# Classical Persian: The significance of the particle "mar" مر



## Qureshpor

On occasions, in Classical Persian poetry one comes across the particle "mar", especially before "raa" but not always. What exactly does it mean?

Hamd-i-be-Had mar rasuul-i-paak raa
aan kih iimaan daad musht-i-Khaak raa

'Attar


----------



## searcher123

You can found the full answer at *this link*.


----------



## IMANAKBARI

QURESHPOR said:


> On occasions, in Classical Persian poetry one comes across the particle "mar", especially before "raa" but not always. What exactly does it mean?
> 
> Hamd-i-be-Had mar rasuul-i-paak raa
> aan kih iimaan daad musht-i-Khaak raa
> 
> 'Attar



Rasuul ?!!!!! 
Are you sure ?!! it's Khoda

حمد بی حد آن خدای پاک را ........  آنکه ایمان داد _مشتی خاک را_
Hamde bi had an khodaye pak ra
Anke iman dad moshti khak ra

عطار نیشابوری


----------



## searcher123

Very interesting! This couplet is printed in my book as follow:

آفريـــــــن جــان آفريـــــــن پـاك را​ آنكه جان بخشيد و ايمان خاك را


----------



## IMANAKBARI

searcher123 said:


> Very interesting! This couplet is printed in my book as follow:
> 
> آفريـــــــن جــان آفريـــــــن پـاك را​ آنكه جان بخشيد و ايمان خاك را



Yes, very interesting
Perhaps it's an other couplet of Attar in her poem ?!


----------



## Qureshpor

IMANAKBARI said:


> Rasuul ?!!!!!
> Are you sure ?!! it's Khoda
> 
> حمد بی حد آن خدای پاک را ........  آنکه ایمان داد _مشتی خاک را_
> Hamde bi had an khodaye pak ra
> Anke iman dad moshti khak ra
> 
> عطار نیشابوری



I have to admit that I did not pay too much attention to the couplet's significance. Your query does indeed make sense because "Hamd" is for God alone. I can not remember where I copied the shi'r from.

Having said all this, I am not sure if it is "mushte Khaak". I think, it is with an izaafat. Is "mushte Khaak" grammatically correct? As a Persian speaker, what does "mar" mean to you?


----------



## IMANAKBARI

Mushte khak is correct !

Hamd-i-be-Had mar rasuul-i-paak raa
aan kih iimaan daad musht-i-Khaak raa

Mar have not any sens for me !! your couplet is not correct with mar but with An آن is correct !
and, the couplet original is

آفريـــــــن جــان آفريـــــــن پـاك را​ آنكه جان بخشيد و ايمان خاك را

As told Searcher 123


----------



## Qureshpor

IMANAKBARI said:


> Mushte khak is correct !
> 
> Hamd-i-be-Had mar rasuul-i-paak raa
> aan kih iimaan daad musht-i-Khaak raa
> 
> Mar have not any sens for me !! your couplet is not correct with mar but with An آن is correct !
> and, the couplet original is
> 
> آفريـــــــن جــان آفريـــــــن پـاك را​ آنكه جان بخشيد و ايمان خاك را
> 
> As told Searcher 123



"mar" is definitely a Classical Persian word. It appears that you know more French than Persian" The couplet that you are quoting is a different one altogether.


----------



## panjabigator

*Moderator note:

Please restrict your conversation/contributions to the question articulated in the first post. Off topic posts will be (retroactively) deleted.

Panjabigator
*


----------



## Qureshpor

Can anyone else please contribute as to what their understanding is of the word "mar" in Classical Persian?


----------



## fdb

_mar …. r__ā_ is frequently used in early New Persian (and occasionally in later texts emulating an archaic style) to indicate the direct or indirect object. _mar_ comes before the object and _r__ā_ after it. But after a while it went out of usage and _mar_ began to be used on its own (without _r__ā_) as a purely decorative element in archaicising style.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ So, fdb, are you suggesting that the word "mar" itself did not have any particular meaning. It was just a tool or a device to indicate the direct/indirect object? I don't think I remember seeing it without raa.


----------



## fdb

Pleonastic _mar_ (without a following _r__ā_) is fairly common. There are examples in Wollf’s _Glossar_ and Lazard’s _Langue_ (see the index).


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> Pleonastic _mar_ (without a following _r__ā_) is fairly common. There are examples in Wollf’s _Glossar_ and Lazard’s _Langue_ (see the index).


Thank you. Are these two books available online by any chance?

'Attar's Pand Naamah begins with this line..

Hamd-i-be-Hadd mar xudaa-i-paak raa
aan kih iimaaN daad musht-i-xaak raa

The Urdu translator of this couplet equates "mar" with "hii" which you might know is an emphasizing particle.

(be-shumaar ta3riif Allah ta3aalaa hii ke liye hai, jis ne insaan ko iimaan kii daulat 3ataa farmaa'ii)

vuh zaraa3at meN bhii maahir nahiiN, zaraa3at *hii* meN maahir hai!

He is not an expert in agriculture as well but he is an expert in agriculture *only*!

In other places Urdu translators equate "mar" with the word "xaass". Have you read any where, where this meaning is given for the particle "mar"?


----------



## fdb

The particle _mar_ is (as explained above) archaic Persian. By the time Persian works got translated into Urdu nobody knew what it meant anymore. The translators are just guessing.


----------



## Qureshpor

_Here is the definition from Steingass.
_
مر _mar,_a particle placed before the genitive, dative, or accusative of Persian nouns, mostly pleonastically, but sometimes used in a restrictive sense, de- noting "to the exclusion of any other"; before the nominative it emphasizes, as: _mar ān,_ That very person or thing; *mar* _jān,


_


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

حمد بی حد مر خدای پاک را آنکہ ایمان داد مشتِ خاک را

Could somebody tell me what on earth مر is and how it's pronounced? Thanks!


----------



## fdb

It is pronounced mar. In early New Persian you can put مر before a noun and را after it to mark the indirect object (less commonly the direct object).


----------



## soheil1

It is redundant- You can ignore it. It is just for the propoe of making rhithma.


----------



## fdb

It is used in early prose as well.


----------



## soheil1

I have not encountered such a thing yet


----------



## fdb

You should read more books. 
Start with tārīkh i Bayḥaqī.


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

Oh, I see.


----------



## marrish

For your information - a previous, informative thread is here about the very topic:

Classical Persian: The significance of the particle "mar"

_Moderator's note: threads have been merged._


----------



## fdb

marrish said:


> For your information - a previous, informative thread is here about the very topic:
> 
> Classical Persian: The significance of the particle "mar"



Indeed, where pretty much everything is said that can be said on the subject. 

By the way: modern research regards the Pandnāma as pseudo-ʻAṭṭār.


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

The Pandnama? What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## fdb

The verse that you quoted in no. 1 is the opening line of the Pandnāma.


----------



## Stranger_

You might like this _beyt_ from Maulana which has مر in it:

مر مرا تقلیدشان بر باد داد
که دو صد لعنت بر آن تقلید باد

An Urdu translation attempt:

mujhe unkii taqliid ne bar baad de diyaa
la'nat ho us taqliid par, do so bar la'nat ho

From the famous story خر برفت و خر برفت و خر برفت


----------



## marrish

^ ! برباد کر دیا bar baad _kar_ diyaa, دو سَو بار _do sau baar_. And, if we think that مر "mar" added some meaning or emphasis to the following noun, we can say مجھی کو *mujhii ko*.


----------



## PersoLatin

Until Stranger_'s post #12, I'd only seen the following version of this beyt:
"خلق را تقليدشان بر باد داد /  اى دوصد لعنت بر اين تقليد باد which no doubt is not the original.

So is مر مرا تقليدشان بر باد داد equivalent to من را تقليد از آنها بر باد داد ?


----------



## Stranger_

> ^ ! برباد کر دیا bar baad _kar_ diyaa, دو سَو بار _do sau baar_. And, if we think that مر "mar" added some meaning or emphasis to the following noun, we can say مجھی کو *mujhii ko*.


Thank you for the corrections bro. 



> So is مر مرا تقليدشان بر باد داد equivalent to من را تقليد از آنها بر باد داد ?


Yes. 

"The act of imitating them got me ruined."


