This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This link should be deleted because the account has been suspended. http://ili.ir/ 4.249.63.100 ( talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
What would be the correct English translation of Bazargan's 1956 book: ترموديناميك انسان? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Would it be possible to create a new, separate article about the whole Persian-vs-Farsi mess? This should extend beyond the language itself and also cover the subtext of why so many people seem to get their panties in a twist about this; I gather that the Islamic Republic prefers "Farsi" while the exiles prefer "Persian"... Jpatokal ( talk) 09:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
http://payvand.com/news/05/dec/1063.html Thanks. Shayan7 ( talk) --Shayan7 09:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
sorry about the change, but it is necessary . I'm the amateur nastaliq calligrapher the previous image: farsi.svg was in Pakistani nastaliq style not Iranian style. so i dare to change that with the Iranian style that is more appropriate.-- Mohamadriazi ( talk) 12:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to include no basic information on writing system! I've heard that Persian is written from right to left, although Persian people write mathematics from left to right. I've also heard that negativity of a number is also shown by a minus sign to the left, although the number is still written in Eastern Arabic numerals.
But how true are these? Any citations? Fleet Command ( talk) 01:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The article as it is has the following
The fact that almost all current native speakers of the language do understand ancient texts of the Persian language and the grammatical differences of the ancient language are acquainted by today's speakers simply by reading and memorising those ancient texts gives a special status to the Persian language as a whole.
This is quite simply absurd. There are plenty of languages where modern speakers can understand ancient texts relatively easily, depending on what you mean by "ancient." But since New Persian cannot with any reason be said to date more than a century or two earlier than the turn of the 1st millennium, you could just as easily replace the word "persian" in the above sentence with Arabic, Hebrew, Koine Greek or Icelandic- with Spanish, Italian, Dutch and several other languages no more than a century or so behind.
It's true that Persian speakers tend to stress the mutual intelligibility of Classical and Modern persian more so than most others. But, really, who cares? There are a great many sources, particularly for Arabic, Icelandic and Hebrew, which discuss the mutual intelligibility of the modern standard languages and the "classical" predecessors. Hell, even the Wiki articles on these languages say as much. So I'm deleting it. Szfski ( talk) 11:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"Persian is the second-most used language in the blogosphere." I find that claim highly doubtful. Even the source cited doesn't say exactly who calculated this number. I'm not sure which language is first, but I'd say English is one of the most used languages, definitely larger than Persian. If you now look at China, where QQ/Qzone (Chinese chat/blogging service) have hundreds of millions of users, this alone surpasses the number of speakers of Persian. I will remove the statement until a more reliable source is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.94.97 ( talk) 09:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
To me this is largely unheard of inside and outside Iran. Most Persian-speakers of Iran aren't even aware of the fact that the original ethnonymic name for their language was actually "Parsi"/"Parsee". Tajiks for the most part either refer to it as Tajiki ("Tojiki" as transliterated from Cyrillic) or "Tojiki Farsee". Afghans refer to it under a multitude names depending on the geographic region, i.e. Dari, Harzagi, Herati, Aimaq, Darwazi, etc... "Farsi" in Afghanistan is used to specifically in reference to the dialectally-differing version spoken in Iran.
I think it's important to make a distinction between current usage and proper usage. The historic and undoubtedly correct term for the language is "Parsi" (derived from the Sassanid-era term "Parsik" or "Parsig", which morphed into "Parsi" after the Arab conquests for a brief period of time before the Arabs adopted a stricter policy of Islamization; also sometimes erroneously referred to as "Pahlavi", which is not appropriate for the spoken language but rather the writing system).
However, the majority of speakers, official governing bodies and institutions all rule that "Farsi" is the modern, self-designative name for the language (the majority also support "Persian" being used abroad).
I think this should be stressed much more heavily, as it is very confusing for such a prestigious and widely spoken language to be referred to under two names within the opening sentence, particularly when the Persian vs. Farsi debate is invoked instantaneously when discussing the correct nomenclature for the language, which only further mystifies the average reader. Farsi, Parsi, Persian, Dari, Tajik, etc... the list of sobriquets goes on and on.
It should simply be stated in the introduction that "Parsi" is the ancient, historical term for Middle & New Persian, that was in wide usage prior to the Arab Conquests, but which has now largely fallen out of use and the Arabic-derived "Farsi" is the predominant self-designative name. Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Bo Utas and Lars Johanson Modern Persian is not the continuation of Middle Persian and is very distinct from it (loss of declensions and cases...) and is the result of the symbiosis between Arab and Iranians in Khorassan and especially the Balkh (area to an extent that it's said that Balkh is the motherland of the modern Persian language) resulting in a new language with most of its vocabulary Arabic, vernacular Arabic and other Semitic as well as Morphologic,Literary and Grammatical influences from Arabic besides Persian became being written in the Nabatean script of the Arabic alphabet (before that middle Persian too was written in the Arabic alphabet but in its Arabaic/Aramaic version)
Please include this to the article and thanks for your works
Humanbyrace ( talk) 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson2006.pdf
Last page Bo Utas "a multiethnic origin of new Persian"
Humanbyrace ( talk) 11:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Not true! An Arab can understand 90% of ancient Arabic (Ugaritic) of 2000 bc and around 75-80% of proto Arabic (Akkadian...) of 6000 bc but a Persian can not understand much of Dari let alone middle Persian let alone Old Persian!!!
Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's be so live in your dream world of wishful thinking and avoid reality WHY? because you are absurdely ethnicist puricist anti arab seeking a pure origin and developement of Persian where all the proofs are against that=>Persian get alphabet from Akkadians then Arameans then Arabs and did absorb huge amount of Semitic words even the word for milk shir from khshira is originally Semitic from akkadian kishru=milk and generally speaking around 75-80% of new persian vocabulary is Semitic origin
Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Gernot Windfuhr, while accepting that "Evolution of Persian traces back to the Achaamenids whose offical language was Old and then the Sassanids, whose particular language was Middle, also remaks that none of the various known Middle Persian dialects is the direct predecessor of New Persian. Note the key word here is "Dialects" of Middle Persian, not Middle Persian language itself which gave away many dialects, one of them being New Persian. So he is not denying the relationship.
He clearly states
“ | The evolution of Persian as the culturally dominant language of eastern Near East, from Iran to Central Asia to northwest India until recent centuries, began with the political domination of these areas by dynasties originating in southwestern province of Iran, Pars, later Arabicised to Fars: first the Achaemenids (599-331 BC) whose official language was Old Persian; then the Sassanids (c. AD 225-651) whose official language was Middle Persian. Hence, the entire country used to be called Perse by the ancient Greeks, a practice continued to this day. The more general designation 'Iran(-shahr)" derives
from Old Iranian aryanam (Khshathra)'(the realm) of Aryans'. The dominance of these two dynasties resulted in Old and Middle-Persian colonies throughout the empire, most importantly for the course of the development of Persian, in the north-east i.e., what is now Khorasan, northern Afghanistan and Central Asia, as documented by the Middle Persian texts of the Manichean found in the oasis city of Turfan in Chinese Turkistan (Sinkiang). This led to certain degree of regionalisation. |
” |
.
