Persian: Is انه-/āne/-āna a standalone suffix or not ??

PersoLatin

Senior Member
UK
Persian - Iran
I don't believe there's such a suffix as -انه/-āne/-āna, what we have instead is two suffixes put together: the plural marker ان-/ān and suffix ه-/-e(-é)/-a. On this forum as well as text books & dictionaries -انه/-āne/-āna is always referred to and treated as a single suffix, I am challenging that idea with examples and would like your feedback.

The one reason I give is that if you remove the final ه-/-e(-é)/-a you will get a meaningful plural which is simply suffixed in the same way any word is with ه-/-e(-é)/-a.

Some examples:
دیو <- دیوان <- دیوانه - devil/devils/like or relating to devils or devil like, (mad)
زن <- زنان<-زنانه - woman/women/like women or woman like, (for woman)
شجاع<- شجاعان <- شجاعانه - brave/the brave/ like the brave, bravely
عاقل<- عاقلان<- عاقلانه - wise/the wise/like the wise, wisely
مستانه <- مستان <- مست - drunk/drunks, the drunk/like drunks, drunkenly

In above examples ه-/-e(-é)/-a suffix works in the same way as it does normally see below:
دسته <- دست hand/like hand, handle,
پایه <- پا foot, leg/like foot (leg), footing/foundation
سفیده <- سفید - white/white like, egg white

Example of a word that uses ه-/-e(-é)/-a on its singular and plural form:
روزه <- روز day/relating to day, a day of fasting
روزانه <- روزان <- روز day/days, the day/relating to days, daily

I'd appreciate it if we can concentrate on the main topic which is the make-up of suffix -انه/-āne/-āna and whether I am in a minority of one on this, you never know this could be a well established fact that I’ve been unaware of.

EDIT: Also this topic has to be discussed purely on Persian because if my assertion is correct then there may be some words of this type which were formed with an incorrect suffix.
 
Last edited:
  • Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    PersoLatin, thank you for starting this topic. I think the solution to your query will be in the field of etymology. I hope fdb SaaHib is still around and is able to unravel the mystery whether there is one suffix -aanah or two -aan +ah. I don't know anyone else who has been providing etomological details related to Persian other than fdb SaaHib. That is why, his name is topmost in my mind.
     

    Alfaaz

    Senior Member
    English
    PersoLatin said:
    I don't believe there's such a suffix as -انه/-āne/-āna, what we have instead is two suffixes put together: the plural marker ان-/ān and suffix ه-/-e(-é)/-a. On this forum and text books & dictionaries -انه/-āne/-āna is always referred to and treated as a single suffix, I am challenging that idea with examples and would like your feedback.
    Qureshpor said:
    I hope fdb SaaHib is still around and is able to unravel the mystery whether there is one suffix -aanah or two -aan +ah.
    This topic had arisen in the following threads and quotes, but unfortunately Faylasoof and fdb SaaHibaan did not get a chance to comment on which viewpoint/pattern of formation is correct (aan/gaan + ah or gaanah/aanah) or if they are both valid in different cases. (In the first post, Faylasoof SaaHib had explained بچگانہ as aanah with a supporting g. However, in the second post he seemed to have agreed with بچگانہ → بچگان...?!)

    The examples presented by PersoLatin SaaHib in the opening post appear to demonstrate the possibility of ه acting as a suffix with plural forms.
    • However, there are other examples where considering aan a plural marker doesn't seem probable since the words are already plural, so considering aan to be a plural marker would suggest that جمع الجمع is being formed: مَلِک ← مُلوک ← مُلوکانہ or شیخ ← مشائخ ← مشائخانہ.
    • While دیو ← دیوان ← دیوانه could perhaps be a possibility, the pattern doesn't seem applicable to ابليسانه...!?
    Etymology experts will hopefully shed more light on this interesting topic.
    In Urdu, childish is:

    بچگانہ bachchagaanah - from Persian : bachchah (= child) + gaanah (suffix aanah for adjective formation together with the supporting 'g'). Much more commonly used.
    طفلانہ۔ Tiflaanah - from Arabic-Persian : Tifl (=child in Arabic) + aanah (Persian suffix as above). Far less common
    ...
    As far as I know/have heard, the gaaf version is considered correct, as explained here by Faylasoof SaaHib.

    This was also discussed in a TV program and the host seemed to have said that one way to remember the correct pronunciation could be to think of it in the following manner: بچگانہ → بچگان - بچہ
    I will not comment on Urdu, but in Persian the only correct form is baččagāna (four syllables).

    As Alfaaz mentions above (بچگانہ → بچگان - بچہ), and as he reminds us, this was mentioned in this thread, post # 5. In Urdu the same term (بچگانہ bachchagaanah / baččagāna) is used.
    ^ گانه is a variation of the adverb making suffix انه which is equivalent to the English 'ly'. It is usually used on nouns/adjectives that end in the Persian silent h and long vowels. So دختر becomes دخترانه but بچه becomes بچه گانه and جدا becomes جداگانه. ...
     

