# Persian: باید, بایست



## colognial

Hi, everybody. 

I may be wrong, but I think _baayad_ (باید = _must_)  and _baayast_ (بایست = _must_) have slightly different usages. If I am not  wrong in this, then the problem is, I can't, just by looking at how the two are used in literature/by other people, tell how the usages are to  be distinguished one from the other.

So, I've made up a rule for  my own use: _baayad_ is imperative, used to give a command, whereas  _baayast_ is used to express a preference or an obligation, while of  course both words can correspond equally to definite and indefinite subjects.  For instance it's possible in Persian to write:

_Baayad/baayast beravam._ - here, the subject is "I". Meaning in English:_ I must/should go._
_Bayyad/baayast raft. _- the subject is indeterminate. Meaning in English: _One must/should go._

Can  anyone confirm my understanding, or otherwise explain how the two modal  verbs in fact mean exactly the same thing and are totally  interchangeable?

Thank you.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you for starting this thread, aaqaa-ye-colognial. I too have certain reservations for the use of the verb بایستن. Apart from باید and بایست one must n't forget بایستی and می بایست. Sometimes one encounters می بایستی. Explanations in English grammar books are not always clear. So, I would also appreciate some kind soul/s to come forward and explain the finer points for their correct usage.


----------



## sapnachaandni

سلام،

من اولین بار درباره‌ی «باید» و «بایست» توضیحات دکتر پرویز ناتل خانلری رو در کتاب «دستور زبان فارسی» خونده بودم. بعد از اون در اینترنت توضیحاتی در این باره دیدم که منبع و نویسنده‌ی توضیحات ذکر نشده بود. به‌نظرم ذکر هر دو مورد خالی از لطف نیست:

*۔۔ الف ۔۔* 
* اول خلاصه‌ی توضیحات دکتر خانلری (برگرفته از کتاب «دستور زبان فارسی» ص 305-306):*

(1) در موردی که مقصود اشاره به شخص نیست فعل تابع به‌صورت مصدر مرخم* به‌کار می‌‏رود: 
باید رفت، باید گفت

(2) معمول‌ترین صورت استعمال این فعل در زبان امروزی آن است که فعل‏ تابع آن مضارع التزامی‏ باشد؛ با «که» حرف ربط یا بی‌آن: 
باید بروم، باید که بروید

(3) اگر صیغه‌‏های «بایست» و «بایستی» به‌کار می‌‏رود باید در معنی‏ لزوم وقوع فعل در زمان گذشته باشد. در این حال یا تابع آن مصدر مرخم است‏ یا مضارع التزامی. هرگاه تابع به‌صورت مصدر مرخم به‌کار برود اشاره‌‏ای‏ به شخص نمی‌‏شود: 
بایست رفت، بایستی گفت

در مثال اول مراد آن است که وقوع فعل رفتن در زمان گذشته لازم بوده است، چه این فعل انجام گرفته و چه نگرفته باشد. 
مثال دوم این معنی را متضمن است که وقوع فعل لازم بوده اما انجام نیافته‏ است. 

(4) هرگاه تابع، مضارع التزامی‏ باشد ضمیر شخصی را نیز در بردارد: 
بایست بگویم = لازم بود که بگویم.
بایستی بروم = لازم بود بروم. (اگرچه نرفته‏‌ام) 

----------------------------------------
*مصدر مرخّم: مصدری که «ن» پایانی آن حذف شده باشه. مثلاً مصدر مرخم از "گفتن" = «گفت».


درضمن دکتر خانلری در کتاب «تاریخ زبان فارسی»(جلد 2) درباره‌ی موارد استعمال «بایستی» در فارسی دری این‌طور نوشته (ص356):

[در فارسی دری] "بایستی" چند مورد استعمال دارد:

(1) فعلی که وقوع آن در زمان گذشته لازم بوده اما واقع نشده است؛ یا به‌عکس، لازم نبوده و واقع شده است:
چهل مرد قوی بایستی تا آن را برداشتندی (تفسیر قرآن کریم).
بایستی که چندین التماس تو از ما وفا شدی (سیاست‌نامه).

(2) فعلی که وقوع آن در زمان گذشته به دفعات مکرر لازم بوده است:
از صراف خط بستدی و هرچه بایستی بخریدی (سفرنامه‌ی ناصر خسرو).

(3) فعل شرط یا جواب آن:
اگر با آن حرارت رطوبت نباشد... بایستی که آن چیز ریخته شدی (جامع الحکمتین).
اگر... به نان تهی خویش قناعت کردی.... او را سگ همچو خودی نبایستی بودن (قابوس‌نامه).


البته مشخصه که این شیوه‌ی استفاده‌ی «بایستی» (یعنی: «بایستی»+«"ماضی ساده"+"ی"»)  در فارسی امروز برجای نمونده.


*۔۔ ب ۔۔*
* این هم خلاصه‌ی توضیحاتی که در اینترنت پیدا کرده بودم (منبع و نویسنده‌ی توضیحات ذکر نشده):*

در نگارش امروزی، وجه التزامی فقط به کمک چهار صرف فعل شبه‏ معین مشتق از بایستن ساخته می‌‏شود:
باید، بایست، می‌‏بایست و بایستی
به همراه نفی هر کدام از این‌ها: نباید، نبایست، نمی‌بایست و نبایستی


*۔**۔1۔۔* برای بیان التزام از حال تا آینده، فعل «باید» همراه با مضارع التزامی به‌کار می‌رود؛ 
من باید همراهش بروم. [من مجبور‌م که همراهش بروم] (التزامی که قریب به یقین رخ خواهد داد)

(1۔1) برای بیان استنتاج حتمی در آینده: 
تیم الف باید با برنده‌ی بازی فردا بازی کند. (مطابق برنامه)

(1۔2) استنتاج گمان‌زنانه-امیدوارانه از آینده: 
او باید لطف مرا جبران کند. [امیدوارام که بکند ولی احتمال هم دارد که نکند] 
باید تیم ب برنده‌ی بازی بشود. [حدس می‌زنم که ببرد ولی احتمال هم دارد که برنده نشود] 
این باید (۷۰-۳۰)، از شاید (۵۰-۵۰) محتمل‌‌تر است.

