# Persian: To trick / set up sb.



## ali likes the stars

Hi guys,

"He tricked me."

As far as I know, there are five ways of saying this. What are their connotations/differences?


او من را گول زد
او به من کلک زد
او من را فریب داد
او به من حقه زد
او به من ترفند زد

Also, can these be used as nouns?
"It was a trick!"

گول بود
فریب بود
حقه بود
(I think it works for ترفتن and کلک)


----------



## mannoushka

Hello. 

مرا گول زد = گول‌ام زد is used a lot in connection with the Devil -- شیطان گول‌ام زد، شیطان گول‌شان زد. Often words are enough: insinuation, temptation, the telling of lies and half-truths. 

With کلک the structure of the sentence changes to به من کلک زد, she tricked me, she put one over me, or کلک خوردم, I was fooled. Here the perpetrator is likely taking some action or going through a series of motions to achieve their objective.

Both the above are applied, often informally, in relatively mild instances of trickery.

مرا فریب داد= فریب‌ام داد suggests deception achieved through lying and abusing the victim's trust, but also perhaps by applying charm and presenting an attractive appearance. 

حقه‌زدن and حقه‌بازی درآوردن are similar, I think, to کلک‌زدن, but with perhaps a touch more cunning and deviousness.

I am not sure how common it is to say به من ترفند زد.  Usually a ترفند is a device that may be legitimately applied to achieve a result.

Finally, a trick can be کلک or حقه.  Also playing tricks as in sleights of hand is تردستی.


----------



## Dib

mannoushka said:


> مرا فریب داد= فریب‌ام داد suggests deception achieved through lying and abusing the victim's trust, *but also perhaps by applying charm and presenting an attractive appearance*.


Is this what the name Fariba refers to?


----------



## mannoushka

Dib said:


> Is this what the name Fariba refers to?


Yes, indeed. More generally, a person who has allure is fareebaa (فریبا), while fareebande (فریبنده) means alluring but deceptively so. Finally, there is fareebkaar (فریب‌کار), a despicably deceitful person.


----------



## PersoLatin

فریبا a derivation similar to جویا، گویا، دانا..... etc.


----------



## mannoushka

If I may say something as a side suggestion, I feel the title of the thread ought to read, ".../ to set somebody up". Absolutely nothing to do with Persian this, of course. Still, it reminds me that there's a specific verb for that in colloquial speech: سرِ کار گذاشتن, which can combine "to pull someone's leg", the primary meaning, with "drag someone into a situation by deception and possibly incriminate them". There is also سرِ کسی را شیره مالیدن، "to pull the wool over somebody's eyes".


----------



## Dib

mannoushka said:


> Finally, there is fareebkaar (فریب‌کار), a despicably deceitful person.


In Bengali, we call them pherebbaj - clearly from a Persian فریب باز.


----------



## mannoushka

Dib said:


> In Bengali, we call them pherebbaj - clearly from a Persian فریب باز.


This is a good word, and one I haven't come across before. Thanks, Dib, for sharing it.
Baaz is definitely a Persian suffix, but is it possible fareeb has Sanskrit roots and is Persian as well as Bengali (or Hindi)?


----------



## Dib

mannoushka said:


> This is a good word, and one I haven't come across before. Thanks, Dib, for sharing it.
> Baaz is definitely a Persian suffix, but is it possible fareeb has Sanskrit roots and is Persian as well as Bengali (or Hindi)?


Quite possibly a Bengali-internal (pseudo-Persian) formation. Not necessarily a legitimate Persian word. Neither Steingass nor Dehkhoda has it. Nor does Platts's "A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English". The word "phereb" (deception) has been attested in Bengali since 1700's (but not popular on its own any more), and "baj" has long been, and remains a very popular and actively used suffix. We have added it to native words (dhanda-baj = opportunist) as well as other loanwords: cheating-baj, our latest synonym for pherebbaj (from English "cheating"). So, it is quite possible that phereb and baj were put together inside Bengali. "phereb-baj" occurs (in written records) since 1800's.

