1. Introduction
This article investigates a less-reviewed construction in the syntax and rhetoric of Persian in which an object or complement phrase embedded within a relative clause is moved to the beginning of the sentence, while that same phrase simultaneously fulfills the semantic role of the subject of the matrix clause. A notable feature of this construction is that the moved element typically bears the object marker rā or a preposition that properly belongs to the verb of the relative clause rather than to that of the main clause. This mismatch has led many grammarians and linguists to regard such sentences as incompatible with the Persian syntactic system or as instances of performance error. However, the considerable frequency of this construction in Classical Persian texts—both in poetry and prose—as well as its occurrence in certain modern texts, suggests that it constitutes a systematic and analyzable phenomenon. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the well-formedness of this construction and to provide a coherent account of its syntactic structure and rhetorical function.

2. Literature Review
A survey of previous studies shows that, although this construction has attracted some scholarly attention, it has often been treated only marginally or analyzed under the assumption that it is ill-formed. Some early researchers, relying on their linguistic intuition, deemed such sentences unacceptable and attributed them to excessive sentence length or disruption in structural cohesion. Others have attempted to provide syntactic explanations, but have typically limited their analyses to cases involving rā, neglecting instances with prepositional phrases. In certain approaches, particularly within transformational grammar, the construction has been analyzed as a type of topicalization or syntactic raising; however, such accounts are often overly complex, restricted, or incompatible with the full range of data. Typological perspectives have also described the phenomenon in terms of “attraction” and have identified parallels in other languages, yet they have not adequately explained its mechanism in Persian. Overall, none of the existing analyses have succeeded in offering a comprehensive account that simultaneously captures both the syntactic and rhetorical dimensions of the construction.

3. Methodology
This study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach based on textual data. A wide range of instances of the construction has been collected from Classical Persian sources, including literary and historical works from different periods. In order to demonstrate the continuity of the construction in contemporary usage, examples from modern literary prose and everyday speech have also been considered. In the first stage, the data were classified according to their syntactic structure and the grammatical roles of their components. Then, the data were analyzed to identify the rhetorical motivations behind the displacement and to propose a syntactic account of the process. The analysis seeks to provide a unified framework encompassing both rā-marked cases and those involving prepositions. Furthermore, instances in which the displaced element fulfills roles other than the subject in the matrix clause have also been incorporated into the analysis.

4. Discussion
From a rhetorical perspective, the fronting of an object or complement phrase from within a relative clause serves a dual function and may result from either topicalization or focusing. In the former case, the displaced element represents given, background information about which the speaker intends to make a predication; in the latter, it conveys new or contrastive information and is fronted for emphasis. The textual evidence indicates that both functions are operative in this construction, and restricting the analysis to only one fails to account for all instances.
From a syntactic perspective, the central issue concerns the relationship between the semantic role of the displaced element (as the subject of the matrix clause) and its morphological marking (as the object or complement of the relative clause). This study argues that the structural subject of the matrix clause is a null element that remains in situ and controls verbal agreement. The overt element appearing at the beginning of the sentence results from the simultaneous movement of two co-referential elements: (i) the noun phrase functioning as the semantic subject of the matrix clause, and (ii) the object or complement pronoun within the relative clause. These elements, together with the entire relative clause, are fronted to the sentence-initial position and are realized phonologically as a single constituent that retains the object marker rā or the preposition associated with the relative clause.
This analysis accounts for several syntactic facts: first, the absence of an independent subject pronoun in the matrix clause; second, the agreement of the verb with an element not overtly present in the subject position; and third, the preservation of object marking or prepositional marking on the displaced element. Moreover, the proposed account shows that the process is not limited to subjects and can also apply in cases where the displaced element fulfills other roles, such as complement or genitive, in the matrix clause.

5. Conclusion
The findings of this study demonstrate that the construction is neither ungrammatical nor the result of linguistic error; rather, it constitutes a well-formed pattern of Persian for expressing rhetorical purposes. Its frequency in Classical texts and its continuity in modern usage attest to its established status within the language. The analysis proposed here, based on the notion of simultaneous movement and the assumption of a null structural subject, successfully resolves the apparent mismatch between the semantic role and syntactic marking of the displaced element. It also shows that the construction can be explained within both topicalization and focalization frameworks, and therefore should be analyzed at the interface of syntax and discourse. Finally, this study calls for a reassessment of earlier prescriptive judgments and suggests that, particularly in the editing of Classical Persian texts, this construction should be recognized as a valid and meaningful pattern rather than being eliminated in the course of critical editing.