# Persian: داشتن



## Walser52

Slightly confused here concerning the entries of داشتن on the English and Persian wiktionaries.
داشتن - ویکی‌واژه
داشتن - Wiktionary

There are some discrepancies:

If you look at the imperative. The English one has it has داشتہ باش . That's in accordance with my text book. The Farsi one has it as بدار when according to my text book, the prefix ب is dropped with داشتن. 
The English one says that the Simple Present Imperfect form of داشتن does not use می. However the Persian one uses می in the حال استمراری. 

A similar thing happens with بودن:
English: باش
Persian: بباش

Could anyone please explain.


----------



## ayiran

In old persian I mean nearly 1000 years ago or before the date the prefix of می in front of imperative forms is equivalent to ب
So می خور=بخور ، می رو= برو and so on


----------



## fdb

ayiran said:


> old persian



Or rather what we call Early New Persian (ENP). In ENP the particle mē or hamē indicates repeated or continuous action. So mē-raw means “keep on running”.


----------



## ayiran

fdb said:


> Or rather what we call Early New Persian (ENP). In ENP the particle mē or hamē indicates repeated or continuous action. So mē-raw means “keep on running”.


Yes
You are right


----------



## Walser52

ayiran said:


> In old persian I mean nearly 1000 years ago or before the date the prefix of می in front of imperative forms is equivalent to ب
> So می خور=بخور ، می رو= برو and so on



Still slightly confused because there is no می in the new Persian before the imperative. I'm assuming that it was gradually dropped?

Is there some text that might elaborate these differences?


----------



## ayiran

Walser52 said:


> Still slightly confused because there is no می in the new Persian before the imperative. I'm assuming that it was gradually dropped?
> 
> Is there some text that might elaborate these differences?


Sure altogether you are right
But in some obsolete words we can see the trace of Old Persian for example the verb انگاشتن(a verb absolutely absent in spoken Persian)
But the imperative form of it انگار is commonly used in spoken Persian


----------



## PersoLatin

Walser52 said:


> There are some discrepancies:
> 
> If you look at the imperative. The English one has it has داشتہ باش . That's in accordance with my text book. The Farsi one has it as بدار when according to my text book, the prefix ب is dropped with داشتن.
> The English one says that the Simple Present Imperfect form of داشتن does not use می. However the Persian one uses می in the حال استمراری.
> 
> A similar thing happens with بودن:
> English: باش
> Persian: بباش
> 
> Could anyone please explain.



Uses a of 'mi' in modern Persian

Present:
man har-ruz *mi*ravam  - I go everyday
man dâram *mi*ravam - I am going
man هی/*hey* u râ *mi*binam - I keep seeing him (doing the action of seeing repeatedly)

Past
man har ruz *mi*raftam - I used to go everyday
man dâŝtam *mi*raftam - I was going (when you saw me)
*hey mi*goft - he kept saying

I believe *hey mi *is the modern version/development of همی/*hami. 
hey*/هی is also is used this way: hey nagu... - Don't keep saying...

In modern Persian, بودن and داشتن and some other auxiliary verbs, do not follow some rules, e.g. the imperative rule
باش and داشتہ باش are the correct forms, but you will see بدار/bedâr, especially in poetry and classical text. 

Present form of داشتن:
dâram - I have (Modern Persian)
midâram - I have (only in classic Persian)

Past form of داشتن:
dâŝtam - I had (Modern Persian)
midâŝtam (only in classic Persian)


----------



## Walser52

Thank you very much, PersoLatin.


----------



## farzan

I am thinking, when may we opt for بدار and when is it imperative (or simply more common) to say داشته باش? I think the answer may be, when the verb is used in combination with another word such that the meaning changes from 'to have', then it is not at all uncommon for the more literary بدار or its variations to be applied.

For instance, رواداشتن means 'to let sth. be', 'to allow and execute sth.', 'to think of sth. as legitimate or fair'. Hence,
روا *مَدار* خدایا که در حریمِ وصال
رقیب محرم و حرمان نصیبِ من باشد
(_Dear Lord, in the conjugal sanctum, let not be my share forlornness, or my rival be intimate. _- by Hafez)
Note: this is not to say that it is unacceptable to go for روا نداشته باش. This is a bit idiosyncratic.

The same goes for verbs such as نگه داشتن (to keep, to grab, to preserve, to halt), به پا داشتن (to establish, to set up), عزیز داشتن (to hold dear, to glorify or elevate).
Note: one never says نگه داشته باش / به پا داشته باشید / عزیز داشته باش

I suppose every case must be learned from existing sources.

Examples:
این جا نگه دارید، پیاده می شوم (Stop here! I'm getting off.)
مراسمی در بزرگداشت کارهای او به پا دارید (Hold a ceremony in celebration of his work.)
او را عزیز بدار (hold her dear!) or, او را عزیز می دار

On the other hand, there are these examples:
صبر داشته باش (have patience!)
به دختر من نظر نداشته باش (don't entertain/have lascivious thoughts about my daughter!)
از ایشان چشم یاری نداشته باش (don't expect them to be helpful/don't have the expectation that they will help you out!)



Walser52 said:


> A similar thing happens with بودن:
> English: باش
> Persian: بباش



بباش?? Ooooh, this doesn't sound so good! I suppose it is not totally impossible, but my advice: drop the prefix!

Having advised thus, I have to be honest and quote this poem, which is not that old, either:

می باش به عمر خود سحرخیز
وز خواب سحرگهان بپرهیز
(Be an early riser all through life / And avoid that early morning sleep -- by Iraj Mirzaa)
Here, می باش is simply a literary form of باش (or, I'm embarrassed to say, بباش!)


----------



## Qureshpor

farzan said:


> بباش?? Ooooh, this doesn't sound so good! I suppose it is not totally impossible, but my advice: drop the prefix!
> 
> Having advised thus, I have to be honest and quote this poem, which is not that old, either:
> 
> می باش به عمر خود سحرخیز
> وز خواب سحرگهان بپرهیز
> (Be an early riser all through life / And avoid that early morning sleep -- by Iraj Mirzaa)
> Here, می باش is simply a literary form of باش (or, I'm embarrassed to say, بباش!)


No, I would not say that "می باش is simply a literary form of باش/بباش", but as fdb has indicated above, it implies a continuous action, i.e "continue being" an early riser!

At dawn, throughout your life, keep getting up
And as for the slumber at dawn tide, give it up!


----------



## farzan

می باش is an imperative verb by virtue of its form/construction - this much I know.

Whether or not the mood would have had to be indicative for continuous present tense to be signified is a question I must leave to experts. The question then is: can one signify continuous action, or a custom or a habit, etc., under the imperative mood?

I agree that the idea of continuity (as in a habit cultivated) has been suggested, but that would also have been the case if the poet had chosen to write باش.


----------



## Qureshpor

farzan said:


> می باش is an imperative verb by virtue of its form/construction - this much I know.
> 
> Whether or not the mood would have had to be indicative for continuous present tense to be signified is a question I must leave to experts. The question then is: can one signify continuous action, or a custom or a habit, etc., under the imperative mood?
> 
> I agree that the idea of continuity (as in a habit cultivated) has been suggested, but that would also have been the case if the poet had chosen to write باش.


I agree with you with that "baash" on its own would imply continuity too since the poet has the whole age/عمر in mind. But, the prefix مے mē indeed imparts a continuous, on going meaning. There are instances of مے being used with the plural imperative too.

gar-at havaast kih chuuN Jam ba-sirr-i-Ghaib rasii
biyaa-o hamdam-i-jaam-i-jahaaN-numaa *me-baash*

Hafiz

tu nekii *me-kun* va dar Dijlah andaaz
kih Ezad dar biyaabaan-at dihad baaz

(?)

Here is an example for the second person.

chuuN shumaa bastah-i-hamiiN xvaab-o-xor-iid
hamcho maa baashiid-o-dar dih *me-chariid
*
Maulavii


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Uses a of 'mi' in modern Persian
> 
> .....In modern Persian, بودن and داشتن and some other auxiliary verbs, do not follow some rules, e.g. the imperative rule
> باش and داشتہ باش are the correct forms, *but you will see بدار/bedâr, especially in poetry and classical text....*



Also دار is used as an imperative in Classical Persian.

