Talk:Zaza language

/Archive 1

Zazaki language

"Zazaki" is the most common name for the language in English, therefore should remain the name of the article. The most recent compendium of information on the Iranian languages uses "Zazaki": Ludwig Paul, "Zazaki", The Iranian Languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr (2009, Routledge), pages 545-586. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article should be moved to "Zaza language". The most common name in English-language sources is Zaza or Zāzā, e.g. Ethnologue[1] and some articles in iranicaonline[2][3] are using it. Khestwol (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's the most common name. At best, "Zaza" is equally frequent. I've cited the most recent grammatical source in English above and Paul Ludwig, who is probably the leading authority on Zazaki (he's published the most on the language), uses Zazaki exclusively. He is the expert. On your sources, the first Iranica on-line link uses "Dimli", and cites Gernot Windfuhr, "Dialectology and Topics", The Iranian Languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr (2009, Routledge), pages 5-42 as its source. But Windfuhr also only uses "Zazaki". Ethnologue doesn't use "Zaza" for the individual language, but for the "macrolanguage" which includes Kirmanjki. These macrolanguage labels are not language labels, but are more like sociolinguistic subgroup labels. The language label used by Ethnologue for this language is "Dimli", not "Zaza". The experts appear to use "Zazaki" (with "Dimli" as the second most common). --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop speaking on something you don't have any idea! The main problem with "Paul Ludwid", he doesn't speak zazaki at all: he knows just words and ready phrases: i have spoken with him: to told to me "i prefer to speak english or german". Paul Ludwig did make for his "university doctorate" the grammar of zazakî! But here to say that zazaki is close or not to kurdish, he must first know kurdish language! But he doesn't know kurdish also. He only make comparaison of words between zazaki and kurdish. What can we say more? Is "ancyclopedia iranica" really sincer or is the institut under the love of Iran??

english	persian	zazaki	kurmanci	bulgarian
i know	midânam	ez dizono	ez dizanim	az znam
you know	midâni	ti dizana	tu dizanî	ti znayş
i don't know	nemidânam	ez nizon	ez nizanim	az neznam
you don't know	nemidâni	ti nizona	tu nizanî	ti niznayş
a dog	sag	kûtik	kûtchik (kûçik)	kutche (kûçe)
my wife	zanâne-am	djina mi	jina min	jena mi

--Alsace38 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The comparaison of linguistists are only on the words but not with the grammmar, and the grammar of zazaki or kurdish is more close to bulgarian thant to any iranian tongs!

please stop to pollute this article with Paul Ludwig, he dosn't know anything, his book is not scientifical! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74zIXMzJHOw he knows a dew word, that is all! --Alsace38 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ludwig is not the only linguist who states the simple linguistic facts, his article is just in the first book that I grabbed off my shelf. Zazaki is not a Kurdish language. Period. The Zazaki people claim that they are Kurdish, but that's an entirely different, and completely non-linguistic, unscientific issue. The linguistics of the matter are crystal clear--Zazaki is not a Kurdish language. --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ludwig take himself for something he is not! lol he speak better persian than zazaki, he doesn t know any kurdish word! but he can say that kurdish is or not...! Lol By the way i didn't understand your behaviour, why did you clean up this source " Ivan Nasidze et al. 2005. "MtDNA and Y-chromosome Variation in Kurdish Groups," Annals of Human Genetics 69:401-412. online" ??! ONU didn't accept the zaza people even the europe council, so stop to say nothing say are kurds, genetically it's attested (have a look at what you cleand up) --Alsace38 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Zazaki and kurmanci are the only "iranian languages" who have feminin/masculin casus! only zazaki and kurmanci are ergatif tongs no more "iranian tongs" are ergatif! Only kurmanci and zazaki among all "iranian tongs" have those consoms "kh, ph, lh, rh, rr, tch... So stop speaking on something you don't know. Paul ludwig did never speak on this issue because he is iranist, so he loves iran something like a pro-iran. --Alsace38 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You apparently either didn't understand my comment or you simply refuse to understand the science. I clearly stated that Ludwig is not the only scholar who places the Zazaki language outside Kurdish. Genetics has absolutely nothing to do with linguistics so the genetics reference is immaterial. It's like putting a reference to "Twinkle, twinkle little star" in the middle of an astronomy article. It's irrelevant. Your second comment simply illustrates that you don't understand the science of historical linguistics. You have a non-linguist's view of language relationship--"They sound alike, so they must be related". It's unscientific. The consensus among historical linguists is that Zazaki is not part of the Kurdish branch. All your wishing it weren't so won't change that. --Taivo (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

