Language desk
< July 31	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 1[edit]

Which case is more closer to this title?[edit]

The title I'm talking about is "Arab conquest of Iran". I'm asking because in Persian Wikipedia, I and another user have a disagreement about the translation. What does "Arab" mean in this title? Which one is more closer to this title?

Arabs conquest of Iran ("Arab" refers to "the Arab people" who invaded Iran)
Arabic conquest of Iran ("Arab" refers to "the conquest" which was "Arabic")

-- Thanks -- Kouhi (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means the conquest of Iran by Arab people or countries. (Note that "Arabic" usually refers to the language.) Loraof (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to Muslim conquest of Persia. 86.169.56.219 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these:

Arab conquest of Iran
Arabic conquest of Iran

Are fine for redirects and mean the same thing, but

Arabs conquest of Iran

with an ess is ungrammatical as a stand-alone phrase. I'd say it's on the implausible side of the guidelines for redirects, even though they do allow things such as common misspellings to be made redirects. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use "Arab conquest of Persia" if it occurred prior to AD 622 (AH 1); "Muslim conquest of Persia" if it occurred after AD 622 (AH 1); "Muslim conquest of Iran" if it occurred after 21 March 1935 (16 Dhul-Hijjah 1353, پنجشنبه ۳۰ اسفند ۱۳۱۳). —Stephen (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. It is a little confusing for me. Loraof said that "Arab conquest of Iran" means "conquest of Iran by Arab people or countries" (close to the first case) but Medeis said "Arab conquest of Iran" and "Arabic conquest of Iran" are same thing (close to the second case). Could you please explain the grammatical structure used here?

@Stephen G. Brown, in the Persian language there is no equivalent for "Persia", it is an English word, we simply say "Iran", so the second and third cases are essentially the same in the Persian language. Anyway, the dispute is over the word "Arab" in "Arab conquest of Iran", not over "Iran" and "Persia".

Thanks you all for your time! -- Kouhi (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you click Arabic, the hatnote of uses gives the language, the literary standand, the varieties of the language, and the language family. Doing a keyword search for "Arabic" in Wikipedia gives various language-related hits, including the alphabet and the keyboard for the alphabet. The only use of "Arabic" that is not strictly language-related that I can think of is Arabic numerals, and even that is sort of related to language. Loraof (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen's comment above is important, regarding the dates and specificities. If we are talking anout the original conquest of Persia by Arabs, then "Arabian conquest of Persia" would be the best term, bettter than "Arab" which sounds headlinese, and "Arabic". μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of these "answers" may be missing the point. I believe the OP is asking us how do we, as native speakers of English, parse the phrase "Arab conquest of Iran" so that he can properly translate it into Persian using cases that reflect the English meaning -- for example, in Persian, should he translate "Arab conquest" in the genitive, or should "Arab" be in the nominative, etc. I don't know enough about Persian grammar to answer that part and, at the moment, I'm drawing a blank on how I would parse the English. Maybe somebody here can explain it to the OP.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to say it in a way that makes sense in Persian? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]