دی کوزہ گرے بدیدم اندر بازار

بر پارہ گلے لگد همے زد بسیار

و آن گل بزبان حال با او مے گفت

من همچو تو بوده‌ام مرا نیکو*دار*


----------



## farzan

I rather think it's a question that's forever open to debate. Because, there is this, too:
اگر رفیق شفیقی درست پیمان باش
حریف باده و گرمابه و گلستان باش
(حافظ)
_Agar rafeeghe shafeeghi, dorost-peymaan baash!
Hareef e baade vo garmaabe vo golestaan baash!_
Meaning:
A friend by compassion if you be, be a keeper of your promises!
A companion be, whether in drinking, in the bath, or outdoors!
(Little Aside: Most texts read: hareef e hojre ... - I wouldn't know for sure which is correct, but 'baade' sounds more like something Haafez, the 'rend' that he is, might have written.)


----------



## Qureshpor

^
A couple of examples of "bi" with the verb "buudan". The meaning changes from "to be" to "to stay".

به کابل *بباش* و به شادی بمان
ازین پس مترس از بد بدگمان

برفتند از آنجا به جای نشست
*ببود*ند یک هفته با می به دست
Firdausi

"daashtan" imperative without "bi"

چنین گفت پس شاه گردن فراز
کزین هر چه گفتید دارید راز
Firdausi

"daashtan" imperative with "bi"

گویند کسان بهشت با حور خوش است
من میگویم که آب انگور خوش است

این نقد بگیر و دست از آن نسیه بدار
کاواز دهل شنیدن از دور خوش است
Khayyam

"daashtan" imperative with "me"

گفتم: چشمم، گفت: براهش میدار
گفتم: جگرم، گفت: پر آهش میدار

گفتم که: دلم، گفت: چه داری در دل
گفتم: غم تو، گفت: نگاهش میدار
Abu Sa3iid Abu_lxair


----------



## farzan

Qureshpor, thank you for the examples. What conclusion would you personally draw based on these? Mine is, these are examples that together point to the possibility of deviation. They are a strong foundation for conceivable departure with time. And, they are all examples from poetry, where the constraints of the 'mould' and the rhythm are the ultimate determining factor. How people wrote and spoke in prose may have highly influenced the way the language is used in our time.

Incidentally, nowadays it is quite common to use باش on its own (i.e. without a prefix) to denote 'stay', e.g. این جا باش تا برگردم (in jaa baash taa bargardam = 'stay here till I'm back').


----------



## PersoLatin

farzan said:


> And, they are all examples from poetry, where the constraints of the 'mould' and the rhythm are the ultimate determining factor. How people wrote and spoke in prose may have highly influenced the way the language is used in our time.


I fully agree, with all the due respect to our Persian poets and poets in general.


----------



## Qureshpor

farzan said:


> Qureshpor, thank you for the examples. What conclusion would you personally draw based on these? Mine is, these are examples that together point to the possibility of deviation. They are a strong foundation for conceivable departure with time. And, they are all examples from poetry, where the constraints of the 'mould' and the rhythm are the ultimate determining factor. How people wrote and spoke in prose may have highly influenced the way the language is used in our time.
> 
> Incidentally, nowadays it is quite common to use باش on its own (i.e. without a prefix) to denote 'stay', e.g. این جا باش تا برگردم (in jaa baash taa bargardam = 'stay here till I'm back').


I was merely attempting to point out that "mē" was once added to the imperatives, including "daashtan" and "buudan" and the prefix "bi" was added to practically any verb form including "buudan".



farzan said:


> And, they are all examples from poetry, where the constraints of the 'mould' and the rhythm are the ultimate determining factor. How people wrote and spoke in prose may have highly influenced the way the language is used in our time.


This is not only applicable to Persian poetry of the bygone era but also Persian prose. Have you read 
زندگی نامه پیامبر اسلام، جلد سوم تاریخ بلعمی or چہار مقالہ etc?


