Nominalization

Overview of Nominalization in Persian

In advanced Persian, nominalization is a central tool for creating dense, academic, or formal language. Nominalization means turning verbs, adjectives, or even whole clauses into nouns or noun phrases. This allows you to pack information into fewer, more abstract units, which is typical of high-level writing, academic texts, and formal speech.

In this chapter we will focus only on the special nominal patterns and their effects on style and meaning, not on general noun formation that has been treated elsewhere.

Persian uses both derivational suffixes and syntactic strategies (like “clause + این/آن که …”) to nominalize. The same verb can often give several related nouns with different degrees of abstraction or different stylistic flavors.

Nominalization with the Suffix «ـش»

One of the most productive and frequent nominalizers in modern Persian is the suffix «ـش» attached to present verbal stems. It often creates an abstract, sometimes process-like or result-oriented noun.

Consider the present stem «رِس» from «رِسیدن» “to reach, to arrive”:

«رِسش»
“reaching, arrival, attainment”

Now compare:

«رِسیدنِ قطار دیر بود.»
“The train’s arriving was late.”

«رِسشِ قطار دیر بود.»
“The arrival of the train was late.”

The form with «ـش» is more compact and more natural in written style. The infinitive «رسیدن» is still verbal in flavor, while «رسش» is clearly a noun.

Other examples:

«فَهمیدن» “to understand” → present stem «فَهم» → «فَهمش» “understanding (as a thing, capacity)”

«تَصمیم‌گِرِفتن» “to decide” → stem «تَصمیم‌گِر» is complex, but the noun more commonly uses another pattern (see below), so an example with a simpler stem:

«گُفتن» “to say” → stem «گُو» → «گُفتَش» (colloquial)
In everyday language, speakers freely attach «ـش» even in informal, creative ways, but in formal nominalization we usually prefer other patterns for “saying”, like «گُفتار».

Many «ـش» nominalizations have become lexicalized and are felt as independent nouns:

«نِگَرش» from «نِگَریستن» “to look, to regard” → “view, attitude”
«پِژوهِش» from older «پِژوهیدن» “to research” → “research”
«نِگارِش» from «نِگاشتن» “to write, to compose” → “writing, composition (as a product)»

These show that historically, «ـش» is central in forming abstract academic nouns.

Not all verbs accept this in modern usage, and for many ideas there is a more common rival pattern. At an advanced level, you learn which forms are actually used, rather than generating them mechanically.

Compare:

«پژوهِش در این حَوْزه گُستَردِه است.»
“Research in this field is extensive.”

Here «پژوهش» is the standard academic nominalization, not *«پژوهیدن».

Nominalization with «ـگی»

The suffix «ـگی» attaches to adjectives or sometimes to nouns or verbal stems to create abstract nouns, often meaning “the quality or state of being X.”

Start from adjectives:

«آزاد» “free” → «آزادگی» “freedom, nobility of character”
«رَسمی» “official, formal” → «رَسمیت» is more common for “official status,” but «رسمی‌بودن» and sometimes «رسمیت داشتن» are used for nominalization. With «ـگی», more clear cases:

«مُمکِن» “possible” → «مُمکِن بودن» is the normal pattern, but:

«جَوان» “young” → «جَوانی» “youth” (age) using «ـی», and also
«جَوانمَرد» “chivalrous” → «جَوانمَردی» “chivalry”
To see «ـگی» clearly, focus on more abstract adjectives:

«مَسؤول» “responsible” → «مَسؤولیت» “responsibility” (does not use «ـگی» here)
A clearer pair:

«آرام» “calm” → «آرامِش» “calmness” (suffix «ـش»)
«خود» “self” → «خودآگاهی» “self-awareness” (compound with «آگاهی») rather than «ـگی» alone.

Because many high-frequency abstract nouns are lexicalized, you often see «ـگی» especially with ideological or character-related adjectives:

«مَذهبی» “religious” → «مَذهبی‌بودن» or «مذهبی‌گری» “religiosity, religiousness”
«اِنسانی» “human” → «اِنسانیت» “humanity” not «ـگی»

More transparent, everyday examples with «ـگی» include:

«خسته» “tired” → «خستِگی» “tiredness, fatigue”
«بیمار» “ill” → «بیمارِی» “illness” (again «ـی» is primary)
«دوست» “friend” → «دوستِی» “friendship» but also:
«دُشمن» “enemy” → «دُشمنِی» “enmity”

So you see that «ـگی» is one tool among several. Where it appears, it emphasizes the state or quality:

«خستگی‌اش معلوم بود.»
“His/her tiredness was evident.”

Compare with an infinitival structure:

«این‌که خسته بود، معلوم بود.»
“It was obvious that he/she was tired.”
Here the clause “that he/she was tired” is also functioning as a nominal, but with a different structure. The choice between «خستگی» and «این‌که خسته بود» changes style and focus.

At C1, you should hear the stylistic nuance: «خستگی» is compact and noun-like, while a full clause “که خسته بود” is more verbal and descriptive.

