VOLITION AND OBLIGATION IN FOUR CASPIAN LINGUISTIC VARIETIES

Guiti Shokri

Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University

Volition and Obligation in four Caspian Linguistic Varieties

RÉSUMÉ

Texte du résumé Texte du résumé Texte du résumé Texte du résumé Texte du résumé Texte du résumé Texte du résumé Texte du résumé Texte du résumé.

Mots-clés : xxxx

ABSTRACT

This article is a synchronic study of constructions for volition and obligation in four Caspian linguistic varieties spoken in northern Iran, namely the dialects of Sari, Ramsar, Ziarat, and Shahmirzad. The data used for the study was gathered during field studies between 1995 and 2013.

There is a certain semantic overlap between the concepts of volition and obligation in several Iranian languages. The verb of volition in Persian, xāstan, can in the past tense be used for weak counterfactual commands, i.e. a kind of obligation. The overlap is even clearer in Balochi, where the verb of volition, lōṭag, is used with a non-canonical (dative) subject to denote obligation in e.g. Karachi Balochi. In Kurdish, too, the verb of volition can be used to express obligation. Also in non-Iranian languages the semantic overlap between volition and obligation can be witnessed. One example is the Turkic language Kazakh.

This study shows that there are two different verbs for the modal categories volition and obligation in the dialects of Sari and Ramsar, whereas in the dialects of Ziarat and Shahmirzad there is only one verb for the two categories. In Ziarat, the verb used in Sari and Ramsar to denote volition is encountered, whereas in Shahmirzad it is the one used in Sari and Ramsar for obligation. It is also interesting to note that the verb of volition in the dialect of Ziarat is much more frequently found in the 3SG not agreeing with the subject when it denotes obligation than when it denotes volition. This could be due to the fact that the actual verb of obligation in the other dialects only occurs in the 3SG form.

Keywords: volition, obligation, Mazandarani, Gilaki, Sari, Ramsar, Ziarat, Shahmirzad

*

                                               *                      *

۱٫ Introduction[1]

This article is a synchronic study of constructions for volition and obligation in four Caspian linguistic varieties spoken in northern Iran. These varieties are:

۱٫ the dialect of Sari, the provincial capital of Mazandaran, classified as a central Mazandarani dialect (Shokri 1385, preface);

۲٫ the dialect of Ramsar, which can be classified as an easternmost variant of Gilaki spoken in western Mazandaran (Shokri 1385);

۳٫ the dialect of Ziarat in the south-west of the Golestan province, classified as a Mazandarani dialect (Shokri et al. 2013, p. 14);

۴٫ the dialect of Shahmirzad in the north of the Semnan province, classified as a Mazandarani dialect (Kalbāsi 1388, p. 535).

The data used in this article was gathered during my field studies of these four linguistic variants, for the dialect of Sari, between 1991 and 1995, for the dialect of Ramsar between 1995 and 2006, for the dialect of Ziarat between 2008 and 2009, and for the dialect of Shahmirzad in 2013.

When I started working on the dialect of Ziarat and began to transcribe and translate the data, I found an interesting pattern that I had not been aware of previously, namely that the verb of volition in the Sari and Ramsar dialects, xāssan ‘to want’, is also used to express obligation in this dialect. Nor was I earlier aware of the reduced forms mā and ma of this verb. I had to go to Ziarat and re-check all the data in order to understand how the volition verb operates. My fieldwork in Shahmirzad revealed yet another interesting pattern, namely that the volition verb is not used in this dialect. Instead, the verb of obligation is used also to denote volition.

The topic of this paper is centered around the two concepts of volition and obligation. In the dialects of Sari and Ramsar, there are thus two different verbs for these modal categories, whereas in the dialects of Ziarat and Shahmirzad there is only one verb for the two categories, in Ziarat the verb used in Sari and Ramsar to denote volition, and in Shahmirzad, the verb used in Sari and Ramsar for obligation.