----------



## farzan

Qureshpor said:


> I was merely attempting to point out that "mē" was once added to the imperatives, including "daashtan" and "buudan" and the prefix "bi" was added to practically any verb form including "buudan".



Hello, Qureshpor. I for one am in total agreement with you over this part, in principle. I doubt if one could reasonably refute what you lay out here. Also, your examples are choice ones - I mean, they are really fine specimens.



Qureshpor said:


> This is not only applicable to Persian poetry of the bygone era but also Persian prose. Have you read
> زندگی نامه پیامبر اسلام، جلد سوم تاریخ بلعمی or چہار مقالہ etc?



If I may say so, your research into the Persian literature must be extensive, and your knowledge in matters to do with the Persian language must at the very least far exceed mine; there is just no question about that. 

The point that I have failed to argue properly is this: taken at any juncture in time, a living language is a palimpsest, when you think about it. Whatever one quotes as an example, be it prose or poetry, is just one single layer of the language, rather like a snapshot that proves a single point while failing to capture the future, or even past, development of the language. 

Of course, one always needs to document, and take as definitive, the finest examples in literature. But in the context of questions asked in the IIR Forum, those who participate in a thread typically use the language all the time and are (made) aware of departures from word definitions, syntax, and grammar, and from the original/correct applications of the different parts of speech or of expressions, proverbs, etc. 

Occasionally, in an attempt to give an up-to-date account of some usage, we natives fall into the trap of appearing to refute what the more erudite (or observant) participants in the forum could teach us. I can only speak for myself by saying I mostly try to avoid misleading the person who is asking the question if I can, by giving them an idea of the standard language used here (i.e. in Iran) and now, which, granted, tends to make my answers limited in scope. But languages, I'm sure you agree, are as I said multi-layered and broad beyond imagining.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Salaam Farzan,

I have no disagreement with you about what you have said. What is important is to distinguish between what we have in Modern Persian NOW and people like yourself undoubtedly have their finger on the pulse and I would deem you as a person in the know who can speak with authority. But, when something is quoted from Classical Persian* or Early New Persian*, then the knowledge concerning the language of these periods may not be every native Iranian's cup of tea and one should not, in all fairness, expect this either. People who have knowledge and are qualified to do this are able to shed light on these matters with much more authority than an average educated Persian speaking person. With this regard we are blessed with the presence of fdb on this forum who is indeed an authority on Classical Persian and Early New Persian and is thus qualified to speak on these matters. Another gentleman, who unfortunately has not been seen in this forum for a while is arsham for whom I have a lot of respect.

* Quote from fdb

First of all, “classical” Persian is usually used to mean the language of authors of the post-Mongol period like Saʻdī and Ḥāfiẓ, while the language of Firdawsī and his contemporaries is usually called Early New Persian (ENP). 



farzan said:


> Hello, Qureshpor. I for one am in total agreement with you over this part, in principle. I doubt if one could reasonably refute what you lay out here. Also, your examples are choice ones - I mean, they are really fine specimens.
> 
> *If I may say so, your research into the Persian literature must be extensive, and your knowledge in matters to do with the Persian language must at the very least far exceed mine; there is just no question about that*.


Thank you for your kind words but nothing could be further from the truth. I know my place and there is no question about my knowledge exceeding anyone else's. I am fortunate that there are many people in this forum from whom I am able to learn and improve my knowledge of matters pertaining to language, especially Persian and Arabic.


----------



## farzan

Thank you, Qureshpor. So, could you please correct me if I go wrong in my summation below?

Imperative sentences:
One would be safe to accept both Wiki verb forms as correct, except that the Persian Wiki opts for the form which is more likely to be applied when داشتن is being used to mean something slightly different to 'to have', e.g. in مَرا دوست بِدار ('love me', 'be my fan').

Imperfect Form:
I have to say that I think the English Wiki has got it wrong, speaking generally, because the two tenses mentioned correspond to each other as far as I know, and the rule for حال استمراری is to have the prefix attached to the beginning of the verb, e.g. او هَرشَب دیر می خوابَد  ('she turns in late every night').


----------

