Jump to content

Talk:Kurdish language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.180.186.212 (talk) at 09:09, 22 February 2011 (→‎Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Infobox

Created infobox, but I need help with the lettersAsdf169 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sais that there are 16 million speakers of kurdish, and at the same time there are 40 million kurds... Get my point? Please, let those who KNOW write, not those who THINK that the know... // Zaza-Goran Rasi

please note: one word in isoglosses tabel is written wrong: mountain in kurdish language is "shâkh" or "şax" but not : "kash". i think, it must be a mistyping. thank you

Phonology

The article states, "The vowel pairs /i/ and /iː/, /e/ and /eː/, and /u/ and /uː/ contrast in length and not quality." This is not true... the vowel pairs are a distinction of quality, not quantity. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Can someone add this orphaned map to the article & to Wikimedia Commons?

I found this map through a Kurdish-language forum, but it has not been incorporated into Wikipedia; can someone who knows how to add it, please do that? Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurdish_language.jpg
68.174.101.64 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16mio. speakers

16 Mio Speaker it is a fake. there must be min. 40mio. Please korect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.214.37 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZAZA is a dialect of the Kuridsh language!

Why haven't you edited Zaza a dialect of the Kurdish language? The Zaza dialect is related to other Kurdish dialect as Gorani, Kalhoori that are spoken is southern and western part of Kurdistan, in Hewraman, the Kuridstanina cities of Kermanshah (Kirmashan in Kurdish) and Ilam. Just because the Kurds haven't have the opportunity the last 100 years to rule themselves, the enemies of Kurdistan want to confuse the more than 4000 years old brave history of Kurdistan by try to distinguish the Kurds. The Zaza is a Kurdish dialect and they are an undevided part of Kurdistanian people. Separating the Zaza dialect from Kuridsh language is THE SAME MISTAKE as saying "British is not English, American in English" (reffering to that sorani, kurmanci, gorani and kalhori are as American in that example; british as Zaza dialect and english as Kurdish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.43.53 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famous saying regarding politics of languages: A language is a dialect with an army and navy.Heja Helweda (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can a Zaza from Bingol, and a Kurd from Erbil communicate fluently? How about a Kurd from Suleymaniyah, and a Kurd from Van? The answer to both questions is no, and this should make us think deeply about what Kurdish really means. It seems like this term is applied to all of the languages spoken by the inhabitants of the regions where Kurds live. It may make sense politically (that is, Kurdish politics) but to me it doesn't make any sense linguistically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have become fashionable to accuse the Kurds of engaging in cultural supremacy and bullying people who live "in regions where Kurds live" (as though they even held many basic freedoms, let alone AUTHORITY outside of northern Iraq to control the people who live in "the regions where Kurds live") into being Kurdish. This is absurd and totally baseless, and I suspect the motive is nothing more than creating division within what little exists of a weak Kurdish unity as it is, not least of all due to the impassable borders between them, but also the employment of this very tactic, nothing new, cause fractures within previously strong bonds as has been worryingly weakened with the Zaza. They were given the idea that Kurmanci speakers neglected or ignored the Zaza culture and language while promoting Kurmanci. It's inconceivable to me how Kurmanci speakers can be accused of holding any advantage with which to do so, as I was totally unaware that Kurmanci speakers had the resources and freedom at hand to promote their culture and language. Accusing a people like the Kurds, who hold no rights even to their own culture in most of the countries they inhabit, of engaging in Kurdification of others is positively absurd. For you to go on to suggest there is a need to question the meaning of "Kurdishness" is just the most retarded thing imaginable, as if to suggest the Kurds have grown into a formidable unified force, and who can only be stopped by adding FURTHER divisions between them, beyond the international borders and the linguistic, cultural and religious barriers between their different communities, though in spite of which they have little faltered in their determination to hold strong to their identity as Kurds. There is more than linguistics here to take into account, there is a shared history, a shared culture, a shared identity. For this very reason, most Zaza continue to identify as Zaza KURDS, to the frustration of those who'd like to establish deep divides. Linguists appear to have an utter obsession with drawing distinctions between the various Kurdish groups, especially the Zaza and other Kurds, but even between Sorani and Kurmanci, the endless argument of whether they are dialects or languages as though such terms, by their own admission completely abstract, relative, and most importantly irrelevant, served any purpose whatsoever aside from creating artificial divides between people who against all odds have attempted to overcome them.