A route through Sanskrit is not possible. فریب comes from Proto-Iranian *pra-dab- (Cf. "Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb" - Johnny Cheung, "Этимологический словарь иранских языков" - Rastorgueva/Edelman). The Sanskrit equivalent would be *pra-dabh-. Both the prefix and the root are separately well-attested in Sanskrit, but their combination does not seem to occur. None of the dictionaries I consulted lists the combination (Monier-Williams, Cappeller, Apte). In the later Indo-Aryan languages, even the root "dabh" did not survive that well (Cf. "A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages" - Turner). Also, even if the word existed in some form, the initial "ph" of Bengali would be unexpected. This is a regular adaptation of Persian (and English) f.


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> Quite possibly a Bengali-internal (pseudo-Persian) formation. Not necessarily a legitimate Persian word. Neither Steingass nor Dehkhoda has it. Nor does Platts's "A Dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English". The word "phereb" (deception) has been attested in Bengali since 1700's (but not popular on its own any more), and "baj" has long been, and remains a very popular and actively used suffix. We have added it to native words (dhanda-baj = opportunist) as well as other loanwords: cheating-baj, our latest synonym for pherebbaj (from English "cheating"). So, it is quite possible that phereb and baj were put together inside Bengali. "phereb-baj" occurs (in written records) since 1800's.
> 
> A route through Sanskrit is not possible. فریب comes from Proto-Iranian *pra-dab- (Cf. "Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb" - Johnny Cheung, "Этимологический словарь иранских языков" - Rastorgueva/Edelman). The Sanskrit equivalent would be *pra-dabh-. Both the prefix and the root are separately well-attested in Sanskrit, but their combination does not seem to occur. None of the dictionaries I consulted lists the combination (Monier-Williams, Cappeller, Apte). In the later Indo-Aryan languages, even the root "dabh" did not survive that well (Cf. "A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages" - Turner). Also, even if the word existed in some form, the initial "ph" of Bengali would be unexpected. This is a regular adaptation of Persian (and English) f.


Great information Dib, thank you.

A question on z>j change, how does this actually happen, say a new loan word enters Bengali like  'باز', does it change to 'baj' straight away/over time, or is the change for another reason? I know a few Persian words that are spelt with a 'z' and in Indo-Aryan languages of the subcontinent, the same word is spelt with a 'j', we get that with Greek and other IE languages (e.g. knee/gnu/zānu/janu) but I can't quite see the change process for loans here.


----------



## PersoLatin

ali likes the stars said:


> او من را گول زد
> او به من کلک زد
> او من را فریب داد
> او به من حقه زد
> او به من ترفند زد



او من را گول زد - s/he fooled/tricked me into ... (usually serious)
او به من کلک زد - s/he tricked me (not formal, not serious, childish pranks can be included)
او من را فریب داد - s/he deceived me (usually serious)
او به من حقه زد - s/he tricked/deceived me (more serious in nature, all types of deceptions/embezzlements come under it)
او به من ترفند زد - All above have negative connotations whereas ترفند is application of a legitimate technique, e.g. in wrestling


----------



## Dib

PersoLatin said:


> A question on z>j change, how does this actually happen, say a new loan word enters Bengali like  'باز', does it change to 'baj' straight away/over time, or is the change for another reason? I know a few Persian words that are spelt with a 'z' and in Indo-Aryan languages of the subcontinent, the same word is spelt with a 'j', we get that with Greek and other IE languages (e.g. knee/gnu/zānu/janu) but I can't quite see the change process for loans here.