(1۔3) التزام قانونی و اخلاقی از حال تا آینده: 
من نباید به حقوق دیگران تجاوز کنم. (همواره) [ولی ممکن است تجاوز بکنم] 
تو باید به حرف پدر و مادرت احترام بگذاری. [ولی ممکن است که احترام نگذاری]


*۔**۔2۔۔* برای بیان التزام در زمان گذشته، از افعال «بایست، بایستی، می‌بایست» استفاده می‌شود.
بایستی/می‌بایست، بار استمراری هم دارند ولی بایست فقط بار التزام دارد.

(2۔1) التزام جبری در گذشته (همراه با ماضی استمراری): 
من بایستی همراهش می‌رفتم. [من مجبور بودم که همراهش بروم] (قریب به یقین هم همراهش رفته‌ام)
در سربازی، بایستی ساعت ۹ می‌خوابیدیم. [در سربازی، مجبور بودیم که ساعت ۹ بخوابیم]

(2۔2) اعتراف به تخطی قانونی و اخلاقی در گذشته (همراه با ماضی استمراری): 
می‌بایست در مهمانی شرکت می‌کردیم. [آگاهانه تخطی کرده‌ایم]
نمی‌بایست جلو پل توقف می‌کردم. [آگاهانه تخطی کرده‌ام] (همان موقع مرز درست و نادرست را می‌دانستم)
می‌بایست همراه مادرم می‌رفتم. [آگاهانه تخطی کرده‌ام]

قائل شدن مرز مشخصی بین «بایستی» و «می‌بایست»، دشوار است.

(2۔3) التزام استنتاجی-افسوس‌وار/عبرت‌آموز در گذشته (همراه با ماضی استمراری): 
(می‌تواند اخلاقی یا قانونی هم باشد) 
می‌بایست دندان‏‌هایم را مرتب مسواک می‌کردم. [در گذشته از اهمیت این التزام آگاه نبودم و از آن تخطی کرده‌ام] (اکنون متوجه اثرات بد کارم شده‌ام) 
من می‌بایست با پدرم مهربان‌تر می‌بودم. [در گذشته از اهمیت اثرات رفتارم آگاه نبودم و از آن تخطی کرده‌ام]
می‌بایست در انتخابات شرکت می‌کردم. [در گذشته از اهمیت این التزام آگاه نبودم و از آن تخطی کرده‌ام]

(2۔4) استنتاج گمان‌زنانه از اتفاق گذشته (همراه با ماضی التزامی):
بایست تیرم به هدف خورده باشد. [از روی شواهد حدس می‌زنم که خورده باشد ولی هنوز از وقوع آن مطمئن نیستم]
بایست غریبه‌ای وارد باغ شده باشد. [از روی شواهد حدس می‌زنم که غریبه‌ای وارد شده باشد، ولی هنوز از وقوع آن مطمئن نیستم].


*۔۔**3۔۔ *گاهی التزام به زمان و شخص مشخصی اشاره ندارد: 
در این حالت، باید/نباید به همراه مصدر مرخم (بن ماضی) به‌کار می‌رود که از نظر معنایی، به التزام بر روی فعل مصدر اشاره دارد. بدون شخص و بدون زمان؛ 
باید رفت. [یعنی «رفتن» لازم است].


*نتیجه:* ساده‌ترین راهکار برای به‌کارگیری درست، توجه به این دو نکته است که «باید» فقط برای زمان حال تا آینده به‌کار می‌رود و اگر در گذشته، «می‌» استمرار نداریم، «بایست» به‌کار رود.


----------



## colognial

This is very informative, sapnachaandni. Thank you. I'm going to try to put it all in concise English! 

The main difference between_ baayad _and _baayast_  is, according to the canon, that the former places the obligation in  the present or in the future, while the latter is used for the past,  this being the case irrespective of whether or not the obligation has  been fulfilled. 

Rule No. 1 is: whenever the subject is  indefinite, the modal verb baayad or baayast is followed by the  shortened infinitive. This shortened form of the infinitive is actually  the root of all the conjugations in the past tense. Example: _goftan_ (= to say), shortened, becomes _goft_, where _goft_ is the root that is used in, say, the Simple Past Tense: _goft*am*, gof*ti*, goft, goft*im*, goft*eed*, goft*and*_. (= I said, you said, he said, etc.)

So far, so good, as the saying goes!

Rule  No. 2: If we wish to refer to a definite subject, then we use the main  verb as suits our purpose. In such a case, either the conditional form  of the verb or the past continuous form is used. This is vague, so  examples are necessary.

Examples:

_Baayad begooyam_. (= I have to say.) - _begooyam_ is (present) conditional.
_Baayast gofte baasham._  (= I should have said [though I didn't do so].) - Although this is  correct and clear enough, a sure way to imply the action did not take  place is to use _baayasti_ instead of _baayast_.
_Bayaast migoftam_. (= I had to say.) - _migoftam_  is past continuous. In old texts, the past continuous is made up of the  root or shortened form of the infinitive + a short 'i' (ی). Therefore,  we can deduce that in olden days the example would have been written as _bayaast goftami._

I'm not sure if the above is all correct and that it covers it all. I would welcome additions and corrections where necessary.