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    ^ گانه is a variation of the adverb making suffix انه which is equivalent to the English 'ly'.
    Based on my opening post I no longer believe this to be true but the word بچگانه fits the same pattern:
    بچگانه <- بچگان <- بچه - child/children/like children, childish

    of course بچگان as the plural of بچه is no longer in use.
     
    Last edited:

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    To me چهار‌گانه پنج‌گانه etc. on the first sight doesn't seem to fit into this system, if is it formed with the element -aan- (=plural) then how should the 'euphonic' /g/ be explained?
     

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    چهار‌گانه پنج‌گانه
    Good examples of below category:
    there may be some words of this type which were formed with an incorrect suffix.
    These constructions, as well as those made with numbers not ending in a vowel, are wrong, they should be چهار‌انه پنجانه ششانه but نهگانه and دهگانه but none are not commonly used.

    yek/ye -> yegân/yekân -> yegâne - one/ones/like ones, singular, unique - the k in yek, in my view, is the 'euphonic' that has remained on it.
     
    Last edited:

    marrish

    Senior Member
    اُردو Urdu
    There seems to exist a series of words ending in -انه/-āne/-āna which *seem* to fall into the second category, but they are frequently inanimate nouns, such as you have presented here:
    دسته <- دست hand/like hand, handle,
    from دسته, or perhaps from دست there is دستانه 'a glove', on the same pattern انگشتانه 'a thimble; finger-ring' comes to mind; دندانه from دند/دندان؛ 'indentation'; گوشانه 'a corner; ambush, lurking-place'. This one is even more complicated: درانه و دوزانه, as it comes from verbs.
     
    Last edited:

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    The verbal types do not belong to this category (i.e. ان/ān plus ه/e/a) e.g. روانه, کشانه پروانه including دوزانه & درانه (from دوختن & دریدن). What will be left when /ه/e/a is taken away is not the plural form.

    The suffix ان/ān on these verbal types is different, it in fact is cognate with the Latin
    -ant/-ent (remnant, buoyant etc.)

    An example that may help distinguish these is, نگران (in the state of looking, worried, anxious)) from نگریستن, the form relevant to this topic is نگرانانه - like the worried/anxiously.

    دندانه گوشانه انگشتانه and دستانه are good examples relevant to this topic.
     
    Last edited:

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    Perhaps the rule is,
    A) inanimate. Noun. the noun is first pluralized (in order possibly to be further generalized) by the addition of aan before the final e is added; for example, angoshtaane, shabaane, dastaane. Exception to this would be where a noun such as aasmaan already ends in aan; then all that is required is for a mere e to be added to the tail end: aasmaane.
    B) animate. Noun, adjective. The word takes on the aane in a fell swoop in order to become a noun, an adjective, or an adverb; instances such as koodakaane, baazigooshaane, khorsandaane, Shakespeareaane (in a manner attributable to William Shakespeare) would fall into this category.
     

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    the noun is first pluralized (in order possibly to be further generalized) by the addition of aan before the final e is added
    The above statement is very close to the essence of what I am saying, but I don't believe the word was first pluralised then /e/ was added rather the pluralised (or the much better put "generalized") form which already existed, was used (the order matters), in other words the process was identical to adding /e/ to any word.

    Exception to this would be where a noun such as aasmaan already ends in aan;
    I don't believe this is an exception please see below. Also آسمانه (ceiling/عرش ,سقف) is no different in construction to دسته or پایه.

    An example that may help distinguish these is, نگران (in the state of looking, worried, anxious)) from نگریستن, the form relevant to this topic is نگرانانه - like the worried/anxiously.
    The verb derived نگران already has ان/ân however the rule has forced another ان on it, to give نگرانانه/negarânâné.

    There may be a few exceptions to this rule (Shakespeareaane/شکسپیرانه which brings شاعرا نه to mind) but those were formed with the assumptions that -انه/-aane was a standalone suffix which the topic of this thread rejects, and I can not think of any in old Persian text.
     
    Last edited:

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    PersoLatin, perhaps having access to one regular way of suffixing does not preclude the possibility of having more methods at hand. But I see what you mean about old texts being mysteriously devoid of the suffix under scrutiny here. Not to ignore that curious fact, I do still think the starting block itself is a determining factor. In certain situations, such as those around the great English poet, the independent suffix aane seems to suddenly reveal itself. Unless of course you are saying that even Shakespeare would have been pluralized in older times. I admit that this latter possibility cannot be totally ruled out, logically speaking. Finally, I honestly thought the point about aane being able to stand on its own two feet was being debated. If it must be rejected then there we have it.
     

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    Unless of course you are saying that even Shakespeare would have been pluralized in older times.
    I am sorry I just checked what I said and it is misleading, to clarify, in your Shakespeare example (Shakespeareaane/شکسپیرانه), aan + e has been applied, therefore it is no different to other examples and it is not an exception.
     
    Last edited:
    Top