# Persian: بدیدی



## Ali Smith

سلام!

What does بدیدی mean? Is it a verb? Is it derived from دیدن (to see)?

اگر بیچاره و مسکین و سائل را بدیدی، و در تو احساس همدردی و دستگیری گُم بود، در مسلمان بودنت شک کن!

 اگر خواندی و باز هم حس انسانی درونت را نرنجاند، به انسان بودنت شک کن!

متشکرم


----------



## mannoushka

Salaam. I suppose the old conditional mode of the verb دیدی was actually بدیدی. However, in the Persian language spoken and written today you normally see the trimmed down version in a conditional clause, so that the caption on the photo here is really a bit odd, especially as in the verb خواندی in the next sentence the writer seems to have abandoned the attempt at high literary style and reverted to the simpler form by dropping the prefix.


----------



## Qureshpor

Ali Smith said:


> سلام!
> 
> What does بدیدی mean? Is it a verb? Is it derived from دیدن (to see)?
> 
> اگر بیچاره و مسکین و سائل را بدیدی، و در تو احساس همدردی و دستگیری گُم بود، در مسلمان بودنت شک کن!
> 
> اگر خواندی و باز هم حس انسانی درونت را نرنجاند، به انسان بودنت شک کن!
> 
> متشکرم


The particle "به" in the Classical and Pre-Classical was used practically with all verbal parts, e.g bi-diidan, bi-diid, bi-diidah, bi-biin, bi-biinad etc etc. It was not meaningless by any stretch of the immagination but it is not always easy to capture the additional meaning it imparted. As you are an Urdu speaker, you will see the difference in the follwing...transcription as per Classical..

O raft .. vuh gayaa

O bi-raft ...vuh chalaa gayaa

mard xandiid --- mard haNsaa

mard bi-xandiid -- mard haNs paRaa

Where are you quoting from?


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> Salaam. I suppose the old conditional mode of the verb دیدی was actually بدیدی. However, in the Persian language spoken and written today you normally see the trimmed down version in a conditional clause, so that the caption on the photo here is really a bit odd, especially as in the verb خواندی in the next sentence the writer seems to have abandoned the attempt at high literary style and reverted to the simpler form by dropping the prefix.


I suppose the reason for this is that in the older style too, the writers did not use the "bih" prefix with verbs consistently. It was used where the writer felt an additional meaning was required.

raft. He went

bi-raft. He went away


----------



## Ali Smith

Qureshpor: Someone sent me a picture on WhatsApp (see attachment).

By the way, where did you get these Urdu translations from? Do you have a Persian textbook in Urdu? If so, could you please give me the name?


----------



## Qureshpor

Ali Smith said:


> Qureshpor: Someone sent me a picture on WhatsApp (see attachment).By the way, where did you get these Urdu translations from? Do you have a Persian textbook in Urdu? If so, could you please give me the name?


No, I don't have a Persian textbook in Urdu but you can accept my translations as "gospel"! This is as a result of decades of interest in the Persian language and my "research" into it.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> raft. He went
> 
> bi-raft. He went away


The subject of the verbal prefix “ب” is baffling for me, I have thought about it many times & sometimes I think I can see the meaning it adds to the verb but never convincingly. So I’m very interested to know why برفت means “he went away” while رفت simply means “he went”.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> The subject of the verbal prefix “ب” is baffling for me, I have thought about it many times & sometimes I think I can see the meaning it adds to the verb but never convincingly. So I’m very interested to know why برفت means “he went away” while رفت simply mean “he went”.


PersoLatin, a number of well known Persian grammar groups include explanations on the particle "bi/bih". I am sure you will be aware of دستور زبان فارسی از پرویز ناتل خانلری. This is one of many books that covers this topic. The most detailed explanation that I am aware of is in a book by a French scholar Gilbert Lazard "La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane." pp 288-325. If you know French, this is *the* book you will ever need to consult about all the things you never knew existed in Persian (majhuul sounds, the meaning of the majhuul -e at the end of verbs, the presence of letter zaal in Persian etc etc).

Some Persian grammar books written in English do include a cursory explanation for this suffix and is explained by way of describing the "Perfective Aspect" of the Persian verb.

You will find this sentence in تذکرۃ الاولیاء by عطّار about whom I am sure you would be aware.

