Talk:Persian language/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Where is Azeri Turkish in the Language map?

According to the CIA fact book, at least 24% of the Iran's population are Azeri Turkish speakers. Your map is misleading, since it gives the impression that people in north western Iran are native Persian speakers, while in fact they are Azeri people. For instance consider Tabriz city. Heja Helweda 12:24, 9 Nov 2005

The reason that Azari doesn't appear on that map is because its not a member of the Iranian language family, a genetic grouping, and so doesn't belong there. Now, if it were a map of the languages of Iran that would be a different matter. --Maziart 06:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Urdu and Persian

Hey all... I am a big fan of the Persian language, primarily since as an Indian I've come into a vast inheritance known as Urdu, which is essentially a mix of Sanskrit, Prakrit (proto-Indian language), Persian and Arabic, a sister language of Hindi. Urdu, as an Indian language, has a vast literature and some incredible fusions of Persian-Islamic and traditional Indian culture. Much of modern Indian language, especially Hindi/Urdu (which are essentially blended into a mix called Hindustani) has huge amounts of Persian influence. I was wondering if the Persian page might, if only in a small section, include a word on its massive influence on India through Mughal culture and, in particular, Urdu. The ties between high Urdu literature and Persian literature is also of great interest, with understandings of how Sufism altered in crossing to the Indian subcontinent, how the ghazal retained or changed form to adapt to Indian art. Heck, even some Hindu writers have takhallus! So, hope to hear more on this. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:38, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, in India, we mostly refer to Persian as Farsi. I think it's mainly because Zoroastrian Persians, whom we refer to as Parsis, settled in India in the 8th century under the protection of a local Hindu king. Also, I seem to have read somewhere that the original area was called Farsi. Beats me. Peace --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:40, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

This needs wikification, fact checking, and removing irrelevant parts (possibly also checking for copyvios). Please add to the main article after that. Roozbeh 16:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would think this is largely true, though a bit gushing. Refdoc 22:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest if we want to keep the stuff below, then the solution would be to add a section on Influence of Persian language on other languages. What can be said about Urdu can probably said too (to maybe a lesser degree, but nevertheless) about Turkish. Also there is a fair number of English words coming either straight out of Farsi or via Urdu out of Farsi Refdoc 23:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Persian and Urdu in the Indian subcontinent

Among many notable attributes of the Persian language was its great adaptability and influence in India. When the Mughal conquest of India had resulted in a vast Islamic empire, especially in the North and middle areas, a new hybrid language began to form around the 10th and 11th centuries CE, one that would eventually be known as Urdu ("tent" in Turkish in allusion to the army barracks of visiting troops). It grew from the interaction of Muslim soldiers and native Hindu peoples, merging with the local Prakrit and Sanskrit-based Khari boli (standing tongue), a proto-Hindi dialect of the north. Soon, the Persian script and nastaliq form of cursive was adopted, with additional figures added to accommodate the Indian phonic system, and a rich new language based on Indian grammar and a predominantly Persian (and indirectly Arabic) base of words came into being. Urdu soon gained distinction as the most prized of languages in the Persian courts of India and to this day retains a distinctive place in literary and cultural spheres. Many distinctly Persian forms of literature, such as ghazals, and culture, such as Sufism, came to both influence and be affected by Indian culture, producing a distinct melding of Middle and South Eastern heritages. Urdu is known as the "Kohinoor" ("Mountain of Light"), a famed and massive diamond, of Indian languages due to its richness of sound and piquant ability to emote. Persian language and literature has not infrequently been termed an adopted classical language of India beside Sanskrit due to its centrality to Urdu and Indian tradition.

I would like to propose that we remove the section on the Persian influence on Urdu. The section, as it is written, places too great an emphasis on this influence, which to my knowledge is confined almost entirely to lexical borrowings. In this, it is no more noteworthy than other cases of the same, e.g. French and English, French and Germanic. It certainly doesn't deserve a section in the *Persian language* article; it should be moved to the Urdu article. --Maziart 09:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I copied this section to a new article, called Persian and Urdu, a few months ago. While there is useful information in it, I agree that it simply does not belong in the Persian language article. Rather, I've been wanting to create a section called something like Language Contact on this page. This new section would document both imports and exports, for multiple languages, not just Urdu. Both lexical items and other linguistics elements would be treated. --jonsafari 19:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The old Persian is DARI that still use in Afghanistan ( the land of Persia) and because of environment it changes to FARSI now it Use in Iran. and Urdu that has lots of Persian words and use in India and Pakistan.

Since the Persian and Urdu section has been copied to a new article, I'm going to delete the section in the Persian language article. I think it would be a good idea to have a section on language contact. --Maziart 07:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It was a good idea to get rid of the information there, since it had more to do with the development of Urdu than with Persian. In the future tho, when making edits like that, consider that the information you're deleting might somehow be related to the article, and if it needs its own article, create it, or in this case, since it already has its own article, be sure to add a link to the relevant article in the "See also" or "Related articles" sections. (I did it this time.:-p)  :-) Tomer TALK 08:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Phonology Section

I just added a more detailed description of the vowel inventory, but the consonant inventory needs to be worked on. --Maziart 09:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thanks to IceKarma for the pretty vowel chart. An alternative vowel chart for Persian can be found here. Discussion concerning the merits of both charts (specifically about the two low vowels) are still up in the air. I'm curious what others have to say about this. --jonsafari 12:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the vowel chart. Peter Isotalo put me up to it and supplied the source information. The chart at the above URL looks to be more or less equivalent, except the vowels are indicated in the "reference" positions instead of taking account of Farsi-specific pronounciation. IceKarma 16:54, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Skip the Nationalism

Just wanted to add, skip the nationalism on "Persian pride" and only say relevant stuff. There is no hidden agenda. The Persian empire got conquered, and the conquerors influenced the Persian culture. It's pretty much a natural thing. People influence people. The language and culture changed and are changing, get over it. And btw, yes there is "Farsi music". - Arjan

Parsi/Farsi/Persian controversy

Hello all I am new to this, so please forgive me if I post this incorrectly both place-wise and code-wise. In any case, in terms of "Persian", "Farsi", etc. as an Iranian and Persian I refer to myself in English as both Iranian and Persian interchangeably, much as a Greek in English would refer to himself as Greek, rather than "Hellenes". I do the same for the language. However, to assume that all Iranians use "Farsi" simply because that word exists is completely farcical. I am proud to use Parsi and include the /p/ phenome, because that is the true name of the language. The last I checked, there was no "Farsi" gulf, and no "Farsi" music, but I am well aware of the Persian/Parsi equivalents. Those who force "Farsi" down both Iranian and non-Iranian throats, in my opinion, have an agenda. - user:Javan-e-Irooni

The proper name and most common name is Farsi. Brittanica refers to "Farsi", not Persian. Lonely Planet and Collins Gem publish "Farsi" phrase books. Oxford publishes an English-"Farsi" dictionary. The International Bible Society publishes a "Farsi" bible. "FarsiNet" is a major Iranian website. Even the damn Scientologists have "". I think that's pretty conclusive. - MMGB

Just a side note: the ISO language code listing lists it under "Persian (Farsi)", but the code itself is "FA".

So what? The ISO language code for German is "DE" and for Spanish is "ES". What's your point? --Keyvan

I think the best reason against calling the language "Persian" remains that Persia/Iran has lots of languages, like Aimaq and Hazaragi. So calling Farsi "Persian" is like calling Mandarin "Chinese" and calling Cantonese just Cantonese. Why should the specific, majority language get sole rights to the name Persian? If there is something else we could call it, that would be fine, but 'til then, Farsi (or Parsi) sounds most correct to me! It is totally obnoxious to act as though your language has gets to dominate. As a speaker of Aimaq, I am well aware of the discrimination from the majority.

Its use in the English language is very recent (since the 1970s).

Nope, the OED has citations going back to 1878. Changing.

"Near the Fountainhead ?

QUOTE Farsi is an old language that has roots from over a thousand years ago. /QUOTE Non-information? Do you know any natural language that does not have roots from over a thousand years ago? -- user:Vassili Nikolaev

I don't know where that quote comes from but to me it seems you misunderstand the quote (perhaps because the quote is scanty). As a Persian speaker who also knows a few other languages, I can tell you that when it comes to etymology of Indo-European roots, in the Persian language you are definitely drinking from the fountainhead or very near to it, whereas in most other languages the meanings are blurry and fuzzy or just invisible. Example: did you ever notice how the spelling of 'daughter' in English is a little strange? Why? Because it comes from German 'Tochter'. So we go to German. But can we really 'see' the word Tochter in German? Not really. But the same word in Persian is Dokhtar, and even an uneducated Persian speaker can see "Dokht + ar" ... and in Persian you have both parts in numerous other constructs .... for instance: Shahdokht = shah + dokht = princess. This is just one small example. I think the quote meant that the roots in Persian even to this day are, for lack of a better word, "original" or preserved. -- Keyvan Partovi.

