# Persian: Causative verbs



## Qureshpor

The background to this thread is aisha93's post.


aisha93 said:


> [...] Can you tell me how to say the following in Persian?
> 
> هذا حصان هائج، إن رَكِبْتَهُ سَيُسْقِطُكَ من على ظهره
> 
> This is a wild horse, if you ride it, it will make you fall off/down.[...]



Although I presented what appeared to me a more idiomatic translation by using the verb "to throw", the Arabic here, strictly speaking, is equivalent to "it will cause/make you fall". This, in my humble opinion, is not the same as "it will throw you", the "it" of course being the wild horse. I do appreciate that "andaaxtan" may carry more than just the meaning of "to throw".

In the older language, it appears to me that causative verbs were common in use, e.g.

raftan > ravaandan > raandan

shikastan > shikanaandan/shikaaniidan

aamoxtan > aamozaandan/aamozaaniidan

nishastan > nishaandan etc

Taking the example of "shikastan", I think the causative is bypassed by using raa.

finjaan shikast = The cup broke.

uu finjaan-raa shikast = He/She/It broke the cup.

In both Persian and English the word "shikast/broke" does not hint at causation. In Urdu, the verb for "uftaadan" is "girnaa" and for "uftaaniidan" it is "giraanaa". You will notice a change. For "andaaxtan", the Urdu verb is "phaiNknaa", which as you can see bears no resemblance to either of them.

If one wanted to use the verb "uftaadan" in aisha93's sentence, what structure could one employ. What structures are employed within Modern Persian to deal with the concept of causative verbs?

Thanking you all in advance.

PS: I am aware that even "uftaadan" does n't just mean "to fall".


----------



## Faylasoof

Qureshpor said:


> The background to this thread is aisha93's post.
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *aisha93*
> 
> [...] Can you tell me how to say the following in Persian?
> 
> هذا حصان هائج، إن رَكِبْتَهُ سَيُسْقِطُكَ من على ظهره
> 
> This is a wild horse, if you ride it, it will make you fall off/down.[...]
> 
> 
> 
> Although I presented what appeared to me a more idiomatic translation by using the verb "to throw", the Arabic here, strictly speaking, is equivalent to "it will cause/make you fall". This, in my humble opinion, is not the same as "it will throw you", the "it" of course being the wild horse. I do appreciate that "andaaxtan" may carry more than just the meaning of "to throw".
> 
> In the older language, it appears to me that causative verbs were common in use, e.g.
> 
> raftan > ravaandan > raandan
> 
> shikastan > shikanaandan/shikaaniidan
> 
> aamoxtan > aamozaandan/aamozaaniidan
> 
> nishastan > nishaandan etc
> 
> Taking the example of "shikastan", I think the causative is bypassed by using raa.
> 
> finjaan shikast = The cup broke
> 
> uu finjaan-raa shikast = He/She/It broke the cup.
> 
> In noth Persian and English the word "shiksat/broke" does not hint at causation. In Urdu, the verb for "uftaadan" is "girnaa" and for "uftaaniidan" it is "giraanaa". You will notice a change. For "andaaxtan", the Urdu verb is "phaiNknaa", which as you can see bears no resemblance to either of them.
> 
> If one wanted to use the verb "uftaadan" in aisha93's sentence, what structure could one employ. What structures are employed within Modern Persian to deal with the concept of causative verbs?
> 
> Thanking you all in advance.
> 
> PS: I am aware that even "uftaadan" does n't just mean "to fall".
Click to expand...

 If instead of using _andaaxtan_ one would wish to use the causative of _uftaadan_ then, Classically speaking at least, the causative would be افتاندن _uftaandan_, but I'm not sure if it is used this way:
_unhaa maraa uftaandand _/ _unaa mano uftaandand_

BTW, I just found this very useful article about this topic:
http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/cln/Sp 08 pdf/Lofti-Causative Constructions.pdf

Regarding horses and riders there is a very nice quadriliteral Arabic verb : جَندَلَ _jandala_ = to cause to dismount / unhorse someone. But I think it was used only between riders, i.e. one rider unhorsing another, rather than the horse throwing off the rider. I wonder what would be preferred in Modern Persian for either of these two ideas: _andaaxtan_ or _afgandan_ (!?) or some other verb? Again a causative verb is what we need.


----------



## Treaty

Bypassing by direct or indirect object is common for some verbs (like _āmuxtan_, _shekastan_, _poxtan_). The verbs with -_ān _suffix are still used widely but I doubt any new verbs have been constructed recently. For causative notion of _oftādan_, we use other verbs like _andāxtan, part kardan _(to throw) and _rahā kardan_ (to release), depending how active or strong the causation is. 

