Persian: imperative of داشتن

Ali Smith

Senior Member
Urdu - Pakistan
سلام

الهـی در این شب زیبای "ماه مبارک رمضان" ذهنمان را آرام کن و مارا در پناه خودت به دور از هیاهوی این جهان بدار الهی شبمان را با یادت بخیر کن.... الهی آمین یا رب العالمین

Would دار or داشتہ باش have worked too? Or is بدار bedaar the only way you can make the imperative from داشتن (to keep)?

خدا حافظ
 
  • mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    Hi. As you say, داشتن can mean 'to keep'.
    Example:
    خدا نگه دار
    May God keep you, that is , may He hold and protect you.

    But داشتن also means 'to have'.
    Example:
    کمی اعتماد به نفس داشته باش
    Have some self-confidence.

    دار and بدار are both in use. In the text you cite, writing دار instead might have caused confusion since there is a bit of a distance between the verb and 'in your shelter' (در پناه خودت), especially as دار has other meanings as well.
     

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    Yes both of above would have worked too but دار (and بدار) is more formal and fits better in that style of writing.
    Both دار and داشته باش would have worked in the context given? I am not sure what خدایا ما را در پناه خود داشته باش conveys exactly. It sounds quite similar to همیشه یک دستمال توی جیب‌ات داشته باش . Surely we don't ask the Almighty to have us in His possession, or do we?
     

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    Both دار and داشته باش would have worked in the context given? I am not sure what خدایا ما را در پناه خود داشته باش conveys exactly. It sounds quite similar to همیشه یک دستمال توی جیب‌ات داشته باش . Surely we don't ask the Almighty to have us in His possession, or do we?
    So is داشته باش in ما را در نظر داشته باش and این کتاب را داشته باش subject to the same problem, I don’t believe so, داشته باش has exactly the same meaning in these examples as well as with دار and بدار, the only difference between them is in the register.
     
    Last edited:

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    I think daashte baash is more colloquial. I remember I asked a friend, "dust-ash daarid?" and he replied, "cheraa na-daashte baasham?"

    I don't think "cheraa na daaram?" would have worked because it would have sounded overly formal. I might add that my friend was Iranian.
     

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    I think daashte baash is more colloquial. I remember I asked a friend, "dust-ash daarid?" and he replied, "cheraa na-daashte baasham?"

    I don't think "cheraa na daaram?" would have worked because it would have sounded overly formal. I might add that my friend was Iranian.
    It wouldn't have sounded overly formal. It would have sounded just correct but possibly different. In the context you cite,
    (1) "Cheraa nadaashte baasham" also implies "is there a reason why I shouldn't feel love for her?"
    (2) "Cheraa nadaaram" would have been purely rhetorical.

    In both cases a compound verb has been cut short __ where "doost" has been dropped __ for convenience' sake. Nothing to do with to have or to keep on its own. No. (1) is in the Present Tense, but it is what's called "Eltezaami", Subjunctive and not Simple, and used in conditional sentences. (2) is Simple Present Tense.
     
    Last edited:

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    I think daashte baash is more colloquial. I remember I asked a friend, "dust-ash daarid?" and he replied, "cheraa na-daashte baasham?"
    It is definitely not colloquial as it maintains its full form (unlike میام and ‏می آیم) but it is less bookish than دار and بدار. Colloquial/conversational Persian comes with give-away signs, the important one is the pronunciation and also when written, the spelling reflects the pronunciation, although the latter is a fairly new phenomenon.

    "cheraa na-daashte baasham" can not be pronounced (or written) any differently to the way your friend pronounced it and can be used in formal, informal, polite, bookish.... even poetic styles.
     
    Last edited:

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    I am not sure what خدایا ما را در پناه خود داشته باش conveys exactly. It sounds quite similar to همیشه یک دستمال توی جیب‌ات داشته باش . Surely we don't ask the Almighty to have us in His possession, or do we?
    When we were children we were told that we can not address anyone (adults) using to/‏تو "thou" apart from the almighty, despite the fact داشته باش is not even colloquial.

    This همیشه یک دستمال توی جیب‌ات داشته باش say: "Always keep a handkerchief in your pocket", the possession is not mentioned (maybe implied) as you can keep/have someone else's handkerchief in your pocket, even in this sentence "دستمال تو جیبت داری؟ /do you have handkerchief in your pocket?" it can be disputed whether داری/you have, implies possession.
     
    Last edited:

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    This همیشه یک دستمال توی جیب‌ات داشته باش say: "Always keep a handkerchief in your pocket", the possession is not mentioned (maybe implied)
    The point I am trying to make is you never hear همیشه یک دستمال تو جیبت دار/بدار. What you do always hear, on the other hand, are sentences such as,
    پروردگارا، پدر ومادر ما را سلامت بدار، Lord, keep our parents in good health.
    روزگاری‌ست که ما را نگران می‌داری، for a long while now, you have been keeping me agitated.
    نمی‌افتی، دارم‌ات، you are not going to fall, I am holding you, I've got you.

    In the imperative mode, دار and its equivalent, بدار, exclusively imply holding or keeping, leaving داشته باش to be used to convey 'having' only. At least, this has always been my experience. But I am open to suggestion.
     

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    Sorry, I hadn't noticed the examples. Once again, I am afraid we must agree to disagree, because I happen to understand این کتاب را داشته باش to primarily mean "have this book". As for the other example, it is not much of an example as there you have a compound verb with a different meaning altogether.

    All I am ready to concede is that the two meanings are very close and conflations are bound to occur.
     

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    I happen to understand این کتاب را داشته باش to primarily mean "have this book".
    I agree it is "have" but it implies "keep", of course "keep" can mean "keep in your possession" but it still doesn't mean کتاب is now your possession.

    How about:
    وقتیکه برگشتم هنوز کتاب در دستش بود / این کتاب را داشته باش تا برگردم
    آنرا هنوز در خاطر داشت / اینرا به خاطر داشته باش تا بعدا
     
    Top