# Persian: کردہ خواھد بود



## Qureshpor

Friends, in Persian the following tense forms exist. I shall provide 3rd person examples.

کردہ است

کردہ باشد

کردہ بود

Does کردہ خواھد بود also exist? If yes, could you please provide any examples, preferably from literature.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## farzan

Hello, Qureshpor.

This particular construction to me sounds like a passive-voice verb, as if the main verb is ‘to be’, while the intended main verb, here كردن, seems to have the role of an adjective. 

The meaning will then have to be, in your example, something like “it shall be a done thing”, “it shall have been taken care of”.

It is customary to simply say خواهد كرد.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you Farzan. If the meanings  for my first three examples are

1) She/ He has done

2) She/ He may have done

She/ He will have done

3) She/ He had done

then the meaning that I deduce for the sentence I am enquiring about is

4) She/ He will have done

Am I wrong in my deduction?


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> then the meaning that I deduce for the sentence I am enquiring about is
> 
> 4) She/ He will have done
> 
> Am I wrong in my deduction?


I completely agree with your deduction, it can’t mean anything else.
تا من به انجا برسم این کار را کرده خواهد بود
By the time I get there, she will have done/completed that job/work.

It is curious that this construction is not used often, even formally, but no one will have any difficulty understanding what is being said. Colloquially you’d hear:
من تا برسم اونجا این کار رو کرده
So the خواهد بود is omitted


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> 2) She/ He may have done


Also this is almost always used with شاید, باید and اگر or their equivalents.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you PersoLatin for your confirmation of its existence and the meaning imparted by it. 

Interestingly, Persian grammar books written in English do not, as far as I can remember, include this construction. In fact for the type of sentence you have provided, they substitute کردہ باشد for your کردہ خواھد بود. 

If my memory serves me right, Douglas Craven Wright's "A Higher Grammar of the Persian Language" written in 1919 includes this construction. However, the author goes on to say, again if I remember correctly, that this is found in Afghan and Indian Persian. Bearing this in mind, it would be nice if an example could be found from either the Classical language or the modern one. Logic dictates that it should exist in Iranian Persian too.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> In fact for the type of sentence you have provided, they substitute کردہ باشد for your کردہ خو


کرده باشد can not replace کرده خواهد شد even if grammar books insist they can.

As for an example in use, in modern Persian this term is very popular when referring to someone/thing that you want to be rid of:
بزودی کلکشان کنده خواهد شد soon they will be got rid of. Here کنده from کندن-to pull/dig out, acts the same as کرده.

You can also search for زده/دیده خواهد شد, these are always used with a precursor or a condition, explicitly, or implciltly when the reader/listener knows the precursor.

I will l look for other examples, especially in older text. In my view this construction may be wasteful & too long for poetry but you never know.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> کرده باشد can not replace کرده خواهد شد even if grammar books insist they can.


You are right. The example given in one book is

تا به فرود گاہ برسیم ھوا پیما رفته است۔


----------



## farzan

Qureshpor, the replacement suggested belongs in old texts, the “classics”. 

My google search resulted in this:

چون شما را حاضر نمايند متفكر مباشيد كه به چه نوع يا به چه لفظ تكلم نماييد زيراكه آن چه خواهيد گفتن در همان ساعت به شما اعلام كرده خواهد شد.

The New Testament, Chapter 10, Verse 19 (or thereabouts), translated by the Rev. Henry Martyn, 4th edn.


----------



## Qureshpor

Hi Farzan,

But is n't کردہ خواھد شد the passive for خواھد کرد? So, your quote is not an example of کردہ خواھد بود, it seems.


----------



## PersoLatin

^ my examples are the same.


----------



## farzan

So what you are after is an example of كرده خواهد بود from literature! I am not sure if that will be easy to find. This particular verb is not so common at all.

To my ears, كرده خواهد بود, too, sounds like the passive voice.

I suppose one may try to see it not as the passive voice but as the future in the past tense. However, even كرده خواهد شد from the translation of the New Testament is not exactly how people write or speak.


----------



## Qureshpor

farzan said:


> So what you are after is an example of كرده خواهد بود from literature! I am not sure if that will be easy to find. This particular verb is not so common at all.
> 
> To my ears, كرده خواهد بود, too, sounds like the passive voice.


Well, no it does n't have to be کردہ خواھد بود. It can be:

گفته خواھد بود
رفته خواھد بود
خوردہ خواھد بود etc

In place of خواھد, it can be خواھم, خواھیم, خواھی, خواھید, خواھند


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> ^ my examples are the same.


Indeed they are. And as I have expressed my understanding to Farzan, these are examples in the passive voice. If your and Farzan's examples were of the type...

کردہ خواھد بود > کردہ شدہ خواھد بود

then that would have implied that the active voice must exist for this tense form for there to be a passive voice. I hope you follow what I mean.


----------



## farzan

Qureshpor, it makes no difference whether you go for كرده شدن or كرده بودن. We know what the big difference ought to be. Nevertheless, to a present-day Iranian native speaker of Persian, both will equally sound like the passive voice.

Take this example:
تا تو بيايى مردِ بزرگى شوى پدرت همه ى تجربه هاىِ خود را به تو سپرده است

This is how the future in the past tense is expressed. Not by saying, rather oddly,

تا تو بيايى مردِ بزرگى شوى پدرت همه ى تجربه هاىِ خود را به تو خواهد سپرده بود

though this would be understable, too, but by reverting to the plain present perfect form.

