Talk:Tajik grammar

Cyrillic script & Transliteration
It might be nice to have a romanized transliteration to accompany cyrillic-sript examples, since this is an English language article. --jonsafari 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, and done :) - FrancisTyers · 22:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The transliteration scheme I am using is the same as used in Perry (2005). Vowels change between the standard Tajik spoken in Tajikistan and the Persian spoken in other countries. - FrancisTyers · 12:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Izafet construction
Just curious, what is the motivation for calling it an "Izafet" construction in the article, as opposed to the Tajik "Izofa" or the Iranian Persian/Farsi "Ezāfe" (or Dari/Afghan Persian "Ezāfa"? Urdu is the only language that I'm aware of that refers to it as "Izafet".  --jonsafari 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well in the sources I have, it is described as "Izofat" or "Izafet", I'm fine with either :) - FrancisTyers · 07:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So we have at least three different ways of writing it. Maybe the best thing we could do is ask native speakers of Tajik.  I'm certainly not qualified :-)  In the mean time, I'm fine with the way it's written in the article.  --jonsafari 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, that would be good, I must say I've been passively keeping an eye out &mdash; for a native speaker &mdash; kind of hoping to save tg: from further decline, but no luck as of yet... - FrancisTyers · 06:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tajik grammar
Could you please explain to me the difference between "Tajik grammar" (whatever that may be) and normal Persian grammar, as being used in Iran and Afghanistan?!

You have simply copied certain words from a certain source. Yet, I guess you do not know that what you have written is exactly the same as in Persian proper.

The only difference is that you simply "translated" the cyrillic letters into latin letters, instead of using the normal latinized transliteration of perso-arabic script.

"Tajiki cyrillic transliteration" --> kitobho latinized transliteration of Perso-Arabic --> kitābhā

"Tajik grammar" --> man kitob-ro mekhonam (I read the book) Persian proper --> man kitāb-rā mikhānam

There is absolutely no difference ... the only differences may be certain pronounciations, which is very normal in every language (American pronounciation is sometimes totally different from Australian or Brittish pronounciations).

