# Persian: روی میز کتاب ھست



## James Bates

روی میز کتاب ھست

My textbook translates this as "On the table there are books."
Couldn't it also mean "On the table there is the book"?


----------



## OmidTavana

In that case you should say 
کتاب روی میز است


----------



## James Bates

Oh, I see. Thanks.
But if روی میز کتاب ھست refers to "books" then shouldn't the verb be ھستند?


----------



## colognial

James Bates said:


> Oh, I see. Thanks.
> But if روی میز کتاب ھست refers to "books" then shouldn't the verb be ھستند?


The point is, even if you changed the subject, کتاب, into the plural form, کتاب ها, you'd still have to use the singular form of the verb: روی میز کتاب ها هست. Then the implication would be that there are books - and what books these are, too! - on the table. This is true of sentences in which there being of something there is stressed, as in English sentences that begin with "there is/are ...".


----------



## James Bates

Thanks!


----------



## colognial

I forgot to say this, James Bates: you can't use هستند in this particular type of sentence.


----------



## Mojtabi

colognial said:


> The point is, even if you changed the subject, کتاب, into the plural form, کتاب ها, you'd still have to use the singular form of the verb: روی میز کتاب ها هست. Then the implication would be that there are books - and what books these are, too! - on the table. This is true of sentences in which there being of something there is stressed, as in English sentences that begin with "there is/are ...".



I don't agree with you James. We also use plural form of verb when we use plural form of کتاب :
کتابها روی میز هستند.
It's also true. 
I think so.


----------



## colognial

Mojtabi, کتاب ها روی میز هستند is different from روی میز کتاب هست; surely you know all about that! For one thing, in your sentence, speaker is referring to books that are well known to speaker and to whoever it is who's being addressed. What I, and not James, said in the post you have quoted is true of the type of sentence that, in English, would begin with a "there is/are ...".


----------



## Mojtabi

colognial said:


> The point is, even if you changed the subject, کتاب, into the plural form, کتاب ها, you'd still have to use the singular form of the verb: روی میز کتاب ها هست. Then the implication would be that there are books - and what books these are, too! - on the table. This is true of sentences in which there being of something there is stressed, as in English sentences that begin with "there is/are ...".



sorry, colognial!
Actually we never use کتاب ها روی میز هست. Instead we use کتاب هایی روی میز است or کتابهایی روی میز هستند when we want to say "there are books on the table" and the second one is better to use.


----------



## colognial

Mojtabi said:


> sorry, colognial!
> Actually we never use کتاب ها روی میز هست. Instead we use کتاب هایی روی میز است or کتابهایی روی میز هستند when we want to say "there are books on the table" and the second one is better to use.



You're right, Mojtabi, we do say کتاب هایی روی میز است، کتاب هایی روی میز هستند - there's no plural derived directly from است, i.e. there's no such word as استند.

But we're talking about هست here. هست is an emphasized verb, which means the 'being there' of the subject is what's important. This is maybe why this kind of structure is used for indefinite subjects, and why, maybe, the subject remains singular.


----------



## Treaty

James Bates said:


> روی میز کتاب ھست
> 
> My textbook translates this as "On the table there are books."
> Couldn't it also mean "On the table there is the book"?



We'd better not to use an English logic to translate روی میز کتاب هست. As we know, in English, they use plural form to indicate a class of things while in Persian we usually use singular. That's why this sentence is confusingly translated into "there are _books_ on the table". However, for the original Persian sentence, it doesn't probably matter if there is one or more books on the table. It is more giving information about the nature of thing/s on the table rather than their number.


----------



## colognial

Treaty, I agree, in particular, in this one point: giving information on "the thing on the table" is not important. What is important is giving information about there being a thing or things "on the table", or just about there being something, anything there. This is done by placing "on the table" at the beginning, and by using the word هست.


----------



## James Bates

Treaty: that's very interesting! I didn't know روی میز کتاب ھست could be translated "There is a book on the table".


----------



## OmidTavana

To sum up, here are some similar sentences that I hope help you grasp the correct usage:
روی میز کتاب هست = There are some books on the table/ There is a book on the table (so, for example you can't put anything else on the table. This fact is important not the number of the books.)
کتاب روی میز است = The book is on the table (The book is the main subject not the table)
کتابها روی میزاند = The books are on the table (The books are the main subject not the table)


----------



## Mojtabi

OmidTavana said:


> To sum up, here are some similar sentences that I hope help you grasp the correct usage:
> روی میز کتاب هست = There are some books on the table/ There is a book on the table (so, for example you can't put anything else on the table. This fact is important not the number of the books.)
> کتاب روی میز است = The book is on the table (The book is the main subject not the table)
> کتابها روی میزاند = The books are on the table (The books are the main subject not the table)



I think it's the best answer for you James.


----------



## James Bates

Thanks!


----------