The two verbs under discussion are xāssen[2] ‘to want’ and vessen[3] ‘to have to’. These verbs can also be used as main verbs, in which case xāssen carries the meaning of ‘to love, to desire’ and vessen the meaning of ‘to need, to be in need of’, occasionally also ‘to wish for’. [۴]

۲٫ Some typological considerations about volition and obligation

Heine and Kuteva (2002, p. 309–۳۱۳) do not report any example where the verb of volition grammaticalizes to denote obligation. The grammaticalization patterns reported for ‘to want’ are to avertive, future, and proximative. Dahl (2006, p. 705) remarks that “future-marking devices derive historically from a number of sources. Among the most common are auxiliary verb constructions expressing obligation, commitment, volition/intention and motion”. He continues by arguing that “in the developments of futures, several things happen. To start with, there is normally an initial change of meaning that may involve both what has been called “pragmatic strengthening” and “semantic bleaching”. Thus, “a verb of volition, such as want, does not normally imply that the willed action is performed; to interpret something like she wants to leave as “she will leave”, the meaning of the volitional verb has to be strengthened. But when extended to cases of “pure prediction” such as it will rain, the volitional element has to be bleached altogether”. Ziegler (2006, p. 110) further notes that the English volitional verb has come to take also the role of epistemic modal prediction/necessity, also expressed by the verb ‘must’ (e.g. he is not here, he will/must be out smoking). From there, the step to deontic necessity is not very far.

Thus, there is an area of semantic overlap between the concept of volition and obligation. Among Iranian languages we note that the verb of volition in Persian, xāstan, can in the past tense be used for weak counterfactual commands, i.e. a kind of obligation.[5] The overlap is even clearer in Balochi, where the verb of volition, lōṭag, is used with a non-canonical (dative) subject to denote obligation in e.g. Karachi Balochi (Farrell 1990, p. 45). In Kurdish, too, the verb of volition can be used to express obligation (McCarus 2009, p. 620).

Also in non-Iranian languages this semantic overlap can be witnessed. One example is the Turkic language Kazakh, where “voluntative markers express notions of will, desire, wishing, intention, request, command, demand, entreaty, advice, recommendation, exhortation, warning, hope, permission, or possibility with respect to the fulfillment of a given action” (Abish 2014, p. 30).

۳٫ The dialects of Sari and Ramsar, two verbs

In the dialects of Sari and Ramsar, the two modal categories of volition and obligation are expressed by two different verbs.

۳٫۱٫ Dialect of Sari

In the dialect of Sari, the verb xāssen depending on context is used both as a modal verb for volition and to denote future time reference,[6] and vessen is used as a modal verb for obligation. However, it is interesting to note that xāssen in the past tense is occasionally used also for a weak obligation. The verb xāssen has a full conjugation, whereas vessen only has the two forms vesse (past) and vene (non-past).[7]

Ex. 1. xāssen as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to intent, to want, to plan’, non-past tense:

Men
Ferdā
xā-m
PRON.1SG
tomorrow
VOLIT.PRS-1SG
b-ur-em
Terun

PREF-go.PRS-1SG
Tehran

“I want/intend/plan to go to Tehran tomorrow.”
Here we have the two verb forms xām ‘I want (IND)’ and burem ‘I go (SUBJ)’, the first is a non-past indicative form and the second is a non-past subjunctive form, but with a temporal adverbial (see also Bhat 1999, p. 35) they express intent and future time reference.

Ex.2. xāssen as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to intent, to want, to plan’, past tense:

xāss-eme
qezā
ba-pej-em
VOLIT.PST-1SG
food
PREF-cook.PRS-1SG
“I wanted/intended to cook food.”
In this example we have two verb forms xāsseme ‘I wanted (IND)’ and bapejem ‘I cook (SUBJ)’, the first is a past imperfective form and the second is a non-past subjunctive form, and together they express volition and intent.

Ex. 3. xāssen as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to’, past tense:

xāss-i
Še
mār=e

VOLIT.PST-2SG
REFL
mother=OBJ

b-āur-i

PREF-tell.PRS-2SG

“You should have told your mother.”
This sentence, which is constructed in the same way as the Persian sentence mixāsti be mādarat begi and could be a copied construction from Persian, conveys the meaning of a suggestion and weak obligation in the counterfactual mood.

