CENTRAL DIALECTS, designation of a number of Iranian dialects spoken in the center of Persia, roughly between HamadÄn, Isfahan, Yazd, and Tehran, that is, the area of ancient Media Major, which constitute the core of the western Iranian dialects. They are most closely related to 1. the band of ṬÄleši and Tati dialects that stretches from the areas of Vafs and ÄštÄ«Än (Tafreš) in the northwestern center of Persia to northern Azerbaijan (area of ancient Media Minor) and ṬawÄleš, and 2. the now largely extinct dialects of the Tehran-Ray area (ancient Raga), and the dialects of SemnÄn and surrounding villages to the east of Tehran (area of ancient QÅ«mes). They are more distantly related to the GÅrÄnÄ« dialects, spoken in the area north and northeast of KermÄnšÄh in the MÄhÄ«dašt area (MÄhÄ«dašt, lit. “the Median plain,” with MÄh < MÄδa-) and east of Mosul in Iraq. More distantly, yet, they are related to Kurdish and Baluchi (see baluchistan iii). Closely related to the Central dialects are the dialects spoken in Ḵūr and some other villages on the southern border of the central desert (Dašt-e KavÄ«r) and in SÄ«vand north of Persepolis in FÄrs, both of which, however, also contain features that group them with Kurdish to the west and Baluchi to the east.
The Central dialects thus constitute the southernmost group of the so-called Northwest Iranian dialects, with the exception of Baluchi. To their south and west so-called Southwest Iranian or Perside dialects are spoken, including the dialects spoken in Luristan, FÄrs, LÄrestÄn, and BašÄkerd.
As elsewhere in Persia, the dominating influence of Persian has resulted in the ousting of the local dialects not only in the major cities, but also in many towns and villages, where only the older generation speaks, or remembers, some of the earlier local dialect (MajÄ«dÄ«). In the northern and western parts of the Central dialects area the expanding Turkic dialects have played a similar role, beginning in the early Islamic centuries, in replacing local Iranian dialects (see kalaji). There is considerable resistance to the intrusion of Persian and Turkic, however, and the local dialects have been retained in many locations. Information on the dialects of many cities where Persian is now spoken comes from religious minorities. In particular, the Jewish communities in such cities as HamadÄn, KÄšÄn, GolpÄyegÄn, NehÄvand, Ḵomeyn, Isfahan, Yazd, KermÄn, etc. (see Yarshater, 1974) and the Zoroastrians in Yazd and KermÄn (See behdÄ«nÄn dialect) have retained the Central dialect spoken in their cities, at least until recently. There are also a few texts, mostly poems, written in urban dialects that have been preserved in manuscripts.
Classification of the Central dialects.
Research on the Central dialects began in the 1880s and continued into the 1930s. Little was then done until the interest in these dialects was renewed in the mid1970s. Since then much new information has been gathered, enabling scholars to understand the stratification of the Central dialects and the complex morphology especially of the northern Central dialects (Yarshater, 1974, 1985; LeCoq, 1989, Krahnke, 1976).
The internal grouping of the Central dialects has presented considerable problems because of numerous intersecting isoglosses and the lack of clear isoglottic bundling, a pattern which is probably the result of repeated internal migrations, probably dating back to before Islam, as no major population moves are recorded for central Persia at least since the 7th century of our era.
Major isoglottic patterns. The systematic study by Karl Krahnke has put our understanding of the dynamics of the synchrony and diachrony of the Central dialects on a firm basis. Having identified 36 distinctive phonological, morphological, and lexical isoglosses, he has shown that two major intersecting patterns can be recognized: one in which a set of linguistic features are spreading along a northwest-southeast axis, another in which they spread along a north-south axis starting in the KÄšÄn area. In addition to these two primary patterns, there are a number of secondary ones, in which isoglosses radiate from various centers.
The northwest-southeast pattern correlates with the topography of the area and, consequently, old and modern communication channels. The north-south pattern emanating from the northern KÄšÄn area, with its center around QohrÅ«d, reflects a conservative area with boundaries defined by topography and lines of communication. In the center of this area are the highest mountains in this part of Persia, and no main roads penetrate it, leaving the area relatively isolated. The isoglosses constitute wave-like patterns, rather than bundles, with the exception of the southeast of the area, where a northeast-southwest diagonal bundle of isoglosses, including the 1st singular ending -i and the absence of the past marker be-, separates the NÄʾīni group from the remainder of the dialects. Krahnke hypothesizes that the wave-like pattern may reflect an old genetic boundary between a northwestern dialect group and a southwestern one—now blurred but preserving its orientation—with centers somewhere along a line drawn from ArdestÄn to Isfahan.
The following grouping of the Central dialects is largely based on Krahnke’s observations (pp. 259-65), but also on the notes by Yarshater (1985) and LeCoq (1989). It coincides essentially with Krahnke’s northwest-southwest patterns. As Krahnke notes, given the isoglottic diversity, the members of each of these “groups” share only a few traits exclusively with each other, while there are intersections with other groups. Accordingly, the groupings reflect areal tendencies rather than discrete groups. The following schematic classification of the Central dialects may be proposed:
1. a northwestern group, including ÄštÄ«Äni, Ämoraʾi, Kahaki;
2. a western group consisting of MaḥallÄti, VÄnÄ«šÄni, ḴáµÄnsÄri;
3. a large northern-central group in the KÄšÄn area consisting of ÄrÄni-BÄ«dgoli, DelÄ«jÄni, Našalji, AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi, QohrÅ«di, KÄmūʾi, JowšaqÄni, Meymaʾi; further also AbyÄnaʾi, FarÄ«zandi, YÄrandi, Sohi, etc., and BÄdi, Naá¹anzi, Kašaʾi, TÄri, Ṭarqi, etc.
4. a southern group in the Isfahan area, which may be subdivided into Gazi, Sedehi, to the west and center, ArdestÄni, Zefraʾi, NohÅ«ji to the northeast, and Sajzi, KÅ«hpÄyaʾi, JarqÅ«yaʾi, RÅ«dašti, KafrÅ«di, to the east and south;
5. an eastern group consisting of TÅ«deški, Keyjani, AbÄÅ«yaʾi, NÄʾīni (and the closely related Zoroastrian and Jewish dialects of Yazd and KermÄn), AnÄraki, Yazdi.
It should be noted that speakers of many dialects in the KÄšÄn area identify their own dialects as rÄyejÄ«/rÄjÄ«, a term which may simply mean “local” or “current” dialect or may imply a distant reminiscence of the city of Raga/Ray, thus relating the dialects of this northern central area to those of the now extinct dialects around Tehran. In either case, the term shows that the speakers are aware that their dialects are distinct from others. Another local term used to distinguish dialects is buro-beše, literally “come!—go!” According to Krahnke (pp. 55-56, 263), this term is used by speakers in the village of AbÄÅ«ya to designate the dialects just north of them in the Naá¹anz area, where buro and beše are the typical imperatives of “come” and “go,” respectively (see also Yarshater, 1985, p. 745). In turn the speakers of AbÄÅ«yaʾi designate their own dialect as osme-siga, literally “now—this way,” two words typical of their own dialect. This distinction made by native speakers reflects the recognition of the major division that separates the southeast central NÄʾīni-AbÄÅ«ya-AnÄraki dialects from the others and which may be the remnant of an old dialect boundary in central Media Major.
Closely related to the Central dialects are:
6. SÄ«vandi, spoken in a linguistic enclave in FÄrs (north of Persepolis), and
7. the dialects of the oases of Ḵūr and Farroḵī and some other villages in the central desert (Dašt-e KavÄ«r).
