Short questions

Moderator: eskandar

replicaoflife
Posts: 6
Joined: 2019-04-15, 22:26
Real Name: mil khr
Gender: male

Re: Short questions

Postby replicaoflife » 2019-04-26, 23:41

eskandar wrote:
replicaoflife wrote:And fereŠteh MUST be from ferestaadan since etomolgy of them is to alike, meaning angel/messenger feresteh deffently is from sent, for you get messenger from there and messenger that brings gospels/divine stuff becomes an angel.

Yes, I worded that poorly. They are indeed etymologically related but in the minds of native speakers there is no connection between the two, just as English speakers don't realize that words like "pawn" and "pedestrian" are etymologically related.


and thanks, this by amir khusro (wich unlike all the urdu ones its genuinity is plausible) is what made want to learn fully specially that sentence amazes me since i saw it, and only know do i understand how its read, like this.

Pari paikar nigaar-e sarw qadde, laala rukhsare; Sarapa aafat-e dil bood shab jaaye ke man boodam.

a Fairy-shaped, cypress-statured, tulip-cheeked was completly destroying hearths the night were i was

such a sentence, amazing, and now conquered, atleast not in correct word but its meaning is clear to me.
I was trying to fit all of this into pari paikar part cause in english its like that, i am humbled thinking it could learn like this skipping reading yet only made it so harder.

User avatar
eskandar
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2906
Joined: 2006-12-15, 8:27
Real Name: Eskandar
Gender: male

Re: Short questions

Postby eskandar » 2019-04-27, 1:43

replicaoflife wrote:Ive reread my posts and been humbled not to reach to high but the basics first, i must read to learn the correct grammar by example, then do the advances stuff.

I think that sounds like a great plan. I'm glad I could help. Good luck / Viel Erfolg / movaffaq bāshi!
Currently away from Unilang.

franzele
Posts: 5
Joined: 2019-05-26, 13:05

Re: Short questions

Postby franzele » 2019-05-26, 13:24

Hello everyone.
For a project I'm developing I would need to know what are the Farsi words that parents say when they are tickling a baby (not the translation of "to tikle").
By example in Norway they say: KILE KILE KILE!; in Japan they say: KOCHO KOCHO!

I would also appreciate a transliteration of the words, and the pronounce if possible.

Hope someone can help me, thanks!

alijsh
Posts: 3578
Joined: 2004-10-26, 7:48
Gender: male
Country: IR Iran (ایران)
Contact:

Re: Short questions

Postby alijsh » 2019-06-03, 4:50

gotbetter wrote:Another question. Is there any difference in meaning between these two?

کسی را نگاه کردن

به کسی نگاه کردن

I've seen it both ways, so I think they both seem to be correct. Is that so?


The normal structure is "be kas-i negâh kardan". That is, this verb comes with the dative case marker "be". In Persian, particularly in its literary form, it's possible to change dative to accusative case:

Normal form:

به او گفت

Alternative form:

او را گفت

Ditto for your example. So, the meaning is the same but generally, the register isn't. Sometimes, the word order also influences. For example, using او را گفت instead of به او گفت is a literary style.

alijsh
Posts: 3578
Joined: 2004-10-26, 7:48
Gender: male
Country: IR Iran (ایران)
Contact:

Re: Short questions

Postby alijsh » 2019-06-03, 5:19

gotbetter wrote:In case nobody notices it, I'll just say here: please can someone also answer my previous question (about یکه شناس) on the page before this? Last post on page 123.


A horse/donkey that knows his owner, responses to his signals even from distance and usually, only lets his owner mount

alijsh
Posts: 3578
Joined: 2004-10-26, 7:48
Gender: male
Country: IR Iran (ایران)
Contact:

Re: Short questions

Postby alijsh » 2019-06-03, 7:17

LondonA1 wrote:
alijsh wrote:
eskandar wrote:The only ones I can think of that I've heard in colloquial Persian are taraf > do tarafeyn > atrâf or hâl > ahvâl(-e shomâ). Oh, and sabab > asbâb, as in the wonderful expression "in ke asbâb-e khejâlat shod!"

As you see, the plural form has an extended meaning so that it cannot be considered as the plural form of the singular noun. It is distinct. atrâf means "surrounding" whereas taraf means "direction", ŝarâyet means "circumstances" whereas its singular is not used in Persian, ettelâât means "information" and so on.

"asbâb" is rather old-fashioned in that expression. Use "bâes" instead: bâes e zahmat, xejâlat, ŝarmandegi, ... ŝod


Eh?! Shart isn't used in Persian? Where did you get that gem from?! Kudos for knowing the language at a level above most learners, but you're making a few generalisations. Lots of Arabic plurals are still used in modern Persian without the distinction you suggest; the only difference is whether one is around people who have a solid education or not- my father once told me off for not saying horuf in place of harfha, which to him sounded crude. What about daily, basic words like sabzijaat? There are tons of daily usage Arabic plurals which don't fit the trend you describe- especially in the actual business of life where law courts, utility bills, bank accounts are concerned.


شرایط is the plural form of شریطه and not شرط. The plural of شرط is شروط. You should have looked it up before ridiculing me! Besides, I was talking about spoken Persian, not written Persian!

The majority of Arabic plurals are entirely unnecessary. No matter which source language we are considering, loanwords should be pluralized using the native rules of the target language. "forums" is objectively better than "fora". Yes, English has borrowed "forum" from Latin but why to borrow its plural form as well?! Doesn't English have a native way of pluralizing words?! Excessive borrowing is detrimental to the native system of the language. One shouldn't sacrifice his/her language just to sound chic and well-educated! Fortunately, excessive plural forms never opened their way into spoken Persian; words are pluralized natively unless an Arabic plural has a different meaning or is a part of a fixed expression etc. And they have kept decreasing in written Persian too. They are simply unnecessary and as language evolves, they become less and less.


Return to “Persian/Farsi (فارسی)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest