore similar to the realization of Malayalam /e/ (which is 1/3 a
cardinal position opener than [e] and is also retracted). The second
<e> was similar to [E_] which is an allophone of Malayalam /a/. That
might be one reason why I heard it as Yera rather than Yere. A Hindi
speaker too might conceivably hear it that way.
http://www.onlineturkish.com/pronun.asp
The s sound to me like they're halfway between [I] & either [i"] or
[u"]. Consider the Turkish word <kIrIk> and the Malayalam word
<kiRukku->.
The s in <kIrIk> sound similar to the closed central vowels [i"]
&[u"] in <kiRukku->. None of the s, in any of the words on this

it's quite distincly unrounded

it's quite distinctly a back vowel.

it's quite distinctly a high vowel.

otherwise you will be misunderstood.

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
page, sounds like the [u-] in <kiRukku-> even though descriptions of
Turkish describe as [u-] (turned m).
BTW, your <kIrIk> looks like it's derived from Greek kyrios, meaning

huh? kIrIk means "broken, with a straightforward turkish (turkic)
derivation.

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Lord, which is spelt with and in Malayalam; only some know to
pronounce the former as a centralized u (I consider it a central

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-01 16:56:50 UTC

kIrIk means broken

I translated it to English using Intertran, spelling it with all caps
to make the Is undotted; Intertran translated it to kingdom and one
other closely related meaning, both of which meanings corresponded
closely with Greek kyrios meaning Lord. Perhaps Intertran got it wrong
by mistaking for an uppercase dotted I.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
http://www.onlineturkish.com/pronun.asp
The s sound to me like they're halfway between [I] & either [i"]
or [u"]. Consider the Turkish word <kIrIk> and the Malayalam word
<kiRukku->.
The s in <kIrIk> sound similar to the closed central vowels [i"]
&[u"] in <kiRukku->. None of the s, in any of the words on this

it's quite distincly unrounded

The first one seems close enough to a distinctly unrounded vowel. The
second is certainly far from distinctly rounded but doesn't seem
completely unrounded; in degree of rounding, it seems partway between
[i"] & [u"].

it's quite distinctly a back vowel.

1) If phoneticians are correct in describing the Malayalam/ Tulu/
Kodagu closed back vowel as [u-], then it isn't a back vowel because
it doesn't sound anywhere close to the realization of <u-> in these
languages.
2) If Turkish is described as a "high back vowel", that would
introduce the enigma, "What is the high back vowel in some Dravidian
languages?".
3) The second sounds close enough to the pronunciation of the 
in English <crisp> that it's difficult to consider it much further back
than central since this English is described as [I] which is
forward of central.

it's quite distinctly a high vowel.

I can't tell whether it's any higher than halfway between English [I]
and [i"]. Even that, however, would qualify as "distinctly high".

otherwise you will be misunderstood.

Our disagreement seems to be the degree of its backness more than
anything else. Having listened to these clips, I fix its pronunciation
as the sound I use for <crisp>, whiich is halfway between [I] and [i"]
(or more rounded than that in some contexts such as adjacent to a velar
consonant); it seems to me that I'd be quite well understood if I use
the [I] I use in <crisp> (which would not be the same as the [i] that
Turks use to pronounce <krisp>).

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-01 18:19:49 UTC

kIrIk means broken
it's quite distinctly a back vowel.

How does your compare with the [i"]s on this webpage?
http://www.koausa.org/SpokenKashmiri/Sounds/12.html

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-01 19:06:24 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Consider the Turkish word <kIrIk>
it's quite distincly unrounded
it's quite distinctly a back vowel.

Listen to the word [***@ndi"rvAr]* on this webpage and tell me how
different the [i"] sounds from the first in <kIrik>
http://www.koausa.org/SpokenKashmiri/Sounds/12.html

*
[ts] is a dental affricate like Mandarin <z> (spelt in Hanyu Pinyin)
[r] means [r.], retroflexed alveolar/postalveolar like in Turkish
<kIrik>, not fricative like in Turkish <pinar>
[v] means [v<blb>] like in Spanish <nova>

Post by r***@yahoo.com
it's quite distinctly a high vowel.

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-01 20:16:28 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Consider the Turkish word <kIrIk>
it's quite distincly unrounded
it's quite distinctly a back vowel.

different the [i"] sounds from the first in <kIrik>
http://www.koausa.org/SpokenKashmiri/Sounds/12.html
*
[ts] is a dental affricate like Mandarin <z> (spelt in Hanyu Pinyin)
[r] means [r.], retroflexed alveolar/postalveolar like in Turkish
<kIrik>, not fricative like in Turkish <pinar>

kIrIk , pInar

the two i's are mroe or less the same.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
[v] means [v<blb>] like in Spanish <nova>

Post by r***@yahoo.com
it's quite distinctly a high vowel.

I don't have a good sound system on my computer, and they are turned
off in the library. I'm sure that Malayalam or Kashmiri or whatever
are not good models for Turkish pronounciation.

for decent turkish back / front / and rounded / unrounded
as well as high / low should be quite distinct, with some
variation allowed on the amount closure or opening for /e/.

please keep thsi post in mind, and repeat it over and over
for your subsequent (hopefully none) queries.

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-01 21:37:51 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Consider the Turkish word <kIrIk>
it's quite distincly unrounded
it's quite distinctly a back vowel.

different the [i"] sounds from the first in <kIrik>
http://www.koausa.org/SpokenKashmiri/Sounds/12.html
*
[ts] is a dental affricate like Mandarin <z> (spelt in Hanyu

Pinyin)

Post by r***@yahoo.com
[r] means [r.], retroflexed alveolar/postalveolar like in Turkish
<kIrik>, not fricative like in Turkish <pinar>

kIrIk , pInar
the two i's are mroe or less the same.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
[v] means [v<blb>] like in Spanish <nova>

Post by r***@yahoo.com
it's quite distinctly a high vowel.

I don't have a good sound system on my computer, and they are turned
off in the library. I'm sure that Malayalam or Kashmiri or whatever
are not good models for Turkish pronounciation.

One sound described as [u-] should sound like another sound described
as [u-] since [u-] is a phonetic representation. I've now figured out
what they were talking about when using [u-] to describe the
pronunciation of the ending vowel of certain Malayalam nouns; they were
talking about the pronunciation in sandhis that changes its
pronunciation of the ending vowel to something like your . So, that
would indeed make your something like [u-].

The pronunciation of your "back " does, however, sound uncannily
close to the [I} used in English which was why I described it as a
little forward of central. For example, the sound clip for <Iraq> on
the webpage I gave you, with Turkish pronunciations, sounds very
similar to [IrAq] pronounced with a trilled r in an English sentence.

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-01 22:26:21 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Consider the Turkish word <kIrIk>
it's quite distincly unrounded
it's quite distinctly a back vowel.

different the [i"] sounds from the first in <kIrik>
http://www.koausa.org/SpokenKashmiri/Sounds/12.html
*
[ts] is a dental affricate like Mandarin <z> (spelt in Hanyu

Pinyin)

Post by r***@yahoo.com
[r] means [r.], retroflexed alveolar/postalveolar like in Turkish
<kIrik>, not fricative like in Turkish <pinar>

kIrIk , pInar
the two i's are mroe or less the same.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
[v] means [v<blb>] like in Spanish <nova>

Post by r***@yahoo.com
it's quite distinctly a high vowel.