Many people say things like this about their own languages. I personally believe that "daughter" is a very bad example because the Indo-European root is nearly identical (it is *dhughəter), and it means "daughter-in-law". Also, very little English vocabulary comes from German; this is a common misconception. A great deal of English words have a common source with German, but not more than a few come from it. For example, "daughter" does NOT originate from German "Tochter" but rather from Middle English "doughter" which in turn comes from Old English "dohtor" from Proto-Germanic (NOT German) *dohtēr. *dohtēr almost immediately turns into an English form and a German form (at least after the split between East, West, and North Germanic). Also, given the wealth of mostly unnessecary vocabulary English has, there are many words (such as "equine") that preserve directly the Indo-European root where other words do not (or at least not nearly as apparently; ie "horse"). Examples: equine + hippopotamus both from *ekʷo, hound + cynic + kennel + corgi all from *kʷon (also believed by many to be the ultimate origin of *ekʷo), goose + smorgåsbord both from *ghans, etc. --Node 00:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Again Fars/Persian/Parsi controversy

Likewise, one can offer numerous examples where "Persian" is used and not "Farsi". The fact is that the usage of term "Farsi" instead of "Persian" in the English language is fairly recent. The language itself however, is anything but recent. What is stated in the article is correct, the difference between "Persian" and "Farsi" in English language, is the same as "Spanish" and "Español". I just checked with three of my English dictionaries, and all three contain "Persian", referring to the Language among other things (such as the Persian culture).

So if we start calling the Persian language (in English) "Farsi", should we also do the same thing for the Persian culture? Calling it "Farsi culture"? Or should we only (for some strange reason) insist on calling the language "Farsi", but continue to call the culture "Persian"? What about "Persian literature"? The Persian language has been called "Persian" in English for centuries.

Also, why not do the same thing with other languages? How about "Magyar" for "Hungarian" or "Deutsch" for "German" for starters?

-- Keyvan Partovi.

Well, the powers that be would stop us from using English language names for anything over the correct, indigenous names, lest saying otherwise not be culturally sensitive. I am certain that should Iran/Persia not be an Islamic country, that there would not be any qualms of social-sensitivity with refering to the language as Persian and Farsi interchangeably.

I think your "Iran/Persia" gives me a clue as to the root of this confusion. Let me try to clarify. I am an Iranian. Ethnically, I am a Persian (on both sides of my parents). When people in English ask me where I am from or what my nationality is, the answer is "Iranian" (and not Persian). When they ask me what my language is, the answe is "Persian" (not Farsi). Now, I have noticed that many Iranians and even non-Iranians of the region, refer to themselves as "Persian". There are a number of reasons, I suppose, for this, which I won't get into in this talk -- it would go beyond the scope of this discussion. But one thing I have noticed is that the majority of Persian people themselves, refer to themselves as Iranians and not Persian.

Iranian people themselves have always refered to Iran as "Iran" and not "Persia"; as evidenced by our long and rich literature and even pre-Islamic books. The name "Persia" is a Greek construct made up of "Pers + ia" ('ia' = suffix of location, as in Italia, Romania, etc) because the capital province of Iran during the old Persian Empire was the province of Pars (or Pers, as the Greeks must have pronounced it). The Pars province to this day is one of the provinces in Iran.

Just as the Greek language has 'ia' as suffix of location, Persian has 'an' as suffix of location, thus, so many (hundreds) of place names in Iran ending with 'an', such as Iran, Tehran, Isafhan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Khorasan, etc ... Persian has other suffixes of location as well, a famous one is 'istan' as in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, etc ... and that one comes from a Persian verb, but the 'an' suffix is special. The name "Iran" is made up of "Ir (ayr) + an" which literally and etymologically means "Land of the Aryans" (not to be confused with the Nazi notion of the word "Aryan").

In the 1930's, Iran officially asked the world to refer to Iran as "Iran" instead of "Persia" -- a good idea in my opinion.

However, this does not mean that now we should refuse to acknowledge that there is indeed a Persian culture, a Persian language, a Persian literature, Persian epics and other cultural elements that are "Persian". Afterall, there are few people on earth with as much legitimate claim to having a cultural identidy as the Persians. There is even a Persian calendar that is a solar calendar that is to this day, the main, and official calendar of Iran.

The Persian language, regardless of what it is called, is the language that has produced one of the most wonderful literatures of all of humanity. It has seen many regimes come and go, and likely, it will see many more.

I think you are mixing some different conepts, perhaps along with some errornous conclusions based on certain assumptions. The country is Iran, the main language of Iran is Persian (or Farsi, if you like), the largest ethnic group in Iran are the Persians, etc...

Finally, I should like to add, that even those Iranians who are indeed Persian and prefer to refer to themselves as Persians, they have every right to do so, just as an Armenian from Iran has the right to be proud of his or her specific cultural identity, or a Kurd or any other ethnic group. -- Keyvan Partovi.

I would agree with k1 wrt to preference of Persian for Farsi as the main term in English, were it not for the fact that most English speakers I have met so far will get glassy eyes when I say that I speak Persian, but understand immediately when I say I speak Farsi. But maybe this is a regional matter. It certainly is a rather anecdotal as an argument. Refdoc 23:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Persian/Farsi - New Sub-catagory?

I wanted to add something about the “Persian or Farsi” controversy, but first wanted to consult everyone on this. Let’s talk about both, the pros and the cons, and keep it impartial. There are valuable issues raised by renowned Persian scholars. I quote from an article on the same subject:

→ Identity Aspect: The word Persian in the mind of an English speaker, consciously or not, recalls many other historical and cultural legacies about Iran. Persian is closely associated with Persian poetry, Persian carpets/rugs, Persian cats, Persian poetry, Persian pistachios, and so on. When you refer to this language as Persian, the audience may associate it with one or more of these relevant ideas. On the contrary, the word Farsi not only voids these historical and cultural associations, but it also adds to the recent portrayal of Iran as a strange and distant society.

→ Calling Persian as Farsi, is as incorrect as calling the Persian Gulf as the Farsi Gulf. Moreover, the name Farsi is obscure and under the best conditions refers only to certain dialects such as the Persian of Iran as opposed to Tajiki, the Persian of Tajikistan or Dari, the Persian of Afghanistan, or even one may say Isfahani, the Persian of Isfahan.

→ The use of word Farsi in English strikes a discordant tone to the native speaker. Imagine someone speaking in English about their recent trip to Paris saying, "I went to Paris and there I spoke Francais." (Instead of saying French). To use the word Farsi has the same impact and may sound not only pretentious at times but also destructive of English syntax.

We should therefore avoid the use of the word Farsi instead of Persian because it not only violates historical fact but also some of the regularities of the language in which we speak. I believe that Persian is the true and proper name of this language in foreign tongues and international communities and changing it does not benefit the representation of Iranian culture.--LogiPhi 03:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

While I have no problem using the term Persian for this article, and I have no personal preference: Persian or Farsi is fine with me, I'm getting sick of mostly non-native English speakers tell me how to speak my own native language, whether to call it Farsi or Persian in English. I make no attempt whatsoever to force native Persian/Farsi speakers to call their own language either فارسی or پارسی and I expect the same respect for my native language. This prescriptivism is frankly nauseating.
The fact is that both words do exist in English, since they both are spoken and understood by native English speakers. Nobody can deny this. English speakers are generally proud and glad that they don't have an official governing language academy. Most native English speakers find the idea to be as pointless as trying to govern the weather. Language phenomena happens whether or not somebody wants it to, because Language is found among speakers, not in some book or academy. Please don't say that the official name in English is either Farsi or Persian.
So if you have a preference on either Persian or Farsi, please keep it to yourself!
--jonsafari 23:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact that you (a supposed native English speaker, Mr. Safari) find this “prescriptivism” (as you would like to call it) nauseating, doesn’t mean anything. You could at least try to act less biased by talking dispassionately and avoid words like “nauseating” and “sickening”. This has nothing to do with your POV.
If you read my comments again, you’ll see that I invited both, pros and cons. What you said could qualify as a criticism and should be added in order to maintain a NPOV. --LogiPhi 04:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to believe me when I say that I'm a native speaker of English. It doesn't change the truth. Also, I believe NPOV is appropriate for articles, but not necessarily for talk pages. What's more, the notion of avoiding prescriptivism isn't a novel coinage on my part; it's been a mainstay of contemporary linguistics for the past century.
I wasn't trying to attack you personally; apologies if they appeared that way. Again, I am not in favor of Farsi nor Persian. Thus my previous post technically would neither be a pro nor con. My main point is that we should not debate whether people should call it either Persian or Farsi in the English language. People can decide for themselves, and let us try to accurately describe on Wikipedia how English speakers use the two words in real life. --jonsafari 07:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Dialect vs Language (Dari/Tajik/Farsi)

For the person who made the comment "Dari-speakers must be laughing"

You only show your, pardon me for the accuracy of my word here, ignorance. There is no language called "Dari", Dari is just Persian with the old Khorasani accent (or Afghani accent of Persian today). The only reason you hear of a languae called 'Dari' today, is because Afghans do not like to call it Persian or Farsi. They even took the word Dari right out of Persian literature. I challenge you to find me one academic work older than 70 years, that makes a distinction between Persian and Dari. Or better yet, ask a so-called "Dari-speaker" to name a few of the great poets and writers of this "Dari" lanuges -- they will give you the names of Persian poets of the Khorasan terriroty, without even realizing that at that time there was not even a country called Afghanistan.

