# Persian: verbal suffix -a



## CyrusSH

For example we say " دیدمشا ولی یادم رفت بهش بگم" or "حالا یک کاری از تو خواستما ببین چه جوری رفتار می کنی" or "یک کم فکر کن داشتیا" or "آخرش نگفتیا" ... what does this suffix mean?


----------



## Treaty

I think it is not a suffix but a separate word ها which either is from 
ها =  "yes", "of course" or some kind of positive emphasis as seen in dialectal ها بله or ها نه; or
ها the interrogative particle, used rhetorically.


----------



## CyrusSH

But I think it is a verbal suffix, I see a sense of remembrance or expectancy, not only emphasis.


----------



## CyrusSH

About my examples I mean:

دیدمشا = (معمولا) نمی بینمش ولی دیدمش
خواستما = (معمولا) نمی خواهم ولی خواستم
داشتیا = (به ظاهر) نداری ولی داشتی
نگفتیا = ننمیگی؟ ولی نگفتی


----------



## farasso0

ها is used for emphasis.
دیدمشا = دیدمش ها.


----------



## CyrusSH

farasso0 said:


> ها is used for emphasis.
> دیدمشا = دیدمش ها.



Of course but I see a difference, ها is mostly used for the present tense, for example we say بگی ها there is clearly an emphasis but when we say گفتما I see no emphasis, there can be even doubt:

چرا نگفتی؟
مطمئنی؟ گفتما


----------



## farasso0

CyrusSH said:


> Of course but I see a difference, ها is mostly used for the present tense, for example we say بگی ها there is clearly an emphasis but when we say گفتما I see no emphasis, there can be even doubt:
> 
> چرا نگفتی؟
> مطمئنی؟ گفتما


I remember I read this in a book. In the past, people said ها کردم instead of کردم and it was used for emphasis. In the north of Iran people say ها کردمه instead of کردم.

I think they're the same:
گفتم ها=گفتما
بگیا= بگی ها

There might be some other reasons. I don't know.


----------



## CyrusSH

About گویا in Dehkhoda dictionary:

(ق )مخفف گوئیا. گوییا. به معنی ظاهراً و غالباً. (برهان قاطع). مرکب از گوی (امر از گفتن ) به اضافه ٔ الف تردید به معنی شاید و یحتمل :
گویا طلوع میکند از مغرب آفتاب
کاشوب در تمامی ذرات عالم است .


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> ها = "yes", "of course" or some kind of positive emphasis as seen in dialectal ها بله or ها نه; or
> ها the interrogative particle, used rhetorically


 I also think it is ها.



CyrusSH said:


> But I think it is a verbal suffix, I see a sense of remembrance or expectancy, not only emphasis.


It is not a verbal suffix, the two examples below are identical in meaning but the first example has it (ها or ا) on دیروز/yesterday.
بهش گفتی؟ - did you tell him?
1) نه، دیدمش دیروزا ولی یادم رفت
2) نه، دیروز دیدمشا ولی یادم رفت
No, I did see him yesterday but forgot/Despite seeing him yesterday, I forgot.


I think there's at least two categories:

*1 - Conditional:*
میزنمت - I will hit you
میزنمت ها - I will hit you, _if you don't behave_

بهش بگو - tell her
بهش بگیا/بهش بگوها - tell her if/when you see her
به او بگوئی ها - tell her if/when you see her

*2 - Emphasis: *
چرا نگفتی؟ Why didn't you say?
مطمئنی؟ گفتما Are you sure? I did say/I am sure I said

بهش گفتی؟ - did you tell him?
نه، دیروز دیدمشا ولی یادم رفت - no, I did see him yesterday but I forgot/Despite seeing him yesterday, I forgot.

اینجا بود پارسال ها or اینجا بودا پارسال - He was only here last year


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> About گویا in Dehkhoda dictionary:
> 
> (ق )مخفف گوئیا. گوییا. به معنی ظاهراً و غالباً. (برهان قاطع). مرکب از گوی (امر از گفتن ) به اضافه ٔ الف تردید به معنی شاید و یحتمل :
> گویا طلوع میکند از مغرب آفتاب
> کاشوب در تمامی ذرات عالم است .


This is not the same thing, unfortunately I have forgotten the name of this type of verb.

EDIT: I think گویا is in Inferential Mood.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> I also think it is ها.
> 
> It is not a verbal suffix, the two examples below are identical in meaning but the first example has it (ها or ا) on دیروز/yesterday.
> بهش گفتی؟ - did you tell him?
> 1) نه، دیدمش دیروزا ولی یادم رفت
> 2) نه، دیروز دیدمشا ولی یادم رفت
> No, I did see him yesterday but forgot/Despite seeing him yesterday, I forgot.