I don't have a good sound system on my computer, and they are turned
off in the library. I'm sure that Malayalam or Kashmiri or whatever
are not good models for Turkish pronounciation.

One sound described as [u-] should sound like another sound described
as [u-] since [u-] is a phonetic representation. I've now figured out
what they were talking about when using [u-] to describe the
pronunciation of the ending vowel of certain Malayalam nouns; they were
talking about the pronunciation in sandhis that changes its
pronunciation of the ending vowel to something like your . So, that
would indeed make your something like [u-].
The pronunciation of your "back " does, however, sound uncannily
close to the [I} used in English which was why I described it as a
little forward of central. For example, the sound clip for <Iraq> on
the webpage I gave you, with Turkish pronunciations, sounds very
similar to [IrAq] pronounced with a trilled r in an English sentence.

I am able to distinguish the two sounds distinctly.

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-01 23:46:09 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
One sound described as [u-] should sound like another sound described
as [u-] since [u-] is a phonetic representation. I've now figured out
what they were talking about when using [u-] to describe the
pronunciation of the ending vowel of certain Malayalam nouns; they were
talking about the pronunciation in sandhis that changes its
pronunciation of the ending vowel to something like your . So, that
would indeed make your something like [u-].
The pronunciation of your "back " does, however, sound uncannily
close to the [I} used in English which was why I described it as a
little forward of central. For example, the sound clip for <Iraq> on
the webpage I gave you, with Turkish pronunciations, sounds very
similar to [IrAq] pronounced with a trilled r in an English sentence.

OK, in this case word initial /I/ does tend to get somewhat fronted and
developments of word inital /I/ > /i/ are seen.

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-02 01:57:40 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
One sound described as [u-] should sound like another sound

described

Post by r***@yahoo.com
as [u-] since [u-] is a phonetic representation. I've now figured out
what they were talking about when using [u-] to describe the
pronunciation of the ending vowel of certain Malayalam nouns; they

were

Post by r***@yahoo.com
talking about the pronunciation in sandhis that changes its
pronunciation of the ending vowel to something like your . So,

that

Post by r***@yahoo.com
would indeed make your something like [u-].
The pronunciation of your "back " does, however, sound uncannily
close to the [I} used in English which was why I described it as a
little forward of central. For example, the sound clip for <Iraq> on
the webpage I gave you, with Turkish pronunciations, sounds very
similar to [IrAq] pronounced with a trilled r in an English

sentence.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
OK, in this case word initial /I/ does tend to get somewhat fronted and
developments of word inital /I/ > /i/ are seen.

It doesn't sound like the front vowel [i] in Hindi or Malayalam in both
of which it's slightly retracted and sounds far from the [i] in English
where it's truly a front vowel (i.e., unretracted) but is long. To me,
the Turk's pronunciation of in <Iraq> sounds more like the vowels
in <kIrIk> than to [i].

The <Irak> in the recording also sounds very similar to the
pronunctiation in English where /I/ tends toward a mid-vowel* with
various realizations all called [I]. English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I can't
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second 
in kIrIk.

* It's because [I] tends toward a mid-vowel that some phonetic schemes
have used an to represent a schwa; I once saw the pronunciation of
<rocket> described as "rockit" - in a dictionary, no less.

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-02 03:00:18 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
One sound described as [u-] should sound like another sound

described

Post by r***@yahoo.com
as [u-] since [u-] is a phonetic representation. I've now figured

out

Post by r***@yahoo.com
what they were talking about when using [u-] to describe the
pronunciation of the ending vowel of certain Malayalam nouns; they

were

Post by r***@yahoo.com
talking about the pronunciation in sandhis that changes its
pronunciation of the ending vowel to something like your . So,

that

Post by r***@yahoo.com
would indeed make your something like [u-].
The pronunciation of your "back " does, however, sound

uncannily

Post by r***@yahoo.com
close to the [I} used in English which was why I described it as a
little forward of central. For example, the sound clip for <Iraq>

Post by r***@yahoo.com
the webpage I gave you, with Turkish pronunciations, sounds very
similar to [IrAq] pronounced with a trilled r in an English

sentence.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
OK, in this case word initial /I/ does tend to get somewhat fronted

and

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
developments of word inital /I/ > /i/ are seen.

turkish has /I/ in "Irak" that's why!.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The <Irak> in the recording also sounds very similar to the
pronunctiation in English where /I/ tends toward a mid-vowel* with
various realizations all called [I]. English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I can't

if you pronounce turkish /I/ with "i" as in "grip" you will
misunderstood. for example if you don't give the back quality for sIk
"frequent" you will end being understood as saying sik "penis"
(vulgar).

stop lecturtiong mme aboyut a langauge aI use and hear every day.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second 
in kIrIk.
* It's because [I] tends toward a mid-vowel that some phonetic

schemes

Post by r***@yahoo.com
have used an to represent a schwa; I once saw the pronunciation of
<rocket> described as "rockit" - in a dictionary, no less.

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-02 04:02:39 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
One sound described as [u-] should sound like another sound

described

Post by r***@yahoo.com
as [u-] since [u-] is a phonetic representation. I've now figured

out

Post by r***@yahoo.com
what they were talking about when using [u-] to describe the
pronunciation of the ending vowel of certain Malayalam nouns;

they

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
were

Post by r***@yahoo.com
talking about the pronunciation in sandhis that changes its
pronunciation of the ending vowel to something like your . So,

that

Post by r***@yahoo.com
would indeed make your something like [u-].
The pronunciation of your "back " does, however, sound

uncannily

Post by r***@yahoo.com
close to the [I} used in English which was why I described it

Post by r***@yahoo.com
a

Post by r***@yahoo.com
little forward of central. For example, the sound clip for <Iraq>

Post by r***@yahoo.com
the webpage I gave you, with Turkish pronunciations, sounds very
similar to [IrAq] pronounced with a trilled r in an English

sentence.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
OK, in this case word initial /I/ does tend to get somewhat fronted

and

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
developments of word inital /I/ > /i/ are seen.

It doesn't sound like the front vowel [i] in Hindi or Malayalam in

both

Post by r***@yahoo.com
of which it's slightly retracted and sounds far from the [i] in

English

Post by r***@yahoo.com
where it's truly a front vowel (i.e., unretracted) but is long. To

me,

Post by r***@yahoo.com
the Turk's pronunciation of in <Iraq> sounds more like the vowels
in <kIrIk> than to [i].

turkish has /I/ in "Irak" that's why!.

Actually, that should be "English /I/ has its back-most realization ...
in grip ... etc.".

Post by r***@yahoo.com
if you pronounce turkish /I/ with "i" as in "grip" you will
misunderstood.

I don't pronounce "grip" as [grip]; I pronounce it as [grIp] with the
[I] being more similar to the second in your <kIrIk> than to the
second in my "gripping" which I pronounce as [grIppiN] (although an
Anglo might discern it as [grIpiN]/[grIp<h>iN]). Where I might be
misunderstood by a Turk is if I pronounce "crisp" as [krIsp], as I
normally do, rather than [krisp] as Turks pronounce this word (that
they have borrowed from English).