Maybe there indeed are obscure examples here and there, which may be either remnants of some regional or ancient grammar, or borrowed from Arabic or English. I am not personally aware of such specimens, I am afraid, but can tell you that if they exist, they will be considered as samples of a complicated, overdone style.

PS. I shall continue my search for you. This is interesting. I do wish the learned fellow who put the thought into your head had come up with concrete examples.


----------



## Qureshpor

farzan said:


> Qureshpor, it makes no difference whether you go for كرده شدن or كرده بودن. We know what the big difference ought to be. Nevertheless, to a present-day Iranian native speaker of Persian, both will equally sound like the passive voice.
> 
> Take this example:
> تا تو بيايى مردِ بزرگى شوى پدرت همه ى تجربه هاىِ خود را به تو سپرده است
> 
> This is how the future in the past tense is expressed. Not by saying, rather oddly,
> 
> تا تو بيايى مردِ بزرگى شوى پدرت همه ى تجربه هاىِ خود را به تو خواهد سپرده بود
> 
> though this would be understable, too, but by reverting to the plain present perfect form.
> 
> Maybe there indeed are obscure examples here and there, which may be either remnants of some regional or ancient grammar, or borrowed from Arabic or English. I am not personally aware of such specimens, I am afraid, but can tell you that if they exist, they will be considered as samples of a complicated, overdone style.
> 
> PS. I shall continue my search for you. This is interesting. I do wish the learned fellow who put the thought into your head had come up with concrete examples.


Thank you Farzan. Please don't break your back in this quest. It is n't that important!

I shall try to find an example or two from Phillott, if I am able to.

By the way, did you mean to write خواھد سپردہ بود or سپردہ خواھد بود?


----------



## farzan

No, I shan’t, Qureshpor, though I do need to thank you for this question, because your remarks, being of value about the main point, have also made me curious as to what “Indian Persian” sounds like.
I can’t register a difference between سپرده خواهد بود and خواهد سپرده بود; as you are aware syntax in Persian is, well, ‘loose’. This idiosyncrasy may be the explanation for the two appearing the same.


----------



## PersoLatin

There’s a marked difference in meaning between:
1) تا من برسم تو این کار را تمام کرده‌ای
2) تا من برسم تو این کار را تمام کرده خواهی بود ‌

2) Allows for uncertainty which is the nature of ‘future’. On the contrary 1) states with certainty that the task will have been completed. 

Although 1) is the accepted way in modern Persian, it seems grammatically wrong as the tenure of verbs in ماضی نقلی are complete in the present time and don’t carry over to future.


----------



## farzan

To impart uncertainty to the present perfect tense used for future is a worthy thought. How about these?

تا تو برسى كار را تمام كرده ام
تا تو برسى كار را تمام كرده باشم
تا تو برسى كار را تمام خواهم كرد
تا تو برسى كار را تمام خواهم كردن 

All of them have the benefit of sounding natural.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thanks farzan,

These two are mirror image of one another except for time:
تا من برسم تو این کار را تمام کرده خواهی بود ‌  Two actions both in the future, neither is certain to happen ([imparting] uncertainty is in the construction)
تو که رسیدی من کار را تمام کرده بودم   Two actions both in the past, one happened (کرده بودم) before the other (رسیدی).

Also if  we change
بزودی کلکشان کنده خواهد شد
to
بزودی کلکشا ن کنده است (please note this is a  ماضی نقلی)
Do we loose anything? I'd say yes, you'd only say the second one when the event is imminent.




farzan said:


> تا تو برسى كار را تمام كرده ام


This style تا تو برسى كار را تمام كرده ام is currently being used for تا من برسم تو این کار را تمام کرده خواهی بود ‌I am questioning its correctness, for this or any purpose, despite its current use.



farzan said:


> تا تو برسى كار را تمام كرده باشم


This is not the same and it needs شاید or  باید



farzan said:


> تا تو برسى كار را تمام خواهم كرد


برسى is uncertain but تمام خواهم كرد sounds very certain



farzan said:


> تا تو برسى كار را تمام خواهم كردن


I don't understand this one.


----------



## farzan

I don’t know how the last one got in there! It must be all those old texts I’ve been reading! Just wanted an excuse to keep the ‘will’ word. Never mind!


----------



## Qureshpor

I have found this in an Iranian paper.

ماده 10 - عمل حراج باید با حضور هیأت موضوع قانون و یا نمایندگان منتخب هیأت که
در بنادر و گمرکات تعیین می‌شوند صورت گیرد شرح هر قسمت از‌کالایی که مستقلاً حراج
می‌شود باید در صورت‌مجلس جداگانه که در چهار نسخه تنظیم و حاکی از تمام مشخصات
کالای فروش* رفته خواهد بود*

Is it used in the sense "will have gone"? 
​


----------



## mannoushka

“Foroush-rafte” as one word. Not the same thing.


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> “Foroush-rafte” as one word. Not the same thing.


Thank you. I also had doubts. Another one was دست رفته خواهد بود, which I presume is also no good.


----------



## mannoushka

Yes, I think so, too. It is probably ازدست‌رفته, all as one adjective.


----------