you cannot say that genetics is irrelevant, it's a non-sence! zaza are kurd. So we must say zaza are geneticaly kurds but they don't speak a kurdish language? I know you love linguistic but here it's to much complexe --Alsace38 (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Genetics are irrelevant to the issue of language relationship. Language is not carried in the genetic code. --Taivo (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't accept genetic that's your matter and point of vue, but not of wikipedia standard vieuw. Secondly stop giving every time evry way paul ludwid exemple, it becomes borring and repetitve --Alsace38 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not my "point of view", it is the point of view of the great majority of historical linguists who work on the Iranian languages. Ludwig is not the only linguist who asserts this fact, but you seem to be blind to that fact and are fixating on Ludwig. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok Taivo, but there is a dilemn, on the classification of zazaki, we must be neutral, that is why you mus accept my contribution on this article: the classification of zazaki (an indenpendent tong or a kurdish one) : ok? Because i have a lot a scientist and linguist which agree to say that zazaki is kurdish, so according to wiki-laws, we must be neutral and we shall give the 2 point of vieuw, oki? (i forget i am a kurdish kurmanci girl, not zaza, lol...) --Alsace38 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no dilemma at all. The great majority of specialists in Iranian languages put Zazaki outside of Kurdish as a separate branch of Western Iranian. It's not even disputed in the mainstream historical linguistic literature. Your POV is WP:FRINGE. If you want even a mention of it included, you're going to have to show some mainstream historical linguists who espouse that view. --Taivo (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to apologize, I got confused between this issue and another. We already list the minority view that Zazaki is Kurdish. It doesn't require any more mention or emphasis because is it a minority view. It should not have undue weight. --Taivo (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

look at it http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/IndoEuropeanTree.svg paul ludwig say that zazaki is closer to caspian tongs? --Alsace38 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

nations of the world, organisation says zazaki is kurdish, http://books.google.fr/books?id=YfUcgOCNE08C&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=zaza+langue+kurde&source=bl&ots=zVqUDIzNY7&sig=F-bxZBomvSLyKETjXS3dPqA6Y-o&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=gOKSULXqOoiO0AXLz4G4Ag&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=zaza%20langue%20kurde&f=false --Alsace38 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have said a dozen times already, Ludwig is not the only Iranian historical linguist. And the Google Books link you give is not any more reliable a source as Britannica. It is not a specialized historical linguistic source. Indeed, it is ethnically based ultimately and not linguistically based. You don't seem to know what a proper historical linguistic source on the Iranian languages actually looks like. Apparently you're not able to read your own links even. The first link you give (which is not a reliable source because Wikipedia cannot rely on itself) still shows Zazaki and Kurdish on different branches. In other words, Zazaki is not a dialect of Kurdish on that chart. --Taivo (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) kennethaw88 • talk 03:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Zazaki language → Zaza language – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Zaza language" is common but "Zazaki" is used rarely. Per the Google Books search, "Zaza language" gets about 465 results, but "Zazaki language" gets only about 61 results. Per WP:CONCISE. "Zazaki" is longer than "Zaza", because of a suffix with 2 extra characters (k, and i). "Zaza language" is the optimal title for this page. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT per above. Khestwol (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Kmoksy (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:UCRN and WP:PRECISE. WP:CONCISE is an irrelevance here. GregKaye 06:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note about move discussion

A related move discussion is open at Zaza people's talk page. Khestwol (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zaza language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009064254/http://www21.brinkster.com/miyaheqi/culture/Article.asp?ArticleID=96&LanguageID=3&TypeID=18&Rnd=281 to http://www21.brinkster.com/miyaheqi/culture/Article.asp?ArticleID=96&LanguageID=3&TypeID=18&Rnd=281
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621113452/http://home.arcor.de/fidemes/zaza-tarih.pdf to http://home.arcor.de/fidemes/zaza-tarih.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Orthography

According to @Wikaviani:, this source supports the article's claim that the Zazaki alphabet includes letters such as eth, thorn, o-stroke, and aesh. From what I can see of the article, nothing there corroborates anything of the sort (although I don't understand Zazaki, so there's possibly some context I'm missing). If you take a look at the diq:Zazaki article on Zazaki WP, you can also observe that it uses an orthography similar to Kurdish and does not use æ, ð, ø, or þ as this article claims. Would those of you who believe the source supports the table in the article explain why? Snorepion (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, apparently the Zazaki alphabet page has a completely different table with a decent source. That appears to be the correct one. Snorepion (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content

Some sentences have been unsourced for years without any attempt to find a reliable source for the claims. Instead of having all those unsourced segments, they should be removed. Furthermore, the File:Zaza DialectsMap-5.gif is not sourced and can be misleading. Again, why have it in the article. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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) 00:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Zazaki is an independent language

Although the Zaza language is often considered a Kurdish dialect for political and cultural reasons, Iranian studies (the science of researching Iranian languages) clearly states that Zazaki is an independent language of the Northwestern branch of the Iranian languages. Within this Northwestern branch, the Kurdish languages, together with the Central Iranian dialects, form a genetic subgroup, whereas Zazaki, together with Gorani, forms an independent subunit called Zaza-Gorani. -- Mirzali (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

On what page is the info for the table? Semsûrî (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The reference is to the paragraph described above and not to the table. You mentioned references and still despair of the truth? Try to look there yourself. I don't want to argue with you anymore. -- Mirzali (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Before you continue to edit on Wikipedia, you should check Wikipedia:Reliable references. Semsûrî (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Issue of editing with political motivations

This issue persists in the English "Zaza people" page as well, there seems to be people who would like to dedicate the entire sections of the pages, to "Zaza people considering themselves as Kurds", with no adequate source or credible statistical research on their claims. Moreover, Whether Zaza people identify as Kurdish or not, Zazaki language's linguistic classification has nothing to do with Zazas' identity. These editings do not exist in the Turkish page, which uses credible and neutral information regarding Zazas and Zazaki language. 95.13.97.7 (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)