Ex. 4. vessen as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, non-past tense:

vene
bur-em
OBLIG.PRS.3SG
SUBJ.go.PRS-1SG
“I have to go.”
In this example we have the non-past 3SG (indeclinable) form of the verb vene ‘have to’ and the 1SG form burem ‘I go (SUBJ)’ indicating person, which together make a periphrastic construction denoting obligation.

Ex. 5. vessen as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, past tense:

Vesse
še
kār-ā=re
še

OBLIG.PST.3SG
REFL
work-PL=OBJ
REFL

hā-kān-e

PREF-do.PRS-3SG

“She had to do her jobs herself. ”
Here there are two verb forms, vesse ‘had to’ and hākāne ‘she does (SUBJ)’. The first one is the (indeclinable) past 3SG form and the second one is the 3SG form indicating person. Together they constitute a periphrastic construction denoting obligation.

۳٫۲٫ Dialect of Ramsar

In the dialect of Ramsar, the verb xassǝn is used as a modal verb for volition and future time reference, and vassǝn as a modal verb for obligation. Like in the dialect of Sari, the verb xassǝn has a full conjugation, whereas vassǝn only has the two forms vasse (past) and vanǝ (non-past).

Ex. 6. xassǝn as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to intent, to want, to plan’, non-past tense:

xan-ǝm
bo-š-om
VOLIT.PRS-1SG
PREF-go.PRS-1SG
“I want to/intend to/plan to go.”
In this example, there are two verb forms, xanǝm ‘I want (IND)’ and bošom ‘I go (SUBJ)’ to express volition/intent/future time reference.

Ex. 7. xassǝn as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to intent, to want, to plan’, past tense:

xas-ǝm
dars
bo-xān-ǝm
VOLIT.PST-1SG
study
PREF-read.PRS-1SG
“I wanted/intended/planned to study.”
In this example, we have two verb forms, xasǝm ‘I wanted (IND), and boxānǝm ‘I read (SUBJ)’. The construction expresses volition/intent/future time reference (in the past).

Ex. 8. vassǝn as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, non-past tense:

in=e
Vanǝ
he-git-ǝn
DEM.PROX=OBJ
OBLIG.PRS.3SG
PREV-buy.PST-INF
“It is necessary to buy it.”
Here there is one finite verb form, vanǝ ‘have to’ in the 3SG non-past tense which together with the infinitive hegitǝn denotes an impersonal (generic) subject. The construction expresses obligation/commitment, like in the Sari dialect.

Ex. 9. vassǝn as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, past tense:

ɣablan
Vasǝ
i
kār=e
previously
OBLIG.PST.3SG
DEM.PROX
work=OBJ
bo-kon-i

PREF- do.PRS-2SG

“You should have done this earlier.”

The two verb forms vasǝ ‘had to’ in the 3SG past tense and bokoni ‘you do (SUBJ)’ express obligation in the past, here in the counterfactual mood.

۴٫ THE DIALECTS OF ZIARAT AND SHAHMIRZAD, ONE VERB

In the dialects of Ziarat and Shahmirzad, the two modal categories of volition and obligation are expressed by a single verb. However, the two dialects show diverging patterns as to what verb is used.

۴٫۱٫ Dialect of Ziarat, verb of volition used also for obligation

In the dialect of Ziarat, the volition verb xāssan is used for both volition and obligation. Our data show that this verb is gradually spreading from its primary function to denote volition and is taking on the meaning of obligation as its main semantic domain. It is, however, also often used to denote intent and future time reference. When this verb denotes obligation, there is a tendency to freeze it in the 3SG form, which in the non-past is more or less reduced mexād/mexā/meā/mā. This form converges with the 3SG form for the verb of obligation used in Sari and Ramsar dialects, as well as in Persian. When the verb denotes volition, this reduction only occasionally takes place in the non-past tense.

