Persian/Gujarati: پن પણ 'but'.

[marrish]

Hello,

A seemingly unassuming yet quite an interesting word which I've just noticed skimming through the pages of Persian dictionaries is this:

• پن pan, But, but then, now; yet, however.

In Gujarati, a very similar word,

• પણ paɳ 'but, yet...'

is used all the time and expresses the same meanings as those given for Persian; it differs only in the type of the final "n" in that the Gujarati is a retroflex nasal consonant ⟨ɳ⟩, the Persian 'n' being a dental nasal consonant ⟨n⟩.

---

First things first, has the Persian word actually ever been used in the Persian-speaking countries/areas or alternatively, whether it should rather be counted into the historical stock of Indo-Persian vocabulary?

I'm obviously suspecting that both words might have shared some history, and considering that eg. the Persian فقط/faqat did find its way into Gujarati (fakt) - such a scenario doesn't appear completely unfeasible, except that in this case the direction of borrowing (P->Guj. or Guj->P) might have been the opposite.

So in a nutshell, how to explain this similarity?

Many thanks, and have fun!

 

[littlepond]

Interesting thread! Do you not think that the Gujarati પણ may be related to the Hindi पर ('par'/'parantu')?

 

[PersoLatin]

First things first, has the Persian word actually ever been used in the Persian-speaking countries/areas

Hi Marrish, this is probably not of much help but پن/pen does exist as a word in Dehkhoda dictionary but I have never heard it used in Persian, at least not yet.

 

[desi4life]

@marrish According to Turner #8273, Gujarati (and Marathi) paṇ ʻ also, but ʼ is derived from Sanskrit/OIA púnar ʻ back, again, moreover, however ʼ via Prakrit/MIA forms such as puṇō.

Persian pan is listed in Hayyim, so it’s not restricted to Indo-Persian but does seem to be rare in Persian usage. I think it’s probably a cognate and not a loanword from India.

 

[Qureshpor]

In my readings of Classical Persian prose, albeit limited, I have never come across this word (pan پَن). It is found in Dehkhoda where we find this reference. پن. [ پ َ ] (حرف ربط) بمعنی اما و بمعنی لیکن باشد.(برهان قاطع). ولی. ولیکن. لکن ّ. لکن. لیک. ولیک.

The source for this entry is برهان قاطع (Burhaan-i-Qaati3). This dictionary was compiled by Mohammad Hussain b. Khalaf, Tabrezi. So, even if the dictionary was published in India, its author had his origins in Tabrez, Iran.

Urdu LuGhat has an entry for "pan" and describes its origins as "maqaamii" (local) implying "of Indian origins".

Dictionaries of the برهان قاطع type, almost always quoted a shi3r from a well known author to provide credence for the word's usage. Anyone who has access to this dictionary, might be able to ascertain exactly what its entry contains.

 

[Alfaaz]

Anyone who has access to this dictionary, might be able to ascertain exactly what its entry contains.

پَن​

 

[Pokeflute]

According to Wiktionary, Gujarati "paNR" comes from (as said above) Sanskrit "punar". However Wiktionary also lists only one definition for Old Gujarati "paNR", meaning "but".

Nowadays "paNR" has another definition (the equivalent of "bhii" in Hindi/Urdu, e.g. "koii paNR" = "any"). Perhaps that might be relevant here?

Or perhaps "paNR" acquired its second meaning from the same source (Sanskrit via Old Gujarati).

EDIT: Wiktionary also lists Marathi "paNR" has having the same two meanings, so it's more likely Gujarati acquired this from Marathi (or inherited it from their last common ancestor).

 

[Qureshpor]

پَن​

Thank you Alfaaz SaaHib for providing a link to the dictionary and the word in question. I am surprised you did n't provide the entry, bearing in mind that it is very brief. From what I can gather, the entry is....

"pan" ba-fatH-i-avval va sukuun-i-saanii ba-ma3naa maa-o-ba-ma3naa lekin baashad.

"pan" with a fatH on the first (letter) and a sukuun on the second has the meaning "we" and the meaning "but".

So, we are not any the wiser as no citation of its usage has been given! Except that it also means "we"! This is of course only true if my reading and translation is correct.

As a side note and without intending to discredit this dictionary in any way, this dictionary came under a lot of criticism from the poet Mirza Asadullah Khan "Ghalib" who wrote a cutting response to it bearing the name "Qaati3-i-Burhaan". Both the "adversaries" had their supporters and the whole episode became quite ugly. Ghalib was pointing to many alleged inaccuracies within its pages.

PS: "maa" could be a typo for "ammaa".

PS: 2, I have found a better print of the dictionary which has the word "ammaa". So, we can take the meaning of "pan" to be "but".

https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/burhan-e-qaate-mohammad-husain-bin-khalf-tabrezi-ebooks

 

[Dib]

PS: "maa" could be a typo for "ammaa".

Probably it's not a typo. The alif on top of the preceeding alif maqsura is probably to be read as the initial alif of the "ammaa", rather than as a dagger alif diacretic. I also made the same mistake and couldn't make heads or tails of it.

 

[Qureshpor]

Probably it's not a typo. The alif on top of the preceeding alif maqsura is probably to be read as the initial alif of the "ammaa", rather than as a dagger alif diacretic. I also made the same mistake and couldn't make heads or tails of it.

But Dib SaaHib, there is no precedence that I am aware of where the alif-i-maqsuuraa of the previous word is to be combined with the initial letter of the following word!

 

[Dib]

But Dib SaaHib, there is no precedence that I am aware of where the alif-i-maqsuuraa of the previous word is to be combined with the initial letter of the following word!

No, no, I am not suggesting that the alif maqsuura itself has to be combined to the next maa. If you look closely, you'll note that there are two occurrences of alif maqsuura in the entry. The first one seems to contain what looks like an (optional) alif khanjariyya or dagger alif on top of it, but the second one does not. I suspect, what we are (at least, I was) interpreting as the alif khanjariyya is to be taken as the initial full alif of ammaa, and both the alif maqsuura-s would then be written identically without the alif khanjariyya diacretic.