# Persian: نهادن



## seitt

Greetings,

Am I right in understanding that the meaning of نهادن is always exactly the same as گذاشتن, and for this reason is almost never used in Colloquial Persian, as people prefer to use گذاشتن?

What is the third person present of نهادن? Is it می‌نهد (minehad), appearing as نهد (nehad) in this proverb?
خشت اول چون نهد معمار كج، تا ثريا ميرود ديوار كج

Or is نهد a short form of the third person past tense نهاد?

Best wishes, and many thanks,

Simon


----------



## eli7

چون نهد = چون بنهد= وقتی بگذارد

وقتی معمار خشت و آجر اول را کج بگذارد


----------



## seitt

Many thanks - sorry, I got my wires crossed: what I should have said was this: just as گرفتن is always used for ستاندن / ستانیدن / استدن, is گذاشتن always used for نهادن these days?

I've just corrected my question in accordance with this fact (hopefully correctly this time?).


----------



## eli7

Yes, I think so. I cannot remember any other usages or meanings for گذاشتن which is not نهادن.


----------



## عارف

> Am I right in understanding that the meaning of نهادن is always exactly  the same as گذاشتن, and for this reason is almost never used in  Colloquial Persian, as people prefer to use گذاشتن?



Yes..they have the same meaning. but suprisingly, in Hormozgan province and some southern Fars cities we do quite the opposite..that is we almost always use نهاد instead of گذاشت in the spoken language.


----------



## seitt

Thank you all very much.

Re another great favourite of mine, _معما_ چو حل گشت آسان شود: is چو exactly the same as چون in خشت اول چون نهد معمار كج، تا ثريا ميرود ديوار كج? Also, I note that گشت is past tense, while نهد, as I now know, is present. But perhaps چو / چون can be followed by both past tense and present tense with no change of meaning, like وقتی که?


----------



## searcher123

> is چو exactly the same as چون in خشت اول چون نهد معمار كج، تا ثريا ميرود ديوار كج?


Yes, it is.



> perhaps چو / چون can be followed by both past tense and present tense with no change of meaning, like وقتی که?


Yes, it can.


----------



## seitt

Much obliged, God bless.


----------



## Derakhshan

Most southern dialects use either نهادن or هشتن.

And in my own نهادن means 'to put' whereas هشتن means 'to allow [someone to do something]'.

In the more standard dialects only گذاستن is used to express both of these meanings.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> Most southern dialects use either نهادن or هشتن.


هشتن must be a corruption of گذاشتن, to let/allow. How do you say 'let him go' in your dialect, using هشتن please? بهش بره?


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> هشتن must be a corruption of گذاشتن, to let/allow. How do you say 'let him go' in your dialect, using هشتن please? بهش بره?


It would be بهل بره _*behel bere*_. The present stem of هشتن is _hel _AFAIK.

But, that's more of a Bushehri or southern Lori dialect. In our dialect (a Larestani dialect), we would say: _*osh-beher oche*_. The pronominal enclitic for the object, _osh_ (absent in the previous example _behel bere_), attaches to the beginning of the verb, rather than the end of the verb like in Persian. The present stem is _her_. Our verb for رفتن is different as well: _cheda_. And the subjunctive is formed with _o_- rather than _be_-. As you can see... probably justifiable to consider it a separate language rather than a dialect


----------



## fdb

PersoLatin said:


> هشتن must be a corruption of گذاشتن, to let/allow.



hištan is from hr̥z-. guδāštan is from vi-tār-. These are two different roots.


----------



## PersoLatin

fdb said:


> hištan is from hr̥z-. guδāštan is from vi-tār-. These are two different roots.


Thank you fdb.

Obviously the Larestani version has kept the /r/ which is in the root word hr̥z-, that's if /r̥/ is closer to  /r/ in pronunciation, than to anything else.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> Our verb for رفتن is different as well: _*cheda*_


is't_ cheda _the same as شدن which also means 'to go', that should make _oche_ the equivalent of  بشه/beŝé?

Also if _cheda is _the infinitive, is _helda_ the infinitive of هشتن?