I knew that, I was making a pun

In fact, the funniest thing was when an Afghan 'scholar' was referring to Ferdowsi as the great "Dari" poet. In case you don't know, Ferdowsi is the greatest poet of Persian epics, comparable to Homer for the Classical Greek. But if you study the work of Ferdowsi, it is all about "Iran", and he does not even refer to the language as "Dari" once. You would be hard pressed to go through two or three pages of his 55,000+ epic, the Shahnameh, and not encounter the word "Iran" a few times.

The word "dari" comes from Persian "darbar" meaning "court" (dari means darbari, which means "pertaining to the court" or "belonging to the court"), and that refers to the court of the Sassanids who where the last Persian empire before they fell to the Arabs. Their court was just outside of Baghdad in Iraq today. The Persian language used for official communication (as opposed to the common or colloquial Persian language) was sometimes referred to as "Dari" or the "language of the Darbar (court)" ... and subsequently in some instances, some Persian poets (from all over the place and not just the Khorasan territory) have refered to the Persian language as "Dari" when appropriate. Examples include the great Persian poets Sa'di and Hafiz from Shiraz who have at times referred to Persian as Dari -- so does this mean that the language of Shiraz (capital of Pars province of Iran) is also Dari and not Persian?!  :-)

Only recently, some (perhaps most) Afghans from the country Afghanistan have insisted on referring to their language as "Dari" just to avoid calling their language Persian or Farsi. But how old is the country Afghanistan?! This would be tantamount to Austria digging deep into old German literature and finding an obscure word which means "German" but it's not "Deutsch" and start calling their language that name just to avoid using "German" (Deutsch) as the name of their language.

But this "Dari language" is not even a dialect, it is just Persian with the Afghani accent (or I should say with the old Khorasani accent). Again, ask a so-called "Dari-speaking person" to name some of the great works and names of the "Dari language" literature for you and let me know who they are.

-- Keyvan Partovi.

He's right! Dari is an accent. I would clearly understand what a Afghan is saying, if he were only to pronounce it properly. Secondly, there are many diverse Iranian ethnic groups: Balochis, Armenians, Azeris (Turkic), Turkmen, Gilakis etc... And only half of the countries population consists of Persians or Fars. Alireza Hashemi

Perhaps this is just your perception? First of all, you seem to have the mistaken notion that Dari is the only language of Afghanistan. Pashto definitely serves a more nationalistic purpose, since Dari is basically a dialect of Farsi, while Pashto is for-sure a unique language.
Second of all, just an accent? Do you really expect us to believe that? Dari and Tajik are unique dialects of Farsi, though they may be mutually intelligible (this is one hallmark of dialects by many definitions).
Third of all, who is to say that their pronunciation is "improper"? That is very POV, one could jst as easily say that yours is incorrect and theirs is proper. Veeeeeeeeeeery ethnocentric. Just a friendly warning: such "facts" shouldn't be expressed in Wikipedia articles (Talk: pages are OK). If you think some people would disagree vehemently with what you have said, ask a 3rd party (ie, in this case somebody that isn't Persian, Tajik, or Dari)

Tajik is also an accent, I've listened to Tajik BBC and I understood everything which was said.

Again... an "accent"? --Node 01:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No Node, it is not very POV and "Veeeeeeeeeeery ethnocentric" as you say. Accents are not "wrong" of course, but when someone totally messes up a word in a manner that clearly shows that that person doesn't even understand how the word is constructed, that is where I draw the line between correct and incorrect -- and that is the difference between having an accent (which is perfectly OK) and mispronounication (which is not OK). --K1 15:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look a bit harder at this page and you will see that Alireza Hashemi said something along the lines of "I'd be able to understand an Afghan, if he were to only pronounce things correctly".
In addition, "accent" itself is POV - an Irish person believes they have no accent but that the American has an American accent, while the American believes they have no accent and that the Irish person is the one "talking funny". The simple truth is that it's all a matter of perception.
Whether or not regionalisms show a disregard for etymology should be of no concern: as long as people understand what a word means, it works fine. They don't have to understand how it was formed. When you get irritated by things like that, you're inflating your ego. Just because you have an education and you speak Farsi as it is spoken by university professors does not make you better than anybody else, nor does it make you "right". In addition, it does not mean you don't have an accent. The simple truth is that everybody has an accent. There is no "neutral" accent.
As for the distinction between Dari, Farsi, Parsi (cf Ethnologue), Tajik, and perhaps Ossetic: to say they are just accents or just dialects is indeed POV. If you tell a Dari speaker that their language is really only an accent of Farsi, they will probably get upset. The same goes for Tajik and Ossetic (I think Parsi speakers themselves say Parsi is an accent or a dialect, so in that case it IS acceptable to characterize it that way in an encyclopedia).
One way to tell is this: If you go up to a random Moldavian and tell them (in English) that they speak Romanian language, they will agree, for Moldavian and Romanian are for the most part identical (though a Moldavian-Romanian dictionary was published recently). However, if you go up to a Tajik and tell them (in English) that they speak Farsi, they will be offended or annoyed.
But what if you ask the same Tajik, "Do you speak Persian?". In my view, Farsi (Parsi) is the Iranian dialect of the Persian language. Dari, Farsi, and Tajik are the three major mutually intelligible dialects, along with Farsi, of Persian. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:32, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
One last thing: in linguistics, there is no agreed-upon boundary between language, dialect, and sub-dialect. Some people will give you a percentage of cognation (percentage of words that have common roots), but it will differ from person to person and many people will even tell you that the words mean nothing in comparison; for example, in the case of the Sinitic (Chinese) languages, the term "dialect" is often used because it is a literal translation of the Mandarin "fangyan" (literally "regional speech"). However, to a Chinese person, the boundaries between "fangyan" and "yuyan" (language) are different than the boundaries for a Brit are between "dialect" and "language". This is probably because the first usage of the term "fangyan" occured over two millenia ago, when what are now "languages" (in English terminology) had only slight differences. However, even as these dialects diverged to become separate languages, people still called them "fangyan". So basically, any language spoken within the Han (Chinese) ethnic group is "hanyu fangyan" (a Chinese dialect), while anything spoken outside is probably split according to the English division.

THis debate above is indeed highly POV and probably simply so as the majority of the participanst are Iranians instead of other speakers of the Persian language group.

A few remarks

  • WRT to mispronounciation - how exactly ? How do you know how a word must be pronounced ? Why is one pronounciation 'right' and another 'wrong' ? The difference between Farsi an Dari pronounciation is often only vowels 'e' becomes 'a' in Dari. On other occasions Iranians will swallow large parts of the word as it is written while Afghans will pronounce it in the totality (mikhaam vs mikhaaham e.g.)
hehehe that is really so funny. when in Iran we say "mikhaam" instead of "mikhaaham", that is only conversational and informal language. what you are saying is like saying americans say "wanna" instead of "want to"!

That is exactly my point - Dari speakers use the "proper" pronounciation on many occasions where the common use within Iran is flattened and "dialect". Refdoc 23:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Fountainhead' How exactly ? Iranians say "Merci"(French), Afghans "Tashakor"(Arabic derrived) while Kurds say "Sepos" (original and proper Persian) Can I now say the Kurds are closer to the fountain head of true Indoeuropean language ??? Hardly I would think. Just an accident of language development, I would say.
merci is recent and it is definitely not the only world for thank you. besides, not everybody uses it. i myself say "sepas". tashakkor is not "arabic derived", it is fully arabic.

No it is not the only word - you are obviously right, but it is the most common used - in daily language. The point I try to make is that it is silly to see Iranian Persian as the "proper" language and the central bit of the wheel, while Tajik and Dari are "aberrations" - they are not, they are equally valid developments from a common root. Refdoc 23:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Dari/Afghan is no culture as "previously not mentioned" ?? Why this? Have the Austrians no culture worth its name simply because they were considered Germans until mid 20th century ? People and languages develop, split and merge. What we are debating here is such a split, which might resolve or might develop into two/three very different languages in a few centuries time. Why is one side to be taken as the original while the other side of such a language split is seen as divergent ? Refdoc 22:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
can you tell me how this "Dari" language is different from Persian other than the accent and a few usages of words? when i listen to afghan politicians, or radio or tv or read their papers, i fully understand it, almost 100%. when iranian politicians visit afghanistan they speak the same language over there that they speak at home, not a "sepcial edition" version. did you know that it was only recently that by an act of parliament in afghanistan they decided to change the official name of the language from "Persian to "Dari"? it is strictly for political or artifical reasons. in fact, if you pay attention to the "Dari" of afghanistan media (and weblogs) you will see that they are increasingly using Iranian Persian. what does that mean? it means, they are using words, constructs and expressions that iranians use and afghans never used them before until just very recently (internet/iformation age). also plagiarism from iranian sources is incredibly rampant among afghan media! if "Dari" is a different language, how come pliagiarism from Persian sources is so rampant among afghan media and webloggers? the only difference between Iran's Persian language and afghanistan's "Dari" language, is that they (afghans) use significantly higher percentage of arabic words, they speak with a different accent and their vocabulary range is significantly lower than the persian used in Iran. none of those makes the two languages "different languages" or even one a dialog of the other. Amir

Amir, you are seriously misunderstanding a lot of what is said above. And the supposedly increased use of Arabic within Dari - I am perfectly unclear what you base this upon - Dari speakers will often use Arabic words where Iranians will not, but also vice versa. As an Iranian teh Arabic words within Dari will jarr in your ear, so you might get this impressiuon, but do find some evidence for it please. But again, I am not fightimng to make Dair and tajik separate languages, I try to shift the Iran centric approach this article has/had towards recognising that other forms are equivalent and not simply lower forms and "dialect"Refdoc 23:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--This is such a common topic and I am sure everyone is arguing about it. Basically, it has had the sad fate of becoming very involved with political issues such as nationalism, geographical borders, and the whole inferiority problem of many people in the region. If I can just make some scietific input here. Okay, Persian, or more properly, New Persian, is a descendant of Middle Persian, itself a descendant of Old Persian. Old Persian was a south-western Iranian language, and from the Old Iranian stage of Iranian Language Family (ilf), along with Avestan, is the only one represented, mostly in the Achaemenid inscriptions. After the replacement of the Achaemenids with the Seleucids, and in turn the ascend of the Arsacids to the throne of Iran, Old Persian became an oral language and not much representation of it is available from ca. 300 BC to 220's AD. Parthian, a Northwestern Iranian language, was the dominant language of the Arsacid era (BC 238-224 AD).

In 224 AD, Ardashir, the king of the province of Persis/Persia, founded the Sasanian Empire, in the process, bringing back "Persian" (this time Middle Persian) to the political fore. The Middle Persian of the Sasanian inscriptions and texts was a descended of Old Persian, but of a different dialect than the Old Persian of the Achaemenid inscriptions. The Sasanian Middle Persian dialect (commonly known under the name Pahlavi) was the dominant written form of the language until the 9th century AD. However, after the fall of the Sasanian state to the Arabs in AD 650, there was a break in the production of Pahlavi texts.

In the late 9th century, the Samanid dynasty of Transoxiana (themselves originally Sogdian speakers) revived Persian, this time "Classical New Persian". This was a descendant of Middle Persian, but not a direct descendant of Pahlavi dialect and seems to have come from a parallel dialect. Classical New Persian became the dominant written form of Persian in all of the lands of the "Eastern Caliphate" (to paraphrase La Strange), continuing to today. But notice that this is the WRITTEN form. Other dialects of New Persian were spoken all around the country.

Today, a form of Classical New Persian, developed into what is conveniently called "Modern" New Persian, is still the dominant written form/dialect of the language. This form is understood by all of the speakers, even if written in various alphabets. So, Tajiks, Afghans, and Iranian Persian speakers all understand this written form (although in the case of the Tajiki it is written in Cyrilic).

However, all of those parallel dialects continued some way or another. Stating that standard Iranian spoken language (the Tehrani or Fathalishahi accent) is the "correct" one is obviously incorrect! All forms are correct! However, the existence of different dialects does not mean that there are different languages. Persian of Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Kerman, Khuzestan, Khorasan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan (as well as Samarqand and Bukhara of Uzbekistan) are all the same language. They have the same morphology, phonology, sentence structure, syntax, and more or less the same semantics (with obvious regional differences). This, however, again does not mean that all of the languages spoken in Iran or Afghanistan or Tajikistan are just "dialects" of Persian either! Afghanistan also has Pashto which is an Iranian language of its own, belonging to the Eastern Iranian group. The same is the case in Tajikistan with Taghnobi, a descendant of ancient Sogdian, again an Eastern Iranian language. In Iran, we have Kurdish (Northwestern), Gilaki (probably NW), Sangsari (NW), Baluchi (surprisingly, again NW), Luri (SW), and many other members of the ILF.

So, this whole thing serves the purpose of showing two things:

The language is one, called Persian (Farsi by the natives) It has three major dialects (Iranian Persian, Dari (Afghanistan) and Tajiki) It is just one member of the ILF.

It is also interesting that all speakers of all dialects refer to the language in their own language as Farsi! (Find an Afghan or Tajik or an Iranian, and all three will name the language as Farsi!). --Khodadad 07:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Uncommented reverts

There is a bit of a revert toing and fro-ing going on between various users. I think it would be better if this could be discussed here. I would agree that Uzbekistan is worth mentioning as large parts are indeed Tajik speaking. But I would like to have some confirmation for the numbers 49 or 75 million is a bit of a difference and should be clarifiable. I guess though that the 75 million is based on the erroneous assumptions that all Iranians are Farsi speakers as first language.? Refdoc 22:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well there are some panturkists that are wandering through internet and try to advertise for thier political ambitions and unfortunately they try to impose thier political ambition on Historical discussions and created many havocs in Historical articles in this encyclopedia.moreever they are always anonymos and never discuss their edits.I think if anonymos users don't have the right to edit articles ,this will help to reduce these attacks. Jamshid

There have been many good contributions from anonymous users on Wikipedia. As for the Pan-Turkist editors, there have been lots of good information in articles from them. Yes, some of the contributions are lies, propaganda, and vandalism, but I would love to be able to convert them to the Wikipedia policy and see them work together with us on the articles. Their opinion is important. They believe there was never any Old Persian language? Fine! We will write that in the article and then specify why we believe that is wrong. It's called NPOV. roozbeh 00:54, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Gilaki or Guilaki is a longuage sad to say going to be distinct as Caspian Tiger. Why?

Crappy article

I nominate this for crappiest language article. It has none of the zest and flair necessary to describe the history and/or signifigance of the language, nor does it have the technical content required to describe it linguistically. Half of the stuff seems made up. Someone fix it, as I don't know enough about Farsi to attempt to do it better. -IR

First off, when signing your name, you can type (not the quotations) "LordSuryaofShropshire 14:51, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)" and your name,date, time will appear after saving the edit. Anyway, thanks for the input. But unfortunately, while I agree I would prefer a slightly different style, bombasting with insults doesn't do the trick. Sometimes, when people who enjoy knowledge feel so strongly about, say, an article that doesn't meet their standards, they research it a bit and change the page accordingly. Maybe you can try something proactive instead of yelling insults at the people who are actually working on this from afar. Remember, most people here are, funnily enough, perenially doing research projects. They don't just know everything, even about subjects they love or are involved in. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:51, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the current version of the article is indeed crappy, since it is being vandalized by anonymous users who don't care to talk about the matter, and I can't revert because of the three revertions policy. If you care, please revert to the latest version by Poccil. roozbeh 16:21, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Did that myself. roozbeh 00:45, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for my rather blatant (and hastily written) remark. I have indeed been doing some research (not much, I must admit, as my resources are quite limited at the moment) but I think I have some good "pieces" to add (not much more than that, I'm afraid). What I intended to get across (and I obviously did not) is that to me, and I believe to many others, (at least parts of) this article are unaccepetable and embarassing, especially when compared to other, more comprehensive language articles. I don't mean to demean or trivialize other people's contributions, which I completely appreciate, but rather to suggest that this article has not come close to reaching its full potential. That said, I'd like to suggest a wholesale revision of the whole of the article so that it may be restructured. I will begin to insert different parts that I believe to be worthy, but again, as a whole, I am quite inexperienced, especially with an article of this scope and ambition. I hope this explains a bit more what I "should have said". See ya.



I deleted a paragraph on alleged dispute of the existence of Old Persian; to the extent that it made any sense at all, it appeared to rest on a confusion of Old Persian with the completely different language Elamite. Old Persian is well-attested, and was in fact the first cuneiform script to be deciphered. - Mustafaa 19:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I reintroduced the removed paragraph. Please note that it's Wikipedia's policy to include the other point of view. Please read NPOV. There are people who hold that opinion, or they would not have come and written it here. Instead of removing the point of view, please add to it, telling why it doesn't make sense. roozbeh 21:05, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean reporting every individual person's view (are we to report that some people believe in Santa Claus as if it were possibly true? or that some people, out of complete ignorance, think Sikhs are Arabs because they both supposedly wear turbans?); it means reporting informed views. Denying the existence of Old Persian is like denying the existence of English; for full documentation, see University of Chicago. - Mustafaa 21:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Let me expand on that: if someone puts together a theory that, say, aliens built the Easter Island statues (Erich von Daniken), that may just possibly merit a very brief mention somewhere in Easter Island, and a fuller discussion in its own article. If some individual imagines that New York is in Australia, or that Persian and Arabic are the same language, that's not a theory we have to take any notice of: it's an error, or at best "original research". This falls into the latter category. - Mustafaa 21:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exact details:

"Some people believe that there is no written evidence of Old Persian or Middle Persian,"

If so, they're quite simply wrong: there is written evidence of both. See above. If such a claim is even to be mentioned here, it should be phrased as something like "Some people are ignorant of the copious written attestation of Old and Middle Persian."

"and the theory is used for nationalistic purposes,"

Possibly true, but irrelevant to this article.

"and that most of the documents and tablets from pre-Islamic Persia are in the Elamite language, which they consider a Ural-Altaic language."

True, and completely irrelevant.

"But some people respond that by popular belief of the scholars, that there are no remains of the Elamite language after the Achaemenids, "

True, but irrelevant.

"and that the existence of a Ural-Altaic language group is highly debated, let alone the membership of Elamite to that group."

True, and even less relevant.

"They also mention that the international standard ISO 639-2 has attributed a code to Old Persian, which would have been impossible by ISO 639 procedures if there was no written evidence of such a language."

Truly bizarre. When you could link to the original inscriptions themselves, or read the original scholars, why on earth would you resort to arguing from, of all things, ISO? - Mustafaa 22:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I honestly don't care about the paragraph but its removal may ignite the anonymous vandals again. Go and remove it and we'll see if there's anybody against it. My personal opinion is that the theory is ridiculous, of course. roozbeh 22:24, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

OK. I've added it to my watchlist, so you won't be alone in arguing against it. :) - Mustafaa 22:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Can we have some sourcing for the population figures? Adding up the Ethnologue figures[1] yields no more than 35 million or so, even if you include Tajik. Where are the other figures coming from? - Mustafaa 03:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, to summarize the Ethnologue figures (which, incidentally, look distinctly fishy to me - they rate their own accuracy for Iran at "B, C"):

  • 31.2 million for "Western Farsi" + "Eastern Farsi" alone;
  • 35.7 million for those + Tajik;
  • 38.3 million for all "Persian" languages (including Hazaragi, Aimaq, etc.);
  • 42.8 million for all "Southwestern" languages (basically adding Luri)

I'm not willing to take the calculations beyond that, even with a spreadsheet - the next level up includes languages like Baluchi and Kurmanji which most would not consider Persian, despite also including controversial cases like Gilaki. - Mustafaa 03:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider Ethnologue a good source of statistical information at all, specially after some research in Afghanistan based on the information. But if you want to base your numbers on Ethnologue, the best estimate for ISO Persian would be the "Persian" language group of Ethnologue minus Tajik. roozbeh 14:36, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Neither do I (their figures for Algeria and Morocco don't even add up!), but the figures have to come from somewhere... Can you think of any alternative sources for number of speakers? - Mustafaa 19:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never forget what ethnologue is - it is meant primarily as a help to Bible translators to gauge the need for a translation of the Holy Bible. This need will define the methods used, rather than any other considerations. And the numbers often do not add up as there is often a double accounting of people who consider themselves in two spheres - a particularly common phenomen in Iran with its many ethnic minorities but its strong united national identity - resulting in increasing mixing of different backgrounds and subsequent "double accounting" Refdoc 23:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC), 2 and a half months later, nobody's got any suggestions? Would anyone mind reducing the figure given in the article in light of the evidence presented here on Talk, at least until whoever contributed the apparently much-conflated figures steps forward with a source? Tomer TALK 08:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


Majority of people in Bahrain has Iranian root and lots of them are Iranian and ofcourse it was Iranian island util they independence. Most of people in Bahrain speak Persian very well and those are more than Persian speaker in Uzbekistan. Shall we add Bahrain in the article?--Sina 20:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Majority"? I doubt that. Do you have any proof to back up your claim?—behdad (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Other states

Somebody added Iraq, Oman, Azarbaijan, UAE, and Armenia to the states that Persian is spoken [2], makes me wonder, do we need all those states there? Of course there are people in all these states that know and speak Persian, but then there are a lot in Germany, Sweden, Canada, and USA too. Iran, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan are the only ones that have Persian as the/a main language. Iraq for example, I believe doesn't believe in the least, same for Azerbaijan, and Russia. Donno, what do other experts think? Needless to say, just because you live in one of these country and you have 20 friends that speak Persian is not enough.—behdad (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. After looking at other articles on languages found in many countries (like English, German, and Russian), I think we could just list maybe the top 5 or so countries, and then put something like "and neighboring countries". --jonsafari 04:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I would say mentioning Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and neighboring countries.
I agree that all of these might be too much, but the difference between mentioning Armenia and UAE and etc. and mentioning Germany and the US and others is that in UAE and Armenia and Uzebkistan and Turkmenistan and Iraq and Azerbaijan and the rest, you have native pupulations speaking the language (an information that might be useful to some). So, it might have some merit.--Khodadad 07:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained slash notation for the name in native languages/script

I simply mean "(فارسی / پارسی)". There is no explanation around what this slash means and what this pair consists of. Could someone please write more explicitly what is meant?--Imz 18:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that. They are the Persian words for Persian, i.e.: (Fârsi / Pârsi). On my screen, the first few lines are very short, and these two words cannot fit on one line. I tried different ways to separate the words, including the word "or" or just putting a comma, but the effect was not very good. Using a comma, it gives me this: (،فارسی
پارسی). Using the word "or", I get this: (or فارسی
The problem is that I can’t be sure how these lines break on other people’s screens. I suppose that it might be all right to include a hard return, and then we could put it like this:

(فارسی or
پارسی). But if I don’t include a hard return, the "or" gets moved to a position that is confusing for anyone who doesn’t know how to read Arabic script. —Stephen 08:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The bad thing with it I wanted to turn attention to is that it is hard (or impossible, if you can't read the script) to establish the connection between the 2 words in Arabic script and an explanation of what it is. Now you explained that these are just (Fârsi / Pârsi) and both are in Persian. Putting a transcription or transliterati}on just along these words would help. What about:
Persian (پارسی/فارسی, transliterated as Fârsi/Pârsi)
Then the transliterations establish a connection for the reader to the further explanations about the variants.--Imz 12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW, AFAIU it should be:
Persian (پارسی/فارسی transliterated as Pârsi/Fârsi)
to match the order (although the order is a strange thing here). But at least what is above the slash would be above the slash in the transliterations. Or, to solve this problem:
Persian (پارسی or فارسی transliterated as Pârsi or Fârsi)
Persian (پارسی Pârsi/فارسی Fârsi)
--Imz 13:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That's funny: in the edit field, the words in Arabic script (around the slash) appear in one order, and the rendered page -- in the other. Probably, there must be some direction markers in Unicode or HTML, but I don't know them yet. It would be also nice if the template:lang would solve the direction issue by explicitly putting the markers, but unfortunately it's a single tempate for all languages.--Imz 13:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It got clearer with the new layout, thanks!--Imz 22:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Latin/Cyrillic script

Are there any serious proposals to replace the Perso-Arabic script with a Latin one? It seems to work well for Tajik, which uses Cyrillic, that is much more similar to Latin than to Arabic (by "work well" i mean nearly 100% literacy compared to 80% in Iran, and only 36% in Afghanistan according to CIA World Factbook). I know that there's a project called UniPers, but is there any chance of officially adopting it anywhere? Iran has a very conservative Islamic government which, i suppose, has no intention of changing the Arabic script (correct me if i'm wrong). But Afghanistan may be ripe for such a change. It may also serve secular Pan-Iranists well - introducing one standartized written language will bring the nations closer together.

So, can anyone comment on that?--Amir E. Aharoni 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In neither Iran nor Afghanistan will the Latin alphabet ever replace the Persian alphabet. There is way too much history in the alphabet. How could one read the great classic poets in a foreign alphabet? It would be a joke. And the alphabet is about as accurate as English is in correctly showing the sounds of the language. The reason there is still such a high level of illiteracy is that the country still needs to get its act together. If Japan can manage its phenominal rate of literacy with, if I am not mistaken three writing systems, Iranians can manage to get by without writing three short vowels. Now and again some crazy living in Los Angeles suggests the Latin alphabet, but there would be no real support. I myself used Latin to texto and e-mail, but now a days cellphones and computers are perfectly capable of working in Persian alphabet, so there is no need to do that anymore either, (unless one lives in LA)
And the idea of Afghanis ever using the alphabet of the kaffirs is truly laughable.
But then again - a lot of Afghanis don't use any alphabet at all, as they are illiterate. Much more laughable to me seems the idea that Tajikis will ever want to go back to Perso-Arabic, but please correct me if i'm wrong.
The problem of reading ancient poets can be solved easily - just reprint the books. Modern technology can make the process quite easy.
For Tajikis, as i said, the Cyrillic alphabet, which is much more similar to Latin than to Arabic, works quite well - and they read old poetry too.
In the beginning of the 20th century, if anyone would say that with 30 years all of Turkey would be reading and writing in the alphabet of the kaffirs it would seem laughable too, but look what a little political change had done. The situation was quite similar - a religious dictatorship and a rather small literacy rate.
And dont' get me wrong - the Arabic script is perfect for a Semitic language like Arabic.
And if you say that the current alphabet is as good as English, than it's not so good - English spelling is a total disaster! :) --Amir E. Aharoni 07:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
What he's saying (I think) is that English speakers have very high literacy even with the catastrophe that is English spelling, thus you can't really say that the innacuracies in Persian spelling contribute to illiteracy. Correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, them switching to the Latin alphabet wouldn't make any more sense than us switching to theirs, or to Cyrilic. If they want to switch, let them, if they don't, that's fine too. Now what I'd like to see is some system for point-and-click conversion between scripts on the internet. For example: Allowing someone bilingual in Arabic and Russian, but educated in Russian and literate only in Cyrilic to read Arabic. Or allowing easy romanizations of text in non-Roman scripts without the reader having to look up or memorize a table of the other alphabet. Linguofreak 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

32 Letters of the Persian Alphabet

Can someone create a table of the 32 letters of the Persian alphabet -- with the different shapes for letters that look different in the beginning, middle, or end of a word, name of each letter, and the sound of each letter? This is a major deficiency of this article. [Remember that Farsi has the 28 letters of Arabic plus 4 more letters.]

-- 09:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

under [3], it is stated that: In recent years the Latin alphabet has been used by some for technological or internationalization reasons. I guess this is nonsense. No serious persian document for whatever reason has been written in Latin alphabet. I propose to delete this sentence.Shahram Biglari 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I could not keep myself comfortable while this sentence was still there. So, I deleted. Shahram Biglari 18:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Population numbers are highly inflated.

Ethnologue reports only 24 million native speakers of Farsi. (plus perhaps 1 million Bakhtiaris, who speak a dialect of Persian). Heja Helweda 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue is a great source and an outstanding on-line reference, but it is not the final point of reference! I am not sure why everyone tends to refer to either the Ethnologue or the CIA World Fact Book, but there are other, non-internet, more accurate, and scientific sources around. If you like, the CIA World Fact Book gives the number 51%! --Khodadad 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Total speakers of Persian

Total speakers of Persian (native + non-native) should contain 68 million from Iran (which has only one official language), and 7 million from Tajikistan. However, one can not include the whole population of Afghanistan, since it has two official languages: Persian and Pashtu. According to the CIA Factbook, 50% of Afghanistan population are Farsi speakers, so that would be around 15 million. Hence 68 + 7 + 15 = 90 million would be the number of total speakers. Heja Helweda 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Farsi is not Persian

If this article is about the current official language of Iran, I strongly suggest to move and rename the name of this article to Farsi language.

Persian language was an ancient and extint language which does not exist anymore.

Although some uninformed people use wrongly both name for Farsi but Farsi is a modern language which is heavily affected (if not based on) Arabic and Turkish languages.

Are Latin and Italian languages the same? or many other languages like that? The Persian and Farsi language also are not the same even much more different. Off course it should be soon corrected specially in the Farsi language and Persian language articles. Mesopotamia 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Italian is descended from Latin. Don't you mean Spanish and Italian? The Persian language article even says: Persian (known variously as: فارسی Fârsi, local name in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, پارسی Pârsi, older, local name still used by some speakers, Tajik, a Central Asian dialect, or Dari, another local name in Tajikistan and Afghanistan)
Where did you get this idea that they are different languages? I've never heard anyone say this before. --Khoikhoi 23:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I exactly meant Latin and Italian languages. One is descended from another one. Farsi is a modern language. It is quite different from Persian. Persian was an ancient Iranian language which used by ancient Persians. After Arab/Arabic invasion everything changed. even the official language of Iran became Arabic and a new language, heavily affected by Arabic, born. It is called Farsi. Gramatically and vocabulary is quite different from that ancient Persian language.

Even in Farsi languge there is a different between Farsi and Persian. If you f.ex. in Tehran or Isfahan ask people which language they speak they reply Farsi. And if ask them about Persian (Parsi) they explain for you that it refers to an old language. In Other words and more simply:

If you say: Ou ra peyda kardam and ask them which language is this, they reply that: it is Farsi.

If you say: Vey ra biaftam people say this is Persian (Parsi).

So as you see Farsi is a modern language while Persian is an old one. If there is some small dialect in some countries which call themselves Parsi (Persian) it does not change the mater; we can explain it in a section in the artilce. But the modern language spoken in modern Iran is Farsi. Mesopotamia 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. You're thinking of the Old Persian language. The modern Persian language is Persian. Farsi is another name for the modern Persian language. --Khoikhoi 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I had alrady seen that page. It does not mean that Farsi is the same as Persian. as I explained for you above, they are quite different from eachother. Mesopotamia 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They're not different. They're exactly the same. Ask anyone who speaks the language. If they're different, why does the Persian language article clearly say Farsi at the top paragraph? You never even answered my 1st question: why did you get this info? --Khoikhoi 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article persian language is smartly merging Farsi with Persian language! which is a desire by some Persian nationalists. while others do not. You asked me why you get this info. Because it is so. Even in Iran there is a different between Farsi and Persian in every issue. Farsi refers to post-Islamic era while Persian for pre-islamic one. Mesopotamia 00:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "because it is so" isn't good enough. --Khoikhoi 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By "It is so" I meant "it is truth". Off course this is me who should ask you why you have merged these articles. If I started the article about Farsi and Persian languages, certainly had put different materials. Mesopotamia 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And still is not late. Persian and farsi related articles need many wikification. Mesopotamia 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection whatsoever between the meanings and usages of the various terms for Persian/Farsi/Parsi in the Modern Persian language and the meanings and usages of Persian/Farsi in Modern English. First, the Iranians have used the word "فارسی" (fârsi) for centuries, but Farsi only entered American English about 35 years ago, and only because of poorly educated immigrants who did not know the correct English name of their language. On hearing this new language name, most Americans thought it was some dialect of Arabic and did not know that it was merely the Persian name of Persian.
Second, Modern Persian is a different language from Old Persian just as Modern English is different from Middle English and from Old English; and Modern Chinese is different from Middle Chinese, Archaic Chinese and Proto-Chinese; and Modern Greek is different from Ancient Greek.
Over the last 30 years, the term Farsi has gradually become an acceptable word in English, but it differs from Persian in meaning and usage. Persian is the educated word for the language (Old or Modern), and Farsi is the street word. American universities that teach courses in Modern Persian call it Persian, not Farsi. When you study a university course entitled Persian, you expect to receive formal instruction in the modern standard language of Iran, including the written language. If you ever see a course called Farsi, then you expect a simple conversational course for tourists, and with little or no instruction of the Perso-Arabic script, and probably with no college credit.
It does not matter in English what you call your own language IN your own language ... the name of the modern standard language of Iran is most properly Persian in English. —Stephen 10:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU ALL CONFUSE YOURSELVES! Please do not do this. Farsi is the term that the Persian (and sometimes, Afghani) speakers of the Persian languages call it. Persian langauge = Farsi. The Old Persian langage is dead. Later on, the new version of the language was born, Parsi (which is still the term for Persian in Persian). After the Arab influence, the Persian language had thousands and thousands of Arabic loan words. In addition, the term "Farsi" is the Arabicized form of Parsi, because the invading Arabs couldn't say "P", so they replaced it with "F". The term native Persian speakers use to identify there language isn't even originally Persian. On technical standards, "Farsi" is the Arabic term for the Persian language, while "Parsi" is the original Persian term, which is now rarely used.

I dont know what all this fuss is about. The announcement of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature is the final verdict and authority in this matter: "Persian" is the proper name for the language.--Zereshk 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but this was funny!: "If you say: Ou ra peyda kardam and ask them which language is this, they reply that: it is Farsi.

If you say: Vey ra biaftam people say this is Persian (Parsi)."

My dear, you are arguing about Classical New Persian and Modern New Persian. "Ou ra Peyda Kardam" and "vey ra biyaaftam" are both in the same language. What you refer to as the language of older Iranians, before Islam, is either Old Persian (ca. 600-200 BCE) and Middle Persian (attested from 225-ca. 900 AD). Both of those you would not understand much, but they are both ancestors of New Persian.

