# Persian: present & past progressive



## PersoLatin

To form progressive verbs in mainstream Persian, the past & present tense of the verb "داشتن/to have" is used. according to this paper, (the link was provided by Qureshpor in this thread) this style of combining داشتن as an auxiliary with another verb, was first seen in written Persian around 130 years ago and also that it was most likely copied/adapted from Mazandarani.

This suggests that Persian didn't have this tense at all but the fact that it exists in other related languages & dialects, proves it must have at least existed in its colloquial form.

Can I please ask speakers of Kurdish, Lori, Gilaki, Mazandarani and other Iranian languages or dialects of Persian, to provide their version of the following sentences (6)?

If possible please provide the original script & its Latinised form & show the auxiliary part when it's not obvious, hints/keys on pronunciation is much appreciated.

I am going/من دارم میروم
I was going/من داشتم میرفتم
I have an apple/من یک سیب دارم
I had an apple/من یک سیب داشتم

I am about to sleep/  من دارم میخوابم
I was about to sleep/  من داشتم میخوابیدم

Many thanks.


----------



## fdb

In Early New Persian continuous action is expressed by means of mē (always prefixed to a verb) or hamē (before or after the verb, or even at some distance from it). But in the course of time the present tense with prefix mē (Western Persian mī) becomes the default form of the present, necessitating the creation of other ways to express continuous action.


----------



## Qureshpor

Would the following perhaps indicate a transitional stage.

یک شب تأمل ایّام گزشتہ میکردم (گلستان) continuous

 حاجی تو نیستی شُتر است از برای آنکہ بیچارہ خار میخوَرَد و بار میبَرَد( گلستان) habitual for both

ھر کہ با بزرگان ستیزد خونِ خود میریزد (گلستان) habitual for both

This mixing of the two forms appears to take place in Nasir Khusraw's Safar Naamah, too.

دو راہ باشد۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ آنچہ براہِ خشک میرود بہ پانزدہ روز بمکّہ رود۔ (سفر نامہ) habitual for all three


----------



## mannoushka

Perhaps the following kinds of construction have played a part in داشتن gradually becoming a permanent feature of the progressive tense.
سرِ آن دارم که بگریزم
I have a mind to flee.
بنا دارم سخت درس بخوانم
I am determined to study hard.

The progressive verb can imply a determination to take some action in the near or forseeable future, a well-known fact. So maybe this particular application preceded the use of داشتن in the present continuous timeframe - دارم می‌گریزم - via figures of speech such as the above.

There are more: 
آرزو دارند شنیده شوند
نیت داشتم بروم به درگاه حضرت شاه‌چراغ

All pure speculation on my part, though.


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> Would the following perhaps indicate a transitional stage.
> 
> یک شب تأمل ایّام گزشتہ میکردم (گلستان) continuous


That's a great find for the progressive tense, describing "s/he was in the process of thinking about days gone-by", you can rephrase it as: یک شب داشتم به گذشته میاندیشیدم without losing the sense, it is also equivalent to the modern (formal) way of using "در حال/in the process of" so یک شب *در حال* اندیشیدن به گذشته بودم  or یک شب *در حال* تأمل [به] ایّام گذشته بودم

The need for this tense can not be a new/modern or a 'later' phenomenon, I can not see how you could convey the sense of "I am doing it now..." with 'mi' or 'hami' which I have seen many examples of in old text, and, in its given context they never convey the the sense of action in progress, not to me anyway.

It is more plausible to think of an alternative which is using *در/*dar with a verb which may have given rise to the use of داشتن,  e.g.  من در گفتن/خوردن/آمدن هستم


----------



## rarabara

PersoLatin said:


> Can I please ask speakers of Kurdish, Lori, Gilaki, Mazandarani and other Iranian languages or dialects of Persian, to provide their version of the
> following sentences (6)


ok 


PersoLatin said:


> 1)I am going/من دارم میروم
> 2)I was going/من داشتم میرفتم
> 3)I have an apple/من یک سیب دارم
> 4)I had an apple/من یک سیب داشتم
> 
> 5)I am about to sleep/ من دارم میخوابم
> 6)I was about to sleep/ من داشتم میخوابیدم





1) the pronoun  "من" is wrong here for kurdish. we use heading pronoun (the subject of sentence should be "I" ,but there are two particles for this. 1) "ez/ ەز  / از (Ar/Krd)"   2) "min/من (Ar/Krd)" the first one should be preferred for the sentence you provided.

the correct form of Kurdish expression (Latinized form) is:

"ez di çim"  you can also add "vega" time expression in the end of sentence,which means "just now/now".