Post by r***@yahoo.com
for example if you don't give the back quality for sIk
"frequent" you will end being understood as saying sik "penis"

I normally use [i] rather than [I] in that context (eg., sick [sik],
sycamore [***@mO:]) but I shouln't have trouble pronouncing it as an
[I] sufficiently further back from [i] that it's clearly distinct from
my (and a Turk's) [sik].

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-02 04:16:18 UTC

***@yahoo.com wrote:

STOP PONTIFICATING ABOUT TURKISH!!!!

Post by r***@yahoo.com
One sound described as [u-] should sound like another sound

described

Post by r***@yahoo.com
as [u-] since [u-] is a phonetic representation. I've now

figured

Post by r***@yahoo.com
out

Post by r***@yahoo.com
what they were talking about when using [u-] to describe the
pronunciation of the ending vowel of certain Malayalam nouns;

they

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
were

Post by r***@yahoo.com
talking about the pronunciation in sandhis that changes its
pronunciation of the ending vowel to something like your .

So,

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
that

Post by r***@yahoo.com
would indeed make your something like [u-].
The pronunciation of your "back " does, however, sound

uncannily

Post by r***@yahoo.com
close to the [I} used in English which was why I described it

Post by r***@yahoo.com
a

Post by r***@yahoo.com
little forward of central. For example, the sound clip for

<Iraq>

Post by r***@yahoo.com
on

Post by r***@yahoo.com
the webpage I gave you, with Turkish pronunciations, sounds

very

Post by r***@yahoo.com
similar to [IrAq] pronounced with a trilled r in an English

sentence.

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
OK, in this case word initial /I/ does tend to get somewhat

fronted

Post by r***@yahoo.com
and

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
developments of word inital /I/ > /i/ are seen.

It doesn't sound like the front vowel [i] in Hindi or Malayalam in

both

Post by r***@yahoo.com
of which it's slightly retracted and sounds far from the [i] in

English

Post by r***@yahoo.com
where it's truly a front vowel (i.e., unretracted) but is long. To

me,

Post by r***@yahoo.com
the Turk's pronunciation of in <Iraq> sounds more like the

vowels

Post by r***@yahoo.com
in <kIrIk> than to [i].

turkish has /I/ in "Irak" that's why!.

can't
Actually, that should be "English /I/ has its back-most realization ...
in grip ... etc.".

Post by r***@yahoo.com
if you pronounce turkish /I/ with "i" as in "grip" you will
misunderstood.

I don't pronounce "grip" as [grip]; I pronounce it as [grIp] with the

I was refering to orthography!

Post by r***@yahoo.com
[I] being more similar to the second in your <kIrIk> than to the

kIRIk has ONE vowel phoneme, disatinguished only by stress.

I can distinguish between turkish sik english sick and turkish sIk

if you can't that's your probl;em.

foreigenrs are apt to be understyood saying << sik >> when
meaning << sIk >> NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

NOW, SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW TURKISH SHUT UP!

Post by r***@yahoo.com
second in my "gripping" which I pronounce as [grIppiN] (although an
Anglo might discern it as [grIpiN]/[grIp<h>iN]). Where I might be
misunderstood by a Turk is if I pronounce "crisp" as [krIsp], as I
normally do, rather than [krisp] as Turks pronounce this word (that
they have borrowed from English).

Post by r***@yahoo.com
for example if you don't give the back quality for sIk
"frequent" you will end being understood as saying sik "penis"

I normally use [i] rather than [I] in that context (eg., sick [sik],
[I] sufficiently further back from [i] that it's clearly distinct from
my (and a Turk's) [sik].

Miguel Carrasquer

2005-02-02 04:10:55 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I can't
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second 
in kIrIk.

There is a difference, but the major clues lie in the
neighbouring consonants. Turkish /i/ is usually centralized
[I], like English /I/, and Turkish /i-/ is also centralized
[I-] (like some varieties of English /I/ or /V/). The
difference is subtle, but /i/ is clearly surrounded by
palatalized consonants, /i-/ by plain/velarized ones, and
that's very easy to pick up.

So <kIrIk> is [qI-rI-q], <kiris,> is [k'Ir'Is^] and <kürek>
is [k'Yr'Ek'], approximately.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-02 04:18:18 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I can't
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second 
in kIrIk.

turkish linguists say it is further back.

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
difference is subtle, but /i/ is clearly surrounded by
palatalized consonants, /i-/ by plain/velarized ones, and
that's very easy to pick up.
So <kIrIk> is [qI-rI-q], <kiris,> is [k'Ir'Is^] and <kürek>
is [k'Yr'Ek'], approximately.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

Miguel Carrasquer

2005-02-02 05:27:36 UTC

On 1 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0800, "Yusuf B Gursey"

Post by r***@yahoo.com
English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I

can't

Post by r***@yahoo.com
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second

Post by r***@yahoo.com
in kIrIk.

turkish linguists say it is further back.

I was doubting whether to transcribe [I-] or [U-]. Is [U-]
correct then?

And of course <kurak> [qUrAq].

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl

Yusuf B Gursey

2005-02-02 05:33:40 UTC

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
On 1 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0800, "Yusuf B Gursey"

Post by r***@yahoo.com
English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I

can't

Post by r***@yahoo.com
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second

Post by r***@yahoo.com
in kIrIk.

turkish linguists say it is further back.

I was doubting whether to transcribe [I-] or [U-]. Is [U-]
correct then?

a textbook for Bosphorus University (in turkish) renders it with the w
like symbol, even though the book usues the urban dialect whichends to
be usually fronting.

And of course <kurak> [qUrAq].
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

Miguel Carrasquer

2005-02-02 13:15:29 UTC

On 1 Feb 2005 21:33:40 -0800, "Yusuf B Gursey"

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
On 1 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0800, "Yusuf B Gursey"

Post by r***@yahoo.com
English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I

can't

Post by r***@yahoo.com
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second

Post by r***@yahoo.com
in kIrIk.

turkish linguists say it is further back.

I was doubting whether to transcribe [I-] or [U-]. Is [U-]
correct then?

a textbook for Bosphorus University (in turkish) renders it with the w
like symbol

That's the one I meant, my mistake.

[u-] (high central rounded) is merely rounded [i-] (high
central unrounded). I meant the high back unrounded vowel
(which in IPA looks like a uu-ligature), or more
specifically its centralized/lowered counterpart (no IPA
symbol, although it should look like a UU-ligature).

Post by Yusuf B Gursey
, even though the book usues the urban dialect whichends to
be usually fronting.

And of course <kurak> [qUrAq].
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl

r***@yahoo.com

2005-02-02 05:53:01 UTC

Post by r***@yahoo.com
English /I/ has its most
centralised realization in words like "ripper", "grip", etc.; I can't
tell ANY difference between the [I] in these words and the second 
in kIrIk.

There is a difference, but the major clues lie in the
neighbouring consonants. Turkish /i/ is usually centralized
[I], like English /I/,

I pegged it for an [i] rather than an [I]; I remember Turks saying
<istanbul>, <izmir> and <taksim>. Perhaps it had to do with their
degree of centralization.

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
and Turkish /i-/ is also centralized
[I-] (like some varieties of English /I/ or /V/). The
difference is subtle, but /i/ is clearly surrounded by
palatalized consonants, /i-/ by plain/velarized ones, and
that's very easy to pick up.

I too find it easy to pick up the difference between Turkish /i/ &
/i-/. What I was having trouble picking up was the difference between
Turkish /i-/ and English /I/; this discussion started because I
discerned English [I]s in <sarnIcI>, the second further back than the
first (I discern the upsilon in a Greek's Cyril as [I] too - [kIril]).
The 3 alternate explanations for the misdiscernment, that come to mind
are:
1) my ear is incapable of detecting a significant difference between
[I] and [u-].
2) my English /I/ is pronounced midway between [I] & [u-] rather than
as an IPA [I].
3) my idiolect's /I/ has allophones ranging from [I] to [u-], just like
my /V/ has allophones [a"], [V"] and [V].

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
So <kIrIk> is [qI-rI-q], <kiris,> is [k'Ir'Is^] and <kürek>
is [k'Yr'Ek'], approximately.

Thank you. Most illuminating. BTW, I resolved my "palatal conundrum"
from your earlier explanation about tongue blade versus tongue tip. For
brevity, I won't detail the conundrum, but the explanation was that my
"palatal" <c> has allophones [q] & [c] (both in Pinyin notation since
ASCII IPA doesn't have multiple affricates), the true palatal [q] being
used adjacent to front vowels and the allophone [c] being used adjacent
to back vowels.

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

Miguel Carrasquer

2005-02-02 13:19:36 UTC

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
So <kIrIk> is [qI-rI-q]

Should be [qWrWq].

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
, <kiris,> is [k'Ir'Is^] and <kürek>

Post by Miguel Carrasquer
is [k'Yr'Ek'], approximately.

Just as long as it's clear that what I wrote as [q] in
Turkish is a back velarized/uvular stop, the exact opposite
of palatalized [k'].

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
***@wxs.nl

Yusuf B Gursey

2004-12-01 06:56:51 UTC

In sci.lang M. Ranjit Mathews <***@yahoo.com> wrote in <***@posting.google.com>:

:> Is there any way to explain the different vocalisms of Arabic-origin words
:> by the time they get to Hindu/Urdu? I mean, the Arabic [E:] (long 'a')
:> usually ends up as an [a:] in Hindi, and I assumed that these words left
:> Arabic before it had a chance to raise that long vowel; still, we have
:> 'lekin', not 'la:kin'. Why?

: I once heard an Arab speaking Arabic say "lekin" just like in Hindi.
: How did you get the idea that it was [A] in Arabic?

it's /la:kin/ in standard arabic. fronting ('ima:la(t)) to the extent of
[le:kin] would not be good standard arabic, though there is usually some
fronting in the vicinity of /l/ (alla:h excepted).

colloquial arabic had very little influence in Asia, mostly arabic was
learnt in a bookish manner and this was classical ('standard') arabic,
frequently through persian.

very likely this is a parallel development of /e:/ due to /l/ in Hindi and
some arabic colloquials.

Pacifist

2004-11-30 10:30:27 UTC

In Arabic, the word for salt is "melh" and the word for "blood" is
"damm".
Namak and Khoon are Persian / Hindi etc.

Post by Neeraj Mathur
There's a clear way to solve the problem. Can anybody provide the earliest
reference to the region as 'Panjab' (and the other one as the 'Doab', the
region of the Ganga and the Yamuna)? It's certain that it's not Sanskrit
(where the word for water was 'a:p', not 'a:b'), but whether it's Persian or
Panjabi should be solveable from chronology. It is clear that many of the
common names are Persian in origin, as 'Hindi' itself (from the Persian
sound change of initial s > h, Skt. 'sindha-').

The panj / punj is said to derive from Sanskrit "pach", meaning hand (as
we have five fingers).
Therefore, this part of the name certainly derives from a common root.

I know the current Punjabi and Persian names for water are Pani and Ab,
respectively, so, prima facie, this bit is from Persian unless "Ab" was
an old / alternative / disused word for either water or river in the
Indic tongues. Alternatively, it could be a hybrid word.

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Neeraj Mathur

2004-11-30 17:50:03 UTC

Post by Pacifist
The panj / punj is said to derive from Sanskrit "pach", meaning hand (as
we have five fingers).
Therefore, this part of the name certainly derives from a common root.
I know the current Punjabi and Persian names for water are Pani and Ab,
respectively, so, prima facie, this bit is from Persian unless "Ab" was
an old / alternative / disused word for either water or river in the
Indic tongues. Alternatively, it could be a hybrid word.

The Sanskrit for 'five' is 'panca', from Indo-European *penkwe (Grk pente,
Lat quinque). The Sanskrit word in question for water is 'ap', not 'ab' -
this is not an issue of final sandhi, the root ends in p (so genitive plural
'apam' etc.). Therefore, if you try to derive the name of the region from
Sanskrit, you should get **pancap. There is no way that the Sanskrit can
give Panjab in the form that it now exists. Therefore, we have to assume
either that a) the words are in their Persian form, and therefore are a
Persian coinage, with the similarities to Sanskrit nothing but the common
Indo-Iranian heritage; or that b) some Middle Indo-Aryan language had the
necessary changes to voice both of the finals, in which case Panjab could be
a Middle Indo-Aryan word (that is, it is some kind of Prakrit). That's the
reason I was asking for chronology, which could establish one view or the
other.

Neeraj Mathur

pund kamath

2004-11-30 13:19:52 UTC

"Neeraj Mathur" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cog3bf$jm8$***@news.ox.ac.uk>...
....

If one were read few good books written by reputable historians, you
will notice that during its high noon, Islamic civilization was once
indeed a high civilizations of mankind. But it is one of the many. It
drew heavily from thoughts and ideas from earlier civilizations from
India, Persia and the Greek. Islamic civilization is a composite one
with its own unique contribution.

For instance, during the time of great, Khalif Haroun al-Rashid there
were philosophers, writers, men of medicine, mathematicians from India
, Persia and Jewish Palestine. Mathematics treatises were being
translated in Muslim Spain during Islamic rule.

Now the Islamic world is gutters for a long long time but that does
not erase the fact its contribution to human thoughts were immense.

Now why is it Farsi words are very similar to those in Hindi or
Sanskrit? It can be explained by the fact allthese language are known
as " Indo-European' languages and Persian and Sanskrit fall into the
category of Indo-Iranian langauges.

Before Pakistan was born Persia and India were neighbouring countries
and there was always mutual cultural historical intercourse between
these countries for thousands of years, my friend.

Nath Rao

2004-11-30 19:36:18 UTC

Post by Pacifist
Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
languages and not loan words from one into the other.

Actually a:p is not a Sanskrit word either. It is a stem. It would also
be singular nominative, but IIRC, a:p- is used only in plural.

As far as I know, a:p is limited to religious contexts in Sanskrit and
is not the common word for water etc in Prakrits either. That makes me
think that Panjab is Persian in origin.

Nath Rao

Aazar T

2004-11-30 22:24:12 UTC

Post by Aazar T
1. The English name for Parsi (not Farsi) is Persian.

Why do you say "Parsi (not Farsi)"? Everybody in Iran calls it "Farsi"
and even during the Shah's time it said "Farsi" on the school books not
"Parsi".

You know very well why I call it Parsi, because Farsi is Arabic, not
Persian. And you also know very well that those who love the language
and have worked to revive have been trying to correct this wrong for a
long time now.

The reason is not irrelevant, the language of the Indian court and the
language of medicine etc. was Persian so it is not surprising that a
lot of Persian Dari words ended up in everyday usage. The ancient
languages may have had common roots but I doubt if either you or I
would understand ancient Persian and the languages were much different
to that of today.

