Should We Dare to Change the Persian Script?

The Persian script has been considered difficult to read. We write many things but do not read them. For some identical sounds, we have different letters in the alphabet. In words like 'zan' (woman), 'zohar' (noon), 'lazid' (delight), and 'mariz' (sick), only one 'z' sound is heard, but we write this sound with four different letters in Persian script. The difficulties of the Persian script, of course, do not stop here, and perhaps this is why since the Constitutional Revolution to today, a group of intellectuals and language and literature experts have not changed their proposal. They say this script should be changed. They argue that the Persian script should be changed to Latin or Roman letters. It is not surprising that the idea of changing the Persian script has serious and sometimes harsh opponents. This week in the program 'Taboo,' Dariush Ashouri, a writer, translator, and linguist, and Mahmoud Falaki, a writer involved in teaching Persian to non-Persian speakers, are our guests. The question is: Should we dare to change the Persian script? If you allow me, I would like to start the discussion with Mr. Falaki. Mr. Falaki, you have published works in the field of teaching Persian. I want to go straight to the main question of this program: Why do you emphasize the idea of changing the Persian script in your writings? In your opinion, what are the flaws of the Persian script in its current form that need to be changed? Mahmoud Falaki: You see, this Arabic-Persian script that we write with today has many problems. One is that we actually repeat the sounds or phonemes that exist in Persian, apart from the letters we have taken from Arabic, while we have one sound in several cases. For example, the Persian sound is just one 'z,' but we write it with four letters: 'zal,' 'dad,' 'z,' and 'z.' However, our pronunciation is the same. While in Arabic, the pronunciation of these letters is different. For this reason, it makes writing difficult from one angle, as do the cases of 't' and 's' and others. Another issue is that we usually do not write the short vowels or the short vowels 'a,' 'e,' 'o,' or the diacritics in Persian, which also makes reading a script even more difficult. This script, given the new issues that arise or other things that come, sometimes does not respond to the new language that has actually transformed and taken a new form and does not keep pace. In fact, the script has a conservative nature that is constantly repeated and static, while today the language has changed. For example, we write 'khahar' (sister) or 'khastan' (to want) with 'vav,' while this sound is 'a.' The reason is that in the past, it was pronounced 'khāhar' or 'khāstan.' In ancient Persian, in Middle Persian or Pahlavi, we had this 'khā' a lot. Today it also exists in Kurdish, but it has gradually disappeared. Well, we no longer have these two consecutive consonants at the beginning of a sentence, and for this reason, we read it as 'a,' but it is written with 'vav.' Or consider the colloquial language that is now discussed; we say 'miram' (I go), 'miri' (you go), and 'migooyam' (I say). But we do not write these as they are pronounced today. This stagnation of the script, especially with the script we have today, works more. Mr. Falaki, the last point you mentioned about colloquial language and, for example, 'migon' (they say), 'miran' (they go), and 'migi' (you say), is that in colloquial language, we see this in many Persian novels, for example, when a character speaks, and at that moment it is necessary to speak this way. The Persian script does not have a problem writing 'migon' or 'migi.' Falaki: You see, in the case of Persian novels, you are right. This was started by Sadegh Hedayat. Sadegh Hedayat was the first person to write spoken language as it is. But today we see that still many of the texts we see are written with the so-called ancient pronunciation. Allow me to join Dariush Ashouri, the other guest of this program. Mr. Ashouri, you heard Mr. Falaki's remarks. My question here will be: Is the fact that Persian is a language with a difficult-to-read script, has sounds that we do not write, has different letters for one sound, for example, the case of 'z' or 't' in Persian, or the changes in language and the dynamism of language that do not necessarily come in the script; are all these sufficient reasons for changing the script of a language? Dariush Ashouri: Of course, everything that Mr. Falaki said about the shortcomings of the Persian language or its deficiencies is correct. But the issue of changing the script is a very complex issue. It relates to many historical, social, cultural, political, and economic factors and is by no means a simple task. For example, a very well-known example is that the Turkish nation in Ottoman Turkey came to modernize Turkey, and one of the things Atatürk did was change the Turkish script from the Arabic-Persian alphabet to the Latin script. Well, because it is naturally much easier to write, its education is much simpler, and all these arguments are correct. But they suddenly had a hard historical break with all their past and history and all the literature they had lived with for generations. And these are not things that can easily be risked just because of the functionality of the script and because it works well and better. Especially since I do not see such a chance for the Persian language to change its script. For example, let’s assume we choose the Latin script for Persian writing. Since for a century, every written language has come out in printed text and then has established itself so much that it is very unlikely. Apart from this, consider the Chinese or Japanese script, which is ideographic, the Japanese script, which consists of three elements, and the Chinese script, which is ideographic, where ideas are written in the form of shapes and have no relation to sound and alphabet, and with all these, they have maintained this script and have not changed it, despite all the tremendous economic, political, and other transformations that have occurred during the modern era, with all the modern sciences and technologies they have adopted, they have somehow adapted that script to their new conditions. I would like to return to Mr. Falaki to see what he says in response to this point. In fact, the reference you made to the two countries, the experience of Turkey, and then the Chinese language, which is a difficult language, or the Japanese, which has a combination of scripts, but as you said, they have preserved it. After all, a country like Japan is one that we cannot say is disconnected from modernity or has a language that isolates it from the world. If we look at it from this angle, they have preserved their script, and on the other hand, where has Turkey reached? How positive has its experience been? Falaki: You see, regarding Turkey, what Mr. Ashouri said about them not being able to transfer their cultural-literary heritage, I think that is not the case. I mean, if we assume that