In Bengali, the j-z distinction does not exist natively and is not a part of the standard. The standard and the western dialects have "j" across the board and the eastern dialects have "z" across the board. The distinction between j-z shows up only in the speech of some people with strong English or Arabo-Persian influence, and only in non-assimilated words from that specific source. For me, as a western Bengali speaker, using the "z" sound in Bengali is rather wierd. That means, whether the source language has a "j" (e.g. jug, jar) or a "z" (e.g. zebra, Zimbabwe, New Zealand), I'll invariably say "j" in Bengali. Having said that, I am not sure whether I'd keep my z's intact if I am introducing a brand new English (or another foreign) word in my Bengali speech (e.g. zygote). To answer your question, the distinction between j-z in Bengali speech, even when it exists, is strongly conditioned by foreign-language knowledge. I don't think, a lot of Bengali speakers in 1600s and 1700s were educated, in foreign languages or otherwise. So, it is highly likely that, beyond a small Persian-educated circle, the Persian words with "z" were pronounced with "j" in Bengali (at least in the West) right from the beginning. Moreover, I doubt, too many people even in the Persian-educated circle would have made the distinction successfully, if the current practice of pronouncing English among the average English-educated Bengali is any yard-stick. For quite some time, I also pronounced "is" as "ij" and "as" as "aj".


----------



## ali likes the stars

mannoushka said:


> I feel the title of the thread ought to read, ".../ to set somebody up"


I suppose that's right. @eskandar , may I ask you to change the thread title please?


----------



## ali likes the stars

PersoLatin said:


> او من را گول زد - s/he fooled/tricked me into ... (usually serious)
> او به من کلک زد - s/he tricked me (not formal, not serious, childish pranks can be included)
> او من را فریب داد - s/h


I feel like these are the ones of interest for talking to my kid.
I gather that کلک زدن implies some kind of harmless fun. The person tricked might even laugh at it afterwards?
Whereas گول زدن may lead to offended feelings. Obviously it's a matter of how it is meant and/or how seriously the deceived one takes it. But I think I get it.
As for فریب دادن, is that even something you would say in a normal conversation? Seems like something a person might say to their partner when explaining why they had an affair. "That person seduced me with their good looks" or something like that? Could this be used in regards to commercials? As in "They print cartoon characters on products to lure children into wanting them?"


----------



## PersoLatin

ali likes the stars said:


> As in "They print cartoon characters on products to lure children into wanting them?"


گول is most suited here, فریب can also work but it is more sinister in this context.


ali likes the stars said:


> "That person seduced me with their good looks"


گول -> فریب work here but as the arrow shows depends on the impact of the outcome, serious -> more serious

'setting up somebody' is putting someone in a uncomfortable position which itself may require 'to trick' them into that situation first, e.g. a practical joke or asking questions in a way that would trip up the person etc.


----------



## PersoLatin

Dib said:


> n Bengali, the j-z distinction does not exist natively and is not a part of the standard. The standard and the western dialects have "j" across the board and the eastern dialects have "z" across the board. The distinction between j-z shows up only in the speech of some people with strong English or Arabo-Persian influence, and only in non-assimilated words from that specific source. For me, as a western Bengali speaker, using the "z" sound in Bengali is rather wierd. That means, whether the source language has a "j" (e.g. jug, jar) or a "z" (e.g. zebra, Zimbabwe, New Zealand), I'll invariably say "j" in Bengali. Having said that, I am not sure whether I'd keep my z's intact if I am introducing a brand new English (or another foreign) word in my Bengali speech (e.g. zygote). To answer your question, the distinction between j-z in Bengali speech, even when it exists, is strongly conditioned by foreign-language knowledge. I don't think, a lot of Bengali speakers in 1600s and 1700s were educated, in foreign languages or otherwise. So, it is highly likely that, beyond a small Persian-educated circle, the Persian words with "z" were pronounced with "j" in Bengali (at least in the West) right from the beginning. Moreover, I doubt, too many people even in the Persian-educated circle would have made the distinction successfully, if the current practice of pronouncing English among the average English-educated Bengali is any yard-stick. For quite some time, I also pronounced "is" as "ij" and "as" as "aj".


Dib, as usual a comprehensive answer, many thanks.


----------