SÄ«vandi. SÄ«vandi shares most of its characteristics with the Central dialects, but being surrounded by Persian and FÄrs dialects, it also contains words exhibiting typically Perside features and therefore probably borrowed from Persian or neighboring dialects (e.g., dÄs “sickle” and asiow “watermill,” Pers. ÄsÄ«Ä[b], with Perside *θr > s). SÄ«vandi has not only *rz > l (see above), but also *rd > l in vel-e “flower,” as commonly in the FÄrs dialects (Pers. gol).
Two phonetical developments in SÄ«vandi set it apart from the rest of the Central dialects (for examples see below): intervocalic *Ä > š and initial (also secondary) *hw-/*xw- and *hu-/*xu- > f- (also in Ḵūri). Morphologically, SÄ«vandi has features that link it to the Central dialects, as well as features from the surrounding dialects, such as the deictic particle -Å« (but feminine -e) instead of -é. Of the personal endings SÄ«vandi shares the 1st singular -i (e.g., m-as-i “I sleep”) with the eastern, NÄʾīni, group of the Central dialects, but the 2nd plural -ige/-ike (e.g., m-as-ike “you sleep”) with QohrÅ«di, Kešaʾi, VÄnÄ«šÄni and ḴáµÄnsÄri of the central and western group, with which it also shares the auxiliary gen- to form the passive. SÄ«vandi also possesses intransitive/inchoative formations in -y-, however (e.g., intrans. eškiy- versus trans. ešken- “to break”). As in the Lori and NÄʾīni dialects there is no prefix be- in perfective forms in SÄ«vandi, and the imperfective prefix *ma- is the same as in Persian and the FÄrs dialects. The SÄ«vandi present and past perfect of transitive verbs, in which the agent affix precedes the auxiliaries -en “is” and -bÄ« “was,” are of the Lori type (e.g., gort-em en, gort-em bÄ« “I have/had taken”). The perfect marker -en equals the copula -en (e.g., xaš-en “it is good”), as in the FÄrs and Lori dialects, as well as in Ḵūri.
SÄ«vandi has preserved a number of words found neither in the Central dialects nor in the neighboring FÄrs dialects, such as šet “milk” (< OIran. *xšwifta-; Pers. šÄ«r). It has a number of words in common with Kurdish, for instance, pird “bridge” (< *pá¹tu-), compare Kurdish pÄ«rd (but Pers. pol), and uir “fire,” compare Kurdish agir. As in Kurdish long Ä is not rounded before nasals (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd person plural endings -emÄ, -etÄ, -ešÄ < -Än).
It appears, thus, that today’s SÄ«vandi is the product of multiple inputs, which have considerably restructured the language of the original immigrants of SÄ«vand.
Ḵūri. Ḵūri (and its neighbor FarvÄ«) exhibits the following phonetical changes not found in the other Central dialects: *hw- > f-, secondary hw > f in fÄ«n “blood.” An interesting morphophonological alternation is that of h and f in be-hos- (subjunctive) “sleep” (< *hufs-) versus faft- “slept” (< *xwaft) and ho “sleep, dream” (exact origin uncertain). Initial *w- becomes g- as in Baškardi and Baluchi; intervocalic š > `; initial *x- > k- (e.g., kerÅ«s “rooster,” cf. Pers. xorÅ«s), as also in Kurdish and Baluchi; as well as four Perside developments: *θr > s, initial *dw- > d-, initial *y > j, and retention of *ft (after low vowel). A typical FarvÄ« development is, apparently, that of Å > wa, e.g., dwahd “daughter” and šwahš “six,” Ḵūri dÅd, šÅš (P. O. Skjærvø, personal communication). The far-deictic pronoun ev “that, he/she” (< *awa-) and the near-deictic em “this” (< *ima-) group Ḵūri with Old Persian and Kurdish, which has av- and am- (SolaymÄnÄ«ya, WarmÄwa; other dialects aw-, with typical Kurdish change of intervocalic m > w/v). The imperfective markers de-/ti- are found in most Kurdish dialects. The 3rd singular copula is -en as in SÄ«vandi and the Lori and FÄrs dialects.
Typical Ḵūri lexical items include the following: different present and past stems of “to say”: d-uš-Än/got-a-m “I say/said” (also in Kurdish); heyg (cf. SÄ«vandi xui, FÄrs dialects xÄg, Baluchi hÄyk, Kurdish hÄk “egg”); ayer “fire” (cf. SÄ«vandi uir and Kurdish agir); nÄg “nose”; nenang “hen,” FarvÄ« niyang.
Table 29 contains a selective list of isoglosses intended to indicate the diversity of the area (T = ÄštÄ«Äni; Tafreši; M = MaḥallÄti to ḴáµÄnsÄri; K = KÄšÄni dialects; I = Isfahani dialects; N = NÄʾīni and the BehdÄ«nÄn dialect of Yazd and KermÄn; K = Ḵūri; S = SÄ«vandi; for more detail, see below). They are the prefix *fra- in the verb “to sell” (Mid. Iran. frÅš-frÅxt-); the perfective prefix; the imperfective prefix or affix; the ending of the 1st singular present, etc.; the pronoun “we”; the near demonstrative “this”; the verb “to become”; the adverb “now”; and the adjective “big.”
Dialectology of the Central dialects.
1. Phonology.
Vowels. Most of the dialects have not yet been accurately recorded, and the material for a phonemic analysis of the vocalic systems is insufficient and permits only tentative conclusions about distribution patterns and historical developments in the Central dialects as a whole, such as the retention of the long mid vowels Ä and Å, raising of low vowels (e.g., e > i), and fronting of back vowels (e.g., a > ä, e).
Consonants. There is considerable homogeneity in the development of the consonants (see Table 30). Among the most significant and oldest northwestern features are the following:
IE. *k’ > s, e.g., AbÄÅ«yaʾi massa “big” (cf. Pers. meh “bigger”), Ḵūri Äsk “gazelle” (cf. Pers. ÄhÅ«); IE. *k’w > sp, QohrÅ«di, SÄ«vandi espa “dog” (cf. Pers. sag); *gδ > z, e.g., zÅn-/zÅ«n- “to know” (common; cf. Pers. dÄnestan); KÄšÄni, etc., (h)eze, SÄ«vandi zÄ«-rÄ “yesterday” (cf. Pers. dÄ«-rÅ«z); OIran. *θr > (h)r, e.g., Naá¹anzi pur “son, boy” (cf. Pers. pesar); initial *dw > b, e.g., Naá¹anzi bar “door” (cf. dar = Pers.); initial *y > y, e.g., ÄrÄni yo “barley” (cf. Pers. jow). Ḵūri does not share the developments of *θr > (h)r, initial *dw > b, initial *y > y (cf. Ḵūri pos “son,” dar, jow).
Some later changes, as well, mainly involving clusters, are shared by many or most Central dialects: *rz > l, e.g., VÄnÄ«šÄni al “to let, put” (Pers., FÄrs dialects hel-), SÄ«vandi mol “neck” (also FÄrs dialects), Ḵūri gol “flower” (with g- < w-; cf. Pers. gol); xt > (h)t, e.g., FarÄ«zandi dota, SÄ«vandi det “girl, daughter,” Ḵūri rÄda “dropped” (< *rÄxt). Other changes are spread widely, *xr mostly > (h)r, e.g., ÄrÄni hrin “to buy,” SÄ«vandi sir “red” (Pers. sorḵ), Ḵūri -hrÄ«n- “to buy”; *xm mostly to (h)m, e.g., ÄrÄni hmar- “to break.”
