ماهیت و نقش تکواژ جمع ساز "-آت" عربی درفارسی

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زبانشناسی و مطالعات ترجمه ، دانشکده ایرانشناسی، دانشگاه ولی عصر (عج) رفسنجان

2 گروه زبانشناسی ، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان های خارجی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی ، ایران

10.22103/jcl.2020.12086.2649

چکیده

زبان فارسی در طول حیات خود از زبان عربی که دورانی زبان حکومت و علم بوده است، بیشترین تأثیر و قرض گیری را پذیرفته است. علاوه بر تکواژهای قاموسی، برخی از تکواژهای دستوری زبان عربی نیز به فارسی وارد شده است. از جمله این تکواژها، تکواژ جمع ساز "-آت" است. بسیاری از صاحب‌نظران تأکید کرده‌اند که نبایستی در فارسی ازاین نشانه جمع استفاده شود، ضمن چشم پوشی از اینکه این گونه نظرات به لحاظ علمی تا چه اندازه مقرون به صحّت و رعایت از سوی گویشوران زبان است، دلایل مختلفی وجود دارد که نشان می‌دهد تکواژ جمع ساز "-ات" عربی وارد شده در زبان فارسی، به لحاظ معنایی و کاربردی دیگر ماهیت عربی نداشته و تکواژی "فارسی شده"است. با توجه به وامگیری غیرمسقیم وند «-آت» سخن گفتن از کاربرد یا عدم کاربرد آن در فارسی منتفی است. در همین راستا، این پژوهش شباهت و تفاوت تکواژ "-آت" را از منظرهای واج‌شناسی، ساخت صرفی، نحوی، معنایی، کاربردشناختی در دو زبان عربی و فارسی مورد بررسی قرار داده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The nature and role of the Arabic plural morpheme "-at" in persian

نویسندگان [English]

  • Majid Fasihi Harandi 1
  • koorosh safavi_ 2
1 linguistics&translation studies. Iranshenasi faculty.vali-e-asr university
2 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabatabai University, Iran
چکیده [English]

                                                                                
1.Introduction
The Persian language, though not belonging to the family of Semitic languages, has borrowed the heaviest from the Arabic language (Farshidvard: 1879: 39). A brief examination of Persian shows how heavily Persian is indebted to Arabic, but, as some scholars have pointed out, this has occurred mostly in the lexicon area as Persian has been affected very little in terms of syntax or grammar (Majd, 2011: 39).  In addition to a great number of single lexical items, a number of grammatical morphemes have entered Persian. An example is the agreement of adjective and the noun it modifies in grammar in terms of gender, a characteristic which is peculiar to Arabic, and which was not common in the Dari Persian except in the sixth century AH, when Persian was heavily affected by Arabic. The first instance appeared in Aruzi’s Chahar Maghaleh. Examples include: Moluk-e Maziyeh and Ghoroon Khaliyeh, etc. (Farshidvard, 1989: 23). Another instance of Arabic influence is the wide-spread adoption and usage of Arabic plural-making morphemes.
 
2.Methodology
In Persian, the Arabic morpheme «-at» is sometimes used to pluralize Arabic and Persian words. Many Persian authorities frown upon this usage and argue that even Arabic words entering Persian should, as far as possible, also be pluralized using the plural morphemes «-ha» and «-in».  Examples: Sokhanran enteghadhay-e (rather than enteghadat-e) ziyadi az chegoonegi-ye bargozariy-e marasem kard.[The lecturer made several criticisms of the way the ceremony was held]. However, a number of the Arabic plural forms have been established in Persian with certain words so much so that if the plural morphemes are changed the words sound unfamiliar and weird. Examples include: ettelaa’aat; emkaanaat, enteshaaraat, etc. Besides, for certain nouns ending in «-at» such as adabiyaat, dokhaniyaat, amaliyaat, labaniyaat and maliyaat, there is no single form in Persian. The question to ask here is whether the Arabic plural marker «-at» in Persian has the same morphological, semantic, pragmatic and grammatical function as its counterpart in Arabic. Or is it different while sharing certain characteristics?  
 
