# Classical Persian: kardah buudah ast



## Qureshpor

What does the "kardah buudah ast" type of construction imply?

kas chih me-daanad? shaayad iz pesh iin taariiKh raa mu'ayyan kardah buudah ast. (TaariiKh-i-Baihaqii)

Qureshpor


----------



## panjabigator

Isn't it a past perfect? Is the wordمعین?

"What does anyone know? Perhaps, this had all been established after all this history."

PG


----------



## Qureshpor

panjabigator said:


> Isn't it a past perfect? Is the wordمعین?
> 
> "What does anyone know? Perhaps, this had all been established after all this history."
> 
> PG



Yes, it is mu'ayyan, the ye having a tashdiid. I am aware of the general meaning of the sentence; my main question is to do with "kardah buudah".


----------



## searcher123

كسي چه مي‌داند؟ شايد از پيش ﴿=قبلا، پيشاپيش، از قبل﴾، اين تاريخ را معيّن كرده بوده است
Who will know reality? maybe the date was defined by him formerly.


----------



## Qureshpor

searcher123 said:


> كسي چه مي‌داند؟ شايد از پيش ﴿=قبلا، پيشاپيش، از قبل﴾، اين تاريخ را معيّن كرده بوده است
> Who will know reality? maybe the date was defined by him formerly.



Thank you, but your translation incorporates passive voice (mu'ayyan kardah shud) which, to my knowledge, is not there in the original. My bugbear is the "kardah buudah" form.


----------



## searcher123

معيّن كردن or تعيين كردن is a verb that mean 'to define', 'to determine' and 'to assign'. معيّن كرده  است is the verb for using in present perfect tense. معيين كرده بوده است is the verb for using in past perfect tense.


----------



## Qureshpor

searcher123 said:


> معيّن كردن or تعيين كردن is a verb that mean 'to define', 'to determine' and 'to assign'. معيّن كرده  است is the verb for using in present perfect tense. معيين كرده بوده است is the verb for using in past perfect tense.



My understanding is that, "kardah ast" is Present Perfect

                                   "kardah buud" is Past Parfect


----------



## searcher123

I'm sorry. A word was missed by me. كرده بوده است is Past Perfect Continuous (ماضي بعيد استمراري or گذشته كامل استمراري﴿.


----------



## Qureshpor

searcher123 said:


> I'm sorry. A word was missed by me. كرده بوده است is Past Perfect Continuous (ماضي بعيد استمراري or گذشته كامل استمراري﴿.



I don't think the terminology for this particular tense is likely to take us too far in helping to decode the meaning/significance of "kardah buudah ast"
I must be tiring you out! Sorry! Where are the rest of the "Farsi Knowing Team" disappeared to? Where is Mr.Arsham, to name just one person?


----------



## searcher123

The meaning of كرده بوده است is simple. That mean فلان كار را در گذشته براي مدتي معيين بطور مستمر انجام داده است و اكنون ديگر اين كار در حال انجام نيست.


----------



## mannoushka

To me, 'kardeh boodeh ast' has the appearance of a past perfect that has reverted to being a present perfect. I suppose what it signifies is that the action, in this case the 'moayyan kardan' (= to specify, to determine, to nominate) took place before another action in another point in time nearer to the present, but with a bearing on the present time that is so strong it needs to be emphasized by the use of the '-eh' at the end of the 'boodeh' and the addition of 'ast'.

What I'm trying to say is, 'kardeh ast' is Present Perfect, applied in cases where an action began at some point in the past and either has continued to the present time, or has ended but has left some lasting effect. Then we have the Past Perfect form, 'boodeh ast', used when the action was completed before another past action. In the case of your sentence, it seems to me that what we have is the two combined, i.e. 'kardeh bood-' + '-eh ast'. This is why I think the author must have wanted to have the benefit of both tenses. It is long-winded hence, I suppose, not exactly good Persian, but it is legitimate and acceptable.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you mannoushka for the explanation. Could you please possibly provide one or two contextual examples that could bring out the intended meaning of this construction.


----------



## mannoushka

Actually, 'boodeh ast' is not past perfect; rather, 'boodeh bood' is. My mistake. 


Example:

Vaghti be khaaneh rassidim, deedeem keh dar baaz maandeh boodeh (ast) va dozd be khaaneh zadeh va tamaame zendegeemaan raa bordeh ast.

As you can see, the burglar or 'dozd' has cleaned out the house in the present perfect tense. With reference to the time of the burglary, the remaining open of the door to the house is an action of the past placed at a farther distance to the present time. Hence the use of the past perfect tense (baz maandeh bood-, only not quite, because the result of the remaining open of the door, i.e. the unfortunate burglary and the loss of property, are still there to be seen and perhaps regretted. This is shown by the use of the '-eh ast'.

باز مانده بود + ه است

I'm repeating myself, but in the line with the Persian script, the red part is the past perfect half of the verb, if you like, while the green letters make up the present perfect part.

Of course, most of the time we fall into 'shortspeak', the tendency in any language of communication, and simply say 'dar baaz maandeh va dozd be khaaneh zadeh ...'


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you, mannoushka, once again. In your sentence, can the "*va*" after "zadeh" be omitted?

Vaghti be khaaneh rassidim, deedeem keh dar baaz maandeh boodeh (ast) va dozd be khaaneh zadeh *va* tamaame zendegeemaan raa bordeh ast.


----------



## mannoushka

Qureshpor said:


> ^ Thank you, mannoushka, once again. In your sentence, can the "*va*" after "zadeh" be omitted?
> 
> Vaghti be khaaneh rassidim, deedeem keh dar baaz maandeh boodeh (ast) va dozd be khaaneh zadeh *va* tamaame zendegeemaan raa bordeh ast.



Of course it can; but then the word 'zadeh' must be understood to be an adjective, what is known under the rules of Persian Grammar as 'objective adjective' (the reason for which I have since forgotten ). The way I'm using this same word means it's parsed differently and must be thought of as a part of a composite verb.


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> Of course it can; but then the word 'zadeh' must be understood to be an adjective, what is known under the rules of Persian Grammar as 'objective adjective' (the reason for which I have since forgotten ). The way I'm using this same word means it's parsed differently and must be thought of as a part of a composite verb.


I thought that this kind of participle usage came under the category of "having done something", e.g.

uu subHaaneh xvurdeh ba-baazaar raft.

Having had his/her breakfast, s/he went to the market.

or: After having his/her breakfast s/he went to the market.

dozd be khaaneh zadehtamaame zendegeemaan raa bordeh ast*.
*
The thief/burglar, having struck our house has wiped out our life.

The thief/burglar by striking at our house has erased our life.


----------