There is considerable inconsistency, or “turbulence,” in other developments, many of which involve changes that have not affected all lexical items. In most instances there are distinct, areally defined, patterns, however. The following is a selective list of such changes:
Old palatals: As mentioned, *g’ > z throughout, e.g., zÅ«n- “to know,” but > h in bohu/boʾi “arm” in a small area from QohrÅ«d to Gaz and Zefra, in VÄnÄ«šÄni, NÄʾīnÄ«, AnÄraki, Ḵūri, SÄ«vandi, versus bazi in neighboring ḴáµÄnsÄri.
Intervocalic Old Iranian *Ä > j or ` throughout, e.g., vÄj-/vÄž- “to say,” with the exception of SÄ«vandi, where it becomes š (e.g., paš- “cook, bake” < *paÄ-); Old Iran. *j mostly > j or `, e.g., Naá¹anzi jan “woman,” AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi žen(g), SÄ«vandi, Ḵūri žen, `inÅ«, FarvÄ« jen (cf. NÄʾīni, AnÄraki enjÅ«); but > y in yan “woman, wife” in ÄrÄni, QohrÅ«di and Sohi, and Persian zan in MaḥallÄti, VÄnÄ«šÄni, and ḴáµÄnsÄri.
Initial *w > v in vÄ(d) “wind” in most locations; in vÄ«(d) “willow” in the north, but Persian bÄ«d in the Isfahan and NÄʾīn areas; varg “wolf” in the northern and southeastern KÄšÄn area, but Persian gorg elsewhere. Only Ḵūri and FarvÄ«gÄ« have g- (e.g., gÄ(d) “wind”; -gof- “weave,” cf. Pers. bÄf-), a development it shares with some Baškardi dialects and Baluchi (where *w- > g- or gw-).
The development of intervocalic and final d < OIran. *t is fairly regular: It remains as d in many words, forming an isoglottic line from ḴáµÄnsÄr, JowšaqÄn, AbyÄna, BÄd, but changes to a glide, mostly > y, to the south of this area. It is lost in the past participle/infinitive in all dialects, e.g., FarÄ«zandi parsÄa “asked,” with the exception of QohrÅ«di persoda. Note also NÄʾīni, AnÄraki biyÄr “brother.”
Intervocalic š is voiced in Ḵūri, e.g., gūž “ear.”
Initial *hw- becomes f- in Ḵūri (e.g., de-fer-Än, be-fard-am “I eat, I ate,” cf. Pers. mÄ«-ḵáµoram, ḵáµordam; far “sun,” fÄr “sister,” cf. Pers. ḵáµor-šÄ«d, ḵáµÄhar) and SÄ«vandi (e.g., fet “slept” < Mid. Iran. *xwaft, Pers. ḵoft; fey- “self, own” < *xwad; fešk “dry”< *hušk; fird “small” < *xwurd; farm “sleep” < Mid. Ir. *xwamn/xwarm). This development must have taken place fairly late in the history of SÄ«vandi, as it also affects secondary initial hw-/wh- (e.g., fÄ«t “sifted” < *whÄ«t < *wÄ«ht < *wÄxt; fÄ«n “blood” < OIran. *wahuni-; feše “hungry” < *wišna < *wá¹sna-). Intervocalic *hw becomes -w/-u or is lost (e.g., muari “I am eating” < *ma-xwar-, contrasting with past tense fard < *xwart; and present mas- “sleep” < *ma-hwas- < *hwafs-, versus past tense fet). In Ḵūri secondary hw became f in fÄ«n “blood”; differently from SÄ«vandi, f is retained after prefixes (see the examples above).
Clusters. š is lost in the groups šm and šn in Äašm “eye” > Äam “eye” in the middle area from MaḥallÄt to Zefra, and in a few other words in individual dialects, e.g., Kešaʾi pÅina “heel” and AbyÄnaʾi enoyn- “to hear” and tena “thirsty” (usually pÄšna, ešnav-, and tešna or similar forms). A similar development is found in Baškardi, Kumzari, and Baluchi (see EIr. III/6, p. 635, III/8, p. 848).
Old Iranian št remains throughout the KÄšÄn area but becomes st and ss elsewhere, e.g., Naá¹anzi bavašt “ran” but Gazi bevesse-.
Old Iranian ft remains or becomes (h)t, depending on the words and area. It becomes t in the KÄšÄn dialects in most words, but generally ft in the Isfahan dialects, e.g., QohrÅ«di derkat- “fell,” SÄ«vandi fet “slept” (cf. Pers. ḵoft), Ḵūri got- “said” (cf. Pers. goft). But Gazi derkaft-, Ḵūri -geraft- “took” (< *grift).
Initial *fr- mostly becomes (h)r-, e.g., ÄrÄni rÅ«d “sold,” SÄ«vandi rut, AnÄraki -hrÄt, Ḵūri -raveš- (cf. Pers, forÅ«š-, forūḵt), but Perside fr is found in this word in the Isfahan area up to Zefra, e.g., Zefraʾi frÅš-; in *frada- “tomorrow” fr- becomes h- in the northern KÄšÄn area, e.g., QohrÅ«di hiyÅ, but Persian fardÄ (beside other words) is found elsewhere. Exceptionally hr has become xr in Kešaʾi xrasn- “to send” (< *frÄst-Än-, cf. Pers. ferest-Äd) and QohrÅ«di a-xrÅ«š- “to sell.”
2. Noun morphology and syntax.
Gender. Recent research (Yarshater, 1985) has shown that the retention of the distinction of feminine gender is much more widespread than assumed so far, especially in the north, that is, the Tafreš (as in the neighboring Tati dialects) and the KÄšÄn area, for instance, ÄštÄ«Äni and Ämoraʾi vÄ«nÄ«y-a “nose,” ÄštÄ«Äni masc. Än “that one,” fem. Äna. As Yarshater has shown, factors of syntax and semantics, as well as focus of discourse, produce considerable differences in the marking of gender in these dialects (as in others where gender is retained). Such factors include the degree of agentivity (most common with human agents, less with other animate agents, and least with inanimate and generic agents), definiteness (most common with definite words, less with indefinite ones), and number (most common with singular words, less with plural ones), as well as word class (such as, in decreasing order: noun, adjective, indefinite article, demonstrative adjective, demonstrative pronoun, past intransitive verbs, past transitive verbs, and the copula; see also cases). For example, in JowšaqÄni the feminine gender is distinguished in proper names, nouns, demonstrative pronouns, the copula, the past of intransitive and transitive verbs, and, uniquely among the KÄšÄn dialects, in proper names and verbal forms based on the present stem. Examples: Hasan-e vagertÄ versus Zeynab-e vagertÄ-a “Ḥasan/ZaynÄb returned”; nen quÄ-a quÄ-a xubi-a “this ram is a good ram” versus nen böz-e böz-e xubi-asta “this goat is a good goat,” aga nö bavöz-e versus aga nön-a bavöz-ea “if he/she runs.” In SÄ«vandi gender is marked in definite eżÄfa-constructions, e.g., kor-i me “my son,” žen-a me “my wife,” and before suffix, e.g., žen-a-š “his wife”; the deictic suffix is stressed -Å« for masculines, e.g., quÄ-Å« “the ram,” but unstressed -e for feminines, e.g., usúr-e “the horse.”
Oblique case. As in the case of gender distinctions, the Tafreš and northern KÄšÄn dialects tend to retain the distinction between direct and oblique cases. For example, in ÄštÄ«Äni the following case endings are distinguished:
Singular | Plural | ||
Masculine | Feminine | ||
direct | (no ending) | -a | -gal |
oblique | -i | -o | -gal-Än |
In this and other dialects the oblique case functions as possessor, specific direct and indirect object, as well as agent in the past tenses of transitive verbs, for example: Rostam-e sang-eš biyÄnd “Rostam (agent) threw a stone.”
In ÄštÄ«Äni, as well as in Ämoraʾi and Kahaki, the case distinction is also retained in certain pronouns (Table 31).
