# Persian: مرنجان دو بیننده را



## Jamshed Aslam

به بینندگان آفریننده را

نبینی مرنجان دو بیننده را

نیابد بدو نیز اندیشه راه

که او برتر از نام و از جایگاه

Could somebody tell me what maranjaan means? I can't find it in any of my dictionaries. The rest of the poetry seems easy:

You can't see the Creator with the eyes...two eyes.
Even (نیز) thought does not find a path to Him, who is higher than name and place.


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

Oh, wait, is it from the verb رنجانیدن ranjaanidan (to vex, to offend)? If so, the sentence would mean: You can't see the Creator with the eyes, don't vex the two eyes.


----------



## Stranger_

Yes, it comes from رنجانیدن "to hurt/to torture/to cause pain to".

I think Ferdosi is saying that the creator cannot be seen by our human eyes, so there is no need to ask for it because all we are going to get from this request is a pair of harmed eyes plus an unconscious body (as happened with the prophet Moses).

نیابد بدو نیز اندیشه راه
*که *او برتر از نام و از جایگاه
In this line the word "که" actually means: because/for.

"Even thought does not find a path to Him, for He is higher than/beyond name and place."

---

This example contains both the verb رنجانیدن and the conjunction که:

*مرنجان *دلم را *كه *این مرغ وحشی
ز بامی كه برخاست (به) مشكل نشیند

"*Do not hurt* my heart (do not make it fall in love) *because *when/if this wild bird (my heart) rises from a roof then it hardly lands again"

One more example for رنجانیدن:

چو دانی که بر تو نمانَد جهان
چه رنجانی از آز جان و روان
فردوسی

Since you know that this world will not last for you
[Then] why do you wither your soul away in greed?


----------



## soheil1

مرنجان = نرنجان.
مزن = نزن
مگو = نگو
الخ
quite common in persian literature


----------



## PersoLatin

_Based on these verses,_ انديشه has no chance!

....
نیابد بدو نیز *اندیشه* راه
که او برتر از نام و از جایگاه
....
به نام خداوند جان و خرد
کزین برتر *اندیشه* برنگذرد
....


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

Stranger_ said:


> *مرنجان *دلم را *كه *این مرغ وحشی
> ز بامی كه برخاست (به) مشكل نشیند
> 
> "*Do not hurt* my heart (do not make it fall in love) *because *when/if this wild bird (my heart) rises from a roof then it hardly lands again"



That makes sense. However, what about the second کہ? What does it mean? If it's the relative pronoun ("who", "which", "that"), it should have come earlier in the sentence, i.e. این مرغِ وحشی کہ از بامی برخاست بہ مشکل نشیند. By the way, the translation you have given for برخاست is in the present tense, even though the verb is in the past (the present tense would have been برخیز barkhiz).


----------



## PersoLatin

Jamshed Aslam said:


> ...However, what about the second کہ? What does it mean? If it's the relative pronoun ("who", "which", "that")...



Hi Jamshed,

I rephrased the verse:
دلم را مرنجان چونكه اين مرغ وحشى
به بامى كه از آن برخيزد، به سختى نشيند/مينشيند/برميگردد

The second كه is 'which' in bold, below:

Don't hurt my heart *because* this wild bird will not easily return to the roof/loft from *which* it takes flight.

Don't hurt/break my heart, for once (my) love (for you) leaves it, it will not return easily.


----------



## James Bates

Jamshed Aslam said:


> By the way, the translation you have given for برخاست is in the present tense, even though the verb is in the past (the present tense would have been برخیز barkhiz).



In poetry the past tense is commonly used for proverbial sayings and statements of general validity. The present is used in English. Take a look at this:

فرقِ شاھی وبندگی برخاست
چون قضای نبشتہ آمد پیش

farq-e shaahi va bandegi barkhaast
chon qazaa-ye nebeshte aamad pish

The distinction between kingship and slavehood *disappears* when written fate (death) *comes* forth. (Sa'di)


----------



## PersoLatin

James Bates said:


> In poetry the past tense is commonly used for proverbial sayings and statements of general validity. The present is used in English.



Hi James,

This is also true about some ordinary day-to-day speech:

وقتى *آمد* به او مى گويم  where in correct grammar, it is: وقتى *بيايد* به او مى گويم

Both mean 'when he arrives I will tell him'


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

Thank you for your help. By the way, shouldn't it have been با بینندگان آفریننده را نبینی مرنجان دو بینندہ را since the meaning is "with your eyes"?