Kurds in kurdistan can understand both Kurmanci and Sorari!! how the hell did you came up to that conclusion?? It's harder with zazaki but it's still some kurds how nderstand it to. Kurmanci and Sorani is like Swedish and Norwegian!! ans as i know this people can understand eachother!! this is only something brought here by ur enemies to seperate the kurd more!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.179.6 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status in Iran

The only official language in Iran is Persian [1],[2],[3]. Heja Helweda (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool mistake

Ethnologue makes a funny mistake where it gives the total polulation for speakers of central group: Population total all countries: 3,712,000. [4] :) The origin of this mistake is that instead of 4,620,000 speakers in Iraq it has 462,000! and this number is far smaller even than population of big central-Kurdish-speaking cities in Iraq such as Suleimania and Arbil! Finally one can conclude that the total number of Kurdish speakers as 16 mil, given in the template is totally wrong. Ellipi (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is not written in a scientific tone and is heavily biased

There are several passages that are written with obvious bias, of which I will only give two exapmles:

1. "In Iran, though it is used in some local media and newspapers, it is not used in schools [13] [14]. As a result, some Iranian Kurds have left for Iraqi Kurdistan where they can study in their native language[15]."

--> HOWEVER, reference [15] states: "March 9, 2005 · In a new educational experiment, a university in the Kurdish region of Northern Iraq has offered more than 80 Kurdish students from neighboring Syria and Iran scholarships to "study abroad" in Iraqi Kurdistan."

Thus, it is obvious that the author of the article was biased here, since A) the leave of the Iranian Kurds did not take place "AS A RESULT" of the fact that Kurdish is not taught in schools, as the author implies; B) the number of the "some" Kurds who "have left" is only 80 and they have left to take part in a "study abroad" program, as the article says; "some Kurds" is an overly exaggerating statement in semantic terms and implies a significant migration - at least significant enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article! (80 people aren't significant by FAR). BTW - any serious encyclopedia would remove this line due to absolute insignificance for the article overall.


2. "However, there are two other dialects spoken by a smaller number of Kurds: Southern Kurdish, consisting of Feyli, Kalhori traditionally known as Gorani, spoken in Ilam, and parts of Kermanshah, Khaneqin and Bijar; The other is Hewrami (known as Gorani in linguistics) spoken in Pawe district in Iran and narrow Hewraman district in iraq. [...] Some people consider Zaza and Laki dialects as kurdish dialects but it can not be verified."

A) Gorani and Zazaki are not Kurdish languages, their speakers are not Kurds. The article simply states wrong, disproved facts. See, for example, works by Ludwig Paul, Rüdiger Schmitt (Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum), Joyce Blau or Garnik Asatrian, and works by all serious scholars of Iranian Studies today (the listed are the LEADING scholards of Gorani and Zazaki).

B) The mentioning of extreme minority views ("some people consider ...) who do not follow linguistic methods, but are possibly otherwise motivated is not serious in a serious encyclopedia. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.115.97 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurdish language is spoken at least by 40-50 million people world wide. Aroud 3 million Kurdistanian are abroad, and just in Istanbul there are 4-6 million Kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.43.53 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have wrong Zazaki and gorani is a kurdish dialect!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.179.6 (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish as the only language of the Kurds; Northeastern Neo-Aramaic

The first sentence says - "Kurdish is the language spoken by Kurds". I think it should be mentioned in the article that despite its name, Kurdish is not the language of all the Kurds, but only of the Muslims among them. Kurdish Christians and Jews still use the semitic Northeastern Neo-Aramaic language. Ben Gershon (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that Kurmanci and Sorani are "as different as English and German"

According to Philip Kreyenbroek (1992), it also may be misleading to call Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish) and Sorani "dialects" because they are in some ways as different from one another as German and English.