The same distinction has been retained in AbyÄnaʾi. AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi has reflexes of the singular oblique -i in eżÄfa-constructions of nouns with final stressed -á, for instance, bar key-é < bar keyá-i/e “the door of the house.”
Plural. The plural marker is generally derived from the Middle Iranian plural oblique marker *-Än or from the Middle Iranian plural (originally abstract?) ending *-Ä«hÄ. The Lori-type marker -gal is found in ÄštÄ«Äni and Ämoraʾi among the Tafreš dialects (but Kahaki -iya), -gel-o in Zefraʾi among the KÄšÄn dialects, and -gar in SÄ«vandi. A reflex of the former plural direct case marker -e/-i is found in AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi, where nouns in final stressed -a have -e (but not elsewhere), for instance, pÄk lÅ«wé < lÅ«wá-i/e “all intestines.” The unmarked form (< Middle Iranian plural direct case or generic singular) is also often used for the plural, for instance, böz xodÅ šÄx-yÅ jang a-kerän “the goats fight with their horns.”
Definiteness. Most dialects appear to have a vocalic marker similar to colloquial Persian topicalizing -é, for instance, Judeo-Isfahani kuwen-é “the kohen.” Ḵūri has -Å«, e.g., mardÅ«, `inÅ«, and SÄ«vandi has masculine -Å«, feminine -e. All dialects have an indefinite marker -i/e.
EżÄfa construction. The word order is the same as in Persian and other dialects in southern Persia, that is, noun + adjective and possessed + possessor. Although the Persian-type connective -i, -e (eżÄfa) occurs in several of the recorded dialects, too little is known about its distribution to determine whether it is a genuine part of their morphology. In AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi the possessor is in the oblique case (“genitive”), e.g., bar kÄy-é (see above; there is a similar construction in AbyÄnaʾi), which was probably the original pattern in all the Central dialects. Both AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi and AbyÄnaʾi, possibly also several other dialects, have a compound-noun construction as well, in which -a- serves as connector, e.g., AbyÄnaʾi dot-a-xÄla “daughter of maternal aunt.”
Adpositions. The Central dialects have prepositions and postpositions, as well as ambipositions. Stilo (1985) has shown that the Central dialects, together with Northern and Central Kurdish, GÅrÄnÄ«, and the southernmost Tati dialects, lie in a buffer zone between the languages in the north, which consistently use postpositions, and those in the south, which consistently use prepositions. In particular, in many dialects the position of de (< dar) determines its function: as a preposition it marks direction, as a postposition it marks location or ablative; for instance, Meymaʾi de-kul-eš-eš na “he put it on his shoulder” versus man šomÄ-de betarsÄm “I was afraid of you” (cf. Pers. man az šomÄ mÄ«tarsÄ«dam). In some Central dialects be, which generally marks the indirect object, has assumed the same functions as de in the other dialects (see also on affixes below).
Direct object. The Persian-type marker -(r)Ä occurs in many dialects, but with varying frequency, and too little is known about its use, especially in past transitive sentences, to identify its range of functions. It appears that at least in some dialects it is not used if the noun phrase is already defined by a personal suffix.
Independent pronouns. In the Central dialects personal and demonstrative pronouns have only one case form (with the exception of the 1st and 2nd singular in ÄštÄ«Äni, Ämoraʾi, and Kahaki, as well as in AbyÄnaʾi, see above). When unmarked by adpositions the pronouns function as subject and as indirect object with verbs semantically implying animate/human recipients, for instance, Zefraʾi Ä«ÄkÄ« Å«-š n-Ä«Ëe-tÅ “nobody (Ä«ÄkÄ« . . . -š n-) would give (Ä«Ëe-tÅ) him (Å«) (anything)” (-š marks 3rd singular past agent).
Personal affixes (enclitic pronouns). All central dialects have personal affixes whose function it is to mark the possessor, the object of prepositions, the indirect object, the direct object in the present, and the agent in the past tenses of (mostly) intransitive verbs; examples: Judeo-Isfahani dim-aš “his face,” Ä«n harfÄ-rÄ ve-šÅ«n vÄt “(he) said these words to them,” Zefraʾi em-et-gÅ “I must” (em- “for me,” et-gÅ “it is necessary”), NÄʾīni kÄr-i xÅ«b-Ä«-š-om vé-Ärt “I (-om, agent)” did (lit. brought about) something good for him (-š, indirect object).”
There are several major isoglottic splits in the pronouns. The personal affix of the 3rd person singular is either -i/-e (from OIran. *-hai, him, etc.; cf. Av. hÅi/hÄ) or -š (from OIran. šai, šim, etc.; cf. Av. šÄ, OPers. šaiy). The form -i/-e is found in the northern part of the KÄšÄn area, including ÄrÄni, AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi, AbyÄnaʾi, but also in Sedehi among the Isfahan dialects, and in Ḵūri. The 3rd plural forms are generally formed from the singular forms by adding the oblique plural marker *-Än, for instance, AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi singular -e, plural -y- Ån. In NÄʾīni, AnÄraki syncopated forms were recorded by Ivanow: -m’n-, -t’n-, -š’n-, which have now been reduced to -m-, -t-, -š-, coinciding with the singular forms. The two isoglosses intersect in the KÄšÄn area, where both ÄrÄni and AbyÄnaʾi use -i/-e for possessor, perfective past agent, and present direct object, but š-e for the indirect object and the agent in the imperfective past, for instance, ÄrÄni š-e-dÄ “he gave him,” AbyÄnaʾi š-e-gÄ« “he wants, he must” (lit. “for him it is necessary”). Pronouns derived from *hai, etc., are also typical of Kurdish, Baškardi, and Baluchi; pronouns from *šai, etc., are typical of Perside dialects, as well as Caspian dialects, SemnÄni, and so on.
Another major isoglottic split is found in the demonstratives. In general the demonstratives can be derived from Middle Iranian forms such as Middle Persian Än and Än; only in a wedge-like isogloss in the northern KÄšÄn dialects, the boundary of which stretches from JowšaqÄn south to Soh, Naá¹anz, and north to BÄd, excluding Meyma and Keša, do we find forms with initial n- used as demonstratives, as in the southeastern-most Southern Tati dialects (EštehÄrdi) and Sangesari in the SemnÄn region. A near-deictic form (“this”) in d- (< OIran. *aita-) is found in NÄʾīni, AnÄraki, etc., and a similar plural demonstrative inn is found in Kešaʾi—just south of the n-isogloss—and VÄrÄni in the northwest of the central area. Forms derived from OIran. *ima- are found only in Zoroastrian Yazdi (m-) and in Ḵūri (em “this”). The far-deictic pronoun in Ḵūri is ev < OIran. *awa-.
Several Central dialects, among them Zefraʾi and NÄʾīni, appear to distinguish three sets of demonstrative pronouns (“hic, iste, ille”), but this question has not yet been fully examined. Table 32 shows forms from VÄnÄ«šÄni, Zefraʾi, AbyÄnaʾi (including the oblique forms and the prefixes of the imperfect, see below), NÄʾīni, Ḵūri, and SÄ«vandi. The distinction between the 3rd person pronouns and the two sets of demonstratives is semantically not always clear.
3. Verbal morphology and syntax.
Prefixes. All the Central dialects have prefixes that largely retain their original directional meaning, for instance, *var- “on, out,” *dar- “in,” and *hÄ- “to, from” (< OIran. *frÄ- “forth, away”). The most elaborate system appears to be that of AbyÄnaʾi (Lecoq, 1975, pp. 57-58): ar- “upward” (e.g., ar-geratan “to pick up”), ber- “downward” (e.g., ber-katan “to fall down”), bar- “out” (e.g., bar-ammayan “go out, leave”), var- “forward” (e.g., var-ammayan “to advance, come forth”), dar- “in,” also intensive action (e.g., dar-petan “to wrap (in)”), vä- “back” and repetitive and “enlarging” action (e.g., vÄ-xardan “to drink”), and hÄ- with no clearly definable meaning (e.g., hÄ-geretan “to take”).
