UPMSP Intermediate Persian common mistakes
UPMSP Intermediate Persian · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to explain a verse (tashreeh), the candidate rewrites the line in simpler Persian or gives only a one-sentence gist, without breaking the line into its clauses and commenting on each.
Candidates memorize the textbook's short paraphrase and assume explanation means restatement; they never practise the clause-by-clause format expected in nazm answers, so they run out of content after two lines.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed four-step template for every prescribed verse: (1) literal word-by-word meaning, (2) link each clause to the next with 'yaani', (3) name the central idea of the verse, (4) point to one device (tashbeeh, isti'ara, mubaligha) and say what it achieves. Do this in writing for at least ten verses from the prescribed nazm before the exam.
The candidate identifies a poetic device by name but cannot justify it, e.g. writes 'isti'ara hai' next to a line that actually contains a simile with 'chun' or 'misal'.
Devices are memorized as labels attached to particular lines from guidebooks rather than as tests applied to the words actually present; the candidate never learned the diagnostic markers (chun/misal/manand = tashbeeh; direct substitution without a connector = isti'ara).
What to do instead
Build a marker table: list the connectors and structures that signal each device, then classify twenty fresh lines from the prescribed poems using only the markers, checking against the textbook only afterwards. In the answer, always quote the exact word that proves the device.
In prose (nasar) questions on character or author context, the candidate gives a plot summary of the whole lesson instead of answering what was asked about one character or the writer's standpoint.
Lesson content is revised as a narrative to be retold; question stems like 'so-and-so ki kirdar-nigari' or 'musannif ka maqsad' are not analysed separately, so the answer drifts into storytelling.
What to do instead
For each prescribed prose lesson, prepare three short cards: one on each major character (two or three defining traits, each with one incident as evidence), one on the author (period, other works, purpose in writing), and one on the central theme. Answer only the card requested, opening with a one-line direct answer before giving evidence.
The candidate writes Persian grammar answers using Hindi/Urdu grammatical categories, e.g. labels a Persian izafat construction as a case ending or treats 'ra' as a simple accusative marker in every sentence.
School grammar teaching in the region often maps Persian onto Urdu grammar, and the candidate has not drilled Persian-specific morphology such as izafat chains, the ezafe after plurals, or the distinction between 'ra' as object marker and as a preposition meaning 'for/to'.
What to do instead
Work through a focused list of Persian-specific structures with minimal pairs: 'kitab-e u' vs 'kitab ra dadam'; 'ba u' vs 'u ra'; singular/plural izafat ('daneshju-yan-e khoob'). For each, write one correct and one incorrect sentence and state the rule in a single line.
In applied grammar items (fill-in, correct the sentence, change tense or voice), the candidate supplies a form that is semantically plausible but morphologically wrong, e.g. wrong past stem, wrong person ending, or a plural where the verb requires singular.
Verbs are learned as whole memorized phrases from the lessons; the candidate never isolates the infinitive, past stem and personal endings, so irregular stems (raftan/raft, dadan/dad, shudan/shud, kardan/kard) and the agreement rule with non-human plurals are shaky.
What to do instead
Make a one-page verb chart of every verb appearing in the prescribed lessons: infinitive, past stem, present stem, past absolute, and one personal paradigm. Then do twenty transformation drills (past to present, active to passive with 'shudan', singular to plural subject) and mark the ending each time.
Translation answers are word-for-word, producing ungrammatical Hindi or English, and the candidate leaves Persian izafat chains and compound verbs untranslated as units.
Candidates translate token by token because they lack practice in reading a whole Persian clause first and identifying its verb at the end; compound verbs like 'kar kardan', 'dua kardan', 'qadam zadan' get split into meaningless pieces.
What to do instead
Adopt a three-pass method: first read the Persian sentence to the final verb and mark the subject and object; second, render compound verbs and izafat as single units; third, read your Hindi/English sentence alone and fix word order. Practise on ten sentences per session, always checking the verb at the end of the Persian clause.
In Persian-to-Hindi/English translation, the candidate omits or mistranslates idiomatic expressions and honorifics, and in Hindi/English-to-Persian translation writes Persian with Hindi word order (verb before object).
Idioms are not recognized as fixed units, and the reverse-direction task is rarely practised, so the candidate's Persian output follows the source language's syntax rather than Persian's subject-object-verb-with-final-verb pattern and izafat linkage.
What to do instead
Keep a running idiom list from the prescribed texts with fixed Hindi/English equivalents, and do reverse translation daily: take five Hindi sentences, write them in Persian, then compare against a model and mark every place where word order or izafat was wrong. Always place the Persian verb last.
On the unseen passage, the candidate answers comprehension questions with general knowledge or guesses instead of locating the answer in the text, and skips the vocabulary items or guesses meanings from similar-looking Hindi words.
Under time pressure the passage is read once quickly; candidates do not underline key nouns and verbs, and they rely on superficial resemblance (including false friends between Persian and Hindi/Urdu) rather than context.
What to do instead
Read the unseen passage twice: first for gist, second with a pencil underlining the subject and verb of each sentence. Answer each question by quoting the exact phrase from the passage that supports it. For vocabulary, write the meaning the word carries in that sentence and check it against the surrounding clause before committing.
In letter writing, the candidate uses the wrong register and format: opening with informal address to a superior, omitting the Persian salutation and closing formulas, and mixing spoken and literary forms in the same letter.
Letters are memorized as one or two model texts rather than as a format with slots; the candidate does not know which greetings suit a friend, an editor, or an official, and has not practised the standard openings and closings.
What to do instead
Learn three templates (personal letter, application/complaint to an official, letter to an editor) with fixed opening and closing formulas, and keep the body in consistent literary register. Write one letter of each type under timed conditions and check register, format, and verb consistency separately.
In composition (mazmoon) and applied writing, the candidate produces a short, unstructured paragraph with no introduction or conclusion, repeats the same two ideas, and inserts memorized poetic lines irrelevant to the topic.
Composition is left to the last days and attempted without planning; the candidate has no stock of topic vocabulary and connectors, so the essay stalls after a few lines and is padded with memorized verse.
What to do instead
Before writing, spend three minutes on a skeleton: one-sentence introduction stating the topic, three body points each with an example, one-sentence conclusion. Build a connector list (avvalan, saniyan, az in ru, banabar-in, dar natija) and a topic-vocabulary list for five likely themes, then write one timed 150-word composition per week and self-check against the skeleton.