# Persian:اجازه بدهید



## Daffodil100

Hi,

Could you please tell me the full form of the following word I highlighted in blue?

اجازه بدهید 

Thank you.


----------



## Treaty

It is not a shortened form. It is the imperative form of the infinitive دادن (= to give) whose present root is ده _dah_-. An imperative is made by: "_be_"+ present root + declension suffix. So بدهید is ب + ده + ید (= _give!_ for second person plural). 

Please note that Persian has imperatives for first and third persons as well, made by the same rule. The only exception is the second person singular form that takes no suffix. It will simply be بده (bed*e*h). 

اجازه دادن literally means "to give permission". However, it is simple used for "to let".


----------



## Daffodil100

Thank you very much, Treaty.

Are the following rules correct?

For singular
ب + ده + م 1
ب + ده 2
ب + ده + ؟ 3

For plural
ب + ده + یم 1
ب + ده + ید 2
ب + ده + ند 3

What is the suffix for the 3rd singular?


----------



## Treaty

They are correct. 
The 3rd singular suffix is د like بدهد. 

It is worthy to mention a few notes:

1. In everyday speech and formal language of modern Persian only a few verbs are sometimes used without ب prefix: شدن, *داشتن*, کردن and *بودن *(root= باش). The highlighted words are always without ب.  In literary and classic Persian, it is common to omit ب prefix in all imperatives (as well as subjunctives). 

2. You may see expressions like مبارک *باد *"*be *it blessed"! It is a remnant of archaic اد _aad _as the 3rd singular suffix (instead of د). I suppose, it is a corruption of بواد _bowaad_ where بو _bow_ is an archaic alternate root of بودن.


----------



## Qureshpor

Treaty said:


> It is not a shortened form. It is the imperative form of the infinitive دادن (= to give) whose present root is ده _dah_-. An imperative is made by: "_be_"+ present root + declension suffix. So بدهید is ب + ده + ید (= _give!_ for second person plural).
> 
> Please note that Persian has imperatives for first and third persons as well, made by the same rule. The only exception is the second person singular form that takes no suffix. It will simply be بده (bed*e*h).
> 
> اجازه دادن literally means "to give permission". However, it is simple used for "to let".


​I believe the root is "dih/deh" rhyming with "bih/beh" (good).


----------



## Qureshpor

Treaty said:


> [...] 2. You may see expressions like مبارک *باد *"*be *it blessed"! It is a remnant of archaic اد _aad _as the 3rd singular suffix (instead of د). I suppose, it is a corruption of بواد _bowaad_ where بو _bow_ is an archaic alternate root of بودن.


Yes, you are right. It is "buvaad" which has become shortened to "baad".


----------



## .::Prince_of_Persia::.

Daffodil100 said:


> Thank you very much, Treaty.
> 
> Are the following rules correct?
> 
> For singular
> ب + ده + م 1
> ب + ده 2
> ب + ده + ؟ 3
> 
> For plural
> ب + ده + یم 1
> ب + ده + ید 2
> ب + ده + ند 3
> 
> What is the suffix for the 3rd singular?



بدهم
بدهی
بدهد

بدهیم 
بدهید
بدهند


----------



## Daffodil100

Thank you very much, everyone.






.::Prince_of_Persia::. said:


> بدهم
> بدهی
> بدهد
> 
> بدهیم
> بدهید
> بدهند



But why did Treaty mention there is not suffix for 2nd person singular?



> The only exception is the second person singular form that takes no suffix.


----------



## Treaty

Daffodil100 said:


> But why did Treaty mention there is not suffix for 2nd person singular?


I think Prince's entry is either a typo or he has confused this thread with the other one (about the subjunctive معرفی *کنم*). 

The imperative 2nd singular does *not *take any suffix while the subjunctive 2nd singular does. This is actually the main difference between the imperative and subjunctive declensions.


----------



## Daffodil100

Many thanks, Treaty. I got it.


----------



## .::Prince_of_Persia::.

Sorry! My mistake! I thought these are subjunctives. 

For imperative (امری) the second person singular should be بده

The most frequent situations for usage of imperative are for singular and plural 2nd person:

کیف را به من بده = (you, singular) give me the bag!
کیف را به من بدهید = (you, plural) give me the bag!


----------



## Daffodil100

It is fine. Thank you, Prince.


----------



## Aryamp

.::Prince_of_Persia::. said:


> The most frequent situations for usage of imperative are for singular and plural 2nd person:
> 
> کیف را به من بده = (you, singular) give me the bag!
> کیف را به من بدهید = (you, plural) give me the bag!




I would even venture to say it's somewhat meaningless to talk about "imperative" mood for other persons , at least in Persian, in those examples the sentence is complete and everyone will easily understand the intended meaning, however replace those verbs with "بدهیم ٬ بدهند ٬‌بدهد " and suddenly the sentence is incomplete and one cannot decide whether it's imperative or what without further clarification :  کاش....بدهند ٬‌ باید .... بدهند ٬‌ دوست دارم ... بدهند٬  بهتر است... بدهند؟


----------



## .::Prince_of_Persia::.

You are right. With only one sentence it's somehow difficult to infer  the imperative meaning and they are almost used with other phrases to be  easily understood or with special intonation. For instance, for the 3rd  singular person one might say:

A: او حاضر نیست ماشین را تعمیر کند 
B: خب پس کلید ماشین را *بدهد* و *برود* 

The same situation can happen for the 3rd person plural:

A: آنها حاضر نیستند خانه را رنگ کنند
B: خب پس پولمان را *بدهند* و *بروند*

or for plural first person:

A: این کتاب خیلی ارزشمند است 
B:  خب پس کوتاهی *نکنیم* و آن را *بخریم* 

(نکنیم is negative one)


----------



## Treaty

Aryamp said:


> I would even venture to say it's somewhat meaningless to talk about "imperative" mood for other persons , at least in Persian, in those examples the sentence is complete and everyone will easily understand the intended meaning, however replace those verbs with "بدهیم ٬ بدهند ٬‌بدهد " and suddenly the sentence is incomplete and one cannot decide whether it's imperative or what without further clarification :  کاش....بدهند ٬‌ باید .... بدهند ٬‌ دوست دارم ... بدهند٬  بهتر است... بدهند؟



In fact, some other languages including Latin and even English have third person imperatives, and both use subjunctive for that. However, in English it is only used with indefinite pronouns like "Everyone stop!", or "Nobody move!" and God like "God bless you!". 

You do not need a context for using it in Persian: 
ایشان مطمئن *باشند *که اتفاقی نخواهد افتاد is similar to مطمئن *باش *که ...ـ in the type of demand/command. However,  مطمئن *باش *is different from *باید *مطمئن *باشی*.


----------



## Aryamp

.::Prince_of_Persia::. said:


> You are right. With only one sentence it's somehow difficult to infer  the imperative meaning and they are almost used with other phrases to be  easily understood or with special intonation. For instance, for the 3rd  singular person one might say:
> 
> A: او حاضر نیست ماشین را تعمیر کند
> B: خب پس کلید ماشین را *بدهد* و *برود*



Indeed, in fact according to Persian grammar, imperative tense has only two persons : second singular and plural. The imperative for second person plural happens to look the same as its subjunctive form. So in those examples those verbs are in subjunctive mood. However there's also talk about introducing a new mood to comfortably accomodate such examples as well but it's not that official yet : وجه تاکیدی یا سفارشی



			
				Treaty said:
			
		

> In fact, some other languages including Latin and even English have third person imperatives, and both use subjunctive for that. However, in English it is only used with indefinite pronouns like "Everyone stop!", or "Nobody move!" and God like "God bless you!".
> 
> You do not need a context for using it in Persian:
> ایشان مطمئن *باشند *که اتفاقی نخواهد افتاد is similar to مطمئن *باش *که ...ـ in the type of demand/command. However,  مطمئن *باش *is different from *باید *مطمئن *باشی*.



English does not have an imperative mood for third person, what you see in "God bless you" is called optative mood.
And obviously "Nobody" in "nobody move!" refers to second person in fact : "=none of you/ nobody among you" 

Same applies to Persian, خدا ما را بیامرزد is not a command to God but rather a request/wish etc,  same about مطمئن باشند .  
Obviously when making such requests to the second person one uses imperative verb because that's the main purpose of such a verb hence we don't say مطمئن باشی 

In any case it's quite impossible to give order to a third person , I mean when we say something like  : بروند ٬ مطمئن باشند  we're addressing a second person who's supposed to transmit the message to the third person, the full structure would be something like : به او بگو که مطمئن باشد , that's the only way I can interpret it otherwise giving order to someone who´s not present is meaningless to me.


----------



## Qureshpor

How would one interpret the word "bandii" in the following couplet by Sa'di? 

اگر خواهی از نیک بختی نشان
در ظلم بندی بر اهل جهان

Or ,"ma-gushaa'ii" in this one by 'Attar

ای برادر گر تو ھستی حق طلب
جز بہ فرمان خدا مگشائی لب

Is it a kind of imperative in this type of formation?


----------



## Aryamp

Qureshpor said:


> How would one interpret the word "bandii" in the following couplet by Sa'di?
> 
> اگر خواهی از نیک بختی نشان
> در ظلم بندی بر اهل جهان



I can interpret that in two ways and both are similar in the ultimate meaning anyway :

اگر از نیک بختی نشان بخواهی در ظلم بر اهل دل می بندی

اگر از نیک بختی نشان می خواهی در ظلم بر اهل جهان باید ببندی= ببند 




Qureshpor said:


> Or ,"ma-gushaa'ii" in this one by 'Attar
> 
> ای برادر گر تو ھستی حق طلب
> جز بہ فرمان خدا مگشائی لب
> 
> Is it a kind of imperative in this type of formation?



That one is in fact : مگشای  not مگشایی , the final ی is part of the stem.


----------



## Qureshpor

Aryamp said:


> I can interpret that in two ways and both are similar in the ultimate meaning anyway :
> 
> اگر از نیک بختی نشان بخواهی در ظلم بر اهل دل می بندی
> 
> اگر از نیک بختی نشان می خواهی در ظلم بر اهل جهان باید ببندی= ببند
> 
> That one is in fact : مگشای  not مگشایی , the final ی is part of the stem.


Re: The second couplet, I should have realized that the word has a "ma" prefix, which I believe is only used in the imperative (second person).

How would you translate Sa'di's couplet...especially the second line.

Another example from 'Attar

نفس را آن به که در زندان کنی
هرچه فرماید خلاف آن کنی


----------



## Aryamp

Qureshpor said:


> Re: The second couplet, I should have realized that the word has a "ma" prefix, which I believe is only used in the imperative (second person).
> 
> How would you translate Sa'di's couplet...especially the second line.



This is a rough translation, I'm aware you're specifically interested in how I'd translate the tenses so here it goes :

اگر از نیک بختی نشان بخواهی در ظلم بر اهل دل می بندی
If you want to have salvation then you will prevent oppression in the world.
اگر از نیک بختی نشان می خواهی در ظلم بر اهل جهان باید ببندی
If you want to have salvation then you should prevent oppression in the world.



Qureshpor said:


> Here is another one from 'Attar.
> 
> اے برادر گر خرد داری تمام
> نرم وشیریں گوئی بامردم کلام



I'm afraid here again it must be گوی .


----------



## Treaty

Aryamp said:


> So in those examples those verbs are in  subjunctive mood. However there's also talk about introducing a new mood  to comfortably accomodate such examples as well but it's not that  official yet : وجه تاکیدی یا سفارشی



I stand corrected. They are called "jussive" mood but work like  imperative. However, it is different from باید structure. You are also  right about "God bless you!". It is another directive mood termed as  "optative".


----------



## Qureshpor

Aryamp said:


> This is a rough translation, I'm aware you're specifically interested in how I'd translate the tenses so here it goes :
> 
> اگر از نیک بختی نشان بخواهی در ظلم بر اهل دل می بندی
> If you want to have salvation then you will prevent oppression in the world.
> اگر از نیک بختی نشان می خواهی در ظلم بر اهل جهان باید ببندی
> If you want to have salvation then you should prevent oppression in the world.
> 
> I'm afraid here again it must be گوی .


I am not sure if "..you will prevent oppression in the world" fits in, in the context.  I don't think one can replace "bandii" with "mii-bandii".

How about.."If you wish to see signs of fortune, then (it is better that you) close the door of oppression to people of the world" ?

One more from 'Attar 

نفس را آن بھ کھ در زندان کنی
هر چه فرماید خلاف آن کنی


----------



## Aryamp

Qureshpor said:


> I am not sure if "..you will prevent oppression in the world" fits in, in the context.  I don't think one can replace "bandii" with "mii-bandii".
> 
> How about.."If you wish to see signs of fortune, then (it is better that you) close the door of oppression to people of the world" ?
> 
> One more from 'Attar
> 
> نفس را آن بھ کھ در زندان کنی
> هر چه فرماید خلاف آن کنی



Yes you can transate it as  (it's better that you)(/you should) close the door ....  if we consider the second verb in subjunctive form : ببندی

The other example is of course very clear because it explicitly uses the word " به " so it translates as :

It's better (best) that you imprison the ego and do the opposite of what it commands you to do


----------



## Qureshpor

Aryamp said:


> Yes you can transate it as  (it's better that you)(/you should) close the door ....  if we consider the second verb in subjunctive form : ببندی
> 
> The other example is of course very clear because it explicitly uses the word " به " so it translates as :
> 
> It's better (best) that you imprison the ego and do the opposite of what it commands you to do


Are you reading the second line in the subjunctive as well? I don't see why the "به" (good) should be stretched to the second line too. I am reading the second line as..

Whatever it commands, do the opposite....but here we have "kunii" as a kind of imperative.


----------



## Aryamp

Yeah for me it's in subjunctive, the effect of به lingers on and there's no indication that the mood changes. It's like : 

دوست دارم استراحت کنم بعد یک فیلم ببینم . بیرون برم  و ...
بهتره اول استراحت کنی بعد یک فیلم ببینی . بیرون بری و .... 

All the verbs in red are in subjunctive mood .


----------



## Qureshpor

Aryamp said:


> Yeah for me it's in subjunctive, the effect of به lingers on and there's no indication that the mood changes. It's like :
> 
> دوست دارم استراحت کنم بعد یک فیلم ببینم . بیرون برم  و ...
> بهتره اول استراحت کنی بعد یک فیلم ببینی . بیرون بری و ....
> 
> All the verbs in red are in subjunctive mood .


Thank you aaqaa-ye-Aryamp for your time and patience.


----------



## Aryamp

You're very welcome


----------