3.Discussion:
Contrary to what was initially believed that languages borrow just words from one another, the studies show that borrowing can occur in any part of language including phonemes, inflectional and derivational affixes, etc. However, borrowing words is more frequent than borrowing any other parts of the language. Although affixes can be borrowed, the common belief is that they are not directly borrowed but transferred indirectly from one language into another language. In other words, affixes, as part of the complex words, get transferred into another language. Theses affixes, as the borrowed words, can finally attach to the roots of the target language and produce hybrid words (Seifar, et.al, 2015). Recently, borrowing affixes have received remarkable attention and the focus in the published works has been on the way affixes are borrowed. There are two scenarios, direct and indirect, for the process of borrowing affixes (Winford, 2005:385-409). The indirect borrowing has two stages. In the first stage, the speaker borrows some complex words from another language and uses them. In the second stage, probably a lot later, the speaker parses the blended words and finally the affixes are used with the roots in the receiving language and get generated. In the second scenario, the direct borrowing, once the borrowing takes place, the speaker, drawing on his own knowledge of the source language, identifies the affixes and attaches them to the roots of his own language and uses them. The main difference between these two scenarios lies in the whereabouts of the borrowed affix. Where has the speaker received the affix before combining it with the roots of his own language? From the source language complex words (indirect borrowing) or from his own knowledge of the source language? (direct borrowing). It seems that the indirect scenario best describes the phenomenon of affix borrowing. Paul (1891) maintains that words are borrowed as a whole; that is, derivative and inflectional affixes are not borrowed alone on their own part. However, if the many words that get transferred into another language have one certain affix, they can develop as easy as the target language words as a group and are possible to generate on their own. Thus, the received affix, by way of analogy, can attach to the target roots and later get generated (Paul, 1891: 469-470).
4.Conclusion
One of the cases where Persian has been influenced by Arabic is the borrowing of Arabic plural morphemes including «-at». The plural morpheme entered Persian with certain Arabic plural nouns such as latamaat, majhoolat and mofradaat, but was later extended to pluralize originally Persian words such as baaghaat, gozareshaat and Shemiranaat, resulting in hybrid words.  In terms of Phonetics, «-at» is no different in Persian than its usage in Arabic, but in terms of phonology, the only difference is in cases where «-at» has entered Persian directly as part of a loan word. A case in point is the loan word latamaat. In terms of phonology, «-at» follows Persian rather than Arabic phonological rules. For example, the Persian words are pluralized as ghazaliyaat and kashfiyaat while the plural forms of their Arabic counterparts are ghazaliyeh and kashfiyeh respectively. Also, the Persian word pand is pluralized as pandiyaat, quite against Arabic morphological rules. The plural marker «-at» is used for feminine nouns, whereas Persian lacks the feminine-masculine distinction. «-at» is not used in Persian to pluralize humans and animates and inanimate nouns are gender-neutral. In fact, «-at» is used in Persian to pluralize inanimate and abstract nouns that are gender-free. In terms of meaning, «-at» in Arabic indicates plural (three and more), whereas in Persian it indicates kind and group. Even though there are cases in Persian where this plural marker indicates plurality, this plurality meaning is mixed with the meanings of kind and group.     
This plural morpheme has undergone change in meaning and function, so that it is also clearly assumed a classifying function. Thus, we may speak of two types of «-at» one Arabic and one Persianized. The Arabic «-at» is the plural marker for feminine nouns, and the Persianized «-at» is the plural marker referring to groups. By group is meant a collection of things of various names but of the same nature. For example, shemiranat indicates a number of villages that are located in the same geographical area even though they have various names. Other examples include lavaasaanaat, noghaat as well as dahaat, baghaat and dastooraat. In fact. It may be said that this borrowed morpheme has assumed a merely morphological-grammatical function. Grammatical because it shows in some way the addition of a foreign plural-making element to the number of Persian plural-making markers. Morphological because it has assumed a derivative function in the word formation area. Also, it seems that in Persian, «Jat» is considered as a single morpheme and that sabzijaat no longer means sabzihaa; rather, various kinds of sabzi. On the other hand, words such as kompootjaat indicate the fact that what we do have here is not «-at», but «-Jat», which may be regarded as a form of the morpheme «-at».The question of the use of «-at» in Persian is a matter of debate. Generally, it is not approved as it is argued that the use of Persian plural markers is preferable. At first glance, this advice may seem warranted, specially because Persia has quite a lot of plural markers.  A close look shows, however, that «-at» though originally Arabic has undergone such a deep change that it is not to be counted as Arabic any more as it is used based on Persian and not Arabic rules. Also, its usage has productively increased. Thus, we may claim with certainty that the single morpheme «-at» is a plural marker that Persian has borrowed indirectly from Arabic and that it is now a plural morpheme belonging to the Persian Language.
Keywords :Mikhail Naima, Kan Makan, Jamalzadeh, yeki bud yeki nabud, Adaptive literature.