In the volitional construction, the modal verb mostly takes the same person as the main verb, although there are examples of a frozen 3SG form here as well. There is one example of the subjunctive non-reduced form bexā in the data. No reductions of the subjunctive form are observed. Further studies are thus necessary to determine whether such a reduction to beā/bā can take place.[8]

Ex. 10. xāssan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to intend, to plan’, non-past tense:

in
Pesar
alān
me-xā
DEM.PROX
Boy
now
PREF-VOLIT.PRS.3SG
zan
ba-yr-e

wife
PREF-take.PRS-SG

“This boy intends/plans to marry now.”
Here, the two verb forms, mexā ‘he wants (IND)’ and bayre ‘he takes (SUBJ)’ express intent and future time reference. The context is that the storyteller is talking about her grandson’s intention to marry and the fact that the family has proposed to a suitable girl.

Ex. 11. xāssan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to intent, to want, to plan’, non-past tense, 3SG slightly reduced form (bexād > bexā):

fesenjān=ešān
age
be-xā

fesenjān = PC.3PL
if
PREF-VOLIT.PRS.3SG

be-paz-an
ɣešang=e

PREF-cook.PRS-3PL
beautiful= COP.PRS.3SG
“Their fesenjān turns out good, if they want to cook it.”
In Ex. 11, there are two verb forms, bexā ‘want (SUBJ)’ and bepazan ‘they cook (SUBJ)’. The first one is a 3SG form, not agreeing with the subject, whereas the second form shows that the subject is a 3PL entity. The construction expresses volition/intent. The context is that the storyteller is talking about the food that is normally served at weddings and comments that if the cooks take a decision to cook the fesenjān dish, it turns out good even when they make a lot of it

Ex. 12. xāssan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to intent, to want, to plan’, past tense:

me-xāss-em
kār=e
zende
anjām

PREF-VOLIT.PST-1SG
work=EZ
live
doing

ba-d-em

PREF-give.PRS-1SG

“I wanted/intended to do a live performance.”
In Ex. 12 we have two verb forms, mexāssem ‘I wanted (IND)’ and badem ‘I give (SUBJ)’, expressing volition/intent/future time reference in the past. The context is that the storyteller is describing that she was going to an exhibition to do a live weaving performance.

Ex. 13. xāssan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, non-past tense:

bad
az
un
me-xā
after
from
DEM.DIST
PREF-VOLIT.PRS.3SG
dāmād
xarj [9]
In
ā-di-ye
bridegroom
expense
DEM.PROX
PREV-give.PRS-3SG
“After that, the bridegroom should pay for this.”
In this example we have two verb forms, mexā ‘he wants (IND)’ and ādiye ‘he gives (SUBJ)’. Here, however, the construction does not express volition, but rather obligation. The context is that the narrator is describing who should pay the expenses of the various wedding ceremonies.

Ex. 14. xāssan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, non-past tense, 3SG reduced form:

man
Dige

PRON.1SG
Other
PREF-VOLIT.PRS
čiči
ba-gu-m

what
PREF-tell.PRS-1SG

“What more should I say?”
In Ex. 14, there are two verb forms, mā ‘want.3SG (IND) reduced’ and bagum ‘I say (SUBJ)’. The context is that the storyteller does not know what else to say and asks the interviewer about what to say more.

Ex. 15. xāssan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, past tense:

in
āb-ā=re
me-xās-i
čapar
DEM.PROX
water-PL=OBJ
PREF-VOLIT.PST-2SG
wattle
ba-zen-i

PREF-hit.PRS-2SG

“You had to pass on a wattle (over the river when you go).”
In Ex. 15, there are two verb forms mexāsi ‘you wanted (IND)’ and bazeni ‘you hit (SUBJ)’, both in the 2SG form, the first one is in the past imperfective and the second one is in the past subjunctive mood, together expressing obligation. The context is that the storyteller is telling how the travellers had to make a wattle construction of wood and twigs and put over the river in order to be able to pass over it before there were bridges.

۴٫۲٫ Dialect of Shahmirzad

There is no verb corresponding to the verb xāssen (Sari), xassən (Ramsar), xāssan (Ziarat) in the Shahmirzad dialect.[10] The verb vassan is in this dialect used to express both volition and necessity. There are only examples in the non-past tense in the data. A copy from Persian, the form bas[11] is found to express obligation in the past tense.

