# Persian: The affix "at" between past tense and obj. pronoun



## Treaty

Hi,

In colloquial (Tehrani) Persian an _at_ (or rarely -_ad_) is added between the 3rd person singular simple past tense and the following objective pronoun. For example "he caught/took it" is rendered as follows:
Formal: _gereft-aš _
Colloquial: _gereft-*at*-eš_

I have three guesses for its origin: 
1. It may be actually short for _ast _as in a obsolete present perfect tense _gereft-*ast*-aš_. 
2. It well serves when the object is first person _am_ since without something between the verb and _am _it will be similar to the first person past _gereft-am_ (I caught/took). However, it was used for other persons as well.
3. It was a confusion with the present stem third person suffix -_ad _(that is pronounced -_at _in colloquial speech when attached to the following objective pronoun: _mī-gīr-*at*-eš = _S/he catches it). 

Is any of my guesses correct? Where does this _at _come from? 
Thanks in advance.


----------



## fdb

I think the last of your suggestions is the most likely. As you know, the personal endings for the present and preterit are identical except in the 3rd person singular. The “invasion” of the present ending into the preterit in the 3rd person singular is an example of paradigmatic levelling.


----------



## Treaty

Many thanks.


----------



## cim bom

Hello,

In the phrase "_*moosh bokhoradet *_" the tense is subjunctive and affix of "_ad_" is added. My question is: are the affixes "_at_" and "_ad_" are added between the verb root and object pronoun in third person singular for all the tenses? Can you give me some examples?

Thank you very much in advance.


----------



## Jervoltage

Hi,




> "In colloquial (Tehrani) Persian an _at (or rarely -ad) is added between the 3rd person singular simple past tense and the following objective pronoun. For example "he caught/took it" is rendered as follows:
> Formal: gereft-aš
> Colloquial: gereft-*at*-eš_"



I think _gereft-*at*-eš_ is in the present perfect tense, not the simple past tense., developing from gerefte-ast-aš (-> gerefte-ast-eš -> gereftateš (stressed on the third syllable)). It was then, with a shift in stress, extended to the simple past tense. Therefore, at in gereftateš is probably the vestige of ast from the present perfect tense gerefte-ast-aš .

Using the present perfect tense:
I (have) caught it:
gerefte-am-aš (-> gerefte-am-eš) -> gereftameš (stressed on the third syllable)

You (have) caught it:
gerefte-i-aš (-> gerefte-i-eš) -> gereftiš (stressed on the third syllable)

He (has) caught it:
gerefte-ast-aš (-> gerefte-ast-eš) -> gereftateš (stressed on the third syllable)
...

Using the simple past tense:
He caught it:
gereft-aš -> gerefteš (stressed on the second syllable)


----------



## cim bom

Jervoltage, thank you for your explanation. So, in the simple past tense we use just "gereftesh", meaning "he caught it". What about the other tenses? For example in present subjunctive tense do we use "begiresh" meaning "(I wish) he caught that"? And in the simple present tense do we use just "mi giresh" meaning "he is catching it"?


----------



## Jervoltage

cim bom said:


> For example in present subjunctive tense do we use "begiresh" meaning "(I wish) he caught that"?





> And in the simple present tense do we use just "mi giresh" meaning "he is catching it"?



No, respectively begiratesh and migiratesh.


----------



## cim bom

One more question: is the use of that affix restricted to 3rd person singular? In the present subjunctive and simple present tenses of 2nd person singular do we just simply say "mi girish" and "begirish" respectively?


----------



## Jervoltage

cim bom said:


> One more question: is the use of that affix restricted to 3rd person singular? In the present subjunctive and simple present tenses of 2nd person singular do we just simply say "mi girish" and "begirish" respectively?



Yes, it is. _Migirish_ and _begirish_ are both the correct forms.


----------



## cim bom

Thanks a lot *Jervoltage *for all your replies and explanations.


----------



## Treaty

_gereft-at-esh_ can be either present perfect or simple past, depending on the pronunciation.


----------



## ismaximum

cim bom said:


> Jervoltage, thank you for your explanation. So, in the simple past tense we use just "gereftesh", meaning "he caught it". What about the other tenses? For example in present subjunctive tense do we use "begiresh" meaning "(I wish) he caught that"? And in the simple present tense do we use just "mi giresh" meaning "he is catching it"?



As for this:
"(I wish) he caught that"?
We say:
gerefte basha-tesh
or
gerefte basheh

امیدوارم گرفته باشه
خدا کنه گرفته باشتش


----------



## cim bom

Thank you *Ismaximum *for your extra explanation. You have written "gerefte bash(at)sh" which is in perfect subjunctive tense. So, we can skip affix "at" in the perfect subjunctive tense but not in the present subjunctive tense, no? I mean, we can say "gerefte bashes" but *Jervoltage *wrote that we can not say "begiresh". We must add "at" suffix and say it as "begiratesh" (or "mi giratesh" in simple present tense). Is there any reason for that?


----------



## ismaximum

All gerefte bashatesh", "gerefte bashash" and "gerefte bashe" are correct.

regarding "begiresh", since you have used "e" it becomes an intransitive verb meaning to ask someone to take it ... in this case we say "begir-a-sh" with a so the listener knows the speaker is talking about someone else. 
Hope this helps

By the way... about "moosh bokhoradet" ... in Tehrani accent they normally say "bokhoratet" and less you hear someone uses "bokhoradet" ... it is more common in Isfahan though.




cim bom said:


> Thank you *Ismaximum *for your extra explanation. You have written "gerefte bash(at)sh" which is in perfect subjunctive tense. So, we can skip affix "at" in the perfect subjunctive tense but not in the present subjunctive tense, no? I mean, we can say "gerefte bashes" but *Jervoltage *wrote that we can not say "begiresh". We must add "at" suffix and say it as "begiratesh" (or "mi giratesh" in simple present tense). Is there any reason for that?


----------



## cim bom

The last one was a little bit confusing so let me write what I have understood so far.

1. This is something irrelevant to the topic but I think "esh" or"ash" as the indicator of direct object always makes a verb transitive. 
2. What I understand from the explanation of *Ismaximum *is that, when you write "بگيرش" (bgirsh) you can pronounce it either "begirash" or "begiresh". 
2.1. So it is possible to write it without affix "at". 
2.2. If you pronounce it like "begiresh" you ask the person to whom you are talking to take something: "begiresh!" = "take it!"
2.3. If you pronounce it like "begirash" you are talking about a third party, meaning "let him/her take that" or something like that. For example, "mikham ke begirash" - "I want him/her take that". 

I really apologize for prolonging the discussion and beg your indulgance.


----------



## ismaximum

Not sure about number 1. but rest of it seems correct to me.




cim bom said:


> The last one was a little bit confusing so let me write what I have understood so far.
> 
> 1. This is something irrelevant to the topic but I think "esh" or"ash" as the indicator of direct object always makes a verb transitive.
> 2. What I understand from the explanation of *Ismaximum *is that, when you write "بگيرش" (bgirsh) you can pronounce it either "begirash" or "begiresh".
> 2.1. So it is possible to write it without affix "at".
> 2.2. If you pronounce it like "begiresh" you ask the person to whom you are talking to take something: "begiresh!" = "take it!"
> 2.3. If you pronounce it like "begirash" you are talking about a third party, meaning "let him/her take that" or something like that. For example, "mikham ke begirash" - "I want him/her take that".
> 
> I really apologize for prolonging the discussion and beg your indulgance.


----------



## cim bom

Thank you a lot *Ismaximum *for all your explanations.


----------

