# Persian: خدمت



## gm motors

What does خدمت mean in "آهنگ خدمتش کردم دربانم رها نکرد”? I think it might be related to the Turkish word hizmet, which means "service". If someone could translate the whole sentence I would be even more grateful! 

Here is where I got it from:

تنی چند از روندگان در صحبت من بودند ظاهر ایشان به صلاح آراسته و یکی را از بزرگان در حق این طایفه حسن ظنّی بلیغ و ادراریمعین کرده تا یکی از اینان حرکتی کرد نه مناسب حال درویشان ظنّ آن شخص فاسد شد و بازار اینان کاسد خواستم تا به طریقی کفاف یاران مستخلص کنم آهنگ خدمتش کردم دربانم رها نکرد و جفا کرد و معذورش داشتم که لطیفان گفته‌اند


----------



## Muttaki

It is not related. It is the word _hizmet_. It is written as خدمت.


----------



## fdb

As discussed here: Turkish 'hizmet'


----------



## Treaty

خدمت means service in this sentence as well. آهنگ ... کردن means 'to head to ...' or 'to intend to do ...'. Therefore the sentence mean _I headed to serving him but the sentinel didn't let me [in] ..._.


----------



## gm motors

Treaty said:


> خدمت means service in this sentence as well. آهنگ ... کردن means 'to head to ...' or 'to intend to do ...'. Therefore the sentence mean _I headed to serving him but the sentinel didn't leave me ..._.



darbaanam rahaa nakardam cannot mean "The gatekeeper (or sentinel, as you put it) didn't leave me." 
It must mean "My gatekeeper didn't leave." shouldn't it?


----------



## Treaty

It is _darbaan-am rahaa nakard_ (not _nakardam_). In classical, colloquial and regional Persian the position of personal objective pronouns (_am, at, ash,_ etc, exactly the same as possessive pronouns) can be very fluid. Here_ rahaa nakard_ literally means "didn't release" but "didn't let" in the context (sorry, I mistakenly put "leave" instead of "let") and _am _is the its object.


----------



## the far side

Treaty said:


> It is _darbaan-am rahaa nakard_ (not _nakardam_). In classical, colloquial and regional Persian the position of personal objective pronouns (_am, at, ash,_ etc, exactly the same as possessive pronouns) can be very fluid. Here_ rahaa nakard_ literally means "didn't release" but "didn't let" in the context (sorry, I mistakenly put "leave" instead of "let") and _am _is the its object.


 
Yes, I remember reading that the position of the personal objective pronoun is very flexible. I think that "The man hit me" could be said as "mard zadam" or "mardam zad" (and mard maraa zad is obviously possible too).


----------



## Per Gessle

the far side said:


> Yes, I remember reading that the position of the personal objective pronoun is very flexible. I think that "The man hit me" could be said as "mard zadam" or "mardam zad" (and mard maraa zad is obviously possible too).



It may be theoretically possible to express "The man hit me" as مرد زدم or مردم زد in CLASSICAL Persian, but in MODERN Persian these sentences are plain wrong.
مرد زدم would be taken to mean "I hit men."
مردم زد would mean "My man hit."
Please remember that دربانم رھا نکرد can mean "The gatekeeper didn't let me in." only in classical Persian.
If you said this same sentence in modern Persian, people would think you meant "My gatekeeper didn't let (someone) in."


----------



## colognial

I'd hesitate to call them "plain wrong", not least because the unusual sentence patterns haven't been wholly abandoned. Persian has been enriched by classical texts in which there happens to be an abundance of these patterns. Hence they contribute to and are acknowledged as a peculiarity of our language.

To give you some examples, a sentence you may still hear today is آفتاب سوزاندم (the sun scorched me, I got burned in the sun). Another example is باکیش نبود, which you can break down into او را باکی نبود (she had no compunctions/misgivings).


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> To give you some examples, a sentence you may still hear today is آفتاب سوزاندم


Hi colognial, do you not think آفتاب سوزاندم is different to:


Treaty said:


> ...colloquial and regional Persian the position of personal objective pronouns (_am, at, ash,_ etc, exactly the same as possessive pronouns) can be very fluid.


since سوزاندن is causative of سوختن, and can be conjugated in the normal way?


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin said:


> Hi colognial, do you not think آفتاب سوزاندم is different to:
> 
> since سوزاندن is causative of سوختن, and can be conjugated in the normal way?



Do you mean that it's alright to say آفتاب مرا سوزاند?


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> Do you mean that it's alright to say آفتاب مرا سوزاند?


Yes, as it is equivalent to او مرا رساند or مادر بچه را خواباند


----------



## colognial

How about آفتاب سوزاندم? Is this fluent?


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> How about آفتاب سوزاندم? Is this fluent?


We do have its colloquial, آفتاب سوزوندم in use (at least I have heard it) so I believe it is correct, but out of context it can be vague, so maybe not too fluent.

If we go back to the original post, the equivalent of آفتاب سوزاندم will be آفتابم سوزاند


----------



## colognial

Of course. You're right, thanks. I was just trying to show how it doesn't quite bother one (باکی نیست) to come across a displaced attached pronoun.


----------

