Breakdown of وکیل جرم را با مدرک ثابت نمیکرد.
باbâ
with
راrâ
definite direct object marker
وکیلvakil
lawyer
مدرکmadrak
evidence
Questions & Answers about وکیل جرم را با مدرک ثابت نمیکرد.
How do we form the negative past continuous for the verb in this sentence?
The verb here is the compound verb sâbet kardan (to prove). To make it negative past continuous, the non-verb part (sâbet) stays the same. We take the helper verb (kard), and attach the negative prefix ne- and the continuous prefix mi- directly to it. Since the subject is the lawyer (third-person singular), there is no personal ending. This gives us sâbet ne-mi-kard (was not proving).
Why is the negative prefix pronounced ne- instead of the usual na-?
Whenever the negative prefix attaches to the continuous prefix mi-, its pronunciation changes from na- to ne- to make it flow easier. This happens for all verbs in the continuous tenses, which is why we say ne-mi-kard instead of na-mi-kard.
Why is ra used right after jorm (crime)?
The word ra is used to mark a specific direct object. In this sentence, the lawyer wasn't just proving any random crime; they were trying to prove the crime. Because it refers to a specific crime that receives the action of the verb, we must place ra immediately after jorm.
The English translation says "the evidence", but madrak is singular. Shouldn't it be plural?
In Farsi, the singular noun madrak can mean a single document, but it is also used generally to mean "proof" or "evidence" as an uncountable concept. You could use the plural form (documents or pieces of evidence), but using the singular is perfectly natural here.