This is complete arse. My father is a Kurmanci speaker, and he has very little trouble understanding the Sorani dialect. To make a comparison like German and English is wholly unfounded and inaccurate, and I believe is an outsider's pedantic study of the two dialects. An English speaker would be hard pressed to understand anything spoken in German beyond the simplest of sentences, and only then by estimation. The same goes for a German speaker trying to understand English. Sorani and Kurmanci speakers have a level of mutual intelligibility far greater than do German and English speakers, comparable to Spanish and Italian.

If there are any other Kurmanci or Sorani speakers, I'd like to hear their opinions on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.108.128 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Kurdish speaker, but I have a couple of comments. You deleted the article's claim that Kurmanji (aka Kurmanci) and Sorani are as different as English and German, but you did not delete the following claims the article makes:
Sorani differs on six grammatical points from Kurmanji. This appears to be a result of Gorani (Haurami) influence.[citation needed]
  1. The passive conjugation: the Sorani passive morpheme -r-/-ra - corresponds to -y-/-ya - in Gorani and Zaza, while Kurmanji employs the auxiliary hatin, come;
  2. a definite suffix -eke, also occurring in Zazaki;
  3. an intensifying postverb -ewe, corresponding to Kurmanji preverbal ve-;
  4. an 'open compound' construction with a suffix -e, for definite noun phrases with anepithet;
  5. the preservation of enclitic personal pronouns, which have disappeared in Kurmanji and in Zaza;
  6. a simplified izafeh system.
Those claims are unreferenced, but do you deny them? The article makes the well-referenced claim that "Sorani has neither gender nor case-endings, whereas Kurmanji has both" -- a big difference. The cited source for that also says: "In Sorani pronomial enclitics play a crucial role in verbal constructions, while Kurmanji has no such enclitics." The fact that written Kurmanji is in a Roman alphabet while written Sorani is in a Persian alphabet creates an important further barrier between them in the modern world where so much language communication is in the written form. Seanwal111111 (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The new clarifications added to that section of the article are welcome. It makes sense to compare it to English and German from a grammatical perspective, but the previous entry did not draw that distinction, and made no mention of the similar vocabulary and pronunciation, which might have mislead readers with regards to the extent of the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.156.86 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know many Kurds and they cannot understand spoken Sorani. Even Wikipedia has two separate wikipedias: Kurdish wikipedia is entirely in Kurmanci and a separate Sorani wikipedia exists. I am not talking about the issue of Arabic and Latin script which is a different question. Why wikipedia recognizes this difference but English wikipedia calls them one language in this article, I do not know. We should move everything to a Kurmanci and Sorani article and leave here only the differences and linguistic things, changing the name to "Kurdish languages". That way we can include Zaza too. Plentoytime (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am Kurmanji speaker and I can pretty much understand Sorani but not completely. As for GOrani and Zaza, I cannot understand these at all, actually at times I can pick up more what a Persian says then a Gorani/Zaza.--87.194.107.249 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What means

What do these two phrases mean:

  • Çît naw binêm
  • Nawit denêm jîno

Thanks in advance. —Stephen (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

... there is none.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable reliance on Mackenzie as a source

The first objection is clearly that he is used as the primary source despite being 50 years old and being highly questionable in its metholodology, as well as the expertise of Mackenzie in the field of Kurdology when his work was produced so long ago. Additionally, the ethnic origin theory he provides is totally irrelevant and based on the same flawed metholody and inconclusive sample sizes and analysis. Mackenzie is NOT a reliable source for these reasons.

