Present tense doesn't make sense?

Question

Literally every verb on all verb conjugation websites have the same rule: in past tense, just add personal endings to root, and in present, add "mi-" and then some different personal endings. But I was learning new words for flashcards, and why does the verb "to have" (daar) not use the "mi-" suffix, even in the present tense? The personal endings don't make sense either. I thought the present tense suffix for "I" was always "im" but in the flashcards it said "daaram" means "I have". If anything, according to grammar rules, that means "I HAD". I checked it out on google translate and apparently it makes sense. But I'm lost now. How come present tense "I have" is like the past tense? What the hell is this?

Answer 1

Hi!

I agree that Persian can be quite confusing at times, but if I understand you correctly, you are confused about the past and present tense of "to have", right?

I hope this clarifies things:

To have in Persian (Farsi) is "Daashtan". The past root for it is "Daasht" and the present and future root for it is "daar". Daashtan, in modern Persian will not get "mi" in the beginning; whereas, most other verbs do--there are a couple of exceptions to using "mi" in the beginning of "daram", but brining it now will be more confusing.

So,

The present form "I have" is "Daaram"

The past tense "I had" is "Daashtam"

The ending "im" is for we: Khord-im: We ate. Raftim: We left/went.

The ending "am" is for I: Khord-am: I ate. Raftam: I left/went.

I hope this helps. If not, please feel free to post your questions, and I will do my best to answer them.

Best,

Anita