Talk:Persian grammar

Object, Subject Marking/ Ergativity
I'd like to see some examples of transitive and intransitive verbs in future, present, and past tenses - For transitive verbs, I hear that in the future and present, objects are marked with the accusative, yet in the past the marker goes on the subject...? If this is indeed true I think a section on 'split ergativity' would be great!

examples:

John will sleep/ John will see the man

John sleeps/ John sees the man

John slept/ John saw the man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.195.115 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Persian isn't ergative. Perhaps you are thinking of Hindi/Urdu, which is partly ergative. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Present Tense
I have been studying Persian on my own. One things that I have found to be hard to come by on the Web is the the imperative forms of the common verbs used in Persian. These forms are required in order to know how to form the present tense. I have partially compiled the following table, but it is not good enough yet to put into the article. Would anyone like to clean this up?

For instance I am not sure if شو is pronounced like 'show' or 'shaev' or something else altogether.

Technical
We need to explain what SOV vs. SVO and some of the other abbreviations used mean - I know it seems self-explanatory, but not everyone will get it. As it stands, it looks like a mad linguist ran through certain sections of the article tossing jargon grenades.

Cleanup & Wikify
Some of the tables here look sloppy, and we are using specialized transliteration orthography that not everyone will understand (s with caron, etc.) We should probably use IPA, but not everyone will be able to read that either.--Jpbrenna 00:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of transliterations and jargon grenades, I'm taking out the case markings table because:
 * a) It's not necessary to mention Persian prepositions as case markings unless you are a Latin speaker, etc. As this article is written in English, it's quite fitting to describe æz, dær, etc. as prepositions, for which there is a section already, and rā has already been treated.
 * b) The transliterations are sloppy---eg. Bukhara and Bokharara, using  to denote both /æ/ and /ɒ/ . The examples came from an older text, which makes the table  feel like it's written by William Jones.
 * and besides,
 * c) The examples of the declensions are not in parallel with each other.
 * d) The glosses are unmarked
 * e) The ACC entry fails to even mention the rā in the example


 * Also, the International Phonetic Alphabet is great for discussing phonetics and even phonology, but it gets annoying to read when the subject is something unrelated, like syntax. The transliteration scheme used in this article is fairly normal for linguists working on Persian.   --jonsafari 04:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is normal for linguists working on Persian - but Wikipdia isn't for linguists working on Persian, it's for general readers. Not every reader - probably not even most - will be a linguist familiar with Americanist phonetic notation.  The only exceptions would be a Czech or a Greek: the former would know š stands for "sh" and the Greek would read x as "kh," but this is after all the English Wikipedia, as you point out. The article will be far more accesible if we write "khoda ro shokur" and not "xoda ro škr."  The only reason I suggested IPA is that slightly more users are likely to be familiar with that system, although it would still make the article relatively inaccessible.
 * Speaking of general readers, I have in my possession a simple 21st-century Persian phrasebook directed toward the broadest-possible English speaking audience which uses the terms "ablative" etc., with explanation of their meaning for the layman. The book was written by a native speaker, a published linguist who lectures in Iran.  Although he may have modeled his grammar section on somewhat older English-language sources, I doubt very much that he went all the way back to Sir William.  While I followed him in using the Latinate terms, the examples in the case table were entirely my own.  I used Bukhara with unadorned a's because that is the transliteration most readers are likely to be familiar with; the -o-  version was a mistake.  I admit my Persian is so poor as to not even warrant an FA-1 tag, but I was writing out some pretty simple phrases.  I asked a native speaker on Wikipedia to check the examples, but apparently he hasn't gotten around to it yet. --Jpbrenna 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. My only suggestion is that you familiarize yourself more with Persian a little more before making big changes to the article, as Dehghani's Lonely Planet phrasebook and speaking with a few native speakers does not give a complete picture of what's going on in the language.  I respectfully disagree with his overcomplication of describing to the general public be as the dative case, dar as locative, and az as ablative.  Also, while using  for both /æ/ and /ɒ/ is fine for native speakers SMSing each other, it's painfully ambiguous for any description of the language.   Also, using  to describe the accusative marker is appropriate to mention in a more phonologically-oriented article, but a grammar-oriented article should try not to make use of allomorphs in examples, as this distracts from the main concept being illustrated.  BTW, I like the template, but we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves to break up the grammar article into so many little articles at this point in time (although noun and verb articles are reasonable).   --jonsafari 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(More of) my suggestions for expanding & improving the article - please comment
Actually, I think it should become more of an article series, with summaries here - just as it is with other languages on Wikipedia - but maybe we should discuss having just one big article for now (see below).