Thanks again, sapna.


----------



## colognial

Qureshpor said:


> Thank you for starting this thread, aaqaa-ye-colognial. I too have certain reservations for the use of the verb بایستن. Apart from باید and بایست one must n't forget بایستی and می بایست. Sometimes one encounters می بایستی. Explanations in English grammar books are not always clear. So, I would also appreciate some kind soul/s to come forward and explain the finer points for their correct usage.


 Hi, Qureshpor. I'm glad, too, we're discussing this point of grammar. I really didn't know the difference, just felt that there was one! Anyway, می بایست is the same as بایستی, I think.


----------



## sapnachaandni

You're welcome, colognial.


----------



## AZTimothyJ

colognial said:


> I'm not sure if the above is all correct and that it covers it all. I would welcome additions and corrections where necessary.



Thanks for the English translation Colognial. The article was a bit difficult for me. I'd say as something to add, the summary at the bottom is succinct enough for a translation. It helped me to understand it, anyway. This is how I translated it: 

The Result: The simplest way to use these correctly with regard to these two points is that "baayad" is only used for present tense to future tense and if it's in the past we don't have the "mi" continuity; "baayest" is used.

I would appreciate any corrections in my understanding of that line as well. kheili mamnoon.


----------



## colognial

_... and that if there is [already] no 'mi' [attached to the main verb] to indicate continuity [in the sense of a repetition of the action], then to ensure that 'baayast' [i.e. the past form of the modal verb without a 'mi' before it] is used [also]._

Tim, you're welcome. I myself am badly needing to learn this properly. The correction above to your translation of the 'last word' is only according to how I understand the Persian text provided by sapna. But one thing I can tell you is, the colloquial Persian of Iran allows gross breaches of the rules enumerated here. The speech creeps into the written medium and all goes haywire, as you know. So it's important for us natives, too, to be reminded of how it all was before it changed, not just so we can understand and interpret old texts correctly, but also because on occasion you may actually NEED to make the distinction between past and present in a piece of text you're writing. 

Thank you for providing the translation.


----------



## SajadBishop

colognial said:


> _Baayad begooyam_. (= I have to say.) - _begooyam_ is (present) conditional.
> _Baayast gofte baasham._ (= I should have said [though I didn't do so].) - Although this is correct and clear enough, a sure way to imply the action did not take place is to use _baayasti_ instead of _baayast_.
> _Bayaast migoftam_. (= I had to say.) - _migoftam_ is past continuous. In old texts, the past continuous is made up of the root or shortened form of the infinitive + a short 'i' (ی). Therefore, we can deduce that in olden days the example would have been written as _bayaast goftami._


First of all, I think that _Baayest_ is much more common than _Baayast_, and it's worth mentioning that the contraction 'baas' is used in colloquial speech.
Secondly, Bayset is rarely used, and _mibayest_ and _baayesti _are relatively formal.

As for the examples, I should say that you're not quite right, colognial:

A: _Baas gofte baasham ke ..._ : I *must have* said that ... . (when you feel sure that you have said ... .)
B: _Baas migoftam has two meanings:_
1- I should have said that ... (when you feel that saying ... would have been better)\
2- I had to say that ... (and you said)

Informal examples:

_A) Oonaa baas hameye ghazaa ro khorde baashan, chon dig kahliye khali bood. (They must have eaten the whole food ...)
B1) Nabaas beshoon migoftam beran, akhe jaee ro nadashtan. (I shouldn't have told them to leave, ...)
C) Baas beshoon haghighat ro migoftam, badbakhtaa hagh dashtan bedoonan._

C has two meanings, as it's not clear whether you've told them the truth or not. Nevertheless, in speech, _intonation_ and _stress_ help us understand the intended meaning.

For other examples, especially formal ones, check sapnachaandni's post again.


----------



## colognial

SajadBishop said:


> First of all, I think that _Baayest_ is much more common than _Baayast_, and it's worth mentioning that the contraction 'baas' is used in colloquial speech.



Hello, SajadBishop. About the pronunciation of the vowel that goes  between the 'b' and the 'y', I am not really sure which of the two,  'baayast' or 'baayest' is more frequently heard. You are probably right  in saying 'baayest' is more common. Indeed this variation  probably comes closer to the standard, educated pronunciation of  the word. (We hear 'baayesteh', hardly ever 'baayasteh'.)

This may be a good place to point out that the most common practice among all native Persian speakers, after all is said and done, is to be not too particular about how vowels within words are pronounced. We do take liberties with our native tongue when it comes to pronunciation, particularly as it concerns words of Arabic origin. Even our dictionaries do not bother to record all the varied pronunciations of many of the entries, and when I say 'varied' I am not really referring to different pronunciations that exist within local accents. The truth is that in Persian an 'a' sound as it occurs in the English word 'happen' may be shortened at will so that it begins to sound like the 'e' in 'bed', and vice versa.


----------



## PersoLatin

sapnachaandni said:


> *نتیجه:* ساده‌ترین راهکار برای به‌کارگیری درست، توجه به این دو نکته است که «باید» فقط برای زمان حال تا آینده به‌کار می‌رود و اگر در گذشته، «می‌» استمرار نداریم، «بایست» به‌کار رود.


I was looking for باید and came across this old thread, anyway I don't agree with the above (*نتیجه*) and most of post #3.

As far as I know باییدن (for باید) and بایستن (for بایست) are the same and in that way, are exactly the same as بایستن & شایستن, شستن & شوییدن, شستن & شوییدن, are to one another, i.e. the same, they mean the same, should also be used in the same way and the tense rules apply to both equally.

