Wikipedia talk:Varyantê Zazaki

Wikipediya ra, ensiklopediya xoserı

[bıvurne] Problems with originality

[bıvurne] Nustene / Nuştış

What is here the most original form? I think it is "nuş-" because also the persian people use as example "naşta mikonam" for "i write". And so far i know the central zazas do use "nuş-". What do you think? --AliErsoy 13:42, 11 Paiza Peyêne / Teşrine 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a good page to show what is standard what is not. When I first created the page, I did not aim to find answers to everything. Now, everything is standardized according to this page. How fast! I was intend to create a discussion on this issue and provide explanations if we reach conclusions. Now, almost everything is checked, and there is no explanation why they should be standards. I am not convinced. --Xosere 17:26, 11 Paiza Peyêne / Teşrine 2007 (UTC)

I see, i understand you. You can create a page about words they are NOT standard or words they are in discussion. This is better for that what you want. --AliErsoy 17:54, 11 Paiza Peyêne / Teşrine 2007 (UTC)

I do want to see explanations. For example, I want to learn why "maê" is standard. --Xosere 19:12, 11 Paiza Peyêne / Teşrine 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my answer to your question: it should be "nuş-" because in the north people don't pronounce the letter "ş" in some words. For example şima-->sima, düşman--> düsman, and so on. "Nus-" is another example. --Xosere 23:18, 11 Paiza Peyêne / Teşrine 2007 (UTC)

Then in the startpage the word "bınusê" must be to "bınuşê". You mean the vocatife of mother? This is "maê" or "mayê". Or do you know a another suffix for feminin vocatife? Or dou you mean the word "mae" or "maye" for mother? I think, this is better as "ma" (sounds like "we") or "may" (sounds like "we are it"). Or do you mean this "y". The Zazaki-Instiut doesnt write the "y"'s in the most words. Only VATE does write it. Example:

Zazaki-Institut - VATE:

ae ra - aye ra
waa mı - waya mı
maa mı - maya mı
zıwanê mao - zıwanê mayo
pia - piya
cia - ciya
bermaene, bermaış - bermayene, bermayış

You know, that i am for the writing of the "y"'s, because everbody say in the reality as example "piya" and not "pi-a". And the Central Zazas and Southern Zazas use so far i know "waya mı / wayê mı" and "maya mı / mayê mı" and not the northern version without "y". It is alsways better do use the turkish and kurdish y-rule. The non-writing of the "y" is an idea of some european professors like Gippert, Jacopson etc. The europeans (germans, english etc.) also do not write this "y". But i think this is for the Zazas not adequate. --AliErsoy 11:28, 13 Paiza Peyêne / Teşrine 2007 (UTC)

Bıra Ali, bırao delal!

Ez to ra reyê herediyay bi u ma ancia amey bi hurê (werê). Hema vênan ke tı qe(t) wertey polemiki ra nêvecinay u eynen dewam kenay. Qusır de qayt mebe, labelê çiyo de hewl nênusnenay ke sero sere bıdecnime. Tı verênde xo kenay werte ra, dıma ebe xo qeheriyenay u nuştanê xo esterenay. Hem wertey meqalan de çiyo de nianên qe nêbeno, ke ita textey cerrebi niyo. Ez to ra vaci, ita caê tenya seba lista istatistiki nia pırrkerdene ya ki be na hal xo rê namevıraştene ki niyo. Forumanê binan de şo wa çı nusnenay bınusne, hema ita seke mı verênde ra vat bi, caê kay niyo. Ancia ki weşiya to wazenan, rınd qaytê xo be! --Mirzali 17:47, 13 Paiza Peyêne / Teşrine 2007 (UTC)

I wanted only a answer to my question, what is the most original, nus or nuş? Because i want learn of you educated people. Why is as example the word for "yazi" "nuşte", but the verb "yazmak" "nustene"? And why do Vate use always "nuş-"? --Dersimıc 13:06, 5 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

i see now that was in pehlewki nipişten. --Dersimıc 16:59, 9 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] The etymology of veysan / veyşan

In old persian was this: vrsna (Source: Zülfü Selcan, Grammer of the Zaza Language), in Avesta was this: vasne (you can read this everywhere). In New Persian: gorosne (v- >g), in Sorani Kurdish bırsi (v -> b), in Leki wersi. So why should be veyşan with "ş" the most original variant? --Dersimıc 12:54, 5 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

PS: In "teyşan" you are right, it was in Avesta: tarşna. In New Persian: teşne. But at the word for "hungry" the "s" must be the most original or? --Dersimıc 12:57, 5 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] espıce vs. espıje

In my etymology sources i read that this word was in old iranian so:

avesta: spiş, pehlevi: spiş,

can you declare to me, why than "espıce" is the standard variant, if espıje is nearer to the original?

[bıvurne] can vs. gan, cenc vs. genc (temam)

root of can / gan:

pehlevi: cân, avseta: deênâ-

root of cenc / genc:

avesta: yuven-, pehlevi: yuvân

so why are gan and genc the standard variants, if the words with "c" are nearer to original? --Dersimıc 17:07, 9 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dêsimic, unfortunately I don't have the time now to answer each of your topic about the standardization. But to some extends we should be careful not to confuse some things. Gênc is a Turkish loanword; cênc in Dersim is a palatalized variant of it. The old indoiranian yuvan- exists in Zazaki: cıwan in cıwamêrd, Persian cavân جوان. But the varant cıwan itself I don't know, it doesn't seem to exist. Sorry

--Asmên 12:23, 24/04/2008 (CET)

thank you for the interesant informations. is "kam" also a turkish loanword? because the persian and kurds do use only "ki"? --Dersimıc 13:13, 25 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] ki vs. zi vs. ji

In old iranian was this with the loud "ç-", what we can detect? zi and ji are the most original variants. its not for me an argument to say, this was in latin with "q". for the standardzation is only the proto-iranian imporant, nothing else. i can also say "ish" in sorani does sounds to "auch" in german, but if we look to proto-iranian, than we can see that "ji" in kurmanci is the original variant. this self is with the zaza variants. zi and ji are the most original, so why should ki be the standard? the central and southern zazas never understand "ki" as "also, too", they understand this word always as "that".

i am for the variant "zi", its the most optimal variant. --Dersimıc 13:12, 10 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dersimic "zi" should be standard which is close to the original one. I'll ask my professor too next week about this issue. --Xosere 23:24, 10 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Old Iranic words in Zaza Alphabet

I wrote the Avesta and other old iranic words in Zaza alphabet, because the people should now how the real speaking was. Because the linguists use the persian alphabet, where is a = e, e = ê. than the people can understand some words false, as example at "hepte", if we write this with the persian alphabet (hapta), than the people think the variant "hawt" in zazaki were the most original. therefore it is imporant to write here all words in the zaza alphabet.

so: a = in zaza alphabet e, e = in zaza alphabet ê, but whe should let ā = ā (the real a), because if we write this ā with "a", than many people can think, that it was "e" in zaza alphabet. --Dersimıc 17:44, 7 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] moved

i moved the words with original "e" from the "a"-list to the "e"-list, if anybody question where are the words. --Dersimıc 13:15, 9 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Change of title request

I think we should change the title of this page from "Zazakiyo Standard" to "Zazakiyê standardê wikipediyay". Because we don't have the authority to create a standard Zazaki. Other people also are pissed off. However we use these standards here in wikipedia, so the title should be "Zazakiyê standardê wikipediyay". What do you guys think? --Xosere 18:11, 24 Nisane 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Wikipedia has not the aim for an authority to standardize the language but opens the way for it. It has virtual a elite function. But the right grammatical order of the genitive construction should be: Zazakiyê Wikipediao Standard. --Asmên 2:58, 25 Nisane 2008 (CET)