[2]. So he is not stating that modern Persian is not a continuation of Middle Persian. Rather, he is stating that the varities of Middle Persian dialects that are known, none of them are the "direct" ancestor of modern Persian. So that is two different things. It also does not belong to the WP:LEAD as it is not about the evolution of the language, but rather Middle Persian texts that have come down in a variety of Middle Persian dialects. So what Windfuhr states is nothing new..New Persian is one of the dialects of Middle Persian, but none of the currently attested Middle Persian dialects. However, he is clear new Persian is an evolution of Old and Middle Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
He is stating that new Persian is an evolution of Old and Middle Persian, but also stating that New Persian is not a direct continuation of an attested and currently known Middle Persian dialect'. However, when we consider Middle Persian, we encompass its totality, not just all of its currently known dialects. That is we consider Middle Persian language rather than the attested known dialects of it. These are two very different statements. The same can be said of Middle Persian itself which might not be direct continuation of an attest Old Persian dialect. So there is no contradiction. However, for the WP:LEAD of the article, what is important is the evolution of the language, rather than attest dialects of its Middle Persian form. That portion about Middle Persian attestations is moved into the appropriate section. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Also Britannica is a teriatary source(unknown author), but it states: "Of the modern Iranian languages, by far the most widely spoken is Persian, which, as already indicated, developed from Middle Persian and Parthian (with elements from other Iranian languages such as Sogdian) as early as the 9th century ad" [3]. So one doesn't use Britannica 2002 when 2010 is available. Also the issue is not about the statement of Windfuhr, but rather the lead of the article. Windfuhr agrees that new Persian is an evolution of Middle Persian. That is what is important for the lead. The issue of dialects of Middle Persian should be discussed here: [4]. The lead has been stable and crsip for a while. You need a concensus or feedback at least to change the lead. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Your statement: "Either move whole of the sentence or let the two arguments stand close to each other", is not correct. Because for the lead, as the Windfuhr article's lead shows, it is evolution of the language that is important. The fact that according to Windfuhr, no known attestation of Middle Persian dialects are direct ancestors of modern Persian is not relavent to the lead because that is not about the evolution of the language itself, but a curious fact for the section of Middle Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Recorded Middle Persian dialects are few of the many Middle Persian dialects which are all part of the Middle Persian language. Modern Persian too is a continuation of one or some of its dialect per Windfuhr, however those dialects are not attested. That is the statement of Windfuhr. Britannica(2010) is also the source to use not 2002,. And no Iranica is considered secondary source, since its authors are well known Professors with academic backgrounds. It is specialist source for the area infact unlike general Britannica. Yarshater also is was a Full Professor. Anyhow, Britannica is clear. The reviews of Iranica by variety of Professors are well known. However, Britannica usually does not have an author for its article. As per modern Persian, it is continuation of Middle Persian but according to one source (Windfuhr) not a recorded one. That needs to be put in the Middle Persian section, since changing the lead of the article should be done with some discussion as well as the fact that putting the two statements. One does not put "According to Windfuhr, " in the lead. Overall, Windfuhr agrees that new Persian is an evolution of Middle Persian. The attestation of Middle PErsian or Old Persian dialect can go under the evolution section. Just like wwe do not quote Windfuhrs long agreement that new Persian is an evolution of Middle/Old Persian, one does not quote him in the lead for evidence of Middle Persian. I would read Wikipedia policy on lead as well as Battle. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is not about politics and I suggest if you are involved in it, do not edit articles in history. Modern linguists consider Modern Persian to an evolution and continuation of Middle Persian language. The recorded samples of Middle Persian according to Windfuhr is are not direct anecstors of modern Persian, which is fine. But he still states it is continuation and evolution of Middle Persian. Nothing will be censored but these two facts are very different statement. The first fact belongs to the lead since it is general evolution of the language. The second fact: "According to Windfuhr.." belongs to the section on Middle Persian where the dialects of it can be discussed as well. So you need to provide justification for inclusion in the lead, and you need to show "it is very important reality" that it belongs to the lead. I believe Middle Persian language belongs to the lead, not recorded Middle Persian dialects. In order to change the lead, you need to get a concensus here as the lead has been stable for a long time. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay but in terms of notability, what seems important is general Linguistic classification for the lead. Think "Language" (with many dialects) and not just few dialects. How the different dialects of Middle Persian continue to new Persian are details that are not yet agreed upon: "Research on the traditional phase from Middle Persian to modern Persian..has progressed little" (Windfuhr) [5] and does not belong to the lead. Windfuhr states some texts are hard to classify between either a Middle or new Persian(same source before). However, Windfuhr like all the rest affirms a phase from Middle Persian to modern Persian and that is clear by simply looking at Middle Persian dialects. Here I'll just quote Harvard Professor http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldPersian/opcomplete.pdf] "Old Persian and Middle Persian are the ancestors of New Persian ". That is a general statement agreed upon for linguists and belongs to the lead (evolution of the language). The individual dialects of Middle Persian, Modern persian and Old persian (just one dialect) belong to their own separate sections. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Farsi redirects to this article, and is a term in the English language for the subject of the article (OED etc), which remains in frequent use in English language sources, for example by the BBC and Newsweek in the last month. It should therefore be mentioned and bolded in the lead sentence in the normal way. This is very straightforward. That the term is not the preferred one and disliked by many Persians is beside the point. At present the term as an English word is not even bolded when it first appears in the next section, which is clearly against the MOS. This is basic stuff, but my addition or "or Farsi" has twice been reverted by User:Xashaiar, the second time referring to a policy on not bolding the foreign translations, which is clearly well beside the point. This is a clear breach of policies for POV reasons. Johnbod ( talk) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, you made your opinion clear and mine is: I reject having Farsi as bold because the term does have several meanings ( disamb) and "Farsi is not a synonym for Persian" and by wiki policies we are not forced to make it bold. Lets see what other editors have to say, if they do not reject, do what you want with this article. Xashaiar ( talk) 15:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So what script did the Persians use between the times of Artaxerxes III with his Cuneiform, and the introduction of the Arabic alphabet? I see only these two mentioned, and they are separated by 8 centuries. Rwflammang ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
What irks me about the current state of this article is how many times totally divergent and often historically unrelated names are used to refer to the Persian language, interchangeably, when in fact different names often refer to different dialects or have different historical connotations attached to them.
To quote the article:
"The Persian language, whose native names are پارسی pārsi, Dari or pārsi-ye-Dari (Dari Persian),"
(While these are all native names for Persian (in differing geographical areas), you can't lump Parsi and Dari together as they do not refer to the same dialectal form. In modern usage, Dari is an exclusively Afghan designation, and while Afghans are native speakers of a form of the Persian language, they are not speakers of the specific, standardized dialect of Persian that this article explicitly governs. Which is precisely why there separate articles concerning the Dari dialect.)
... the above quote is then seemingly contradicted by:
"Native Iranian Persian speakers call it Fârsi.[17] Fârsi is the arabicized form of Pârsi, due to a lack of the 'p' phoneme in Standard Arabic."
(This should be in the lead paragraph)
... and made even more unclear by:
* Dari (from دربار /dærbɒr/ "court") is the local official name in Afghanistan, since 1964[14][15] * Farsi (فارسی —transliteration: Fârsi) is the local name of the language in Iran, and is sometimes used in English when referring to the language there
* Tajiki (тоҷикӣ in the Cyrillic Tajik alphabet) is the local name in Central Asia, especially in Tajikistan
All of this is just utterly redundant and confusing.
Firstly, most of these purported "native names" are totally unheard of inside and outside Iran. Most Persian-speakers of Iran aren't even aware of the fact that the original ethnonymic name for their language was actually Parsi/Parsee. Tajiks for the most part either refer to it as Tajiki (or "Tojiki" as transliterated from Cyrillic) or Tojiki Farsee. Afghans refer to it under a multitude of names depending on the geographic region, i.e. Dari, Hazaragi, Herati, Aimaq, Darwazi, etc... as the term "Farsi" in Afghanistan is used to specifically in reference to the dialectally-differing version spoken in Iran.
I think it's important to make a distinction between current usage and proper usage. The historic and undoubtedly correct term for the language is "Parsi" (derived from the Sassanid-era term "Parsik" or "Parsig", which morphed into "Parsi" after the Arab conquests for a brief period of time before the Umayyad Caliphate and Abbasid Caliphate adopted a stricter policy of Arabization/Islamization; it is also sometimes erroneously referred to as "Pahlavi", which is not appropriate for the spoken language but rather the writing system).
However, in the modern world, the majority of speakers, official governing bodies and institutions all rule that "Farsi" is the modern, self-designative name for the language (the majority also support "Persian" being used abroad rather than "Farsi").
I think this should be stressed much more heavily, as it is very confusing for such a historical, prestigious and widely spoken language to be referred to by a plethora of names within the opening paragraphs, particularly when the whole "Persian Vs. Farsi" debate is invoked instantaneously when discussing the correct nomenclature for the language, which only further mystifies the average reader. Farsi, Parsi, Persian, Dari, Tajik, etc... the list of aliases goes on and on.
It should simply be stated in the introduction that "Parsi" is the ancient, historical term for Middle & New Persian, that was in widespread usage prior to the Arab Conquests, but which has now largely fallen out of use and the Arabic-derived "Farsi" is the predominant, self-designative name.
Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I stopped by here to find some general wiki-ish background on the language(s) of Persia historically and the surrounding regions more recently. That's all, just some general information. I'm an experienced wiki-editor and user, though not in this area at all, but even I was grievously annoyed. Who calls what language what? How about some references, citations, and sources for all of it? I really don't want to read your opinions, I really don't. Just who says what about the subject. Nice and simple. At the moment I'd give this article a minus 2 on a scale of 0 to 10. For example, in the lead paragraph alone, there's enough weasel-wording to sink a ship: "sometimes used in English"; "classified by most linguists"; "widely spoken"; "many contemporary European languages". What does any of THAT mean? For example, does the United Nations use one term or another for these languages, and why? If there are nationalist arguments about such issues, cite the parties, by name and source, and EXPLAIN what the issues are. Once again, these are the comments of a real-live user of Wikipedia -- I want solid information, well-sourced and complete. Timothy Perper ( talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
At present, there is a section "New Persian", which contains an empty section "Early New Persian" and a section "Classic Persian". The section "Classic Persian" seems to treat the history of Persian right after the Islamic conquest, which marks the end of the Middle Persian period, basically (though Middle Persian is still written after the arrival of Islam, and can be called Late Middle Persian). My understanding is that the term "Classic Persian" is essentially synonymous with "Early New Persian", but the term "Classic Persian" doesn't seem to have much currency. If anything, it would have to be "Classical Persian", anyway (the article is itself inconsistent there), and I wonder where this "Classic Persian" term comes from. The more logical, and only current term in the literature, as far as I'm aware, is "Early New/Modern Persian". The article claims a difference between Early New(/Modern) and Classic(al) (New/Modern) Persian but doesn't explain what it is, and it cannot be recovered from the text, either. So the separate "Early New Persian" section seems to be redundant because it is entirely unclear what it is supposed to be for, and I propose to delete it and change the title of the section "Classic Persian" to "Early New Persian" or "Early Modern Persian".