Both بایست and  باید are the third person singular present tense, for their respective versions, they means 'it must' and when they accompany third person singular past tense of another verb they means 'one must' as in بایست/باید رفت - one must go.

In Classical Persian you'll find:
*بایدم/بایستم*   I must
*بایدت**/بایستت* you must, also *بایدی/بایستی* 
*بایدش/بایستش* she/it/one must, also *باید/بایست*

The verbal prefix می‌ as well as ب can equally be applied to all above examples.

The only diversion from the rule I can identify is *بایستی *which should mean 'you must' but it now seems to be interchangeable with *بایست* (it must) which is grammatically incorrect, but if we keep using it, it becomes correct as it already has, apparently.

Of course the two versions are stylistically different but no more different than شستن & شوییدن


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> ۔۔۔The only diversion from the rule I can identify is *بایستی *which should mean 'you must' but it now also seems to be interchangeable with *بایست* (it must) which is grammatically incorrect......


No, *بایستی *has a majhuul yaa, and we in the subcontinent write it as *بایستے *and it is equivalent to:
مے بایست / می بایست, and goes with he/she/it (3rd person).


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> No, *بایستی *has a majhuul yaa, and we in the subcontinent write it as *بایستے *and it is equivalent to:
> مے بایست / می بایست, and goes with he/she/it (3rd person)


Yes that makes perfect sense.

And there is a بایدی meaning می‌باید, so the two words/verbs are identical.


----------



## Derakhshan

Am I correct in interpreting these constructions using باید as expressing "*need/want*"?

به نیمشب *اگرت *آفتاب* می‌باید*

"*If you need/want* a sun at midnight..."
-Hafez

جان بر افشان *اگرت *صحبت جانان *باید*

"Sacrifice yourself *if you need/want *the company of your beloved"
-Khvaju Kermani

ای دل *اگرت* رضای دلبر *باید*

"Oh heart, *if you want* the approval of your beloved..."
-Mowlana

باید in these examples have no accompanying verb, so it cannot mean "must" like in ترا باید رفت for example.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> به نیمشب *اگرت *آفتاب* می‌باید*
> 
> "*If you need/want* a sun at midnight..."
> -Hafez
> 
> جان بر افشان *اگرت *صحبت جانان *باید*
> 
> "Sacrifice yourself *if you need/want *the company of your beloved"
> -Khvaju Kermani
> 
> ای دل *اگرت* رضای دلبر *باید*
> 
> "Oh heart, *if you want* the approval of your beloved..."
> -Mowlana
> 
> باید in these examples have no accompanying verb, so it cannot mean "must" like in ترا باید رفت for example.


Isn't* باشد *implied in all three examples?


----------



## Derakhshan

Let me post the full couplets.

به نیمشب اگرت آفتاب می‌باید
ز روی دختر گلچهر رز نقاب انداز

"If you need sunlight at midnight,
unveil a beautiful (redfaced?) girl's face"

ای دل اگرت رضای دلبر باید
آن باید گفت و کرد کو فرماید

"Oh heart, if you want the acceptance of your beloved,
you must say and do what she commands"

If it meant باشد then the meaning of the first would change to: "If you *have* sunlight at midnight, unveil a beautiful girl's face" which doesn't make sense.

The second would be: "If you have the acceptance of your beloved, do and say what she commands", which could make sense I suppose.

I still would like to know, what is the official definition of باید in this construction where no accompanying verb is present. Has this not been noted anywhere?


----------



## Qureshpor

@Derakhshan your conclusion is correct. Here "باید" implies "is necessary/required" which one can then interpret as "wanted/needed".


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> I still would like to know, what is the official definition of باید in this construction where no accompanying verb is present. Has this not been noted anywhere?


Can it not simply be from بایستن?


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> If it meant باشد then the meaning of the first would change to: "If you *have* sunlight at midnight, unveil a beautiful girl's face" which doesn't make sense.


به نیمشب اگرت آفتاب می‌باید
ز روی دختر گلچهر رز نقاب انداز

To compare if adding باشد makes a difference, it is best to convert the above to NP prose:
اگر برای تو نیمه شب آفتاب باید باشد
نقاب  از روی دختر گلچهر رز بیانداز

I don't see how adding باشد changes the meaning at all.


Also دختر رز often refers to wine ((doxtare raz/daughter of vine/grape) So the meaning of the following:
به نیمشب اگرت آفتاب می‌باید
ز روی دختر گلچهر رز نقاب انداز

can also be :

_If you must have/need sunshine at midnight
take the cover off the [gobbet of] rose coloured/red wine
_
Of course it is up to the reader to choose their own interpretation, maybe based on level of sin each version affords , in equal amounts, in my view


----------



## Qureshpor

اگر برای تو نیمه شب آفتاب باید باشد literally means:-

If for you, at mid night the sun must be!

Which is NOT the same as:-

به نیمشب اگرت آفتاب می‌باید = به نیمشب اگرترا آفتاب می باید

At mid-night if you need/require the sun.... or

If at mid-night the sun is necessary for you


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> اگر برای تو نیمه شب آفتاب باید باشد literally means:-
> 
> If for you, at mid night the sun must be!
> 
> Which is NOT the same as:-
> 
> به نیمشب اگرت آفتاب می‌باید = به نیمشب اگرترا آفتاب می باید
> 
> At mid-night if you need/require the sun.... or
> 
> If at mid-night the sun is necessary for yo


I don't doubt that می باید can be used as verb. 

I don't agree that they are different, my example is not flowing as it was for demo purposes but the meaning, however rearranged, remains the same. باید باشد means 'it must be' AND 'it is necessary to', please replace my باید باشد with these and translate you should see no difference.


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> I don't see how adding باشد changes the meaning at all.


Oh, I thought you meant that باید literally means باشد here.

