Talk:Iranian toman

Latest comment: 7 years ago by 123.198.213.71 in topic Turkic vs Mongolian

Contradiction

edit
  • Iranian toman: In unofficial circumstances, a toman may also refer to either 1,000 tomans or 1,000,000 tomans. The order of the magnitude of the amount would be considered to be apparent from the context.
  • Iranian rial: most Iranians think in tomans when discussing money; which could mean 10, 10,000 or 10,000,000 rials, depending on the context.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC

there is no contradiction:
1 toman = 10 rials
and 1000 t = 10,000 r
and 1,000,000 t = 10,000,000 r

therefore saying that car is 12 tomans (12 mil tomans), means in official language: that car is 120,000,000 rials --Gerash77 11:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. Never mind. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are no such thing as 'toman' notes: all Iranian notes are in Rials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.132.156 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Turkic vs Mongolian

edit

The word "Tümen" is Turkic rooted but not Mongolic. Which means "ten thousand" in Old Turkic. It's still used in the Modern Turkish language as "Division (military)". A division consist of 10,000 men.[1] These are a borrowing from the Mongolian word 'tumen' (ten thousand). 'Tumen' (ten thousand) was also in Old Turkic.[2] In general we agree with Doerfer's arguments (TMN 2, 632-642: the Turkic word is the source of Persian tūmān '10000', not vice versa, although in some cases the word was borrowed back into Turkic[3]

Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I should contact mods. you're obviously a pan-turkist pov-pusher. after I restored original and removed your random changes, you went to wiktionary and changed that entry?![2] very funny. it's mongolian and even confirmed in persian wiki. --188.158.79.190 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
and this one[3] nice attempts. change them again and we see you on ani. --188.158.79.190 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Misrepresentation of Unesco source[4].--123.198.213.71 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

References