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

متشکرم


----------



## Qureshpor

fdb said:


> It is used in early prose as well.


Indeed. If one takes a look at زاد المسافرین by Nasir Khusrau (1004-1088), the first three pages have مر at least fifteen times!


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

مر مرا تقلیدشان بر باد داد
یا 
شراب داد خدا *مر مرا* تو را سرکا
چو قسمتست چه جنگست *مر مرا* و تو را

Is مر مرا correct from grammar point of view?


----------



## PersoLatin

Yes as مر مرا (meaning “for me”) is the same as مر من را which follows the rule, i.e. the same as مرو را or مر آن را. and of course مر تو را



Eastern Ludicrous Writer said:


> شراب داد خدا *مر مرا* تو را سرکا


Interesting as مر can be considered as shared between مرا & تو را.

I take it سرکا is the same as سرکه “vinegar”


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

PersoLatin said:


> مر مرا (meaning “for me”) is the same as مر من را


I do not think so, as:
 مر + object+ را is the structure of making an object 
مر حسین را فرمودکه سخن گزیده گو
مر حسین را  and now we convert حسین to an object in our sentence.
as I know we cannot use objective pronoun. I cannot remember any of same structure in any other books! I appreciate if anybody knows any sample and share with us.



PersoLatin said:


> I take it سرکا is the same as سرکه “vinegar”


Yes he means vinegar
but in this poem again he try to explain the bondage of classic poem.

شراب داد خدا مر مرا تو را سرکا
چو قسمتست چه جنگست مر مرا و تو را

.....
حقم نداد غمی جز که قافیه طلبی
ز بهر شعر و از آن هم خلاص داد مرا
بگیر و پاره کن این شعر را چو شعر کهن
که فارغست معانی ز حرف و باد و هوا


----------



## PersoLatin

Eastern Ludicrous Writer said:


> I do not think so, as:
> مر + object+ را is the structure of making an object


This is baffling me, you tell me & we all believe مرا is short for من را so why isn’t مر مرا not the same as مر من را and therefore the same as مرو را or مر تو را ????

QUOTE="Eastern Ludicrous Writer, post: 18560033, member: 879043"]
شراب داد خدا مر مرا تو را سرکا
[/QUOTE]خدا شراب داد برای من  و سرکه برای تو


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

PersoLatin said:


> This is baffling me, you tell me & we all believe مرا


I don't want to confuse you. This form is a little weird from what I know as grammar rules. As I know, we cannot use objective words and مرا is objective. So this question came to my mind is مر مرا is correct or not? I have never seen in any books, only عطار  I think use it one time. so I requested, if anybody knows any sample of مر مرا put it here.



PersoLatin said:


> خدا شراب داد برای من و سرکه برای تو


why using unnatural sound of برای  as we can say:
شراب را خدا به من داد و به تو سرکه را
 اگر تقدیر چنین رقم خورده، چه حاجت به نزاع من و تو است


----------



## PersoLatin

Eastern Ludicrous Writer said:


> I don't want to confuse you.


I am only baffled why you make a distinction between  مر مرا and  مرو را or مر تو را  when you agree مرا is the shortened/contracted form of من را.



PersoLatin said:


> خدا شراب داد برای من و سرکه برای تو


I didn't attempt to produce a flowing translation but to make a point.


----------



## PersoLatin

Eastern Ludicrous Writer said:


> only عطار I think use it one time. so I requested, if anybody knows any sample of مر مرا put it here.


At least three by Ferdosi (below), plus two discussed in this thread already: شراب داد خدا *مر مرا* تو را سرکا and *مر مرا* تقلیدشان بر باد داد 
بگو *مر مرا* تا که بودم پدر
کیم من ز تخم کدامین گهر

چو تو نیست اندر جهان هیچ کس
جهاندار دانش ترا داد و بس
ببایدت کردن ز اختر شمار
بگویی همی *مر مرا* روی کار

چو کار جهان *مر مرا *گشت راست
فزون شد زمین زندگانی بکاست


----------



## Eastern Ludicrous Writer

PersoLatin said:


> At least three by Ferdosi (below)


OH! I see! thanks! yes عطار also used it.


----------