به نیمشب اگرت (اگر ترا) آفتاب باید باشد
"If at midnight you must have sunlight"

It works with باشد too, still I don't know, are there any examples of this usage where باشد or another verb is not omitted.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> I don't doubt that می باید can be used as verb.
> 
> I don't agree that they are different, my example is not flowing as it was for demo purposes but the meaning, however rearranged, remains the same. باید باشد means 'it must be' AND 'it is necessary to', please replace my باید باشد with these and translate you should see no difference.


باید باشد is not the same as باید or می باید. But we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Derakhshan

The reason I bring this up is because this construction is used in some dialects to express "want/need". Larestani _avesta _"want/need" < MP _abāyistan._ The verb also remains in 3rd singular like in these examples (باید), while the subject is marked by an enclitic (as in اگرت). I was surprised to find this construction being used in NP, but I wasn't sure of the meaning.


----------



## Qureshpor

Derakhshan said:


> The reason I bring this up is because this construction is used in some dialects to express "want/need". Larestani _avesta _"want/need" < MP _abāyistan._ The verb also remains in 3rd singular like in these examples (باید), while the subject is marked by an enclitic (as in اگرت). I was surprised to find this construction being used in NP, but I wasn't sure of the meaning.



خواجه گفت : بوالنصر را این حق هست و چنین مرد در پیش تخت خداوند بباید۔
(286تاریخ بیهقی چ ادیب ص )

Khwaja said: Abu Nasr has this right and such a man is necessary before the lord's throne.

چو دینار باید مرا یا درم
فرازآورم من ز نوک قلم .
ابوشکور

When I need a diinaar or a diram
I obtain it from the point of a pen


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> It works with باشد too, still I don't know, are there any examples of this usage where باشد or another verb is not omitted.


We use it in terms like:  ‏آنچه ‏که ‏*باید *‏*نمی‌شود *here باید  is not linked to نمی‌شود, meaning "that which *is necessary* doesn't happen" and its opposite: ‏آنچه ‏که ‏*نباید *‏*می‌شود *"that which *is not necessary* happens"

Whereas in آنچه که *نباید بشود* nabâyad/نباید IS linked to بشود "that which *shouldn't/mustn't happen*"

Of course I made up these examples.


----------



## Qureshpor

(179وزیر گفت ترا چه می باید، گفت بزندان حاکم باشم . (قصص الانبیاء ص

The Minister said, “What is necessary for you? Or “What do you need/require?”

He said, "to be in the ruler's prison".

Here (مرا می باید کہ It is necessary for me that) is understood.

He said, “(مرا می باید کہ It is necessary for me that) I be in the ruler’s prison....or...He said I need to be in the ruler’s prison.


----------



## Qureshpor

A couple of examples from the net for باید باشد and میباید باشد.

تعداد صفحات کتاب چقدر *باید باشد*؟

What *should be/ought to be* the number of pages in a book?

همه چیز آن طور که _*میباید باشد*_ هست و در حال حاضر هیچ مشکل دیگری وجود ندارد۔

Everything is the way it *ought to be* and at the present time no other difficulty exists whatsoever.


----------



## PersoLatin

^ باید plus a verb (Incl. باشد) is very common in NP, ENP(تاریخ بیهقی).

But باید on its own, as the main verb is rare in NP except for very formal constructions, e.g. those given in post #26.


----------



## Qureshpor

colognial said:


> Hi, everybody.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think _baayad_ (باید = _must_)  and _baayast_ (بایست = _must_) have slightly different usages. If I am not  wrong in this, then the problem is, I can't, just by looking at how the two are used in literature/by other people, tell how the usages are to  be distinguished one from the other.
> 
> So, I've made up a rule for  my own use: _baayad_ is imperative, used to give a command, whereas  _baayast_ is used to express a preference or an obligation, while of  course both words can correspond equally to definite and indefinite subjects.  For instance it's possible in Persian to write:
> 
> _Baayad/baayast beravam._ - here, the subject is "I". Meaning in English:_ I must/should go.
> Bayyad/baayast raft. _- the subject is indeterminate. Meaning in English: _One must/should go._
> 
> Can  anyone confirm my understanding, or otherwise explain how the two modal  verbs in fact mean exactly the same thing and are totally  interchangeable?
> 
> Thank you.


Hi @colognial (if you are still around). I came across a book entitled "Persian- A Comprehensive Grammar" by Saeed Yousef published in 2018. On pages 189-190 about بایستن he writes:

"This is a true defective modal verb, not capable of being conjugated for different persons and reduced almost entirely to باید and much less common now بایست. Both forms can be preceded by mi-, and as a remnant of older usage, بایست can add the unstressed suffix -i. Regardless of their distinct usage and function in early modern Persian, in contemporary Persian, all of them (b_ā_yad, mi-b_ā_yad, b_ā_yest, mi-b_ā_yest, b_ā_yesti, mi-b_ā_yesti) *are treated as synonyms *(emphasis mine), with b_ā_yad becoming increasingly more common at the cost of other forms."

I don't know whether you, sapnachaandni and other Persian speaking friends would agree with this.

Just a side note. The author gives a number of examples, two of which are as below.

باید میرفت He should have gone

باید میرفت He had to go

If this is the case, is it only context which differentiates the two meanings?


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> باید میرفت He should have gone
> 
> باید میرفت He had to go
> 
> If this is the case, is it only context which differentiates the two meanings?


They are correct and indeed have different meanings in different contexts, as follows:

1)
فرامرز دیروز نرفت سر کار ولی باید میرفت
Farâmarz didn’t go to work yesterday but he should have gone.

