Talk:Kurdish language

Template:Vital article

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

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

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

I am not a Kurdish speaker, but I have a couple of comments. You deleted the article's claim that Kurmanji (aka Kurmanci) and Sorani are as different as English and German, but you did not delete the following claims the article makes:

Sorani differs on six grammatical points from Kurmanji. This appears to be a result of Gorani (Haurami) influence.^{[citation needed ]}

1. The passive conjugation: the Sorani passive morpheme -r-/-ra - corresponds to -y-/-ya - in Gorani and Zaza, while Kurmanji employs the auxiliary hatin, come;
2. a definite suffix -eke, also occurring in Zazaki;
3. an intensifying postverb -ewe, corresponding to Kurmanji preverbal ve-;
4. an 'open compound' construction with a suffix -e, for definite noun phrases with anepithet;
5. the preservation of enclitic personal pronouns, which have disappeared in Kurmanji and in Zaza;
6. a simplified izafeh system.

Those claims are unreferenced, but do you deny them? The article makes the well-referenced claim that "Sorani has neither gender nor case-endings, whereas Kurmanji has both" -- a big difference. The cited source for that also says: "In Sorani pronomial enclitics play a crucial role in verbal constructions, while Kurmanji has no such enclitics." The fact that written Kurmanji is in a Roman alphabet while written Sorani is in a Persian alphabet creates an important further barrier between them in the modern world where so much language communication is in the written form. Seanwal111111 (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

The new clarifications added to that section of the article are welcome. It makes sense to compare it to English and German from a grammatical perspective, but the previous entry did not draw that distinction, and made no mention of the similar vocabulary and pronunciation, which might have mislead readers with regards to the extent of the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.156.86 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I know many Kurds and they cannot understand spoken Sorani. Even Wikipedia has two separate wikipedias: Kurdish wikipedia is entirely in Kurmanci and a separate Sorani wikipedia exists. I am not talking about the issue of Arabic and Latin script which is a different question. Why wikipedia recognizes this difference but English wikipedia calls them one language in this article, I do not know. We should move everything to a Kurmanci and Sorani article and leave here only the differences and linguistic things, changing the name to "Kurdish languages". That way we can include Zaza too. Plentoytime (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I am Kurmanji speaker and I can pretty much understand Sorani but not completely. As for GOrani and Zaza, I cannot understand these at all, actually at times I can pick up more what a Persian says then a Gorani/Zaza.--87.194.107.249 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

This sounds like an obvious step. It does not deny any similarities or closeness linguistically or culturally to acknowledge reality of the languages. Quoting passages from Kurmanci and Sorani Wikipedia may well be a good example case to demonstrate those Kurdish languages. Nobody tries to say Norwegian and Swedish are the same language, and there is more substantive differences here. This does not affect the Wiki pages for the "Kurdistan Region", it is just an issue of linguistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.235.152 (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's very misleading to say "kurmanji & sorani are as different as german & english is". This is true if you just compare technical grammatical aspects. Say you look at whether there is grammatical gender, different cases etc, then yes the statement is true. You might even say kurmanji & sorani are as differnet (grammatically) as kurmanji & english is. But these statements are very misleading. Let me define a new language called "Genglish", which is german with a few changes to make it grammatically similar to english:

• There is no gender, all nouns are "die" (feminine in German).
• No cases for nouns, slight simplification of grammar. Pronouns only have accusative & nominative case.
• Small changes to phonology. For example pronounce "W" like a round one in english rather than a hard "V" as is done in german.
• Maybe a few other changes too, like modify 20% of the vocabulary.

Now, the new language "Genglish" is grammatically similar to English. One could say that "Genglish is as different from German as English is". However, a German speaker will not be able to understand English without intensitve training. But even if he might find Genglish hard to understand, after very little training he will be able to understand most of it. This is the situation with Kurdish.

My native dialect is "southern kurdish" (feyli/kalhori), which is much more distant from kurmanji (northern kurdish) than sorani is (central kurdish). In the beginning I had a hard time understanding kurmanji, but after 1-2 hours of studying the differences & listening to TV programs I'm able to understand between 75-90% of any kurmanji TV show I see (depending on local kurmanji dialect & how many turkish words are used). On the other hand, I'm a danish citizen and do a PhD in Canada. Thus I speak danish and english at a native or near native level. Knowing both of these (especially danish for vocabulary) helps A LOT when learning german. I've been studying german intensively for months and only recently been able to read simple books & understand a bit of TV Show (Heute Show is my favorite).