Stem gradation (umlaut). A reflex of the Old Iranian stem gradation is found in the variation between intransitive and transitive stems of *Äar-/ÄÄr-(Än)- “to graze” (intrans./trans.) in many of the dialects, e.g., VÄnÄ«šÄni Äer- versus ÄÅr-n-.
Personal endings. There are three major variants of personal endings. The ending of the 1st singular is -i/-e in the NÄʾīni, dialects and SÄ«vandi, as opposed to -Än > -Ån/-Å«n in the remainder of the dialects, except Ḵūri, which has -Äm(-ã, -Än). The ending of the 3rd singular is -e/-a (from Mid. Iran. *-ad/-Äd < OIran. -at-i/-ayat-i) in most dialects, but ÄštÄ«Äni among the Tafreš, and the southern dialects, including VÄnÄ«šÄni, ḴáµÄnsÄri, and the Isfahani dialects, have a rounded back vowel -Å«/-Å of uncertain origin (possible analogy from forms like *b(av)am/*bÅ “I/he will be” < *bawam/bawad, *š(av)am/*šÅ “I go/he goes” < *šawam/šawad; the form may also have been influenced by the 3rd person singular demonstrative Å«, which typologically is not unusual). Most varied are the endings of the 2nd plural: ÄštÄ«Äni, Kahaki, -Ä«n, Ämoraʾi -ite; the dental is also found in Sedehi -ide, Meymaʾi ida, ḴáµÄnsÄri -adi; -g- (of unknown origin): VÄnÄ«šÄni, QohrÅ«di, Kešaʾi, SÄ«vandi -ige/-ike; or -iya (with regular change of intervocalic d > y).
The verb “to be.” As in most Iranian dialects the enclitic copula agrees with the intransitive present endings. However, there is considerable diversity in the 3rd person. Most notable are the forms found in marginal areas, for example, in SÄ«vandi: (h)änd-Äm, -Ä«, -0, -Ä«me, -Ä«ke, -0 or -Ä«ne (note that the endings -Äm and -0 are those of the past tenses, as in Pers. hast-am, hast-Ä«, hast). Ḵūri has 3rd sing. enclitic copula -en (e.g., . . . johun-i-e[n] “it is a nice . . .”) versus existential ha “(there) is, exists.”
The existential/locational verb “to be” also shows great variety, including differentiation as to animacy. For example, VÄnÄ«šÄni has -Å« “is,” identical with the verbal ending, but also bissÅ« “there is” (probably related to, or influenced by, *st- “to stand”) and animate ÅyÅ«. In NÄʾīni the marker of existence or location is vä (e.g., kiä vä ÄdamÄ«zÄd? dÄ« vä ÄdamÄ«zÄd “Where is the human? This is the human.” FarÄ«zandi has a fairly elaborate system, distinguishing between interrogative and declarative, as well as gender and number, for example, ko šo/štä/štändä “where is he/she/they?” (with šo, etc., probably related to, or influenced by, š- “to go”) versus an-de darä/darea/darända “he/she/they are (in) there” (with dar < *dar “in”).
The basic patterns of the verbal endings are illustrated in Table 33.
Inflectional passive/intransitive. Most KÄšÄni dialects have retained passive/intransitive forms, usually formed by adding -y- to the present stem (from Mid. Iran. -Ä«(h)- < OIran. -ya-; also found in some Lori-type dialects), but to considerably various degrees; ḴáµÄnsÄri and AbyÄnaʾi have forms in -k/g-. Examples: Meymaʾi be-š-piÄ-i-y-e “it will (be) cook(ed),” VÄrÄni be-ranj-i-y-a “he suffered,” Judeo-KÄšÄni vÄ-darz-i-y-a “it was sewn,” Judeo-HamadÄni na-hmar-i-y-a “it is not (being) broken,” AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi a-kar-i-y-o “it is (being) done” and m-a-kar-i-y-o “it was (being) done,” SÄ«vandi eškiy- “to break.” Only one form, ba-hmar-i-y-a, has been recorded for Kamūʾi in the center of the KÄšÄni dialect area and ÄrÄni to the north of KÄšÄn. ḴáµÄnsÄri (e.g., et-kuš-k-Än “I am being killed”) and AbyÄnaʾi (e.g., e-kar-g-Än and ba-kar-g-Åy-Än “I am being made/I was made”).
In the other dialects the passive is formed by means of periphrastic constructions similar to Persian košta šodan “to be killed.” Different auxiliaries are employed, however: gert- (in the east: NohÅ«ji, Keyjani, NÄʾīni, AbÄÅ«yaʾi, AnÄraki), gel- (FarÄ«zandi, BÄdi), gan- (MaḥallÄti, VÄnÄ«šÄni, ḴáµÄnsÄri, QohrÅ«di) and gen- (SÄ«vandi), and the rest b- “be, become.”
Present and past imperfective. The formation of the imperfective present and past shows two distinct isoglottic patterns, by the prefix *at- (of uncertain origin, perhaps from OIran. *aiwa-da “at the same time, all the time”(?); also found in the northwestern Central and southernmost Tati dialects, such as Vafsi) or the enclitic particle -e. The prefix *at-, which appears as ed- in Tafreš (e.g., ÄštÄ«Äni ed-gÄ«ro “he takes,” Ämoraʾi ed-Äm [< *ed-vÄm] “I say”; but Kahaki to-, e.g., to-vÄje “he says”), as et- in ḴáµÄnsÄri (e.g., et-kuš-Än “I kill”), as a-, prevocalic (a)t-, in the KÄšÄn dialects (e. g., Meymaʾi yÄ t-Är-on “I remember,” lit. “I bring to place/here”) and sometimes contracted with following vowels (e.g., VÄrÄni y-owr-a “he brings,” but t-ey “he comes”); in the southeastern KÄšÄni and the NÄʾīni dialects it is preserved only after verbal prefixes and verbal nominals, e.g., Zefraʾi šÅ«n “I am going,” but -Ä«- in dir-Ä«e-bend-Ån “I am hitting,” gird Ä«-ker-Ån “I gather”; AnÄraki mu e-wÄ«n-Ä« “I see.” In Ḵūri the imperfect marker is de- (e.g., de-kar-Äm, de-kard-a-m “I am/was doing”), but ti before vowels (e.g., tiÄm, ti-avÅ-h-Äm “I was coming”). SÄ«vandi has ma-, as in the FÄrs dialects.
The enclitic particle -e (of uncertain origin; perhaps from *Äw as in Class. Pers. -Ä« and Pers. (ha)mÄ« < Mid. Pers. ham-Äw, or from Mid. Iran. 3rd sing. optative of “to be”: *hÄ) is found in the Isfahani dialects (e.g., Gazi šÅn-e “I am going”). In the ḴáµÄnsÄri and VÄnÄ«šÄni area it is used together with the marker et- as an optional -e/-i (cf. Class. Pers. hamÄ raft-Ä« “he used to go”). Note also the Ämoraʾi plural endings -Ä«m-i, -Ä«t-e, -en-e, and ÄštÄ«Äni 3rd plur. -on-e. The Zoroastrian dialect of Yazd and KermÄn has the prefix et- in the positive, but the enclitic -e with negative (e.g., et-Å-t “comes,” but n-Å-t-e “he does not come”; See behdÄ«nÄn dialect).
Perfective and subjunctive. The general marker of the perfective tenses, including the perfective subjunctive, is ba-/be- (e.g., KafrÄni be-rit “dropped”), except in stative verbs (see below). The present and past perfect, as well as the perfect subjunctive, are generally based on a perfective participle ending in -a, followed by the present, past, and subjunctive of “to be” (as in Persian rafta ast, rafta bÅ«d, rafta bÄšad). Forms without be- are used throughout the Central dialects area to express resultative aspect, for instance, Ḵūri be-dia-g-e “he has seen” (-e = agent) versus em eškassa-g-en “this is broken” (-en = 3rd sing. of the existential/locational “to be”; these two examples also exemplify the common use in Ḵūri of -g- as intervocalic connector).
With transitive verbs the agent is usually marked by the personal affix, inserted after ba-/be-, for example, be-š-vÄt(-a) “he (has) said” (-š- = agent). The major exception is SÄ«vandi, in which *be- has been lost and the agent affix is inserted after the main verb, before the auxiliary, for instance, gort-em-en “I have taken”
(-em = agent, -en = 3rd sing. copula), following the pattern of the neighboring FÄrs dialects. In several of the NÄʾīni dialects be- has been reduced to a front vowel (e.g., NÄʾīni mÄ«-m-i-ka and AnÄraki mu-m-i-ka “did” < *-bi-ka).
Stative and resultative verbs. Most dialects contain a small set of “stative” verbs, including “to have” and “to be able, can,” which lack both the imperfective and perfective markers and from the subjunctive by means of a periphrastic construction (e.g., Kešaʾi dÅrt bÅ«n “may, should have” and zÅm bÅ«n “may, should be able to”). AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi has a set of defective resultative verbs (e.g., present Ävo, past avade “he is/was seated,” but ÄÄ«n/Äešt “to sit [down]”), for which corresponding verbs may possibly be found in other dialects.
Future. The future tense is marked by *kÄm- (originally “to wish” or “it is my, etc., wish”) in an area about KÄšÄn including ÄrÄni and BÄ«dgoli, AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi, QohrÅ«di, AbyÄnaʾi, FarÄ«zandi and YÄrandi, and JowšaqÄni (e.g., AbyÄnaʾi kam-om šo “I will go”). This marker also is used in conditional clauses. AbyÄnaʾi in addition has a separate near future, marked by the combination of the subjunctive/perfective prefix with the imperfective prefix (e.g., b-e-kar-Än “I will do (soon),” but e-kar-Än “I am doing” and ba-kar-Än “[that] I should do”) and a future imperative marked by -iš- (e.g., ba-kar-iš-ä “you will do!” as opposed to the regular ba-ka “do!”).
Narrative tenses. AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi distinguishes what may be called historical present forms, that is, a narrative imperfect and past in some intransitive verbs. These forms are based on the present subjunctive and imperfect, respectively, and are marked by the lack of vocalic harmony: narrative imperfect á-šo “he was going (then),” but present o-šó “he is going,” narrative bá-šo “he went (then),” but subjunctive bo-šó “that he go, he may go.” JowšaqÄni sabah b-at-am “tomorrow I will come” and b-at-eme-am, probably “I would come,” may be examples of the same constructions, and other instances may yet be found in other dialects.
Ergative. Like most West Iranian non-Persian-type dialects, all the Central dialects have retained a form of the so-called “split” ergative, traditionally called “passive construction” (by some also termed “agential construction”), in which the agent, or logical subject, in the past of transitive verbs is marked by the oblique case of nouns and/or pronouns in dialects where the oblique is still distinguished and/or by pronominal affixes (e.g., Kešaʾi ÄemÅ-d-em kö be-dÄ« . . . “when I saw your eyes . . .,” lit. “eyes-your-I when saw”; this example also demonstrates the “raising” of a personal affix, here the agent, from the dependent relative clause into the main clause: ÄemÅ-d be-m-dÄ« > ÄemÅ-d-em kö be-dÄ«).
The patient, or “logical,” object is in the direct case in dialects which have preserved case distinction, and the verb agrees with the patient, rather than the agent, for instance, AbyÄnaʾi ba-š-köšt-Än “he killed me” (< “I was killed by him”). In FarÄ«zandi and YÄrandi agreement is retained in both feminine gender and number, for instance, dot-am be-šÄ«-ä “I took the girl” (lit. “girl-I took-her”), while in AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi agreement is confined to the singular (e.g., Ä« xarguš-am be-köšt-e “I killed a rabbit,” lit. “one rabbit-I killed-her”).
4. Lexicon.
There is considerable homogeneity in the lexicon of the Central dialects. They all have typically northwestern verb stems like *vÄj-/vÄt- “to say” (Pers. gÅ«-/goft), and *k(af)-/ka(f)t “to fall” (Pers. oft-/oftÄd). Other lexical items, however, show isoglottic distribution. For example, “to hit” is *der-band- in the northwest, but *xus- in the southeast, with a turbulent boundary area along the line from Gaz to Naá¹anz. Roughly the same boundary area is found for the distinction between northwestern *ÄÄ«n-/šÄ«n- and southeastern *ni(n)g- “to sit.” Of nouns, *isba “dog” is found in the northwestern area, including the ḴáµÄnsÄri dialects, QohrÅ«di, and AbyÄnaʾi but *kuya elsewhere (except Yazdi svaka). The distribution of “very” shows a fairly similar pattern, *xeylÄ« in the north and northwest, *mÄlÄ« in the southeastern-most KÄšÄni dialects, the eastern Isfahani dialects, and the NÄʾīni dialects (but Yazdi xeyli). The word for “now” is *hat in the northwest, largely following the same patterns, and *zo- in the southwest, whereas the NÄʾīni dialects have *osm- (but Yazdi mene). The words for “big, great” are *mas in the ḴáµÄnsÄri dialects in the west and the NÄʾīni dialects in the east, but *gord in the northern KÄšÄni dialects down to Meymaʾi and Kešaʾi, and *bela in the southeastern KÄšÄni dialects and in the Isfahani dialects. In roughly the same area as *bela the word for “finger” is *engul-, versus *angušt- elsewhere (but also engul- in Naá¹anzi to the north of this area). Other words show even more variety, such as “to send”: QohrÅ«di kÄ«n, Kešaʾi xrasn-, Zefraʾi endÅr, Yazdi nv-; “nose”: VÄnÄ«šÄni, QohrÅ«di, Sedehi, etc., domÄḡ, domÅḡ, NÄʾīni lüá¹Ä, AnÄraki loá¹Ä, Ḵūri nÄg, SÄ«vandi pet; “mouth”: VÄnÄ«šÄni dÄn, QohrÅ«di dohÅ«n, NÄʾīni dehen, AnÄraki ÄÄ«, Kešaʾi and Zefraʾi eyn, Sedehi ÄÄ«n, SÄ«vandi kap (also FÄrs dialects, impolite usage).
There is also some semantic differentiation, notably FarÄ«zandi-YÄrandi animate šÄ«n-/šÄ«- versus inanimate bar-/bard- “to take away,” animate ÄnÄ«-/Å«nÄ« versus inanimate Är-/Ärd “to bring.” In Zoroastrian Yazdi-KermÄni there are some distinctions between “ahuric” and “daevic” verbs, for instance, ahuric hem-t-Åšt versus daevic hem-par- “to stand up,” reflecting the lexical split already found in Avestan.
Bibliography:
General: F. C. Andreas, Iranische Dialektaufzeichnungen aus dem Nachlass von F. C. Andreas, ed. K. Barr, W. B. Henning, and A. Christensen, Abh. der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl., 3 Folge, Nr. 11, 1939.