Nominalization with «ـی» and «ـیت»

The very common suffix «ـی» has many uses, but one of them is to turn adjectives or other bases into abstract nouns of quality, similar to English “-ness” or “-ity.”

Examples:

«جَوان» “young” → «جَوانی» “youth (the period of life)”
«پاک» “clean, pure» → «پاکی» “cleanliness, purity”
«دوست» “friend» → «دوستی» “friendship»
«آزاده» “free, noble» → «آزادگی» is also possible, but «آزادی» is standard “freedom.”

Now take an adjective:

«مُمکِن» “possible» → «امکان» is the usual noun “possibility” with a different pattern, while:

«خاص» “special” → «خاصیت» “property, quality”
«رَسمی» “formal» → «رسمیت» “formal status, official recognition”

The suffix «ـیت» (often written «ـیّت») creates more formal, abstract nouns:

«اِنسان» “human being» → «اِنسانیت» “humanity (as an abstract value)”
«مَسؤول» “responsible» → «مَسؤولیت» “responsibility»
«شَخصی» “personal» → «شَخصیت» “personality, identity, character”
«شُهره» “famous» → «شُهرت» “fame, reputation»

In many cases there is a semantic distinction between an everyday noun in «ـی» and a more abstract or institutional one in «ـیت»:

«آزادی» “freedom” (general, concrete, can be used in speech)
«آزادگی» “nobility of free spirit” (moral, poetic)
«آزادمنشی» “liberal-mindedness” (abstract trait)

Another set:

«دینی» “religious» → «دینداری» “religiousness”
«شرعی» “legal, according to Islamic law» → «شرعیت» “legality, validity under religious law”

For advanced reading, recognizing the «ـیت» pattern helps you parse dense noun chains like «مسؤولیت‌پذیریِ اجتماعی» “social responsibility-acceptance,” a highly nominalized phrase.

Classical Nominalization with «ـار» and «ـارِه»

Older and semi-formal Persian uses several nominalizing suffixes that still appear in literature, media, and academic writing. Two important ones from verbs are «ـار» and «ـاره» (historically related forms).

Typical examples:

«گُفتن» “to say, to speak» → «گُفتار» “speech, discourse”
«رَفتن» “to go» → «رَفتار» “behavior, conduct”
«پُرسیدن» “to ask» → «پُرسِش» is more common today “question, inquiry,” but «پرسار» is not used.

«داشتن» “to have» → «داشتار» (rare, technical)
«کِردن» “to do» → «کِردار» “act, deed”

Compare:

«گفتنِ او قَطعی بود.»
“His saying was decisive.” (awkward, verbal-sounding)

«گفتارِ او قَطعی بود.»
“His speech was decisive.” (standard, nominalized)

Likewise:

«رَفتارِ او با دانشجوها خُوب است.»
“His behavior with the students is good.”

Here «رفتار» is not just “going” but the abstract pattern of actions.

In modern usage these have become fixed lexical items, often with strong technical or conceptual meanings:

«گُفتار» “discourse, speech”
«کِردار» “act, conduct, behavior (especially moral or philosophical)”
«گِردآوری» “collection, compiling,” with another pattern «ـآوری»

The related form «ـاره» is visible in:

«کِشیدن» “to pull, to draw» → «کِشاکِش» and other abstract forms, but the clear contemporary examples with «ـاره» are not as central as with «ـار» and «ـش» for a learner. However, you will encounter compound scholarly words like:

«گُفتاره» in some older or specialized texts as a variant, though «گفتار» is dominant.

The key point at C1 is to recognize that nouns like «رفتار», «گفتار», «کردار» are nominalizations from verbs and often behave as technical terms in philosophy, psychology, and the humanities.

Light-Verb Constructions as Nominalization

Persian makes heavy use of light verbs like «کردن», «شدن», «داشتن», and «گرفتن» together with a nominal element. These combinations often serve where English would use a single verb.

For nominalization, you frequently create a noun from a base, then combine it with a light verb to express the corresponding verbal idea. In reverse, when you need a noun, you drop the light verb and keep the nominal element.

Take «تصمیم گرفتن» “to decide.” The nominal part is:

«تَصمیم» “decision»

Now compare:

«او دیروز تصمیم گرفت.»
“He decided yesterday.”

«تَصمیمِ او دیروز اَعْلام شُد.»
“His decision was announced yesterday.”

The clause “he decided” has been nominalized into “his decision.”

More examples:

«پیشنِهاد دادن» “to suggest» → «پیشنهاد» “suggestion”
«پژوهِش کردن» “to research» → «پژوهش» “research»
«تحلیل کردن» “to analyze» → «تحلیل» “analysis»
«انتخاب کردن» “to choose» → «انتخاب» “choice, selection»

In each case:

Verbal: «او مقاله را تحلیل کرد.»
“He analyzed the article.”

Nominalized: «تحلیلِ او از مقاله جالِب بود.»
“His analysis of the article was interesting.”

