From: etxmajz@solsta-c.solsta.ericsson.se (Majid Zolfaghari  TX/DKG)
Subject: Re: a poem
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB, Karlstad, Sweden.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:16:20 GMT


>   > Not that we have completely settled the case of 'eesAr' but does any
>   > person know why there is a tashdid in words 'dovom' and 'sevom?'
>   >
>   > Arabic-0A : tashdid is an Arabic language solution to shorten words that
>   > repeat two of the same characters (normally one is with vowel and one w/o).
>   > For example, aval is - which is an Arabic word - really av-val hence written
>   > by one vAv, but a tashdid symbol will be put above the vAv character.
>   >
>   > So the question is why dovom became 'dov-vom' and sevom became 'sev-vom?'
> 
> Hooshyar khAn,
> 
> I guess that is because we are using some of the Arabic rules in our
> language, Farsi. What you asked about is not the only case. Some of
> the others are "dovoman", "sevoman",....
> As you know "an, en, on" which are called "tanvin" are Arabic, but we
> normaly use them.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mansour.

It is true that tashdid and tanvin are arabic but we can not take
them away without loosing phonetic information. In that case vi must
replace the letter with tashdid with two occurences of that letter.
Even in that case, phonetic information will be lost. "Arreh" (saw) with one
r and tashdid and "arreh" with two r, can be pronounced in two different
ways. In the case with tashidid we stress the letter (we pronounce it
strongly) but in the second case we pronounce it twice. These are not
the same things.

> 
> I think the best meaning for "aval", as one of the "ahAli" has said,
> is "nakhost".

Ok, vi can use nakhostin instead of avval (or avval) but vad what about
dovvom and sevvom ... ? I mean that this can not be a final solution to
the problem of tashdid.

I think that language reforms should make a language more staright
forward and less ambiguous. If we want to ommit foreign words it
should not result in a less expressive language or more phonetical
ambiguities. If we ommit the "tanvin" then we must replace the
remaining "alef" with a "nun".

But I think that it can be a good idea to

1- ommit the redundancies, for example differnt(4) versions of z
("ze, zaal, zaad, zaa)  and things like that.

2- Or some mechanism for seetting "fathe, kasre and zamme" in the words.

Then it will be very easier to read and write or (lovely) language. I
beleive that such a reform will lead to less illiterates (although
the complexity or language is not the only factor). But even this
approach have some serious disadvantages; some different words
will be written in the same way (ex "ghaazi" = judge and "ghaazi" =
the goose) it means that new ambiguities will be introduced. The other
disadvantage is that the link to our old and rich literator will be
weaker.

A LANGUAGE REFORM SHOULD NOT BE AN IDEOLOGICAL ONE. IT SHOULD REFORM 
OUR LANGUAGE TO A MORE UNDERSTANDABLE AND LESS AMBIGUOUS ONE.  Then it
will be very easier for us (and people not speaking persians) to
learn it.
I beleive that we will understand each other better in that case.
because a lot of misunderstanding between us iranians depends on just
"misunderstanding" of our language. We "interpret" and understand
the same sentence in different ways. But that is an another history.

Maid Zolfaghari




Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian