Talk:Azerbaijani language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Azerbaijani language is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

Azerbaijani language is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

Proposal: Please provide proper UTF-8 letter as well. --Keichwa 17:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page protected? What disputes need resolution ? Refdoc 21:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The page is protected from the major biased changes made by anonymous users so people can take the matter to the talk page and discuss them instead of just reverting each other. See the history of the page [1] for more details. Roozbeh 00:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Salam 2 A question about the language 2.1 == 1300 Anniversary of Dede Qorqod is a big lie=== 3 Pan Turkism, South Azerbaijan and Bribing the vandals 4 Using Azarbaijani or Turki is valid 5 Consistency ? 6 Azerbaijani/Azerbaijanian 7 Long section re Pahlavi/Medes/Azerbaijani 8 Problems 9 Interwiki 10 Azerbaijani vs. Turkish

[edit] Salam

What's the matter with this article? any problems over there? Hope that the dispute will be solved soon. On this moment too, if you want to know me more please look at my user:Kolomonggo. I can be found in English, Indonesian and Javanese Wikipedia.

Salam,

---

Hope this is not also seen as vandalism. I have put the quote from the Persian encyclopedia to the bottom of the article. It is clear, he is very improtant as an academic, but common language is use is as the introduction describes. I have actually expanded upon this. I believe that the quote is more an expression of the professors' wish to be perfectly accurate and split the hair down the middle than actual use. At least in my experience Iranian Azeri's will introduce themselves as Iranian Turks, Azeri Turks, Azeris, Turkish speaker (you know our Turkish, not Istanbul...) etc. whatever, certainly not with the fine precision of the encyclopedia. And there is a view that use defines correctness in languages rather than vice versa. I did some other clarifications + editing, too, but I think this is teh improtant one. What remains in dispute to remove that notice ? Refdoc 21:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A question about the language

Turkish speakers of Azerbaycan, South Azerbaycan-Iran, Iraq, Caucauses, Syria, Turkey, Balkans, Cyprus can fully understand each other.

I don't understand how they're considered different languages to each other?

I mean there is more difference between the accent of a Londoner and Geordy from Newcastle in North England than between these accents.

It should be highlighted that they can understand one-another and that the Turkish of the different countries who speak Oghuz Turkish isn't a different language.

Currently its not very clear, to someone who didn't know anything about this they'd think a totally different language was spoken which is incorrect.

--Johnstevens5 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == 1300 Anniversary of Dede Qorqod is a big lie===

This is a big lie. This book has the name "Istanbul", which is a term after the Muslim conquest of Constantinopole. This conquest occured about 500 years ago and so the book at best could be dated 500 years ago. The Azerbaijani government authorities have falsified history in an outrageous fashion and this is unacceptable to the scholarly community.

No its not a big lie and its accepted by UNESCO so sort out your anti-Turk issues with them.

[edit] Pan Turkism, South Azerbaijan and Bribing the vandals

I would say I disagree with the last revert Roozbeh - the term might be offensive to some, to others it means a lot - at least considering the heat of the revert wars across the Azerbaijan spectrum of articles here on wikipedia. SO NPOV would be to include something like "a region which some prefer to call South Azarbaijan" or something like this. I think it is easy to loose sight for the relevant when engaging with trolls and vandals like our aphasic anonymous. But the relvant is to include all valid POVs to come to some thing like NPOV. Even if made by a troll a point may be valid. . Apart from the above, the term used in by the Iranian embassy in Ottawa Canada is "South Azarbaijan"[2]... :-) Refdoc 13:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to not write about this myself first, ...

1. My main reason of reverting was not offensiveness, but inaccuracy. I'm starting to get offended by seeing the term (I was not, when I thought it's a politically neutral term), but that is not the issue. The main issue is that one doesn't know what exactly is South Azerbaijan, and Wikipedia doesn't define it perfectly either (while the page is protected). When we say some, we should mention who are those some, and saying that in the header of the article is so much. And the user won't get much by following the link to South Azerbaijan. After an Internet search, she/he will probably find that the term means "the areas that some separatists wish to separate from Iran and/or make an autonomous state inside Iran and/or join to Republic of Azerbaijan" and will find that it's not exactly defined. I won't object if someone goes and includes exact geographical information about where the language is spoken in Iran, but the term Southern Azerbaijan is not that.
2. Let's try to see what does the term mean. The Persian version of the South Azerbaijan article [3] at the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement website mentions Karaj and Saveh to be a part of the region. Are there really many Azerbaijani speakers in Karaj? Are they more in ratio than, say, Rasht? Where is the statistics?
3. BTW, the term used in the Iranian embassy site refers to the southern part of Republic of Azerbaijan (or possibly to the southern part of Iran's Azarbaijan), not to the geopolitical term. It also says "South Azarbaijan".

a vs e - I would think this is making a political mountain out of a transliterational molehill. apart from this - The region (loosely corresponding to the four ostans) is the southern part of the region loosely called 'Azarbaijan/Azerbeycan' (whatever..), the north of which was lost to Russia during the 19th century, formed part of the Soviet Union and eventually became an independent state, while the southern areas remained integral part of Persian empire/Iran until today, despite a short period of 'independence' under Soviet 'protection' in 1945/46. The difficulty for this article starts with some people hijacking an initially innocent and loosely defined geographic description in order to form a South/North Korea image in people's mind, while others try to use the term in its original sense and again others develop to latter, geographic use a politically motivated aversion. Sounds to me like the recipe for NPOV disaster - which i think is still avertable by careful formulation. And wrt the {{South Azerbaijan]] article here in Wikipedia - this should be our next joint project for NPOVfying and clearing. Refdoc 14:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please note that some people believe that there is no single region called Az*rb***an. That is POV. There is "Republic of Azerbaijan" and "Iran's Azarbaijan", which some consider to be different regions. This other POV, says that the area north of Aras started to call itself Azerbaijan only in 1918, between the downfall of the Russian empire and the rise of Soviet Union, and with the support of the Ottoman empire, which many Iranians protested to at the time. The whole idea of a single region separated, is POV.

The debate is pretty hot these days in the Iranian media. Just yesterday, there was a column in Shargh about certain phrases the Foreign Minister of ROA had used when in Iran, who indirectly had called some Azeri residents of Iran non-Iranians. Or a few days ago, there was an article in Iran, quoting the replies to 1918 protests (by people like Mohammad Taghi Bahar and Dehkhoda, who had protested of renaming the region from Arran) in the Persian newspapers, where one of the leaders (Mohammad Emin Resulzadeh) of the newly named ROA had mentioned that "They have believed that by taking the name of Azarbaijan which is an Iranian province we are also looking forward to its namesake... The independence movement of Azarbaijan is not related to the south of Aras in any way...". The article claims later that they have proved that they have only been looking forward to the namesake, which they started to call South Azerbaijan.

Challenge: Go and find this certain usage of the term in a context with no reference to the independence movement. It's very hard!

roozbeh 16:44, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

And everyday I learn something new.... Adam Olearius, German traveller and secretary to the Holsteinian ambassador to the Persian Shah in Isfahan in the 17th century crossed the 'Arixan' river coming from 'Derbent' and the town and region of Shemakha (both today RoA) to Ardebil in 'Aterbeighdan'... Some of his writings are published in English [4]. Further, the Azerbaijanian ministry for tourism appears to be quite clear that the old name of the region is Aran [5].

So what do we make of this ? Refdoc 15:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Using Azarbaijani or Turki is valid

Turk people of Iran say their language "Turki" or "Turku" & Azeri isn't valid.

[edit] Consistency ?

Hi,

This is a need of consistency between Wikimedia projects. This language is called Azeri on Wiktionary. Yann 12:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijani/Azerbaijanian

Hi all, there's been a request from Tabib to move this from Azerbaijani language to Azerbaijanian language (an action which requires help from an admin, since the redirect at the latter has an edit history). However, after doing a quick Google check, the former seems the more common form of the adjectival form (at least, I assume "Azerbaijani" is an adjectival form - I often see if used that way, although perhaps it's improper); for pages in English, I get:

• "Azerbaijani" - 264,000
• "Azerbaijanian" - 13,000

So, given that the Wikipedia naming policy for language pages seems to be to use the name of the language (which seems to be "Azerbaijani" in this case), or the normal adjectival form (where one exists), I would assume this should stay at Azerbaijani language. If there is consensus here to move it, just list the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves and it will be taken care of. Noel (talk) 15:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani" can describe other things, or be used as a noun. Here's a comparison of search results for the exact phrase, in English-language pages only. I'm searching from Canada; Google can give different results in different countries.

• "Azeri language", 6,230
• "Azerbaijani language", 4,290 results
• "Azerbaijanian language", 3,380
• "language of Azerbaijan", 911
• "Azerbaijan language", 712

I'm not a big fan of using Google results in isolation; there may be other factors that sway these search results counts. Does anyone know what the popular and academic literature uses? —Michael Z. 2005-01-28 16:58 Z

Not scientific, but I know no one who would say "Azerbaijanian". Maybe though, this reflects more on me than one the language... Refdoc 23:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long section re Pahlavi/Medes/Azerbaijani

Zereshk, I generally highly respect your contributions, but i think this one is somewhat out of place in this article, given that the article is about the Turkic Azerbaijani language and not so much about the linguistic history of the people living in Republic of Azerbaijan or Iranian Azerbaijan. Refdoc 23:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why was my addition deleted??

• Refdoc, are you saying that we shoudlnt mention anything about the history of Azerbaijan's language?
• Or worse, that we should be selective in it?
• That aside, according to the article I linked, the word "Azari" actually refers to the non-Turkic language prevalent in Azerbaijan until the time of Shah Tahmasp.
• The article is in fact NOT about "Turkic Azerbaijani language". The title of the page doesnt say that.
• Just in case someone is interested, I am Azeri.--Zereshk 02:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not saying this. I also did not delete anything as far as I am aware. I will just look at the diffs again. My last edits were late in the night and i might have messed things up. Anyway, I just think, as it is, the bit about the history has several non-sequiturs and is more about the history of language succession in the area and language(s) with that name than about the histoy of what we call nowadays Azari or Azerbaijani language. Refdoc 10:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right I did a few diffs e.g. [6]. It is quite clear that some people delete contributions here on the talk page. This is actually vandalism just as messing with the article itself is. I would suggets that you (whoever you are) are a bit more respectful towards other people's contributions. Refdoc 10:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instead of delting the history section, I think perhaps it would be better if we further added to it. Specifically we can add material on Turkic Azeri language. (According to my writings, it is derived from Pahlavi as well after all). That would make the article both balanced, and comprehensive. Wouldnt you say?--Zereshk 17:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This sounds ok. Refdoc 22:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Refdoc's original point. English language doesn't devote multiple paragraphs to Brythonic (let alone Native American languages), nor French language to Gaulish; an in-depth account of the pre-Turkic language of Azerbaijan belongs in its own article, not here. And incidentally, one that completely neglects Udi and ancient Albanian can certainly not be considered complete. - Mustafaa 00:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

• The paragraph beginning "Some sources like Gholamhossein Mosahab's The Persian Encyclopedia..." belongs in Tat language. All that's needed here is the disambig.
  • It's not a "theory", as far as I can see, it's a difference in terminology.
• The "History and Evolution" section would belong in something like Linguistic history of Azerbaijan; it has nothing to do with the history of the Azerbaijani language, except small sections of the last paragraph.
  • It's Suryani (Syriac), not Seryani.
  • Al-ajam-ol-Azariyah means "the Azeri non-Arab", not "the Azeri Iranian". See Ajam.
  • "the native tongue of Azerbaijan before the Turks" was certainly Iranian in many areas. However, the older Albanian language (see Albanian alphabet (Caucasian) survives even to the present day among the Udi.
  • The pre-Turkic Iranian language of the area is not extinct in any case; again, see Tat language.
  • The "elite and learned people", there as anywhere else, speak the language they learn at school. - Mustafaa 00:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you see, I've addressed some of these points... I look forward to other people's input. - Mustafaa 00:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

id:Bahasa Azeri - Muijz 00:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Azerbaijani vs. Turkish

We can watch Azerbaijani tv broadcast in Turkey. I can completely understand the speaking. I'm sure that it is same for anybody in Turkey or Azerbaycan. and with a one week quick course they will be master on the two dialect. not a different language.

I'm not so certain. My father speaks Azeri as a native. He only understands some words, less than half a sentence maybe, each time we watch a movie in "Turki Istanbuli" (as we Iranian Azaris call the language of Turkey). Not to mention that our scripts are entirely different as well. Ours is Persian (not Arabic). Russian Azerbaijan is still deciding how to latinize if at all, and Turkey is latin.--Zereshk 02:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk I think it's your problem because I am also from Turkey and I can easily understand Azerbaijani, the Azerbaijan National Television AzTv1 sometimes broadcasts movies in Istanbul dialect, if Azerbaijanis are not capable of understanding "Turkî Istanbulî" why would the Azerbaijan national TV broadcast movies in Istanbul dialect? I also have a few Azerbaijani (north) friends and be sure that we understand each very well.