باید میرفت, in the above context has a  stress on it, the same way as in English ‘should have gone’ whereas below, it is said in a ‘matter of fact’ way.

2)
فرانک دیروز نتوانست در تهران بماند چون باید میرفت شیراز
Farânak couldn’t stay in Tehran yesterday because she had to go to Shiraz


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> They are correct and indeed have different meanings in different contexts, as follows:


I say 'They these are correct' which is true of how they are used these days, I definitely believe in 1), the verb tense used is incorrect, hence the need to work out the meaning  from the context. Check the following simplified examples:

1) فرامرز دیروز سر کار نرفت *ولی* باید می‌رفت / Farâmarz didn't go to work yesterday BUT he should have gone
2) فرامرز دیروز سر کار نرفت *چون* باید می‌خوابید / Farâmarz didn't go to work yesterday BECAUSE he had/needed to sleep
So BUT and BECAUSE provide the context, but things aren't as simple as that.

I believe the tense used for 1) was originally *باید ‏می‌رفته  بود* which has been reduced to باید ‏می‌رفت.

In modern Persian if you change the tense of the verb in the first part from _simple past_ to _past perfect,_ the second verb doesn't change, and that can't be right:
a) فرامرز دیروز سر کار *نرفت *ولی باید می‌رفت
b) فرامرز دیروز سر کار *نرفته بود* ولی باید می‌رفت

But these should be:
a) فرامرز دیروز سر کار *نرفت* ولی باید *می‌رفته بود - *Farâmarz didn't go to work yesterday BUT he should have gone
b) (فرامرز دیروز سر کار *نرفته بود* ولی باید *می‌رفته بود* (*می‌رفته بوده است - *Farâmarz hadn't gone to work [when I saw him] BUT he should have gone -


These tenses are in use (productive):
c) فرامرز امروز سر کار *نرفته است* ولی باید *می‌رفته است - *Farâmarz has't gone to work today BUT he should have - I have only heard this colloquially فرامرز امروز سر کار نرفته ولی باید می‌رفته
d) فرامرز امروز سر کار *نرفته است* ولی باید *برود* * - *Farâmarz has't gone to work today BUT he should go (as there's still time)

c)  a completed event in the very recent/fresh past
d)  an uncompleted event in the very recent/fresh past


----------



## Qureshpor

@PersoLatin thank you for your explanations in #31 and #32. I am afraid I have never quite got to the bottom of understanding می رفتہ است/بود/باشد forms. Please see Persian: me-kardah ast, me-kardah buud etc

And now you have added می رفتہ بودہ است !


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> I am afraid I have never quite got to the bottom of understanding می رفتہ است/بود/باشد forms. Please see Persian: me-kardah ast, me-kardah buud etc


Let's deal with *می‌رفته است* :

I will use the Persian name (as opposed to ماضی/نقلی/‏‏استمراری etc.) for this tense, at least for me, it is immediately meaningful: گذشته زنده پیوسته

1- شنیده ام که او هر روز به آنجا *می‌رود*             I have heard he goes there everyday          - i.e. habitually, at the present time
2- شنیده ام که او هر روز به آنجا *می‌رفت*            I have heard he used to go there everyday  - i.e. habitually in the past (has now ceased)
3- شنیده ام که او هر روز به آنجا *می‌رفته است*       I have heard he used to go there everyday  - i.e. habitually in the past AND he still goes in the present time (*)

*As far as I know, in modern English there's no distinction between 2 and 3 but in Persian there is, it links the habitual/recurring events to the present.


----------



## PersoLatin

Now *می‌رفته بود* : called گذشته دور پیوسته

1- او هر روز به آنجا *می‌رفت*                    He used to go there everyday  - This is used for telling a story in the present time about a habitual event in the past that ceased in the past
2- شنیده بودم که او هر روز به آنجا *می‌رفته بود  *I had heard that he had been going there everyday  - This is used for telling a story in the past tense, about a recurring event that had stopped completely at the time of story telling.

Obviously 2) is not used in modern Persian as 1) covers it now & without loosing much information.



Qureshpor said:


> Here is an example from Maulavii.
> 
> qaazii-e tanhaa shab-e me-raftah buud
> suu-i-bustaaN diid duzd-e hamcho duud


Hi Qureshpor, do you have this in the Persian script please, I can't find it anywhere online.

BTW - post #32 - #35 are weiring off topic.


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> Now *می‌رفته بود* : called گذشته دور پیوسته
> 
> 1- او هر روز به آنجا *می‌رفت*                    He used to go there everyday  - This is used for telling a story in the present time about a habitual event in the past that ceased in the past
> 2- شنیده بودم که او هر روز به آنجا *می‌رفته بود  *I had heard he used to go there everyday  - This is used for telling a story in the past tense, about a recurring event that had stopped completely at the time of story telling.
> 
> Obviously 2) is not used in modern Persian as 1) covers it now & without loosing much information.
> 
> Hi Qureshpor, do you have this in the Persian script please.


I had a feeling you would ask for this!

قاضی اے تنھا شبے میرفتہ بود
سوی بستان دید دزدے ہمچو دود

With regard to 2) can one translate it as:

I had heard that he had been going there everyday (?)


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> I had heard that he had been going there everyday (?)


That is exactly it. I'd cut and pasted but forgot to correct it, I have done it now.



Qureshpor said:


> قاضی اے تنھا شبے میرفتہ بود
> سوی بوستان دید دزدے ہمچو دود



I still can't find it, even with the version below:
قاضی ای تنها شبی می‌رفته بود
سوی بوستا ن دید دزدی همچو دود

Anyway, the meaning of 'had been going' fits and suggests that, that قاضی went to بوستا ن habitually although شبی doesn't quite fit the habitualness, unless ‏شبی ‏از ‏شب ها was the intention.

