# Persian: کلاسشونو



## WJM53

Hello,

This is from an episode of the Persian serial "Javedaanegi." The English subtitles translate what the teacher's assistant is saying as "She disorganized the class."

- چکار کرده؟  [Teacher to teacher's assistant about student]

- همه کلاسشونو به هم ریخته  [Teacher's assistant to teacher about student]

Could someone please clarify why the teacher's assistant adds the "-o" ending at the end of "کلاسشونو" when the next word ("به") does not begin with "ی"? Thank you so much.


----------



## Treaty

-o is short for _ro _that is colloquial for _rā _را. The formal rendering of the sentence is همۀ کلاسشان را به هم ریخته است.



WJM53 said:


> ... when the next word ("به") does not begin with "ی"?



Would you please clarify what rule this is? Why should an [o] be added when the following word begins with [y]?


----------



## WJM53

Thank you, that's very helpful. I think I was confusing the "-o" ending with another rule concerning double "-i" endings or something similar.

Is "ro" (or the "-o") ever dropped entirely in colloquial speech, or would this be considered a sign that the speaker is uneducated or vulgar? I ask because in a short sentence like this it seems clear that the only possible object of "به هم ریخته" is "کلاسشون".


----------



## Treaty

WJM53 said:


> Is "ro" (or the "-o") ever dropped entirely in colloquial speech, or would this be considered a sign that the speaker is uneducated or vulgar? I ask because in a short sentence like this it seems clear that the only possible object of "به هم ریخته" is "کلاسشون".



Then we are going back to the usage of را in the chelo-kabab thread. به هم ریختن is both transitive and intransitive. So, not using را makes a possible confusion about the subject. For example:

حسن کلاسش به هم ریخت = Hasan, his class was disordered.
حسن کلاسش را به هم ریخت = Hasan disordered his class.

However, if we are talking about a generic class or a habitual action:
حسن کلاس به هم می ریخت = Hasan used to disorder classes.

There are some accents or dialects (like my parents') which omit را completely. But I'm not considering them vulgar or uneducated (especially as the usage of را for objects was not as common in classic Persian). They are just different from standard or Tehrani Persian.


----------



## WJM53

Great, thank you. May I ask which accents/dialects tend to omit "را"?


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi Treaty - I have heard a regional variation of this where instead of o, e or زير is used, so for كلاسش را they'd say كلاسِشِ.

This might be a little out there, but is it possible that in your above example (حسن کلاسش به هم ریخت), where را is dropped completely, there used to be a زير which has changed, over time, to a very subtle one, so much so that it's become inaudible to the listener?


----------



## Treaty

I can't exactly say what dialects omit the را completely except my parents (Behbahani, and probably related Larestani / Bushehri dialects). And some accents pronounce را as _re _or _ra_ (short a). So, the short form will be _e_ (h) and _a_. 



PersoLatin said:


> This might be a little out there, but is it possible that in your above example (حسن کلاسش به هم ریخت), where را is dropped completely, there used to be a زير which has changed, over time, to a very subtle one, so much so that it's become inaudible to the listener?



In classic Persian there was not as many را as we have in modern Persian. So, that's why there are dialects which never used را to begin with. Some people in Ahvaz accent tend to only use e (or ne). It is possible that a person unfamiliar with the accent can't pick the e. However, in some of the south Persian dialects, the structure of the sentence may define the object. For example, in my dialect, حسن کلاسش به هم ریخت, means "Hasan disordered the class" (not _his _class). the ش suffix marks کلاس as the object and modifies the verb ریخت as 3rd person singular. If you want to say "Hasan disturbed his class" you should say حسن کلاسشش به هم ریخت.


----------



## WJM53

Thank you.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> For example, in my dialect, حسن کلاسش به هم ریخت, means "Hasan disordered the class" (not _his _class). the ش suffix marks کلاس as the object and modifies the verb ریخت as 3rd person singular. If you want to say "Hasan disturbed his class" you should say حسن کلاسشش به هم ریخت.



What would be the equivalent to من كلاس را به هم ريختم and من كلاسم را به هم ريختم, please?

Also could you be kind enough to supply a few lines of classic Persian, where râ را is necessary, but it's not supplied. I know equivalent examples for poetry but not for prose.


----------



## Treaty

من کلاسم را به هم ریختم becomes من کلاسمم به هم ریخت
من کلاس را به هم ریختم becomes من کلاسم به هم ریخت

This structure is only for past tense. For present tense, the usual Persian structure (with را) is used.

Look at this prose by Sa'adi (the red *را* are not found in the original text but they are necessary in modern Persian):
  تنی چند از روندگان متفق سیاحت بودند و شریک رنج و راحت خواستم تا مرافقت کنم موافقت نکردند گفتم این از کرم اخلاق بزرگان بدیع است روی از مصاحبت مسکینان تافتن و فایده و برکت دریغ داشتن که من در نفس خویش این قدرت و سرعت *را* می‌شناسم که در خدمت مردان یار شاطر باشم نه بار خاطر .
...
ابریق رفیق *را *برداشت که به طهارت می‌رود و به غارت میرفت.
...


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you very much, Treaty.

râ را & 'definite subjects', deserve their own topic, but here we are.

In both examples, where you have highlighted را in red, the correct 'meaning' is conveyed to the reader, without را as:

1)  اين (this) makes قدرت وسرعت, i.e the subject, definite.
2)  I think, the subject reads as ابريقِ رفيق (ebriq*e* rafiq) and زير makes the subject definite.

At the risk stating the obvious, we can say, that the need for making subjects definite, in a sentence, is NOT always satisfied by 'را', but the need, nevertheless, is always there & must always be satisfied, somehow.


----------



## aisha93

> I can't exactly say what dialects omit the را completely except my parents (Behbahani, and probably related Larestani / Bushehri dialects).


Yes true but some suffixes come to play this role.
It's hard to explain them and compare them to the را because they sometimes come even as prefixes to the subject..I think this happens when the object isn't mentioned.
for example:
if I want to say> I did (من کردم) ...then I will say> mo om ke(rd)
suppose you want to ask me what I did (چه کردی؟), then you'll say> che ot ke(rd)?
and I reply> hichi om neke(rd) > هیچی نکردم

That (rd) at the end isn't really pronounced but I just put it so that you better get it

But for intransitive verbs, they are modified normally (i.e. without suffixes or prefixes)
for example: من رفتم > mo raftom...and that's it 
I can't really explain how it works exactly! I just use them 



> من کلاسم را به هم ریختم becomes من کلاسمم به هم ریخت
> من کلاس را به هم ریختم becomes من کلاسم به هم ریخت


We say it in almost similar way:
1> mo kelasom om ba ham rikht
2> mo kelas om ba ham rikht



> حسن کلاسش به هم ریخت





> حسن کلاسشش به هم ریخت


Here also same:
1> hasan kelas osh ba ham rikht
2> hasan kelasosh osh ba ham rikht

I think this was very common in Persian poetry but I can't think of examples right now, though I'm sure I've seen many


----------



## Derakhshan

Treaty said:


> However, in some of the south Persian dialects, the structure of the sentence may define the object. For example, in my dialect, حسن کلاسش به هم ریخت, means "Hasan disordered the class" (not _his _class). the ش suffix marks کلاس as the object and modifies the verb ریخت as 3rd person singular.


This is a continuation of the MP ergative construction, see:

_šahrestān ī nēwšābuhr šābuhr ī *ardaxšīrān kard pad ān gāh kē-*š* pahlēzag [ī] tūr *ōzad* u-*š* pad ham-gyāg šahrestān *framūd* kardan

kē-_*š ... ōzad */ '[when] *he killed*'
_
u-_*š ... framūd */ *'he ordered'*

The pronominal enclitic _-š _does not mark the object, rather it acts as the agent of the ergative construction, while the verb always remains 3rd singular. This _-š _may attach to any word preceding the verb in the clause.

