issues of linguistics - Tbilisi State University

in- “see”: Ren. mine “he sees”; Taj. béinam “that I see”, mīÏnī “you see”, etc.
nüs-: nüšt-/nvišd “write”: Taj. bénüs “write!” bénüštam “I wrote”; Evi. minvišdim
“we would write”
šin-: ness-/šind- “sit”: Taj. mīÏšīne “he sits”, báness “he sat”, ménessam “I would
sit”, mišind “he would sit”, nesté/banessa (p. p.); Jmr. menessan “they would sit”;
Kāš. namenessan “they wouldn’t sit”, nessa bun “they had sat, they were sitting”;
Sul. injâ nessa bo “he had taken residence here”
šušd- “wash”: Kan. nešušd “she didn’t wash”
xon-: xund-/xuness- “read”: Hes. baxundim “we read”; Taj. baxondim “id.”, mo/mixund
“he would read”; Niā. baxunessan “to read” (the only occurrence of the
Māzandarāni form with the secondary past-stem formant -ess-)
âr-: ârd-/urd “bring”: EQ biâr “bring!”; Hes. miârdim “we would bring”; Jml.
biurdam “I brought”
“Go” has the past stem šu- or the form with ši-, in which the back vowel is fronted:
EQ, Evi., Jml., PQ, Taj. šu-; Kan., Kāš. šu-/šo-; Far., Jmr., Niā. šo-; Hes. šu-/ši-;
Kšr. ši-; Sul.? (bašabom “I had gone”). Most of the dialects have the present stem
š-, e.g. EQ bešu “go!” mišuan “they would go.” Tarashti and Dulābi have the past
stem raft-: Dul. baraftam “I went”, Tar. mirafdim “we would go.” Jamālābādi is
mixed, with present stem r-, as in Tehrani Persian, and past stem šu-: mere “it
goes”, merim “we go”, bašum “I went”.
CONCLUSIONS
The extinct vernaculars of Shemirān shared with those of the Jājrud valley to their
northeast certain idiosyncratic features at the lexical level. In morphological
categories, however, Shemirāni was close to standard Persian, though it with a rich
Caspian impression. The noun phrase is marked by the weakness of the eżāfa
construction and by the use of -rā for indirect objects. The verbal paradigm is
distinguished by its Caspian preverbs and past tense forms, and by non-Perside
“be” and “become.” These features make the designation “Fāsi-Māzandarāni” 1
quite relevant for the Shemiran dialects.
In spite of the striking similarity among the vernaculars of Shemirān, we may
logically expect some geographical variation. Sāme‛i quotes his informant that the
dialects were mutually intelligible but sufficiently distinct to reveal the home
village of a speaker. Nevertheless, the data on each locality is too scanty to allow
one to draw isoglosses among them; each feature is found only in a few localities.
The older data on Tajrishi suggests that the dialects of Shemirān have been
subjected to intensive influence of Persian within a century. Borrowings from
Persian could result in semantic shift. When Jamālābādi borrowed the stem r(av)-
1
M. Bazin, E. Ehlers, and B. Hourcade, “Alborz,” Enc. Iranica, vol. I, fasc. 8, New York, 1985,
pp. 810-821.
89