I will come back with some answers for می رفتہ باشد at some point. But I think it is a question of 'time shifting' the same examples to get something like 'will have been going'


----------



## marrish

PersoLatin said:


> I still can't find it, even with the version below:
> قاضی ای تنها شبی می‌رفته بود
> سوی بوستا ن دید دزدی همچو دود


Is "ای" specificity marker, _ezâfé_ or exclamation (the last one not very seriously)? What do the contemporary rules say on spelling the unspecific قاضی and _ezâfé_ after قاضی ?


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> Is "ای" specificity marker, _ezâfé_ or exclamation (the last one not very seriously)? What do the contemporary rules say on spelling the unspecific قاضی and _ezâfé_ after قاضی ?


marrish SaaHib, قاضی ای = قاضی اے (the way it is pronounced in Modern Iranian Persian) = ایک / کوئی قاضی . There is no اضافت here.


----------



## marrish

Qureshpor said:


> marrish SaaHib, قاضی ای = قاضی اے (the way it is pronounced in Modern Iranian Persian) = ایک / کوئی قاضی . There is no اضافت here.


It was the spelling قاضی اے which was not familiar to me, QP SaaHib, I for one never encountered such a spelling. I understood اے to be the exclamation in the first reading! Thank you for the explanation. So, it's an unaccented long -ē (anti-)specifity marker.


----------



## Qureshpor

marrish said:


> It was the spelling قاضی اے which was not familiar to me, QP SaaHib, I for one never encountered such a spelling. I understood اے to be the exclamation in the first reading! Thank you for the explanation. So, it's an unaccented long -ē (anti-)specifity marker.


You may also see it written as قاضیئے. But قاضی اے is much clearer.
From the مثنوی .....

بود بقّالے مر اورا طوطیئے
خوشنوا و سبزو گویا طوطیئے


----------



## marrish

Yes, it is, once explained. I like قاضیے or قاضیئے . I'm keen to learn the modern Iranian/Afghani rules, there are several possible scenarios I was thinking of:
a1) قاضی ای a2) قاضی‌ای
b1) قاضی‌ ی b2) قاضی‌ی
c1) قاضئ c2) قاضیئ
d1) قاضیی d2) قاضيي
or قاضی ي ?


----------



## PersoLatin

^ From Iranian Persian's perspective:

In the above a1) & a2) are correct, but a2) is more so because of use of half space. قاضی‌ای 

قاضی‌ای can also be written قاضی‌ئی which is the separated form of قاضیئی, the latter form has fallen out of favour. Use of قاضی‌ئی is also rare. قاضی‌ای is the preferred spelling.

As a surname it will always be joined, قاضیئی or قاضییی, anyway in this case یی orئی is associative.

I don't know the application of the rest, some may be for _ezâfé_ which, these days, is spelt very simply, e.g. قاضی شهر/the town's judge, pronounced qâzi*e* ŝahr.


Also ای in قاضی‌ای makes قاضی‌ non-specific and here also indefinite, so 'a judge'


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> That is exactly it. I'd cut and pasted but forgot to correct it, I have done it now.
> 
> I still can't find it, even with the version below:
> قاضی ای تنها شبی می‌رفته بود
> سوی بوستا ن دید دزدی همچو دود
> 
> Anyway, the meaning of 'had been going' fits and suggests that, that قاضی went to بوستا ن habitually although شبی doesn't quite fit the habitualness, unless ‏شبی ‏از ‏شب ها was the intention.
> 
> I will come back with some answers for می رفتہ باشد at some point. But I think it is a question of 'time shifting' the same examples to get something like 'will have been going'


Thank you for the agreement. Can we discuss the Rumi مصرع in the other thread please, to keep it and verb used in it separate from باید and بایست?


----------



## marrish

PersoLatin said:


> But باید on its own, as the main verb is rare in NP except for very formal constructions, e.g. those given in post #26.


Thank you very much indeed for the explanation on the spelling and I'm sorry for that off-topic question. Re. بایستی, there's a whole غزل to be read online at امیرخسرودهلوی»دیوان اشعار»غزلیات, which has the rhyme (ردیف) ending "۔آر بایستی". As far as I can see these instances are بایستی as the main verb. I'm quoting the opening couplet (مطلع, where both verses rhyme) and the subsequent one. * with the indication of معروف ی>>مجهول ی[=ے]۔, as an extra.

صبا آمد، ولے بویے ازان گلزار  *بایستے*

چه سود از بوئِ گل ما را، نسیم یار  *بایستے*

رخش در جلوه نازست و من از گریه نابینا

درۧیغا، دیده هائِ بخت من بےدار بایستے


----------



## PersoLatin

I should have said modern NEW Persian rather than NP, in the following:


PersoLatin said:


> But باید on its own, as the main verb is rare in NP except for very formal constructions, e.g. those given in post #26.






marrish said:


> Re. بایستی, there's a whole غزل to be read online at امیرخسرودهلوی»دیوان اشعار»غزلیات, which has the rhyme (ردیف) ending "۔آر بایستی". As far as I can see these instances are بایستی as the main verb. I'm quoting the opening couplet (مطلع, where both verses rhyme) and the subsequent one. * with the indication of معروف ی>>مجهول ی[=ے]۔, as an extra.
> 
> صبا آمد، ولے بویے ازان گلزار *بایستے*
> 
> چه سود از بوئِ گل ما را، نسیم یار *بایستے*
> 
> رخش در جلوه نازست و من از گریه نابینا
> 
> درۧیغا، دیده هائِ بخت من بےدار بایستے



I agree the first two can be taken to mean "it is necessary", but the third needs بودن to make sense so بودن is implied i.e. می‌بایست باشند, of course if بیدار was بیداری‌ then the 3rd one can also mean "it is necessary".

