# Persian : Danestan vs Shenakhtan



## Sibawayh

Hi,

As many Farsi learners, I have some trouble for always distinguishing between these two verbs. I haven't been able to find articles discussing this matter in any language. I have read that Thackston in his Introduction to Persian tackled the issue, but his book is not available in my country.

Does anyone have anything about this?


----------



## eskandar

Daanestan (to know something) is like French savoir whereas shenaakhtan (to know someone, to recognize) is like French connaître. The analogy is not 100% perfect but it should work as a general rule. Compare:

فارسی می‌دانم _faarsi midaanam_ "I know Persian"
نمی‌دانم او کجا است _nemidaanam u kojaa ast _"I don't know where he is"

محسن را می‌شناسم _mohsen raa mishenaasam _"I know Mohsen"
صورتش را نمی‌شناسم _suratesh raa nemishenaasam_ "I don't recognize his face"


----------



## Sibawayh

Thank you for your reply.

I know this general trick. However, let alone 100% perfect, I'm not sure it is even 80% correct. The limit is shown from the first example you gave, for which the most common French translation would be "Je connais le persan".


----------



## Treaty

The object of دانستن is usually forms of information, skill and knowledge to indicate being able to use them. On the other hand, شناختن is used with phenomena (emotions, objects, living beings, etc.) that also includes the recognition of their features. However, there are situations where دانستن is used with a concrete noun. In this case it usually means _to know about _or _to have heard of_. They may be a shortened sentence as well (like by omitting درباره _about_).

اینجا را می دانم = I know about here.
محسن را می دانم = I know / have heard about Mohsen (you usually need more context for such sentences).

There are also time you may see شناختن used with information or knowledge, which means _to recognise:_

من این سبک نوشتن را می شناسم = I recognise this writing style (cf. من این سبک نوشتن را می دانم = I know how to write in this style).


_
_


----------



## Sheila.S.A

I should add some points to what Eskandar said properly.

According to Dehkhoda dictionary and what we usually say 'danestan' is used when you have information about something and you have the knowledge of that thing. For example when you have some knowledge about sky and stars you می دانید some of the facts of astrology.

And according to Amid dictionary 'shenakhtan' means you are familiar with some one or something as you have heard or have read about them or have seen them before. For example You know (می شناسید) Sarah as you have met her in last night party. Actually 'shenakhtan' is about identity but "danestan' is about knowledge and science.

But the point is that Persian native speakers use them interchangeably in so many cases. According to Moen dictionary 'Shenakhtan' is one of the meanings of 'danestan' and 'danestan' is one of the meanings of  'shenakhtan'.

For example instead of saying 'danestan' it is possible to say say I می شناسم 'shenakhtan' the knowledge of astrology.


I suggest you to take it easy : )


----------



## colognial

Hi, everybody. Another difference is that دانستن is often used in the sentence as a verb that doesn't need a direct object. The same cannot happen with "to recognize", "connaitre", or our شناختن. In Persian you always recognize_ someone_/_thing_. I'm not sure how this helps, though, because direct objects may be totally different things in French, but there it is.

As for the mix-up that may come about with sentences such as _Je connais le Persan_, the fact is, a more fluent way of communicating this in Persian is to say فارسی بلدم. It's of course wrong to say فارسی را می شناسم, while فارسی می دانم though acceptable, does still sound a bit 'broken', so may be happily avoided.


----------



## Sibawayh

Thank you all for your answers.

I've been searching for this for a while now. I haven't been able to find any grammar book in either Farsi (I have 5 ostad, Givi and Khanlari), English (Lambton, Mace) or French (Lazard, Fouchécour) addressing seriously the issue (if addressing it at all). Recently I've read in a book review that Thackston tackled the issue in his Introduction to Persian. I'll try to get that book later.

But even on the Internet, I was unable to find any good article in Farsi about this. Dehkhoda and Mo'in are good resources but they are intended for native speakers and thus don't really compare between the three verbs (shenâkhtan, dânestan and balad budan) so they are not sufficient for such an objective.


----------



## colognial

Sibawayh, I hope I haven't added to your dilemma by introducing 'balad boudan/shodan' into this anarchic situation. But I wonder if you shouldn't be looking for the ultimate classification in sources other than books on grammar. For, isn't this more a question of usage than of grammar? I'm not at all familiar with the books you cite, so I may be entirely wrong. But if I were stuck between choosing _connaitre_ and _savoir_, I'd most likely look at examples of how these words are used in context.


----------



## Sibawayh

colognial said:


> Sibawayh, I hope I haven't added to your dilemma by introducing 'balad boudan/shodan' into this anarchic situation. But I wonder if you shouldn't be looking for the ultimate classification in sources other than books on grammar. For, isn't this more a question of usage than of grammar? I'm not at all familiar with the books you cite, so I may be entirely wrong. But if I were stuck between choosing _connaitre_ and _savoir_, I'd most likely look at examples of how these words are used in context.



Do not worry, I appreciate your help. I already knew about balad budan, I just thought adding it to the picture might be asking too much and that I may get more answers if I limit the discussion to the other two verbs.

You are right that it is a question of usage, but usage is usually discussed in books of grammar, especially foreign grammar books that intend to make you learn to speak properly.

Someone drew an analogy with French before, but you will find a discussion about how to use "connaître" and "savoir" in every grammar book, many publications on this subject (the longest article, by Rémi-Giraud, being about 130 page long), and even online articles.

There is no such thing in Persian. It is like the subject is so complex people just prefer to avoid it.

I've started to compile the different uses of these three verbs, to see which one must be used in each case (or cases when more than one choice is correct) and try to extract rules. It is a time consuming task.

Some patterns definitely appear (to know somebody = always shenakhtan ; to know that + verb = always danestan ; to know by heart : always balad budan) but in some cases, even Iranians I questioned seem to disagree with each other.

For example if I want to say "Do you know his address?", everybody agrees we can say آیا نشانی او را بلد هستی and that there is another correct possibility. But some (from Tehran) said we can say آیا نشانی او را می شناسی and that آیا نشانی او را می دانی is wrong, and others (from Esfahan and Mashhad) said exactly the opposite (the second one correct, and the first one is wrong).

I haven't asked enough people to make a rule out of it, but it may be a regional thing. Or it might just be some people speak correctly and others don't lol.


----------



## colognial

I see now how regional and personal habits of speech can get in the way of your ascertaining the 'good' Persian wording. So I suppose consulting any good book is a better approach since it can give you the definitive categorization. Some rules of thumb may come in handy, though. I'm learning from you as I go along. So, if we're talking about knowledge acquired that ensures the person has developed some sort of a skill as a result, which he/she can apply in a purely practical way, then 'balad boodan' works and is in a lot of cases the best option.


----------



## Treaty

Sibawayh said:


> For example if I want to say "Do you know his address?", everybody agrees we can say آیا نشانی او را بلد هستی and that there is another correct possibility. But some (from Tehran) said we can say آیا نشانی او را می شناسی and that آیا نشانی او را می دانی is wrong, and others (from Esfahan and Mashhad) said exactly the opposite (the second one correct, and the first one is wrong).



It's still very unusual for me seeing "نشانی کسی را شناختن". I'm not convinced if this example demonstrates a genuine confusion in the use of دانستن and شناختن. I wonder if the confusion is rooted in the perception of "address". If someone understands نشانی as a tangible location or mentally mapped route rather than an abstract piece of geographical information, then they may opt شناختن. I wonder if your examples differ in how نشانی is understood rather than how شناختن and دانستن are used. A clearer example of this duality is محل آن را می دانم vs محل آن را می شناسم. The former merely refers to the address of the place while the latter implies deeper knowledge of the place.

By the way, contrasting usages in large cities of Iran is not necessarily helpful. They are two diverse in class and ethnicity to represent anything specific.


----------



## Sibawayh

Hi everybody

If I want to say "I can swim" using either balad budan or danestan, I have different possibilities:

*1. شنا کردن بلد هستم*
*2. شنا کردن می دانم*

*3. بلد هستم چگونه شنا کنم*
*4. می دانم چگونه شنا کنم*

*5. بلد هستم که شنا کنم*
*6. می دانم که شنا کنم*


But although for the two first wordings I can use both balad budan and danestan, for the third one balad budan is the only correct possibility and it is wrong to use danestan. Why?


----------



## Treaty

These pairس are different. In #1 and #2, the object is شنا کردن. In #3 and #4, the object is چگونه (and its clause). In #5 and #6 the object is the که clause.

#1 and #2 mean that you know swimming (without specifying how you swim). I consider #2 a bit unidiomatic but it is correct.

While #3 and #4 still have the same meaning as the latter two, they may also refer to a specific way ("how to") of swimming.

For #6, I also wonder why. My impression is that we don't use دانستن with future possibilities. Basically, a subjunctive verb (شنا کنم) is a hypothetical or unreal situation. You cannot know something that is not real now (though you can know that it is possible). However you can have the skills (بلد بودن) or the ability (توانستن) to do it. I am not sure if this impression is right.


----------



## Sibawayh

Thank you very much for your reply. Your impression makes sense, as we always use danestan + ke + indicative (knowing a fact), whereas balad budan + ke + subjunctive will mean to know how to do something, to be able to do it.

In a more general way, how would you sum up the differences between danestan and balad budan?

It seems to me that although sometimes both can be used for knowing a fact and knowing how to do something, the first meaning predominates for danestan and the later does for balad budan, and that it appears more clearly in the case of the aforementioned substantival clauses introduced by ke.


----------



## eli7

Sibawayh said:


> In a more general way, how would you sum up the differences between danestan and balad budan?


Greetings,

I don't see any difference between Danestan and Balad boodan.
in in-depth survey, Danestan could imply something theoretically and Baladboodan practically, but they are exchangeable.
e.g.,
بلدم با این وسیله کار کنم.
می دونم چجوری (چطور) با این وسیله کار کنم.
or in an offensive way and using as a threat:
بلدم باهات چی کار کنم.
می دونم باهات چی کار کنم.


----------



## Sibawayh

Hi,

Thank you for your reply. Indeed, danestan and balad budan are exchangeable *in some cases*.

However, there are also many other cases for which you cannot use one for the other.

Some examples where you cannot use balad budan:
خیلی چیزها دربارۀ او می دانم
تاریخ تولد شما را می دانم
قیمت این کمربند را می دانم
قدر دوست خوب را می دانم
این پسر می داند که مادرش خیلی دوستش دارد
می دانم این مرد کیست
می دانم کدام لباس را انتخاب کنم
می دانی چه ساعتی باید حرکت کنی؟
نمی دانم کتابم را کجا گذاشته ام

Some examples where you cannot use danestan:
شهر شیراز را بلد هستی؟
خانۀ این مرد را بلد هستم
این شعر سعدی را بلد هستم
من خیلی خوب بلد هستم که با مردم حرف بزنم

You may disagree about some of these examples, however the remaining examples will suffice to make it clear they are not always exchangeable.

As I mentioned before, having found no good article about the subject, I've decided to write one myself, first by mustering a battery of examples, then by extracting the theory out of it. Now I've finished writing it, and the comments here have been very helpful (especially Treaty's remarks which were very insightful).

I just thought I could maybe improve the part about the differences between danestan and balad budan from what users here would have to say about it (as I've greatly benefited from what they said about the differences between shenakhtan and danestan), so I reiterate my question.


----------