I'll explain what I've learned about the history of Modern Persian. The relationship between Middle and Modern Persian is a bit complicated, and unexpected. Modern Persian essentially started out as the dialect of Late Middle Persian that was spoken in the cities of Central Asia, especially the Sogdiana area. (That is, the area along and north of the Oxus or Amu-Darya, plus Samarkand and the Ferghana Valley.) This area and Central Asia in general was conquered by the Muslims later than Persia proper, and was home to a great diversity of languages, scripts and religions, linked through the Silk Road. (Therefore, Central Asia also served as a refuge for pre-Islamic Persian and general Iranian culture.) Originally, the most widespread language and lingua franca of the region was Sogdian, though Persian had an increasing influence in the region, and there are important texts in Middle Persian which have come down upon us from Central Asia, texts which are important especially because they are written in other scripts than the default Pahlavi, scripts which give us a better understanding of Middle Persian phonology. Few people realise that Middle Persian, Modern Persian, Sogdian, Saka, Tocharian, Turkic and Arabic (and if I remember correctly, even Tibetan and Chinese) were all spoken and written side by side in Central Asia in the 7th and 8th centuries, and were written in various scripts, so that while certain scripts were primarily associated with a specific language, there was a lot of crossover. (Somewhere, I've got a table which shows which languages are attested in which scripts.) It is this heterogeneous, colourful environment in which we find the earliest samples of what can be called Early Modern Persian, in the 8th century. However, Middle Persian texts were still being written (and not only copied) in the 9th century (more precisely in the period from the 8th to 10th centuries). (In fact, what has come down to us of literary Middle Persian is chiefly from the post-conquest area. The pre-conquest corpus consists mainly of inscriptions.)
Basically, therefore, Early Modern Persian is Late Middle Persian – specifically the dialect of the Sogdiana, which was also influenced by Sogdian (which it eventually supplanted, evidenced by a couple of lexical borrowings) – written in Arabic script, and containing lexical borrowings from Arabic, both of which features serve to mark Early Modern Persian as Modern Persian. (Turkic and, from a later period, Mongolian lexical borrowings are also found in Modern Persian.) The linguistic differences (apart from the borrowings from Arabic and various other languages) between Late Middle and Early Modern Persian (which – to emphasise this point – were written at the same time and even in the same region) are actually fairly minor, the main difference is that Middle Persian is associated with Zoroastrianism and pre-Islamic culture, while Modern Persian reflects the influence of Islam and Arabic. The article correctly points out that the Shahnameh of ca. 1000 AD, while written in Early Modern Persian, is strongly influenced by pre-Islamic traditions, including pre-Islamic Persian, so viewing it as a bridge between the Middle and Modern Persian periods is not quite unjustified. Significantly, it was written just at the time when the influence of Zoroastrianism was in great decline and giving way to Islamic culture everywhere in Greater Iran but in a few refuges. (It is unclear to which extent Western Iranian dialects in Iran, some of them spoken by Zoroastrian communities, continue Middle Persian dialects. Persian and Northwestern Iranian have strongly converged, thanks to mutual influences throughout their history. Persian has been influenced by the Northwestern Iranian Median and Parthian, and by the Eastern Iranian Avestan and Sogdian, so modern Northwestern and Southwestern dialects are frustratingly difficult to tease apart.)
While the earliest samples of Early Modern Persian are from the 8th and 9th centuries, the new written language only really gets its start in the 10th century, under the Samanids, as they are the first to develop a new self-awareness as Iranian after several centuries of the dominance of Arabic, and dare write in their native language again, now in the new script, and which a liberal sprinkling of Arabic borrowings. Significantly, the Samanids were based in Central Asia, where the influence of the Arabs was more tenuous, and as already emphasised, Central Asia, rather than Persia, is the cradle of the Modern Persian language, in contrast to Middle Persian.
It's difficult to tell when this new, Arabicised, Early Modern Persian standard spread back to the Persian motherlands, but likely it wasn't before 1000, which is when the Islamisation of Persia began in earnest. Presumably, it was the first half of the second millennium BC when spoken Modern Persian gradually began to develop several variants, each characterised most strikingly by a distinctive development of the vowels. The western variant merged the long non-low vowels, the so-called majhūl and ma‘rūf vowels (and lowered the short high vowels), the eastern variants kept them separate, although the northeastern variant merged the long and short high vowels and the southeastern variant lowered the short high vowels like the western variant, see Persian phonology#Historical shifts. The western variant subsequently developped into the spoken dialects of what is now Iran, while the northeastern variant developped into the Tajik and the southeastern variant into the Afghan Persian dialects. (Recall that Tajik is also spoken in cities outside Tajikistan, mainly in Uzbekistan.) The Dari written standard seems to have retained the name of the Early Modern written language because the Afghan Persian dialects on which it is based preserve the Early Modern Persian vowel system essentially intact, and are conservative in other respects, as well (although the conservativity of the written language might be to some extent artificial and exceed the conservativity of the genuine, traditional spoken dialects). (Note that geographically, the Tajik group coincides with the origin of the Modern Persian language, not the Afghan Persian group.) Summing up, we have three Persian dialect groups, western, northeastern and southeastern Persian, and three written standards, of which the Iranian Persian (Farsi) standard is based on the western group, the Tajik standard on the northeastern group, and the Dari standard on the southeastern, Afghan Persian group.
The delimitation of Early Modern and Modern Persian (in the sense of Contemporary Persian) does not coincide with the split, which only concerned the spoken language and was not reflected in writing, and which certainly preceded the transition of Early Modern to Modern. The period where Persian was used as a cultured language in the Mughal Empire, i. e. as a second language, namely as the lingua franca of a large portion of Asia, and is connected with a new school of poetry, the "Indian style" of the 15th to 18th centuries (see also Indo-Persian culture), can be seen as heralding the advent of Modern Persian. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a particular edit or edits, it in incumbent on you to provide the diff/s of those particular edits here and fully articulate your reasoning. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 04:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Now that you're here. If you have a problem with a particular edit or edits of mine, provide the diff/s of the edit/s in question and fully articulate your reason for opposing them. When you have done so, I will discuss the edits in question. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 04:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Parsi-ye Dari is one of the formal historical name and it has been added from here: [6], other interesting info .."The former, as represented by literary Middle Persian, retained most its ancient form; the latter evolved from the same Persian language, which had spread throughout the north, but evinced the influence of the dialects that it had supplanted there, particularly Parthian." [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 04:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Lebanese 876 did over 75 edits to this article and make big changes to the last revision (please see her/his edits). Most of the edits are not reliable and reasonable. So I decided to revert all of edits and reverting the article to previous revision before her/his edits. But she/he undid my reverting several times and says something like this: "I did a lot of works". It's her/his reason to undoing my reverting. Please compare last revision by 876's edits. I think reverting is necessary. I want users and administrators to judge about this to prevent (further) edit wars. Thanks. Gazaneh ( talk) 04:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a number of small edits. I spent several hours doing so. These were blanket reverted on a whim by User:Gazaneh. I asked him (both on his talk page and on this talk page) to provide the diff/s of the particular edits he has a problem with and articulate a reasoning for his opposition of them, but he is too lazy to do so. I warned him that failing to articulate a rationale for a mass-reversion is vandalism, he ignored me. I have now reported him for vandalism. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
To Lebanese: If you want to help/improve article, please start by current revision. Please do small edits or section specific ones. Me and other users will review your edits. If reliable, will be accepted. If not, will be reverted/undone. Nobody wants a version history page full of edit wars or huge amount of reverting/undoing things. Gazaneh ( talk) 06:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. I compare both revisions. Some good edits done by Lebanese (article improvements). But 4 sections must reviewed and certified by other users and reviewers:
1. Writing system (infobox) ==> Changed from Persian alphabet (primary name) to Perso-Arabic (alternative name). It's obvious that current Persian alphabet is an Arabic alphabet variant. But the name is Persian alphabet. Like many other alphabets it has its own name. Turkish alphabet, English alphabet, and many other alphabets are Latin variants. But the name of each alphabet is specific and unique. for example Urdu alphabet is a variant of both Arabic and Persian alphabets with its own unique letters. But nobody call it "Urdu-Perso-Arabic". See the other alphabet articles. The main name is Persian alphabet and this section must wikified (Perso-Arabic must replaced with Persian alphabet). This section must changed to previous revision.
2. Varieties: All of your changes must have reliable sources/references. You changed Persian to Western Persian, Dari Persian to Eastern Persian and unchanged Tajiki. These names must have reliable sources and references must mentioned. Also the previous revision must not changed. Because It's reliable enough. The name for this dialects/accents are obvious: Persian/Iranian Persian, Dari/Dari Persian/Afghan Persian, and Tajiki/Tajik Persian. If your sources are reliable (must reviewed by other users), You can mention them. But do not delete other information. Only well-sourced edits are acceptable by Wikipedians.