One could argue that آمدن is also implied in the first & second instance i.e. می‌بایست بیا ید


is بےدار/awake, always spelt this way in Urdu?


----------



## marrish

I'm glad you take this point as far as both مصرع's in the first شعر/بَیت go, and I accept your explanation of بایستی in the second verse of the second couplet (شعر (i.e. third rhyme). I imagined that the meaning would be similar with بودن implied, as you say, as بایستی represented بودن in this aspect. What I also thought is that here the grammatical subject being دیدها, the logical subject (مرا) is also implied, but I don't exclude the possibility that بایستی had this function on its own and could be formed from بودن as in بیدار بودن -> بیدار بایستی with the same grammatical and logical subject.
بےدار is actually almost never spelt like this, I typed it this way in order to indicate the ē's and it's not easy in the middle of a word. بیدار is the usual spelling and it's pronounced bēdār (the negative بی is actually بے in "outer-Iranian Persian" & Urdu).


----------



## Ali Smith

I just came across this:

سلام

می گویند : فلانی نماز نمی خواند...
اما ماشاءالله.... اخــلاق عالــی دارد  و شخص مورد احترامیست..!! .

میگویم: برادرم ، خواهرم لحظه ای بایست:

 🔺️فردی که نماز نمیخواند... همین "بداخلاقی" با  پروردگار برایش ڪافــی نیست؟؟!!


Does لحظه ای بایست mean "We need a moment."? I know lahze means "moment".


----------



## PersoLatin

Ali Smith said:


> Does لحظه ای بایست mean "We need a moment."? I know lahze means "moment".


No it means “stop for a moment”.

Please note this بایست is not pronounced _bāyast_ which means “must”, but pronounced _bé-ist_, it is the 1st person imperative of ایستادن/istādan “to stand/to stop”


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> _Baayast gofte baasham._ (= I should have said [though I didn't do so].) - Although this is correct and clear enough, a sure way to imply the action did not take place is to use _baayasti_ instead of _baayast_.
> _Bayaast migoftam_. (= I had to say.) - _migoftam_ is past continuous. In old texts, the past continuous is made up of the root or shortened form of the infinitive + a short 'i' (ی). Therefore, we can deduce that in olden days the example would have been written as _bayaast goftami._


I was looking at this old post and came across the above post which to me doesn't sound quite correct:

بایست گفته باشم_ baayast gofte baasham  - _*I must have said *(though others are doubting if I did)

بایست میگفتم_ baayast migoftam _*I should have said* (clearly I didn’t say) as well as *I had to say* (I was obliged to say it so said it) depending on context


----------



## Qureshpor

PersoLatin said:


> I was looking at this old post and came across the above post which to me doesn't sound quite correct:
> 
> بایست گفته باشم_ baayast gofte baasham  - _*I must have said *(though others are doubting if I did)
> 
> بایست میگفتم_ baayast migoftam _*I should have said* (clearly I didn’t say) as well as *I had to say* (I was obliged to say it so said it) depending on context


What does باید گفته باشم equate to then? I thought this meant, "I must have said."


----------



## PersoLatin

Qureshpor said:


> What does باید گفته باشم equate to then? I thought this meant, "I must have said."


The same.

To me بایست and باید can be used interchangeably even in future tense, and that, there's no difference in the meaning between them, or at least, I have not heard convincing arguments that they are different, I am sure somewhere there will be at least one example that proves they are different, in poetry most probably. 

I have started to take colloquial use of some Persian words as proof of their correct use.


----------



## PersoLatin

colognial said:


> Hi, everybody.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think _baayad_ (باید = _must_) and _baayast_ (بایست = _must_) have slightly different usages. If I am not wrong in this, then the problem is, I can't, just by looking at how the two are used in literature/by other people, tell how the usages are to be distinguished one from the other.
> 
> So, I've made up a rule for my own use: _baayad_ is imperative, used to give a command, whereas _baayast_ is used to express a preference or an obligation, while of course both words can correspond equally to definite and indefinite subjects. For instance it's possible in Persian to write:
> 
> _Baayad/baayast beravam._ - here, the subject is "I". Meaning in English:_ I must/should go.
> Bayyad/baayast raft. _- the subject is indeterminate. Meaning in English: _One must/should go._
> 
> Can anyone confirm my understanding, or otherwise explain how the two modal verbs in fact mean exactly the same thing and are totally interchangeable?
> 
> Thank you.


*I was going to create a new thread to discuss this but decided to use this as it has the right title, so I hope members who are interested can follow it.*

I’m certain now that باید & بایست are one & the same thing, they are both the past stem (بن ماضی) of the same verb (بایستن/بایدن), and in that way, they are like many other Persian verbs that have two past stems (& infinitives), that usually happens to verbs with present stems (بن مضارع) that end in a long vowel like ā/آ, ō/و & ī/ی  e.g:
گفت & گویید- کاهید & کاست - آرایید & آراست - شویید & شست, we can see that باید & بایست conform to this pattern.

For the above reason باید & بایست are interchangeable, they take on the tense of the verb they are used with, so past, present or future tense are all possible. By themselves they do act as a verb too but that type of use is rare in modern Persian speech but is still in use in poetry, old & new, and some modern text, examples of this will appear in questions that may follow this.

I also think بایستن is the causative of بودن/"to be" (this may be known fact but I can't find anything), so "to be" and "to make/cause be", although the pattern doesn't follow the classic present stem + اندن, for example as in خور+ اندن. The present stem of the verb for باید & بابست i.e. با/بای has not survived but it must have  existed, if only to form the past stem which has given us the words in question.


----------