Therefore clearly, southern kurdish (and thus definitely also Sorani) is MUCH closer to kurmanji than english & german are. Languages are complicated things and to take some basic binary notions like technical aspects of grammar to talk about "lingustic distance", is very misleading. 2607:FEA8:1D5F:FB98:BD55:D7E2:C10D:4E7E (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

I am a sorani speaker and i understand kurmanci almost completely, and I've never lived in a kurmanci speaking region or studied kurmanci Zageos21 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kurdish languages map.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Is both really needed? The one below seems to be a lot better and details. I propose we keep just the one. --TataofTata (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

I see some discussions about early kurdish texts but i never see the earlist text itself and date of it. Was is it kurmanji? I couldn't find a date for proto kurdish in academical papers in that matter. It is also missing in wiki page "List of languages by first written accounts". Can someone fill this gap without any nationalist non-sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.63.42 (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

I found info in cambridge history of kurds page 613. It says first proper kurdish text is 4 short lines in christian missionary prayer.ISBN 978-1-108-47335-4 I hope an editor would enter this important info in the article.i am copying from the book:

The first proper ‘text’ in Kurdish is a short four-line Christian missionary prayer, written in Armenian characters and found inside a larger manuscript in Armenian from the fifteenth century (held at the Collection of Matanadaran in Yerevan, no. 7117, fol. 144b –see Asatrian, 2009: 15). Th

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.38.157.239 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

• What I think should be changed:

History tab

• Why it should be changed:

History tab begins with highly controversal sources. Stating first attested kurdish texts is from 9 to 13th centuries. First attested kurdish text is from 14th century. It is four short lines from a prayer. First attested text iand its date is very important for all languages. History section needs to start with this info and controversal topics should follow it as an additional info if wont be removed at all. Please also refer to talk page.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

^[1]

p613: The first proper ‘text’ in Kurdish is a short four-line Christian missionary prayer, written in Armenian characters and found inside a larger manuscript in Armenian from the fifteenth century (held at the Collection of Matanadaran in Yerevan, no. 7117, fol. 144b –see Asatrian, 2009: 15). 109.38.157.239 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is clearly controversial. Should be resolved by talk page discussion. I'll note that the other source is also form a reputable publisher. Without context as to what each source is reporting, I'm not able to figure out whether this is a legitimate conflict between sources or if the two sources are reporting different things RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

First reference is to a so called Ibn-Waḥšīya book. If you check article of Ibn-Waḥšīya in wikipedia you can find that this book is falsified in later influence section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Wahshiyya

Second reference is to Yazidi Black Book whose authenticity is also questioned and mentioned in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi_Black_Book

First actual attested Kurdish that we can rely on is stated in Cambridge History of Kurds. 84.29.122.234 (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see any objections to the change request. Isn't consensus already achieved? 109.36.128.125 (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. @84.29.122.234, do not reopen this edit request as you did here without providing proper citations and gaining consensus for the changes you wish to make. Xan747 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

There is consensus on this change. What else do you expect? There is no objections at all. 2001:1C03:5800:8600:8DFF:C60D:7B71:CF7C (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Aland jakob (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Largoplazo (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Recently Kurdali (Palai) added to the article as a main subdivision of Kurdish. There is only one reference and the claim is based on a short footnote about Kurdali on the source page. One reference is not enough to add it as a main division of Kurdish. Actually, there are not many sources about this dialect, even the article was created recently. We can mention Kurdali, but I oppose listing it as a subdivision. Other credible sources are needed in order to add Kurdali to the list. (I call @Kwamikagami and Semsûrî:, and other users to this discussion) Serchia (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

If there's not a lot of information on Kordali, it could be merged into Southern Kurdish. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Is there some reason you believe that the Atlas of the Languages of Iran is not reliable? There are many obscure languages in the world. Obscurity doesn't mean they don't exist. — kwami (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

@Kwamikagami: I don't say it doesn't exist. We are talking here about the classification of the dialect. We can mention this dialect on this page, but not list it as a main subdivision, as there are not enough references, even Laki is not listed as a subdivision that may have more resources. Serchia (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, but do you have reason to believe that the Atlas is not reliable? — kwami (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

@Kwamikagami: I don't know about the whole atlas, but for this matter, as there is only one reference, I don't see it as a reliable source. I think at least we need three reliable references from good linguistic resources in order to mention it as a language. Kurdali is listed on Glottolog as a dilaect of Southern Kurdish, Glottolog is a more realible source and we should list Kurdali in this page as a dialect of Southern Kurdish, aslo in its main article. Serchia (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Glottolog is not a RS for dialects. They copied over LingList wholesale, and that was put together by students who probably knew less than you or I do. Many of the dialects are spurious, or are under the wrong languages. Glottolog has started its own research on dialects for the past few years -- you'll see that here and there -- but they've barely gotten started. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

@Kwamikagami:The claim from the Atlas is also based on the student papers. I find a table in this book (Nationalism, Language, and Muslim Exceptionalism), and Kordali is listed as a dialect of Southern Kurdish. Ethnologue also listed it as a dialect of Southern Kurdish. So, a better way here is to list it as a Southern Kurdish dialect, as there are more sources to prove that. Serchia (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

It's quite common for a 'dialect' of a language to prove to be distinct. When that happens, you can always find older sources that call it a dialect. The question is whether the source finding it a distinct language is reliable, not how many old sources you can tally that call it a dialect. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Yalda smailii (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