In your example -a seems to should be at the end of sentence, so دیروزا دیدمش is wrong, but  there is no emphasis on "seeing" or "yesterday", it actually says "I saw him yesterday (a doubt is expressed, usually with a pause) but I forgot." I think that is the same الف تردید.

If you even don't say ولی یادم رفت that "-a" shows that you have probably forgotten.


----------



## CyrusSH

Compare these two:

من فکر کنم نگفته باشی
گفتم
مطمئنی؟
بله

and

من فکر کنم نگفته باشی
گفتما
مطمئنی؟
نمی دونم، شاید هم نگفته باشم


----------



## PersoLatin

^ Another thread where we can go round & round & get nowhere. I describe what you do as 'guerrilla tactics', it mostly works by frustrating the hell out of the enemy.



CyrusSH said:


> من فکر کنم نگفته باشی
> گفتما
> مطمئنی؟
> نمی دونم، شاید هم نگفته باشم


گفتما , politely reminds the other party that 'I did say it, despite YOUR doubt', so it is emphasis, نمی دونم، شاید هم نگفته باشم may be said afterwards but only to keep the conversation friendly & polite, the person who says گفتما is usually very sure.


----------



## CyrusSH

You know both of us were wrong, it is neither a verbal suffix, nor an emphasis on verb, but a sign for expressing doubt, in your own example it can be with another word, not the verb.

When we use "-a" it is clear that we ourselves have doubt:

کاش بگما (ولی شاید هم درست نباشه)
می خوای برما؟ (اما نرم به نظرم بهتره)
شاید دیده باشما (اما بعید می دانم)

In fact there is usually a "but" after it, about my first examples:

یک کم فکر کن داشتیا (ولی شاید هم نداشته باشی)
آخرش نگفتیا (ولی می خواستی بگی)


----------



## Treaty

I'm getting more convinced that it is the rhetoric usage of the interrogative particle ها, for two reasons:
1- there is another closely related formation with نه like داشتی نه. In standard Persian, this is mainly kept only as a tag question (_you had, didn't you?_). However, in dialectal Persian it is also used in a similar way (and intonation) as داشتی ها.
2- While this make it look like a ها vs نه (yes vs no) case, there is an interesting contrary case in some dialects (in south Khuzestan and Bushehr). In these dialects "yes" is pronounced as ها. However, both the interrogative particle ها and the post-verb ها are pronounced هــَ.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> I'm getting more convinced that it is the rhetoric usage of the interrogative particle ها, for two reasons:
> 1- there is another closely related formation with نه like داشتی نه. In standard Persian, this is mainly kept only as a tag question (_you had, didn't you?_). However, in dialectal Persian it is also used in a similar way (and intonation) as داشتی ها.
> 2- While this make it look like a ها vs نه (yes vs no) case, there is an interesting contrary case in some dialects (in south Khuzestan and Bushehr). In these dialects "yes" is pronounced as ها. However, both the interrogative particle ها and the post-verb ها are pronounced هــَ.



So there is a doubt between yes and no, I say the same thing, in fact when we say داشتیا we don't know whether you had or not, it can be both داشتی آره؟ or داشتی نه؟.


----------



## Treaty

The following is from Wikipedia's article on tag question. I think it mostly applies in the case of ها/نه as well:
_"They can be an indicator of politeness, hedging, consensus seeking, emphasis and/or irony. They may suggest confidence or lack of confidence; they may be confrontational, defensive or tentative."_​


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> The following is from Wikipedia's article on tag question. I think it mostly applies in the case of ها/نه as well:
> _"They can be an indicator of politeness, hedging, consensus seeking, emphasis and/or irony. They may suggest confidence or lack of confidence; they may be confrontational, defensive or tentative."_


Perfect definition of it, although not sure if the case of ها in میزنمت ها is fully covered by any of them, maybe _tentative?_ But _threatening _is more appropriate.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> although not sure if the case of ها in میزنمت ها is fully covered by any of them, maybe _tentative?_ But _threatening _is more appropriate.


I think this is a _warning/reminder_ indicator, other examples:
میوفتی ها - you will fall, if...
میخوری زمین ها - you will fall, if...
میندازیش ها - you will drop it, if...
Example of use: Person reminds/warns a child/an adult.


----------



## PersoLatin

I am sure ها in the following 2 examples, is not the same:

اوناها/unâhâ (also ایناها) means, it is there/there it is/there! - This is colloquial/short for آنجاست
اوناهاش/unâhâŝ, (also ایناهاشن & اوناهاشن) means, there he is/there it is - This is colloquial/short او/آن آنجاست 'there he/it is'.

