Persian to Manipuri: reading can name an activity rather than report it happening now
The Persian infinitive can act as an activity noun
The Texas Persian infinitive lesson gives xāndan kār-e xubi ast, reading is good. Xāndan names the activity being evaluated. It does not say that a particular person is reading at this moment, and it is not an instruction telling the listener to start. A Manipuri translation needs to retain that sentence-level function.
This distinction matters in a recommendation about study habits. Evaluating reading as an activity differs from reporting a reader’s current behaviour. Translating the Persian infinitive as an ordinary finite present event could add a participant and an occasion that the original general assessment never supplied.
Manipuri nominalized forms can serve several functions
Soibam Rebika Devi’s study describes Manipuri -pə and -bə forms used in gerundial, infinitival and noun-modifying functions. Its short examples include kəp-pə, crying, and phəm-bə, sitting. These examples show that a recognizable verb meaning can appear in a nominalized form rather than functioning as the main event of a finite clause.
The relevant comparison is not that the Persian infinitive suffix has one universally interchangeable Manipuri ending. The target form must suit the root and its syntactic function. Preserving the assessment of reading requires an expression naming the activity, with the main predicate continuing to supply the evaluation.
The same article includes a gerundial sentence evaluating frequent movie-watching. Its structure makes the evaluated activity distinct from the clause’s judgment. This is useful for the Persian reading example: the target should not mistake the embedded activity for the finite predicate or lose the statement that evaluates it.
Purpose and negation require their own interpretation
Devi also illustrates nominalized forms in purpose-related constructions, such as coming to eat or going to learn. Those are different from a general evaluation of an activity. If a Persian sentence names reading as good, it must not become an account of someone going somewhere in order to read merely because a target form can also occur with purpose meaning.
The study further contrasts cət-pə, going, with cət-tə-bə, not going. This demonstrates that negative meaning can belong inside the named activity. An evaluation of not going differs from a negative evaluation of going: the activity’s polarity and the judgment’s polarity are separate contributions, even if both sentences contain something negative. Approving an absence from an event is not the same judgment as disapproving attendance, although the outcomes may sometimes coincide.
For this direction, identify whether the Persian infinitive names an activity for assessment, participates in a purpose relation, or belongs to another construction. Then let Manipuri express that function without turning it automatically into a finite event. Keeping the activity separate from the main evaluation preserves what the source recommends, rather than inventing who is doing it or when.
Language references