Talk:Parsi language

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Concerns about accuracy

Ethnologue is just a collection of information from different sources. Sometimes it cites its sources, sometimes it doesn't. Credibility of those Ethnologue entries which does not cite any source is not more than the credibility of unreferenced Wikipedia pages. In this special case, claiming that there is an ethnolect, related to Zoroastrians, spoken by 700000 speakers, is just nonsense. the whole population of Zoroastrians is less than 100000. There is an ethnolect of Zoroastrians (near Yazd and Kerman) which is called Dari (also called Gabroni, Gabri), belonging to the northwestern Iranian dialects (central subgroup). It's more probable that Enthnologue has mistakenly mixed this information with something else and has come up with pure nonsense. If you insist on these claims, cite a reliable academic source (something such as "Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum", edited by Rüdiger Schmitt). Jahāngard 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, its definitely insane. It seems Ethnologue have muddled Dari (Zoroastrian) and Dari (Afghan) into one big pot, into which they then threw a completely fictitious "Parsi" prp to really confuse things. (The Parsis don't speak any Iranian language. The Indian Iranis might, but their personal dialect depends on where they came from).

What do you say to a redirect? -- Fullstop (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be a good idea, but it should be redirected to a disambiguation page. Jahāngard (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect until some consensus is achieved. There are plenty of sources about the Iranian ancestry of the language spoken by some Parsis in India. But that is not the problem here. The problem here is whether there is one or two languages spoken by Zoroastrian remnants in Iran. Unfortunately I do not have access to either Languages of Iran: Past and Present (2005) Weber, D, (ed.) ISBN 3447052996 or Compendium linguarum Iranicarum (1989) Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.) ISBN 3882264136, although I am working on getting the first one via interlibrary loan. Ethnologue did not muddy Eastern Farsi and Dari (Zoroastrian). They are quite clear about the difference, and many other sources make that distinction. Now-a-days Dari (Zoroastrian) seems to be more known from members of the communities who have fled Iran than from sources within Iran. Please don't make wild statements, cite sources in English. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar, don't be more sure than you need to be. :) This article is really not worth getting into a tiff about. If you find more on this hypothetical "Parsi-Dari," then all the better. All Jahangard and I are pointing out is that - in this case - the Ethnologue has very obviously screwed up big time, and to base an article solely on this one Ethnologue entry is no good.

>>"The problem here is whether there is one or two languages spoken by Zoroastrian remnants in Iran"

With less than 20,000 Zoroastrians in Iran (and less than 200,000 world wide), there cannot be 350,000 speakers of Parsi-Dari in Iran (and 700,000 worldwide).

As Jahangard already pointed out, the Ethnologue doesn't actually investigate language typology itself. It just collates the information it receives from other sources, just like Wikipedia really.

As such, it is very well possible that they received one report for Dari (i.e. Behdiani) and one for "Parsi-Dari" (as opposed to Afghan-Dari) and assumed that the two were two different languages.

The Ethnologue report quite clearly states "it is related to Dari," so it does well beget the question, "huh?"

The Ethnologue also clearly states "Comments: 'Parsee' is the name of the ethnic group. Zoroastrian," which also warrants a "huh?"

And the Ethnologue also clearly states "reported to not be inherently intelligible with Parsi of India (etc)," which is no doubt because there is no such thing as the "Parsi of India," even if Ethnologue gives it its own language code.

--

>>"There are plenty of sources about the Iranian ancestry of the language spoken by some Parsi's in India."

Irrelevant to the topic at hand, but now thats a "wild statement." So very wild that you shot yourself in the foot while taking aim. :) Parsi Gujarati is not "shudh" Gujarati, but its still very much Gujarati, and - with a little effort - mutually intelligible with the Gujarati that is taught in schools. Like Scots English and English English I suppose. No "plenty of sources" for something else either.

Are you sure that you are not confusing the Parsis with the Indian Iranis? These are also predominantly Zoroastrians, but historically distinct from the Parsis.

>> "Now-a-days Dari (Zoroastrian) seems to be more known from members of the communities who have fled Iran than from sources within Iran"

Actually, everything we know about Dari (Zoroastrian) is based on studies of the native speakers in central Iran. The primary contributor to the 'Dari (Zoroastrian)' is one of the two principal scholars involved in those studies.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that most of the Parsis of India now speak a Gujarati dialect at home, but that this is a relatively recent(?) change. Do you have any citations on this? --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of the Indian Parsis belongs on that talk page, so I will take it there.--Bejnar (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, its not a recent development. Adoption of Gujarati was (so the legend) one of the stipulations for asylum. In fact, the source you yourself cited at the Parsi page unambiguously states (emphasis mine) "When they arrived in India in the seventh century, they willingly made Gujarati, one of Indian languages, their native tongue." -- Fullstop (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Any news on this Parsi-Dari thing? Did you find anything in Weber? -- Fullstop (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>> No redirect until some consensus is achieved. There are plenty of sources about the Iranian ancestry of the language spoken by some Parsis in India. But that is not the problem here. The problem here is whether there is one or two languages spoken by Zoroastrian remnants in Iran.

There is only one. Im not sure of a source where one would find this (since its a bit of a negative claim), but as one of two people who have conducted fieldwork on Dari in Iran, I can say that Ethnologue is in error here. I think they got the Iranian Zoroastrians confused with the Parsis in India, of whom there could easily be 350,000 (though Im not sure of the exact number). I would suggest that this page be redirected to the disambiguation page on Dari. --Maziart (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Your 2004 fieldwork aside, are you still working with the language? (together with Farudi?)

Yes, though not through fieldwork. Were working through our data and notes, and sometimes working with some speakers in the US.--Maziart (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]