# Persian: مرد آمد



## hyderabadigirl

مرد آمد۔

Is this sentence talking about one man who came? Or more than one?


----------



## PersoLatin

^ one man.


----------



## hyderabadigirl

Hmm...but I remember someone saying that sentences like

کتاب گرفتم
نامہ می نویسم
قلم خواھم فروخت
روزنامہ می خواندم

don't specify the number of objects; they only inform us of the actions of newspaper-reading, pen-selling, letter-writing, and book-taking.
Similarly, I thought that مرد آمد didn't specify the number of men; it only told us that man-arriving took place in the past, be it one man or two or fifty.
Are you saying that مرد آمد can only mean "The man came."?


----------



## curious boy

hyderabadigirl said:


> Are you saying that مرد آمد can only mean "The man came."?


yes, that's right


----------



## Treaty

They don't specify number because they are the object of the sentence.


----------



## hyderabadigirl

But my book says that if you say
کوہ بلند است.
It can mean either:
"The mountain is tall."

or

"Mountains (in general) are tall."

And here it is also not the object of the sentence.


----------



## colognial

hyderabadigirl said:


> But my book says that if you say
> کوہ بلند است.
> It can mean either:
> "The mountain is tall."
> or
> "Mountains (in general) are tall."
> And here it is also not the object of the sentence.



What does "Men in general arrived" communicate? If you could use this sentence to refer to anything concrete, then the Persian equivalent of such a sentence would be "مرد آمد".


----------



## hyderabadigirl

Thank you, colonial! That means that مرد آمد could indeed be used in both senses, i.e. "The man arrived" or "Men (in general) arrived" but the latter doesn't really make much sense in Persian (or in English, for that matter).
Let's think of an example where both meanings would be correct.
How about:

شکمِ گرسنہ ایمان ندارد
"The hungry stomach has no faith."
"Hungry stomachs (in general) have no faith."

شب گربه سمور می نماید
"At night the cat looks like a skunk."
"At night cats (in general) look like skunks."

Could a native speaker tell me if my two examples are correct?


----------



## Treaty

Now, I think of it, it depends on the context. If the context (including the verb tense) can point to a habitual event or status then it can mean a generic name. For example, 
پس از ناهار زن از خانه به کارخانه رفت = after lunch, the woman went from home to the factory.
پس از انقلاب صنعتی زن از خانه به کارخانه رفت = after the Industrial Revolution women went from home to factories.

As for مرد آمد, considering there is no context provided, it would be understood as a single definite man. Considering your other example, در شب، گربه به سمور می نماید (at night, cats look like otters) there is again the necessary context for a generic implication. However, if it was در آن شب گربه به سمور نمود (at that night, the cat looked like an/the otter) then because we had restricted both the timespan to specific night and the tense to a specific moment (simple past) there is no much room for a generic cat.


----------



## curious boy

by the way,as I know نماییدن doesn't mean to look like something(It means to show something). If you want to say at night,cats look like skunks you should say:در شب گربه به راسو می ماند or a more common way to say it is: در شب گربه مانند(شبیه) راسو است .


----------



## PersoLatin

curious boy said:


> by the way,as I know نماییدن doesn't mean to look like something(It means to show something). If you want to say at night,cats look like skunks you should say:در شب گربه به راسو می ماند or a more common way to say it is: در شب گربه مانند(شبیه) راسو است .


می نماید is a more fitting verb for this situation as it means 'appears' whereas 'می ماند' mean 'looks like' (as you said).


----------



## colognial

I should think using proverbs to demonstrate the double-meaning property of singular nouns in sentences was defeating the object of the exercise, because of the fact that proverbs are sayings designed for generalization purposes.

But to sum up, firstly, in a sentence such as "شعر پر است از واژه هایی که در معنایی تازه به کار رفته اند", context matters; without it, one cannot know for certain whether 'poetry' in general has the property of being full of words used in a fresh sense, or if a specific poem has this quality.

In the second place, if a specific noun is intended, then the noun is indeed to be taken as being singular and, well, definite.


----------



## hyderabadigirl

I think Treaty's two sentences about the woman and women in general prove what I thought all along: that the singular noun can mean either definite singular or generic, depending on the context.


----------



## James Bates

Treaty said:


> Now, I think of it, it depends on the context. If the context (including the verb tense) can point to a habitual event or status then it can mean a generic name. For example,
> پس از ناهار زن از خانه به کارخانه رفت = after lunch, the woman went from home to the factory.
> پس از انقلاب صنعتی زن از خانه به کارخانه رفت = after the Industrial Revolution women went from home to factories.
> 
> As for مرد آمد, considering there is no context provided, it would be understood as a single definite man. Considering your other example, در شب، گربه به سمور می نماید (at night, cats look like otters) there is again the necessary context for a generic implication. However, if it was در آن شب گربه به سمور نمود (at that night, the cat looked like an/the otter) then because we had restricted both the timespan to specific night and the tense to a specific moment (simple past) there is no much room for a generic cat.



What if I modified the word "zan" and made it, say, "zan-e orupaai", would the same two possibilities exist?
I.e.

پس از ناهار زن اروپائی از خانه به کارخانه رفت = After lunch, the European woman went from home to the factory.
پس از انقلاب صنعتی زن اروپائی از خانه به کارخانه رفت = After the Industrial Revolution, European women went from home to factories.


----------



## PersoLatin

James Bates said:


> What if I modified the word "zan" and made it, say, "zan-e orupaai", would the same two possibilities exist?
> I.e.
> 
> پس از ناهار زن اروپائی از خانه به کارخانه رفت = After lunch, the European woman went from home to the factory.
> پس از انقلاب صنعتی زن اروپائی از خانه به کارخانه رفت = After the Industrial Revolution, European women went from home to factories.


Yes, they would. (But of course they would also exclude non European women)


----------



## James Bates

That's obvious. 
All I was saying was that the same possibilities would exist: singular definite or generic.


----------



## Daojee

James Bates said:


> That's obvious.
> All I was saying was that the same possibilities would exist: singular definite or generic.



Here are two examples where only the generic is possible:

شکمِ گرسنہ ایمان ندارد۔
کتابِ خوب غذای روحِ بشر است۔


----------



## PersoLatin

Daojee said:


> Here are two examples where only the generic is possible:
> شکمِ گرسنہ ایمان ندارد۔


How about: شکمِ گرسنه ی اوایمان ندارد۔?


----------



## James Bates

You changed the sentence!


----------



## Treaty

Daojee said:


> Here are two examples where only the generic is possible:
> شکمِ گرسنہ ایمان ندارد۔
> کتابِ خوب غذای روحِ بشر است۔


Nope. There is still the possibility of specific stomach or book. You have a few books of which only one is good. After establishing this context your کتاب خوب would refer to that good book.


----------



## James Bates

Oh, I see.


----------



## colognial

hyderabadigirl said:


> I think Treaty's two sentences about the woman and women in general prove what I thought all along: that the singular noun can mean either definite singular or generic, depending on the context.



You've got it exactly right there.


----------