3. Dialects ==> Like Varieties.
4. Country list ==> Must discussed why you removed countries like United States. Country list need to be cleaned to represent good information. I saw your reasons and addition in the infobox. This article must wikified like other Wikipedia's articles about languages and dialects. If other language articles use same scheme. Your edits are reasonable, In the other hand, changes must reverted.
Other edits (your edits) are good enough (improvements). We need other users' collaboration. Gazaneh ( talk) 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding #1, fine, I agree with your point, it can be Persian alphabet.
Regarding #2, these are the names linguists use, taken straight from ethnologue. [8] In fact they use the names Western Farsi and Eastern Farsi, would you prefer to use those? [9]
Regarding #3, the dialects are those cited on ethnologue. [10] I fixed the section. Before it had accents, subdialects, and dialects mixed up. I just matched it with ethnologue.
Regarding #4, I removed diaspora countries. Persian is not native to the United States. There are Persians in probably every country around the world, are we to list every country where some Persians live? I think it's better to list native countries. Now some of them such as UAE, Qatar, I am not sure whether they are diaspora or whether some Persians have always lived there. See the Kurdish language article, it has the countries where Kurdish is native to, and below them it has a link to an article for countries by Kurdish-speaking population – this is ideal. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
All the linguistics knows that Dari (Eastern Persian), Farsi, Tajiki are the same language but different names and as every languages there are different dialects in each one ( such as English and other languages). I invite you to discuss about Merging these 3 languages in one with all the names we all called it and name each ones as a dialect with a separated page. So, in first step, I propose that Dari (Eastern Persian) be merged into Persian language with its name as Dari enlisted on the introduction info on this page. P. Pajouhesh ( talk) 09:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The Parsi-ye Dari used historically is a wide encompassing term, and it is the term "Dari" which was adopted by the Afghanistan government. Parsi-ye Dari is one of the formal historical name and it has been added from here: [11], other interesting info .."The former, as represented by literary Middle Persian, retained most its ancient form; the latter evolved from the same Persian language, which had spread throughout the north, but evinced the influence of the dialects that it had supplanted there, particularly Parthian." [12]
Please re-add what I added to the article. The Full name is Parsi-ye Dari in Persian literature but most of the time, it is shortened to Parsi and sometimes to "Dari". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 11:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Darī was contrasted to Pahlavi, sometimes when the latter term designated literary Middle Persian, as in the Zarātošt-nāma (p. 2) and the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, VIII, p. 254), and sometimes when it referred to Medo-Parthian dialects, as in Masʿūdī (p. 78) and probably also in the Šāh-nāma (I, p. 44, in connection with the word bīvar “ten thousand”). It was sometimes also distinguished from pārsī. Moqaddesī (p. 259) mentioned darī as one of the Iranian dialects “that together are known as parsī.” A century later Keykāvūs b. Eskandar (in ca. 475/1082-83; p. 208) advised letter writers to avoid the use of “pure pārsī” (pārsī-e moṭlaq), that is, free of Arabic words, “for it is displeasing, especially pārsī-edarī, which is not usual,” implying the existence of other kinds of pārsī. Darī thus seems to have been a variety of pārsī, as is confirmed by the expression pārsī-e darī (Ar. al-fārsīya al-dārīya) frequently found in early text. The variant pārsī o darī, which also occurs in Persian manuscripts (e.g., Šāh-nāma VIII, p. 254), is a distortion, as Parvīz Ḵānlarī correctly noted (p. 273).
See the intro.. it is an alternative name : "DARĪ, name given to the New Persian literary language at a very early date and widely attested in Arabic" and "Darī thus seems to have been a variety of pārsī, as is confirmed by the expression pārsī-e darī (Ar. al-fārsīya al-dārīya) frequently found in early text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Both varieties and dialects require good work to get this article (or other Persian related articles) stabilized. To help improving content, both linguistic classifications (names) and main/native names mentioned. Specially classifications require reliable linguistic researches and books. Thanks. Gazaneh ( talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I reported this ip address. See article version history for more information. Gazaneh ( talk) 05:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Persian inscript-nast- farsi-khat e fasi nast..jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
Why do Pakistani people come here and insist on inventing a Pakistani connection to all things Iranian and Persian on wikipedia? Pakistanis have no connection to Persian whatsoever. The only people to speak Persian in Pakistan are refugees from Afghanistan and the small Hazara community of Balochistan, who also originate from central Afghanistan. Pakistanis cannot wash off their subcontinental identity by vandalzing Iranian pages on wikipedia. Inserting links to "Pakistan" in Iranian / Persian pages is not just factually incorrect but is laughable too, if not disgusting as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.190.8 ( talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
calm down no body is going to die did you actually bother to write all of that get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.244.195 ( talk) 19:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Urdu in Persian (Pārsi) means camp and " Urdu" language was the language of the camp. When Nader Shah invaded India he set up his camp in modern day Pakistan, here the Hindi speaking Indians and the Pārsi ( Persian) speaking Iranians (Persians) mingled together and a third language Urdu was born. It is bridge between the two branches of Indo Iranian languages. Today, Urdu has a lot of Arabic words in it.
So it "IS" laughable when Pakistanis claim everything for themselves.
Are you Persian (Iranian)? Class Avesta ( talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This phrase in the classification section in not same as the source: "The first poems of the Persian Language, a language historically called Dari, have emerged in Afghanistan."
Source says: "Afghan scholars claim that Dari was the language of Khorasan in which some of the oldest Persian poetry was written". [14]
Khorasan/Ancient Khorasan/Greater Khorasan is a historical region of Greater Persia mentioned in sources from Sassanid and is the medieval name of northern Afghanistan, including also parts of today's Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and eastern Iran. The current three provinces of Khorasan in Iran, refers to that area. So we should use Khorasan instead of Afghanistan. Because it's correct and mentioned in the source. It's not Afghanistan.
Then I edit this phrase and section. Also, I think this section has nothing with classification. I will move it to the New Persian/Modern Persian history section. Tochari ( talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_alphabet has a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripts_used_for_Persian which redirects to a now non-existant 'Orthography' section of this page. Is there a more appropriate page for this? It should be a page which covers the various scripts used to write Persian. What happened to that section anyway? Tweisbach ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why are editors removing Farsi from the intro sentence? The only reason given has been that Farsi is not an English word. That's not true, since Farsi is in the Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries that are cited in the article. Or does being in a dictionary not establish a word as being in a language?
And why put Farsi in a parenthesis separate from the one that contains the Persian translation and its pronunciation? It's bad punctuation to have two parentheses right next to each other. It's better to have it outside of a parenthesis, or perhaps before the Persian in the next parenthesis, with a semicolon after it. But whatever. That's my obsessive attention to detail. Never mind. — Eru· tuon 04:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"Farsi" clearly belongs as an alt name. You could even make a reasonable case for moving the article to that name. — kwami ( talk) 07:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Some people just decide to add "Farsi" to the intro as an alternative to Persian. Each one of them has their personal opinion (one says "it is the name for the language that I heard first"). However, none of people advocating this seem to be experts in this in any sense but still very persistent at a subject that have little idea about. If you are big proponent of term Farsi (and are knowledgeable enough), why don't you create its own page instead of messing with this one which is was adequately complete and comprehensive. The body of article adequately addresses the word Farsi usage in English. Apart from inaccuracies this has brought about, one being Persian language encompassing just more than Persian spoken in Iran which Iranians refer to as Farsi (as also adequately explained in the body of the article), it has messed the article flow and might need rewriting. For example, with Farsi in intro, the whole first sentence is wrong now: "Persian or Farsi[4] (فارسی [fɒːɾˈsiː]) is an Iranian language within the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages." Please look up "Iranian language" article and you see that Farsi is not mentioned there as an Iranian language. It's simply not on the tree. Persian is but not Farsi. Maybe if you would have written "Persian also refereed to as Farsi by some" in that sentence, it would have been less erroneous. My point here is you can not just add a new term to the article intro as you please because you feel like it is a common name for it. If you want to better incorporate Farsi into the article you might have to rewrite some parts or better as I mentioned add its own topic.
Also, I can see someone has also changed "Parsi" in Nomenclature section to "Farsi" without touching the Persian version of it: (پارسی[18] — translit.: pārsi ). Obviously, because they are not knowledgeable enough to even read what the Persian says. No fault taken with that (not everyone can read Persian), point just being stop modifying these if you do not have the expertise to do it right. It destroys the integrity of the article.