What do you think?


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> I think this is a _warning/reminder_ indicator, other examples:
> میوفتی ها - you will fall, if...
> میخوری زمین ها - you will fall, if...
> میندازیش ها - you will drop it, if...
> Example of use: Person reminds/warns a child/an adult.



I don't know what you mean by "ha", do we say "mikhori zamin ha", "mikhori zaminha" or "mikhori zamina"? 

The Persian suffix "-a" at the end of a sentence actually shows that it is an exclamatory sentence.

What Is an Exclamatory Sentence? (grammar lesson)



> Examples of Exclamatory Sentences
> Here are some examples of exclamatory sentences:
> 
> You were meant to be back yesterday!
> (expresses anger)



In Persian: "تو قرار بود دیروز برگردیا"

Compare to عجبا، شگفتا، ... or چه قدرتیا


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> do we say "mikhori zamin ha", "mikhori zaminha" or "mikhori zamina"?


It may not be relevant what we _say_. Non-initial  is getting more and more silent in colloquial Persian. Many of us pronounce زمینها ("lands") as زمینا in colloquial Persian. However, it is not a reason to consider the plural-maker suffix as _ā_ not _hā_. This is why I mentioned regional dialects in which  is well pronounced. 


CyrusSH said:


> The Persian suffix "-a" at the end of a sentence actually shows that it is an exclamatory sentence.


Also, I think it is time to stop calling it a suffix. A suffix modifies a word. This one "modifies" the sentence. It is separate word or even a separate sentence.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> It may not be relevant what we _say_. Non-initial  is getting more and more silent in colloquial Persian. Many of us pronounce زمینها ("lands") as زمینا in colloquial Persian. However, it is not a reason to consider the plural-maker suffix as _ā_ not _hā_. This is why I mentioned regional dialects in which  is well pronounced.
> 
> Also, I think it is time to stop calling it a suffix. A suffix modifies a word. This one "modifies" the sentence. It is separate word or even a separate sentence.




I believe the Persian suffix "-a" which is used in the words such as شگفتا، دریغا، خوشا، بسا، واحسرتا ... has been expanded for using in sentences, for example we say عجبا it also can be said عجیب هستا.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Also, I think it is time to stop calling it a suffix. A suffix modifies a word. This one "modifies" the sentence.


I agree.



CyrusSH said:


> The Persian suffix "-a" at the end of a sentence actually shows that it is an exclamatory sentence.





CyrusSH said:


> I believe the Persian suffix "-a" which is used


Repeatedly saying "The Persian suffix "-a"", will not make it a suffix.
.مکررا گفتن "پسوند فارسی ا" آنرا پسوند نمیکند



CyrusSH said:


> In Persian: "تو قرار بود دیروز برگردیا"
> 
> Compare to عجبا، شگفتا، ... or چه قدرتیا


Two points:
1- Looks like you are accepting ا can be added to other words (عجبا، شگفتا) in a sentence and not just a verb, as your title suggests and you have been insisting.
2- These don't compare at all.
"تو قرار بود دیروز برگردیا" - you were supposed to come back yesterday, but you clearly didn't
شگفتا - "what wonder"
عجبا - "what the heck/hell/..."

They are not the same thing, maybe I will try *repeatedly *saying _ā_ is colloquial for _hā_, both, as the plural marker and as in this 'sentence tag' or 'sentence mood indicator'.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> Repeatedly saying "The Persian suffix "-a"", will not make it a suffix.
> .مکررا گفتن "پسوند فارسی ا" آنرا پسوند نمیکند


If you even consider it as "-ha", I wonder how it can not be a suffix?! Do you mean there should be a pause between it and previous word?

So we shouldn't say:
دیروز
دیدمشا
ولی
 یادم
رفت

but

دیروز
دیدمش
ها
ولی
یادم
رفت

Do you think people can understand what the second sentence mean?!


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> I wonder how it can not be a suffix?!


Because of the definition of "suffix". A suffix attaches to a word to change the meaning of that word. This _hā_ changes the implication of the whole sentence. This type of words are called particles not suffixes. I know only one particle in formal Persian in the sentence level: _āyā. _There are other particles like _rā_ which modifies a part of sentence. In colloquial Persian there are more including the interrogative _hā _and conjunction _ke_ and interjection _na _(which turned into particles. There is also خب, but I don't know if it counts as particle or not). The last two (_ke_ and _na_) are used in closely related manners:
بهش گفتم نه
بهش گفتم که
Interestingly, the word in question ([_h_]_ā_) is similarly related to the other two. They all seem to be different levels of a same indication:
بهش گفتم ها
I don't really see why this [_h_]_ā_ can't be the same particle as the interrogative _hā._ 


CyrusSH said:


> I believe the Persian suffix "-a" which is used in the words such as شگفتا، دریغا، خوشا، بسا، واحسرتا ... has been expanded for using in sentences, for example we say عجبا it also can be said عجیب هستا.