a society changes its script, over the course of history, for example, in two or three decades, it can transfer all the literature or culture that has been written in relation to that literature. Let me give you an example. The script is usually seen as identical to the language. While linguistically, language and speech are connected. That is, language is a mental and abstract thing that when it comes to sound and speech, it turns into speech or sound that has a direct relationship with the language itself. While the script has an indirect and mediated relationship with the language. Through the signs that are conventional. That is, every language in every country has chosen a script based on a specific contract that has been made; just as in ancient Persian or Middle Persian, a specific script was chosen, and then when Islam entered Iran, that script changed. Suppose Islam had not entered Iran, or the Arabs had not entered Iran, the Arabs would not have dominated, and the Japanese would have come. [In that case] our script could have been Japanese, and our culture could have moved accordingly. Therefore, the script should not be confused with the language. I have written a Persian teaching book for German speakers who want to learn Persian. This book has now reached its ninth edition. Because we wrote the book in this Latin script, Germans can quickly learn this script. With this book we have written, for the first time, the Persian language has entered the European reference and classifications of 'A1,' 'A2,' 'B1,' 'B2.' This shows that if the script can make changes, it can be presented more broadly among other nations and expand. Let us discuss your experience with Mr. Ashouri. Mr. Ashouri, you have written about open and closed languages; do you think the closed nature of the Persian language is also related to the script, or could it be more related to the structure of Persian? That Persian cannot become a language that goes beyond Iran or that connects with the world and its transformations; is this related to the Persian script, or are there other issues? Ashouri: The issue of open or closed language is more related to culture and history. That is, the so-called European languages are open and receptive languages, which is related to the fundamental historical and cultural transformations that European societies have undergone. The scientific revolution and the industrial revolution brought with them necessities that naturally brought new linguistic needs that inevitably had to be accompanied by linguistic transformations. Inevitably, they made technological changes to the language. In the case of the Persian language, I do not know. It needs to be studied [and seen] for example how the Japanese and Chinese have adapted themselves. Because fundamentally, this so-called decision-making about changing language and changing script is a political decision that the political system of the country and its legislative body must make. However, even this existing script can be somewhat reformed and improved. This is something I have done myself. For example, these extra diacritics can be written, but we were not used to writing them. For thirty or forty years, I have recognized that the eyes need to get used to them. Read my works or my translations from Nietzsche, Shakespeare, and others; you will see that I put extra diacritics everywhere, and now I see that many people are following suit, and this solves a lot of problems. Or some minor adjustments in the script, let’s assume we put two dots under the 'ye' to separate it from other forms of the final 'ye,' these are possible, and we can use the existing script with its own capabilities to allow the language to be expressed better. You spoke of reform measures. I remember that the Council for Revising the Persian Script held meetings in 'Adineh,' and important figures in literature spoke in this regard. We saw some orthographies that became somewhat popular afterward. For example, Mr. Shamloo wrote 'komak' (help) with 'vav' as 'komak.' But these reforms never, if we can call them reforms, took root. If these reforms were useful, why did they not take root, Mr. Ashouri? Ashouri: Of course, 'komak' as 'komak' has an older precedent. Our society is not a society that is very ready for changes or accepts the logic of things. Usually, our educational system raises children and young people very superficially and casually. As a result, scattered efforts that are made here and there do not ultimately become a system and a norm and do not take root. Here, no one is to blame; it relates to the spirit and culture and political system and all these things. Mr. Falaki, well, after all, a lot of efforts have been made in this regard, and a lot of discussions have at least been raised. Since the Constitutional Revolution, there has been talk about the Persian script. But a fundamental question and concern that may exist here is that I might ask you what will happen to the treasure of Persian literature? Falaki: Allow me to raise one or two points that Mr. Ashouri mentioned here. One point that is completely correct, and he says that due to economic and political issues or other issues that are generally related to the system, [changing the script] cannot currently be a general experience in Iran. However, what he referred to as a kind of reform or improvement, like the extra diacritics he placed, which I also incidentally follow Mr. Ashouri in my writings; [the issue is that] we do not know what to do with other cases. For example, we do not know what to do with the four letters 'z,' or with three letters for 's,' we really do not know what to do with them, and many other cases that cannot be reformed; that is, they are not reformable. This is one point. Another point in relation to your question. Can you repeat the question? I forgot. I actually want to ask on behalf of that group that is concerned about the treasure of Persian literature that what will happen to Hafez, Bihaqi, and Saadi? Falaki: This experience that I have here, in this book that we wrote in Latin, apart from the fact that, after all, students and Germans learn some, there are also some second-generation Iranians who learn Persian here. They know Persian. They speak somewhat but do not know how to write and read. Because they have gone to school with the Latin language, they have learned German or in English-speaking countries, they have learned Latin altogether, reading Latin is much easier for them. These people read Khayyam and Hafez and others, which are in the texts of this book [in Latin] much more easily than with this script that is supposedly Persian. Because they have been accustomed to Latin since childhood. Therefore, any language with this script is read and understood more easily. This treasure of ours, I do not mean that from today or tomorrow we press a button to change all scripts. Such a thing is not possible. It takes several generations, and in these several generations, what is really part of the cultural burden of this society will gradually...