What is perhaps more so disturbing is that the sources provided for his alleged studies are merely small and hideously undetailed mentions in the works of OTHERS. I have attempted to provide criticism of Mackenzie's work based on the immensely valid point made by van B., whose work was sourced for the information on Mackenzie's study while his CRITICISM WAS COMPLETELY LEFT OUT. That is not neutral! The limitations of Mackenzie's so-called studies, as well as inter-connected nature of his theories in that many are based on the findings of already unreliable studies he has conducted, render most of his arguments completely invalid and unscientific, yet before I touched this article, his opinion was stated as fact, indeed the preposterous claim that it was the "LEADING" opinion, with no trace of academic crticism of his work being mentioned. He appears to do no more than draw conclusions and make assumptions with little fact to go on, not least of all because of the unacceptable limitations and incomprehensive scope of his studies, but the limitations the studies already face by the lack of consistent evidence aside from words of Median origin in Old Persian, which apparently is totally acceptable to compare to modern Kurdish and declare them different! How ABSURD. More so, the claims of a relationship between Kurdish and Persian as being genetic rather than a result of influence. WHY would Kurdish have such origins, yet have formed into the language it has today despite the centuries of suzerainty Persians held over Kurdish populations? It doesnt even make clear which dialects of Kurdish he has analysed, as it is common knowledge that Sorani Kurdish is vastly influenced in vocabulary and grammar by its proximity to South-Western Iranian languages, most significantly in this case from PERSIAN.

This is a complete shambles. These sources are totally unreliable and i find it obscene that whoever had written the article in the form I found it relied upon a SINGLE SOURCE who also happened to be the LEAST RELIABLE. Stop providing decisive information, and try to outline the differing viewpoints IN EQUAL SHARE by different academics. What happened to Minorsky? He is an EXPERT source, far more reliable than this Mackenzie or the Armenian ideologue "G. Asatrian" whose anti-Kurdish sentiments are so abundantly clear upon reading his work that it makes me cringe to think he believes he's hiding it well. This is the man who would label the Yezidi religious group a separate ethnic group from Kurds because they've at times been in conflict which is, whatever he may say, so retarded that I believe most academics would find it positively laughable. In addition, he refuses to recognise even those Zazaki speakers who identify as Kurds as anything but what he'd believe a totally separate and distantly related ethnic group. By their own identification! Yet the Yezidis? It's not enough that they even speak Kurdish and are ethnically Kurdish, but because they refuse to identify as such, they're given the status as a separate ethnic group. Anyway, I've made myself incoherently clear. Fix this shit!

Biases

Why is this article so poorly written (save the phonology section) and so blatantly biased? It starts with calling Kurdish part of the "Indo-Iranian" branch of the IE languages. The statement is true, but as true as calling French a member of the Celto-Italic languages, or Russian as a member of the Balto-Slavic languages. Even the text of the article specifies that Kurdish has a smaller, more accurate language family affiliation: Iranian. Why can't people get over their political bias and be proper when discussing a scientific subject. Kurdish is an Iranian language, which is the western branch of Ind0-Iranian, which is a branch of the Satem group of the Indo-Iranian languages.

Then, I seriously doubt the status of Kurdish as a SOUTH-western Iranian language. Only Persian is southwestern, linguistically speaking. Kurdish and Baluchi are NORTHwestern.

Then, I don't again understand why we have to be political when considering scientific issues. Zazaki people consider themselves to be ethnically Kurdish, at least now. But their language, although yet another northwestern Iranian language, is NOT Kurdish in classification. It basically has a "sister" relationship to Kurdish. Languages do not determine ethnicity (Americans are not English, nor are the Belgians French or Columbians, Spanish). Zazaki people are free to consider themselves part of a Kurdish "nation", but that does not make their language, which has clear phonological and morphological differences from Kurdish, a "Kurdish dialect".

Please grow-up and leave philology alone and outside your petty political feuds.--Khodadad (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pending new citation

Written Kurdish was illegal in Turkey for most of the 20th century. Encyclopaedia Iranica: Kurdish languages. accessed: 19 May 2009].

I have removed the above text as the link is dead. I have made a cursory attempt to find the place in the two articles on Kurdish language in Iranica, without success. If someone wants to readd it, they should add it with an updated link. - Francis Tyers · 16:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demand for education in Kurdish

The article says "but there has been little demand for these (private) courses (in Turkey)". I expect it to also say that when private courses are opened, the state creates bureaucratic obstacles like the necessary height of doors.

On a separate note, it is a very biased and political claim which implies that those who wanted it do not use it. Therefore, what they want is is not real; Kurds have different plans, etc. First of all, there is no statistics about the attendance rate. Secondly, the current Nazi-like political atmosphere puts pressure on attendants, let alone the institutes.

If I demand for education in my mother tongue, you just have nothing to say because you cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.203.228 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kurmanci zazaki gorani sorani =kurdish languages

kurmanci zazaki gorani sorani =kurdisch languages

im zazaki speaker but im kurd!

and kurds are only kurds from kurdistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.181.226 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a good reference for this, it is definitely something we should include. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gorani and zazaki =kurdish languages

gorani and zazaki are kurdish alnguages..here sources!psl change it http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-clusters.php?rop2=C0114

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/a/a4/Linguistik_kart_Kurdistan.jpg


greets serhed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.181.13 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about kurdish language here true sources

HERE.

http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=node/212 " Kurdish dialectology

Dialectology is a sub-field of historical linguistics, the scientific study of linguistic dialect. It studies variations in language based primarily on geographic distribution and their associated features. Dialectology treats such topics as divergence of two local dialects from a common ancestor and synchronic variation.

Dialectologists are ultimately concerned with grammatical features which correspond to regional areas. Thus they are usually dealing with populations living in their areas for generations without moving, but also with immigrant groups bringing their languages to new settlements. The Dialects of Kurdish Language

This section is currently available in Kurdish and Persian only. Please view these section at the provided link below. Dabesh búnewey zarawe serekékaní zimaní Kurdí

Zebíhí (1967); Northern Group ; Central Group ; Southern Group ; Hawrami / Dimili


Table 1) Some alternative names for the Dialect Groups in Kurdish language.

M. Izady 1992


A. Hassanpour 1989


D.N. MacKenzie 1981


J. Nebez 1976


A. Zebíhí 1967

North Kurmânji


Kurmanci


Northern Group


North Kirmanci


Northern Group

South Kurmânji


Sorani


Central Group


Middle Kirmanci


Central Group

Dimili


Hawrami


Non-Kurdish


Goraní / Zazai


Hawrami / Dimili

Gurâni


Kirmashani


Southern Group


South Kirmanci


Southern Group Source: 

  1. Prof. Mínorskí, Kurdnewey médékanin, wergérraní D. Kemal Mezher Ehmed, govarí korrí zanyarí Kurd, Bergí yekem, bendí yekem, Sallí 1973, Bexda, Laperrí 563.
  2. Dr. Moyín, Burahaní Qatie', bergí yek, laperrí 37-41.
  3. Dr. Mihmedí Mukrí, Goraní ya tranehay Kurdí, Taran, Kitébxaney Danish, 1957, laperrí 8.
  4. Dú nawcey picúkin le mellbendí zarawey Bashúrída.
  5. Dr. Kemal Fuad, Zarawekaní zimaní Kurdí u zimaní edebí u núsínyan, govarí korrí zanyarí Kurd, Jhimare 4, Sallí 1971, Bexda, Laperrí 22.

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.185.66 (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

true kurdish langauges !

hi here watch :

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6391/languagejd3.jpg


AND PLS CHANGE THIS PAGE:

THX AZAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.180.8 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdish_language&oldid=415291408"