Persian to Luxembourgish: liking someone is not the same as having a friend
Read dust dāštan as a complete predicate
The Texas compound-verb lesson lists Persian dust dāštan with the meaning like or love. The whole expression, taken as a unit, supplies that relationship; separating dust as friend and dāštan as have can create a statement about possessing or having a friend instead. A Luxembourgish translation needs to preserve the complete predicate’s meaning.
This distinction matters in an affectionate message addressed directly to someone. Reporting that the sender has a friend would describe a social connection differently from expressing affection for the recipient. Even if friendship fits the surrounding conversation, it must not replace the actual liking or loving relationship solely because of a component’s dictionary meaning.
Luxembourgish can also combine have with another element
The official LLO lesson illustrates Ech hunn dech gär, I like or love you. It also teaches hunn plus an object plus gär for general preferences. The have-related verb is part of the construction; its presence does not turn the addressed person into an owned object or independently state material possession.
This offers a useful cross-language comparison with Persian dust dāštan. In both cases, the overall construction deserves interpretation before its individual words are translated. The fact that two languages use a have-related element is helpful, but it does not establish identical word order or permit replacing the remaining material with a literal word for friend.
A preference concerning food likewise differs from an inventory of what someone currently has. LLO’s Ech hu Kaffi gär expresses liking coffee. Applied to a Persian preference using the compound predicate, the target should keep the taste or preference interpretation instead of claiming that a cup is physically in the speaker’s possession.
A polite order changes the intention
The LLO lesson contrasts ordinary preference with Ech hätt gär e Kaffi, a wish for a coffee in a request or order. This distinction becomes important when the Persian message is a general expression of liking rather than a request to be served. Translating it as an order can prompt an action the speaker never asked for.
Conversely, an actual request in a café should not be reduced to a biographical statement about the customer’s tastes. Identify what the Persian sentence is doing in the exchange: expressing affection, stating a preference, or requesting an item. Related vocabulary about liking cannot make those different intentions interchangeable.
The practical adjustment for this direction is therefore at the predicate and speech-act level. Preserve the person toward whom affection is expressed or the thing preferred, then choose the Luxembourgish construction that performs the same job. A have-related verb can legitimately remain in the target, but its function should come from the whole expression rather than a separate ownership reading.
Language references