 * Other languages (say, German) probably need a separate article on adjectives, since declension can be an issue. As long as there's only a couple paragraphs talking about a given item, I see little need to separate it into a separate article.  Of course there's alot to say about nouns and verbs, so that's understandable to spin these off into separate articles.  But if we keep it a single article while we're resolving, eg. transliteration issues etc., the more consistency we'll have when we do spin them off.  --jonsafari 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration
I looked at the Bukhara article, and it transliterates the Persian as Bukhârâ. Maybe we could use marked vowels instead of the ligature, but dispense with the x and s-with-caron for the consonants and just use the expected English digraphs instead? My concern is that a non-specialist consulting this article will be put off by the transliteration system. People should be aware of the system, however - I have seen it used in Ann Lambton's grammar and in some other works on Persian, and your comments seem to suggest it is the de facto standard in Persian studies. Why don't we create an article on transliteration of Persian, or discuss it at the Persian alphabet article and link to the appropriate section from here?


 * I'm not sure why the Bukhara article would be seen as any sort of reference. While I have a Langenscheidt Persian-German German-Persian dictionary (aimed at regular German speakers) that uses , <š>, and <č> in their transliteration, I'm ok with changing these three to , , and . --jonsafari 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Content & Layout - Greek style?
I think Greek grammar does a pretty good job of describing the grammar of modern Greek, without resorting to separate articles for nouns, verbs, etc. - although most other language articles seem to do this. Everything is covered, examples are given, and the tables are neat and attractive. My only complaint is that the overall article is overly-long, in my opinon. Another problem is that the contributors assume one knows the Greek alphabet and the phonetic values in Modern Greek. I happen to be able to read Greek, but not every reader will; I think if we imitate their layout (where appropriate) we might want to have both the original Perso-Arabic and an easily readable transliteration.


 * In the inline text we could have a format like dær (در) 'door', and possibly for floats too. --jonsafari 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing Greek currently lacks, but which I would like to see here, is pronunciation of each written example by a native speaker. The Polish language article used to have at least a few of these in .ogg format; personally, I think it's a great idea. Eventually, if we develop articles on the different dialects we could even have dialect speakers record themselves and maybe crosslink so people could compare & contrast the different sounds instead of just reading "close-front unrounded vowel in Standard Persian, but close-mid unrounded in Dari..." or looking at some symbol.


 * It seems more applicable to Persian phonology and the 2 persian alphabet articles, but if you'd like to spearhead that effort for this article, by all means. --jonsafari 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And whether we keep the ligatured ae and Czech-looking characters or not, can we at least agree that the format of the ugly verb tables has to be changed? They are very cheap-looking and off-putting in their current form: the dotted lines make me feel like I should print them out, clip them, and take them to the grocery store for 75 cents off a liter of Persian! --Jpbrenna 07:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote a majority of this article one saturday afternoon, as you can see by viewing the first post of this article (id 11074942). The verb tables are in the format that they are because I just wanted to get the content up on the internet.  I agree that the format of the verb tables is ugly, so if you'd like to change that, be my guest. --jonsafari 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tajik
Looking at the Tajik grammar, it seems to be a rehashing of what's presented in this article, except the Cyrillic alphabet is used instead of the Perso-Arabic. It seems to me redundant, and instead of duplicating content, we should have the article focus on any major differences in the grammar of Tajik compared to the other dialects. In fact, it may not even pay to have a separeate "Tajik grammar" article: We could just discuss any grammatical differences in the "Tajik language" article, as they do for Cypriot Greek. What does everyone else think? --Jpbrenna 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with either way. It seems to be right on the border between merging the two articles or meriting separate articles.  It might be cumbersome to support the differences between Iranian Persian, Dari, and Tajik in one article, but then again there's alot of reduplication of effort.  On the other hand, much of the necessary text is already in place for both articles, so why bother?  Maybe a compromise could be to just coordinate efforts more, and have us keep an eye on both articles.  There does seem to be some important Turkic influences on Tajik grammar.  But like I said before, I'm fine with either way as long as things are executed non-sloppily.  –jonsafari 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer for there to be two separate articles, as having more than one script in an article could be cumbersome. I think Jons suggestion of keeping an eye on both articles and co-ordinating would be best. There are books published on Tajik grammar, so I think having two articles would be reasonable. - FrancisTyers · 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