New Persian itself has two stages, Classical New Persian (the written language since ca. 900 AD and the language of most of the Persian literature) and Modern New Persian (from ca. 1850), the standard form of the written (but not always the spoken) language today. This language, in both Classical and Modern stages, is refered to by the natives as Farsi, a pronunciation of the word Parsi. Grammatically, morphologically, and syntactically, both Classical and Modern are the same language. No one would say that the language of Shakespeare and that of Stephen King is not the same. Shakespeare was Classical New English, Stephen King is Modern New (American) English. Different dialects, but still the same language.

I suggest you all read a bit. Look at Compandium Linguarum Iranicarum, edited by R. Schmitt, as the best and most comprehensive available source. It is even translated into Persian (Raahnamaaye Zabaanhaaye Irani). --Khodadad 07:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not agree that The announcement of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature is the final verdict and authority on the matter. Depending on how prescriptivist you are, the APLL may have some authority to dictate the Persian/Farsi name for Persian/Farsi, but they don't really have any authority to dictate the English name. And since there is no central "Academy of English Lang and Lit," there is no real authority that could ever be considered to be able to dictate the English name. And if you're a descriptivist, the APLL doesn't even have the authority to dictate the Persian/Farsi term. By either standard, "Farsi" is the name I hear used most often in English, and thus the "correct" English word. I suppose if you really want to be prescriptivist, you could take the Oxford English Dictionary or something as your central authority on the English Language and use whatever they use. I myself would prefer a term like "Iranian," which would mark it very well as the national language of Iran, but as I said, the term I have heard most often is "Farsi."Linguofreak 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Then again, if I'm going to use a truly descriptivist arguement, all I can do is describe how you speak. Use what you want, there's really no point in arguement. Linguofreak 03:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Language area map

Where's the source for the new language area map? If there's no source, it's original research and not allowed. - Taxman Talk 22:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) so if you say : ou ra peyda kardam, it's farsi but if you say: vey ra biaftam, it's Parsi (persian) i got a question, what is it gonna be if i say: ouy ra yaftam? i mean ouy, vey and ou are all the same, and they mean the same, and being known by the people as the same words, so if you think about it, you'll understand, these three won't change the language to farsi or parsi, and if you want more infos about it, i'll tell you that every single language is being changed, by the time goes on, for instance in English language, 100 years ago you would say: thou shan't steal now you say you shall not steal, right? and the words like thy, thine are all changed, and now if people different things instead, you could not say this language is not English any more because of these things, no Bro, Persian is equal to Farsi (Parsi) and recently the persian linguists are going to change F to P, because after Arabs attacks, the Persian countries went under their controll, they couldn't pronounce P, so they'd say F, instead! and now, we call it Farsi, because in the past Arbas couldn't pronounce its right form, which is Parsi, and lately the persian linguists are changing the words to have P rather than F.

Number of native speakers of Persian

According to ethnologue there are 39 million native speakers of persian [4]. The dialects and native population figures are given below: (population figures include speakers worldwide)

Eastern Farsi 7.6 m.[5]

Western Farsi 24.3 m.[6]

Tajiki 4.38 m. [7]

Aimaq 650,000 [8]

Bukharic 110,000 [9]

Dehwari 13,000 [10]

Darwazi 10,000 [11]

Hazaragi 2.2 m. [12]

Dzhidi 60,000 [13]

Pahlavani 2,100 [14]

Based on this number, the ranking is 24th not 19th. Heja Helweda 02:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We have to count by country and add them up. And we have to use more than one source, because:

  1. Ethnologue does not count reugees, such as Persian speaking Afghan refugees in Pakistan (1M) and Iran (2M).
  2. Ethnologue's estimates of Iranians in the UAE is grossly outdated. There has been a masive flux of Iranians migrating to the UAE in the past 10 years. Even the CIA puts the Iranian population currently at roughly 250,000 in Dubai, Sharjah, and Abu Dhabi. I think the number 350,000 is therefore well accurate.

Hence the estimate (according to the combined sources of Ethnologue, CIA, and [15] ) is:

34,689,168 + 33,328,751 (1st + 2nd language speakers in Iran according to CIA)
11,971,595 + 17,957,393 (40% Afghans that speak Dari as main language + rest that speak it as second language)
1,000,000 in Pakistan (according to Ethnologue)
3,535,000 (Total estimate of Iranian diaspora in US, Turkey, UAE, Iraq, Germany, UK, Canada, France, India, Australia, Syria, Russia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel)
1,181,452 (Tajiks in Uzbekistan)
5,723,641 + 1,439,865 (1st + 2nd language speakers in Tajikestan according to CIA)
Native Total = 58,100,856
Non Native Total = 52,726,009
Grand Total = 110,826,865

hence 19 is correct, in fact it is an underestimate because Ethnologue does mention Oman and Qatar as harboring Persian speakers, which I havent counted above.--Zereshk 08:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The main issue is the number of native speakers. We have to include ethnologue as one of the sources, which estimates around 39.3 million native speakers of Persian. CIA and ethnologue both must be included. In any case, the statistics are not precise since mother tongue is not included in official census in Iran. Iranian diaspora figures can not be added to the list since being Iranian does not necessarily mean being a native speaker of Persian (they may be native Azeri speakers,etc.). Include both estimates to make the page Neutral.Heja Helweda 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zereshk. Ethnologue's estimate is now 10 years old. It is not reliable anymore. The estimates are significantly smaller than recent sources in 2005. -- Gorbeh 18:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the estimates have been made in 1997 (9 years old). The point is that ethnologue is an important source for language classification (dialects, etc.) and it is used in many other language pages. Whenever including data from ethnologue, the source should be mentioned. The readers themselves check out the links and figure out the dates. Heja Helweda 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree. When we have two estimates one from 2005 and one from (1996 and 1997) we should go for the recent one, particularly for a country (Iran) with such a high population growth rate. The reader will be misleaded. The reader will think there are two different estimates at the same time due to some errors. CIA estimate is a very reliable source. there is no nead to confuse the readers by offering an old estimate evenif it is from a famous source. --Gorbeh18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the estimates have been made in 1997 (9 years old). Iran's population in 1997 was about 60 million [16], and in 2005, around 68 million[17]. So native Persian speakers in 1997 were 22 million out of 60 million population (according to Ethnlogue of course). The total increase in population during this 9-10 years has been 8 million. If we break down that number among different language groups, the current estimate should be something around 25-26 million. It should be mentioned that According to Ethnologue, in 1997, there were 22 million native speakers of Persian in Iran, out of 60 million population. Heja Helweda 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry. but again I have to respectfully disagree. Population changes are nonlinear phenomena and very complicated. Your calculation is based on two things: 1. It is not nonlinear. 2. The growth rate for all ethnic groups are the same. Non of these assumptions are trivial (if not wrong). If population changes were linear, nobody would bother to go and count people country wide every ten years! About the date of estimate: 1996 if for afghanistan and 1997 is for Iran. --Gorbeh 19:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no official census on the number of native speakers of various languages in Iran, any figure would be at best an estimate. it is better to include all existing estimates, like CIA estiamte and Ethnologue's estimate.Heja Helweda 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides the reasons offered by Zereshk, We have very good reason to decide on one of these two estimates. There are two estimate one 10 years old and one new. Why going for the old ?!! (Unless one insist on underestimating the numbers intentionally!!) If ethnologue never updates it estimate, should one include it for ever ?!! Please notice NPOV. --Gorbeh 19:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The data from CIA World Factbook is also included.
Total 58,413,352. Although there is no reliable estimate on the number of native speakers in diaspora, an estimate around two million seems reasonable, using sources like Joshua Project[18].Heja Helweda 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not like how this argument is turning out. Ethnologue is not perfect, and it gets many things wrong, but so does the CIA World Factbook. A nine-year-old estimate is valid, because it can be extrapolated. Extrapolating the Ethnologue data shows that there is a significant divergence between the figures. It is important that we get the right figure. Therefore, the thing to do is to go back to the sources and see where they come from and what they're counting. Ethnologue has not updated its estimate because it beleives that the old one is still a reliable guide; you can see such a stance taken across Ethnologue, as often old data is deemed better than if it was collected more reliably than the newer data. I would like to see those who would like one or other figure included to show their 'working out' here. By that I mean, we need to see source and calculations. Without that information here, we cannot include or exclude either figure. --Gareth Hughes 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Since CIA data and ethnologue are both estimates, both of them should be included. However since CIA data is recent, it should come first. Heja Helweda 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Garzo. I agree with the errors in estimates. But: 1. a 10 year old estimate is valid only for countries with stable and very low growth rate. Not for a country like Iran that doubled its population in 20 years despite 8 years of war ! 2. I would be glad to see your reference for the following: Ethnologue has not updated its estimate because it beleives that the old one is still a reliable guide;. You might be right. But we need a citation. 3. As I said before due to temporal changes in growth rate, various growth rate for different ethnics, bulk migrations and different death rates, population dynamics in Iran is nonlinear and extrapolation is meaningless. A more recent data is more reliable due to this effect. I am still in my position: Etholouge data is unreliable for this case. Thanks. -- Gorbeh20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand that extrapolating the Ethnologue estimate for population growth still leads to a considerably lower figure. I would like us to look at how we are arriving at the figures we have. For example, if we are adding together information about different dialects, we might be counting thousands of people twice. There is a lot of difficulty with Persian in deciding what is counted where. Giving a number in the article is not very scientific. We have to be able to say where the figures come from and how we've interpretted them. Ethnologue gives a lot of strange information, but it does concentrate on languages, unlike the CIA. Also, it updates every year, and all available information for major languages is considered. I beleive that such a disparity deserves an audit. We may actually see why the figures are different then. Unless there is good reason, I beleive that Ethnologue's estimates should stay in the article until considered consensus is reached. --Gareth Hughes 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There is another good reason to go for CIA fact book: This is now the source for almost all pages throughout wikipedia: Wikipedia:Status of the porting of the CIA World Factbook. It is very natural to go for this recent estimate that is also used throughout this encyclopedia. Hopefully Iran will release a new estimate this year and it will probably be helpful (at least partially). Aside form our discussion I've found Ethnologue's classification and definition of Persian language very strange and confusing. I doubt they have enough expertise in undestranding dialects of Persian language. I myself studied Persian language for a long time. I doubt Academy of Persian language accepts Ethnologue's approach. By this classification I am not persian! I am Caspian ! and so I am not native in Persian! But I am sure that my mother tongue is Persian, the same Persian of Ethnologue's Persians!! I have never spoke anyother language, believe me! Caspians are native in Persian. Persian is not our second language.(Ethnologue estimated population of Caspians to be more than 6.5 milion. 6.5 milion like me! Aren't we native speaker ?!) Ethnologue's estimate is definitely an awful underestimate. This is not a reliable source at least for the case of Iran. --Gorbeh 21:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. User:Gorbeh is right. People of Mazandaran and Gilan are native in Persian language. Most of them can not at all speak their local dialects. -- Zeelkey 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Another source for Persian

