# Persian: to leave somebody in a sulk



## seitt

Greetings

In a TV programme, somebody said that a certain woman had left her husband in a sulk, at least according to the subtitles.

It sounded like “از شوهرش قر کرده” (ghar karde), but what would the correct Persian word be, please?

All the best, and many thanks,

Simon


----------



## Treaty

The correct is قهر not قر.
قهر کردن با/از کسی means to "refuse to communicate with someone". Unfortunately, I don't know the exact English expression.


----------



## seitt

Thank you so much - indeed, it's not easy to translate. Perhaps,  "She cut off all contact with her husband" or even, "She left her husband and cut off all contact with him."


----------



## Treaty

قهر کردن does not have the meaning of "to leave" in itself. Two people can still be in a same place while avoiding communication. In addition, it is not necessary that "all" contacts to be cut off. Usually, قهر کردن is cutting "direct" contacts while indirect contacts (via mediators and negotiators) may be considered.


----------



## Aryamp

_Ghahr kardan_  could also be translated as t_o fall out with someone_, or _not to be on speaking terms._


----------



## seitt

Many thanks – this is most interesting semantically: could it be that what English sees as two events, Persian sees as one single event?

In English, first of all you 1) fall out with someone and then, if you continue to feel really annoyed, you 2) refuse to speak to them. If I understand rightly, قهر کردن is made up of both of these, i.e. 1 and 2 together - do I understand rightly?


----------



## Treaty

seitt said:


> Many thanks – this is most interesting semantically: could it be that what English sees as two events, Persian sees as one single event?
> 
> In English, first of all you 1) fall out with someone and then, if you continue to feel really annoyed, you 2) refuse to speak to them. If I understand rightly, قهر کردن is made up of both of these, i.e. 1 and 2 together - do I understand rightly?



Yes. But I don't understand why you see it as two different events. For example, I say "she doesn't talk to me anymore". Doesn't it imply that something has gone wrong between me and her (in a way that she is angry with me)?


----------



## seitt

> Doesn't it imply that something has gone wrong between me and her (in a way that she is angry with me)?


Perhaps this varies from culture to culture. In the West, when something goes wrong between two people, they may well continue to talk to one another, but by means of unpleasant, sarcastic digs at each other's expense, unfortunately!


----------



## Treaty

seitt said:


> Perhaps this varies from culture to culture. In the West, when something goes wrong between two people, they may well continue to talk to one another, but by means of unpleasant, sarcastic digs at each other's expense, unfortunately!



It's a bit generalising to say West.  The ideas of "cutting off diplomatic relations" and "leaving the room as a sign of protest" have no semantic difference from قهرکردن.  I think all cultures have these more or less.


----------



## Aryamp

I don't see where "dipolamtic relations" come into this.

But _ghahr kardan _is to fall out with someone over something and then you don't talk to them normally as before, either you stop talking completely or keep talking and communicating but codly,  bitterly, sarcastically etc.

I have to say within "ghahr kardan" there's somehow a hope of "making up"  it's not a very strong form of 'breaking up' where there's no possibility of a reconciliation foreseeable.

So maybe that's where the confusion comes from. By not 'talking completely' I don't mean there's no conneciton at all, but so it happens people don't talk to one another or don't even see eachother but well somehow they're connected still.

But if I was to describe a situation where there's little or no connection left I'd probably use terms like " دعوا کردن و به هم زدن رابطه رو "  "دیگه رابطه با هم ندارند " چشم ندارند ریخت هم رو ببینند etc


----------



## seitt

Many thanks, all clear now.


----------



## Treaty

Aryamp said:


> I don't see where "dipolamtic relations" come into this.
> 
> But _ghahr kardan _is to fall out with someone over something and then you don't talk to them normally as before, either you stop talking completely or keep talking and communicating but codly,  bitterly, sarcastically etc.



_Cutting (or reducing) diplomatic relation _is to fall out with _some country_ over something and  then you don't talk [negotiate, exchange, ...] to them normally [directly] as before, either you stop talking  completely [closing embassy, expelling officials] or keep talking and communicating but codly,  bitterly,  sarcastically etc [aggressively, threatening, condemning, ...].

Basically, it is the same game in a larger scale. Normally, both happen because one or both sides refuse to apologise, retreat or compensate over a matter.

However, you're right that قهر کردن is not as strong as total break-up. It is more rhetorical than real.


----------



## seitt

Many thanks - so how might one say, "Argentina has cut diplomatic relations with the UK" (just as an example) using "قهر کردن", please?


----------



## SamiraFrancophile

قهر كردن is a word that is seldom used in Politic terminology, still it is not definitely impossible. In the above case, we Usually say:
آرژانتين روابط ديپلماتيك خود را با بريتانيا قطع كرده است.0
 But I think it is possible to use it as a noun phrase mostly in conversation or some genres of journalistic literature, something like this:
- قهر ديپلماتيك آرژانتين و بريتانيا باعث شد كه ......0


----------



## Aryamp

Indeed قهر کردن is not at all a common term for describing diplomatic relations but then sometimes journalists purposefully use unusual words and phrases. I think also in English "to fall out" is more naturally used for relations between people rather than countries, isn't it ? 

Also when the relations between two countries deteriorate but are not cut off completely we use the term _تیره شدن روابط_


----------



## Treaty

قهر کردن is not considered a sophisticated behaviour , and is somehow considered childish. Therefore, it sometimes indicates a sense of humour/mockery when used for diplomatic relations, as if the governors are immature. As suggested by Samira, it is not usually used by officials or in serious debates.


----------



## seitt

Much obliged, excellent insight!


> I think also in English "to fall out" is more naturally used for relations between people rather than countries, isn't it?


Yes, indeed!


----------

