# Persian: غذایی که برایم کشیده بود



## aramesh

Persian: غذایی که برایم کشیده بود

Could you be so kind to clear up the following sentence, in particular the meaning of _keshidan _in this context?

با بشقاب غذایی که برایم *کشیده بود* به اتاق دیگر برد 

I presume that in this case _keshidan _means _dorost kardan_ so that:

_Using a plate she brought the dinner she prepared for me to the other room.
_
But I'm not sure at all!

I know the use of _keshidan _with sofreh as _to lay the table_. Does it mean, in my context, that she had already set the table for me and that now she moves the dinner to another place?

Thanks in advance for your kind help,

Aramesh


----------



## Aryamp

Hi

غذا کشیدن means to put/serve food in a dish

So the sentence literally means : using a plate, she took the food she had served for me to the other room

But that translation is too literal and kind of clumsy, so I go with the simple " she took my dish to the other room"


----------



## Qureshpor

Or perhaps...

The food she had served for me, she took it in a plate to the other room.


----------



## aramesh

Aryamp said:


> Hi
> 
> غذا کشیدن means to put/serve food in a dish
> 
> So the sentence literally means : using a plate, she took the food she had served for me to the other room
> 
> But that translation is too literal and kind of clumsy, so I go with the simple *" she took my dish to the other room"*



Ok, it definitely sounds more natural now! 

Many thanks,

Aramesh


----------



## darush

aramesh said:


> Persian: با بشقاب غذایی که برایم *کشیده بود* به اتاق دیگر برد ???



==> She took ??? with the food she'd servet for me, to the other room.
(???+food)


بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد

==> She took the food she'd servet for me to the other room.


----------



## aramesh

darush said:


> ==> She took ??? with the food she'd servet for me, to the other room.
> (???+food)
> 
> 
> بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد
> 
> ==> She took the food she'd servet for me to the other room.



Does this sentence sound odd to you?

I feel relieved beacuse it was so hard to translate it!!!  
In particular I'm surprised not to find any را

Many thanks,

Aramesh


----------



## searcher123

aramesh said:


> Does this sentence sound odd to you?(...)


Yes! Its correct form is:

Formal: بشقاب غذایی که برایم کشیده بود را به اتاق دیگر برد
Colloquial: بشقاب﴾ غذایی که برام کشیده بودو برد يه اتاق ديگه﴿


----------



## aramesh

Thanks for your comments...they've been very helpful!

Aramesh


----------



## darush

aramesh said:


> Does this sentence sound odd to you?



Hi aramesh,

The sentence با بشقاب غذایی که برایم *کشیده بود* به اتاق دیگر برد is incomplete. It needs something at the first, for example a bowl of water.

یک پارچ آب با بشقاب غذایی که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد

this one is okay:

بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد


----------



## darush

Hi Morteza


searcher123 said:


> بشقاب غذایی که برایم کشیده بود را به اتاق دیگر برد





> بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد


----------



## aramesh

darush said:


> Hi Morteza



Hi, darus!

Could you give me further explanation about the use of the *ra *as in the two sentences, please?

If I'm not wrong both of them (although one seems to be _ghalat_) are used in written texts. Is it possible? Does the _ghalat _one follow the spoken use?

Many thanks,

Aramesh


----------



## searcher123

darush said:


> Hi Morteza



Hi dear *Darush*
Sorry for my lack in description. As you can see, this sentence is a colloquial sentence. If we look at it as a formal sentence, you are right: the correct place of را is exactly after غذا, because را is a sign of مفعول بي‌واسطه and its place is immediately after the objective. But if we look as a formal sentence at the sentence, the sentence is wrong itself completely! Because كشيدن is a verb for غذا, not بشقاب. In other words, غذا كشيدن is correct, not بشقاب كشيدن, so the correct form in formal language will be غذايي كه در بشقاب برايم كشيده بود را به اتاق ديگر برد.

I hope you be agree with me that the structure of a colloquial sentence is different of a formal sentence in many situations. To be honest, the pronunciation of  بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد is really hard to me and my tongue will take tied if I pronounce it so!


----------



## darush

aramesh said:


> Hi, darus!
> 
> Could you give me further explanation about the use of the *ra *as in the two sentences, please?
> 
> If I'm not wrong both of them (although one seems to be _ghalat_) are used in written texts. Is it possible? Does the _ghalat _one follow the spoken use?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Aramesh



Hi, aramesh and sorry for my long long silence...

The right place for_ ra_ in a Farsi sentence is immidiately after object.
An example from http://aryaadib.blogfa.com/post-778.aspx:
كتاب مدیر مدرسه نوشته ی آل احمد را كه مبین مشكلات آموزشی ایران است، خواندم. 
كتاب مدیر مدرسه نوشته ی جلال آل احمد كه مبین مشكلات آموزشی ایران است را خواندم
And another one.

Today, you can find many of _ghalat _form in written texts. But in spoken use, we say both _ghalat _and _dorost _forms.


----------



## darush

searcher123 said:


> Hi dear *Darush*
> Sorry for my lack in description. As you can see, this sentence is a colloquial sentence. If we look at it as a formal sentence, you are right: the correct place of را is exactly after غذا, because را is a sign of مفعول بي‌واسطه and its place is immediately after the objective. But if we look as a formal sentence at the sentence, the sentence is wrong itself completely! Because كشيدن is a verb for غذا, not بشقاب. In other words, غذا كشيدن is correct, not بشقاب كشيدن, so the correct form in formal language will be غذايي كه در بشقاب برايم كشيده بود را به اتاق ديگر برد.
> 
> I hope you be agree with me that the structure of a colloquial sentence is different of a formal sentence in many situations. To be honest, the pronunciation of بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد is really hard to me and my tongue will take tied if I pronounce it so!



Dear Morteza, this example is a bit sophisticated(to me at least). It is better to wait for a grammarian answer's(however it seems you are totally right).


----------



## aramesh

darush said:


> Hi, aramesh and sorry for my long long silence...
> 
> The right place for_ ra_ in a Farsi sentence is immidiately after object.
> An example from http://aryaadib.blogfa.com/post-778.aspx:
> كتاب مدیر مدرسه نوشته ی آل احمد را كه مبین مشكلات آموزشی ایران است، خواندم.
> كتاب مدیر مدرسه نوشته ی جلال آل احمد كه مبین مشكلات آموزشی ایران است را خواندم
> And another one.
> 
> Today, you can find many of _ghalat _form in written texts. But in spoken use, we say both _ghalat _and _dorost _forms.



Thank you for your kind reply and sorry if i was late in answering you...too much stuff in this exciting forum!

Aramesh


----------



## Hassannami

searcher123 said:


> Yes! Its correct form is:
> 
> Formal: بشقاب غذایی که برایم کشیده بود را به اتاق دیگر برد
> Colloquial: بشقاب﴾ غذایی که برام کشیده بودو برد يه اتاق ديگه﴿


 
Both of the aforementioned forms have a simple error which is common in Persian. notice that "را" should be used after object, here it is used after the verb.Thus the correct form is like this. 

Formal: بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود  به اتاق دیگر برد
Colloquial: بشقاب﴾ غذایيو که برام کشیده بود برد يه اتاق ديگه﴿


----------



## sapnachaandni

Hi,

The grammarian answer:

Let’s talk about “جمله ی پایه” [jomle-ye paaye] (= main clause/ independent clause) and “جمله ی پیرو” [jomle-ye peyro] (= subordinate clause/ dependent clause):
Each sentence has some components like subject (فاعل), verb (فعل), object (مفعول), etc.
The sentence can be independent (like a simple sentence), for example "غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد" ===>
“برد” is فعل و فاعل , 
“غذایی” is مفعول صریح or مفعول بی واسطه,
“به اتاق دیگر” is قید.

Each “independent sentence” (جمله ی مستقل) can be used as “جمله ی پایه”, which means one (or more than one) “جمله ی پیرو” can be attached to “جمله ی پایه”, like this:
“غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد که در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود”. ===> this sentence is a “complex sentence” which is called “جمله ی مرکب” in Persian grammar.
“جمله ی پایه” has some components. “جمله ی پیرو” also has some components. but the components of  “جمله ی پایه” are belong to “جمله ی پایه” and the components of  “جمله ی پیرو” are belong to “جمله ی پیرو”. it means attaching “جمله ی پیرو” to “جمله ی پایه” doesn’t make any component of  “جمله ی پایه” become a component of  “جمله ی پیرو”.
the sentence is “غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد که در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود”,
this is “جمله ی پایه” : i “غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد”,
and this is “جمله ی پیرو” : i “در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود”.

*note:*
Whenever we omit “که”, each of the “جمله ی پایه” and “جمله ی پایه” should be able to become an independent sentence. It means, after omitting “که”, we should have two sentences which are *grammatically* correct (according to the Persian grammar). 
For example: 
“غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد” is a sentence which is grammatically correct. 
“در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود” is also a sentence which is grammatically correct (we are *not* talking about the *whole meaning* of the “جمله ی مرکب”. we are talking about the *grammatical correctness* of the each sentence). 
“در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود” is a correct sentence and it has *its own* components:
“کشیده بود” is فعل و فاعل,
“در بشقاب” is قید,
“برایم” is متمم or مفعول غیرصریح i(مفعول باواسطه)

Maybe someone says: “در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود” needs a “مفعول صریح” too. yes, It’s right, and because of this we have “جمله ی مرکب”. 
It means we have the* whole meaning*  only after saying “جمله ی پایه” and “جمله ی پیرو” together. When we say “جمله ی پایه” and “جمله ی پیرو” together, we can understand that “غذایی” is semantically (not grammatically) the object (“مفعول صریح”) of the “جمله ی پیرو” too.

Look at this again:
The sentence is “غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد که در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود”,
this is “جمله ی پایه” : i “غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد” i ==> i “برد” is فعل و فاعل ,i “غذایی” is مفعول صریح,  i and “به اتاق دیگر” is قید i,
and this is “جمله ی پیرو” : i “در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود” i ==> i “کشیده بود” is فعل و فاعل, i “در بشقاب” is قید, i and “برایم” is متمم or مفعول غیرصریح.i

 “غذایی” is the object (مفعول صریح) of “جمله ی پایه” and “را” should be put after “غذایی”, and it can’t be put anywhere else.


Now, look at this:
We can put “جمله ی پیرو” *in the middle of*  “جمله ی پایه”, like this:
(2) “غذایی را که در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد”
and nothing changes in this case. It means “جمله ی پایه” remains “جمله ی پایه”, and “جمله ی پیرو” remains “جمله ی پیرو”:
The sentence is  “غذایی را که در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد”,
this is “جمله ی پایه”i :i “غذایی را به اتاق دیگر برد”,i
and this is “جمله ی پیرو”i :i “در بشقاب برایم کشیده بود”.i

“غذایی” is always the object (مفعول صریح) of “جمله ی پایه” and “را” should be put after “غذایی”, and it can’t be put anywhere else, even if we put “جمله ی پیرو” in the middle of  “جمله ی پایه”. 
in this case (place of putting “را”), there is no difference between formal and colloquial.

So these are wrong sentences:
Formal: “غذایی که برایم در بشقاب کشیده بود را به اتاق دیگر برد”
Colloquial: “غذایی که برام توی بشقاب کشیده بودو برد یه اتاق دیگه”

and these are correct sentences:
Formal: “غذایی را که برایم در بشقاب کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد”
Colloquial: “غذاییو که برام توی بشقاب کشیده بود برد یه اتاق دیگه”
or
Formal: “بشقاب غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد”
Colloquial: i “غذاییو که برام کشیده بود برد یه اتاق دیگهi(بشقاب)i”i




Reference:
نجفی، ابوالحسن (1389) *غلط ننویسیم*، چاپ پانزدهم، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی​


----------



## fdb

It is somehow comforting to see our Persian friends disagreeing  vociferously about the correct placing of _rā_, comforting because we foreigners find it confusing too. If I want to say “I saw your father” I would have to say:

پدرشما را ديدم

I cannot possibly say:

پدر را شما ديدم

“pedar” is the direct object of the verb; in Arabic or Latin or Old Persian or Avestan it would be in the accusative case. So it is obviously not correct to say that را has to be placed “immediately after” the object. Here it is placed after the object together with its possessive complement.


----------



## sapnachaandni

fdb said:


> It is somehow comforting to see our Persian friends disagreeing  vociferously about the correct placing of _rā_, comforting because we foreigners find it confusing too. If I want to say “I saw your father” I would have to say:
> 
> پدرشما را ديدم
> 
> I cannot possibly say:
> 
> پدر را شما ديدم
> 
> “pedar” is the direct object of the verb; in Arabic or Latin or Old Persian or Avestan it would be in the accusative case. So it is obviously not correct to say that را has to be placed “immediately after” the object. Here it is placed after the object together with its possessive complement.



OK, let me explain something else:
We have another topic in Persian grammar which is called "گروه" [goruh] (=phrase), like "گروه فعلی" [goruh-e fe'li] (=verb phrase), "گروه اسمی" [goruh-e esmi] (=noun phrase) etc.
"گروه" [goruh] (=phrase) is a group of words  (or sometimes a single word) that form a constituent and so function as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence.
Every "گروه"  has a *head word* which is called "هسته ی گروه" [haste-ye goruh] in Persian grammar. Other words of a "گروه" are called "وابسته" [vaabaste] in Persian grammar.
In the case of "را", we should talk about "گروه اسمی". The head word (هسته) of a "گروه اسمی" is "اسم" (noun). For example, these are "گروه اسمی" :
"پدر شما"
"بشقاب غذا"
"این درخت زیبا" [in derakht-e zibaa] (= this beautiful tree)
"درخت زیبای باغ شما" [derakht-e zibaa-ye baaq-e shomaa] (=the beautiful tree of your garden)

We have two groups of "وابسته":
(1) "وابسته های پسین" [vaabaste-haa-ye pasin] ==>  these are placed before "هسته" (= head word)
(2) "وابسته های پیشین" [vaabaste-haa-ye pishin] ==>  these are placed after "هسته"

Each of these two groups has different types of "وابسته". These are some example for types of "وابسته های پیشین":
"وابسته ی صفتی" [vaabaste-ye sefati] (sefat = adjective) ==> this "وابسته" is an adjective
"وابسته ی اسمی" [vaabaste-ye esmi] (esm = noun) ==> this "وابسته" is a noun (or a pronoun)
etc.

for example, look at these two "گروه اسمی":
"پدر شما" i ==> I "پدر" is "هسته" I, "شما" is "وابسته ی اسمی".i
"بشقاب غذا" i ==> I "بشقاب" is "هسته" I, "غذا" is "وابسته ی اسمی".i


It needs a very long explanation, but Generally we can say "را" [raa] has to be placed after a "گروه اسمی" which has the objective role in the sentence (or which is in the accusative case).

So "پدر شما را دیدم" is correct and "پدر را شما دیدم" is wrong. "را" is placed after "پدر شما" because "پدر شما" is a "گروه اسمی" which has objective role in the sentence (or which is in the accusative case). 



Reference:
مشکوة الدینی، مهدی (1385) *دستور زبان فارسی بر پایه نظریه گشتاری*، ویرایش دوم، چاپ هشتم، مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد
​


----------



## Jervoltage

^ Thank you, sapnachaandni, for your detailed answer.



fdb said:


> It is somehow comforting to see our Persian friends disagreeing  vociferously about the correct placing of _rā_, comforting because we foreigners find it confusing too.



There doesn't seem to be much disagreement as to the correct placement of را, even though people might mistakenly put it after the verb (see Hassannami's post above.)



> If I want to say “I saw your father” I would have to say:
> 
> پدرشما را ديدم
> 
> I cannot possibly say:
> 
> پدر را شما ديدم
> 
> “pedar” is the direct object of the verb; in Arabic or Latin or Old Persian or Avestan it would be in the accusative case. So it is obviously not correct to say that را has to be placed “immediately after” the object. Here it is placed after the object together with its possessive complement.



Note that را is not placed, as explained by sapnachaandni, in the middle of the noun phrase, پدر شما here (not even by mistake!)


----------



## sapnachaandni

Thank you, Jervoltage, for this note:


Jervoltage said:


> Note that را is not placed, as explained by sapnachaandni, in the middle of the noun phrase, پدر شما here (*not even by mistake!*)


----------



## colognial

Qureshpor said:


> Or perhaps...
> 
> The food she had served for me, she took it in a plate to the other room.


Hello!

با بشقاب غذایی که برایم *کشیده بود* به اتاق دیگر برد


Your translation suggests an excess of something, the pronoun, to be exact. In fact there is something _missing_ here: Either the troublesome 'ra': با بشقاب، غذایی را که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد، which would translate into: he took the food he had dished out for me into the other room on a plate,

or,

روزنامه را با بشقابِ غذایی که برایم کشیده بود به اتاق دیگر برد which changes the sense to: he took the newspaper together with the plate of food he had served for me to the other room.


----------