Derakhshan said:


> As you can see... probably justifiable to consider it a separate language rather than a dialect


I am sure you are right especially when we look at similar differences in Spanish & Italian, in particular, but also other Latin, some Germanic & Slavic languages.


----------



## Derakhshan

According to this page it is proto-Iranian *_harz_-, and there is Avestan _hərəz_ and Manichean Parthian hyrz-.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:proto-Indo-Iranian/sarĵ-

արձակ - Wiktionary



PersoLatin said:


> is't_ cheda _the same as شدن which also means 'to go', which makes _oche_ the same as بشه/beŝé?


Yes, it is from شدن, or at least cognate with it. What's strange is the /sh/ -> /ch/ change, which is only found elsewhere in Kurdish (_čūn_ 'to go').

The Fars dialects in the countryside around Kazerun, and the Central Plateau dialects, also use a form of شدن for رفتن.



> Also if _cheda is _the infinitive like رفتن, is _helda_ the infinitive of هشتن?



That would be _heshta_. Also, we have yet another verb _vaa-heshta, _which means 'to keep'. Many verbs in our language take the prefix _vaa-_ to modify the meaning in some way. I don't know it's origin, but it seems to be present in the colloquial Persian for 'stop!', وایسا.


----------



## fdb

Derakhshan said:


> According to this page it is proto-Iranian *_harz_-, and there is Avestan _hərəz_ and Manichean Parthian hyrz-.



hr̥z- is zero-grade ablaut; harz- is the full-grade form.


----------



## fdb

Derakhshan said:


> Yes, it is from شدن, or at least cognate with it. What's strange is the /sh/ -> /ch/ change, which is only found elsewhere in Kurdish (_čūn_ 'to go').




The currently favoured theory is that the Iranian root for “to go” is *čyau- > Old Persian šiyaw- > Middle and New Persian šaw-. č > [ts] is found in Ossetic цæуын “to go”. So the "change" is actually in the opposite direction.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> That would be _heshta_.


Ah, so it doesn't follow the general rule for making the infinitives i.e. present stem + d/t + a. In fact  the same exception exists in its Persian version i.e. present stem +  d/t + an, to give _heshtan_, I take it the past participle is also _heshta_ (in Larestani)?



Derakhshan said:


> Also, we have yet another verb _vaa-heshta, _which means 'to keep'. Many verbs in our language take the prefix _vaa-_ to modify the meaning in some way. I don't know it's origin, but it seems to be present in the colloquial Persian for 'stop!', وایسا.


I'd say it is باز/bâz واز/vâz, so وا یسا is بازایست. There are many other examples as I'm sure you know.


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> I take it the past participle is also _heshta_ (in Larestani)?


Not exactly. It is formed with *-e*, but this is different from the Persian _-e _in my opinion.

In Persian you have for example گذاشته, the full form of which is گذاشته‌است.

In Larestani you have *osh-hesht-e*, the _osh_ being a 3rd-person-pronoun for past transitive verbs (but this is another topic so ignore it for now).

But the *past perfect *is formed like such: _*osh-hesht-estod *_(meaning: گذاشته بود), where _estod_ is an auxiliary verb ایستادن (this auxiliary is found in the Middle Persian perfect, and some other Fars dialects today as well).

So *-e *from the present perfect is a shortened _*-estod*_ from the past perfect.

The proof is in the 1st person form. Take the verb *onda* (آمدن) as an example:
3rd-person present perfect: *ond-e*
3rd person past perfect: *ond-estod*
1st-person present perfect: *ond-est-om*
1st-person past perfect: *ond-estod-om*

Having said all that, in the *past passive participle*, it *is* formed with *-a*, like you said:

_kosht*a* bode _'he was killed'.


> I'd say it is باز/bâz واز/vâz, so وا یسا is بازایست. There are many other examples as I'm sure you know.


Oh yeah, this makes sense actually, since our verb for برگشتن is _vaageshta, _i.e. _baaz-gashtan, _so literally 're-turn'.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> But the *past perfect *is formed like such: _*osh-hesht-estod *_(meaning: گذاشته بود), where _estod_ is an auxiliary verb ایستادن (this auxiliary is found in the Middle Persian perfect, and some other Fars dialects today as well).


I am going to take a risk and argue that _estod/est/e _must be derivatives of بودن /budan/to be (no different to Persian است/ast and its colloquial /e/) and not of ایستادن/istâdan. Whichever way we look at Larestani (dialect or language), it is still Iranic and must share some fundamental features with Persian, which in this case is the use of auxiliary verbs i.e. 'to be', to form present and past perfect tenses.

The difference seems to be, Larestani uses 'est-*od'* for 'بود/b-*ud'* and 'est*od-om'* for 'بودم/b-*ud*-*am' *and I am not sure about the exact endings for *2*nd & *3*rd *P*lurals, but the rest have to be very close to this list:
1S estod-om/budam
2S estod-i/budi    
3S estod/bud            
1P estod-im/budim
2P estod-in/budid
3P estod-an/budand
AND
1S est-om/am-ام
2S est-i/i-ای   
3S est/است             
1P est-im/im-ایم
2P est-in/id-اید
3P est-an/and-اند



Derakhshan said:


> _kosht*a* bode _'he was killed'.


so equivalent to Persian کشته شد?


----------



## Derakhshan

PersoLatin said:


> I am going to take a risk and argue that _estod/est/e _must be derivatives of بودن /budan/to be (no different to Persian است/ast and its colloquial /e/) and not of ایستادن/istâdan. Whichever way we look at Larestani (dialect or language), it is still Iranic and must share some fundamental features with Persian, which in this case is the use of auxiliary verbs i.e. 'to be', to form present and past perfect tenses.


Yes, and it does share this feature with Persian, because Middle Persian did use _ēstādan _as an auxiliary for the present/past perfect, as I mentioned. See here:

"In Pahlavi (Middle Persian), the transitive and intransitive present perfect were formed differently. For intransitive form past root of the verb plus *ēst- (stand, be)* were used, like the following:

*/raft ēstēm/*     I have gone. * 
/raft ēstē/  *      You SG have gone.  
*/raft ēstēd/*      S/he has gone"

[source]Program for Tuesday, August 1st

We say in my dialect (we also use رفتن in addition to _cheda_):

_*raft-est-om*_    I have gone.
*raft-est-esh*   You have gone.
*raft-estod*      S/he had gone. ['S/he has gone' would be the shortened _raft-e_].

The only other dialects to still use this _istādan_ auxiliary for the perfect tense are the rural dialects around Kazerun (so called _kuhmarra'i_ dialects).


> The difference seems to be, Larestani uses 'est-*od'* for 'بود/b-*ud'* and 'est*od-om'* for 'بودم/b-*ud*-*am' *and I am not sure about the exact endings for *2*nd & *3*rd *P*lurals, but the rest have to be very close to this list:
> 1S estod-om/budam
> 2S estod-i/budi
> 3S estod/bud
> 1P estod-im/budim
> 2P estod-in/budid
> 3P estod-an/budand
> AND
> 1S est-om/am-ام
> 2S est-i/i-ای
> 3S est/است
> 1P est-im/im-ایم
> 2P est-in/id-اید
> 3P est-an/and-اند


Yes, although we don't use those exact pronominal endings, but that varies by dialect/accent.


> so equivalent to Persian کشته شد?


Yes, but I made a mistake, it's *koshta bu.
kohsta bode* is equivalent to کشته شده.


----------



## PersoLatin

Derakhshan said:


> "In Pahlavi (Middle Persian), the transitive and intransitive present perfect were formed differently. For intransitive form past root of the verb plus *ēst- (stand, be)* were used, like the following:


It really doesn’t matter if Larestani *est *and of course Persian* ast *have developed from *ēst*-, as both *ast *&* est* are now considered to mean, to be, this is mentioned in the above excerpt too.

Btw - if ast/est has developed from ēst- then its cognates in other IE languages e.g. the English is, French est, German ist, must have all done so from PIE *sta-, in other words the PIE for ‘to be’ and ‘to stand’, must be closely related, I have read that the English ‘be’ & ‘are’ have different roots, same probably applies to Iranic languages. Please can someone shed some light on this.


----------