Ex. 16. vassan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, non-past tense:

vane
in
qezā= re
ba-xor-i
OBLIG.PRS.3SG
DEM.PROX
food=OBJ
PREF-eat.PRS-2SG
“You must eat this food.”
In this example the verb form vane ‘must.PRS.3SG (IND)’ together with baxori ‘you eat (SUBJ)’ express obligation.

Ex. 17. vassan as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to want, to intend/to plan’, non-past tense:

farda
Van
bü-š-üm
terān
tomorrow
OBLIG.PRS.3SG
PREF-go.PRS-1SG
Tehran
“I want to/intend to go to Tehran tomorrow.”
In this example, we have two verb forms van ‘must.PRS.3SG (IND)’ and büšüm ‘I go (SUBJ)’, that express volition/intent/future time reference.

Ex. 18. bas as a modal verb with the meaning of ‘to have to, must’, past tense:

bas
bü-š-üm
goli
xune
OBLIG.PST.3SG
PREF-go.PRS-1SG
PN
house
“I had to go to Goli’s house.”
In this example, there are two verb forms bas ‘must.PST.3SG (IND)’ and büšüm ‘I go (SUBJ)’, which express obligation. This is the only occurrence of this construction in the corpus from Shahmirzad.

۵٫ Conclusion

In this article, I have demonstrated that the two semantic concepts of volition and obligation have merged into one verb in the two dialects of Ziarat and Shahmirzad, whereas they are still basically kept apart in the Sari and Ramsar dialects. Another interesting observation is that the two dialects where the merger has taken place retain different verbs. In Ziarat, the verb of volition is kept and in Shahmirzad the verb of obligation. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the verb of volition is much more frequently found in the 3SG not agreeing with the subject when it denotes obligation than when it denotes volition in the Ziarat dialect. This could be due to the fact that the actual verb of obligation in the other dialects only occurs in the 3SG form. Studies of other linguistic varieties spoken in the Caspian region of Iran may reveal other interesting mergers in the area of modal verbs.

Map 1. Iran with places of fieldwork indicated.

Linguistic variety
obligation
volition
Ramsar
vessǝn
xassǝn
Sari
vessen
xāssen
Shahmirzad
vassan
vassan
Ziarat
xāssan
xāssan
Table 1. Summary of obligational and volitional structure in Caspian linguistic varieties of Sari, Ziarat, Shahmirzad and Ramsar.

Abbreviations
Definition

separates a morpheme
=
separates a clitic
DEM
demonstrative
DIST
Distal
IMP
imperfective
IND
indicative mood
INF
infinitive
NEG
negation
OBJ
object marker
OBLIG
verb of obligation, prototypical (must, have to)
PC
pronomincal clitic (enclitic pronoun)
PL
Plural
PN
proper name
PREF
Prefix
PREV
preverb
PRON
pronoun
PROX
proximal
PRS
non-past (i.e. present-future)
PST
Past
REFL
reflexive pronoun
SG
singular
SUBJ
subjunctive mood
VOLIT
verb of volition, prototypical (want, intend to)
Table2. Abbreviation

bibliography

Abish 2014                 A. Abish, Modality in Kazakh as Spoken in China, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 2014.

Bhat 1999                  D.N.S. Bhat, The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1999.

Dabir-Moghaddam

۱۳۹۲                            M. Dabir-Moghaddam, “Zabān-e Shahmirzādi”, [Radešenāsi-ye zabānhā-ye irāni (Typology of Iranian Languages), I-II, Samt, Tehran, 1392 [2013/14].

Dahl 2006                   Ö. Dahl, “Future Tense and Future Time reference”, in Brown, Keith (ed.-in-chief), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2006, p. 704–۷۰۶٫

Farrell 1990                T. Farrell, Basic Balochi. An Introductory Course,  [Balochistan Monograph Series, 1], Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples, 1990.

Heine 2002                 B. Heine, and K. Tania, World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.

