I would suspect that these are Arabic words made by Iranians. There are plenty of such words, like فارغ التحصیل ،فوق العاده، فی البداهه، سوء استفاده.Thank you.
The reason I doubted them was the entry for بلافاصله in Wiktionary which says it is Persian (the same for بالاخره), also 'Google translate' does strange things, e.g. when you enter بلافاصله it says it means 'no comma' which is fair enough but if you change the order of the languages to English to Arabic, for 'no comma' it gives لافاصلة, and for بالاخره it produces فى النهايه which is fine but بالاخره is not mentioned as a synonym.
Just to add a bit more, b- occurs also in other Semitic languages, including (according to wiktionary) in Ugaritic that went extinct in 2nd millenium BCE, while mid-1st millenium BCE Old Persian has patiy (spelling: p-t-i-y) as the precursor of Middle Persian pad. So, any chance of connection is practically non-existent.They are fully Arabic. Persian به and Arabic ب do happen to have overlapping meanings, but as you may know, the Persian preposition has its origin in MP pad. It's likely the influence of Arabic ب over time shaped Persian به to its current form.
I don't quite agree with this comparison 'به' - 'to/at'.In Persian به or -ب is almost always used in the same way as English 'to/at' and rarely as 'in', except for the cases when it is said to be 'the influence of Arabic' e.g. -ب in بنام, anyway this use is fairly limited, also poets would have come across it sooner or later.
Persian uses در for 'in':
به پایان رسید/ به آخر رسید "it reached the end/it ended"
در پایان "in the end"
Use of -ب in the two examples (in the OP) seem non-Persian, unless بلافاصله started as بی فاصله since ب doesn't make any sense in there, neither as 'in' nor as 'to/at', and in the case بالاخره it (ب) has to mean 'in' to make sense.
Thank you for this, I used بنام/به نام as it is identical in meaning to the Arabic بسم/besm which is the short form of به اسم/in [the] name, I had assumed that the idea of 'Arabic influence' may have come from this term but now I wonder what other words has raised that idea.The expression "به نام" in Persian seems to pre-exists the Arabic influence. The following is from Avesta:
Agree with that, there are many examples of this in modern Persian and in most of these cases they are equivalent to in/at/to in English:Another evidence of the heritage of Pahlavi 'ped' in the New Persian is the contraction 'به این' -> 'بدین' . The coda [d] reappears when به is followed by vowel. This phenomenon is similar to the "liaison" in French.
bi- is indubitably Semitic. The Early New Persian offshoot of OP pati > MP pad is originally pa; this can be seen in NP texts in Manichaean and Hebrew script, and fossilised in NP words like padīd and pidrām. The later voicing of pa to ba and then bi was probably influenced by Arabic bi.Just to add a bit more, b- occurs also in other Semitic languages, including (according to wiktionary) in Ugaritic that went extinct in 2nd millenium BCE, while mid-1st millenium BCE Old Persian has patiy (spelling: p-t-i-y) as the precursor of Middle Persian pad. So, any chance of connection is practically non-existent.
Yes, I just found the mistake. It's certainly not Avestan. Even though it seems to be written in Middle Persian (not sure if it's early New Persian or Middle Persian), it is certainly a very late composition and largely influenced by the New Persion. I withdraw the claim of early use of this expression.The text you have reproduced is Avesta with introductory prayers in "Pazend" (Persian in Avestan script). “pa name yazdān” is New Persian, not Avestan.
The change (pa>ba) is said to be 'influenced by Arabic bi', what is the difference then between that and changes like p>f and g>j etc. that are present in Persian & are caused by Arabic influence?The later voicing of pa to ba and then bi was probably influenced by Arabic bi.
I guess the voicing of an initial [p] is rather uncommon in the phonological changes of Iranian languages.The change (pa>ba) is said to be 'influenced by Arabic bi', what is the difference then between that and changes like p>f and g>j etc. that are present in Persian & are caused by Arabic influence?
In Persian we use both جوهر and گوهر and many similar examples (خندق، رزق، فارسی، فیل), but we call this re-borrowing rather than 'influence by Arabic', I understand the process of re-borrowing my point is why isn't pa>ba simply a sound change?
My Pahlavi knowledge is limited but I seem to remember that both /b/ and /p/ are represented by one symbol.
Thank you for the link and extra information.I just found the following document which summerises the important traits of this evolution:
Only the [p]'s in internal position do generally evolve to [b ].
Thank you, I understand this a bit better now.All these let suppose the singularity of the change ([pa] > [ba]), though I have no proof that this is effectively due to the Arabic influence.