Further, I am disappointed at administrators here to allow these and then protect the article without undoing the changes. I thought when there is edit warring, it is suppose to be reverted to the most stable version before all started until changes are approved on consensus or expert input. This article was stable for longest before this new war over adding Farsi to the intro sentence started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 ( talk) 23:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
216.31.211.11 ( talk) 23:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
. Thanks. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Just an FYI - on the American's NPR (national public radio) program this afternoon, an Afghan was startled to hear "Farsi" spoken in England when he visited London, referring to it as "my language." Sept. 25, 2012 - again, just heard it and decided to post here . . . HammerFilmFan ( talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This link should be deleted because the account has been suspended. http://ili.ir/ 4.249.63.100 ( talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
What would be the correct English translation of Bazargan's 1956 book: ترموديناميك انسان? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Would it be possible to create a new, separate article about the whole Persian-vs-Farsi mess? This should extend beyond the language itself and also cover the subtext of why so many people seem to get their panties in a twist about this; I gather that the Islamic Republic prefers "Farsi" while the exiles prefer "Persian"... Jpatokal ( talk) 09:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
http://payvand.com/news/05/dec/1063.html Thanks. Shayan7 ( talk) --Shayan7 09:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
sorry about the change, but it is necessary . I'm the amateur nastaliq calligrapher the previous image: farsi.svg was in Pakistani nastaliq style not Iranian style. so i dare to change that with the Iranian style that is more appropriate.-- Mohamadriazi ( talk) 12:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to include no basic information on writing system! I've heard that Persian is written from right to left, although Persian people write mathematics from left to right. I've also heard that negativity of a number is also shown by a minus sign to the left, although the number is still written in Eastern Arabic numerals.
But how true are these? Any citations? Fleet Command ( talk) 01:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The article as it is has the following
The fact that almost all current native speakers of the language do understand ancient texts of the Persian language and the grammatical differences of the ancient language are acquainted by today's speakers simply by reading and memorising those ancient texts gives a special status to the Persian language as a whole.
This is quite simply absurd. There are plenty of languages where modern speakers can understand ancient texts relatively easily, depending on what you mean by "ancient." But since New Persian cannot with any reason be said to date more than a century or two earlier than the turn of the 1st millennium, you could just as easily replace the word "persian" in the above sentence with Arabic, Hebrew, Koine Greek or Icelandic- with Spanish, Italian, Dutch and several other languages no more than a century or so behind.
It's true that Persian speakers tend to stress the mutual intelligibility of Classical and Modern persian more so than most others. But, really, who cares? There are a great many sources, particularly for Arabic, Icelandic and Hebrew, which discuss the mutual intelligibility of the modern standard languages and the "classical" predecessors. Hell, even the Wiki articles on these languages say as much. So I'm deleting it. Szfski ( talk) 11:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"Persian is the second-most used language in the blogosphere." I find that claim highly doubtful. Even the source cited doesn't say exactly who calculated this number. I'm not sure which language is first, but I'd say English is one of the most used languages, definitely larger than Persian. If you now look at China, where QQ/Qzone (Chinese chat/blogging service) have hundreds of millions of users, this alone surpasses the number of speakers of Persian. I will remove the statement until a more reliable source is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.94.97 ( talk) 09:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
To me this is largely unheard of inside and outside Iran. Most Persian-speakers of Iran aren't even aware of the fact that the original ethnonymic name for their language was actually "Parsi"/"Parsee". Tajiks for the most part either refer to it as Tajiki ("Tojiki" as transliterated from Cyrillic) or "Tojiki Farsee". Afghans refer to it under a multitude names depending on the geographic region, i.e. Dari, Harzagi, Herati, Aimaq, Darwazi, etc... "Farsi" in Afghanistan is used to specifically in reference to the dialectally-differing version spoken in Iran.
I think it's important to make a distinction between current usage and proper usage. The historic and undoubtedly correct term for the language is "Parsi" (derived from the Sassanid-era term "Parsik" or "Parsig", which morphed into "Parsi" after the Arab conquests for a brief period of time before the Arabs adopted a stricter policy of Islamization; also sometimes erroneously referred to as "Pahlavi", which is not appropriate for the spoken language but rather the writing system).
However, the majority of speakers, official governing bodies and institutions all rule that "Farsi" is the modern, self-designative name for the language (the majority also support "Persian" being used abroad).
I think this should be stressed much more heavily, as it is very confusing for such a prestigious and widely spoken language to be referred to under two names within the opening sentence, particularly when the Persian vs. Farsi debate is invoked instantaneously when discussing the correct nomenclature for the language, which only further mystifies the average reader. Farsi, Parsi, Persian, Dari, Tajik, etc... the list of sobriquets goes on and on.
It should simply be stated in the introduction that "Parsi" is the ancient, historical term for Middle & New Persian, that was in wide usage prior to the Arab Conquests, but which has now largely fallen out of use and the Arabic-derived "Farsi" is the predominant self-designative name. Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Bo Utas and Lars Johanson Modern Persian is not the continuation of Middle Persian and is very distinct from it (loss of declensions and cases...) and is the result of the symbiosis between Arab and Iranians in Khorassan and especially the Balkh (area to an extent that it's said that Balkh is the motherland of the modern Persian language) resulting in a new language with most of its vocabulary Arabic, vernacular Arabic and other Semitic as well as Morphologic,Literary and Grammatical influences from Arabic besides Persian became being written in the Nabatean script of the Arabic alphabet (before that middle Persian too was written in the Arabic alphabet but in its Arabaic/Aramaic version)
Please include this to the article and thanks for your works
Humanbyrace ( talk) 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson2006.pdf
Last page Bo Utas "a multiethnic origin of new Persian"
Humanbyrace ( talk) 11:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Not true! An Arab can understand 90% of ancient Arabic (Ugaritic) of 2000 bc and around 75-80% of proto Arabic (Akkadian...) of 6000 bc but a Persian can not understand much of Dari let alone middle Persian let alone Old Persian!!!
Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's be so live in your dream world of wishful thinking and avoid reality WHY? because you are absurdely ethnicist puricist anti arab seeking a pure origin and developement of Persian where all the proofs are against that=>Persian get alphabet from Akkadians then Arameans then Arabs and did absorb huge amount of Semitic words even the word for milk shir from khshira is originally Semitic from akkadian kishru=milk and generally speaking around 75-80% of new persian vocabulary is Semitic origin
Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Gernot Windfuhr, while accepting that "Evolution of Persian traces back to the Achaamenids whose offical language was Old and then the Sassanids, whose particular language was Middle, also remaks that none of the various known Middle Persian dialects is the direct predecessor of New Persian. Note the key word here is "Dialects" of Middle Persian, not Middle Persian language itself which gave away many dialects, one of them being New Persian. So he is not denying the relationship.
He clearly states
“ | The evolution of Persian as the culturally dominant language of eastern Near East, from Iran to Central Asia to northwest India until recent centuries, began with the political domination of these areas by dynasties originating in southwestern province of Iran, Pars, later Arabicised to Fars: first the Achaemenids (599-331 BC) whose official language was Old Persian; then the Sassanids (c. AD 225-651) whose official language was Middle Persian. Hence, the entire country used to be called Perse by the ancient Greeks, a practice continued to this day. The more general designation 'Iran(-shahr)" derives
from Old Iranian aryanam (Khshathra)'(the realm) of Aryans'. The dominance of these two dynasties resulted in Old and Middle-Persian colonies throughout the empire, most importantly for the course of the development of Persian, in the north-east i.e., what is now Khorasan, northern Afghanistan and Central Asia, as documented by the Middle Persian texts of the Manichean found in the oasis city of Turfan in Chinese Turkistan (Sinkiang). This led to certain degree of regionalisation. |
” |
.
