This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tajikistan-related topics 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.
Persian language is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about 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.
This article is well done, for there are no evident historical misunderstandings to be found. Nevertheless, I'd like to add some common misinterpretations concerning the Arabs' “conquest” of the ancient Sasanian Empire, mostly expressed by Iranian and other nationalists who had borrowed certain approaches to history, for instance blaming “the Arabs” for everything that went wrong in that area.
It seems to be an old saying that “the Arabs”, especially their script, do not own the sound “p”, and therefore, after the so-called “conquest” of the Sasanian Empire, “they” changed all former Persian names with a “p” into “f”. So, they assume, it became Farsī (فارسي) instead of Pārsī (پارسي) and Iṣfahān instead of Ispahān, for instance. But there is this question: Why have some words survived until today, like pedar (پدر), panǧ (پنج), or paḏīroftan (پذيرفتن)? Until now I couldn't find any answer.
In Arabic you still find, for instance, the word Iṣbahān (اصبهان) which means that “the Arabs” changed the p-sound into a b-sound, as well. Iṣbahān, for instance, is the name for a Moroccan/Andalusian musical mode (ṭab‘/طبع), too. And there is this famous medieval musician and musicologist called al-Iṣbahānī (also al-Iṣfahānī (see both forms in this article!)
My supposition is based on the fact that at that period many languages were in a state of sound-changing. There are examples of Indo-European languages like Father, in Icelandic Fadhir, in German Vater (pronounced “Fater”). But all of these words correspond with Latin pater, Greek patéras, Sanskrit pitar, and last but not least Persian pedar. Similarly there is the word for five (in English), fünf (in German), pet (in Eastern European languages), pente (in Greek), and last but not least panǧ in Persian. All these examples show very easily how the f and p sounds are kind of exchangeable. And therefore “the Arabs” cannot be blamed for replacing the p into f.
Not to forget: “The Arabs” were just a handful of beduines in “conquering” a huge empire! This empire was extremely weakened by itself, for there were the uprisings of several social movements against the strict Zoroastrian and political hierarchy in the 5th and 6th century CE (the Mazdaki movement, for instance), and, by the way, there were these permanent wars with the Eastern Roman Empire. All of these elements were the real cause of the Sasanian Empire's collapse. “The Arabs” just took advantage of the entire situation.
Last but not least: The Arab script is the developped derivation of the old Aramaic script which was the official script in the Sasanian period. Therefore the orthography is nearly the same.--Imruz (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The changing of the Persian letter "P" into either "B" or "F" can be attributed to the Arab conquests of Persia. One should not necessarily take offense to this, rather, it is to educate as to why certain names are the way they are, and why there is "Farsi" and "Parsi". As is the nature of Wikipedia, if one finds something to be inaccurate, one is free to edit it with their factual input. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. With peace. Negahbaan (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This articles uses Farsi as that is by far the more common usage in both Persian and in English, and we go by common usage.Jeppiz (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't we take into consideration that the name of the language in Persian (not Arabic) started with either p or f in different historical stages of the Persian language alone? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, we should not. We don't call English "Ænglisc" either. Jeppiz (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I just meant that in the article it is not explained what the Persian name for the Persian alnguage was in different stages of the language. That is what I meant. Can someone explain? 2A00:1028:919E:BE42:1DCC:D52F:B889:482C (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood you. Yes, if we can find a good reliable source that explains the change, I'm sure it could be integrated. Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
According to SIL, Persian macrolanguage includes only 2 languages. So other languages which are not belonged should be removed for consistency. We should wait until SIL update their data. --Octra Bond (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
| lc3=tgk |ld3=[[Tajik language|Tajik]]<!--This and the following codes aren't part of the macrolanguage per SIL-->
| lc4=aiq |ld4=[[Aimaq language|Aimaq]]
| lc5=bhh |ld5=[[Bukhori language|Bukharic]]
| lc7=haz |ld7=[[Hazaragi language|Hazaragi]]
| lc8=jpr |ld8=[[Dzhidi language|Dzhidi]]
| lc9=phv |ld9=[[Pahlavani language|Pahlavani]]
| lc10=deh |ld10=[[Dehwari language|Dehwari]]
| lc11=jdt |ld11=[[Juhuri language|Juhuri]]
| lc12=ttt |ld12=[[Tat language (Caucasus)|Caucasian Tat]]
Where does the infobox state that it only should list SIL Macrolanguages? Just lump all of it IMO. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
What about this archiveurl? Also, why we ignore all other sources and only consider SIL? For example, Tajiki is an obvious dialect/variety of Persian. How SIL guys ignored linguistic data/facts and separated it from other Persian dialects (Dari and Iranian)? Same for the other ones. See their articles and cited sources how linguistic classified all of them as Persian varieties/dialects. --Zyma (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Ethnologue has traditionally been our source of last resort, so I agree with Zyma that we should not rely exclusively on SIL, but consider others and give priority to more specialised sources (such as Iranica or Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
We're not following Ethnologue. That's why we include all those ISO languages which are not part of ISO Persian. If we have good (rather than just convenient) sources that additional varieties should be included, by all means let's include them. And if I got some wrong (assuming I'm the one responsible), by all means let's remove them. Let's just be sure that they have their own articles (or are merged into another language) and are listed appropriately in the superior clade so that our readers can find them.
As to Octa's original question, we're not following Ethnologue, but Glottolog. Ethnologue and ISO are not reliable sources. The reason we depend on them so heavily is that they're very convenient, and when we went through and made sure we had articles or redirects for all ISO codes, Ethnologue was generally the only source we used. But when more reliable sources, such as specialist literature, disagrees, we should follow. That's more difficult, of course: we need to decide which source to use, or if we create an amalgam of several, as opposed to the mindless regurgitation of whatever Ethnologue says. That can result in cherry-picking, POV edits, nationalism and partisanships -- in other words, actual work. But if we have the people willing to do that work, let them go for it.
Currently, inclusion in this article is decided by what Glottolog includes under its "Farsic-Caucasian Tat" node (We could narrow it down to their "Farsic" node by removing Tat, but can't narrow it down any further based on that source without dividing up Western Persian from Tajik.) Glottolog is based on Schmitt (2000), who the editors determined was the best source for classification. If we want to use a different classification, we should have reason to believe our judgement is better than that of the linguists at Glottolog. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
But the language names used by Schmitt's subclassification are uncommon. For example, he uses [Farsic] instead of Persian. When he uses Farsic and Farsi instead of Persian, why he didn't call Old Persian as Old Farsi too? Any reason to call some varieties Farsi and the others Persian? I don't see any valid point in using this name "Farsic". This is the reason why I say we shouldn't ignore other sources and we just represent SIL/Ethnologue or Glottolog for language families and classifications. --Zyma (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Zyma has a point, Glottolog has its own quirks and idiosyncrasies (even if they may be inherited from the idiosyncrasies of the sources it uses). Some personal judgment in choice of sources is inevitable. That's what we have expert editors for, after all. Even choosing Glottolog over SIL is ultimately an arbitrary (if informed) decision, not something that can be derived from some Wikipedia rule. We can't do without decisions and choices informed by individual Wikipedians' expertise – as handy as it would be if we could outsource them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Similar to my points, I agree with you. --Zyma (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The editors of Glottolog make up names as they go along, as they consider them to be trivial and not worth fussing over. They are therefore not a RS for naming. They are better than Ethnologue for classification, mutual intelligibility and as a bibliography.
Anyway, no-one said anything about using Glottolog names. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)