Tājik 11:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should make it more clear, the page Tajik grammar reflects the standard as spoken in Tajikistan. It does not mean to infer that all peoples self-identifying as Tajiks speak this variety. I am basing the article on reliable sources. I have made this more clear, could you outline the "POV" issues you see on the talk page. Thanks - FrancisTyers · 11:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is the transliteration you are using. The Persian language (including the Tajiki dialect) use both "o" and "ā". The "o" in Persian is pronounced like the "o" in English proper, for example like the "o" in "tomato". The word "kitāb" (book) does not have such a letter. The "ā" is pronounced like the "a" in "ball" or "dark" - it is different from "o". Basically, you have simply copied from a certain source which is wrong. I am a native Persian-speaker, and I speak the eatsren dialect which is popularly known as "Dari" or "Tajiki" - so you can trust me.
 * Many Tajiks nowdays use an "o" when "translating" from cyricllic script into the latin script, because in the cyricllic script, this "ā" sound is written as an "o". The Perso-Arabic script has its own special letter for this sound:  آ  . The correct transliteration of this letter into latin is "ā" and not "o".
 * Tājik 12:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mention in the edit summary, this is the transliteration scheme used by the books I am citing. - FrancisTyers · 11:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW: the transliteration I am using is also used in the Encyclopaedia Iranica, which is an authroitative source. Tājik 12:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the grammar of the standard Tajik language as spoken in Tajikistan, the Tajik Persian Reference Grammar by John Perry is an authoratative source. Please do not continue to revert. Do you speak the language as spoken in Tajikistan? For one, your replacement of -i by -e is wrong. In the Tajik standard they are reversed. - FrancisTyers · 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First let's define what proper and correct mean. What do they mean?  Who says what is "Persian proper"?  Who says what "correct transliteration" is?  Encyclopedia Iranica is one source.  There are also other sources (which have been already mentioned) that say differently.  Let's please try to refrain from thinking we have all the answers (or our favorite authoritative source).  I little humility and cooperation go a long way.  By the way, a chart showing some phonological distinctions between (General) Iranian Persian and General Tajikistan Tajik is found here, according to Gernot Windfuhr (1987, p. 543), who contributed many articles to Encyclopaedia Iranica, as well as Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia.  –jonsafari 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are of course right -- I'm sorry if I came across as having "all the answers" :) -- We need to check a range of sources and decide which is the most appropriate standard based on those. - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Persian proper" is the standard written Persian which is not affected by dialects. It is known as "Dari" (not to be confused with the dialect of Kabul in Afghanistan, which is also popularly, but wrongly called "Dari") or "New Persian", and is the written language used in all Persian-speaking communities. It is the high-standard language of administration in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan.
 * All the rest is about "dialects" and "accents" ... It does not matter how you pronounce the word "tea" in America, Britain, or Australia ... the standard written-language is the same in all three locations. The same goes to "Persian proper" ... and even your graph prooves my point: it's an "ā" and not an "o".
 * Besides that, it's actually Iranian Persian-speakers (and those in West Afghanistan) who replace the "ā" sound with an "o" or a "u" ... they say "noon" instead of "nān" bread (Tajik's use the correct pronounciation), they say "Iroon" instead of "Irān", they say "joon" instead of "jān" ... In all three cases, Tajik's use the correct "ā".
 * BTW: here is some information about "Persian proper" ...
 * Tājik 02:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to clarify this topic as you understand it. I'm sure it was in good faith.  Regarding your previous comments, I do understand each of these points.  This topic is not new to me.
 * My questions, "Who says what is 'Persian proper'? Who says what 'correct transliteration' is?" were actually rhetorical.  As a linguist, I think the terms "proper" and "correct" do not reflect a neutral point of view.  Obviously there exists a particular incarnation of Persian that is currently accepted as the prestige dialect.  From a non-neutral point of view, this might be called Persian proper.  From a neutral point of view we may call this General Iranian Persian.  This is, nonetheless, a dialect.  Linguistically, everyone speaks a dialect of a language.  The only language with no dialects is the language with one speaker.  Even the prestige dialects are still dialects.
 * We should also be careful to make sure to distinguish modern General Iranian Persian from Early New Persian, just as Windfuhr (1987, p.543) does. The standardized Persian spoken in Iran today is not the same as Early New Persian.  As can be seen in the chart below, an example illustrating the differences is that, for example, Early NP pronounced Iran as /ērān/, while modern General Iranian Persian pronounces it as /irān/ (and other dialects would have other pronunciations).  Also, Early NP /kitāb/ versus General Iranian Persian /ketāb/.  Clearly Early New Persian is not the same as modern General Iranian Persian, and we should make sure the articles do not confuse the two.  Thus Tajik/General Tajikistan Persian is a daughter (in linguistic terms) of Early New Persian just as General Iranian Persian is.  Or to say it more directly, Tajik is a sister to Iranian Persian, not a daughter of it.  Both Tajik and Iranian Persian are daughters of Early New Persian.
 * General Tajikistan Persian/Tajik does raise and round Early NP's /ā/, resulting in what is closer to [o], not [ɒː] ā. There is a phonological difference, not just an orthographical carryover from Cyrillic.  The same applies to the i vs. e difference, only this time Iranian Persian changed from Early NP, and Tajik preserved the Early NP phoneme.  This can be seen in the borrowed Arabic word [kɪtæːb] > Early New Persian [kɪtɒːb] > modern General Iranian Persian [kʲɛtɒːb] and modern General Tajikistan Persian/Tajik [kɪtob].
 * The point of all this is to show that it is really worth it to to write kitobi khub instead of ketābe khub for an article about Tajik grammar. –jonsafari 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx for the explanation. Then I suggest to merge this article with the Persian grammar article and explain the differences between the different dialects of Persian in a special sub-section. Tājik 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated in an earlier discussion, I'm fine either way, but I think everyone should agree. If FrancisTyers feels the distinctions between Tajik and modern General Iranian Persian (which Persian grammar discusses) are great enough, then I'm fine with two separate articles.  A key problem with merging the two is how to handle examples:
 * Original orthographies: Perso-Arabic script vs. Cyrillic vs. both
 * Romanizations: eg. do we write Early NP shumā, General Iranian Persian shomā, or Tajik shumo, or all, or just Iranian, Afghan, and Tajik, etc. ? Another  example is the durative prefix: Early NP and Afghan mē-, Iranian mi-/mī-, or Tajik me-.
 * Another consideration is that, if we're doing our jobs of expanding the article's content and unified article grows, we'll have to spin-off a separate article for Tajik in the long run anyways. It seems like a lot of work to merge them together, then eventually split them off again later down the road.
 * In light of the myriad examples on the IL&S site, eg. "We were eating" Tajik xorda istadæ budim / Colloq. Iranian dâštim mixordim / Lit. Iranian mixordim, I personally feel that, if anything, we should rename Persian grammar to Iranian Persian grammar. –jonsafari 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tajik     i  e    u  ů   a o          ┌↑┐ ↑   ┌↑┐ ↑   ↑ ↑ Early NP i ī ē   u ū ō   a ā ↓ ↓ ↓  ↓ ↓ ↓   ↓ ↓ Afghan    e i ē   o u ō   a ā ↓ └↓┘  ↓ └↓┘   ↓ ↓ Iranian   e  ī    o  ū    a ā

