Sequencing actions in Farsi: Like Hindi/Urdu करके/کر کے construction?

< Previous | Next >

akashaziz

New Member
English - USA
I have a question regarding a grammatical construction in Farsi. In Urdu and Hindi, you can say "मैंने बाजार जाकर सब्ज़ियाँ खरीद लीं / میں نے بازار جا کر سبزیاں خرید لیں (having gone to the market, I bought vegetables). I am now learning Farsi and wanted to know if there is a similar construction in this language as well that let's you sequence events in this manner? Or if not, is there a better way to say this than saying "I went to the market" and then "There, I bought vegetable"? I would making writing in Farsi flow better, but there may not be a parallel construction. Hence, my question.

Thanks in advance!
 
  • Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Yes, there is and I am sure our Persian speaking friends will correct me if I have made a mistake. Your Urdu sentence could aslo be..

    میں نے بازار جا کر سبزیاں خریدیں۔

    من بازار رفتہ سبزی ھا خریدم۔

    You may replace سبزی ھا with سبزی جات

    Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, in the modern Persian language, we see this construction with a و after the past participle.

    من بازار رفتہ و سبزی ھا خریدم۔

    Here is an example from Classical Persian...

    kaard ba-dast giriftah guft (From "chahaar maqaalah")

    کارد بدست گرفتہ گفت۔

    چھری ہاتھ میں پکڑے ہوئے اُس نے کہا۔
     

    Treaty

    Senior Member
    Persian
    من بازار رفتہ سبزی ھا خریدم۔
    This structure may be a bit different. The actual tense of past participle is the same as the final verb. So, it means I went to the market and bought vegetable. Similarly, به بازار رفته سبزی بخرید means go to the market and buy vegetables. Although it is the same as what the OP asked, it doesn't necessarily emphasize on the sequence the same way using "having gone" or "then" does.

    By the way, if I'm up to date, it is advised against using this structure as it is considered grammatically incorrect.
     
    Last edited:

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    Treaty, I must disagree. The participle has no tense; it is not a finite verb. And it does imply the action has occurred at a time before the time of the main verb، e.g.,
    وارد اتاق شده چراغ را روشن می‌کنیم

    Secondly, could you please say why the construct is incorrect? It is widely used and is a concise device for indicating a sequence of events. Of course, I concede that it is used wrongly a lot, like so:
    به بازار رفته و سبزی خرید
    The ‘and’ is not allowed, according to grammar experts.
     

    Treaty

    Senior Member
    Persian
    The participle has no tense
    I used tense in the meaning of timing. The participle refers to a context or event immediately occurring before or during the verb of the sentence. My point regarding the sequence is that the Persian structure only tells us about time, but no other semantic relation between the events or actions. However, the English expression "having participle ... verb" can imply the action in the verb is a consequence or conclusion of that participle, not just an event following it. In other words, if you substitute the participle with a verb, the new Persian sentence means more similar to the original than the new English one does.
    وارد اتاق می شوم و چراغ را روشن می کنم = وارد اتاق شده چراغ را روشن می کنم
    Having entered the room, I turn on the light I enter the room and turn on the light.
    Secondly, could you please say why the construct is incorrect?
    It's not my opinion. I consider anything correct if accepted and used by people. But I remember that there was some kind of a campaign against it more than a decade ago (when I was still in Iran). Maybe it was just the و part as you said.
     

    PersoLatin

    Senior Member
    UK
    Persian - Iran
    having gone to the market, I bought vegetables). I am now learning Farsi and wanted to know if there is a similar construction in this language as well that let's you sequence events in this manner? Or if not, is there a better way to say this than saying "I went to the market" and then "There, I bought vegetable"?
    در بازار که بودم سبزی خریدم
    While I was in/having gone to the market I bought vegetables

    Another version؛
    در بازار که هستم سبزی هم بخرم/میخرم
    (Now) that I’m in the market I should/will buy vegetables

    هم in the above doesn’t imply “buy vegetable as well as other things I came to buy”, together with که it says “now that”, if it’s removed the meaning changes
     
    Last edited:

    akashaziz

    New Member
    English - USA
    However, the English expression "having participle ... verb" can imply the action in the verb is a consequence or conclusion of that participle, not just an event following it. In other words, if you substitute the participle with a verb, the new Persian sentence means more similar to the original than the new English one does.
    Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, there is no implication that the actions are necessarily related though one happened before the other? And the first action can be marked by using the past stem of the relevant verb? I.e. رفتن ---> رفتہ and کردن---> کردہ?
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    I used tense in the meaning of timing. The participle refers to a context or event immediately occurring before or during the verb of the sentence. My point regarding the sequence is that the Persian structure only tells us about time, but no other semantic relation between the events or actions. However, the English expression "having participle ... verb" can imply the action in the verb is a consequence or conclusion of that participle, not just an event following it. In other words, if you substitute the participle with a verb, the new Persian sentence means more similar to the original than the new English one does.
    وارد اتاق می شوم و چراغ را روشن می کنم = وارد اتاق شده چراغ را روشن می کنم
    Having entered the room, I turn on the light I enter the room and turn on the light......
    In the first example, one would expect a past tense in the second clause as the principle clause containing the perfective participle (Having entered...) sets the time in the past. However, if the purpose is to provide vividness, then this is possible.

    Having entered the room, I turn on the light

    = Entering the room, I turn on the light
    = Upon entering the room I turn on the light
    = After entering the room I turn on the light

    In the second sentence..

    I enter the room and turn on the light (Once again it is the same sequence and not the reverse sequence)

    Therefore "Having entered the room, I turn on the light = I enter the room and turn on the light......
     

    Qureshpor

    Senior Member
    Panjabi, Urdu پنجابی، اردو
    Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, there is no implication that the actions are necessarily related though one happened before the other? And the first action can be marked by using the past stem of the relevant verb? I.e. رفتن ---> رفتہ and کردن---> کردہ?
    As your question is linked to the Urdu conjunctive participle, e.g کر کے, جا کر، کھا کر etc, I can tell you with complete certainly that the Classical Persian equivalent for this is using the past participle, as quoted in the example, given by me. All the Persian grammars written in Urdu translate this Persian construction with the Urdu conjunctive participle.

    کارد بدست گرفتہ گفت۔

    چھری ہاتھ میں پکڑ کر اُس نے کہا

    As I have mentioned in my first post, in Modern Persian an additional و is added after the past participle, which I think is wrong and it should not be there. So, as far as my understanding goes, a sentence like..

    کمرے میں داخل ہو کر اُس نے بتّی جلائی۔

    Having entered the room, he turned on the light

    وارد اطاق شدہ چراغ را روشن کرد and not...

    وارد اطاق شدہ و چراغ را روشن کرد
     
    Last edited:

    mannoushka

    Senior Member
    Iran/Persian
    Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, there is no implication that the actions are necessarily related though one happened before the other? And the first action can be marked by using the past stem of the relevant verb? I.e. رفتن ---> رفتہ and کردن---> کردہ?
    The actions may not always be related through a mutual subject, though I cannot be sure if this kind of relatedness is exactly what you have had in mind. The past participle segment sounds and feels more like a description. It is, to go by your example, as though to have gone to the market is a mode of being or an existing state of affairs.
    Example: هوا گرم شده آسمان صاف بود
    It had turned warm; the sky was clear. The subjects are not the same here. For that matter there is no clear indication that it being warm precedes the sky’s clear condition. So I guess one “action” having occurred before another is actually just one of the applications of the participle phrase.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top