Again both Punj/Panj and Ab simply indicate the common roots of the two
languages and not loan words from one into the other.
P

The above was merely an example of Persian Dari or New Persian usage
in the subcontinent. 2+2 does not make
7834857239852987345982734592345945

Pacifist

2004-12-01 10:35:08 UTC

Post by Aazar T

Post by Pacifist
Why do you say "Parsi (not Farsi)"? Everybody in Iran calls it "Farsi"
and even during the Shah's time it said "Farsi" on the school books not
"Parsi".

Hi,

I fully agree with efforts to enrich and promote Persian, but it appears
that you want to rescue the language from its own native speakers!
Native speakers call it "Farsi", not Parsi. I don't know why you feel
that "P" is superior to "F"!
More relevantly, today the Persian language has anything up to one half
loan words from Arabic. It is not the language spoken in the
pre-Islamic days and it will never be.
Even if it were possible to clear Persian from its Turkish and Arabic
content, it would not be desirable, as we will lose touch with most if
our literarture of the past 14 centuries.
No more Hafez, Sa'adi, Mowlavi (Rumi) or Nasser Khosrow. We would be a
bit like the Turks are today. Cut loose in the world, without an anchor
in our rich cultural heritage.

If Farsi needs saving today, it is from English and not from Arabic. If
you have been to Iran in the past ten years, you will have noticed how a
version of pidgin English is replacing many good Persian words or how
words that could easily be translated, are just etering the language in
their English form.

Best,

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Hindian

2004-12-01 14:12:48 UTC

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:35:08 +0000 (UTC), "Pacifist"

Post by Pacifist
Native speakers call it "Farsi", not Parsi. I don't know why you feel
that "P" is superior to "F"!

it won't matter if its called parsi or farsi.

the mullahs of iran want to wipe out all traces of the country's past
upto the takeover by arabs and islam.

the zorastrian, bahai, persian..etc all that history is being shreaded
as we speak and replaced by islam which is basically subserviance to
arab culture, language and religion.

its strange how islam manages to get people to turn against their
indegenous culture and destroy it. its like a colonization of the
mind. the people KNOW their ansestors were forced into islam. yet
they continue to go about destroying their own heritage.

i'm sure there's some hidden evolutionary reason for such behaviour
but i cannot put my finger on it.

Pacifist

2004-12-01 14:37:44 UTC

Post by Hindian
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:35:08 +0000 (UTC), "Pacifist"

Post by Pacifist
Native speakers call it "Farsi", not Parsi. I don't know why you feel
that "P" is superior to "F"!

Thanks for your slogans! What is your practical suggestion?

Should people, all of a sudden, start speaking Pahlavi?
Should they give up their religion of the past 1000-1,400 years and
convert to a Zoroastrianism that was reduced to the ideology of a
corrupt and oppressive regime in pre-Islamic Iran (hence the relative
ease with which the Iranians succumbed to the numerically inferior,
poorly equipped Arabs)?

Shi'ite Islam is the Iranians' national religion today. Pending your
invention of a time machine that can take us back to a glorious past
(which never was - except for the corrupt and oppressive elite), we have
to start from where we are at: Gradual reform and modernisation of our
current national religion.

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Joubin

2004-12-02 03:30:05 UTC

"Hindian" <***@hindhindhind.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

[snip]

Post by Hindian
the mullahs of iran want to wipe out all traces of the country's past
upto the takeover by arabs and islam.

^^^^

and then

Post by Hindian
the zorastrian, bahai, persian..etc all that history

^^^^^

Post by Hindian
is being shreaded

2 out of 3 is ok, but for a KHAR it is *outstanding*!

Post by Hindian
as we speak and replaced by islam which is basically subserviance to
arab culture, language and religion.
its strange how islam manages to get people to turn against their
indegenous culture and destroy it. its like a colonization of the
mind. the people KNOW their ansestors were forced into islam. yet
they continue to go about destroying their own heritage.
i'm sure there's some hidden evolutionary reason for such behaviour
but i cannot put my finger on it.

Aazar T

2004-12-01 16:01:10 UTC

Post by Aazar T

Post by Pacifist
Why do you say "Parsi (not Farsi)"? Everybody in Iran calls it "Farsi"
and even during the Shah's time it said "Farsi" on the school books not
"Parsi".

Hi,
I fully agree with efforts to enrich and promote Persian, but it appears
that you want to rescue the language from its own native speakers!
Native speakers call it "Farsi", not Parsi. I don't know why you feel
that "P" is superior to "F"!
More relevantly, today the Persian language has anything up to one half
loan words from Arabic. It is not the language spoken in the
pre-Islamic days and it will never be.
Even if it were possible to clear Persian from its Turkish and Arabic
content, it would not be desirable, as we will lose touch with most if
our literarture of the past 14 centuries.
No more Hafez, Sa'adi, Mowlavi (Rumi) or Nasser Khosrow. We would be a
bit like the Turks are today. Cut loose in the world, without an anchor
in our rich cultural heritage.
If Farsi needs saving today, it is from English and not from Arabic. If
you have been to Iran in the past ten years, you will have noticed how a
version of pidgin English is replacing many good Persian words or how
words that could easily be translated, are just etering the language in
their English form.
Best,
P

I agree with you regarding our heritage and the Arabic in modern
Persian or for that matter the Arabic alphabet (more importantly for
the sake of continuity), but there is no reason that you cannot change
some words back to Persian. Ferdosi used Parsi and I don't see how
this change would affect Hafez or Molawi.

The majority argument does not wash.

Aazar

Pacifist

2004-12-01 16:21:30 UTC

Post by Aazar T
I agree with you regarding our heritage and the Arabic in modern
Persian or for that matter the Arabic alphabet (more importantly for
the sake of continuity), but there is no reason that you cannot change
some words back to Persian. Ferdosi used Parsi and I don't see how
this change would affect Hafez or Molawi.
The majority argument does not wash.
Aazar

I'm not trying to be obstinate over this. You call it Parsi and I call
it Farsi (as I grew up and went to school in Iran, where everybody
considers themselves "Farsi" speakers and you will certainly be thought
to be kidding if you referred to "Parsi!")

As for "Ferdowsi", I like to make an observation, please. As you know
"Ferdows" is the Arabised of "Pardis" which has even made its way into
the English language as "paradise":

Now...If Ferdowsi, a man who probably should take the most credit for
the survival of the Persian / Parsi / Farsi language, had the kind of
feelings that you consider almost mandatory for a nationalistic Iranian
to have, why didn't he call himself "Pardisi"?!

Was it because

A-)He an Arab-loving traitor?
or

B-) He acknowledged that even in his time (10 centuries ago), the
correct usage was the Arabised one of "Ferdowsi", but in referring to
the language of times past (and possibly for poetic effect), he used the
word "Parsi"?

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Aidan Kehoe

2004-12-01 17:01:33 UTC

Well, it sort of does in English. Especially since the only community known
to English speaker as “Parsi” lives in India, and has little contact with
modern Iran.

Aazar, if you don’t like the “f” in English, use “Persian.”