About the books on Tajik grammar mentionned elsewhere by Francis. The first one is undoubtly Valentina S. Ratorgueva, A Short Sketch of Tajik Grammar [translated and edited by Herbert H. Paper], Bloomington: Indiana University, 1963, 110 p., originaly published in Russian as an addenda to the Tadžiksko-russkij slovar' [Tajik Russian Dictionary], Moskva, 1954, 529-570. The textbook should be Azim Baizoyev, John Hayward, The Official Beginners' Guide to Tajiki, Dushanbe: Star Publications, 2001, 448 p. – a good book indeed, many of my students have been using it very successfuly. To me John Perry's A Tajik Persian Reference Grammar, 2005, a pretty good reference book, fails to assess throughoutfully for the spoken varieties but is fairly good at the philological description. On the modern history of the language, the reference is whithout any doubt Lutz Rzehak, Vom Persischen zum Tadschikischen: sprachliches Handeln und Sprachplanung in Transoaxanien zwischen Tradition, Moderne und Sowjetmacht (1900-1956), Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001, 456 S. (it is in German). Thought it might be useful. –FOA 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This situation is similar to that of Hindi-Urdu grammar. The decision there was to have one article with both scripts: Devanagari and Perseo-Arabic. If Tajik and Persian are mutually intelligible (as Hindi and Urdu are), it might be a good idea to merge the two. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tenses
I added more tenses and presented them in 3rd person singular instead of 1st person (it's better especially for passive voice). We have more tenses in Persian and I could add them but since we have to resort to technical names, I decided to first talk about it and then decide what to do. I know here is not a forum but I didn't like to edit further without having had discussed about it. If I want to summarize Persian tenses of indicative mood (š = sh):

preterite: raft l— imperfective: miraft l— progressive: dâšt miraft l— perfective: rafteast (#1) l—— imperfective: mirafteast (#2) l—— progressive: dâšte[ast] mirafteast (#3) pluperfect: rafte bud l— imperfective: mirafte bud l— progressive: dâšt mirafte bud l— perfective: rafte budeast l—— imperfective: mirafte budeast (#4) l—— progressive: dâšteast mirafte budeast (#5)

(#1) the enclitic -ast has been reduced to -e in spoken Iranian Persian and we say: rafte (stress is on the last syllable). Please note that -ast is not a word to be written apart. Although we normally do so in Perso-Arabic and separated with a "space" but it should be separated by a zero-width non-joiner character. Its HTML entity code is #8204. (#2) for the same reason, we say mirafte (#3) for the same reason, we say dâšte mirafte (#4) for the same reason, we say mirafte bude (#5) for the same reason, we say dâšte mirafte bude Progressive tenses presented here, belong to spoken Iranian Persian. In Tajiki Persian, they have a different way for expressing the progressive aspect.

The tenses that I want to add are:


 * dâšte[ast] mirafteast (progressive perfective preterite i.e. progressive aspect of perfective aspect of the preterite tense)
 * dâšt mirafte bud (progressive pluperfect)
 * rafte budeast (perfective pluperfect i.e. perfective aspect of pluperfect)
 * mirafte budeast (imperfective perfective pluperfect)
 * dâšteast mirafte budeast (progressive perfective pluperfect)

Additionally, under this naming, rafteast is called "perfective preterite" because as I have shown above, it's perfective aspect of preterite. This name conforms with other names (e.g. progressive aspect of perfective preterite: dâšte[ast] mirafteast)

