نمیرد همیشه ... (پژوهشی در بارة قیود استمرار وکاربرد آنها در جملات منفی در زبان‌های ایرانی با توجه به مصراعی از حافظ)

One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می‌دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتشـ[ی] در دل ماست).
In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه).
 
Keywords: Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می‌دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتشـ[ی] در دل ماست).
In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه).
 
Keywords: Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می‌دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتشـ[ی] در دل ماست).
In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه).
 
Keywords: Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می‌دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتشـ[ی] در دل ماست).
In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه).
 
Keywords: Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می‌دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتشـ[ی] در دل ماست).
In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه).
One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می‌دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتشـ[ی] در دل ماست).
In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه).