# Persian: گشادند



## Asadullah

میگوید فقیر ولی اللہ بن عبدالرحیم چون برین فقیر دری از فھم کتاب اللہ گشادند، خواست کہ بعضی نکات نافعہ کہ در تدبیر کلام اللہ یاران را بکار آید در رسالہ مختصری مضبوط نماید 

In this sentence would گشادند be best translated as "was opened"? In other words: The poor Waliullah bin Abdurrahim says that when a door of understanding the book of Allah was opened to him.

Or should it be: when they opened a door of...?


----------



## soheil1

openned
it is transitive here


----------



## colognial

Asadullah said:


> میگوید فقیر ولی اللہ بن عبدالرحیم چون برین فقیر دری از فھم کتاب اللہ گشادند، خواست کہ بعضی نکات نافعہ کہ در تدبیر کلام اللہ یاران را بکار آید در رسالہ مختصری مضبوط نماید
> 
> In this sentence would گشادند be best translated as "was opened"? In other words: The poor Waliullah bin Abdurrahim says that when a door of understanding the book of Allah was opened to him.
> 
> Or should it be: when they opened a door of...?



I would say "was opened" was the better choice. As far as I know, in the English language the use of a non-specific 'they' would only ever occur in informal circumstances.


----------



## soheil1

colognial said:


> I would say "was opened" was the better choice. As far as I know, in the English language the use of a non-specific 'they' would only ever occur in informal circumstances.


What do you mean?
He *opened* the door, not he was opened the door.


----------



## fdb

Persian uses the 3rd person plural ("they") for an undefined subject ("one"). In English the best translation is usually the passive voice: "they opened for him" = "there was opened for him".


----------



## soheil1

fdb said:


> Persian uses the 3rd person plural ("they") for an undefined subject ("one"). In English the best translation is usually the passive voice: "they opened for him" = "there was opened for him".


OK. 'The poor Waliullah................" is a substitute for "they".

A Persian also uses pluralization for respect


----------



## fdb

soheil1 said:


> OK. 'The poor Waliullah................" is a substitute for "they".



No. "They (=some unspecified people) opened for him a door of understanding..." means "A door of understanding was opened for him...."


----------



## soheil1

fdb said:


> No. "They (=some unspecified people) opened for him a door of understanding..." means "A door of understanding was opened for him...."


The subject is clearly mentioned in the sentence.
Don't play joke on me. It can confuse the OP. Thank you


----------



## fdb

Waliullah is the subject of  میگوید


----------



## soheil1

fdb said:


> Waliullah is the subject of  میگوید


Oh, considering the rest of the sentence, the subject of گشادند is unspecified, as is the subject of می گوید


----------



## colognial

soheil1, ولی  الله بن عبدالرحیم refers to himself as این فقیر, or as a _he_, not as an _I_. The first sentence begins with "thus speaks the humble Valiollah ebne Abdorraheem: as the door to the understanding of the book of the Lord was opened to this humble being, he wished to ...".


----------



## PersoLatin

Would this be a good rephrasing of, mainly, the first part?
فقیر ولی اللہ بن عبدالرحیم *میگوید *چون برین  فقیر(من) دری از فھم کتاب اللہ (دیگران) گشادند،  (فقیر ولی اللہ خواست\من خواستم) خواست کہ بعضی نکات نافعہ کہ در تدبیر کلام اللہ یاران را بکار آید در رسالہ مختصری مضبوط نماید/ *نمایم*


----------



## Stranger_

He is simply referring to previous scholars who have opened that door of knowledge to him.


----------



## colognial

PersoLatin said:


> Would this be a good rephrasing of, mainly, the first part?
> فقیر ولی اللہ بن عبدالرحیم *میگوید *چون برین  فقیر(من) دری از فھم کتاب اللہ (دیگران) گشادند،  (فقیر ولی اللہ خواست\من خواستم) خواست کہ بعضی نکات نافعہ کہ در تدبیر کلام اللہ یاران را بکار آید در رسالہ مختصری مضبوط نماید/ *نمایم*



I totally agree.


----------



## colognial

Stranger_ said:


> He is simply referring to previous scholars who have opened that door of knowledge to him.


Of course, he, ولی, is referring to the line of scholars who, over the centuries, have passed on the interpretation of the holy scripture and knowledge of the possible meanings of each word and phrase therein. The point is, in Persian, the total absence of a direct reference within the text to the grammatical subject places the 'active-voice' verb in the category reserved for the passive voice, more or less.


----------



## soheil1

colognial said:


> soheil1, ولی  الله بن عبدالرحیم refers to himself as این فقیر, or as a _he_, not as an _I_. The first sentence begins with "thus speaks the humble Valiollah ebne Abdorraheem: as the door to the understanding of the book of the Lord was opened to this humble being, he wished to ...".


No, verb never precedes the subject


----------



## colognial

soheil1 said:


> No, verb never precedes the subject



It's simply not so, soheil1, sorry! Verbs can and do precede subjects for a number of reasons, one of which is to create emphasis, as well as on grounds related to style, as seems to be the case in the given sentence. Example: تو کجایی تا شوم من چاکرت (Molaanaa).

Unless, of course, the user starting this thread omitted to start quoting from the beginning of a preceding sentence, and it's reasonable to imagine that the said user did not make such an omission, then it's evident that the 'می گوید' belongs to the subject, ولی الله بن عبدالرحیم, which happens to come after, not before, the verb.


----------



## soheil1

colognial said:


> It's simply not so, soheil1, sorry! Verbs can and do precede subjects for a number of reasons, one of which is to create emphasis, as well as on grounds related to style, as seems to be the case in the given sentence. Example: تو کجایی تا شوم من چاکرت (Molaanaa).
> 
> Unless, of course, the user starting this thread omitted to start quoting from the beginning of a preceding sentence, and it's reasonable to imagine that the said user did not make such an omission, then it's evident that the 'می گوید' belongs to the subject, ولی الله بن عبدالرحیم, which happens to come after, not before, the verb.


I still insist that Persian is is a SOV language and verb never precedes the subject.
In your example شوم alone means من شوم, (That is the consciousness of Persian) so the من is redundant


----------



## soheil1

soheil1 said:


> I still insist that Persian is is a SOV language and verb never precedes the subject.
> In your example شوم alone means من شوم, (That is the consciousness of Persian) so the من is redundant


من is unique, but او can be any third person singular.


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi soheil1,

To save time, wouldn't be easier if you could provide your interpretation of this text, unless you think it is completely incomprehensible & made up of randomly ordered words.


----------