[2]. So he is not stating that modern Persian is not a continuation of Middle Persian. Rather, he is stating that the varities of Middle Persian dialects that are known, none of them are the "direct" ancestor of modern Persian. So that is two different things. It also does not belong to the WP:LEAD as it is not about the evolution of the language, but rather Middle Persian texts that have come down in a variety of Middle Persian dialects. So what Windfuhr states is nothing new..New Persian is one of the dialects of Middle Persian, but none of the currently attested Middle Persian dialects. However, he is clear new Persian is an evolution of Old and Middle Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
He is stating that new Persian is an evolution of Old and Middle Persian, but also stating that New Persian is not a direct continuation of an attested and currently known Middle Persian dialect'. However, when we consider Middle Persian, we encompass its totality, not just all of its currently known dialects. That is we consider Middle Persian language rather than the attested known dialects of it. These are two very different statements. The same can be said of Middle Persian itself which might not be direct continuation of an attest Old Persian dialect. So there is no contradiction. However, for the WP:LEAD of the article, what is important is the evolution of the language, rather than attest dialects of its Middle Persian form. That portion about Middle Persian attestations is moved into the appropriate section. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Also Britannica is a teriatary source(unknown author), but it states: "Of the modern Iranian languages, by far the most widely spoken is Persian, which, as already indicated, developed from Middle Persian and Parthian (with elements from other Iranian languages such as Sogdian) as early as the 9th century ad" [3]. So one doesn't use Britannica 2002 when 2010 is available. Also the issue is not about the statement of Windfuhr, but rather the lead of the article. Windfuhr agrees that new Persian is an evolution of Middle Persian. That is what is important for the lead. The issue of dialects of Middle Persian should be discussed here: [4]. The lead has been stable and crsip for a while. You need a concensus or feedback at least to change the lead. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Your statement: "Either move whole of the sentence or let the two arguments stand close to each other", is not correct. Because for the lead, as the Windfuhr article's lead shows, it is evolution of the language that is important. The fact that according to Windfuhr, no known attestation of Middle Persian dialects are direct ancestors of modern Persian is not relavent to the lead because that is not about the evolution of the language itself, but a curious fact for the section of Middle Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 19:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Recorded Middle Persian dialects are few of the many Middle Persian dialects which are all part of the Middle Persian language. Modern Persian too is a continuation of one or some of its dialect per Windfuhr, however those dialects are not attested. That is the statement of Windfuhr. Britannica(2010) is also the source to use not 2002,. And no Iranica is considered secondary source, since its authors are well known Professors with academic backgrounds. It is specialist source for the area infact unlike general Britannica. Yarshater also is was a Full Professor. Anyhow, Britannica is clear. The reviews of Iranica by variety of Professors are well known. However, Britannica usually does not have an author for its article. As per modern Persian, it is continuation of Middle Persian but according to one source (Windfuhr) not a recorded one. That needs to be put in the Middle Persian section, since changing the lead of the article should be done with some discussion as well as the fact that putting the two statements. One does not put "According to Windfuhr, " in the lead. Overall, Windfuhr agrees that new Persian is an evolution of Middle Persian. The attestation of Middle PErsian or Old Persian dialect can go under the evolution section. Just like wwe do not quote Windfuhrs long agreement that new Persian is an evolution of Middle/Old Persian, one does not quote him in the lead for evidence of Middle Persian. I would read Wikipedia policy on lead as well as Battle. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is not about politics and I suggest if you are involved in it, do not edit articles in history. Modern linguists consider Modern Persian to an evolution and continuation of Middle Persian language. The recorded samples of Middle Persian according to Windfuhr is are not direct anecstors of modern Persian, which is fine. But he still states it is continuation and evolution of Middle Persian. Nothing will be censored but these two facts are very different statement. The first fact belongs to the lead since it is general evolution of the language. The second fact: "According to Windfuhr.." belongs to the section on Middle Persian where the dialects of it can be discussed as well. So you need to provide justification for inclusion in the lead, and you need to show "it is very important reality" that it belongs to the lead. I believe Middle Persian language belongs to the lead, not recorded Middle Persian dialects. In order to change the lead, you need to get a concensus here as the lead has been stable for a long time. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay but in terms of notability, what seems important is general Linguistic classification for the lead. Think "Language" (with many dialects) and not just few dialects. How the different dialects of Middle Persian continue to new Persian are details that are not yet agreed upon: "Research on the traditional phase from Middle Persian to modern Persian..has progressed little" (Windfuhr) [5] and does not belong to the lead. Windfuhr states some texts are hard to classify between either a Middle or new Persian(same source before). However, Windfuhr like all the rest affirms a phase from Middle Persian to modern Persian and that is clear by simply looking at Middle Persian dialects. Here I'll just quote Harvard Professor http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldPersian/opcomplete.pdf] "Old Persian and Middle Persian are the ancestors of New Persian ". That is a general statement agreed upon for linguists and belongs to the lead (evolution of the language). The individual dialects of Middle Persian, Modern persian and Old persian (just one dialect) belong to their own separate sections. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Farsi redirects to this article, and is a term in the English language for the subject of the article (OED etc), which remains in frequent use in English language sources, for example by the BBC and Newsweek in the last month. It should therefore be mentioned and bolded in the lead sentence in the normal way. This is very straightforward. That the term is not the preferred one and disliked by many Persians is beside the point. At present the term as an English word is not even bolded when it first appears in the next section, which is clearly against the MOS. This is basic stuff, but my addition or "or Farsi" has twice been reverted by User:Xashaiar, the second time referring to a policy on not bolding the foreign translations, which is clearly well beside the point. This is a clear breach of policies for POV reasons. Johnbod ( talk) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, you made your opinion clear and mine is: I reject having Farsi as bold because the term does have several meanings ( disamb) and "Farsi is not a synonym for Persian" and by wiki policies we are not forced to make it bold. Lets see what other editors have to say, if they do not reject, do what you want with this article. Xashaiar ( talk) 15:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So what script did the Persians use between the times of Artaxerxes III with his Cuneiform, and the introduction of the Arabic alphabet? I see only these two mentioned, and they are separated by 8 centuries. Rwflammang ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
What irks me about the current state of this article is how many times totally divergent and often historically unrelated names are used to refer to the Persian language, interchangeably, when in fact different names often refer to different dialects or have different historical connotations attached to them.
To quote the article:
"The Persian language, whose native names are پارسی pārsi, Dari or pārsi-ye-Dari (Dari Persian),"
(While these are all native names for Persian (in differing geographical areas), you can't lump Parsi and Dari together as they do not refer to the same dialectal form. In modern usage, Dari is an exclusively Afghan designation, and while Afghans are native speakers of a form of the Persian language, they are not speakers of the specific, standardized dialect of Persian that this article explicitly governs. Which is precisely why there separate articles concerning the Dari dialect.)
... the above quote is then seemingly contradicted by:
"Native Iranian Persian speakers call it Fârsi.[17] Fârsi is the arabicized form of Pârsi, due to a lack of the 'p' phoneme in Standard Arabic."
(This should be in the lead paragraph)
... and made even more unclear by:
* Dari (from دربار /dærbɒr/ "court") is the local official name in Afghanistan, since 1964[14][15] * Farsi (فارسی —transliteration: Fârsi) is the local name of the language in Iran, and is sometimes used in English when referring to the language there
* Tajiki (тоҷикӣ in the Cyrillic Tajik alphabet) is the local name in Central Asia, especially in Tajikistan
All of this is just utterly redundant and confusing.
Firstly, most of these purported "native names" are totally unheard of inside and outside Iran. Most Persian-speakers of Iran aren't even aware of the fact that the original ethnonymic name for their language was actually Parsi/Parsee. Tajiks for the most part either refer to it as Tajiki (or "Tojiki" as transliterated from Cyrillic) or Tojiki Farsee. Afghans refer to it under a multitude of names depending on the geographic region, i.e. Dari, Hazaragi, Herati, Aimaq, Darwazi, etc... as the term "Farsi" in Afghanistan is used to specifically in reference to the dialectally-differing version spoken in Iran.
I think it's important to make a distinction between current usage and proper usage. The historic and undoubtedly correct term for the language is "Parsi" (derived from the Sassanid-era term "Parsik" or "Parsig", which morphed into "Parsi" after the Arab conquests for a brief period of time before the Umayyad Caliphate and Abbasid Caliphate adopted a stricter policy of Arabization/Islamization; it is also sometimes erroneously referred to as "Pahlavi", which is not appropriate for the spoken language but rather the writing system).
However, in the modern world, the majority of speakers, official governing bodies and institutions all rule that "Farsi" is the modern, self-designative name for the language (the majority also support "Persian" being used abroad rather than "Farsi").
I think this should be stressed much more heavily, as it is very confusing for such a historical, prestigious and widely spoken language to be referred to by a plethora of names within the opening paragraphs, particularly when the whole "Persian Vs. Farsi" debate is invoked instantaneously when discussing the correct nomenclature for the language, which only further mystifies the average reader. Farsi, Parsi, Persian, Dari, Tajik, etc... the list of aliases goes on and on.
It should simply be stated in the introduction that "Parsi" is the ancient, historical term for Middle & New Persian, that was in widespread usage prior to the Arab Conquests, but which has now largely fallen out of use and the Arabic-derived "Farsi" is the predominant, self-designative name.
Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 08:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I stopped by here to find some general wiki-ish background on the language(s) of Persia historically and the surrounding regions more recently. That's all, just some general information. I'm an experienced wiki-editor and user, though not in this area at all, but even I was grievously annoyed. Who calls what language what? How about some references, citations, and sources for all of it? I really don't want to read your opinions, I really don't. Just who says what about the subject. Nice and simple. At the moment I'd give this article a minus 2 on a scale of 0 to 10. For example, in the lead paragraph alone, there's enough weasel-wording to sink a ship: "sometimes used in English"; "classified by most linguists"; "widely spoken"; "many contemporary European languages". What does any of THAT mean? For example, does the United Nations use one term or another for these languages, and why? If there are nationalist arguments about such issues, cite the parties, by name and source, and EXPLAIN what the issues are. Once again, these are the comments of a real-live user of Wikipedia -- I want solid information, well-sourced and complete. Timothy Perper ( talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
At present, there is a section "New Persian", which contains an empty section "Early New Persian" and a section "Classic Persian". The section "Classic Persian" seems to treat the history of Persian right after the Islamic conquest, which marks the end of the Middle Persian period, basically (though Middle Persian is still written after the arrival of Islam, and can be called Late Middle Persian). My understanding is that the term "Classic Persian" is essentially synonymous with "Early New Persian", but the term "Classic Persian" doesn't seem to have much currency. If anything, it would have to be "Classical Persian", anyway (the article is itself inconsistent there), and I wonder where this "Classic Persian" term comes from. The more logical, and only current term in the literature, as far as I'm aware, is "Early New/Modern Persian". The article claims a difference between Early New(/Modern) and Classic(al) (New/Modern) Persian but doesn't explain what it is, and it cannot be recovered from the text, either. So the separate "Early New Persian" section seems to be redundant because it is entirely unclear what it is supposed to be for, and I propose to delete it and change the title of the section "Classic Persian" to "Early New Persian" or "Early Modern Persian".