The casual claim of "has been expanded for using in sentences" is actually very bold. Do you have any other case that a suffix has become sentence particle in Persian? 


CyrusSH said:


> Do you think people can understand what the second sentence mean?!


At least I will, because this is how I pronounce it with weak . I assume people understood it when I was taking as well. Also, I should refer again to post #22 about the pronunciation of  that has weakened in spoken Persian.


----------



## CyrusSH

You yourself mentioned a good example: که for example we say برای اینکه or همینکه or چونکه: معنی چونکه | لغت‌نامه دهخدا

And we also say "میدونستمکه ولی نخواستم بگم" but if say "میدونستم که ولی نخواستم بگم" we have a sentence with two conjunctions beside each other which is clearly wrong.


----------



## PersoLatin

And so we go...round and round and round - Anyway it's worth mentioning the following, for the sake of others, if not for CyrusSh.

Example of _hā/ā_ 'tag/article/indicator' where, in informal situations, _hā _has to be used or is purposely used to add even more stress.

_hā_ has to be used due vowel ending:
میام بالاها/miâm bâlâ *hâ* - I'm coming upstairs, if you don't behave... - But never میام بالا ا/miâm bâlââ
گم میشه ها/gom miŝé *hâ* - You will loose it, be careful! - But never گم میشه ا/gom miŝéā

Extra stress:
داری می‌زنی به دیوارا/dâri mizani bé divâr*â* -  As a mild warning: Be careful, you are about to hit the wall
داری می‌زنی به دیوارها/dâri mizani bé divâr*hâ*  - As a stronger warning: Be careful, you are definitely going to hit the wall now (with a slightly raised voice)

می‌زنمتا/mizanamet*ā* - mild warning: I will hit you
می‌زنمت ها/mizanamet*hā* - stronger warning: I will hit you
A bit like a mother calling out to her son: _Jamie!_ when he's been good & _James!_ when he hasn't been.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> And we also say "میدونستمکه ولی نخواستم بگم" but if say "میدونستم که ولی نخواستم بگم"


Where do you get these examples from? 

The only way you can correctly say that is : میدونستم که.... ولی نخواستم بگم/_I knew.... but didn't want to say_, where راسته/it is true or دروغه/it is a lie, goes where the dots are.


----------



## CyrusSH

You know what I meant but you probably want to say it is written as "میدونستم که" not "میدونستمکه".

For example search in google "نمیگم که ولی":

چيز بدي هم نميگم كه ولي خيلي بد رفتار ميكنن
بخودش نمیگم که ولی دیگه باید بیاد
منم به شوهری نمیگم که ولی میرم میگیرم
البته این روزا رو نمیگم که ولی به جز اون از فرانسویا خیلی خوشم میاد
به خاطر آپدیت نمیگم که ولی آپدیتهم میخواستم
تعداد نمیگم که ولی هرچقدر که میتونم میفرستم

In all of them you can replace "که" with "ا" but their meanings are changed:

چيز بدي هم نميگما ولي خيلي بد رفتار ميكنن
بخودش نمیگما ولی دیگه باید بیاد
منم به شوهری نمیگما ولی میرم میگیرم
البته این روزا رو نمیگما ولی به جز اون از فرانسویا خیلی خوشم میاد
به خاطر آپدیت نمیگما ولی آپدیتهم میخواستم
تعداد نمیگما ولی هرچقدر که میتونم میفرستم


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> You yourself mentioned a good example: که for example we say برای اینکه or همینکه or چونکه: معنی چونکه | لغت‌نامه دهخدا


It is irrelevant. _ke _is a conjunction not a suffix. In all above examples you could write it separate from the preceding word and nothing happens. By the way, even if we considered it as a suffix in these words, it was still a conjunction which turned into suffix and it was a conjunction which turned into a particle. 

All your که ولی examples are also irrelevant. You could remove the whole ولی sentence or put a period between که and ولی. Nothing would happen to the meaning of the first part of the sentence. 

By the way, is there a reason you wrote آپدیتهم? Shouldn't be آپدیتم? I don't remember anyone pronouncing the . By the way, what is this ـَم suffix?


----------