Thanks for the reference Jon, in fact this is the very same table that may be found in Windfuhr's contribution to "The World's Major Languages" (Comrie ed.). And I just checked the ref and I see that is where it came from in the first place. From that same section:

Compared with Early NP, Afghan Persian is the least changed lowering the short high vowels as in Iran to mid vowels, which are now opposed to the rertained long mid vowels, while the old long high vowels lose their length distinction. Tajiki is the most changed, losing the length distinction, most likely under the influence of Turkic, by the merger of the short and long high-vowels and the rounding of long a.

And furthermore, when discussing Tajiki, Windfuhr uses the same transliteration system for 'o' as Perry. He writes 'kitob-ro' and 'xond-a' In fact, it might be worth changing the ' kh ' to 'x' to reflect this.

Tajik, the link you provide links to this page, which is quite informative, and needless to say uses the same transliteration scheme for 'i' and 'o' as I am using here. - FrancisTyers · 11:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'correct pronounciation'. - FrancisTyers · 11:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the transliteration back, but kept the merge tag. Personally I'm opposed to merging the articles at the present moment for the reasons I describe on Talk:Persian grammar. - FrancisTyers · 11:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge!!!
Tajik is similar (or someone may say identical) with Persian, but it has some grammatical features specific for this language - there are some differences in stress, vocabulary and so on. Linguists in the Czech republic are handling with Tajik as an independent language, as they also do with Afghan-Dari. I have learned a bit of Farsi and now I'm learning Tajik (it's a bit more important for my research) and I know some differences why can I say it's a independent language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lubossekk (talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The fact that there are differences between two lects doesn't make them different languages. Otherwise everybody would speak a different language from everybody else, because everybody uses a language in a personal way (idiolect). I think Tajik and Persian are close enough to be considered one language, but it's a question of definition, preference, and utility. (It always is.)

Correct translation?
Is the phrase китоб хондам correctly translated as "I read a book"? The Persian ketāb khāndam would rather mean "I read books". It's not quite plural, but rather totally disregarding both number and identity (so-called "generic" sense). The English "I read a book" always means that there is one specific book, not one whose identity is important or maybe even known, but a certain one. -- So either the translation is wrong or this is a mentionable difference between Tajik and Persian. ("I read a book" is yek ketāb khāndam or ketābi khāndam in Persian.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.130.8 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)