I'll explain what I've learned about the history of Modern Persian. The relationship between Middle and Modern Persian is a bit complicated, and unexpected. Modern Persian essentially started out as the dialect of Late Middle Persian that was spoken in the cities of Central Asia, especially the Sogdiana area. (That is, the area along and north of the Oxus or Amu-Darya, plus Samarkand and the Ferghana Valley.) This area and Central Asia in general was conquered by the Muslims later than Persia proper, and was home to a great diversity of languages, scripts and religions, linked through the Silk Road. (Therefore, Central Asia also served as a refuge for pre-Islamic Persian and general Iranian culture.) Originally, the most widespread language and lingua franca of the region was Sogdian, though Persian had an increasing influence in the region, and there are important texts in Middle Persian which have come down upon us from Central Asia, texts which are important especially because they are written in other scripts than the default Pahlavi, scripts which give us a better understanding of Middle Persian phonology. Few people realise that Middle Persian, Modern Persian, Sogdian, Saka, Tocharian, Turkic and Arabic (and if I remember correctly, even Tibetan and Chinese) were all spoken and written side by side in Central Asia in the 7th and 8th centuries, and were written in various scripts, so that while certain scripts were primarily associated with a specific language, there was a lot of crossover. (Somewhere, I've got a table which shows which languages are attested in which scripts.) It is this heterogeneous, colourful environment in which we find the earliest samples of what can be called Early Modern Persian, in the 8th century. However, Middle Persian texts were still being written (and not only copied) in the 9th century (more precisely in the period from the 8th to 10th centuries). (In fact, what has come down to us of literary Middle Persian is chiefly from the post-conquest area. The pre-conquest corpus consists mainly of inscriptions.)
Basically, therefore, Early Modern Persian is Late Middle Persian – specifically the dialect of the Sogdiana, which was also influenced by Sogdian (which it eventually supplanted, evidenced by a couple of lexical borrowings) – written in Arabic script, and containing lexical borrowings from Arabic, both of which features serve to mark Early Modern Persian as Modern Persian. (Turkic and, from a later period, Mongolian lexical borrowings are also found in Modern Persian.) The linguistic differences (apart from the borrowings from Arabic and various other languages) between Late Middle and Early Modern Persian (which – to emphasise this point – were written at the same time and even in the same region) are actually fairly minor, the main difference is that Middle Persian is associated with Zoroastrianism and pre-Islamic culture, while Modern Persian reflects the influence of Islam and Arabic. The article correctly points out that the Shahnameh of ca. 1000 AD, while written in Early Modern Persian, is strongly influenced by pre-Islamic traditions, including pre-Islamic Persian, so viewing it as a bridge between the Middle and Modern Persian periods is not quite unjustified. Significantly, it was written just at the time when the influence of Zoroastrianism was in great decline and giving way to Islamic culture everywhere in Greater Iran but in a few refuges. (It is unclear to which extent Western Iranian dialects in Iran, some of them spoken by Zoroastrian communities, continue Middle Persian dialects. Persian and Northwestern Iranian have strongly converged, thanks to mutual influences throughout their history. Persian has been influenced by the Northwestern Iranian Median and Parthian, and by the Eastern Iranian Avestan and Sogdian, so modern Northwestern and Southwestern dialects are frustratingly difficult to tease apart.)
While the earliest samples of Early Modern Persian are from the 8th and 9th centuries, the new written language only really gets its start in the 10th century, under the Samanids, as they are the first to develop a new self-awareness as Iranian after several centuries of the dominance of Arabic, and dare write in their native language again, now in the new script, and which a liberal sprinkling of Arabic borrowings. Significantly, the Samanids were based in Central Asia, where the influence of the Arabs was more tenuous, and as already emphasised, Central Asia, rather than Persia, is the cradle of the Modern Persian language, in contrast to Middle Persian.
It's difficult to tell when this new, Arabicised, Early Modern Persian standard spread back to the Persian motherlands, but likely it wasn't before 1000, which is when the Islamisation of Persia began in earnest. Presumably, it was the first half of the second millennium BC when spoken Modern Persian gradually began to develop several variants, each characterised most strikingly by a distinctive development of the vowels. The western variant merged the long non-low vowels, the so-called majhūl and ma‘rūf vowels (and lowered the short high vowels), the eastern variants kept them separate, although the northeastern variant merged the long and short high vowels and the southeastern variant lowered the short high vowels like the western variant, see Persian phonology#Historical shifts. The western variant subsequently developped into the spoken dialects of what is now Iran, while the northeastern variant developped into the Tajik and the southeastern variant into the Afghan Persian dialects. (Recall that Tajik is also spoken in cities outside Tajikistan, mainly in Uzbekistan.) The Dari written standard seems to have retained the name of the Early Modern written language because the Afghan Persian dialects on which it is based preserve the Early Modern Persian vowel system essentially intact, and are conservative in other respects, as well (although the conservativity of the written language might be to some extent artificial and exceed the conservativity of the genuine, traditional spoken dialects). (Note that geographically, the Tajik group coincides with the origin of the Modern Persian language, not the Afghan Persian group.) Summing up, we have three Persian dialect groups, western, northeastern and southeastern Persian, and three written standards, of which the Iranian Persian (Farsi) standard is based on the western group, the Tajik standard on the northeastern group, and the Dari standard on the southeastern, Afghan Persian group.
The delimitation of Early Modern and Modern Persian (in the sense of Contemporary Persian) does not coincide with the split, which only concerned the spoken language and was not reflected in writing, and which certainly preceded the transition of Early Modern to Modern. The period where Persian was used as a cultured language in the Mughal Empire, i. e. as a second language, namely as the lingua franca of a large portion of Asia, and is connected with a new school of poetry, the "Indian style" of the 15th to 18th centuries (see also Indo-Persian culture), can be seen as heralding the advent of Modern Persian. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a particular edit or edits, it in incumbent on you to provide the diff/s of those particular edits here and fully articulate your reasoning. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 04:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Now that you're here. If you have a problem with a particular edit or edits of mine, provide the diff/s of the edit/s in question and fully articulate your reason for opposing them. When you have done so, I will discuss the edits in question. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 04:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Parsi-ye Dari is one of the formal historical name and it has been added from here: [6], other interesting info .."The former, as represented by literary Middle Persian, retained most its ancient form; the latter evolved from the same Persian language, which had spread throughout the north, but evinced the influence of the dialects that it had supplanted there, particularly Parthian." [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 04:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Lebanese 876 did over 75 edits to this article and make big changes to the last revision (please see her/his edits). Most of the edits are not reliable and reasonable. So I decided to revert all of edits and reverting the article to previous revision before her/his edits. But she/he undid my reverting several times and says something like this: "I did a lot of works". It's her/his reason to undoing my reverting. Please compare last revision by 876's edits. I think reverting is necessary. I want users and administrators to judge about this to prevent (further) edit wars. Thanks. Gazaneh ( talk) 04:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a number of small edits. I spent several hours doing so. These were blanket reverted on a whim by User:Gazaneh. I asked him (both on his talk page and on this talk page) to provide the diff/s of the particular edits he has a problem with and articulate a reasoning for his opposition of them, but he is too lazy to do so. I warned him that failing to articulate a rationale for a mass-reversion is vandalism, he ignored me. I have now reported him for vandalism. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
To Lebanese: If you want to help/improve article, please start by current revision. Please do small edits or section specific ones. Me and other users will review your edits. If reliable, will be accepted. If not, will be reverted/undone. Nobody wants a version history page full of edit wars or huge amount of reverting/undoing things. Gazaneh ( talk) 06:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. I compare both revisions. Some good edits done by Lebanese (article improvements). But 4 sections must reviewed and certified by other users and reviewers:
1. Writing system (infobox) ==> Changed from Persian alphabet (primary name) to Perso-Arabic (alternative name). It's obvious that current Persian alphabet is an Arabic alphabet variant. But the name is Persian alphabet. Like many other alphabets it has its own name. Turkish alphabet, English alphabet, and many other alphabets are Latin variants. But the name of each alphabet is specific and unique. for example Urdu alphabet is a variant of both Arabic and Persian alphabets with its own unique letters. But nobody call it "Urdu-Perso-Arabic". See the other alphabet articles. The main name is Persian alphabet and this section must wikified (Perso-Arabic must replaced with Persian alphabet). This section must changed to previous revision.
2. Varieties: All of your changes must have reliable sources/references. You changed Persian to Western Persian, Dari Persian to Eastern Persian and unchanged Tajiki. These names must have reliable sources and references must mentioned. Also the previous revision must not changed. Because It's reliable enough. The name for this dialects/accents are obvious: Persian/Iranian Persian, Dari/Dari Persian/Afghan Persian, and Tajiki/Tajik Persian. If your sources are reliable (must reviewed by other users), You can mention them. But do not delete other information. Only well-sourced edits are acceptable by Wikipedians.