Here nominalization changes the structure:

verbal clause: subject + object + verb
nominal clause: noun phrase + “of” relation with «ِ» + complement + copula

This is crucial in academic writing, where phrases like «تحلیلِ داده‌ها», «انتخابِ نهایی», «تصمیمِ سیاسی» occur everywhere.

In English, we often say “to make a decision” or “to carry out an analysis,” which is structurally similar. Persian tends to treat the non-verbal part as the core.

Infinitives and “Clause” Nominalization

Besides suffixes, Persian can use infinitives and finite clauses as nouns. At C1, you should control when each sounds more natural.

1. Infinitive as noun

The infinitive of a verb already behaves as a noun in many contexts:

«خواندن خوب است.»
“Reading is good.”

«دویدن در این‌جا ممنوع است.»
“Running here is forbidden.”

Here «خواندن» and «دویدن» are verbal nouns, similar to English “reading” and “running” in gerund form. They can take objects:

«خواندنِ کتاب‌های دشوار سَخت است.»
“Reading difficult books is hard.”

Compared to derived nominalizations like «مطالعه» “study, reading,” the infinitive sounds more activity-like and less technical.

2. “این‌که …” or “این‌که + clause” nominalization

Another powerful pattern is to turn a whole clause into a noun using «این‌که» or «آن‌که»:

«این‌که دیر رسیدی، مَسئَله‌ساز شُد.»
“The fact that you arrived late caused problems.”

«آن‌که گفتی، درُست نیست.»
“What you said is not correct.”

Here “the fact that you arrived late” and “what you said” are nominalized clauses. Persian often uses this structure where English uses “the fact that,” “the idea that,” “what,” or a gerund phrase.

You can combine this with abstract nouns to create high-level expressions:

«این‌که دانشجوها کمتر کتاب می‌خوانند، نِشان‌دهندۀ تَغییراتِ فرهنگی است.»
“The fact that students read fewer books indicates cultural changes.”

In very dense academic writing, authors often prefer derived nouns like «کاهشِ مطالعه» “decrease in study/reading” instead of a full «این‌که» clause. That is an even higher degree of nominalization.

Stacking Nominalizations in Academic Style

Advanced Persian often stacks several nominalizations inside one long noun phrase, especially in academic prose. This creates very compact, abstract expressions.

Compare:

Verbal version:

«وقتی دولت مالیات را افزایش می‌دهد، فقر بیشتر می‌شود.»
“When the government increases taxes, poverty increases.”

Nominalized version:

«اَفزایشِ مالیات توسّطِ دولت باعثِ اَفزایشِ فَقر می‌شود.»
“The increase of tax by the government causes an increase of poverty.”

Here «افزایشِ مالیات» and «افزایشِ فقر» are both nominalizations. The entire causal structure is expressed mostly with nouns (افزایش، دولت، فقر) and the relational verb «می‌شود / باعثِ … شدن».

A more complex chain:

«پژوهش‌ها نِشان می‌دهد که کاهشِ اعتمادِ اجتماعی منجر به تَشدیدِ ناآرامی‌های سیاسی می‌شود.»
“Research shows that the decrease of social trust leads to an intensification of political unrest.”

In this one sentence you see:

«پژوهش‌ها» from «پژوهش کردن»
«کاهش» from «کَم شدن» or «کاهش یافتن»
«اعتماد اجتماعی» as “social trust”
«تشدید» from «شدیدتر شدن» “to intensify”
«ناآرامی‌های سیاسی» from «ناآرام شدن»

This is typical C1/C2 usage: many processes are compressed into nominal units. Your task as an advanced learner is twofold:

1. Recognition: when reading, immediately identify which parts are nominalizations and mentally expand them back into more basic verbs to understand the logic.
2. Production: in writing, gradually use these patterns to make your texts more compact and more native-like, without overloading them.

Nominalization vs. Clause: Stylistic Choice

At C1 level you must start making conscious choices between verb-centered clauses and noun-centered nominalizations.

Compare three ways of expressing a similar idea:

1. Verbal, simple, oral:

«اگر مردم به دولت اعتماد نداشته باشند، اوضاع بد می‌شود.»
“If people do not trust the government, the situation becomes bad.”

2. Partially nominalized, neutral written style:

«وقتی اعتمادِ مردم به دولت کاهش پیدا می‌کند، اوضاع بد می‌شود.»
“When the people’s trust in the government decreases, the situation becomes bad.”

3. Highly nominalized, academic:

«کاهشِ اعتمادِ مردم به دولت باعثِ وخیم‌شدنِ اوضاع می‌شود.»
“The decrease of the people’s trust in the government causes the deterioration of the situation.”

Semantically they are similar, but stylistically:

Version 1 is dynamic and spoken, with full clauses.
Version 2 mixes nominalization («کاهشِ اعتماد») with a verb phrase («کاهش پیدا می‌کند»).
Version 3 is compact and dense, better suited to academic writing.

At C1 you should be comfortable moving between these levels depending on your purpose, audience, and register.

Vocabulary Table