Iranian toman

Iranian toman
-تومان (Persian)
	10-toman gold coin, AH 1314 (c. 1896), depicting Mozaffar ad-Din, shah of the Qajar dynasty
Denominations
Subunit
1⁄10,000	Dinar (former)
1⁄10	Rial (old, unofficial toman)
1⁄10,000	Rial (new, official toman)
Banknotes
Freq. used	1,000; 2,000; 5,000; 10,000; 50,000; and 100,000
Coins
Freq. used	1⁄5, 1⁄2, 1, 2, 5, 10, and 25
Demographics
User(s)	Iran
Issuance
Central bank	Iran

The Iranian toman (Persian: تومان, romanized: tūmân, pronounced [tuː.mɒːn]; from Mongolian tümen "unit of ten thousand",^[1]^[2]^[a] see the unit called tumen) is a superunit of the official currency of Iran, the rial. One toman is equivalent to 10 (old), or 10,000 (new, official) rials. ^[8]

Originally, the toman consisted of 10,000 dinars. Between 1798 and 1825, the toman was also subdivided into eight rials, each of 1,250 dinars. In 1825, the qiran was introduced, worth 1,000 dinars or one-tenth of a toman. In 1932, the rial replaced the qiran at par, with one toman being equal to 10 rial.

^ Fragner, Bert (1986). "Social and Internal Economic Affairs". In Jackson, Peter; Lockhart, Laurence (eds.). The Cambridge History of Iran (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press. p. 557. ISBN 978-0521200943. The unit of reckoning was the tūmān (from the Mongol tümen, i.e. 10,000), the equivalent of 10,000 dīnārs.
^ Album, Stephen; Bates, Michael L.; Floor, Willem (1992). "COINS AND COINAGE". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. VI, Fasc. 1. pp. 14–41. (...) of Transoxania (near modern Dushanbe), for 1,000 tomans (tūmān < Mong. toman "10,000," originally designating a value of 10,000 dinars) of copper coins (folūs) per year.
^ "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.
^ "When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4.
^ "Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.
^ "...[T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent" and "we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages--a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent", Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge) has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis (pp. 211-216).
^ Ki-moon, Lee. "The Silk Road And The Korean Language". Seoul National University: 5. Lastly, I would like to add a comment on 'zh-mun' (thousand) in Middle Korean. This 'zh-mun' is quite similar to the word in Altai languages meaning 'ten thousand.' In Jurchen, 'ten thousand' was called 'tumen.' In 'Yongbi Och'onga' ("eulogy of the foundation of the Yi Dynasty") (1, 8), there is a footnote that ' ' ( tumen) of ' ' (the Tuman river of today) came from the Jurchen word meaning 'ten thousand.' In Manchu, ' ' (ten thousand) is also 'tumen'. These are a borrowing from the Mongolian word 'tumen' (ten thousand). 'Tumen' (ten thousand) was also in Old Turkic. This 'tumen' in these Altaic languages is certainly a borrowing from Tocharian (Clauson 1972). In Tocharian A, there is 'tman,' in Tocharian B 'tmane', 'tumane'. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Maziar Motamedi (29 January 2019). "Can a New Currency End Tehran's Economic Woes?". ForeignPolicy.com.

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[1] Fragner, Bert (1986). "Social and Internal Economic Affairs". In Jackson, Peter; Lockhart, Laurence (eds.). The Cambridge History of Iran (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press. p. 557. ISBN 978-0521200943. The unit of reckoning was the tūmān (from the Mongol tümen, i.e. 10,000), the equivalent of 10,000 dīnārs.

[2] Album, Stephen; Bates, Michael L.; Floor, Willem (1992). "COINS AND COINAGE". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. VI, Fasc. 1. pp. 14–41. (...) of Transoxania (near modern Dushanbe), for 1,000 tomans (tūmān < Mong. toman "10,000," originally designating a value of 10,000 dinars) of copper coins (folūs) per year.

[3] "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.

[4] "When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4.

[5] "Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.

[6] "...[T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent" and "we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages--a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent", Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge) has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis (pp. 211-216).

[7] Ki-moon, Lee. "The Silk Road And The Korean Language". Seoul National University: 5. Lastly, I would like to add a comment on 'zh-mun' (thousand) in Middle Korean. This 'zh-mun' is quite similar to the word in Altai languages meaning 'ten thousand.' In Jurchen, 'ten thousand' was called 'tumen.' In 'Yongbi Och'onga' ("eulogy of the foundation of the Yi Dynasty") (1, 8), there is a footnote that ' ' ( tumen) of ' ' (the Tuman river of today) came from the Jurchen word meaning 'ten thousand.' In Manchu, ' ' (ten thousand) is also 'tumen'. These are a borrowing from the Mongolian word 'tumen' (ten thousand). 'Tumen' (ten thousand) was also in Old Turkic. This 'tumen' in these Altaic languages is certainly a borrowing from Tocharian (Clauson 1972). In Tocharian A, there is 'tman,' in Tocharian B 'tmane', 'tumane'. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[Motamedi-9] Maziar Motamedi (29 January 2019). "Can a New Currency End Tehran's Economic Woes?". ForeignPolicy.com.

[1]

[2]

[a]

[8]