H. W. Bailey, “Persia. II. Language and Dialects,” in EI1 III, pp. 1050-58.
A. Christensen, Contributions. D. I. Edel’man, Osnovnye voprosy lingvisticheskoÄ geografii. Na materiale indoiranskikh yazykov, Moscow, 1968.
W. Geiger, “Kleinere Dialekte und Dialektgruppen. III. Central Dialekte,” in Grundriss I/2, pp. 381-406.
K. Krahnke, Linguistic Relationships in Central Iran, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976.
P. Lecoq, “Les dialectes du centre de l’Iran,” in Schmitt, ed., pp. 313-26.
D. N. MacKenzie, “The Origins of Kurdish,” TPS, 1961, pp. 68-86.
M.-R. MajÄ«dÄ«, GÅ«yešhÄ-ye pÄ«rÄmÅ«n-e KÄšÄn wa MaḥallÄt, EntešÄrÄt-e Farhang-e ZabÄn-e ĪrÄn 12, Tehran, 1354 Š./1975.
O. Mann, Kurdisch-persische Forschungen, pt. 3, vol. 1, 1926.
G. Morgenstierne, “Neu-iranische Sprachen,” in HO I/1V, Iranistik I, 1958, pp. 155-78.
Idem, “Feminine Nouns in -a in Western Iranian Dialects,” in W. B. Henning and E. Yarshater, eds., A Locust’s Leg. Studies in Honour of S. H. Taqizadeh, London, 1962, pp. 203-08.
V. S. Rastorgueva, ed., Opyt istoriko-tipologicheskogo issledovaniya iranskikh yazykov I-II, Moscow, 1975.
G. Redard, “Notes de dialectologie iranienne, II: Camelina,” in Redard, ed., Indo-Iranica. Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne, Wiesbaden, 1964, pp. 155-62.
Idem, “Other Iranian Languages,” in Current Trends in Linguistics 6, 1970, pp. 97-135.
R. Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989.
D. Stilo, “Ambipositions as an Areal Response. The Case-Study of the Iranian Zone,” in Seventh South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable, Ann Arbor, 1985, Ann Arbor, 1987, pp. 308-36.
Tedesco, “Dialektologie.” G. L. Windfuhr, “Isoglosses. A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes,” in Monumentum H. S. Nyberg II, Acta Iranica 5, Tehran and Liège, 1975, pp. 457-72.
Idem, “New West Iranian,” in Schmitt, ed., pp. 251-62.
E. Yarshater, “The Jewish Communities of Persia and their Dialects,” in Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli, eds., Mélanges Jean de Menasce, Louvain, 1974, pp. 455-66.
Idem, “Distinction of Grammatical Gender in the Dialects of Kashan Province and the Adjoining Areas,” in Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce II, Acta Iranica 25, 1985, pp. 727-45.
ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy, 1888-1922.
Idem, “Prevaritel’nye zametki o nekotorykh "persidskikh nerechiyakh",” Zapiski vostochnago otdeleniya . . . 1, 1887, pp. 23-29.
Studies on individual dialects: AbÄÅ«yaʾi: Krahnke.—AbÅ«zaydÄbÄdi: Krahnke. P. Lecoq, “Le dialecte d’Abu Zeyd Abad,” in Monumentum H. S. Nyberg II, Acta Iranica 5, Tehran and Liège, 1975, pp. 15-38.
E. Yarshater, in EIr. I/4, pp. 401-02.
—AbyÄnaʾi: Ê¿A. BolÅ«kbĚī, “BarrasÄ«hÄ-ye lahja-ye AbyÄna, M.A. thesis, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970.
P. Lecoq, “Le dialecte d’AbyÄna,” Studia Iranica 3, 1975, pp. 21-63.
E. Yarshater in EIr. I/4, pp. 404-05.
—Ämoraʾi: M. Moḡdam, GÅ«yešhÄ-ye Vafs o ÄštÄ«Än o Tafreš, ĪrÄn-kÅ«da 11, 1318 Yazdegerdi/1949.
—AnÄraki: V. Ivanov, “Two Dialects Spoken in the Central Persian Desert,” JASB, N.S. 21, 1926, pp. 405-31.
Idem, “Notes on the Dialect of Khur and Mihrijan,” Acta Orientalia 8, 1927, pp. 45-61.
H. Kanus-Credé, “Notizen zum Dialekt von AnÄrak,” Iranistische Mitteilungen 5, 1971, pp. 10-22.
G. L. Windfuhr, “AnÄraki” in EIr. II/1, pp. 2-3.
—ÄrÄni and BÄ«dgoli: N. á¸okÄʾī BayżÄʾī, “ZabÄn-e rÄyejÄ«-e ÄrÄnÄ«,” in MajmÅ«Ê¿a-ye ḵeá¹Ä-bahÄ-ye taḥqÄ«qÄtÄ«-e Ä«rÄnÄ« II, 1351 Š./1972, pp. 342-45.
E. Yarshater, “BÄ«dgol and bÄ«dgoli,” in EIr. IV/3, pp. 247-49.
Idem, “The Dialects of ÄrÄn and BÄ«dgol,” in Études irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, Paris, 1989.
—ArdestÄni: W. Bailey, “Modern Western Iranian: Infinitives in Gazi and Soi,” TPS, 1935, pp. 73-74. Yarshater, 1985.
—Arisman: Krahnke.
—ÄštÄ«Äni: á¹¢. KÄ«Ä, GÅ«yeš-e ÄštÄ«Än I: VÄža-nÄma, Tehran, 1335 Š./1956. Moḡdam.
BÄdi: Krahnke.—BÄḡoli: A. ṬabÄʾīzÄda, GÅ«yeš-e BÄḡol, M.A. thesis, University of Tehran, 1348 Š./1969.
—BarzÅ«ki: MajÄ«dÄ«.—BÄ«dgoli, see ÄrÄni.—BÄ«jagÄni: MajÄ«dÄ«.—BorÅ«jerdi, Jewish: Yarshater, 1974.
DelÄ«jÄni: MajÄ«dÄ«. Yarshater, 1985.
FarÄ«zandi: Christensen, Contributions.—FarvÄ« (FarvÄ«gÄ«), see Ḵūri.
Gazi: W. Bailey, “Modern Western Iranian: Infinitives in Gazi and Soi,” TPS, 1935, pp. 73-74.
W. Eilers and U. Schapka, Westiranische Mundarten aus der Sammlung W. Eilers II: Die Mundart von Gäz, 2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1979.
ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy II.—GolpÄyegÄni, Jewish: Yarshater, 1974.
HamadÄni, old: C. Huart, “Le dialect persan de Sivend,” JA, 9th ser., 1, 1893, pp. 241-65.
—HamadÄni, Jewish: Abrahamian (see Isfahani).
H. SahÄ«m, GÅ«yeš-e yahÅ«dÄ«Än-e HamadÄn, M.A. thesis, University of Tehran, 1353 Š./1974.
Isfahani, old: M. AdÄ«b ṬūsÄ«, “Se ḡazal-e Eá¹£fahÄnÄ« az AwḥadÄ« MarÄḡī,” NDAT 15/4, 1342 Š./1963, pp. 387-400.
A. TafażżolÄ«, “Eá¹á¹elÄÊ¿Ät-Ä« dar bÄra-ye lahja-ye pÄ«šÄ«n-e Eá¹£fahÄn,” Ī. AfšÄr, ed., NÄma-ye MÄ«novÄ«, Tehran, 1350 Š./1971, pp. 86-104.
—Isfahani, Jewish: R. Abrahamian, Dialectologie iranienne. Dialectes des Israelites de Hamadan et d’Ispahan et dialects de Baba Tahir, Paris, 1930.
