# Persian: خاکش



## Asadullah

وان پیر لاشه را که سپردند زیر گل 

خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند

What does خاکش mean? "His earth"?

By the way, shouldn't it have been و آن پیر لاشہ ("and that old corpse") instead of وان? Could an Iranian help me out here? I would really be grateful!


----------



## Treaty

وان is short for و آن. It is common to attach آن to preceding preposition.

The ش in خاکش is accusative not possessive. It means خاک او را (earth ate him so that not even bones remained of him).


----------



## Asadullah

Really? That sounds weird, especially since پیر لاشہ already has را after it. There is no need to make the ش in خاکش accusative, is there?
Think about it this way:

وان پیر لاشہ را خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند
Does that make any sense to you?


----------



## PersoLatin

Asadullah said:


> وان پیر لاشہ را خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند


That's not a correct rephrasing of the original, have a look at this:
_*وان پیر لاشہ را که زیر گل سپردند *-- *خاک او را چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند

پیر لاشہ* _relates to the verb *سپردند *and *خاکش *or *خاک او را* relates to the verb *بخورد*


----------



## James Bates

PersoLatin said:


> That's not a correct rephrasing of the original, have a look at this:
> _*وان پیر لاشہ را که زیر گل سپردند *-- *خاک او را چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند
> 
> پیر لاشہ* _relates to the verb *سپردند *and *خاکش *or *خاک او را* relates to the verb *بخورد*



But it is not possible for the را in پیرلاشہ را to be due to the verb سپردند. The reason is given in the attached file (see the footnote at the bottom of the page.)


----------



## PersoLatin

James Bates said:


> But it is not possible for the را in پیرلاشہ را to be due to the verb سپردند. The reason is given in the attached file (see the footnote at the bottom of the page.)


Those examples in the footnote are not the same as this example, here's one :* نامه ای را ‏که ‏دیروز ‏نوشتم، ‏کجاست؟*
I have changed it to match our example: *وان نامه را که نوشتند دیروز*
But I *can't *make our example to look like that *unless* change it to*:* *لاشه ای را که زیر گل سپردند، ‏کجاست؟*


----------



## James Bates

Yes, but the book explicitly says that the را can only appear because of the main clause, not because of the relative clause. In other words, if the را is there, it's only because the word before it is the object of the main clause. The relative clause is irrelevant.


----------



## Moon boy

I think I agree with James Bates that the relative clause is irrelevant. After all, look at the following examples (taken from James Bates' picture above):

دخترھائی را کہ آنجا زندگی میکنند نمیشناسم

نامہ ای را کہ دیروز نوشتم فرستادم

These two examples show that the را appears only because of the main clause.


----------



## PersoLatin

I agree with book but fail to see the relevance of what it says to the question in this thread, despite the assertions in post 7 & 8, also, bear in mind this is poetry.


----------



## James Bates

How can the pronoun ش and the را after پیر لاشہ both be due to the verb of the main clause, بخورد? A verb cannot have two objects simultaneously.


----------



## PersoLatin

I suppose what you are saying is, if the pronoun ش was possessive, all will be good?


----------



## James Bates

Yes.
Does this make any sense to you:

دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند نمیشناسمش۔


----------



## PersoLatin

I see each semi verse as a separate entity, whereas you see them as one long sentence. Of course they tell one story. I do see your point though. Still, accepting this as an anomaly is easier than accepting 'his earth' for خاكش, especially as this is poetry.


----------



## Asadullah

James Bates said:


> Yes.
> Does this make any sense to you:
> 
> دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند نمیشناسمش۔



It certainly doesn't make any sense. You can't have the pronoun ش at the end. Nor can you have 
دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند او را نمیشناسم


----------



## soheil1

َش    denotes a subjecctive'objective pronoun, which complements the attached word.
in او دستی به سبیلش کشید, the دست کشیدن به needs an object which is سبیلش, and َش refers سبیل to او
in حقوقش را دادم , the verb دادن is transitive. The  word حقوق is object (note the را) and so َش is subjective
in خاکش خورد... as in in poem, the verb needs an object. The object is not خاک(no را) and thus is َش
(c) soheil1 All right reserved.
The rught of soheil1 an the author of this post cannot be iggied.


----------



## soheil1

Asadullah said:


> It certainly doesn't make any sense. You can't have the pronoun ش at the end. Nor can you have
> دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند او را نمیشناسم


This is used in speech


----------



## James Bates

soheil1 said:


> َش    denotes a subjecctive'objective pronoun, which complements the attached word.
> in او دستی به سبیلش کشید, the دست کشیدن به needs an object which is سبیلش, and َش refers سبیل to او
> in حقوقش را دادم , the verb دادن is transitive. The  word حقوق is object (note the را) and so َش is subjective
> in خاکش خورد... as in in poem, the verb needs an object. The object is not خاک(no را) and thus is َش
> (c) soheil1 All right reserved.
> The rught of soheil1 an the author of this post cannot be iggied.



If the object of بخورد is the ش at the end of خاکش, then what is _*ان پیر لاشہ را?*_


----------



## soheil1

James Bates said:


> If the object of بخورد is the ش at the end of خاکش, then what is _*ان پیر لاشہ را?*_


That is why PersoLatin says َش refers to ان پیر لاشه. The را only indicates ان پیر لاشه is the object of بکردند


----------



## James Bates

soheil1 said:


> That is why PersoLatin says َش refers to ان پیر لاشه. The را only indicates ان پیر لاشه is the object of بکردند



Does the following sentence sound correct to you?

دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند نمی شناسمش۔


----------



## soheil1

It is used in Informal writing, although incorrect grammatically, since the َش is redundant.


----------



## Asadullah

soheil1 said:


> It is used in Informal writing, although incorrect grammatically, since the َش is redundant.



I think what James Bates' is trying to say is: just as the ش is redundant in دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند نمی شناسمش, so is the ش redundant in وان پیر لاشه را که سپردند زیر گل خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند


----------



## PersoLatin

Asadullah said:


> so is the ش redundant in وان پیر لاشه را که سپردند زیر گل خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند



So this is what you mean:
وان پیر لاشه را که سپردند زیر گل خاک چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند

Let's assume this sentence is the actual question, therefore, is this correct? To me this is not correct Persian, it is not poetry so not restricted by rhyme & metering requirements. Leaving it like this makes it very similar to many examples we've recently seen from Persian writings by authors from India/Pakistan (scanned pages mainly)

I am not an avid reader and Golestan is new to me, but I understand most of the lines cited from it, on this forum, after 2-3 attempts, but I struggle to understand the aforementioned writings, they seems to be missing some key pronoun here or a preposition there. Our Persian poets bend the gramatical rules for effect, but rarely break them. Most text books concentrate on contemporary prose, and when they cite poetry, it's to caution the reader, or they are simple ones.

so you do need a ش or او را somewhere in that sentence.


----------



## Jamshed Aslam

PersoLatin, pretend you saw me coming out of your room and stopped me and asked, "I hope you didn't touch anything in my room, like the fridge or lamp or table or anything else." Would it make sense if I replied:

cheraaq ra ke dud mizad khaamushash kardam ("I put out the lamp, which was smoking.")

or:

aan cheraaq ra ke dud mizad khaamushash kardam ("I put out that lamp, which was smoking.")

I think you'll agree that both are incorrect because of the -ash.


----------



## Moon boy

Jamshed Aslam said:


> PersoLatin, pretend you saw me coming out of your room and stopped me and asked, "I hope you didn't touch anything in my room, like the fridge or lamp or table or anything else." Would it make sense if I replied:
> 
> cheraaq ra ke dud mizad khaamushash kardam ("I put out the lamp, which was smoking.")
> 
> or:
> 
> aan cheraaq ra ke dud mizad khaamushash kardam ("I put out that lamp, which was smoking.")
> 
> I think you'll agree that both are incorrect because of the -ash.



cheraagh, not cheraaq. It's spelled چراغ, not چراق.
However, it is true that some Iranians pronounce غ and ق identically, especially those from Tehran.


----------



## PersoLatin

Of course they are not right.

I believe the original sentence is made up of two seperate parts & the rule you cite from the text doesn't apply to it, but you see it being the same as the ones in the text book, or the subsequent examples you cited.. That's the difference that needs resolving, but I have failed to convince you, this needs someone else's input.

So my position is the same as post #2 by Treaty.


----------



## soheil1

Asadullah said:


> I think what James Bates' is trying to say is: just as the ش is redundant in دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند نمی شناسمش, so is the ش redundant in وان پیر لاشه را که سپردند زیر گل خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند


قافیهچو تنک آید
شاعر بهجفنگآید

Classic poetry is based on rhythm, not redundancy-omission


----------



## Moon boy

Gotcha.
What does 
قافیهچو تنک آید
شاعر بهجفنگآی

mean?


----------



## truce

وان پیر لاشه را که سپردند زیر گل  - خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند Actually this phrase consists of 2 sentences with 2 independent verbs and 2 independent objects. And remember that this is poem and is totally different from spoken Farsi. No one can you find to talk this way.
In Farsi we would say دختری که اونجا زندگی میکنه رو نمیشناسم


----------



## James Bates

truce said:


> وان پیر لاشه را که سپردند زیر گل  - خاکش چنان بخورد کزو استخوان نماند Actually this phrase consists of 2 sentences with 2 independent verbs and 2 independent objects. And remember that this is poem and is totally different from spoken Farsi. No one can you find to talk this way.
> In Farsi we would say دختری که اونجا زندگی میکنه رو نمیشناسم



But in written Persian you would only use دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند نمی شناسم, right?


----------



## truce

James Bates said:


> But in written Persian you would only use دختری را کہ آنجا زندگی میکند نمی شناسم, right?


Yes in formal Farsi we would say both: دختری که آنجا زندگی می کند را نمی شناسم and دختری را که آنجا زندگی می کند نمی شناسم but the first one is more preferable to me.


----------



## Charsaddawi

truce said:


> Yes in formal Farsi we would say both: دختری که آنجا زندگی می کند را نمی شناسم and دختری را که آنجا زندگی می کند نمی شناسم but the first one is more preferable to me.



But the point is that in neither case can you have نمی شناسمش.


----------



## soheil1

Moon boy said:


> Gotcha.
> What does
> قافیهچو تنک آید
> شاعر بهجفنگآی
> 
> mean?


قافیه چو تنگ آید
شاعر به جفنگ آید
meaning when the poet has to struggle finding words making up rhythms, they throw in gibberish


----------



## James Bates

What does جفنگ mean?


----------



## soheil1

James Bates said:


> What does جفنگ mean?


gibberish; nonsense


----------