و گفت: هر که ازتو آرزوئے طلبد صد و بیست و _چهار هزار پیغمبر_ را _به شفاعت باید آورد تا تو_ آن _آرزوی وی برسانی این بگفت _*و *_*برفت*_ و _ناپدید شد_ بیش او را ندیدم۔

If you could understand Urdu, I would translate this for you and immediately you would understand the meaning imparted by "bi". I don't know how to add the meaning of "bi-guft" into English precisely but you would agree, that from the context, "bi-raft" means ".. *he* *went away/left*". We know he went away because he disappered and was not seen again!

If you find the article, "From Old to New Persian" on the net, on page 38 you will find "raft/he went" and "bi-raft/he went away).


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you for this I appreciate it, I will look for those references.

The problem with this single letter is precisely that i.e. not much to go on, in your example there’s a بگفت before برفت and I as a native speaker can not see anything other than stress on the verb, almost like the English “he *did go* there” or “he *does go* there”, I’m not claiming this is the answer but that’s  my answer, specifically for this one example.

Is it not possible to  explain that concept/construct you have in Urdu using examples?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you for this I appreciate it, I will look for those references.
> 
> The problem with this single letter is precisely that i.e. not much to go on, in your example there’s a بگفت before برفت and I as a native speaker can not see anything other than stress in the verb, almost like the English “he *did go* there” or “he *does go* there”. Is it not possible to explain that concept/construct you have in Urdu using examples?


It is possible to explain this through examples from Urdu but this thread is on a subject linked to Persian. If you were to check up for bi in Khanlari, to start with, you will have the explanation in Persian.

A Persian book in English explains it as follows.

"In early New Persian, the verbal prefix bi.....indicates the perfective aspect of the verb, that is, the action or state of the verb done once, suddenly, or finally....... This usage was maintained in poetry long after it ceased to function in normal prose-writing. Since English has no formal way of expressing the perfective aspect, circumlocutions must be sought for proper translation...". he then goes onto provide the a number of examples.

dilam *bi-soxt* - My heart *went up in flames*.

pidar *bi-xandiid* - The father *burst out laughing*.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you.



Qureshpor said:


> dilam *bi-soxt* - My heart *went up in flames*.
> 
> pidar *bi-xandiid* - The father *burst out laughing*.


Looking at these examples has given me an idea which is only going to help my skeptical views of this, here’s the idea, if بسوخت &  بخندید are different to versions without “ب” then the following question would be a legitimate one to ask from, say, the child of that father (pidar):
پدر شما خندید یا بخندید؟
Or
دل شما سوخت یا بسوخت؟

One would expect the answer to be either  خندید or بخندید, depending on how the child perceived the father’s laughter.

I am sure you understand what I mean.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Looking at these examples has given me an idea which is only going to help my skeptical views of this, here’s the idea, if بسوخت &  بخندید are different to versions without “ب” then the following question would be a legitimate one to ask from, say, the child of that father (pidar):
> پدر شما خندید یا بخندید؟
> Or
> دل شما سوخت یا بسوخت؟
> 
> One would expect the answer to be either  خندید or بخندید, as the child could tell the difference from the way the father laughed.
> 
> I am sure you understand what I mean.


You can of course stick to your "skeptical" views but I think it would be fair to say that if you were to read some of your older literature, you will be better placed to be a skeptic or a believer!

The father *laughed*, and this is the primary meaning however he laughed. The addition of "bi" adds the impulse with which he laughed. Therefore, one need not ask the child whether his/her father did the xandiiding or bixandiiding.


----------



## Qureshpor

@taraa, it would be nice to hear,  *your views* now and again, about the Persian language and the questions being asked here on this forum rather than your agreements in the form of joined palms and questions pertaining to the English language. What do you think?


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> Therefore, one need not ask the child whether his/her father did the xandiiding or bixandiiding.


I do my research in stages and this is stage one, reading & absorbing those references has no bearing on the legitimacy of that question.

Sometimes we hit a wall when it comes to simple communication, because you believe the two versions are different, I expected you to say, of course that question can be asked and of course that child should be able to tell the difference in the way his father laughed and choose خندید  or بخندید


----------



## mannoushka

Strictly speaking, how exactly some action was done, is being done, or is to be done could well be incorporated into the verb in the form of some sort of a prefix. Latin has such prefixes _ or prefaces ? _ too.

As concerns this particular prefix, the question naturally arises as to how to distinguish between its adverbial function as is here propounded and the more common conjugational one. For instance, can there possibly be a detectable semantic difference between اگر خواهیم می‌توانیم and اگر بخواهیم می‌توانیم, or between باید برود and باید رود?