----------



## PersoLatin

Jamshed Aslam said:


> By the way, shouldn't it have been با بینندگان آفریننده را نبینی مرنجان دو بینندہ را since the meaning is "with your eyes"?


The verb operating on 'the two eyes' is *مرنجان* so *به* doesn't refer to them.



Jamshed Aslam said:


> به بینندگان آفریننده را


I believe, by saying به بینندگان, Ferdȏsi reminds, or mildly warns us i.e. the *بینندگان '*to not bother (مرنجان) our eyes (دو بینندہ را) as we will not see (نبینی) the Lord (آفریننده را) ', so *به *applies to *بینندگان* only.


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

Are you telling me that بینندگان doesn't mean "eyes"? What does it mean then? "Spectators"?


----------



## PersoLatin

Jamshed Aslam said:


> Are you telling me that بینندگان doesn't mean "eyes"? What does it mean then? "Spectators"?


بینندگان means "spectators/viewers" so ultimately the mankind, but in دو بینندہ را it refers to eyes, and means 'the two eyes'


----------



## James Bates

But the second instance of the word means "eyes"?


----------



## PersoLatin

James Bates said:


> But the second instance of the word means "eyes"?


Live typing , yes of course.


----------



## James Bates




----------



## Jamshed Aslam

But the translation given for these lines is:

Him thou canst see not though thy sight thou strain,
For thought itself will struggle to attain

Shouldn't it have been "Don't strain thy sight" instead of "Though thy sight thou strain"? Because the verb مرنجان means "Don't strain/vex", not "though you strain/vex"

By the way, I don't get how you have translated the بہ before بینندگان ("spectators"). Doesn't it mean "with" or "to"?


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Hi James,
> 
> This is also true about some ordinary day-to-day speech:
> 
> وقتى *آمد* به او مى گويم  where in correct grammar, it is: وقتى *بيايد* به او مى گويم
> 
> Both mean 'when he arrives I will tell him'


وقتى *آمد* به او مى گويم is also correct grammar but there is a subtle difference between this and وقتى *بيايد* به او مى گويم

Here is an example from نظامی عروضی 's چھار مقاله

_اگر وقتی_ این قصاب _بمرد_، پیش از آنکه او را به گور کنند مرا خبر کن

And an example from a Persian speaker, from this forum.

"ببخشید نمی دونم مطمئن نیستم ولی وقتی مطمئن شدم حتما جواب رو بهتون میگم!ا"


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> وقتى *آمد* به او مى گويم is also correct grammar but there is a subtle difference between this and وقتى *بيايد* به او مى گويم
> 
> Here is an example from نظامی عروضی 's چھار مقاله
> 
> _اگر وقتی_ این قصاب _بمرد_، پیش از آنکه او را به گور کنند مرا خبر کن
> 
> And an example from a Persian speaker, from this forum.
> 
> "ببخشید نمی دونم مطمئن نیستم ولی وقتی مطمئن شدم حتما جواب رو بهتون میگم!ا"


Hi Qureshpor, thank you for the example from classical text which confirms the style which I assumed was only colloquial and hence not quite correct, in fact has precedence, set by no less than نظامی, and I’m sure by others before him.

In the past I have raised threads about words & constructs that are only colloquially used but are actually based on sound grammar, here’s another example.

I don’t see quite see the point about the last example, it is acceptable colloquially like my own example, and of course now correct grammatically too, although I don’t believe this style is used formally in modern Persian in Iran.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Hi Qureshpor, thank you for the example from classical text which confirms the style which I assumed was only colloquial and hence not quite correct, in fact has precedence, set by no less than نظامی, and I’m sure by others before him.
> 
> In the past I have raised threads about words & constructs that are only colloquially used but are actually based on sound grammar, here’s another example.
> 
> I don’t see quite see the point about the last example, it is acceptable colloquially like my own example, and of course now correct grammatically too, although I don’t believe this style is used formally in modern Persian in Iran.


The example from one of the participants in the forum was to show continuity of usage of the past tense with temporal and conditional particles (چون، وقتی، اگر etc). I came across this thread by chance when I was looking for جایگاہ and saw your comment  which implied that this usage was not correct grammar. So, I provided an example from the distant past and one from the recent present.

The past verb usage is mentioned in Persian grammar books written in recent times. So, my assumption is that this usage would still be current.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> The past verb usage is mentioned in Persian grammar books written in recent times. So, my assumption is that this usage would still be current.


Yes, this is the one and only style used is colloquial Persian & it is correct  based on your نظامی example, but I’m not sure if these days it is used in formal Persian.


----------