2) in this sentence you should prefer (yes) min as the subject of sentence

"min d çu"

3) " sew / sewike min heyye" you can use.

4) "sew/sewike min hebu" you can use (hebu verb ("to be") makes the sentence "past")

5) "ez l ber razanime" or "ez weğte razıym " can be preffered.

6) "ez weğte razabume"

notation: although my mother tongues is kurdish ,I have no kurdish ( literal ) education. So I can only predict the kurdish script. These will (potentially) not be precise. Though ,if you wish,I can do that or I may write with arabic , but some letter might be not pronunciated well in this case.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> If possible please provide the original script & its Latinised form & show the auxiliary part when it's not obvious, hints/keys on pronunciation is much appreciated.
> 
> I am going/من دارم میروم
> I was going/من داشتم میرفتم
> I have an apple/من یک سیب دارم
> I had an apple/من یک سیب داشتم
> 
> I am about to sleep/ من دارم میخوابم
> I was about to sleep/ من داشتم میخوابیدم


I have asked friends & their contacts and here's what I have put together, I can guess the pronunciations but it would be great if members can help with these and indeed correct/and complete them.  

*1 گیلکی/مازندرانی - Gilaki & Mazandarani*
دارم میام= امون درم
داشتم میرفتم= منشون دوم

*2 لری - Lori*
دام رویم/داتم میریتم
مو سیف درم/مو سیفم دات

*3 ایلام/کردی - Kurdish Ilâmi*
دارم میام = دِهم دِییام
داشتم می رفتم= داشتِم دِچگرم
من سیب دارم= مِ سیف دیرم
من سیب داشتم= مِ سیف دِشتمِ
*کلهری/کردی - Kurdish Kolhari*
دیرم چم
. دیرم = دارم دیرید = دارد.
*سورانی/کردی - Kurdish Sorâni*
سورانی . همه = دارم هیه = دارد


----------



## PersoLatin

rarabara said:


> 1) the pronoun "من" is wrong here for kurdish. we use heading pronoun (the subject of sentence should be "I" ,but there are two particles for this. 1) "ez/ ەز / از (Ar/Krd)" 2) "min/من (Ar/Krd)" the first one should be preferred for the sentence you provided.
> 
> the correct form of Kurdish expression (Latinized form) is:
> 
> "ez di çim" you can also add "vega" time expression in the end of sentence,which means "just now/now".


Thank you rarabara, I posted my reply  (#7) without realising you’d posted yours already, I must have missed the update message that’s usually sent in these situations.


----------



## PersoLatin

rarabara said:


> "ez di çim" you can also add "vega" time expression in the end of sentence,which means "just now/now".
> 
> 2) in this sentence you should prefer (yes) min as the subject of sentence
> 
> "min d çu"


So “di” for present and “d” for past tense, I take it they are derived from the same verb and if so what does that verb mean & is it used in other situations or tenses?




rarabara said:


> 3) " sew / sewike min heyye" you can use.
> 
> 4) "sew/sewike min hebu" you can use (hebu verb ("to be") makes the sentence "past")


And the verb of interest (heyye & hebu) is clearly different to 1/2.


----------



## rarabara

PersoLatin said:


> 1) So “di” for present and “d” for past tense, I take it they are derived from the same verb and if so what does that verb mean & is it used in other situations or tenses?
> 
> 
> 
> 2) And the verb of interest (heyye & hebu) is clearly different to 1 & 2.


