# Dari: خودِ مدير صاحبه بگوین



## G_mut

Hi everybody. I came across this sentence in Conversational Dari written "khud-e mudlr sAeb-a bugOyEn" in transliteration. I understand that the Colloquial Persian definite object marker رو or و  is ره or ه in colloquial Dari. However, I know that گفتن doesn't take a direct object but rather an oblique object, for instance بهش بگو. Does anyone know if the above sentence is correct in colloquial Dari, or could it be a typo in the book?

Thanks a lot in advance.


----------



## Derakhshan

را in early Persian marked the dative e.g. مرا گفت meant بهم گفت. Dari retains this usage.


----------



## PersoLatin

I’m not sure about Dari Persian exactly but if I heard that (I’m a native Persian speaker) I would understand it as :“the principal herself is the owner, tell them” with بگوین being polite informal for بگویید


----------



## Derakhshan

I believe صاحب here is suffixed to مدیر as a title of respect, مدیر صاحب.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> I believe صاحب here is suffixed to مدیر as a title of respect, مدیر صاحب.


I see, a big difference then, so
“Tell them it is sir himself” ???

The sense of صاحب is not attributed to ‘classical’ Persian here, is it?


----------



## Derakhshan

I don't know but I'd like to know as well. Suffixing of صاحب is common in the Indian subcontinent as well. Compare to English "mister" deriving from "master"


----------



## PersoLatin

Yes I know, it is often used on this forum too, but I didn’t think that sense of صاحب was also used in Afghanistan.

Anyway I don’t know if any of this has answered the OP.


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> “Tell them it is sir himself” ???


Like I said, the -_a_ here is را, not است , so it's

خودِ مدیر را بگویید

Or in Iranian Persian

به خودِ مدیر بگویید

Tell the principal/manager/whatever _himself_


----------



## G_mut

Thank you all for your replies. صاحب, according to the book, is used to convey reverence. As for the -a it is indeed the Definite Object Marker را. In the same book, talking about گفتن, there are three examples:
1. داكتره گفت
2.  به داکتر گفت
3. بری (برای) داکتر گفت

According to the writer, Eugene Glassman, all three convey the same meaning, i.e. He told the doctor, but the one with the Definite Object Marker is more informal.

As for the meaning of the original sentence, it is: Tell the manager himself as Derakhshan pointed out above.


----------



## PersoLatin

G_mut said:


> As for the -a it is indeed the Definite Object Marker را.


i agree in this example -a has the same functionality as را but it is not the same as it. I am not 100% sure but I think development of -a, as a Definite Object Marker, precedes that of را.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> “the principal herself is the owner, tell them”


I wonder if anyone can provide the Dari translation for the sentence above, formal & informal please.


----------



## Derakhshan

> i agree in this example -a has the same functionality as را but it is not the same as it.


I'm not sure why you would doubt it, Afghan -_a_ is just like Iranian -_o_, and after a vowel it is -_ra_ just like Iranian -_ro_. It's definitely the same as را and identical to the Iranian usage, the only difference being the retention of some dative usage (as in مرا گفت which I'm sure you know is sound Classical Persian).



> I wonder if anyone can provide the Dari translation for the sentence above, formal & informal please



I would guess, just as someone with an interest in Dari:

xode modir sâheb as, unâ-ra bugōyēn
OR
xode modir sâheb as, bugōyēnešān

But a native speaker would have to confirm.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> I'm not sure why you would doubt it, Afghan -_a_ is just like Iranian -_o_, and after a vowel it is -_ra_ just like Iranian -_ro_. It's definitely the same as را and identical to the Iranian usage, the only difference being the retention of some dative usage (as in مرا گفت which I'm sure you know is sound Classical Persian).


I agree with that, but what I am saying is that I don’t believe -a and its Tehrani version -é, have the same etymology, basically -a is not the contracted form of را.

Edit:  -a (DOM) is also used in many regions of Iran & in Tehran it is pronounced -é e.g.
مرده رسید/mardé resid - the man arrived


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> xode modir sâheb as, unâ-ra bugōyēn
> OR
> xode modir sâheb as, bugōyēnešān


Wouldn't _sâheb_ get confused with the reverence sense of it here? Or would this make sense:
xode modir sâheb sâheb as, bugōyēnešān

But let’s wait for a native speaker.


----------



## Derakhshan

The Tehrani suffix -_é_ isn't related to what is being discussed here. -_a_ is not the Dari version of -_é_, it's the Dari version of -_*o*_.

را basically marks direct objects that are definite.

Iranian: _ketāb-*o* xaridam_ = I bought *the* book.
Dari: _ketāb-*a* xaridam_ = I bought *the* book.
ketāb xaridam = I bought (some) books.

The Dari -_a_ becomes -_ra_ aftee a vowel - same as the Iranian -_o_ becomes -_ro_ after a vowel, because both are simply a colloquial pronunciation of را.

The Tehrani -_é_ isn't really a definite article. If it were, you would be required to use it every single time a noun is definite. But since you don't need to use it, it's just a definiteness-reinforcer.

_ketāb-o xaridam_ "I bought the book"
_ketāb*é*-ro xaridam_ "I bought the book (which we both are familiar with or have discussed prior to this)".

If it were a definite article then the first sentence shouldn't be grammatical.

So, just to recap, Dari -_(r)a_ is just Iranian -_(r)o_.


----------



## PersoLatin

We are going around the circle:

There’s no difference between ketâb-o and ketâb-ro, they are both contracted fioms of ketâb-râ,  as far as I know there’s no -o suffix acting as definite article marker, in Persian of any kind.

In Iranian Persian: دستتان را بدهید - _dastetân râ bedahid_ is the highest register & in the following, the register reduces as you go down:
دستت را بده - dastat râ bedé
دستت رو بده - dastet ro bedé
دستتو بده - dastet-o bedé
دستو بده - dasset-o bedé (so دست/dast  becomes دس/dass)

All of the above use various forms of را & nothing else.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> The Tehrani -_é_ isn't really a definite article. If it were, you would be required to use it every single time a noun is definite. But since you don't need to use it, it's just a definiteness-reinforcer.


Please read this and following posts of this thread.


----------



## Derakhshan

Quote from that post:


> *This only shows definiteness when an object of a verb. You CAN'T use this as a subject.*



^That just confirms what I'm saying here. In other words, the _-(r)a_ of Afghan Persian is the -_(r)o_ of Iranian Persian, not the -_é_. There is no equivalent to -_é_ in Afghan Persian. It's a definite *object* marker (را), not simply a definite marker (-_é_).

Iranian _pesar-é _"the known, familiar boy" can be both a subject and object (in which case it will take -_ro _and become_ pesaré-ro_).

Afghan _pesar-a_ is only a definite object - it is the equivalent of Iranian _pesar-o, _*not*_ pesar-é._

Furthermore, Afghan _pesar-a_ has the same stress as _pesar-o_, which is on the penultimate syllable, while in _pesar-é_ the definite marker takes the stress. I'd already elaborated in another thread my opinion on the origin of the definite marker.

Looking at that given example:


> *Kitoba dari? do you have the book*


It's equivalent to Iranian: _ketābo dāri?_ and formal کتاب را داری؟



> as far as I know there’s no -o suffix acting as definite article marker, in Persian of any kind.


Not definite article, it's a definite object marker. That's the role of را in modern Persian, both Iranian and Afghani.

Now, on to the issue of whether or not -_é_ is the definite article of colloquial Iranian Persian. First of all, can it be considered an article when it's a clitic? Second, is there a total correspondence between English "the" and Persian -_é_?

Take this sentence: "Get in the car".
In colloquial Iranian Persian: _savār-e māšin šo._

As you can see, _māšin_ didn't take the -_é_ suffix. It _could_, but then it would be referring to a specific, mentioned car familiar to both speaker and listener, not just a specific car that happens to be visible to both people (which the listener could have even been heretofore unaware of). In English, you cannot skimp out on the "the" here, while in Persian the -_é_ is optional to convey familiarity. This, I think, is the major functional difference between -_é_ and "the", and why I think -_é_ should rather be called a familiarity marker.


----------