Number of native speakers of Persian according to a more recent source (with higher numbers than Ethnologue), with breakdown of different dialects:

  • Total: 48,399,321.

Heja Helweda 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to add people of Gilan and Mazandaran and Lorestan to this statistics. Almost all of them are native speaker of Persian language (Persian as their mother tongue). Any statistics ? --Zeelkey22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Gilani and Mazandarani are different languages than Persian. For an academic source on this see Bilingualism in Mazandaran: Peaceful Coexistence With Persian, according to which, Mazandarani is mutually unintelligible with respect to Persian (page 66). Heja Helweda 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
They have already been counted in the estimate. You are in effect subtracting them out twice. Who do you think the 2% in the CIA estimate is referring to? Not to mention that your claim of complete separateness of the languages is not exactly true. Even Ethnologue says Gilaki is "highly influenced by Farsi". And the Iranian cultural heritage organization calls it a "gooyesh", rather than a "zaban".--Zereshk 09:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Gilaki has been under Persian influence, but it has a different grammar, so it cannot be a gooyesh(Dialect) as you like to call it. BTW Ethnologue considers Gilaki and Mazandarani as distinct languages than Persian, not dialects. Dialects of Persian are given here:[19] Ketabi, Tehrani, Shirazi, Old Shirazi, Qazvini, Mahalhamadani, Kashani, Esfahani, Sedehi, Kermani, Araki, Shirazjahromi, Shahrudi Kazeruni, Mashadi (Meshed), Basseri, Yazdi, Bandari. For differences in Gilaki and Persian Grammar: Unlike Persian, most possessives and adjectives precede the head noun, similar to English[20] (Encyclopaedia Iranica).Heja Helweda 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I didnot make any claims. I just cited an academic reference. That's all.Heja Helweda 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zereshk.Besides, We have to notice that ethnicity of a person does not say anything about their mother tongue. Evenif you prove that Mazandarani (and so on) is a separate ethnic group or the dialect is a separate language, you can not prove that the people's mother tongue is Mazandarani. I am Mazandarani and both my parents are too. My parents are able to speak the local dialect. But this is their second language. Their native language is Persian. I am also able to understand the dialect, but I never spoke it. Both my parents and I and all my relatives are native in Persian, the standard language of the country. People of Mazandaran are native speakers of Persian language. Mazandarani is our second dialect (language). -- Gorbeh09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to provide neutral academic sources for your claims, as I did. BTW, the author of the paper that I provided is herself from a Mazandarani background. Heja Helweda 22:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The CIA/Ethnologue is academic. You cannot deny that Heja.--Zereshk 02:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be wary of attaching the label academic to either source. Both are world almanacs, and, as such, are better at the broad brush approach. As Ethnologue is specifically a register of the world's languages, whereas CIA is more political, I would generally consider its linguistic information of a higher quality. However, neither are specific enough to be taken as an academic answer to the questions we're asking of them. --Gareth Hughes 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If CIA is academic then why the population estimate from CIA isnot included in the article? The data from CIA World Factbook:
Iran 58% 39,450,359 (out of 68,017,860 (2005 es.)) [21]
Afghanistan 50% 14,964,493 (out of 29,928,987 (July 2005 est.))[22]
Tajikistan 79.9% 5,723,641 (out of 7,163,506 ) [23]
Uzbekistan 4.4% 1,181,452 (out of 26,851,195 ) [24]
Qatar 10% (Iranians) ~86,305 (out of 863,051 )[25]
Total 61,406,250.
This is no where near 70 million claimed.
Heja Helweda 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's because these 6-7 countries that you mentioned arent the only places with Persian speakers.--Zereshk 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Development History

I am finding out that the "History" section is very inaccurate and sort of unneccessary. Let me start with the former:

"Old Persian, the main language of the Achaemenid inscriptions, should not be confused with the non-Indo-European Elamite language (see Behistun inscription). Over this period, the morphology of the language was simplified from the complex conjugation and declension system of Old Persian to the almost completely regularized morphology and rigid syntax of Modern Persian, in a manner often described as paralleling the development of English. " (emphesis is mine)

Over which "period"? The previous sentence is refering to the Achaemenid times. As far as the evidence of the language goes, the Achaemenid Old Persian was still a very inflected language, with three grammatical genders, eight noun cases, five verb classes, and three conjugations. See R. Kent's "Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon" for this.

The loss of the gender system and the simplification of the noun declensions to two cases belongs to the next period of the language. Basically, after the fall of the Achaemenids, (Old) Persian in a sense "went underground" and did not re-surface until the Sasanian times (224-650 AD). By the time the first texts in (Middle) Persian appear again (Inscription of Shahpur I in Ka'abe Zartosht, Res Gestae Divi Saporis), the language had morphed into the Middle Persian form, written in its "Pahlavi" (south-western) dialect. The final loss of the inflection system does not occure until Classical New Persian (ca. 900 on) is commited into writing.

Now, for the usefulness of this "History" section. Why do we even need it? A simple mention that New Persian is a descendent of Middle Persian is enough. Anyone interested in the older stages should look at the related articles. Here, we need to discuss the development of New Persian, from its first appearance in the late 9th century to the present, with mentions of literary and linguistic changes. --Khodadad 08:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentence structure

What convention is employed in the semantic diagram under Grammar? A link to an article explaining that convention would be excellent. Otherwise, the notation should be "unpacked".

Collingsworth 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to follow a convention common in introductory linguistics textbooks and simple phrase structure grammars, as well as Mahootian's (1997) famous grammar of Persian [26]. So "(S) (PP) (O) V" would mean an optional subject, optional prepositional phrase, optional object, and required verb --- in that order. I'll see if I can "unpack" that for those unfamiliar with this notation. --jonsafari 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Kos (Persian)

Someone knowledgeable in the Persian language should take a look at Kos (Persian). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 20:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Development of Iranian languages and Persian

The data about the historical development of Modern Persian and Arabic influence was based on the following article Iranian languages from Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is 18 pages and you can find the links for all pages here:

  1. Page 1/18.
  2. Page 2/18.
  3. Page 3/18.
  4. Page 4/18.
  5. Page 5/18
  6. Page 6/18
  7. Page 7/18.
  8. Page 8/18.
  9. Page 9/18.
  10. Page 10/18.
  11. Page 11/18.
  12. Page 12/18.
  13. Page 13/18 (about vocabulary ---> 40-50 percent figure is found here).
  14. Page 14/18.
  15. Page 15/18.
  16. Page 16/18.
  17. Page 17/18.
  18. Page 18/18.

Heja Helweda 01:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)