D. N. MacKenzie, “Jewish Persian from Isfahan,” JRAS, 1968, pp. 68-75. Yarshater, 1974.
JowšaqÄnÄ«: A. K. S. Lambton, Three Persian Dialects, London, 1938. Yarshater, 1985.
KafrÅ«di (KafrÄni): ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy II.—ḴáµÄnsÄri: Y. BaḵšÄ«, TarÄnahÄ-ye ḴáµÄnsÄr, Tehran, 1334 Š./1955.
W. Eilers and U. Schapka, Westiranische Mundarten aus der Sammlung W. Eilers I: Die Mundart von Chunsar, Wiesbaden, 1976.
Mann, 1926. M.-Ḥ. Tasbīḥī, GÅ«yeš-e ḴáµÄnsÄr, Rawalpindi, 1395 = 1354 Š./1975.
ZhukovskiÄ, 1888.—KÄšÄni, old: M. Moḥaqqeq, “AšÊ¿Är-Ä« be lahjahÄ-ye maḥallÄ«,” FIZ 7, 1338 Š./1959, pp. 247-52.—KÄšÄni, Jewish: Yarshater, 1974.
ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy II.—KermÄni, Jewish: G. Lazard, “Le dialects des Juifs de Kerman,” in Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne II, Acta Iranica 22, Leiden, 1982, pp. 333-40.
Yarshater, 1974.—KermÄni, Zoroastrian: V. Ivanov, “The Gabri Dialect Spoken by the Zoroastrians of Persia,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 16, 1934, pp. 31-97; 17, 1938, pp. 1-39; 18, 1939, pp. 1-59.
See also behdÇ°nÄn dialect.—Kešaʾi: ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy I.—KeyjÄni: Krahnke.—KÅ«hpÄyaʾi: Krahnke.—Ḵūri, FarvÄ«, MehragÄni: Š. Ê¿A. FaqÄ«hÄ« ḴūrÄ«, “á¹¢arf-e zabÄn-e ḵūrÄ«,” YaḡmÄ 20/4, 1346 Š./1967, pp. 204-12.
B. FarahvašÄ«, VÄža-nÄma-ye ḵūrÄ«, Tehran, 2535 = 1355 Š./1976.
R. Frye, “Report on a Trip to Iran in the Summer of 1948,” Oriens 2, 1949, pp. 204-11.
Idem, “Notes on Farvi, a Dialect of Biyabanak,” Oriens 2, 1949, pp. 212-15.
Idem, “Notes on a Trip to the Biyabanak, Seistan and Baluchistan,” Indo-Iranica 6/2, 1052, pp. 1-6 (“Safar-e BÄ«ÄbÄnak wa SÄ«stÄn wa BalÅ«ÄestÄn,” DÄneš 2/10-11, 1331 Š./1952, pp. 528-33).
Idem, “Taá¹bÄ«q-e lahjahÄ-ye ḵūrÄ« wa balÅ«ÄÄ«,” Mehr 8/3-4, 1331 Š./1952, pp. 142-44, 217-21.
M. ḠolÄmreżÄʾī, “Nokta-Ä« Äand dar bÄra-ye lahja-ye ḵūrÄ«,” MajmÅ«Ê¿a-ye ḵeá¹ÄbahÄ-ye taḥqÄ«qÄtÄ«-e Ä«rÄnÄ«, 1351 Š./1972, pp. 369-75.
M. Honari, “Importance du palmier-dattier dans la vie des habitants de Xor,” Objets mondes 11, 1971, pp. 49-58.
V. Ivanov, “Two Dialects Spoken in the Central Persian Desert,” JASB, N.S. 21, 1926, pp. 405-31.
Idem, “Notes on the Dialect of Khur and Mihrijan,” Acta Orientalia 8, 1927, pp. 45-61.
á¹¢. KÄ«Ä, “YÄddÄšt-Ä« dar bÄra-ye gÅ«yeš-e FarvÄ«gÄ«,” MDAT 2, 1334 Š./1954, pp. 34-41.
G. Redard, “Le palmier à Khur,” in W. B. Henning and E. Yarshater, eds., A Locust’s Leg. Studies in Honour of S. H. Taqizadeh, London, 1962, pp. 213-19.
MaḥallÄti: Majidi. Mann.—MehragÄni, see Ḵūri.—Meymaʾi: Lambton (see JowšaqÄni). MajÄ«dÄ«.
NÄʾīni: Mann, 1926. A. Querry, “Le dialecte persan de Nayin,” MSL 9, 1896, pp. 1-23.—NarÄqi: MajÄ«dÄ«.—Našalji: MajÄ«dÄ«. Yarshater, 1985.—Naá¹anzi: Christensen, 1930. Mann, 1926.—NohÅ«ji: MajÄ«dÄ«.
QalhÄri: MajÄ«dÄ«.—QohrÅ«di: E. Browne, A Year Amongst the Persians, Cambridge, 1893. A. Houtum-Schindler, “Beiträge zum kurdischen Wortschatze,” ZDMG 38, 1884, pp. 43-116. Mann, 1926. Yarshater, 1985. ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy I. Idem, 1922.
SagzÄ« (SajzÄ«): Krahnke.—Sedehi: B. FarahvašÄ«, “TaḥlÄ«l-e sÄ«stem-e feÊ¿l dar lahja-ye sedehÄ«,” MDAT 10/3, 1342 Š./1963, pp. 311-24. Mann. ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy II.—SÄ«vandi: Andreas. W. Eilers, Westiranische Mundarten aus der Sammlung W. Eilers III: Die Mundart von Sivänd, Wiesbaden, 1988. C. Huart, “Le dialect persan de Sivend,” JA, 9th ser., 1, 1893, pp. 241-65. P. Lecoq, Le dialecte de Sivand, Wiesbaden, 1979.
Mann. E. Molchanova, “Sivandi: Main Trends of Development,” paper presented at the 32nd International Congress for Asian and North African Studies (Hamburg, 1986), Moscow, 1986.
G. Morgenstierne, “Stray Notes on Persian Dialects,” NTS 19, 1960, pp. 73-140.
ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy II.—Sohi: W. Bailey, “Modern Western Iranian: Infinitives in Gazi and Soi,” TPS, 1935, pp. 73-74.
Mann.—Sohi: Andreas. A. Houtum-Schindler, “Beiträge zum kurdischen Wortschatze,” ZDMG 38, 1884, pp. 43-116.
Ṭarqi: Krahnke.
VÄnÄ«šÄni: ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy I.—VÄrÄni: MajÄ«dÄ«. R. NÄ«lÄ«pÅ«r and M.-T. Ṭayyeb, “Tawṣīf-e sÄḵtmÄnÄ«-e dastgÄh-e feÊ¿l-e lahja-ye VÄrÄn,” Majalla-ye zabÄnšenÄsÄ« 2/1, 1364 Š./1985, pp. 51-92; 2/2, 1364 Š./1985, pp. 81-92.
YÄrandi: Christensen, Contributions.—Yazdi, Jewish: A. Romaskevich, “Lar i ego dialekty,” Iranskie yazyki 1, 1945, p. 45. Yarshater, 1974.—Yazdi, Zoroastrian (see KermÄni, Zoroastrian). See also behdÄ«nÄn dialect.
Zefraʾi: ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy I.—Zori: MajÄ«dÄ«.
Figure 13. The extent of the area where Central dialects are spoken
Figure 14. Central dialects
Table 29. Select isoglosses
Table 30. Synopsis of major sound changes
Table 31. Case distinctions in personal pronouns
Table 32. Pronouns
Table 33. Verbal endings
(Gernot L. Windfuhr)
Originally Published: December 15, 1991
Last Updated: October 10, 2011
This article is available in print.
Vol. V, Fasc. 3, pp. 242-252