Post by Pacifist
I'm not trying to be obstinate over this. You call it Parsi and I call
it Farsi (as I grew up and went to school in Iran, where everybody
considers themselves "Farsi" speakers and you will certainly be thought
to be kidding if you referred to "Parsi!")
As for "Ferdowsi", I like to make an observation, please. As you know
"Ferdows" is the Arabised of "Pardis" which has even made its way into

Via Greek (and Hebrew?), where the “p” was preserved. *shrug* languages
change in different directions, there’s nothing wrong with that, nor is
there much that’s practical that can be done to stop it. I don’t see English
people renaming “Chester” to “Château” out of respect for the closest of
Latin’s descendants to England :-) .

--
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H.L. Mencken

Pacifist

2004-12-01 17:27:33 UTC

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Pacifist
As for "Ferdowsi", I like to make an observation, please. As you know
"Ferdows" is the Arabised of "Pardis" which has even made its way into

Via Greek (and Hebrew?),

No not via Hebrew, just Greek / Latin and antique French :-)

Quote

[Middle English paradis, from Old French, from Late Latin paradsus, from
Greek paradeisos, garden, enclosed park, paradise, from Avestan
pairidaza-, enclosure, park : pairi-, around; see per1 in Indo-European
Roots + daz, wall; see dheigh- in Indo-European Roots.]

Unquote

Quote

Word History: The history of paradise is an extreme example of
amelioration, the process by which a word comes to refer to something
better than what it used to refer to. The old Iranian language Avestan
had a noun pairidaza-, a wall enclosing a garden or orchard, which is
composed of pairi-, around, and daza- wall. The adverb and
preposition pairi is related to the equivalent Greek form peri, as in
perimeter. Daza- comes from the Indo-European root *dheigh-, to mold,
form, shape. Zoroastrian religion encouraged maintaining arbors,
orchards, and gardens, and even the kings of austere Sparta were edified
by seeing the Great King of Persia planting and maintaining his own
trees in his own garden. Xenophon, a Greek mercenary soldier who spent
some time in the Persian army and later wrote histories, recorded the
pairidaza- surrounding the orchard as paradeisos, using it not to refer
to the wall itself but to the huge parks that Persian nobles loved to
build and hunt in. This Greek word was used in the Septuagint
translation of Genesis to refer to the Garden of Eden, whence Old
English eventually borrowed it around 1200.

Unquote

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Aidan Kehoe

2004-12-01 17:54:26 UTC

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Pacifist
As for "Ferdowsi", I like to make an observation, please. As you know
"Ferdows" is the Arabised of "Pardis" which has even made its way into

Via Greek (and Hebrew?),

No not via Hebrew, just Greek / Latin and antique French :-)

Yeah, the OED mentions “late” Hebrew pardēs, but it doesn’t claim the
English came from there. So Hebrew evidently used something else in Genesis.

Douglas G. Kilday

2004-12-05 13:18:08 UTC

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Pacifist
As for "Ferdowsi", I like to make an observation, please. As you know
"Ferdows" is the Arabised of "Pardis" which has even made its way into

Via Greek (and Hebrew?),

No not via Hebrew, just Greek / Latin and antique French :-)

Yeah, the OED mentions "late" Hebrew pardes, but it doesn't claim the
English came from there. So Hebrew evidently used something else in Genesis.

Genesis has in Hebrew <gan 3e:den> lit. 'Garden of Delight', but <3e:den>
here, as a place-name, is simply transliterated 'Eden' rather than
translated. Its plural <3(a)da:niym> 'delights' occurs in 2 Sam. 1:24 and
Jer. 51:34. Heb. <gan> 'enclosed place, garden, orchard' and derivatives
occur elsewhere. The Septuagint uses the Persian loanword <paradeisos> (in
Xenophon 'royal park') to render <gan> in Genesis, which is the origin of
the shift in meaning to 'paradise' found in the NT, e.g. Luke 23:43.

The Persian loanword <parde:S> 'enclosure' is used as 'royal forest' in Neh.
2:8, 'orchard' in Cant. 4:13, and in pl. <parde:Siym> 'orchards' in Eccl.
2:5. Its Hebrew sense is not greatly different from <gan>. The Hebrew
borrowing of this word is independent of the Greek and has no direct
connection with English 'paradise'.

Aazar T

2004-12-02 16:59:16 UTC

I'm not trying to be obstinate over this. You call it Parsi and I call
it Farsi (as I grew up and went to school in Iran, where everybody
considers themselves "Farsi" speakers and you will certainly be thought
to be kidding if you referred to "Parsi!")
As for "Ferdowsi", I like to make an observation, please. As you know
"Ferdows" is the Arabised of "Pardis" which has even made its way into
Now...If Ferdowsi, a man who probably should take the most credit for
the survival of the Persian / Parsi / Farsi language, had the kind of
feelings that you consider almost mandatory for a nationalistic Iranian
to have, why didn't he call himself "Pardisi"?!
Was it because
A-)He an Arab-loving traitor?
or
B-) He acknowledged that even in his time (10 centuries ago), the
correct usage was the Arabised one of "Ferdowsi", but in referring to
the language of times past (and possibly for poetic effect), he used the
word "Parsi"?
P

You are being exactly what you say you don't want to be: obstinate. I
tried to imply in my earlier posting that there is no hard and fast
rules so common sense has to prevail, but subtelty is beyond most
Iranians, perhaps you could explain to me why you are being so
obstinate about Farsi when our forefathers restored hundreds and
hundreds of other foreign words (a process which is still continuing)?
Is it a nationalistic thing? By the way, I find it very odd and rude
that we are now imposing the word Farsi on the non Persian speaking
world which they don't reject because of their ignorance (mostly
westerners). If Germans tried to impose "Deutsch" instead of German,
everyone would be up in arms but we are conceited enough to impose
Farsi on the rest of the world (which is perhaps why we piss off other
Iranian/Perisan nations into calling their language anything but
Farsi, for example Afghans insistenace on calling their language Dari,
it is not just ignorance [for the benefit of others, Dari is adjective
and short for Dari Persian], or Tajiks calling it Tajik). Talk about
being conceited. If you like you can answer this note directly to me
as it is not related to this thread.

The reference to paradise is argumentative as the original word is
ancient and out of use. No point in going further.

If you need examples like yours: when my parents went to school
everybody said Malieh but it was changed to Daraie. You no longer say
Edalatkhaneh but Dadgostari or Dadgah. As to your rhertorical question
at the end what we need is common sense, not nonsense. I am happy to
keep lobbying for Farsi to be dropped in favour of Parsi and have not
seen any good reason from you to change my mind.

Pacifist

2004-12-02 17:43:26 UTC

Post by Aazar T
You are being exactly what you say you don't want to be: obstinate. I

I have to admit that I'm snookered here! If I argue futher that I'm not
obstinate that would count that as additional obstinacy!

More seriously though, as I said, it's a free world. You say Parsi and,
bar a few odd looks, nothing will happen.
I think I'll say Farsi as I have done since I was knee-high to a
grasshopper.

Post by Aazar T
Is it a nationalistic thing? By the way, I find it very odd and rude
that we are now imposing the word Farsi on the non Persian speaking
world which they don't reject because of their ignorance (mostly
westerners). If Germans tried to impose "Deutsch" instead of German,
everyone would be up in arms but we are conceited enough to impose
Farsi on the rest of the world

I can merely point at the Indians who have changed Madras to Chennai,
Bombay to Mumbai and a whole host of other changes and nobody called
them rude.
And how about the Chinese who adopted the PinYin notation and
fundamently changed the way Chinese names are pronounced in English?
Peking became Beijing and Mao Tse-Tung become Mao Zedong?
Are the Chinese being rude? (I guess the answer is yes, if you visit
Cantonese restaurants with any regularity.)