*Date received: 29/11/2019                         Date accepted: 20/07/2020
1 linguistics&translation studies. Iranshenasi faculty.vali-e-asr university of, Rafsanjan, Iran. E-mail: harandi@vru.ac.ir (Corresponding author)
2. Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabatabai University, Iran. E-mail: safavi_koorosh@yahoo.com.                                                                                                    
 
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • plural morpheme ' - at '
  • borrowing
  • borrowed morphemes
  • borrowed affixes
کتابنامه
الف. منابع فارسی
-ابوالقاسمی، محسن. (1385). تاریخ زبان فارسی. چاپ هفتم. تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
-ابوالقاسمی، محسن. (1385). دستور تاریخی مختصر زبان فارسی. چاپ چهارم. تهران: سازمان مطالعه وتدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
-احمدی گیوی، حسن و انوری، حسن. (1391). دستورزبان فارسی2. ویرایش چهارم. تهران: انتشارات فاطمی.
-آذرنوش، آذرتاش. (1385). چالش میان فارسی و عربی. تهران: نشرنی.
-باطنی، محمدرضا. (1378). توصیف ساختمان دستوری زبان فارسی. چاپ دهم. تهران: امیرکبیر.
-حسینی‌معصوم، سید محمد و دیگران (1393). طبقه‌بندی تغییرات ساخت‌واژی در فرایند وام‌گیری واژه‌ها از زبان ترکی به فارسی. فصلنامه مطالعات زبان و گویش‌های غرب ایران، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه رازی. کرمانشاه. سال اول. شماره 4. صفحه 53-72.
-شقاقی، ویدا. (1394). فرهنگ توصیفی صرف. تهران: نشرعلمی.
-شقاقی، ویدا. (1391). مبانی صرف. تهران: سازمان مطالعه وتدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت).
-صفوی، کوروش. (1374). واژه‌های قرضی در زبان فارسی. نامه فرهنگ. شماره 19. صفحه 97-111.
-طوسی، ادیب. (1350). تغییرکلمات عربی در فارسی. مجله وحید. شماره دهم. دوره نهم. صفحه 1439-1446.
-عزیزمحمدی، فاطمه. (1382). بررسی برخی فرایندهای رایج قرض‌گیری در زبان فارسی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات. سال 18. شماره 4-3 (پیاپی 40). صفحه 71-74.
-علیزاده، علی. (1382). پدیده قرض‌گیری در زبان. نشریه میان‌رشته‌ای ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه بیرجند. شماره 3. صفحات 137-148.
-غلامحسین‌زاده، غلامحسین. (1385). راهنمای ویرایش. چاپ چهارم. تهران: سازمان مطالعه وتدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت).
-فرشیدورد، خسرو. (1387). مسئلۀ درست وغلط، نگارش و پژوهش در زبان فارسی. تهران: سخن.
-فرشیدورد، خسرو. (1392). دستور مفصّل امروز. چاپ چهارم. تهران: سخن.
-فرشیدورد، خسرو. (1358). عربی درفارسی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
-قاسمی، حسین و ستاری، مریم. (1389). مهم‌ترین عوامل و دوره‌های ورود واژگان قرضی در زبان فارسی و طبقه‌بندی معنایی آنها. فصلنامه اندیشه‌های ادبی. سال دوم از دوره جدید. شماره 5. صفحات 155-165.
-قریب، عبدالعظیم و همکاران. (1350). دستور زبان فارسی پنج استاد. تهران: انتشارات کتابفروشی مرکزی.
-کریمی‌دوستان، غلامحسین. (1383). «گوناگونی نشانه های جمع -ات و -ان در فارسی». مجله علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز. دوره 21. شماره اول.
-مدرسی، یحیی. (1391). درآمدی بر جامعه‌شناسی زبان. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
-مشکوةالدینی، مهدی. (1379). دستور زبان فارسی بر پایۀ نظریه گشتاری. مشهد: انتشارات دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
-معین، محمد. (1369). مفرد و جمع. تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر.
-معین، محمد. (1378). فرهنگ معین. تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر.
-مینوی، مجتبی. (1329). مباحث صرفی و نحوی، بحث اوّل: یّت مصدری. تهران.
-ناتل خانلری، پرویز. (1388). دستورتاریخی زبان فارسی. چاپ هفتم. تهران: انتشارات توس.
-وفایی، عباسعلی. (1391). دستور تطبیقی (فارسی-عربی). تهران: سخن.
 
ب.منابع لاتین
-Crystal, D.(2008). Language Contact.The Cambridge encyclopedia of          Language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Durkin, Ph. (2014). Borrowed Words: A History of   Loanwords  in English. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
-Hartmann, R.R.K. & F.C. Stork. (1972). .Dictionary of language    and  linguistics. London: Applied Science.
-Haugen, E. (1950). The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing. In: A.  Dil (Ed.),The Ecology of    Language, Essays by E. Haugen. Stanford: Stanford University press.
-Kay, G. (1995). English loanwords in Japanese. World English.   14(1). 67-76.
-Tadmor, U., M. Haspelmath. & B. Taylor (2010). Borrow ability     and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica, 27, 226–46.
-Paul. A. H..( 1891). Principles of the history of language.   London, New       York: Longman, Green 
-Seifart, Frank. ( 2015). Direct and indirect affix borrowing  .Language. 91(3). 511–532.
-Trask R. L T .(2003).A Dictionary of Gramatical Terms in Linguistics Routledge.
-Winford, D. (2005). Contact-induced changes Classification and processesDiachronica 22.373-427.
.