Ah, so now you at least accept the difference as a "dialect". That's fair enough. However, Azari is still academically considered within the "northwest group of Iranian languages".see p238 & p242.--Zereshk 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But according to this article it's a Turkic language. I'm confused. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's inaccurate. For the English reader I suggest Encyclopedia Iranica p238. For you Khoi Khoi, since I know you can read Parsi, I suggest you the following list of sources all on this page.--Zereshk 06:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not Iranian but I'll read the English source. ;) But wait, if Azeri sounds similar to Turkish, how could it be an Iranian language? --Khoikhoi 06:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the Encyclopedia Iranica article. It looks like the extinct Ancient Azari language was an Iranian language, but the modern language of Azeri is Turkic. It even says so: "Azeri belongs to the Oghuz branch of the Turkic language family". (on page 8) --Khoikhoi 06:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Im sure you noticed, in the references I posted you, that "Adari" is the transliteration of آذری . Modern Azeri is Turkic. Turkic is not the same as Turkish. Turkic has its roots east of Iran. E.I. does not classify modern Azeri and Turkish in the same group. And according to Henning, Azari (Adhari to be more precise) encompasses old as well as many "surviving" dialects in Azarbaijan. See the Henning article. Another source of info for Parsi speakers: [7]--Zereshk 06:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1 week is not enough to master one of the languages, you are right azeris and turks understand each other perfectly, but in azerbaijan we have a different accent and a mixture with persian and russian language. so i think it would take more then 1 week, i think 1 month will be enough - Karabakh

These are not different languages, its so mis-leading, how is it possible to understand a different language without taking a lesson in the so-called different language in your life?

Ethnologue.com writes that they speak they can understand each other and they do both speak Oghuz Turkish.

At the very least its an accent difference, Turkish speakers of Azerbaycan, South Azerbaycan-Iran, Iraq, Caucauses, Syria, Turkey, Balkans, Cyprus can fully understand each other.

I don't understand how they're considered different languages to each other?

I mean there is more difference between the accent of a Londoner and Geordy from Newcastle in North England than between these accents.

It should be highlighted that they can understand one-another and that the Turkish of the different countries who speak Oghuz Turkish isn't a different language.

Currently its not very clear, to someone who didn't know anything about this they'd think a totally different language was spoken which is incorrect.

The article is very misleading and can really confuse people.

For example, I was so shocked to realise and witness with my own eyes Azeri Turks and Turkey Turks speaking together perfectly understanding each other.

They show Azerbaijan Tv on Turkish Tv and vica-versa the same chanels are also broadcasted into Iran.

As a result of article's like this most people don't realise this and get a shock when they realise that they are not actually a different language.

A Turk from Turkey could easily go to Tabriz and have absolutely no difficultly with language, a Turk from Baku can go to Turkey and have absolutely no problems with communication.

The article doesn't explain this, Azeri Turks can communicate with Bulgarian and other Balkan Turks, with Cypriot Turks etc do they all speak Azerbaijani?

Something has to be done about this.

For example, in the Persian Language page, Dari-Tajik etc are all included as Persian which is strange since Tajik is not mutually intellegible to Persian speakers of Iran.

Why don't the mutually intelligible Turk languages create a merge as in total there are 120 million mutually intelligible speakers but due to the layout of the articles this isn't very clear.

--Johnstevens5 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply because that's not how most sources do it and your version would be original research. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? the article is misleading and confusing.

Azeri Turkish is perfectly understandalbe to Turkish speakers of the Caucuses, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans and the new wave of Turkish immigrants in Europe.

Why can't this be mentioned?

The language of the Azeri TUrks is one which is mutually intelligible by rouhgly 120 million people.

In the Persian Language article they even put Tajik in as if its Persian when has major differences.

Now I'm not trying to include Ozbek or Uygur Turkish as the exact same language however the one's a mentioned above clearly are.

I think the page's should be merged or a mention made of this because its very important, to someone with no knowledge of this because of the misleading nature of this page they'd think it was a ommpletely different language only spoken and understood by 30 million.

Regards

--86.138.214.28 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a fact I don't understand what isn't clear about it

In those days, I first became aware that the people that we thought of as the Muslims of the Soviet Union spoke languages that were still closely related to the language of Turkey. We became very aware of this in 1990, with "Black January" in Azerbaijan, and suddenly the Turkish television stations were full of Azeris phoning in from houses in Baku, in a language that we could understand. It was astonishing. No one had been aware that that connection had lived on. One of the most interesting plane trips I took was the first-ever direct flight between Istanbul and Baku.

Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World Hugh Pope

REview

http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmID/5163

Ethnologue.com

Azerbaijani, South = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani, North = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish, Turkey = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern,

Turkish in Balkans = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish in Iraq = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish in Syria = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish in Caucauses = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish in Europe = Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern,

Would you like me to show you Turkish Television listings and show the Azeri Turkish shows? the Azeri Turk interviews?

OPen your eyes to the reality, they completely understand each other.

It should be included that Azeri Turks language is spoken and understood by 120 million people!

Regards

--Johnstevens5 14:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that, for the most part, the Azerbaijani and the Turkish languages are mutually intelligible (I didn't even learn any Turkish until six years ago, and never studied any Azerbaijani, and yet I can understand most of what is being said on AzTV, the Azeri channel here in Istanbul).

That said, however, mutual intelligibility is not the sole criteria: the most famous European case probably being Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. There are a whole slew of non-linguistic factors coming into play—political factors, so-called "ethnicity" factors, historical factors, et cetera ad nauseum—and the whole area is a minefield of controversy, as it were.

I offer no arguments either way, since I prefer not to traverse minefields, but rather stand on their edge and say to the sloggers-through, "Look, there's a mine over there." I just wanted to let it be known that nothing in this argument is as black-and-white as some people are making it out to be. Cheers. —Saposcat 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But its completely understandable and in the language the people are referred to as simply Turks, for example, in Azeri Turkish - "Turkum, dilim Turkce/Turki" in Turkey - "Turkum, dilim Turkce"

"Im a Turk my language is Turkish"

Nobody writes or says they speak, Azerice and they refer to each other as Turks.

Ths isn't actually a different language and today Azerbaijan and Turkey have great relations there is love between them and absolutely no animousity.

Its misleading to say that the language of people of Azerbaijan is only spoken and understood by 30 million because the real figure is closer to 120 million.

This mistake is always made in Engligh language descriptions of this matter, people are always very shocked that people of Azerbaycan, Turkey, Northern Cyprus, Turks of Iran, Turks of Iraq-Syria-Balkans-Europe can all understand each other. When you initially say this they think I'm lying because of sites like this, only when I actually prove this do they realise.

--Johnstevens5 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your statement, "Its misleading to say that the language of people of Azerbaijan is only spoken and understood by 30 million because the real figure is closer to 120 million": the article doesn't say that anywhere, or at least, not the key "and understood" part.

Regardless, however, the whole issue of when two varieties of speech are considered "languages" and when they are considered "dialects" is fraught with doubt: no one really knows because there is no clear dividing line, and in certain cases there cannot ever really be one. Cheers. —Saposcat 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

John, Saposcat is correct. It's like me adding up the numbers of speakers of Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn and Ukrainian so I could say "there are 273 million speakers of Russian". It's not Wikipedia's job to say "Turkish and Azeri are the same language!" Yes they are mutually intelligible, but they are still considered different languages. —Khoikhoi 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but its really misleading.

For example, if we called American a language, Australlian a language and English a language and said they were all a different language it would be really confusing as they can all understand and communicate with each other, nobody could surely state that these are different languages.

The language in Azerbaycan and Turkey isn't actually a different language and in those countries in their language they refer to themselves as Turks and their language as Turki/Turkce, its common knowledge to the people of the region that their language is the same.

Another example is a commongly used phrase by the president of Azerbaijan, he refers to Azerbaijan and Turkey as "Iki Dovlet Bir Millet", "two countries one nation", as does Turkmenistan.

I'm just trying to highlight this for non-Turkish speakers, it always comes as a shock and takes such a long time to explain to people that they understand each other.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 14:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but most sources say that Azerbaijani and Turkish are different languages, and Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based off of most sources. In regards to the "two countries one nation" thing that you said, we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a political platform either. —Khoikhoi 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, I understand that I just used it as an example, its just confusing to people who have no knowledge of this when they discover that Azerbaijani and Turkish of Turkey arn't actually different languages and that they completely understand each other, it really takes such a long time to explain that its actually the same language and that this mistake is made in the West when describing the name of the language.

Because Azerbaijan is called Azerbaijan people think that the language must be Azerbaijani and that its somthing completely different to Turkish when infact it is Turkish and called as Turki/Turkce in their language among the people.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think by already saying that they're mutually intelligible, it clears things up. —Khoikhoi 01:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

--Johnstevens5