Post by Aazar T
(which is perhaps why we piss off other
Iranian/Perisan nations into calling their language anything but
Farsi, for example Afghans insistenace on calling their language Dari,
it is not just ignorance [for the benefit of others, Dari is adjective
and short for Dari Persian], or Tajiks calling it Tajik). Talk about
being conceited. If you like you can answer this note directly to me
as it is not related to this thread.

I don't think the Afghans call their language "Dari" because they are
pissed off.
It is because they have always called Dari, without qualifying it with
Persian.

When explaining why he didn't compose eulogies, Nasser Khosrow says:

Beh paay-e khookaan narizam
Man in por bahaa dorr-e lafz-e Dari raa

(I won't drop the pearls of the Sari lnaguage at the foot of "pigs"
- Great man NK!)

I am sure it was not beyond his skill and wit as a poet to make the
above rhyme with "Parsi" or even Parsi-e Dari (or even Farsi-e Dari).

Post by Aazar T
The reference to paradise is argumentative as the original word is
ancient and out of use. No point in going further.

Not being obstinate but we were talking about Ferdowsi who, being from
1,000 year ago, was ancient himself.
I think you brought up his name, which made me think about Pardia /
Paradise.

Post by Aazar T
If you need examples like yours: when my parents went to school
everybody said Malieh but it was changed to Daraie. You no longer say
Edalatkhaneh but Dadgostari or Dadgah. As to your rhertorical question
at the end what we need is common sense, not nonsense. I am happy to
keep lobbying for Farsi to be dropped in favour of Parsi and have not
seen any good reason from you to change my mind.

What you say actually supports my argument that the greater threat to
Persian today is from the English language not from Arabic.
Reza Shah's farhangestaan did create a lot of beautiful Persian
equivalents like Shahrdaari / Shahrbaani etc., but afterwards, during
the second Pahlavi, and ever since, this was left in abeyance and
European words tricled in.
The trickle has now become a flood: It is not just new words that are
coming in (like Internet), but some existing Farsi (oops Persian)words
are being supplanted by English words (eg "Sandali-ye Charkhdaar" has
been replaced by wheelchair).

Hence, I humbly suggest that your energies would be better expended if
you campaign for a modern "farhangestaan", than campaign for the
relatively trivial Farsi / Parsi duality.
One has to agree that the Arabs were way ahead of us in this. The Arab
nationalist, had this "Nahda" movement which roughly translates as
rennaisance. They set out to translate all the European words to a
reasonable Arabic equivalent and that's why today automobile and
telephone are "Sayyareh" and "Haatef" respectively. They have been
far more successful than us in this regard.
Most wonderful of all, they translated "electricity" into the Persian
"Kahrobaa" :-)

Anyhow, my fingertips are aching and nobody has read this far...

P

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Aazar T

2004-12-03 17:10:29 UTC

Post by Pacifist
I can merely point at the Indians who have changed Madras to

Chennai,

Post by Pacifist
Bombay to Mumbai and a whole host of other changes and nobody called
them rude.
And how about the Chinese who adopted the PinYin notation and
fundamently changed the way Chinese names are pronounced in English?
Peking became Beijing and Mao Tse-Tung become Mao Zedong?
Are the Chinese being rude? (I guess the answer is yes, if you visit
Cantonese restaurants with any regularity.)

Re Imposition of Farsi on others
You are snookered because you are nitpicking. The point I was trying
to make is a simple but fundamental one. One important aspect of
culture is its continuity. There is tons of material in other
countries using "Persian" and "Persia", through this abrupt and
unilateral changes we are breaking our link to our past. Just because
other people are doing the same out of misplaced nationalistic pride,
does not make it right. How do you know if future generations who see
reference to their history are not dismayed by this abrupt changes?
Westerns accept these changes readily because of their colonial past
"kooeshan gohist" as we say in Persian, but it does not make it right
or wise. Inadvertently and advertently they are still fuelling
nationalistic differences.

Re Parsi vs Farsi

Again you are being very obstinate but I can be obstinate too.

Post by Pacifist
Not being obstinate but we were talking about Ferdowsi who, being from
1,000 year ago, was ancient himself.
I think you brought up his name, which made me think about Pardia /
Paradise.

Yes but both Pars, Parsi and Ferdous are used currently while Pardia
is not, and you forget the gold rule: would be a hard sell (again and
again: need common sense).

Post by Pacifist
What you say actually supports my argument that the greater threat to
Persian today is from the English language not from Arabic.
Reza Shah's farhangestaan did create a lot of beautiful Persian
equivalents like Shahrdaari / Shahrbaani etc., but afterwards, during
the second Pahlavi, and ever since, this was left in abeyance and
European words tricled in.
The trickle has now become a flood: It is not just new words that are
coming in (like Internet), but some existing Farsi (oops Persian)words
are being supplanted by English words (eg "Sandali-ye Charkhdaar" has
been replaced by wheelchair).
Hence, I humbly suggest that your energies would be better expended if
you campaign for a modern "farhangestaan", than campaign for the
relatively trivial Farsi / Parsi duality.
One has to agree that the Arabs were way ahead of us in this. The Arab
nationalist, had this "Nahda" movement which roughly translates as
rennaisance. They set out to translate all the European words to a
reasonable Arabic equivalent and that's why today automobile and
telephone are "Sayyareh" and "Haatef" respectively. They have been
far more successful than us in this regard.
Most wonderful of all, they translated "electricity" into the Persian
"Kahrobaa" :-)
Anyhow, my fingertips are aching and nobody has read this far...
P

Replacement of Western words is a problem faced by many of the old
world cultures and there is no magic solution as you well know it is
very difficult to come up with words that is easily accepted. I put it
to you that the flood you are talking about is caused more by having
such a huge emigre population than failures of our Farhangestan,
neither is it a new problem in such a large country, reading the
papers published in Iran, the present Farhangestan is doing a
reasonable job. "Charkhball" instead of Helicopter is one example,
there are many others. I cannot comment on the Arabic movement on how
good their institutes are as I don't know anything about it or how
much of it has been taken up by the population but I find your picking
such an argument over something very simple typical of our Gheirati
attitude and possibly the reason why we have not made any progress (in
your own view).

pund kamath

2004-12-02 21:16:48 UTC

Post by Pacifist
Hi,
I fully agree with efforts to enrich and promote Persian, but it appears
that you want to rescue the language from its own native speakers!
Native speakers call it "Farsi", not Parsi. I don't know why you feel
that "P" is superior to "F"!
More relevantly, today the Persian language has anything up to one half
loan words from Arabic. It is not the language spoken in the
pre-Islamic days and it will never be.
Even if it were possible to clear Persian from its Turkish and Arabic
content, it would not be desirable, as we will lose touch with most if
our literarture of the past 14 centuries.
No more Hafez, Sa'adi, Mowlavi (Rumi) or Nasser Khosrow. We would be a
bit like the Turks are today. Cut loose in the world, without an anchor
in our rich cultural heritage.
If Farsi needs saving today, it is from English and not from Arabic. If
you have been to Iran in the past ten years, you will have noticed how a
version of pidgin English is replacing many good Persian words or how
words that could easily be translated, are just etering the language in
their English form....