زبان کوردی یک گویش نیست!یک زبان مستقل است

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Although a couple of you made edits leading up to the war regarding the deletion of a map before it became a war, I'm pinging all of you here just in case: Ayıntaplı, Serchia, Semsûrî, Paradise Chronicle, see WP:Edit warring. Largoplazo (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah thanks. Well I explained my rationale in my edit summary before it became a war and have now added the original map. I hope this helps a bit. The coloring could be upgraded a bit, though but I do not know how this is done. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see this as something of great caution. Almost all edits had distinct reasons, and there was no deadlock due to disagreement. Semsûrî restored the original version of the map, which my main concern addressed. So, it was solved. There may be other aspects of the map that may be discussed, though. Ayıntaplı (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Semsûrî, What are the problems of the map that you think solved by revert to on older version? Serchia (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

You really can't see the issue here? Changing the map without a reliable reference is Wikipedia:OR. Semsûrî (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

If the current map (which is referenced) has issues, the map shouldn't be used either. Semsûrî (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

The Kurdish language map was updated recently and for some reason the colors were changed. We need to manually update the colors on the map legend on every page that contains the map 195.169.52.91 (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: A cursory glance at the map shows that it's functional, so a determination on the specific colors to use would be a consensus issue. Furthermore, edit requests require you state what needs to change specifically. In other words, you'd have to present all of the necessary template parameters to change the colors to the desired version. I would simply advise you bring up this topic on all of the appropriate article talk pages instead of using edit requests. —Sirdog (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I suggest this edit: In the section of where this language is official please remove that is official only in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, when is official in ALL Iraq. 186.3.232.209 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the infobox already says that the language is official in Iraq. What is the text that you want to change? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

What does a dialect that has not been the mother tongue of any state throughout history, is not found in written sources, and has no speakers before the 20th century, on Wikipedia? Royroy23 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The correct thing is to write the parts on this page in the Persian dialects section. Royroy23 (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

What dialect are you talking about? Surely you aren't talking about Kurdish, which, according to the very first sentence of the History section, was written over 1000 years ago. And why do you think a language has to have been the "mother tongue of any state" (see Yiddish or Hmong language) or has to be written (see Bagvalal language or Gweno language) or has to have been spoken before the 20th century (see Lingala or Esperanto) for there to be an article about it? Largoplazo (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Just ignore the editor. They clearly have an anti-Kurdish POV per their edits on Wikipedia. Semsûrî (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Adding the important fact that many kurdish languages are not mutually intelligible, which was missing from the lead.

In the lead, replace:

Kurdish constitutes a dialect continuum

With:

Kurdish languages constitutes a dialect continuum many of which are not Mutually intelligible (citing this source: https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=JZ6JAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA27) 156.208.108.3 (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

 Done Cherrell410 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff }}):

First paragraph in the history tab should be deleted: During his stay in Damascus, historian Ibn Wahshiyya came across two books on agriculture written in Kurdish, one on the culture of the vine and the palm tree, and the other on water and the means of finding it out in unknown ground. He translated both from Kurdish into Arabic in the early 9th century AD.

Instead we need to add: The first proper ‘text’ in Kurdish is a short four-line Christian missionary prayer, written in Armenian characters and found inside a larger manuscript in Armenian from the fifteenth century (held at the Collection of Matanadaran in Yerevan, no. 7117, fol. 144b)

Beginning of second paragraph: Among the earliest Kurdish religious texts is the Yazidi Black Book , the sacred book of Yazidi faith.

Should be changed as: Possible earliest Kurdish religious texts is the Yazidi Black Book whose authenticity is questioned and believed to be a fusion of authentic Yazidi traditions and beliefs with Western forgeries.

• Why it should be changed:

First paragraph is referring to a book "Ancient Alphabets and Hieroglyphic Characters Explained" by Ibn Wahshiyya. But it is falsely attributed to him as discussed in Later influence section in Ibn Wahshiyya. It is forgery or not a reliable source at best.

Yazidi Black book is also not a reliable source as discussed in the first paragraph of Yazidi Black Book.

I am simply trying to have consistency among referred wikipedia pages. We have already consensus on the content and sources on those pages. We also have a section in talk page on this topic. No objection is raised for nearly two years.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

I am adding source for the first proper text in Kurdish below. It is in page 613.

^[1]

84.29.122.234 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

84.29.122.234 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Kurdistan articles
• Top-importance Kurdistan articles
• WikiProject Kurdistan articles
• Start-Class Turkey articles
• Mid-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Start-Class Iran articles
• Mid-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Start-Class Iraq articles
• Mid-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• Start-Class Syria articles
• Mid-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Start-Class language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles
• Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests
• Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates

• Pages using Talk header with unknown parameters
• Pages using Talk header with deprecated parameters
• WikiProject banners with class parameter that needs moving to banner shell
• Wikipedia pages about contentious topics
• Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage