# Persian: for



## Alijsh

What dear Bienvenidos wrote here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=2467090 interested me to create a separate thread to discuss about it.

Can you please write about "for" in your Persian dialect. In colloquial Persian of Tehran we have "vâse" and almost never use "barâ".

I add the two Iranian forms to what Bienvenidos wrote:

bara-ma | barâm | vâsam | for me
bara-tu [?] | barât | vâsat | for you (informal)
bara-u | barâsh | vâsash | for him/her
bara-mâ | barâmun| vâsamun | for us
bara-šomâ | barâtun | vâsatun | for you all
bara-wâ | barâshun | vâsashun | for them


[?] I guess it must be so. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

***
*barâye* is *vâseye* e.g. barâye chi -> vâseye chi


----------



## Bleet

"Baraye" the formal kind of "for"... Sort of. And Vareye is pronnounced as Baseye just so you know.


----------



## Derakhshan

The most salient word for 'for' in southern Iran would be _si._ I wonder if this is cognate with Tehrani _vaase_?

_sim_ | for me
_sit_ | for you
_sish_ | for him/her
_simun_ | for us
_situn_ | for you (pl.)
_sishun_ | for them
_siche?_ | for what?

I know a few more dialects...

Evaz, Fars: _*se*_

_mase
tase
shase
maase
taase
shaase
seche?_

Lar, Fars: *bar
*
_mazbar
tazbar
shazbar
maazbar
taazbar
shaazbar
barche?_


----------



## ali likes the stars

Derakhshan said:


> _sim_ | for me
> _sit_ | for you
> _sish_ | for him/her
> _simun_ | for us
> _situn_ | for you (pl.)
> _sishun_ | for them
> _siche?_ | for what?



Is it possible that is is the shortened versin of _vAse _?

vAse-ye to | vAsat | (va)sit
etc...


----------



## PersoLatin

ali likes the stars said:


> Is it possible that is is the shortened versin of _vAse _?
> 
> vAse-ye to | vAsat | (va)sit
> etc..


Yes, I am sure you are right.



Derakhshan said:


> The most salient word for 'for' in southern Iran would be _si._ I wonder if this is cognate with Tehrani _vaase_?


I believe the Tehrâni واسه /vâsé (vâsam, vâsat... ) is the changed form of ba su/besuبه سو/بسو, modern bésu/bé su.  So vasu/وسو and then vâsé/واسه.

With su/سو meaning, direction, side.

I think the same can be said about the following two but not the third one with _mazbar, tazbar... _


Derakhshan said:


> _sim_ | for me
> _sit_ | for you
> _sish_ | for him/her
> _simun_ | for us
> _situn_ | for you (pl.)
> _sishun_ | for them
> _siche?_ | for what?
> 
> I know a few more dialects...
> 
> Evaz, Fars: _*se*_
> 
> _mase
> tase
> shase
> maase
> taase
> shaase
> seche?_


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> I believe the Tehrâni واسه /vâsé (vâsam, vâsat... ) is the changed form of ba su/besuبه سو/بسو, modern bésu/bé su.  So vasu/وسو and then vâsé/واسه.
> 
> With su/سو meaning, direction, side.


The fact that in southern dialects (especially in Khuzestan and Bushehr) _*u*_ often becomes *i* might lends some credence to your theory.

_bud_ > _bid
xun_ > _xin
pul _> _pil_
And perhaps,
_su_ > _si_


> I think the same can be said about the following two but not the third one with _mazbar, tazbar... _


It's derived from بر one of the meanings of which is 'upon'. _barche_ > 'upon what (reason)'. Common in Larestani dialects but not sure about elsewhere.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> The fact that in southern dialects (especially in Khuzestan and Bushehr) _*u*_ often becomes *i* might lends* some credence to your theory*.


See Dehkhoda



Derakhshan said:


> It's derived from *بر* one of the meanings of which is 'upon'. _barche_ > '*upon* what (reason)'.


Could it not have been  from برا/for (or برای) the same as in Persian, maybe _mazbar was 'ma az _barâ' same as 'az barâ man' then shortened to mazbar (از برای من -> من از بر)?


----------



## Derakhshan

I see, so it's confirmed then.


PersoLatin said:


> Could it not have been  from برا/for (or برای) the same as in Persian? Maybe _mazbar was '_az barâ man' -> man az barâ ->  mazbar (از برای من -> من از بر).


I would break mazbar down into _m_ - _a_ - _z_ - _bar

*m*_: pronominal enclitic, which in Larestani attaches to the front of a word
*a*: preposition in Larestani which is equivalent to Persian به
*z*: not sure, this doesn't occur in other prepositions as I'll show below
*bar*: as I explained above, 'upon'

Consider that in Classical Persian, you had this kind of structure being used:
به راه بر _*be raah bar* _'upon the road'
which in Modern Persian would be simply بر راه

So *mazbar* might be analogous to saying
به من بر
meaning,
بر من

Most prepositions + pronouns in Larestani form in this way:

*mapesh* = پیشم
*mazir* = زیرم
*mapahlu* = پهلوم  (not sure if this is used as a preposition in standard Persian)

And possibly equivalent to saying in Classical Persian:

به من پیش
به من زیر
به من پهلو

But these are just my musings.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> _*m*_: pronominal enclitic, which in Larestani attaches to the front of a word
> *a*: preposition in Larestani which is equivalent to Persian به
> *z: not sure, this doesn't occur in other prepositions as I'll show below
> bar*: as I explained above, 'upon'


Ok, in Larestani, how would you say از پیشم or از پهلوم or از زیرم, when پیشم is مپیش/mapiŝ please?



Derakhshan said:


> Consider that in Classical Persian, you had this kind of structure being used:
> به راه بر _*be raah bar* _'upon the road'
> which in Modern Persian would be simply بر راه
> 
> So *mazbar* might be analogous to saying
> به من بر
> meaning,
> بر من


Can you give, or point me to some examples of this please.


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> Ok, in Larestani, how would you say از پیشم or از پهلوم or از زیرم, when پیشم is مپیش/mapiŝ please?


Here's the thing I've noticed,

When we say it alone, it's formed as in Persian, i.e.:

_az peshe xom_ = از پیش خودم
_az zirom_ = از زیرم
_az pahlum_ = از پهلوم

*However,* when paired with a verb, it's formed as such:

'Take it from under him' = *shaz-zir* _vaasi_
'Take it from beside him' = *shazpahlu* _vaasi_
[_vaasi_ from _vaaseda_ 'to take', cf. Persian ستدن]


> Can you give, or point me to some examples of this please.


بس نامور به زیر زمین دفن کرده‌اند
کز هستیش *به روی زمین بر* نشان نماند
Many a famous one have they buried beneath the earth, of whose existence no trace remains *on* the face of the earth.
-Saadi

که رفتن *به راه بر* تواند همی
...so that he could walk *on* the road.
-Ferdosi


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> 'Take it from under him' = *shaz-zir* _vaasi_
> 'Take it from beside him' = *shazpahlu* _vaasi_


So the Persian for:
'Take it from under him' = *shaz-zir* _vaasi_
is:
از زیرش بردار_/az zireŝ bardâr
_
I am going to put aside the bar/بر and barâ/برا argument, and looking at this in a formulaic way, I can't see why _shaz-zir_ can mean _az zireŝ_ but _shazbar_ can't mean _az baresh_.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> که رفتن *به راه بر* تواند همی
> ...so that he could walk *on* the road.
> -Ferdosi


I am sure this is the correct version: که رفتن به راه *برتواند *همی i.e. بر is a verbal prefix for تواند so برتواند which here means بتواند
I will give you my take of what it means later as we will have too many things to talk discuss.



Derakhshan said:


> بس نامور به زیر زمین دفن کرده‌اند
> کز هستیش *به روی زمین بر* نشان نماند


I believe the same goes for this, this time بر is part of نماند i.e. برنماند


----------



## Derakhshan

> I can't see why _shaz-zir_ can mean _az zireŝ_ but _shazbar_ can't mean _az baresh_.


Because _shazbar_ is used to mean _barash _and not _az barash. 
_
'Bring it for him'
_osh-biyaa shazbar_ = بیارش واسش/_biyaaresh vaasash_

As you can see, there is no از. So why is it _shazbar _and not _shabar_? I don't know. Maybe it's some grammatical feature, or an extra word I don't know about, or a contraction of something. There isn't any grammar I can read or refer to about my language, sadly. All I can do is derive the grammar myself, and my information may not be correct/complete of course.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> As you can see, there is no از. So why is it _shazbar _and not _shabar_?


But there's in _sha*z*bar_ which to me sounds very much like _az barâŝ _or _vâsaŝ_.

Could you please provide a few examples of use of 'a' as preposition in Larestani (equivalent to Persian به)
_


Derakhshan said:



*m*: pronominal enclitic, which in Larestani attaches to the front of a word
*a*: preposition in Larestani which is equivalent to Persian به
*z*: not sure, this doesn't occur in other prepositions as I'll show below
*bar*: as I explained above, 'upon'
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> But there's in _sha*z*bar_ which to me sounds very much like _az barâŝ _or _vâsaŝ_.


What I meant is that there is no از in بیارش واسش, and the meaning of the sentence itself requires no از. So while it sounds like _az baraash_/_vaasash_, it is not used like _az baraash_/_vaasash_.


> Could you please provide a few examples of use of 'a' as preposition in Larestani (equivalent to Persian به)


Actually now that I think about it there are two prepositions:

*va*: this is the true equivalent to Persian به, from MP _pad_
*a*: this might be from the MP directional preposition *ō
*
Examples of *va*:
_*va* changaal axorom_ 'I eat with a fork'
_*va* faarsi neveshte_ 'it's written in Persian'

Examples of *a*:
_*a* kaar e_ 'he's at work'
_sh-*a* nilufar got_ 'he told Nilufar'
_*a* ko chu?_ 'Where did he go?'
_chu *a* xuna-y ali_ 'he went to Ali's house'
_raftom sh-*a*-pesh_ 'I went over to him'


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> _sh-*a* nilufar got_ 'he told Nilufar'
> _*a* ko chu?_ 'Where did he go?'


Thank you.
_got_ (said/told) is interesting, I suppose _go_ must be its present stem (PrS), in Persian PrS is _gu _but past stem _goft,_ has an extra /_f_/ in it, whereas in _ŝodan _the PrS is _ŝo _and past stem is _ŝod_ i.e. the same as the Larestani got.

Also why does _chu_ mean _went_, shouldn't be _chud _or_ chod_?



Derakhshan said:


> _*va* changaal axorom_ 'I eat with a fork'
> _*va* faarsi neveshte_ 'it's written in Persian'


Isn't _*va* changaal_ the same as vâ/bâ ĉangâl rather than bé ĉangâl?


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you.
> _got_ (said/told) is interesting, I suppose _go_ must be its present stem (PrS), in Persian PrS is _gu _but past stem _goft,_ has an extra /_f_/ in it, whereas in _ŝodan _the PrS is _ŝo _and past stem is _ŝod_ i.e. the same as the Larestani got.


Present stem is just _g-_ as in spoken Persian.


> Also why does _chu_ mean _went_, shouldn't be _chud _or_ chod_?


It's just an irregularity, which usually occurs in the 3rd person singular of some verbs. E.g. _axa _'s/he eats' instead of the expected _axore_.


> Isn't _*va* changaal_ the same as vâ/bâ ĉangâl rather than bé ĉangâl?


I think this was explained in this thread:
Persian: historical sound changes

Treaty says: "For example, in Shahname, a person usually hits another person به a weapon not با it."

So in the same way, I think the original way of saying it in Persian would be به چنگال, not با چنگال.

Besides, we already have _baa_ in Larestani and it's not used in this situation.


----------



## Derakhshan

Derakhshan said:


> Lar, Fars:
> 
> _mazbar
> tazbar
> shazbar
> maazbar
> taazbar
> shaazbar_


I think I've finally found the source of -_azbar_ in Lari!

Early Judaeo-Persian texts had a preposition _azmar_ "for, for the sake of" (which I think is a univerbation of _az mar_).

This wouldn't surprise me if it were the source as Lar was a major Jewish center of Iran in past centuries.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> I think I've finally found the source of -_azbar_ in Lari!
> 
> Early Judaeo-Persian texts had a preposition _azmar_ "for, for the sake of" (which I think is a univerbation of _az mar_).
> 
> This wouldn't surprise me if it were the source as Lar was a major Jewish center of Iran in past centuries.


Why not the simpler and more intuitive explanation you gave below, which will be comprehensible even to me, in the right context?



Derakhshan said:


> I would break mazbar down into _m_ - _a_ - _z_ - _bar
> 
> *m*_: pronominal enclitic, which in Larestani attaches to the front of a word
> *a*: preposition in Larestani which is equivalent to Persian به
> *z*: not sure, this doesn't occur in other prepositions as I'll show below
> *bar*: as I explained above, 'upon'


----------



## Derakhshan

Because the -_z_- was unexplained, and /m/ > /b/ isn't a rare change (/m/ denasalizing to its corresponding voiced oral stop).

But who knows, this is all speculation.


----------



## Derakhshan

Ok... I found a better explanation.

از بهرِ *az bahre* is used in old writings to mean برای.

e.g.
مال از بهرِ آسایشِ عمرست نه عمر از بهر گرد کردن مال
گلستان-

 I think that's pretty convincing. Case closed.


----------



## PersoLatin

^ I suggested this in post #6


PersoLatin said:


> Could it not have been from برا/for (or برای) the same as in Persian, maybe _mazbar was 'ma az _barâ' same as 'az barâ man' then shortened to mazbar (از برای من -> من از بر)?


----------



## Derakhshan

^ بهر is different from برا though...

I've realized that in our (and other) dialects that use _bar-e_ for برای, we are actually saying بهرِ... not بر "upon" like I always thought.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> بهر is different from برا though


I agree but I didn't mention بهر.

I said mazbar = _m_ _az_ _bar_ re-arranged _az_ _bar(e)_ _man_ where _bar_ is either the shortened form of _barâ/_برا or an equivalent Lari version of it. The difference, I think, is you believe _bar_ is unrelated to _barâ _and that it is the same as _bar_ meaning 'side'.


----------



## Derakhshan

It didn't make sense to me as برا. But is بهر the same as بر "side"? I don't think so. بهر is the older MP form of برخ (which metathesized from بهر) and means "part, portion". But one of its meanings in NP is برای (often with از, like in my Golestân quote above).


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> It didn't make sense to me as برا. But is بهر the same as بر "side"?


I am not saying بهر the same as بر "side" at all, I thought you might have been saying that, but let's leave it as it is getting confusing 



Derakhshan said:


> Ok... I found a better explanation.
> 
> از بهرِ *az bahre* is used in old writings to mean برای.
> 
> e.g.
> مال از بهرِ آسایشِ عمرست نه عمر از بهر گرد کردن مال
> گلستان-
> 
> I think that's pretty convincing. Case closed.


----------

