Talk:Persian phonology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Persian phonology is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Afghanistan-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Phonetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to phonetics and descriptive phonology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] Examples
Hopefully the examples will be minimal pairs, and uncontroversial as well. --jonsafari 19:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- All examples should be translated. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consonants
I have two questions about the consonants. Maybe the article makes it clear but I'm not seeing it. I noticed the /t/ and /d/ phonemes are described in the chart as alveolars. Are they apical (as in English) or laminal ("dental") as in Spanish? The second question is regarding the /p/, /t/, and /k/ phonemes. Are they aspirated or totally unaspirated or would this difference be allophonic as in English "tough" vs "stuff"?WilliamThweatt 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- According to Mahootian (1997, p. 287-8) the alveolar stops are "either apico-alveolar or apico-dental" and "voiceless plosives /p, t, c (ʧ), k/ are aspirated in syllable-initial position and unaspirated at the end of a syllable" (and presumably unaspirated in non-initial onsets). I suppose I should mention this kind of stuff in the article. Good questions, BTW. --jonsafari 07:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Instrumental phonetic studies
Any references to instrumental phonetic studies out there? There is only one I know of is Agharasouli et al (date?) Palatographic specification of lingual-palatal consonants in persian language. Audiology, Vol 14, No. 23, Pages 12-22. Available online at [http://diglib.tums.ac.ir/pub/search.asp?kw=palatography (http://diglib.tums.ac.ir/pub/magmng/pdf/2086.pdf). (posted anonymously by 81.86.104.165)
- I'll check out the ref. I'm not sure off the top of my head. BTW, you should consider getting a user account; you seem to have a background in this stuff :-) –jonsafari 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] vowels - historical shifts
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
Windfuhr, the source quoted here, appears to be rather more familiar with the Tehrani type of Persian. I suggest a revision as follows, and list the reasons.
Tajik i e u ů a o ai au
┌↑┐ ↑ ┌↑┐ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Early NP i ī ē u ū ō a ā ai au
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Afghan i ī ē u ū ō a ā ai au
↓ └↓┘ ↓ └↓┘ ↓ ↓
Iranian e ī o ū a ā ei ou
The symbols in this chart are phonemic, not phonetic. In terms of the actual phonetic details, the Tajik vowel /ů/ is a central mid rounded vowel (close to [ɵ]?), cf. Baizoyev 2004. The Tajik /o/ is really not that different from the so-called /ā/of Afghan and Tehrani Persian: varying between [ɒ] (British RP "Tom") and [ɔ] (Midwestern American "law"). Afghan /i/ is close to [ɪ] and /u/ is close to [ʊ ], while /ī ē ū ō/ are not necessarily longer, just more [+tense]. I leave any explicit details about Tehrani pronunciation to someone more at home with that type of Persian.
- 1. the descriptive detail of the Afghan Persian vowels is based on:
- a) my own experience of having lived in Kabul for 14 months (1970-1971) and having spoken its dialect of Persian as my daily-use language during that time.
- b) the analysis of that careful phonetician, Georg Morgenstierne, in his paper "Persian Texts from Afgahanistan" (Acta Orientalia 6:309-28 - 1928).
- 2. The preservation of the early NP system into Kabuli Farsi is suggested by the fact that it is the most conservative of all the dialects.
- 3. Preservation of the length distinctions as symbols, whatever be the details of their actual pronunciation, is recommended because this preserves a unity in Islamic culture: instead of having an Arab word مداخل transcribed as Arabic mudāxil, "Persian" modāxel, Tajik mudoxil, Urdu mudāxil, they can all be transcribed with the original Arab system as mudāxil, then we see that we are dealing with basically the same system all the way from Arabic in the west to Urdu (and even Bengali) in the east, without having to jump through the hoops of the various local changes, changes which are very slight and need not be reflected in a different transcription ( unless of course Iranians have a very strong need to consider themselves as different from the Arabs as possible, even in such a small thing as how to spell their words in romanisation ).Jakob37 07:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I simply copied this chart from Winfuhr (1987). I had no other reliable sources available to me at the time to offer differing viewpoints. However, I agree that a phonetic analysis would be much more useful in this article, especially since the current romanizations can be somewhat ambiguous. A phonemic transcription is appropriate for other articles discussing Persian, for example Persian grammar, but this specific article should be as precise as possible. Please use whatever means necessary to make the chart reflect actual phonetic realizations, citing reliable sources. –jonsafari 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Need more info on the allophones of ق غ
There needs to be more info on the allophones of these two phonemes. azalea_pomp
- I added a short comment. Jahangard 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
The references should be cited properly. For example, for the sentence about the short and long vowels, which source is used? Mahootian or Windfuhr? Jahangard 03:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chart for vowels
Better examples should be given. There is no need to focus on short two-letter words. Also, the example for /ou/ (/kou/ کو weevil) should be replaced by a word which is more frequently used (this word is from local dialects and its standard version is /kæk/). It seems that /ou/ is given as the modern Iranian pronounciation of what was pronounced as /æʊ/ in the classic Persian (for example, "و" in نوروز and خسرو). If that's the case, then I wonder why /ou/ is used (the actual pronounciation is closer to /o:/ or /ow/). Windfuhr shows it as "ou" instead of /o:/ or /ow/, simply because he dousn't use IPA symbols (he shows /ɒː/ as "ā", and /ej/ as "ei"). We shoud note that Windfuhr doesn't use IPA symbols (for example, he uses "ā" as /ɒː/). Jahangard 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- The examples are there to demonstrate a minimal pair. Regarding your other point, IPA is the common currency of phonology descriptions in general. Using non-IPA letters like "ā" can lead to ambiguity (eg. rounded or non-rounded?). It's too bad Windfuhr didn't use IPA, but that still doesn't bind us to use his transcription. Both minimal pairs and IPA usage are pretty basic things in a phonological description of a language. –jonsafari 01:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
