"Ra" ... again :) Every time I think I'm starting to understand "ra", I see something that proves I don't. I came across these two sentences today ... مَن اصلا فارسی صُحبَت نِمی کُنَم مَن اصلاً فارسی را نِمی فهمم I don't speak Farsi at all I don't understand Farsi at all. Now, maybe the problem is that I don't understand transitive and intransitive verbs - but I believe an transitive verb requires an object and an intransitive verb doesn't. By that definition, both of these verbs are intransitive because they can both be used without an object. For example, both of the following sentences make sense (In English anyway) ... I don't speak. I don't think. Therefore, I can't understand why one sentence used "ra" and the other one didn't. The object in both sentences is identical ("Farsi") and both verbs are intransitive. So, I thought I'd ask this question another way .... As a native Persian speaker, what is your intent when you use "ra"? What meaning are you trying to convey when you make the decision to either use or not use "ra"? Or maybe a better question is - do you actually make a conscious decision to use or not use "ra" or is it just that after years of hearing/speaking Farsi you just use it when it "feels right"?