You can be atleat thankful to Arabs because Islamization brought by
them gave Iranians new culture and finesse. Prior to the advent of
Isamization, Persian culture was dormant.

A R

2004-12-03 20:24:40 UTC

Post by pund kamath
You can be atleat thankful to Arabs because Islamization brought by
them gave Iranians new culture and finesse. Prior to the advent of
Isamization, Persian culture was dormant.

That is not correct and is pure Isamic propaganda. Who do you think
internationalised Islam (which is at heart an Arab Nationalist
movement)? Who civilised the Arabs and the Mongols? Who do you think
administered the Caliphate? Iranians. I wish people would think a
little.

pund kamath

2004-12-05 15:36:14 UTC

Post by pund kamath
You can be atleat thankful to Arabs because Islamization brought by
them gave Iranians new culture and finesse. Prior to the advent of
Isamization, Persian culture was dormant.

Come , Come my friend. I am familiar with history of Arabs, Iran and
Islam. I have travelled to Muslim lands and have appreciated its rich
contributions to world culture in the past-Iran in particular many
many years ago before your Revolution. That is the time Iranians
jumped in joy at the very sight of Khomeni and shouted that the
saviour has arrivec. What abloody legacy you have inherited? Look
where you are now!

There were many great Caliphs in Islamic Middle East. Were they all
Iranians? Haroun Al-Rashid was not Iranian.

How do you explain Iran which indeed with its ancient culture and
civilization, fell flat on Arab conquest?. Now, it is your clergy over
centuries was mesmerized by Islam's message. What happened to the
culture and contents of Iran?

If you indeed to revitallize Iran and its culture, you must get rid of
your Islamic Mullahs and Ayatollahs and open the door rich and
wonderful family of nations and great repository of knowledge and
culture of all nations that surround you.

Otherwise my friend, you will be doomed to suffer as you are now.

666

2004-12-06 13:55:29 UTC

Please drop your patronising ignorant attitude. It is simply idiotic. I
am not your friend and have no wish to be.

You are changing the subject and now expect perfection, I am not going
to be drawn into a discussion about the why's and how's of Iranian
political or military failures. You made an erroneous assertion
regarding culture and history.

I did not say they were Caliphs, I said they administered the
Caliphate. Go and look up the word administration in a dictioanry. For
a long period the language used to keep the Caliphate records and
accounts was in Persian until an IRANIAN turned it into Arabic.

No matter what the new nationalists in the region like to claim or how
they like to revise history (Turkish and Arab Nationalists in
particular) the cultural contribution of Iranians to the golden age of
Islam is not disputed, neither is it before Islam. As numerous
academics have acknowledged: "The Islam that we know today is from a
Persian filter, a Persian lens".

So don't talk about things you clearly don't know or understand and
stop wasting bandwidth.

Post by pund kamath

Post by pund kamath
You can be atleat thankful to Arabs because Islamization brought by
them gave Iranians new culture and finesse. Prior to the advent of
Isamization, Persian culture was dormant.

Come , Come my friend. I am familiar with history of Arabs, Iran and
Islam. I have travelled to Muslim lands and have appreciated its rich
contributions to world culture in the past-Iran in particular many
many years ago before your Revolution. That is the time Iranians
jumped in joy at the very sight of Khomeni and shouted that the
saviour has arrivec. What abloody legacy you have inherited? Look
where you are now!
There were many great Caliphs in Islamic Middle East. Were they all
Iranians? Haroun Al-Rashid was not Iranian.
How do you explain Iran which indeed with its ancient culture and
civilization, fell flat on Arab conquest?. Now, it is your clergy over
centuries was mesmerized by Islam's message. What happened to the
culture and contents of Iran?
If you indeed to revitallize Iran and its culture, you must get rid of
your Islamic Mullahs and Ayatollahs and open the door rich and
wonderful family of nations and great repository of knowledge and
culture of all nations that surround you.
Otherwise my friend, you will be doomed to suffer as you are now.

p***@hotmail.com

2004-12-09 15:20:32 UTC

Post by 666
Please drop your patronising ignorant attitude. It is simply idiotic. I
am not your friend and have no wish to be......

Dear boy! Saying, "my friend.." is an expression. Don't take it
literally! It is not patronising.
Anyway, Islamic civilization did not drop out of skies nor a gift of
Quran. It has inherited and drawn inspiration from other cultures from
far and wide. It is composite and contributed its own.

What you are doing now is another spewing a nationalist's lament to
give oneself a kind a sense of self image and worth. Perhaps reading
too much from an ultra-Iranian nationalist's writing of history with
too much emphasis on Iranian contribution.

Post by 666
You are changing the subject and now expect perfection, I am not going
to be drawn into a discussion about the why's and how's of Iranian
political or military failures. You made an erroneous assertion
regarding culture and history.

Well. Perhaps, you do not have a good explanation. You should get into
the business of spin-doctoring! Then you can even say Iran is the
centre of earth!

aazar

2004-12-09 17:16:13 UTC

I said drop your idiotic patronising attitude my little brown friend.

You make baseless statements without an ounce of reasoning. If I have
to sound like a nationlist to defend against erroneous nationalistic
propaganda so be it.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Dear boy! Saying, "my friend.." is an expression. Don't take it
literally! It is not patronising.
Anyway, Islamic civilization did not drop out of skies nor a gift of
Quran. It has inherited and drawn inspiration from other cultures from
far and wide. It is composite and contributed its own.
What you are doing now is another spewing a nationalist's lament to
give oneself a kind a sense of self image and worth. Perhaps reading
too much from an ultra-Iranian nationalist's writing of history with
too much emphasis on Iranian contribution.

Post by 666
You are changing the subject and now expect perfection, I am not

going

Post by 666
to be drawn into a discussion about the why's and how's of Iranian
political or military failures. You made an erroneous assertion
regarding culture and history.

Well. Perhaps, you do not have a good explanation. You should get into
the business of spin-doctoring! Then you can even say Iran is the
centre of earth!

666

2004-12-06 14:02:12 UTC

Post by pund kamath

Post by pund kamath
You can be atleat thankful to Arabs because Islamization brought by
them gave Iranians new culture and finesse. Prior to the advent of
Isamization, Persian culture was dormant.

Come , Come my friend. I am familiar with history of Arabs, Iran and
Islam. I have travelled to Muslim lands and have appreciated its rich
contributions to world culture in the past-Iran in particular many
many years ago before your Revolution. That is the time Iranians
jumped in joy at the very sight of Khomeni and shouted that the
saviour has arrivec. What abloody legacy you have inherited? Look
where you are now!
There were many great Caliphs in Islamic Middle East. Were they all
Iranians? Haroun Al-Rashid was not Iranian.
How do you explain Iran which indeed with its ancient culture and
civilization, fell flat on Arab conquest?. Now, it is your clergy over
centuries was mesmerized by Islam's message. What happened to the
culture and contents of Iran?
If you indeed to revitallize Iran and its culture, you must get rid of
your Islamic Mullahs and Ayatollahs and open the door rich and
wonderful family of nations and great repository of knowledge and
culture of all nations that surround you.
Otherwise my friend, you will be doomed to suffer as you are now.

Kavik Kang

2004-12-06 20:16:02 UTC

Post by pund kamath