# Persian: خواندہ است vs خواند



## the far side

Hello,

If I met a person who told me that he was studying at Tehran University, and I wanted to tell him that my grandfather studied there too, would I say "neyaayam ham aanjaa khaand" or "neyaayam ham aanjaa khaande ast"?


----------



## truce

In Persian "grandfather" is called "پدربزرگ". I have never seen "neyaayam" before.
You can say:
پدربزرگ من هم آنجا درس خوانده or پدربزرگ من هم آنجا درس خوانده است


----------



## the far side

I thought نیا neyaa meant grandfather too.
Anyway, you are sure that درس خواند is wrong here?


----------



## PersoLatin

the far side said:


> I thought نیا neyaa meant grandfather too.


نيا (pronounced niâ) does mean grand father, paternal or maternal, but these days it stands for ancestor, e.g. نياكان means ancestors, so 'pedar bozorg' is what you need.



the far side said:


> Anyway, you are sure that درس خواند is wrong here?


No, it is correct, you can say: پدربزرگ من هم آنجا درس خواند my grandfather studied there too.


----------



## the far side

Is there a difference between پدربرزگِ من ھم and پدربزرگم ھم ("my grandfather too")?


----------



## PersoLatin

the far side said:


> Is there a difference between پدربرزگِ من ھم and پدربزرگم ھم ("my grandfather too")?


Yes, 'pedar bozorge man ham....' translates as 'my grandfather studied there too', but 'pedar bozorgam ham...' translates as  you 'my grandfather studied there as well', so very different.


----------



## the far side

I don't get it. What is the difference between

پدربزرگِ من ھم آنجا درس خواندہ است and پدربزرگم ھم آنجا درس خواندہ است

By the way, the plural of نیا (ancestor) is نیاگان ,not نیاکان. I just checked the dictionary.


----------



## PersoLatin

the far side said:


> I don't get it. What is the difference between
> 
> پدربزرگِ من ھم آنجا درس خواندہ است and پدربزرگم ھم آنجا درس خواندہ است


I'm afraid I can only explain the difference in English, but that didn't work well.

If you say to someone پدربزرگم ھم آنجا درس خواندہ است, (in the context of your original post, without any other pretext),  they'd get a little confused, and think to themselves: ok your grandfather studied here, but *as well* as who? Because that's what that line says. I afraid I can't do better than that.


----------



## PersoLatin

the far side said:


> By the way, the plural of نیا (ancestor) is نیاگان ,not نیاکان. I just checked the dictionary.


نياكان and نياگان are both correct but the former is in common use but the latter is not used these days.


----------



## the far side

Well, if someone asked me "Okay, your grandfather studied at Tehran University, but as well as who?" I would reply, "As well as you!"
Think about it in English:
Peter: I'm studying at Harvard.
Richard: Really? My grandfather studied there too.


----------



## PersoLatin

^ I'm hoping someone else will come to my rescue here.


----------



## colognial

It must seem obvious that پدربزرگ من هم and پدربزرگ ام هم mean the same thing. The difference is only that the possessive adjective, detached in the former phrase, is trimmed down and attached to the noun in the latter.

And now for the nuance, which may not be so obvious if you are examining two isolated lines of dialogue out of a whole conversation and looking at them without actually hearing what's going on. There is indeed a subtle difference between the two adjectives as spotted by (the one and only) PersoLatin:

The point is that پدرم هم narrows the scope of reference, with the attached possessive adjective serving as the device for doing so, since it alerts us to the fact that the 'me' is the significant point of reference here. Any other individual attending the same university or having attended it in the past will then, and for the purpose of this particular conversation, have to be related to 'me', as in an imagined situation where, 

my grandmother studied at University of Tehran, and so did my grandfather.
مادربزرگ *من* در دانشگاه تهران درس خوانده است، و پدربزرگ *ام* هم همین طور.

In a situation in which the scope must widen to include all comparable individuals and not just those related to 'me' as the point of reference, we automatically follow suit by using the detached possessive adjective: 

I met a guy today. He told me he was a student at University of Tehran.
Is that so? My grandfather studied there.
امروز کسی را دیدم که می گفت دانشجوی دانشگاه تهران است
جدی؟ پدربزرگ من هم آن جا درس خوانده است


----------



## the far side

Thank you so much for your incredibly detailed and lucid answer! It's very clear to me now. 

By the way, I think you forgot the word "ke" in می گفت کہ دانشجوی دانشگاہ تھران است


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> There is indeed a subtle difference between the two adjectives as spotted by (the one and only) PersoLatin:


Thank you colognial, spotting it was the easy part.


----------



## PersoLatin

^ The following are similar to the grandfather examples, but in this case, that subtle difference in Persian can be expressed in English too:

بهمن دوست من هم هست : Bahman is my friend too.
بهمن دوستم هم هست     : Bahman is a friend (to me) too.


----------



## farasso0

the far side said:


> By the way, I think you forgot the word "ke" in می گفت کہ دانشجوی دانشگاہ تھران است


I think it's better to omit the second که
امروز کسی را دیدم *که* می گفت *که* دانشجوی دانشگاه تهران است


----------



## molana

the far side said:


> By the way, I think you forgot the word "ke" in می گفت کہ دانشجوی دانشگاہ تھران است


_که _is omissable after the verb _گفتن_, as are _that/who _after the verbs such as_ say,tell,_etc in English. And here, it is preferable to do so.


----------



## the far side

PersoLatin said:


> ^ The following are similar to the grandfather examples, but in this case, that subtle difference in Persian can be expressed in English too:
> 
> بهمن دوست من هم هست : Bahman is my friend too.
> بهمن دوستم هم هست     : Bahman is a friend (to me) too.


 
I think I understand. If someone mentioned that Bahman was a friend of his, and you wanted to tell him that Bahman is a friend of yours too, you would say بھمن دوستِ من ھم است.
But if you were bragging that you had tons of friends and started naming them one by one, and then someone asked, "What about Bahman?" you would say that Bahman, too, is a friend of yours: بھمن دوستم ھم است
Did I get it right?


----------



## truce

Nope. Bahman has a role in your life. For example Bahman is your teacher. Furthermore Bahaman is your friend. This is when you say:
بهمن فقط یک معلم برای من نیست. بهمن دوستم هم است
Not only is Bahman my teacher but also he is my friend.


----------



## colognial

I'd correct the verb in the example so: بهمن فقط یک معلم برای من نیست، دوست ام هم *هست*, with emphasis placed, through a slightly raised tone of voice, on هست.

Also, the pattern suggested is not the only possible way of saying the same thing. One could choose to say:
بهمن فقط (یا صرفاً) معلم من نیست، دوست من هم هست


----------



## farasso0

the far side said:


> say that Bahman, too, is a friend of yours: *بھمن دوستم ھم است*
> Did I get it right?


You can change the position of  هم. Because in that context someone asked you about 'بهمن'  not 'your relationship with him (your friend)'.
تو دوستم هستی. بهمن *هم* دوستم است
*هم* تو و *هم* بهمن دوست من هستید

بهمن فقط همکارم نیست بهمن دوستم* هم* هست
بهمن *هم* همکار و *هم* دوست من است


----------