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> ......As concerns this particular prefix, the question naturally arises as to how to distinguish between its adverbial function as is here propounded and the more common conjugational one. For instance, can there possibly be a detectable semantic difference between اگر خواهیم می‌توانیم and اگر بخواهیم می‌توانیم, or between باید برود and باید رود?


The prefix has n't been described as "adverbial" in any of the literature that I have read but "aspectual" and the "aspect" that it relays is the "perfective" aspect.

To answer your question, yes there is a detectable difference between the "bi" forms and  the "bi-less" forms you have quoted. I certainly perceive this difference loud and clear when I translate them into Urdu, knowing what the "bi" adds in Persian and its equivalent verbal forms in Urdu. English does not have this aspect and for this reason it is not easy to come up with an appropriate rendition for every occurrence of bi + Persian verb combination.

Edit: Correction to above:

Yes, it is described as adverbial in the article, "From Old to New Persian".


----------



## mannoushka

Qureshpor said:


> @taraa, it would be nice to hear,  *your views* now and again, about the Persian language and the questions being asked here on this forum rather than your agreements in the form of joined palms and questions pertaining to the English language. What do you think?


How about this then?
دید موسا یک شبانی را به راه


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> How about this then? دید موسا یک شبانی را به راه


 What about it? I don't follow your question. By the way, in my part of the world, we write موسا as مُوسیٰ.


----------



## PersoLatin

I think a way forward is to examine the Persian imperative & conditional forms which are productive forms of this preverb “b-“, in modern Iranian Persian and see if its presence or otherwise, makes a difference, and if that difference can be extended to the past tense, as used in classical and literary Persian. I mentioned some of the following is another thread some time ago but I have not found it yet.

Looking at a conditional sentence اگر بدانم دوستم داری اینجا میمانم/"if I know you love me I will stay here", strip the “b-“  preverb, اگر دانم دوستم داری اینجا میمانم, this can work but it shows a lack of commitment about staying, by the person who says the sentence, “b-“ adds that assurance as in "he will stay if he is sure she loves him".

Looking at an imperative sentence برو ‏به ‏آنها ‏بگو/go and tell them, now strip both preverbs رو ‏به ‏آنها ‏گو, here the imperative without “b-“ can be meaningful and you certainly see it in poetry, but it lacks the commitment that says the command is to be executed as soon as.

The meaning & origin of this “b-“ is very likely the Persian verb بودن"to be",  it presence adds a sense of "be!" or "!باش", it is very close to or even the same as "were" in "if I *were* to know you love me I will stay here", "were" is the subjunctive version of "to be", one of the few surviving subjunctive forms in English. In the imperative case  “b-“ adds the same meaning of "be!" or "!باش", so برو means روا نه باش"be gone" i.e. 'be [in a state] going' and بگو "be [in a state] saying" گویا ‏باش. 

Applying this unproven theory to the past tense بگفت must mean گویا بود or "entered an observable state of saying" and by extension بخندید must means "entered an observable state laughing" so بخندید in Persian:  "خندا ن بود" so خندا ن شد و خندیدنش مشاهده شد

So may be that question is valid:  پدر شما خندید یا بخندید؟


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> How about this then?
> دید موسا یک شبانی را به راه


I think I get what you are trying to say.

Here the suffix به in به راه/ براہ is not the same as the verbal suffix as in برفت. The suffix that comes with the verbs is "bi" and the one you are mentioning, attached to nouns is "ba" once in the distant past having the form "pa". See posts 6 and 7 in the following thread.

Persian: prefix-be


----------



## Qureshpor

FROM OLD TO NEW PERSIAN (page 38)

Persian: The origins of the verbal prefix 'be/bo/ب'


----------



## PersoLatin

^^Thank you.

In the bottom of page 42 of The Verbal Particle BE in Middle Persian mentions "be" having the meaning "away/forth". But nothing concrete anywhere, it looks very much that when authors write about this topic they feel compelled to mention all other possibilities, almost as if, if my theory isn't right I'll add it to the mixture anyway to dilute the credibility of other theories (oops a sweeping generalisation)


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> ^^Thank you.
> 
> In the bottom of page 42 of The Verbal Particle BE in Middle Persian mentions "be" having the meaning "away/forth". But nothing concrete anywhere, it looks very much that when authors write about this topic they feel compelled to mention all other possibilities, almost as if, if my theory isn't right I'll add it to the mixture anyway to dilute the credibility of other theories (oops a sweeping generalisation)


I think there is a better explanation in  FROM OLD TO NEW PERSIAN (page 38)


----------



## PersoLatin

^^ I am going to continue this in  Persian: The origins of the verbal prefix 'be/bo/ب'


----------

