Gengeşeya min bi hin hevalan re di linkedin ê de: Iraj Mehrbakhsh : While all the non-formal languages of the world are fading and disappearing, Kurdish is tearing apart the heavy curtain of the history and emerging as an interesting area of linguistic studies. Iraj Mehrbakhsh Linguistics Michael Michael Haaheim Enseignant chez Profession Liberale Interesting statement, but how are you distinguishing non-formal languages from the implied formal languages? Where des Kurdish fit in in this spectrum of formality? What is making it an interesting areaof linguistic studies? I look forard to hearing more about this. Israel izzy Israel izzy Cohen Owner at Hamalitz It seems that the Kurds lived in an area that was literally the heart of a Phoenician anthropomorphic map of Hermes (who probably lived atop Mt. Hermon during the reign of king Hiram before moving to Mt. Olympus). Libya was the heart of a similar map of Astarte/Aphrodite in North Africa. For a more complete explanation of these maps, see these files in the public folder of my DropBox. Anthropomorphic Maps.docx https://dl.dropboxusercontent/u/2033458/Body_Part_Maps/Anthropomorphic_Maps.docx Aphrodite_Map_pics.doc https://dl.dropboxusercontent/u/2033458/Body_Part_Maps/Aphrodite_Map_pics.doc BodyPartList_3.doc https://dl.dropboxusercontent/u/2033458/Body_Part_Maps/BodyPartList_3.doc Linguistics Iraj Mehrbakhsh : Governments determine a language whether to be a formal language or not. Kurdish being without any governmental support should have vanished or assimilated, but it has survived. It has so many unknown linguistic properties that can even affect some universal hypotheses, as it can be seen in some works of Iranian linguists. Regards Michael Michael Haaheim Enseignant chez Profession Liberale So, are you judging formal languages to be those that are considered acceptable for official administrative purposes, or those that are simply recognised by governments as existing languages? Also, but what level of government(s)? Depending upon the response, I would argue that not ALL informal languages are disappearing, but I would agree that this is the general trend among most. this is without doubt due to the fact that the objective of language is to communicate, with a preference of being able to communicate with the greatest number of individuals. Informal languages generally are not taught in schools, and the speaking community is limited, meaning that there is more communicative success with more widely known languages... and these languages often become official due to the volume of the speakers. Another factor, of course, is that some formal languages are spoken by the ruling parties, and those ruling parties actively inhibit the use of language that they can not themselves understand (language can be a potent weapon... groups can successfully plan organised insurections against governments that do not understand their language... essentially, they use their languages as a code). Where there are groups that maintain the informal language, this might be because they have little interaction with speakers from outside their communities; they maintain their language intentionally, often as a sign of, or means for, revolt; or because they have a significant number of speakers that overwhelms the formality/informality issue. Michael Michael Haaheim Enseignant chez Profession Liberale Isreal... you are really stretching things quite a bit here. You are making ther place names fit your hypothesis, rather than correctly working from the other way around. One of the factors that would argue against you is that these place names are derived from different languages, and reflect (more or less) modern naming rather than the contemporary naming from the historical era you are suggesting. There is no evidence, other than your forced reconstructions, that the phoenicians made any kind of anthropomorphic mapping such as you suggest... this includes any phoenician contemporary evidence (such as a recorded map labelling these areas in a single concurrent language, nor contemporary discriptions of elements from such a map, nor any sort of tradition for producing such a map), nor evidence from later local records. At the very least, such an anthropomorphism should be identifiable in the local mythological traditions of the places metioned. Ronnie Joseph Ronnie Joseph Rigdon Freelance Translator at Day Translations, Inc. By formal language, do you mean an officially recognized language? Gokce Yukselen Gokce Yukselen Abdurrazak Peler Assist. Prof.Dr. at Girne American Uni., Fac.of Educ., M.of Board of Directors at Rauf Raif Denktaş Cntr. of Cyprus Stds Can we speak about a unified Kurdish language? Are Sorani, Gorani, Kırmanj and perhaps Zaza the same language? Or are they all closely related Iranian languages? Or I am going to ask a brave question. Is Kurdish an Iranian language? Or a language which is a mixture of Persian, Arabic, Turkish and perhaps Armenian? Something interesting about Kurdish is that in some areas the originally speakers of formal languages, like the Karakechili of Urfa, the Turkish immigrants from Bulgaria in Diyabakır and many others in Southeastern Turkey, are shifting to Kurdish. Linguistics Iraj Mehrbakhsh Kurdish is a rich family of related languages, each of which can be considered a distinct language. Its the case with many other languages, the most tangible one being Chinese. Kurdish is an Iranian language and this has been asserted by all linguists, only one can hesitate about this fact that has no knowledge about that. The confederation of Kurdish dialects is called Kurdish. Linguisticaly speaking these dialects can be regarded as languages but you may know the role of politics in definition of languages. For a language to be a mixture of other languages, is a relative and uncertain matter. Kurdish is not a creol language. It has its own history.
Posted on: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:28:35 +0000