My opinion: Persian has these tenses and we should include them in Wiki page even if we have to resort to using technical names. Perhaps, we can present them as the chart I have used above. --Alijsh 04:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC), --Alijsh 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I originally put the first person singular, instead of the third person singular, is that it clearly shows where the person and number agreement should appear on a verb or verbal complex. The third person singular form does not show this in many forms.  This is very beneficial to those not familiar with Persian.  Your other contributions are welcome additions.  –jonsafari 01:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of these tenses are completely marginal or simply incorrect in Persian, for example mirafte bud and dâšteast mirafte budeast - the last one particularly is a nonsense. The grammarian Roohollah Mofidi in this article ["Budan va dāštan: do fe'l-e istā-ye fārsi", p.77, labels mirafte bud as ungrammatical. These tenses do not need to be included in an elementary article of this kind therefore. [[User:Kanjuzi|Kanjuzi]] (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is too difficult
I am a university-trained language teacher. My degree included lingiistics. Yet I understand many parts of this article only very vaguely. I think Wikipedia articles should be comprehensible to any moderately well-educated reader. This one isn't. I suspect the only peope who will really understand it are those who know all about it anyway. APW (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What specifically was too difficult for you? Is there another language grammar article that is not as difficult, that might serve as an example?  –jonsafari (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost the entire section on verbs is packed with difficult and unexplained technical terms. APW (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help a lot if the examples included literal English translations. For instance, after reading the parragraph on word order, I could not make out what individual words in persian meant in English. I.e.: کتاب آبی را دیدم ketāb-e ābi-rā didam 'I saw the blue book' --> ok, so does ketab mean "blue", or does it mean "book"? I had to look up an independant source to find out that "abi" is "blue". In short, I think the examples should include: 1)the phrase written in persian, in the persian alphabet 2)the phrase written in Persian, in the latin alphabet, 3) the phrase in english, as a word-for-word (literal) translation, 4) the phrase in correct English. Thanks for the article, anyway. Signed "El Penquista" (I don't know where the tildes are on my keyboard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by El penquista (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Influence by Arabic
Can anyone add a section to the article where influence from Arabian is discussed? A lot of people think (probably reasonably) that all modern languages that belong to the Indo-Aryan group have diverged tremendously from the Indo-European structure. It would be very useful if there were some info on what new constructs appeared in modern Persian and how they supplanted the original Indo-European ones due to influence by different languages, mainly by Arabic. --78.60.136.180 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agglutination
I don't claim any knowledge of Persian or of the linguistic literature on it, but I make the following observations, which seem to me self-evident to any linguist: Can someone give reasons why the claim for agglutination should not simply be deleted as mistaken? --Pfold (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the claim that "the Persian language had become more analytical, having no grammatical gender and few case markings, and New Persian has inherited such characteristics. The agglutinative structure of the language is its most notable feature among other Iranian languages." contains a fundamental contradition - how can NP inherit an analytical morphology and yet be classified as agglutinative?
 * the examples of verb constructions further down the page demonstrate conclusively that the verb forms are not agglutinative.
 * Since no-one has come forward to defend this claim, I'm going to remove the material in question --Pfold (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Typo
Thanks to the person who fixed my typo. I wish more readers were so alert! Kanjuzi (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nastaliq Font is unreadable except at 175% magnification
Salam, Is there a reason all the Farsi text was changed to Nastaliq font? The Farsi Wikipedia is written in Naskh. Modern dictionaries are written in Naskh and Farsi introductory textbooks are all written in Naskh.

This article is supposed to make the Farsi language more accessible to students of the language; the Nastaliq font is intimidating and hard to read for beginners. I appreciate the beauty of Nastaliq in calligraphy, book titles, the Bism-i-Llah, etc. But for an introductory treatise on Persian grammar, where the text is interspersed with Latin-alphabet text, it seems inappropriate.

Thoughts?

Deersfeet (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. The Persian text in this article is not in Nasta'liq. Nasta'liq is the calligraphic script which you see at the top of the Persian Wikipedia page saying 'Welcome to Wikipedia'. The script used in this article on Persian grammar seems very clear and readable to me, whereas the spaghetti-like script used in the body of the Persian Wikipedia article is less clear. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you viewing the article on a mobile device? My phone doesn't display the text in Nasta'liq.  However, if you click "Edit Source" you will see that someone has painstakingly put the "nastaliq" tag on every bit of Farsi text.  For example:
 * Deersfeet (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm viewing it on a laptop. However it's tagged, it comes out as clear and readable on my screen, and not in nasta'liq. Kanjuzi (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be that I have a Nasta'liq font installed on my system and you don't. I have Iran Nastaliq installed. Anyway, when I get brave enough, I think it would help to remove the Nastaliq markup tags.  This page should be as accessible as possible. Deersfeet (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds a good idea. Nasta'liq is difficult for foreigners to read, but the script as it appears on my computer is very clear. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, Kanjuzi. It was very encouraging.  I have removed the nastaliq formatting.  It was easy enough to do using a text editor.  Oddly enough, through some research I found that the ‎ tag automatically puts the text into Nasta'liq.  Which is odd, because not even the Persian Wikipedia uses Nasta'liq in its articles.  I had to remove the Farsi language tags altogether to put the text back into Naskh. Deersfeet (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that someone has put the nasta'liq formatting back again - not that it makes any difference on my screen. But could the person perhaps add a note on this page to say why? Kanjuzi (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Russian additions
An anonymous editor has added Russian transliterations to a large part of the article. It all seems perfectly pointless. I suggest that these transliterations be removed. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Same thing happened on Persian language (diff1) and Persian phonology (diff2). It seems those are Tajik transliterations in Cyrillic (Tajik alphabet). Look unnecessary. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)