Thank you mannoushka for the clarification. A generic known covers the whole class and that is why I thought برگ would be generic. Otherwise we would have expected برگھای درختان سبز, I suppose. Would برگھای درختان سبز be considered wrong if it was in the same line (not worrying about meter restrictions)?It is a reference to each and every leaf on “green trees” everywhere. I would say “generic” was a good adjective for such a leaf.
I believe this is equivalent to:برگِ درختانِ سبز در نظرِ ھوشیار
ھر ورقی دفتریست معرفتِ کردگار
سعدی
Is the word برگ to be considered as generic? Also does سبز relate to برگ or درختان?
I’m saying the opposite, they are different, the question about the difference was asked in the OP.So, there is no difference between leaves on green trees and green leaves on trees, is that it?
Never confusing but always interestingIf you came across لبهایِ مردِ خندان, would you say the adjective described the lips or the man? Or if this is still a bit confusing, then surely in a phrase such as دَورانهایِ جهانِ گردنده the world alone and not its revolutions is what is being described.
For me the meaning is “leaves” in the generic sense and not “The leaves”. We also need to settle the correct /acceptable order of an adjective in a Persian izaafat construction. Until I thought about this Sa’di couplet, I thought it was a straight forward matter! Having said this, the belief that the Persian language is simple and straightforward, could not be further from the truth!I have just realized that in English the word برگ would in all likelihood be considered as a defined noun. It would, to an English grammar expert, be “the leaves on green trees”, with the definite article before the noun, and the reason for this definiteness would be the fact that the leaves were not just any leaves but those found on green trees. And, such categorization would be easily understood by a native speaker of Persian as well. Yet when one thinks in Persian about this particular phrase, the reasoning suddenly changes all by itself! Was I mistaken when I confirmed that the word برگ was a common noun, or was I correct judging by Persian rules of grammar? I shall wait to see if anyone is interested enough in this puzzle to explain and solve it, hopefully once and for all.
Let’s restart, ناقص عقل refers to وزیر in the above, whereas in پسران ناقص عقل وزیر, refers to پسران.پسران وزیر ناقص عقل به گدایی به روستا رفتند ( گلستان سعدی
Here, ناقص عقل by our logic should go with وزیر but the adjective is clearly refering to the lads, not the minister.
Previous two lines are:Let’s restart, ناقص عقل refers to وزیر in the above, whereas in پسران ناقص عقل وزیر, refers to پسران.
Let's see more of it :Previous two lines are:
وقتی افتاد فتنهای در شام
هر کس از گوشهای فرا رفتند
روستازادگانِ دانشمند
به وزیری پادشا رفتند
^ So for برگِ درختانِ سبز you are saying "leaves of green trees" while PersoLatin is of the view that it is "green leaves of the trees"? Or are you also saying that it is "green leaves of the trees"?
Interestingly, this very example is found on page 81 of دستور زبان فارسی پنج استاد.Let's see more of it :
وقتی افتاد فتنهای در شام
هر کس از گوشهای فرا رفتند
روستازادگان دانشمند
به وزیری پادشا رفتند
پسران وزیر ناقص عقل
به گدایی به روستا رفتند
....when all those calamities happened...
The wise villagers took up the posts of vazirs in king's court
while the idiot Vazir's (idiot) sons went to the village begging
پسران وزیر ناقص عقل is the same as برگِ درختانِ سبز i.e. leaves are green hence the trees are, and vazir is an idiot/ناقص عقل and so are his sons and because of their father, so Sa’di is using one adjective to refer to both, of course this is in poetry.
The authors provide more than one example. You can check for yourself as I have provided you the page number as well. The adjective coming after the izaafat is well attested.Qureshpor, thanks for the correction.
Still, your concluding words are based on a different way of regarding the possessives or an exception (insofar as even the book you quote seems to me to quote the one example as being against the general rule). For accuracy’s sake I would not extend the verdict on the one Sa’di couplet to another, or to all cases in literature, and certainly not to the way modern Persian is normally put together.
در فلان بیشه ، درختی هست سبز / بس بلند و پهن و هر شاخیش گَبزبرگِ درختانِ سبز
I was skipping through a paper entitled, "Sa'di: The "Prince" of Persian Poetry" by M.S. Tajar, Ed. D. Ph. D, Former lecturer, Persian language & culture at the University of Philipines, Diliman. Right at the beginning of it is a translation of the shi3r we have been discussing here. This is how he translates it.“Leaves of green trees” is what Sa’di wrote, I maintain, and unlike the good PersoLatin I don’t understand the phrase as being equivalent to “green leaves of trees”.
This thread has taken many twists & turns & the main point sometimes gets lost.
Of course, thanks for asking but you don’t need to ask, I suppose once on the forum, posts belong to forum users.Sorry PersoLatin, can I quote the following in another thread to ask a question about?
Thank you sooo much.Of course, thanks for asking but you don’t need to ask, I suppose once on the forum, posts belong to forum users.