3. Dialects ==> Like Varieties.
4. Country list ==> Must discussed why you removed countries like United States. Country list need to be cleaned to represent good information. I saw your reasons and addition in the infobox. This article must wikified like other Wikipedia's articles about languages and dialects. If other language articles use same scheme. Your edits are reasonable, In the other hand, changes must reverted.
Other edits (your edits) are good enough (improvements). We need other users' collaboration. Gazaneh ( talk) 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding #1, fine, I agree with your point, it can be Persian alphabet.
Regarding #2, these are the names linguists use, taken straight from ethnologue. [8] In fact they use the names Western Farsi and Eastern Farsi, would you prefer to use those? [9]
Regarding #3, the dialects are those cited on ethnologue. [10] I fixed the section. Before it had accents, subdialects, and dialects mixed up. I just matched it with ethnologue.
Regarding #4, I removed diaspora countries. Persian is not native to the United States. There are Persians in probably every country around the world, are we to list every country where some Persians live? I think it's better to list native countries. Now some of them such as UAE, Qatar, I am not sure whether they are diaspora or whether some Persians have always lived there. See the Kurdish language article, it has the countries where Kurdish is native to, and below them it has a link to an article for countries by Kurdish-speaking population – this is ideal. Lebanese 876 ( talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
All the linguistics knows that Dari (Eastern Persian), Farsi, Tajiki are the same language but different names and as every languages there are different dialects in each one ( such as English and other languages). I invite you to discuss about Merging these 3 languages in one with all the names we all called it and name each ones as a dialect with a separated page. So, in first step, I propose that Dari (Eastern Persian) be merged into Persian language with its name as Dari enlisted on the introduction info on this page. P. Pajouhesh ( talk) 09:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The Parsi-ye Dari used historically is a wide encompassing term, and it is the term "Dari" which was adopted by the Afghanistan government. Parsi-ye Dari is one of the formal historical name and it has been added from here: [11], other interesting info .."The former, as represented by literary Middle Persian, retained most its ancient form; the latter evolved from the same Persian language, which had spread throughout the north, but evinced the influence of the dialects that it had supplanted there, particularly Parthian." [12]
Please re-add what I added to the article. The Full name is Parsi-ye Dari in Persian literature but most of the time, it is shortened to Parsi and sometimes to "Dari". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 11:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Darī was contrasted to Pahlavi, sometimes when the latter term designated literary Middle Persian, as in the Zarātošt-nāma (p. 2) and the Šāh-nāma (Moscow, VIII, p. 254), and sometimes when it referred to Medo-Parthian dialects, as in Masʿūdī (p. 78) and probably also in the Šāh-nāma (I, p. 44, in connection with the word bīvar “ten thousand”). It was sometimes also distinguished from pārsī. Moqaddesī (p. 259) mentioned darī as one of the Iranian dialects “that together are known as parsī.” A century later Keykāvūs b. Eskandar (in ca. 475/1082-83; p. 208) advised letter writers to avoid the use of “pure pārsī” (pārsī-e moṭlaq), that is, free of Arabic words, “for it is displeasing, especially pārsī-edarī, which is not usual,” implying the existence of other kinds of pārsī. Darī thus seems to have been a variety of pārsī, as is confirmed by the expression pārsī-e darī (Ar. al-fārsīya al-dārīya) frequently found in early text. The variant pārsī o darī, which also occurs in Persian manuscripts (e.g., Šāh-nāma VIII, p. 254), is a distortion, as Parvīz Ḵānlarī correctly noted (p. 273).
See the intro.. it is an alternative name : "DARĪ, name given to the New Persian literary language at a very early date and widely attested in Arabic" and "Darī thus seems to have been a variety of pārsī, as is confirmed by the expression pārsī-e darī (Ar. al-fārsīya al-dārīya) frequently found in early text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.222.120 ( talk) 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Both varieties and dialects require good work to get this article (or other Persian related articles) stabilized. To help improving content, both linguistic classifications (names) and main/native names mentioned. Specially classifications require reliable linguistic researches and books. Thanks. Gazaneh ( talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I reported this ip address. See article version history for more information. Gazaneh ( talk) 05:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Persian inscript-nast- farsi-khat e fasi nast..jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
Why do Pakistani people come here and insist on inventing a Pakistani connection to all things Iranian and Persian on wikipedia? Pakistanis have no connection to Persian whatsoever. The only people to speak Persian in Pakistan are refugees from Afghanistan and the small Hazara community of Balochistan, who also originate from central Afghanistan. Pakistanis cannot wash off their subcontinental identity by vandalzing Iranian pages on wikipedia. Inserting links to "Pakistan" in Iranian / Persian pages is not just factually incorrect but is laughable too, if not disgusting as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.190.8 ( talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
calm down no body is going to die did you actually bother to write all of that get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.244.195 ( talk) 19:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Urdu in Persian (Pārsi) means camp and " Urdu" language was the language of the camp. When Nader Shah invaded India he set up his camp in modern day Pakistan, here the Hindi speaking Indians and the Pārsi ( Persian) speaking Iranians (Persians) mingled together and a third language Urdu was born. It is bridge between the two branches of Indo Iranian languages. Today, Urdu has a lot of Arabic words in it.
So it "IS" laughable when Pakistanis claim everything for themselves.
Are you Persian (Iranian)? Class Avesta ( talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This phrase in the classification section in not same as the source: "The first poems of the Persian Language, a language historically called Dari, have emerged in Afghanistan."
Source says: "Afghan scholars claim that Dari was the language of Khorasan in which some of the oldest Persian poetry was written". [14]
Khorasan/Ancient Khorasan/Greater Khorasan is a historical region of Greater Persia mentioned in sources from Sassanid and is the medieval name of northern Afghanistan, including also parts of today's Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and eastern Iran. The current three provinces of Khorasan in Iran, refers to that area. So we should use Khorasan instead of Afghanistan. Because it's correct and mentioned in the source. It's not Afghanistan.
Then I edit this phrase and section. Also, I think this section has nothing with classification. I will move it to the New Persian/Modern Persian history section. Tochari ( talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_alphabet has a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripts_used_for_Persian which redirects to a now non-existant 'Orthography' section of this page. Is there a more appropriate page for this? It should be a page which covers the various scripts used to write Persian. What happened to that section anyway? Tweisbach ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why are editors removing Farsi from the intro sentence? The only reason given has been that Farsi is not an English word. That's not true, since Farsi is in the Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries that are cited in the article. Or does being in a dictionary not establish a word as being in a language?
And why put Farsi in a parenthesis separate from the one that contains the Persian translation and its pronunciation? It's bad punctuation to have two parentheses right next to each other. It's better to have it outside of a parenthesis, or perhaps before the Persian in the next parenthesis, with a semicolon after it. But whatever. That's my obsessive attention to detail. Never mind. — Eru· tuon 04:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
"Farsi" clearly belongs as an alt name. You could even make a reasonable case for moving the article to that name. — kwami ( talk) 07:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Some people just decide to add "Farsi" to the intro as an alternative to Persian. Each one of them has their personal opinion (one says "it is the name for the language that I heard first"). However, none of people advocating this seem to be experts in this in any sense but still very persistent at a subject that have little idea about. If you are big proponent of term Farsi (and are knowledgeable enough), why don't you create its own page instead of messing with this one which is was adequately complete and comprehensive. The body of article adequately addresses the word Farsi usage in English. Apart from inaccuracies this has brought about, one being Persian language encompassing just more than Persian spoken in Iran which Iranians refer to as Farsi (as also adequately explained in the body of the article), it has messed the article flow and might need rewriting. For example, with Farsi in intro, the whole first sentence is wrong now: "Persian or Farsi[4] (فارسی [fɒːɾˈsiː]) is an Iranian language within the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages." Please look up "Iranian language" article and you see that Farsi is not mentioned there as an Iranian language. It's simply not on the tree. Persian is but not Farsi. Maybe if you would have written "Persian also refereed to as Farsi by some" in that sentence, it would have been less erroneous. My point here is you can not just add a new term to the article intro as you please because you feel like it is a common name for it. If you want to better incorporate Farsi into the article you might have to rewrite some parts or better as I mentioned add its own topic.
Also, I can see someone has also changed "Parsi" in Nomenclature section to "Farsi" without touching the Persian version of it: (پارسی[18] — translit.: pārsi ). Obviously, because they are not knowledgeable enough to even read what the Persian says. No fault taken with that (not everyone can read Persian), point just being stop modifying these if you do not have the expertise to do it right. It destroys the integrity of the article.
Further, I am disappointed at administrators here to allow these and then protect the article without undoing the changes. I thought when there is edit warring, it is suppose to be reverted to the most stable version before all started until changes are approved on consensus or expert input. This article was stable for longest before this new war over adding Farsi to the intro sentence started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 ( talk) 23:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
216.31.211.11 ( talk) 23:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
. Thanks. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Just an FYI - on the American's NPR (national public radio) program this afternoon, an Afghan was startled to hear "Farsi" spoken in England when he visited London, referring to it as "my language." Sept. 25, 2012 - again, just heard it and decided to post here . . . HammerFilmFan ( talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)