1) no. in the "d çim" form ,"çim" is the exact particle that shows the "present tense" form & verb.
if you say ,for instance, "min d çu" , then here, obliqued form "çu/çuw" is the exact form that shows "past tense" form.

here "d" shows the duration. for instance if you were saying "ez çum" this would mean " I went"
but if you were prefering "ez/min d çu" ,then this would mean : "I was going"


2) you might have misunderstood the relevnt detail, can you more clearly/correctly show which one you implied?
(1 & 2 are totaly different in comparison to 3 & 4 (numbered clauses))


----------



## PersoLatin

T


rarabara said:


> here "d" shows the duration. for instance if you were saying "ez çum" this would mean " I went"
> but if you were prefering "ez/min d çu" ,then this would mean : "I was going"


That’s exactly what I was after, I mean the function of di & d which I asked for & you have explained.


----------



## PersoLatin

rarabara said:


> 1 & 2 are totaly different in comparison to 3 & 4 (numbered clauses))


Again that’s exactly what I was after, they are totally different, and as I explained in my OP, in modern Persian the function of the auxiliary verbs in 1/2 & 3/4 are fulfilled by the same verb (dâštan/to have), unlike in related languages & dialects.


----------



## rarabara

PersoLatin said:


> dâštan/to have


I am not sure whether the root was same.
but it seems I recognize the root of this particle (standın (to take) , bıstinin ( to take (imperative form) and generally with the use of force)

"heyye" corresponds availability/existence,more properly,in verb form. There is no accompanied pronoun in this form. You may say "kaleme te heyye?" (Do you have a pencil?) (interogative) , and the reply should be as one of these : "erei, heyye" (yes , I have  (a pencil))  "na, kalememin tinne" (No, I do not have a pencil) .
may I ask whether you know arabic ? (I might consider to give some samples in arabic,maybe for latter considerations)

"eme wi kize bıstinin" (we will have/obtain that girl)
"wi qize jme standıne" (they took that girl from us (the use of force is in fact,relatively understandable))


----------



## PersoLatin

rarabara said:


> am not sure whether the root was same.
> but it seems I recognize the root of this particle (standın (to take) , bıstinin ( to take (imperative form) and generally with the use of force)


Persian equivalent is setâdan/ستادن “to take”

I know some Arabic but only in the context of Persian, but Kurdish & other related  languages are what I’m after.


Going back to “di/d”, I know their function in a sentence now but what is its grammatical function? The following is in Lori which is spoken in west & south western Iran:


PersoLatin said:


> دام رویم/داتم میریتم
> مو سیف درم/مو سیفم دات


دام رویم/dâ-m ruyam "I am going..."
داتم میریتم/dât-am mi-reytam "I was going..."

"m" and "am" are first person singular markers.

So the Lori part equivalent to Kurdish “di/d” is “dâ/dât" which is described as "locative be" verb, according to this paper, I think the Kurdish one must be also be "locative be" verb.


----------



## rarabara

PersoLatin said:


> I know some Arabic but only in the context of Persian, but Kurdish & other related languages are what I’m after.


ok


PersoLatin said:


> Going back to “di/d”, I know their function in a sentence now but what is its grammatical function?


I can underline that it emphasizes the duration and makes it clear.


----------



## PersoLatin

T


rarabara said:


> I can underline that it emphasizes the duration and makes it clear.


I do get it and I can also underline that the whole idea of this thread was, for the languages dialects listed, to find exactly 'items/terms/things' that (emphasize duration) show the action a verb in progression, you have provided "di/d" which is great but they still belong to a grammatical class like preverb/verb/adverb/adjective/noun....... so which is it?


----------



## rarabara

PersoLatin said:


> you have provided "di/d" which is great but they still belong to a grammatical class like preverb/verb/adverb/adjective/noun....... so which is it?


well,
I think it is "adverb"  among the classes you provided ,because it makes the verb stronger.(sorry for the case,first I did not understand with which direction you would like to analyze ,because as you know, "grammar" is a definition which may contain highly wide content (i.e.structure, word types, order, ...etc))

when you say "ez d çim" you say "I am going" ,when you say : "ez çim" here in fact a hidden "d" available and being very softly pronunciated like "t" but if you directly do not pronunciate anything before verb "çim" then I think no duration will be understood.
Also,this can either be understood as future tense (no duration emphasized) or simple present tense.
more properly it would be simple present tense in general ,but one can easily change it to future tense ,though. (e.g.: "ez sibe ççim diyarbekir" this means "I (will) go to diyarbakır tomorrow" or "I 'am' going  to diyarbakır tomorrow"

you can also imply future sentence with this particle like this "ez sibe d çim"

in the structure of the sentence although I could not find the best suitable definition ,I think that it might be the associate verb of "to be",not sure.

because "ez 'd' çim" means "I 'am' going"
"ez sibe 'd' çim" ----->> "I 'am' going tomorrow

so my idea is that it would more properly be equivalent of associate verb of "to be"


----------



## PersoLatin

rarabara said:


> so my idea is that it would more properly be equivalent of associate verb of "to be"


Ok thank you and that's what I suggested it was:


PersoLatin said:


> I think the Kurdish one must be also be "locative be" verb.


----------



## rarabara

ok. @PersoLatin , if you are concentrating on a paper which would be submitted to indexed journals (i.e. academic) ,I recommend that you further check (Generally; the more details available and analyzed, the better works be out )

BTW, if you send me the full length of that paper (you linked above) ,I might consider quick overview (if I have time) (I could not open it directly) 

Good days,
rarabara


----------



## PersoLatin

rarabara said:


> ok. @PersoLatin , if you are concentrating on a paper which would be submitted to indexed journals (i.e. academic) ,I recommend that you further check (Generally; the more details available and analyzed, the better works be out )
> 
> BTW, if you send me the full length of that paper (you linked above) ,I might consider quick overview (if I have time) (I could not open it directly)
> 
> Good days,
> rarabara


Thank you, I am investigating this topic for myself there's no paper (apart from the linked). But please read that paper, it will give you a better idea about what I was asking for.

I am still waiting for answers, to the same questions, from other dialects.


----------



## Dib

I have been looking into Thackston's Kurmanji grammar a bit. While it cannot replace the language knowledge of a native speaker like rarabara here, it may help a bit with the linguistic analysis, which may be difficult to perform for a native speaker unless they have learnt it in school or in another set-up. Moreover, Modern Persian has a grammar somewhat atypical for an Iranian language. So, it may be sometimes difficult to map everything one-to-one from Kurdish to Persian. However, I'll try to briefly answer the main questions raised by PersoLatin, and hopefully rarabara will correct me if I have misunderstood something.



PersoLatin said:


> So “di” for present and “d” for past tense, I take it they are derived from the same verb and if so what does that verb mean & is it used in other situations or tenses?



This has been explained by rarabara, but if it is still not clear, the "di/d" is a particle with very similar meaning and usage to Persian "mi":
1) More or less obligatory in the present tense.
2) Used in past tense to indicate habitual or continuous tense.
The di- can be shortened to d-. Thackston describes the shortening before vowels. In rarabara's usage it seems to occur also before (some?) consonants. But there is no tense-distinction involved in the choice between di- and d-.

So:
ez di-çi-m = man mi-rav-am = I go / I am going
*ez çu-m = man raft-am = I went
*ez di-çu-m = man mi-raft-am = I was going / I used to go

*rarabara prefers "min d(i)-çu" to "ez di-çum" (and "min çu" to "ez çum" ?) here. Thackston does not accept this usage with intransitive verbs, limiting it to the transitive ones. But I am not surprised by this, because I remember having seen a study on Kurmanji dialect variation that describes this phenomenon. Thackston is simply describing a different dialect - a sort of a standard written one presumably. If I remember correctly, in Diyarbakir Kurmanji, there is virtually no difference how the transitive and intransitive verbs are treated in the past tense. I am curious, rarabara, which region is your Kurmanji dialect from?



PersoLatin said:


> And the verb of interest (heyye & hebu) is clearly different to 1/2.



Note that Kurdish (like most Indo-Iranian languages as well as Turkish, Arabic, etc. but unlike Persian) has no verb for "to have". Possession is expressed as "to X, there is ..."

sew/sewike min heyye = sib(-i) be-man hast = "There is an apple to me"
sew/sewike min hebu = sib(-i) be-man bud = "There was an apple to me"

-----

The question relevant to this thread would be if Kurdish/Kurmanji has distinct verb forms to distinguish between:
1) "I go there everyday" vs. "I am going there now." (Very roughly Turkish giderim vs. gidiyorum)
2) "I used to go there everyday" vs. "I was going there at that time". (giderdim vs gidiyordum?)

Thackston seems to provide only one form for each of them (1: di-çim; 2: di-çum). But it is a very short and schematic grammar. So, I am pretty sure there is a lot of ground that it does not cover, that a native speaker like rarabara can easily cover for us.


----------



## Dib

I did a little more digging and found two papers, [1] and [2], which throw some light on the progressive/continuous aspect being distinguished in some Kurmanji dialects.

1) The Hakkari dialect seems to have a continuous aspect (See Paper [1] Section 3.1.2 item 4(c) and Paper [2] Page 163), distinguished from the habitual by having an ezafe vowel added to the subject. Examples in the Hakkari dialect from the two papers (orthography not faithful to the original):
[1] kiç-ik*-a* di-bež-it (The girl is saying)
[2] ez*-e* nan-i di-xo-m (I am eating food/bread)
Where -a and -e are respectively the feminine and masculine singular definite ezafe markers.

2) In addition, paper [1] (Page 14, Table 10) notes a progressive aspect in the Mereş/Kahramanmaraş dialect by adding -e to the verb. But there is no example.

I think, these two constructions can be safely assumed to have no connection to the Persian progressive formation using daashtan.


----------



## rarabara

Dib said:


> -----
> 
> The question relevant to this thread would be if Kurdish/Kurmanji has distinct verb forms to distinguish between:
> 1) "I go there everyday" vs. "I am going there now." (Very roughly Turkish giderim vs. gidiyorum)
> 2) "I used to go there everyday" vs. "I was going there at that time". (giderdim vs gidiyordum?)
> 
> Thackston seems to provide only one form for each of them (1: di-çim; 2: di-çum).


Hi, sorry for the late reply. Yes I am native speaker of Turkish and Kurdish languages (Bilingual)

1) "I go there everyday" is almost equivalent to "Ez herroj  ççim we dere" ,
"I am going there now" is equivalent to "Ez vega d çim we dere"

2) "I used to go there everyday" is equivalent to "min herroj d çu we dere "
"I was going there at that time" is equivalent to "ez d çum we dere d vi çağe de" (The structure may change to "ez d vi çağe d d çum w dere") or "min d çu w dere d vi çağede" (the structure may change to "min d vi çağe de d çu w dere")

I shall try to look at the papers you sticked here (if they are reachable directly)


----------



## Derakhshan

> I am going/من دارم میروم
> I was going/من داشتم میرفتم
> I have an apple/من یک سیب دارم
> I had an apple/من یک سیب داشتم
> 
> I am about to sleep/ من دارم میخوابم
> I was about to sleep/ من داشتم میخوابیدم



In Achomi (Lari):

_ma ačedāem _من دارم میروم
_ma ačedem _من داشتم میرفتم
_ma yak sib-om e_ (other dialects: _-om aste_, _-om en_) من یک سیب دارم
_ma yak sib-om and_ (other dialects: _-om hod, -om den_) من یک سیب داشتم

_ma axatedāem _من دارم میخوابم
_ma axatedem _من داشتم میخوابیدم

The construction we employ for continuousness looks to consist of: "I am in going" (_a čeda em _"in going I-am"). I know neighboring dialects use a similar construction, for example Southern Bashkardi: a-kerden-om "I am doing", literally "in doing I am".

Rural dialects north of us in Fars, and in Bushehr, however, don't use this construction; they use داشتن as an auxiliary like colloquial Persian, so I doubt this construction was borrowed into Persian from Mazandarani seeing as it's so widespread.



> Note that Kurdish (like most Indo-Iranian languages as well as Turkish, Arabic, etc. but unlike Persian) has no verb for "to have". Possession is expressed as "to X, there is ..."
> 
> sew/sewike min heyye = sib(-i) be-man hast = "There is an apple to me"
> sew/sewike min hebu = sib(-i) be-man bud = "There was an apple to me"



That construction was used commonly in earlier Persian: _marā sib ast_


----------



## Dib

rarabara said:


> 1) "I go there everyday" is almost equivalent to "Ez herroj  ççim we dere" ,
> "I am going there now" is equivalent to "Ez vega d çim we dere"
> 
> 2) "I used to go there everyday" is equivalent to "min herroj d çu we dere "
> "I was going there at that time" is equivalent to "ez d çum we dere d vi çağe de" (The structure may change to "ez d vi çağe d d çum w dere") or "min d çu w dere d vi çağede" (the structure may change to "min d vi çağe de d çu w dere")


Thanks a lot for your answer. From your examples, it seems that your dialect is quite close to the (written standard) dialect described by Thackston. I'd analyse your examples as (Please point out if something looks incorrect):

1) Present tense (both habitual and progressive):
Ez <time-adverb> d çim <destination>
I assume that "ççim" is just a pronunciation variant of "d çim". Thackston gives this form as "di-çim".

2) Past tense:
Two options:
a) Min <time-adverb> d çu <destination> <phrasal time-adverb>
b) Ez <time-adverb> d çum <destination> <phrasal time-adverb>

Here your dialect differs a bit from what Thackston is describing. He provides only (b) "ez di-çum", in both habitual and progressive sense. His version does not allow (a). On the other hand, your examples seem to imply that (a) is possible in both habitual and progressive sense, but you gave an example of (b) only in the progressive sense. I am wondering whether *for you* it would be okay to say "ez herroj d çum we dere."

---

Incidentally, I have found a grammar of Zaza/Dimili online - focusing primarily on the Siverek region. It seems, Zaza also has a present progressive form (Section 3.2.2.1) that is similar in construction to the Hakkari Kurmanji form I mentioned in my last message, i.e. a special progressive marker added to the subject + habitual present tense verb form. While the Zaza progressive subject markers are identical to the corresponding "descriptive" ezafe forms (Section 2.1.5) in the 3rd person (masc. sing. -o, fem. sing. -a, plu. -e) like in Hakkari, they are also identical to the present tense verb endings (1st sing. -an, 2nd. sing. masc. -e, 3rd sing. masc. -o, 2nd/3rd sing. fem. -a, all plu. -e; Table 2.21/Section 2.4.1.1) and very similar to the "copula" in all persons (only difference: plu. i/e; Table 2.23/Section 2.4.1.1 + footnote), example:
o*-yo* şami vırazen-o. (He is cooking supper), where -yo (for -o after a vowel) is the progressive subject marker.

This provides a feasible path of grammaticalisation in Zaza from the copula to the progressive subject marker. This naturally opens up the question if the Hakkari Kurmanji situation is historically parallel, even though synchronically it is not. Otherwise, it is very hard to see through what process the ezafe would come to mark the progressive aspect!


----------



## rarabara

Dib said:


> I'd analyse your examples as (Please point out if something looks incorrect):
> 
> 1) Present tense (both habitual and progressive):
> Ez <time-adverb> d çim <destination>
> I assume that "ççim" is just a pronunciation variant of "d çim". Thackston gives this form as "di-çim".
> 
> 2) Past tense:
> Two options:
> a) Min <time-adverb> d çu <destination> <phrasal time-adverb>
> b) Ez <time-adverb> d çum <destination> <phrasal time-adverb>
> 
> Here your dialect differs a bit from what Thackston is describing. He provides only (b) "ez di-çum", in both habitual and progressive sense. His version does not allow (a)


no, it is ok (in fact ,both of them are perfectly ok) the first one is motsly used to tell a context in the content ,but the second one is more common in face to face conversation.




Dib said:


> I am wondering whether *for you* it would be okay to say "ez herroj d çum we dere."


this is habitual and progressive ,yes.
perfectly okay.
Here one sensitive nuance is also available.At above, at a) expression "we" should be more obliquely pronunciated. Because that is more narrative. b) is a telling method in closer cases as expressed (e.g. face to face conversation/speech)

I would give one general notation:



> Kurdish is yes a language that has many dialects, but most of them are understandable by each other. (Because the difefrences are not so much big) At least, in my own case,I can understand almost all of them (Speech is implied).


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> In Achomi (Lari):
> 
> _ma ačedāem _من دارم میروم
> _ma ačedem _من داشتم میرفتم
> _ma yak sib-om e_ (other dialects: _-om aste_, _-om en_) من یک سیب دارم
> _ma yak sib-om and_ (other dialects: _-om hod, -om den_) من یک سیب داشتم
> 
> _ma axatedāem _من دارم میخوابم
> _ma axatedem _من داشتم میخوابیدم


Thank you for this, I was hoping you'd see this thread.

Lari & Southern Bashkardi sound quite intuitive in terms of describing the action in progress, it modern Persian equivalents would be:
من به رفتن ام/man be raftan am (man bé raftan-am/ I am in 'to go')
من به رفتن بودم/man be raftan budam (man bé raftan-budam/ I was in 'to go')

Which is not at all different in principle to:
من رفته ام/man rafté-am (I am 'gone'/I have gone)
من رفته بودم/man rafté-budam (I was 'gone'/I had gone)

I was sent this by a friend recently, it is Mazandarani which is mentioned in the linked paper:


> من درمه شومه: man derme shume دارم می روم /I am going
> من دیمه شیمه: man dime shime داشتم می رفتم /I was goimg
> من ات سیب دارمه: man ate sib darme من یک سیب دارم /I have an apple
> من ات سیب داشتمه: man ate sib dashteme من یک سیب داشتم /I had an apple


Looking so far, at Kurdish, Lori, Mazandarani & Gilaki we can see that the verb used for progressive has no link to 'to have/داشتن' and it is very likely that Persian had a similar verb but has been lost, or, most likely, due to its closeness to داشتن has been replaced by داشتن, but examples from more dialects can help understand it.



Derakhshan said:


> ....they use داشتن as an auxiliary like colloquial Persian, so I doubt this construction was borrowed into Persian from Mazandarani seeing as it's so widespread.


I agree.



Derakhshan said:


> Rural dialects north of us in Fars, and in Bushehr, however, don't use this construction; they use داشتن as an auxiliary like colloquial Persian,


Can you (anyone else) please provide actual examples from those dialects, also Dari, if it is different to modern Iranian Persian?


----------



## Derakhshan

Here is a conjugation table for Dashtaki, a Fars dialect:





You can see e.g.:

_darem mišem_ 'I am going'

Source

I forgot to mention that in some Bushehr dialects, they use a particle _hāsey _or _hey_:




_hey_ should be familiar as it is used in mainstream colloquial Persian, though with a different purpose ("to keep doing"). Likely coming from همی. I'm not sure about _hāsey_.

You can read more on the wikipedia page

I will have to get back to you on Dari, when I can check my resources. But I do know that in Tajikistan they do use ایستادان for the progressive:

_bačaho ovoz xonda istoda-and_  'the children are singing'
_rūz ba oxir rasida istoda bud_ 'the day was drawing to an end'

Source

Since "to be standing and doing something" implies continuous action I guess. Although in Middle Persian (and indeed still in Lari and some Fars dialects) ایستادان is used as an auxiliary to mark the perfect.


----------



## Derakhshan

In a dialect of Northern Luri (Bala Geriveh), the present progressive is also marked with the particle _hā_:_ hā rо̄m _'I am going'. (This dialect doesn't use a prefix like _mi_- for the present indicative). _hay _is used as in colloquial Persian: _hay gui_ 'You keep on saying'.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> *2 لری - Lori*
> دام رویم/داتم میریتم
> مو سیف درم/مو سیفم دات


Looking at Lori:
"I have an apple" is "mo sif-om *dât*/مو سیفم *دات*", equivalent in Persian: "man-râ/man sib-am bud"
and
"I was going" is "*dât*-am mi-royt-am/*دات*م میریتم"
and
"I am going" is "*dâ*-am ruy-am/*دا*م رویم"

In the 3 examples above it is clear that *dât* is the past tense of *dâ* which itself means "to be".



> Mazandarani:
> من درمه شومه: man *derme *shume دارم می روم /I am going
> من دیمه شیمه: man *dime *shime داشتم می رفتم /I was going
> من ات سیب دارمه: man ate sib darme من یک سیب دارم /I have an apple
> من ات سیب داشتمه: man ate sib dashteme من یک سیب داشتم /I had an apple


And in Mazandarani the same verb is *di*-me and *der*-me and in Gilaki *do*-am & *der*-am,



Derakhshan said:


> _ma ačedāem _من دارم میروم
> _ma ačedem _من داشتم میرفتم


Similarly the same happens in Lari with _*āem* and *-**em* _ except this "to be" seems to be a common one (very much like the Persian am, i, a/e, im, id, ast/a) and not a especial one like in Lori, Mazandarani & Gilalki starting with /*d*/.

The proximity of Mazandaran to areas where mainstream Persian is more common spoken (Tehran), also the fact that the original people of northern Tehran, i.e. the greater Shemiran, were ethnically close to Mazandaranis and their dialects were very similar, despite that I don't think Mazandaran is is the source of missing "to be", to me the original Persian version one was very close to Lori *dâ* (*dât*) where over time:

*dâ*-am,*  dâ*-i*,  dâ*-ad,*  dâ*-im*,  dâ*-id,*  dâ*-and changed to
*dâ*-r-am,*  dâ*-r-i, .....*dâ*-r-and, with a non etymological /r/ added,

and
*dâ-t*-am*,  dâ-t*-i,  *dâ-t*,  *dâ-t*-im,  *dâ-t*-id,  *dâ-t*-and changed to:
*dâ*-š-*t*-am,*  dâ*-š-*t*-i ... *dâ*-š-*t*-and, with a non etymological /š/ added.


----------



## Derakhshan

After reading the full paper, I don't see a reason to assume that one language took it from the other. Mazanadarani and Gilaki both use the "locative be" (this isn't the same as existential بودن , it is only used for location) in the progressive construction.

The example given in the paper for Gilaki:

_giftǝn dǝr-ǝm_ 'I am saying'

Literally "saying I-am-in", and similar to constructions used in Lari and in the vicinity of Hormozgan, like Minabi: _a-goften-en_ "in saying they-are"

Intriguingly, some Gilaki dialects use a particle _kəra_ in the progressive. 

_kəra amon dərə_ "He is coming"

In a few Hormozgan dialects you find something very similar, something like:

_kar raftem_ "I am going"

Perhaps originating from کار and here meaning "deed, act", so "I am in the act of going".

Getting back to Dari, my source says that in Kabuli, there is no progressive per se, and e.g. _mēra_ means both "he goes" and "he is going". I believe the situation is similar in much of Kurdish. Well, _(ha)mē_ was originally a particle use for the progressive in Persian, until it started to be used for the habitual, simple present.

A theory: the many autochthonous vernaculars in the Iranian plateau all seem to have a progressive construction discrete from the habitual present, and this may have influenced Iranian Persian. Perhaps, after _mi_- began to be used as the simple habitual present in Persian, this prompted the innovation of داشتن as an auxiliary, to keep the status quo of having an explicit progressive construction, which all the vernaculars such as Luri, Caspian, Central, Fars and Hormozgan dialects had. Whereas in Afghanistan and Kurdistan the progressive and habitual present simply merged.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> After reading the full paper, I don't see a reason to assume that one language took it from the other. Mazanadarani and Gilaki both use the "locative be" (this isn't the same as existential بودن , it is only used for location) in the progressive construction.
> 
> The example given in the paper for Gilaki:
> 
> _giftǝn dǝr-ǝm_ 'I am saying'
> 
> Literally "saying I-am-in", and similar to constructions used in Lari and in the vicinity of Hormozgan, like Minabi: _a-goften-en_ "in saying they-are"


Which paper are you referring to please? The paper linked in the OP only talks about Mazandarani, not that it matters so much but I'd like to know if there is another paper.


----------



## Derakhshan

Download the full paper, it's there on pages 9 & 10.


----------

