From: farhad@cwi.nl (Farhad Arbab)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: Why Tashdid?
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:16:34 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Cc: farhad

In article <1993Jan21.130841.23291@netcom.com>, bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.060950.3659@cc.uow.edu.au> g9020985@cc.uow.edu.au
|> (Mansour Esmaili) writes:
|> >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.
|> 
|> I hadn't thought about tanvin.  Good pointers Mansour khAn.

This is very sad, indeed!  Words like "dovoman", "sevoman", etc.  are
MISTAKES, they happen to be popular, but they are, nevertheless,
mistakes: there is such a category as "popular mistakes" in every
language.

They are mistakes because they apply Arabic grammar rules to Persian
words to derive Persian words.  They probably would be considered OK if
the Arabs did it (e.g., if they borrowed a Persian word, applied an
Arabic rule to it to derive another word to use in Arabic) and then we
borrowed them back, but this is not the case.

Note that it is OK to take an Arabic word in Persian, apply a Persian
grammar rule to it to derive another "Persian" word.  All languages do
this with borrowed words.  The general rule in all languages is that
once a word is borrowed, it becomes subject to the rules of the
borrower language.  Usually, it is sometimes OK to still use the
original plural form of borrowed nouns in the borrower language.
However, even this is often considered "bad taste" in most languages.

Other common unacceptable words in the "popular mistakes" category
include mimicing Arabic rules for forming irregular plurals of Persian
nouns. E.g., "shilAt" (as in the government office of fisheries) is
WRONG because "shil" is a Persian (actually, Gilak, if memory serves
right) and "at" has no business as its plural suffix; similarly,
"ghanavAt" is an unfortunate imposter for "ghanAt-hA"; etc.

A few useful rules for those who care.  It is ALWAYS OK to apply
Persian rules to form plurals of borrowed nouns (Arabic and
otherwise).  It is acceptable, but often in bad taste, to use the
plural form of a borrowed noun according to the rules of its original
language. E.g., "navAhi" is acceptable, but "nAhiye-hA" is better.  It
is repulsive to use other borrowed words (e.g., verbs and adjectives)
in Persian, following the rules of their original language.  It is
ALWAYS WRONG to apply non-Persian grammar rules to Persian words to
derive other words in Persian.

|> 
|> >I think the best meaning for "aval", as one of the "ahAli" has said, is
|> >"nakhost".
|> 
|> In that case, I would say your position that we (Iranians) used some of
|> the Arabic rules would be considered 'nakhostin' possible answer to my
|> beginning-to-get-an-answer question.
|> 
|> Regards,
|> hooshyar F. Naraghi
|> bavafa@netcom.com
|> (415) 322-8056

Cheers,

Farhad Arbab
Interactive Systems
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Email: farhad@cwi.nl                    Fax:   +31 20 592-4199
Phone: +31 20 592-4056                  Telex: 12571 mactr nl