Indeed, we know from some lines written by Saadi in his native Shirazi dialect, that the old Shirazi dialect of his time retained the ergative construction, as do the rural dialects around Shiraz today:

نه کِت تفسیر و فِق خواند اِشتی اَبْهِشت

_na ke-*t* tafsir-o feq *xvând* eštē a bhešt_

_ke-*t ... xvând* _/ '[that] *you read*'

Rendered in New Persian: نه [چنين است] كه [به اين دليل كه] تو تفسير و فقه خوانده‌ای (تحتاللفظ: خواندي) به بهشت خواهي رفت

Today many rural dialects retain this ergative construction, you may see in this Wiki page a convenient list of some of them (under Split-Ergative):
Dialects of Fars - Wikipedia


----------



## Derakhshan

Also, I've noticed that the dialects which omit را, make a much more heavy use of the final -_é_ "definite marker" (or its variants like -_u_, -_eku_, etc) than do the major را-having dialects.

This is because را can effectively function as a definite marker in Persian, as in:

کتاب را خریدم 'I bought *the* book'

vs

کتاب خریدم 'I bought (a/some) book(s)'

Whereas in a را-lacking dialect, to express definiteness you have to use the final -_é_:

_ketâb*é *xaridam_ 'I bought the book'

At least this is the case with the dialects I am familiar with.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> _ketâb*é *xaridam_ 'I bought the book'


This is used in mainstream colloquial Persian too, at least in Tehran anyway, e.g.
mard*é* omad/مرده اومد - *the* man arrived
Or
_ketâb*é *oftâd/*the* book fell_
But
ketâb*o* xaridam/کتابو خریدم
/o/ is the shortened form of را/râ & رو/ro


----------



## Derakhshan

Yes, this illustrates my point. Since in را-lacking dialects you cannot say _ketâb*o* xaridam_, you would usually say _ketab-*é* xaridam_ with that definite -*é* (since _ketâb xaridam_ sounds too general) whereas the -_*o *_sufficed in the را-having dialect. At least, this is my impression.


----------



## PersoLatin

How do we know those dialects lack را? 
Couldn’t -é be the shortened form of را the same as /o/, except that râ is ré, I have heard in regional accents this form:
این ره ببر/in ré bebar - take *this*
سرشه بگیر/sareš*é* begir- take *the* end (head)

Also in colloquial Tehrani, -é is used exclusively on third person singular.


----------



## Derakhshan

Well, I guess the difference is down to stress.

The stress in _ketâb-o_ (کتاب را) is on the *penultimate* syllable.

The stress in _ketâb-é_ ("definite -_é_") is on the *final* syllable.

This can get confusing as some dialects have -_e _for را, but you should be able to differentiate them by the stress.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> How do we know those dialects lack را?


Any thoughts on this question?


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> سرشه بگیر/sareš*é* begir- take *the* end (head)


را-lacking dialects would have nothing after _sareš_.

Larestani: _sera-š begi
_
It would be good if Treaty could provide the above sentence in Behbehani.


----------



## PersoLatin

Please can you tell me if *را-lacking dialects* do exist, from a linguistic point of view?


----------



## Derakhshan

Well, I thought I made it clear that my own dialect lacks را, and Treaty has said the same of his own dialect in his posts here.

A simple example establishes this...

Tehrani: _to-ro didam_
Lari: _to-m di_
(split-ergative structure which I described above)

Unless you think the "definite suffix" I talked about is actually را? But, the thing is it is not grammatically required, it is optional to make some situations clearer (even in my _ketâbé _example). Whereas را, in ths situations that it occurs, is grammatically necessary (like my _ketâbo_ example).

To understand all this more deeply we need to look into the historical development of these dialects and of New Persian. Even Early New Persian was not strict about را either for marking direct or indirect objects. I don't know exactly at what point it became obligatory to mark direct objects with را.

But the dialects we are dealing with, split-ergative dialects like Larestani, Fars, Behbehani, etc... have a completely different historical development to current New Persian whose epicenter was in Khorasan. So it's not surprising that they don't require را.

Have a look at this page, see the parts about the split between Khorasani "Dari" and southern "Parsi":
PERSIAN LANGUAGE   i. Early New Persian – Encyclopaedia Iranica


----------



## PersoLatin

Thanks, I asked as I wasn’t sure if you were exploring that possibility, but many thanks for the detailed answer & the link.


----------

