Talk:Persian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] nomenclature section

Someone had put a suggested merge template at the start of the nomenclature section suggesting that The announcement of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature be merged into this section. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion of that on this talk page and neither on the other one (where it isn't even mentioned) and where it is instead suggested that that article be merged into Academy of Persian Language and Literature which, to me, seems like a more appropriate place for it to go. I've deleted the merge template on this page and put a link to the article in instead as it is relevant. I'm not trying to be troublesome, I can see there's a lot of debate about this nomenclature issue, but I've not actually changed the body of the text. Hope that all makes sense and sounds okay. Iancaddy 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound abrupt, this is not the idea, but I honestly feel the benefit of that admin would be microscopic? Isn't there anywhere you could spend your time adding more value in wikipedia? I thought the article was just great this way. thanks --GeeeFlat 10:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

I tried replacing the lengthy synatxful "harvard referencing" code at the bottom of the article with a much shorter html version. However I cant locate where Mace, Schmit, and Windfur are used in the text. So the replacement was incomplete. The person who introduced those references into the article must do this, since he/she knows best where the references are referring to, if at all.

Somebody please tend to this matter. The referencing version I introduced is much better since one can click from the reference listing back to the text in the article directly, whereas the harvard system cant do that.--Zereshk 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll check the history of the page to find out who added them, and perhaps we could contact the user. —Khoikhoi 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as for Mace & Windfur, the two along with Mahootian were added by an anon two years ago as a Bibliography. (edit) So I'm not so sure if it's for the text in the article or not. ("References" could also be simply a list of external links that are books) As for Schmit, still looking... —Khoikhoi 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See this, this, and this. —Khoikhoi 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the unreferenced references to a 'Further reading' section. I guess if we find a way to incorporate them into (actual) references, great. --jonsafari 04:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diasystem?

Please notice the discussion at Talk:Diasystem.

Is it linguistically correct to say that Dari is a part of the Persian diasystem? --Amir E. Aharoni 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map is original research

All,

The Map Image:Moderniranianlanguagesmap21.PNG which has been presented in this article as fact, is an original research work by User:Imperial78. It needs to be specified that the map is not necessarily objective, and is instead a user-created illustration.--Zereshk 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Speakers

I don't understand where the figure for 61 million native speakers comes from? could it please be referenced and sourced because according to CIA Persians are 51% of Iran meaning Persian would have no more than 30 million Native speakers in Iran.

And ethnologue

Farsi, Western [pes] 22,000,000 in Iran (1997).

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran

--Johnstevens5 03:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persian_language/Archive_1#Number_of_native_speakers_of_Persian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persian_language/Archive_1#Another_source_for_Persian

--jonsafari 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian in Tajikstan

Persian in Tajikstan is official but not shown in the map. It should be in dark green. Wirya 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with translation

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help, then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Farsi. Thanks, --Soman 15:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISO/FDIS 639-3

The infobox states that the English names for ISO/FDIS 639-3 'prs' and 'pes' are Eastern Persian and Western Persian. This is not what the standard actually is. Whether or not a prescriptivist notion states that the terms 'Eastern Farsi' and 'Western Farsi' are incorrect as the oft-cited [1] insists, the current article misrepresents ISO 639-3. I am not in the 'Farsi' camp. I am not in the 'Persian' camp. I simply think it's not a good thing to misrepresent what the ISO 639-3 says. This would be like stating that U+06CC is called 'ARABIC LETTER PERSIAN YEH'. It may not be popular, but that's what it's called in that particular standard. Either we can remove the ISO 639-3 section in the article to avoid saying Farsi, or we can accurately state what ISO 639-3 says. I'm fine with either way. –jonsafari 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I should say I agree with you Jonsafari that it is not a good idea to misrepresent ISO, though I am in PERSIAN camp. -DrMoslehi 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC+3:30)
- Actually, ISO 639-3 doesn't say anything yet because it doesn't exist. The Wikipedia page is jumping the gun a little bit. The only standard that currently exists is ISO 639-2, and it has "Persian" as the English name. See [2]. I don't really care enough to start an edit war over this, but I thought I'd point out the relevant facts here anyway, in case anybody else cares. --Wclark 06:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how widespsread the benefit of ISO referencing to the mainstream public is, which is the essential target group of wikipedia. The added value of that section is awfully limited, and just helps ISO commercially, but very few people care. I would estimate the proportion of the readers who care, or are understanting what ISO language referencing is at around 0.01% of the readers, therefore questioning whether this info is relevant, whether it is of wiki standards, and whether it helps readability Vs being a total digression. Also the international standrad ISO is mor NOT adopted than adopted by many around the world. Other than that the article is brilliant, though.--GeeeFlat 10:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Number of Persian Speakers

[edit] Iran

Here is up-to-date information from Joshua Project:Iran Population Breakdown by language. The data is recent and is based on UN estimate for 2006. According to this report, the following groups are the Persian-speaking people in Iran:

Persian 23,808,000 , Farsi, Western Persian, Dari 1,725,000 , Farsi, Eastern (Dari) Tajik, Tadzhik 61,000 , Tajiki Takistani 224,000 , Takestani ... UN Country Population (2006) 70,324,000

So, total persian speakers in Iran will be approximately 25,818,000 in 2006.

[edit] Afghanistan

Aimaq,Char 273,000 (Aimaq) Aimaq,Firozkohi 271,000 Aimaq, Hazara 211,000 Aimaq, Jamshidi 120,000 Aimaq, Taimani 541,000 Aimaq, Timuri 135,000 Hazara 2,572,000 (Hazaragi) Parsee 13,000 (Parsi-Dari) Persian 103,000 (Western Farsi) Persian, Dari 1,041,000 (Eastern Farsi) Tajik 7,149,000 (Tajiki Persian) Qizilbash 13,000 (Eastern Farsi)

... UN Country Population (2006) 31,082,000

So, total persian speakers in Afghanistan will be approximately 08,442,000 in 2006. Though there has never been an official sensus made in Afghanistan, after pashtoons 65% of the population, Tajiks make the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan with an estimated 15% of the total population. The following link provides a very good insight about some of the unofficial sensus that has been made over the years in Afghanistan: http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm

[edit] Tajikistan

Persian 79,000 (Western Farsi) Tajik 4,348,000 (Tajiki Persian)

... UN Country Population (2006) 6,591,000

So, total persian speakers in Tajikistan will be approximately 4,427,000 in 2006.

[edit] Uzbekistan

Persian 31,000 (Western Farsi) Tajik 1,293,000 (Tajiki)

... UN Country Population (2006) 26,980,000

So, total persian speakers in Uzbekistan will be approximately 1,324,000 in 2006.

[edit] Diaspora

United States Western Farsi 921,000 in 2006.

Turkey Western Farsi 832,000 in 2006.

Germany Western Farsi 110,000+ Eastern Farsi 120,000 total 230,000 in 2006.

United Arab Emirates Western Farsi 194,000 in 2006.

Canada Western Farsi 129,000 in 2006.

France Western Farsi 63,000.

Sweden Western Farsi 50,000.

UK Western Farsi 29,000.

Total diapora 2,448,000.

[edit] Approximate Total

25,818,000 + 12,442,000 + 4,427,000 + 1,324,000 + 2,448,000 =

Grand Total = 46,459,000 This is nowhere near 70 million. I think this data should be included as a lower bound. Heja Helweda 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Tajik classed as "Persian"? good sources Heja, where did the figures for 70 million native speakers arise from?

--Johnstevens5 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Joshua factbook is not an accurate source and the UN estimate is only a total population estimate. Just to show this, in the joshua estimate we have four separte category for Kurds:Kurd, Central 702,000 1.00 % Y 1.2 Islam Kurdish, Central

Kurd, Iranian 4,210,000 0.03 % Y 1.2 Islam Kurdish, Southern Kurd, Northern 204,000 0.00 % 0.00 % Y 1.1 Islam Kurdish, Northern Kurdi, Southern 3,061,000 Then when you click on Kurd Iranian, you have the same Kurdi , Southern!

According to CIA factbook source 51% of Iran speaks Persian (CIA factbook) as a native language and according to Encyclopedia of Encarta it is about 60%. Which would make 35-42 million. Considering the CIA factbook on Afghanistan 50% this would make 15.5 million, so that is 50.5-57.5 million between Iran and Afghanistan according to two sources. The population of Tajikistan is about 80% Tajik (CIA factbook) and has a population of over 7 million and that is then 5.6 million so this would make that is 56-63 million, there are approximately 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and two million in Iran which is probably not part of the population figure of CIA factbook, and also large number of Tajiks in Uzbekistan(estimates vary from 5-10% to as much as 30%) and Russia (estimated to be 1 million Tajiks) as well as large number of Iranians, Afghans and Tajiks spread around the world. So this is easily 60-70 million. And this is a low end estimate, as many people are now native Persian speakers in Iran (for example Tehran) while their parents might not have been. --alidoostzadeh 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For those listing figures from Joshua Project (a Christian database), please see WP:RS. It does not meet the criteria of a reliable source. DragonRouge 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] distinguishing vowel lengths

This article says: "Historically, Persian distinguished length: the long vowels /iː/, /uː/, /ɒː/ contrasting with the short vowels /e/, /o/, /æ/ respectively. Modern spoken Persian, however, generally does not make this distinction anymore." Well, I've never been to Iran, but my Persian teacher very much insists on distinguishing long over short vowels... Is she nitpicking or is the quoted claim incorrect? --Dijxtra 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way does your Persian teacher tell you to distinguish short vs. long vowels? Obviously there's an orthographic distinction (written vs. generally non-written), and poetry often makes this distinction in meter, but otherwise I'm not aware of a phonemic difference in modern spoken Iranian Persian. –jonsafari 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For instance, in verb "to have" (I don't know how to transliterate, but I guess it would be something like "dashtan") there is diference in pronouncing first and second "a". Now, it might be she does that because she wan't us to remember that orthographic distinction...

BTW, is there a piece of software which make it possible for a user with latin keyboard to write in persian alphabet? --Dijxtra 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, another Persian learner! :-) I can't answer your question about the vowels, though. But about the keyboards, if you're using Windows, you can just load an additional Windows keyboard driver, they are all part of the standard Windows installation. Or, if you don't like the key layout as it comes for Persian, you can even roll your own, there's a thing called Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator you can download. FellFairy 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but then I have to gues which key is which. I'd like some kind of program which gives me a bunch of buttons labeled with arabic graphemes and a space bar, and then I click on those to get myself a sentence :-) --Dijxtra 23:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first question of the two a's in dashtan, they are more distinguished by location in the mouth than by length (timewise). This is similar to the various a's in English (eg. apple vs. father). That is, they are all very different sounds, and phonemically are not distinguished by length. A language that truly distinguishes vowels by length is, e.g. Japanese. Thus the Japanese words tsuki "moon" and tsūki "airflow" are pronounced the exact same (AFAIK), except that the 'u' in the second word is pronounced longer timewise than the first. It's good to think of the two Persian a's, as in dashtan, as competely separate, unrelated sounds, like 'i' and 'u'. This will make learning new words easier to remember.

Regarding your second question of typing Persian using a Latin keyboard, you might checkout this old site I wrote, with the latin 1:1 transliteration scheme listed below. –jonsafari 01:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You can easily access this online editor to type in Persian from almost any computer. If you must use a virtual keyboard, Postchi has such a service. But, it uses Arabic ي and ك instead of Persian ی and ک. Kaveh 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"osk.exe" is your friend. It's a visual keyboard thing that comes with Windows, and a link to it is usually installed under Accessories-Accessibility or some such. And for MS Office programs you can also download "MS Visual Keyboard". Both can be used together with any built-in Keyboard driver. FellFairy 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian and Farsi

I really don't know why people make so much fuss about "Persian" versus "Farsi". Anyway, I think I once saw some information about when that "Farsi" name actually entered English. It was recent (like, 20th century), but not as recent as the article implies (after 1979). Must have been in one of those huge dictionaries from Oxford, don't remember exactly. I'll try and dig it out, okay? FellFairy 10:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To Mardavich, re. your edit summary [3]("rv unverifiable source, my oxford dictionary has no such description, the current wording is correct, Farsi came to popular use AFTER 1979"): it's not "your" or "my" Oxford dictionary or some dictionary from Oxford. It's "the" Oxford English Dictionary. And it's the most authoritative source on the history of the English language there is. I'll give full quotes if necessary. FellFairy 10:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mardavich reverted again, I think he would like to see a quote. Thanks :) - Francis Tyers · 10:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. Just to make it clear again, this is from the online version of the big OED, not some other dictionary made by Oxford UP. Article on "Farsi", obviously. Attestations, ordered by year:

1878 "The transition from the ancient to the modern Persian is formed by the Parsee, or, as the Arabs call it, Farsi," (Chambers's Encycl.)
1926 "The present or modern Persian (which is invariably called Farsi by the modern Persians)." (Chambers's Encycl.)
1951 "In the old province of Fars, where Farsi (or Parsi), the language of Persia, originated." (N.B. Jopson, Persian Language)
1962 "Persian, or Farsi, the language of Iran, [...]" (Whittaker's Almanack)
1979 "One of the aides is the Press Secretary, who presents Farsi translations..of British Press reports." (Observer)
1980 "The disgusting state of the walls of the London Underground stations, defaced by slogans in Farsee or Arabic characters." (Times Lit. Suppl.)
1984 "It may still not be too late to put an end to the grotesque affectation of applying the name ‘Farsi’ to the language which for more than five hundred years has been known to English-speakers as Persian." (Bull. of the British Soc. of Middle Eastern Studies)

(From the Oxford English Dictionary, Full Version. 2005.)

Note: I discounted the first two, because here the authors were not themselves using the word but quoted it as a local usage. But in the examples from 1951 onwards, it's English-speaking authors simply using the name. Interesting is of course the last one, documenting the annoyance about the "affectation" of the name, which I mentioned in my edit. FellFairy 10:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The name "Farsi" was used by the US government to identify the language when training Peace Corps volunteers at least by 1973. Also, Wikipedia:Redirect recommends that alternate names used as inbound redirects should be listed in the first paragraph or two, so that the redirected reader is not confused. Do you think the placement of "Farsi "and "Parsi" at the top of the infobox is sufficient? --Blainster 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian or Farsi

Here http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4071&PN=1 [Specific Languages: Persian or Farsi] there has been a hot discussion about it. Some people say that it has nothing to do with the Academy of Persian language how we call it in English.

What's your opinion? If you have anything to write please don't deny.

I don't think anyone has ever said that it's not called Farsi in Persian. The fact of the matter is, we have German language, not Deutsche Sprache, we have French language, not Langue française... We have Spanish language, not Idioma castellano; Hebrew language, not עברית (nor `Ivrith, although I see someone did make עברית into a redirect...); Japanese language, not 日本語 (nor Nihhongo, and again, 日本語 is only a redirect); and Russian language, not Русский язык (nor Russkij jazyk). What is so special about Persian that it deserves to be listed as Farsi instead of as Persian? Tom e r ^talk 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's one big difference between the "German"/"Deutsch" case and the "Persian"/"Farsi" case, isn't there? Nobody does in fact use "Deutsch" in English. But people do use "Farsi" in English. Some people don't like to hear it. But other people use it, and that's a fact. So, "Farsi", whether we like it or not, is now a name in English, while "Deutsch" is not. And it's in the dictionaries of English too. I'm not saying we should treat it as the main or preferred name, of course. But isn't Wikipedia all about observing what's actually done out there in the real world, not about prescribing what should be done? FellFairy 07:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but Persian is used in academic contexts way more than Farsi (for better or worse). And TShilo2's examples are wrong, I don't think anyone is advocating Zaboni farsi. It would be good to have an article on Iranian Persian though. - Francis Tyers · 08:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Academy of Persian language is the ultimate authority on this matter and they have made their position very clear. Farsi is a new phenomena in common usage in English, Persian is the correct name for the language in English. --Mardavich 10:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say anything to the contrary? I'm not sure what an ultimate authority is, but it sounds kind of scary! :) - Francis Tyers · 10:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According WP:VERIFY, the burdon of proof is on the user who makes an edit and attributes it to a source. I have the latest full version of Oxford dictionary in front of me, and there is no mention of Farsi's origins in English language. Please verify this claim before before adding it to the article. --Mardavich 10:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me the full reference citation for the edition you have before yourself? - Francis Tyers · 10:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have the quotation above, perhaps you should contact Oxford University Press for a refund! :) You know, mistakes can happen ;) - Francis Tyers · 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you that I have the latest full version of Oxford dictionary , and you tell me "it can be verified. Perhaps you should go to the library and check?". Have you checked it? If it can be verified, then why don't you go ahead and verify it here by posting a screen shot. --Mardavich 10:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see above for a quote from the OED. - Francis Tyers · 10:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You can scroll up by using the bar on your right (or left) or alternatively using the scroll wheel (if your mouse is equipt with one). Alternatively click here. - Francis Tyers · 10:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Above where? The OED quotes you're citing have nothing to do with the origins of the word Farsi in English and when it entered the language. Please don't ignore the question, If the Oxford claim can be verified, you are so sure that it can be verified, then why don't you provide us with a screen shot? --Mardavich 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary, Mardy my man, that is a list of usages ordered by the year. And thus! lo! it is how the history of the word in the English language is presented to users of the runcible, r'honourable, ruminant dictionary! (ok, maybe I was going a bit over the top with ruminant). - Francis Tyers · 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't play with words. You know perfectly well what my problem is. I'm not disputing Oxford, I'm disputing what's being attributed to Oxford Dictionary with no direct quote, link or anything verifiable. --Mardavich 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the screenshot. [4]. Now, Mardavich, please do give us the full title and ISBN of the book on your desk that you thought was the OED. Not everything that has the words "Oxford", "English" and "dictionary" printed on its cover is the OED, you know. There are several works with very similar titles, but completely different content. FellFairy 11:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now now Fells, don't lets be beastly to the chap! I'm sure it was an honest mistake :) - Francis Tyers · 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now where in your screenshot does it say "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century and became commonplace in English-speaking countries" which is what you're attributing to Oxford and has not be verified. Let me remind you that according to WP:Verify, "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain" , so please provide evidence (screenshot) of that particular sentence which I quoted and you have attributed to Oxford, or it will be removed. --Mardavich 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of the difference between literal quoting and summarizing a source? Both is legitimate. In this case, "became commonplace" really belonged to the earlier version of the text, my bad, I've removed it from that sentence because it is better attributed to the other source (the one you gave). "mid-20th century" logically follows from the dates quoted, because that's just how this dictionary works. The attestations are always to be understood as representative examples of the earliest known use, so if the earliest one is from 1951, that's the time it was borrowed, roughly. FellFairy 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, you just can't just make your own conclusions based on your own POV interpretations of what a source says. The quote "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is still original research and should be removed from the article. --Mardavich 12:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the usage of dictionaries? All signs point to "no"! :) - Francis Tyers · 12:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is still an original research, contrary to wikipedia's no original research rule outlined at WP:OR. Please remove that quote, Wikipedia articles are not a place for personal speculations and observations. --Mardavich 12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly of that sentence are you disputing? "Was borrowed"? Well, what else, of course it was linguistic borrowing, they didn't simply invent it. Want to replace it with "first occurred"? Okay with me. "as an alternative form"? Well, what else, it didn't become the only form now, did it. Want to leave it out? Okay with me. "in the mid-20th century"? Well, how else would you describe the date 1951? Want to replace the whole sentence with "Its first recorded use in English was in the mid-20th century" or something like that? Okay with me. Or my distinction between "use" (after 1951) and "mention" (earlier examples)? If you don't like that, then by all means go ahead and say it entered English earlier, in 1878. FellFairy 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, wikipedia has a no original research rule outlined at WP:OR which explicitly states : "'Articles may not contain any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position'." Your analysis or arguments may even be right, but you just can't add your own analysis or arguments to the article based on secondary published arguments. Therefore, "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is original research, please remove it from the article. --Mardavich 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The keyword here being, of course, ...to advance a position. What position exactly, do you think, am I advancing if I prefer "was borrowed" over "first occurred", and "in the mid-20th century" over "in 1951" (or "in 1878", for that matter)? I'm simply summarizing the published literature, which is definitely not disallowed by any Wikipedia rule that I've seen. Feel free to replace the sentence with a more accurate wording if you can think of one. I won't hold it against you as a 3RR violation as long as you don't just simply erase it. FellFairy 13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The words "borrowed", "alternative" etc have a lot of POV implications that " serve to advance a position". "Farsi was borrowed into English as an alternative form beginning in the mid-20th century" is neither sourced nor cited. It's original research, it should be removed from the article per WP:OR. --Mardavich 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How is "The first appearence of the term 'Farsi' in the English language, as reported by the Oxford English Dictionary was 1878" ? Or perhaps you have an alternative wording you would prefer? Work with us, not against us! :) - Francis Tyers · 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "Neologism "Farsi" appears to have been first used in English in the mid-20th century" ? --Mardavich 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better if we attribute it to the OED, and I'm not sure we can say "neologism", as that may be original research. How about "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term 'Farsi' was first used in English in the mid-20th century" ? - Francis Tyers · 14:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but can you make it "appears to have been first used" to make it more NPOV. Oh and please remove the dispute tag while you are at it. Cheers. --Mardavich 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me too. FellFairy 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks :) PS. See discussion at Talk:Bandar-Lengeh County. - Francis Tyers · 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin *Persianus

Why does the Latin form of Persian have an asterisk next to it (in the nomenclature section)? Is it unattested/reconstructed, the normal denotation of * in historical linguisitcs? I find it hard to believe Persianus is unattested in Latin. Or maybe someone just put it there by accident. –jonsafari 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's at least unattested in any of the dictionaries I have looked at. The usual form is Persicus; in Greek it is Περσικός. --Jpbrenna 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it begs the question, what source is there to back up the *Persianus reconstruction? As far as I can tell, this was the edit that added this unattested Latin form. –jonsafari 23:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be my job here to consult the OED. Actually, the "*Persianus" is listed there too, with the asterisk. I'm not sure I understand it correctly though. What it seems to be saying is that English at some time (during the Renaissance?) created "Persian" by way of analogy with other words in "-ian". Like as if there had been a Latin form "Persianus". Earlier, English had slightly different forms, also from the word "Pers-" but with different endings. Taken from French apparently. FellFairy 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to the OED, so I can't write a specific citation in the article. Would you be able to write the specific reference in the nomenclature etymology section? Does the OED support exactly the other derivational forms mentioned in the article? Thanks. –jonsafari 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic script in Wikipedia

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Arabic (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus so far seems to be what is commonplace already: English text is non-italics, Latin script transliteration/romanization is italics, non-Latin script is non-italics. –jonsafari 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/Talk%7EPersian_language_7b01.html"

Categories: Unassessed India articles | Unknown-importance India articles | WikiProject Languages articles