Another structure is to use _oftādan _in an objective clause of verbs like _gozāshtan _(to allow):
_gozāshtam ke bioftad_ = I let it fall.

A more active form is to use an expression like _kāri kardan _or _bā'es shodan_(to cause):
_kāri kardam ke bioftad _= I make it fall.

For the horse example _andāxtan _is the best I can think of.


----------



## Qureshpor

Treaty said:


> [...] A more active form is to use an expression like _kāri kardan _or _bā'es shodan_(to cause):
> _kāri kardam ke bioftad _= I make it fall.
> 
> For the horse example _andāxtan _is the best I can think of.


Thank you, Treaty. I have n't come across this structure before. I presume you meant to write, "I made it fall"? Why can't the same construction be applied for an animal agent?


----------



## Treaty

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you, Treaty. I have n't come across this structure before. I presume you meant to write, "I made it fall"? Why can't the same construction be applied for an animal agent?



Sorry, it should have been "made". 

You can use it for animals if you somehow think they did it on purpose. You may say:

_ān asb chenān parīd ke oft*ād*am = _The horse jumped so that I fell (~ the sentence does not say about the intention)

_ān asb chenān par__ī__d ke *bi*__o__ftam = _ The horse jumped so to make me fall (~ the horse did it intentionally though the sentence does not say whether I fell or not). 

Note the tense of the verb _oftādan _in the two sentences. On the other hand, although _andāxtan _implies an active role in the incidence but it doesn't necessarily imply intention.


----------



## Qureshpor

It seems to me that the alternative causative constructions provided so far are not true causatives. I wonder if the following structure would be acceptable, which is still not a true causative!

iin asb vaHshii ast. agar savaarash shaviid, shumaa-raa *uftaadeh xvaahad kard*

or....*uftaadeh mii-kunad*?

Here the past participle is being treated as an adjective. The passive could be written as

uu az asb-i-vaHshii uftaadeh kardeh shud.

This is on the pattern of...

aab sard ast > uu aab raa garm kard (aab garm kardeh shud) > aab garm shud > aab garm ast.


----------



## Qureshpor

Faylasoof said:


> If instead of using _andaaxtan_ one would wish to use the causative of _uftaadan_ then, Classically speaking at least, the causative would be افتاندن _uftaandan_, but I'm not sure if it is used this way:
> _unhaa maraa uftaandand _/ _unaa mano uftaandand_
> 
> BTW, I just found this very useful article about this topic:
> http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/cln/Sp 08 pdf/Lofti-Causative Constructions.pdf
> 
> Regarding horses and riders there is a very nice quadriliteral Arabic verb : جَندَلَ _jandala_ = to cause to dismount / unhorse someone. But I think it was used only between riders, i.e. one rider unhorsing another, rather than the horse throwing off the rider. I wonder what would be preferred in Modern Persian for either of these two ideas: _andaaxtan_ or _afgandan_ (!?) or some other verb? Again a causative verb is what we need.


Faylasoof SaaHib, thank you for the link. I have skimmed through it and it seems that the classical type of causative is used more in a satirical sense than as a proper literary form. For afgandan, you know the Urdu translation is "pachhaaRnaa", one of its meanings being "niiche giraanaa". With this in mind, this verb seemingly should be the perfect choice. We do have "sher-afgan", don't we?

iin asb vaHshii ast. agar savaarash shaviid, shumaa raa xvaahad afgand/mii-afganad

(It's another matter that in Modern Persian the verb is afkandan and not afgandan)


----------



## Derakhshan

Qureshpor said:


> raftan > ravaandan > raandan
> 
> shikastan > shikanaandan/shikaaniidan
> 
> nishastan > nishaandan etc


I don't believe the ان -_ân_- in these verbs is the causative morpheme, but is actually a part of the root verb.

I explained why for نشاندن in my last posts here:
Etymology of Persian نشان/nešân(sign, pointer)

راندن is not رواندن, it's from MP _rānēnīdan_, that -_ēnīdan_ is the MP causative suffix but the _rān_- part is the root verb.

The Iranian root of both شکستن and شکاندن is *_skand_, and apparently Middle Persian had a verb _škandan_, although I'm having trouble finding any info on it. But it is present in the title of this Middle Persian text: ŠKAND GUMĀNĪG WIZĀR – Encyclopaedia Iranica
I think maybe شکاندن < MP _škandan_ and was later reanalyzed as being the causative of شکستن. I would appreciate if someone could clarify this.

This explains why these three verbs are an exception to the rule of causative formation in Persian. If they were following the rule, we should have had:
رواندن
نشیناندن
شکناندن


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> راندن is not رواندن, it's from MP _rānēnīdan_, that -_ēnīdan_ is the MP causative suffix but the _rān_- part is the root verb.


راندن is the causative of رفتن, meaning 'to make go', from  رو+ اندن where و has disappeared over time



Derakhshan said:


> The Iranian root of both شکستن and شکاندن is *_skand_, and apparently Middle Persian had a verb _škandan_


The root for both شکستن and شکاندن is *_skan _not_ *skand_



Derakhshan said:


> نشیناندن


نشاندن is the causative form for نشستن


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> شکناندن


You can: make some/one/thing to go & make someone to sit but شکستن can't have a causative since 'to  make something break' is the same as 'to break something' and شکناندن is simply the same as شکستن.


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> راندن is the causative of رفتن, meaning 'to make go', from  رو+ اندن where و has disappeared over time


This is a folk etymology. MP had _rān_- "drive" and _rānēn_- "to cause to flee" and they are from Iranian *_Har_ "to set in motion", according to Cheng. Remember the causative suffix in MP is -_*ēn*_- not -_ān_-.

Apparently, the verb رواندن also exists but راندن is not from it.


> The root for both شکستن and شکاندن is *_skan _not_ *skand_


According to Cheng it is *_skand_ "to break, cleave".


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> According to Cheng it is *_skand_ "to break, cleave".


Well unless there's a good explanation it sounds wrong. At best that is the past & not the present stem and the causative is formed by the latter.


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> شکستن can't have a causative because 'to  make break' is the same as 'to break' so شکناندن is simply the same as شکستن.


I know it is not really the causative of شکستن. But the common belief, which I've seen in many places, is that شکاندن was formed by applying the causative -_ândan_ to شکستن, which is what I'm disputing.


> نشاندن is the causative form for نشستن


It absolutely is. What I'm saying is that MP already had _nišāstan, _present stem *nišān*-, which was the causative form of _nišastan_/_nišīn_-. My argument is that نشاندن was obtained by taking the MP stem _*nišān*_- (which already existed as the present stem of _nišāstan_) and adding to it -_dan, _rather than applying the causative -_ândan _suffix to نشستن. In a similar way to how we get the verb مالیدن from the original مشتن, by taking the present stem _mâl_- and adding to it -_idan_. I'm not disputing that it _is_ the causative of نشستن.

I also still didn't get an explanation for this kind of causative formation in Middle Persian:

_nišastan_ "sit" > _nišāstan_ "set"
_hambastan_ "collapse" > _hambāstan_ "demolish"

If anyone knows more about this way of forming causatives, please share. I should probaby start a thread.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> What I'm saying is that MP already had _nišāstan, _present stem *nišān*-, which was the causative form of _nišastan_/_nišīn_-. My argument is that نشاندن was obtained by taking the MP stem _*nišān*_- (which already existed as the present stem of _nišāstan_) and adding to it -_dan, _rather than applying the causative -_ândan _suffix to نشستن.


BUT the present stem of _nišāstan _is_ *niš-* _not *nišān*_-,_ therefore نشاندن (*niš+āndan*) follows the same rules as other causative forms. In the Lori dialect *niš*_*dan* _means 'to sit' & you can see *niš- *in operation in it, and *beniš *for 'sit!'


----------



## Derakhshan

Sorry but I don't understand how the present stem of _nišāstan_ can be _niš_-.

"He sets" in MP = _*nišān*ēd_, not _*niš*ēd_ for example.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> "He sets" in MP = _*nišān*ēd_, not _*niš*ēd_ for example.


You have answered the question yourself? *niš+ān+*_ēd _(NP* نشاند/nešānd*_) _'s/he set', therefore the past tense, third person singular of the causative form _*niš**āndan*._


----------



## Derakhshan

No, that -_ēd_ is the present tense 3rd singular suffix, like NP -_ad_.

MP _nišānēd_ = NP _nešānad_ "He sets"

My whole argument is that the present stem _nišān_- hasn't changed since Middle Persian, so why should we assume that it is the result of the causative -_āndan_ suffix being applied to نشستن? Especially when considering that -_āndan_ as a causative suffix wasn't used in Middle Persian (-_ēnīdan_ was used instead)?


----------