Jahani 2008               C. Jahani, “Expressions of Future in Classical and Modern New Persian”, in Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida, and Stilo, Donald (eds), Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2008, p. 153–۱۷۵٫

Jahani et al. 2012     C. Jahani, B. Barjasteh Delforooz and M. Nourzaei, “Non-canonical subjects in Balochi,” in B. Aghaei and M.R. Ghanoonparvar (eds.), Iranian languages and culture, Essays in Honor of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr, Costa Mesa, California, Mazda Publishers, p. 196–۲۱۸٫

Kalbasi 1388              I.        Kalbasi (Kalbāsi), “Shahmirzādi”, in Farhang-e towṣifi-ye gunehā-ye zabāni-ye fārsi. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, pp. 531–۵۳۵, Tehran, 1388 [2009].

McCarus 2009           E.N. McCarus, “Kurdish”, in Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages, Routledge, London and New York, 2009, p. 587–۶۳۳٫

Shokri 1374                G. Shokri (Šokri), Guyeš-e sāri (The Sari Dialect). Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. Tehran, 1374 [1995].

Shokri 1385                G. Shokri (Šokri), Guyeš-e rāmsari (The Dialect of Ramsar), Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran,1385 [2006].

Shokri 2012                G. Shokri, “Past and Non-past Structure in the Mazandarani Dialect Spoken by the Galesh of Ziarat”, Orientalia Suecana, 61, 199–۲۰۹٫

Shokri et al. 2013      G. Shokri, C. Jahani, and H. Barani, When Tradition Meets Modernity. Five Life Stories from the Galesh Community in Ziarat, Golestan, Iran [Studia Iranica Upsaliensia, 21], Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala, 2013.

Ziegeler 2006             D. Ziegeler, “Omnitemporal will”, Language Sciences, 28, 2006, p. 76–۱۱۹٫

[۱] Sincere thanks to Carina Jahani and an anonymous referee for valuable comments on earlier versions of this article.
[۲] Sari dialect, for other dialects see below.
[۳] Sari dialect, for other dialects see below.
[۴] The verb vessen as a main verb takes a non-canonical (dative) subject (see, e.g., Jahani et al. 2012), but as an auxiliary verb it takes a canonical (nominative) subject.
[۵] Note, e.g. the following example from colloquial Persian:

Čerā
umad
mi-xāst
nay-ā-d
Why
come.PST.3SG
IMP-VOLIT.PST.3SG
NEG.SUBJ-come.PRS-3SG
‘Why did he come? He shouldn’t have.

[۶] For the same phenomenon in Persian, see Jahani (2008, p. 166).
[۷] These forms can be compared with the indeclinable Persian forms (mi)bāyest(i)

(past) and bāyad (non-past) for obligation.

[۸] Note that, contrary to other Mazandarani dialects, the me- prefix is found in the non-past tense in the Mazandarani of Ziarat, but in the past tense the verb xāssan shows two forms. It is mostly conjugated without me- (Ex. 11), but sometimes with me- (Ex. 10, 12) (Shokri 2012, p. 199–۲۰۹).

[۹] Note that the ezāfe is missing here.
[۱۰] My own field studies of the Shahmirzad dialect are limited. See also (Dabir-Moghaddam

۱۳۹۲, II, p. 1042–۱۰۴۳).

[۱۱] Cf. the Persian form (mi)bāyest(i) of the verb bāyestan ‘to have to’.

For Download this Article Click Here

2 total comments on this post

نظر شما چیست؟
  1. سلام
    لطفا نسخه پی دی اف اصلی این مقاله رو برای دانلود در سایت قرار دهید. توی این متن مثالها و گلاس نویسی ها بهم ریخته نظمشون…قابل تشخیص نیستن

    سپاس

یادداشت خود را بفرست

لطفن اسم خود را وارد کنید

ورود اسمتان ضروری است.

لطفن یک ایمیل واقعی وارد کنید

یک آدرس ایمیل ضروری است

پیام خود را وارد کنید

اگر اندازه‌ی نوشته‌ها برای شما کوچک می‌باشد، می‌توانید با فشردن هم‌زمان کلیدهای Ctrl و + اندازه‌ی نوشته را افزایش دهید.

بامداد ما © 2017 تمام حقوق محفوظ است.