[bıvurne] y letter

bence bu yler gereksiz, zazacanin yapisini bozuyor. --Tornê Sey Rızay 17:50, 14 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

En iyisi "y"yi Alfabaden kaldirin, zaten hic bi zaman kullanmiyorsunuz ki, daha ne icin lazim ki, ben simdiliye kadar birisinin "pia", "cia" yada "gırdia" dedigine rastlanmadim. Ya tam kullanin ya hic kullanmayin, isinize geldiginde kullaniyorsunuz kendiniz bile "y"yi birakmanin nakadar yanlis oldugunu görüyorsunuz diye. Dilin yapisini neden bozsun, 10 yasindaki cocuk bile örnegin "gırdiya"da, bu kelimenin kökü "gırd" oldugunu anlar. Türkcede yapiyi bozmuyor, Kürtcede bozmuyor, Farscada bozmuyor, Zazacada bozuyormus. Zaten bu "y"yi kullanmamak avrupalilarin fikridi, onlarin linguistlerinden adapte ettiniz. Bir irani dil icin bu sistem uygun degil.

PS: Belekvor senin Kisisel Sayfanda bunu yaziyor:

kamiye (kok) ---> kamiya ma, ("y" sevekiyeno). (bizim kimliğimiz)

rındiye = rındiya to (senin iyiliğin)

roşti (kok)----> roştia ma (ita de "y" lazım niyo) (bizim ışığımız)

tici (kok)----> ticia ma (bizim güneşimiz)

Peki neden "roştiya ma" ve "ticiya ma" yazilmasin, kimse roşti+a ma söylemez. Aksini iddia eden bana audio-bandi sergilesin. Sizinkiler "kamiya ma" bile yazmaz, Haydar Sahin gil "kamia ma" yaziyor, neden bazi yerlerde istisna ediyorsunuz. Ya hic kullanmayin, ya hep kullanin. Güneyliler ve Merkezliler icin "y"leri birakmak tamamen yeni birseydir, sizden haric herkes "y"leri kullaniyor. Kuzeyde bile sizin "y"leri birakdiniz kelimelerde konusmada "y" geliyor, bir dil neden konsuldugu gibi yazilmasin? Avrupalilar da öyle yapiyor diye mi? --Dersimıc 13:09, 15 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

Bıraenê, sıma riyê jü herfe ra çıra gızıkê jübini cênê? :) Na adrese de ( http://www.zazaki.de/meqaley/jacobson-y-w.htm ) nuşiyo ke koti Y u W kuno cı, koti nê. tenê bıwanê, o ra tepia qerar cı dê. If a İ or Ü is stressed, it gets a Y, if not, it doesn't get. Belekvors orthography is correct. --Asmên 15ê Gulane 2008, 16:20 (CET)

a pele nêbena a. hem de jacobson yada gippert gibi almanlar, inglizler yada fransizlar demisler diye, zazacanin telaffuzunu mu inkar edelim. vate herzaman y'leri yaziyor. --Dersimıc 15:12, 15 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

A pele nıka gereko abo. I don't care of which nations they are from. They are linguists, Vate people are politic prjudiced, they are dependend from Kurmanci. --Asmên 15ê Gulane 2008, 23:05 (CET)

Bira Asmen, why you insist on not writing "y letter. In Turkish, Persian, Kurdish and Arabic they do write "y" letter. It is just weird for people to skip it. Everybody who write Zazaki write "y". Just get over this. Wy=hy you put an additional rule. Let's make it simplified and easy for people. --Xosere 00:53, 16 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

Temam, nıka bena a. Böyle kurallara ne gerek var ki? Insanlar konustuklari gibi neden yazmasinlar? "w"lerin nezaman geldigi zaten belli, "y"lerin de nezaman geldigi bellidir. Yani neden yapay bir kurala ihtiyac var ki? Birisi "piya" diyorsa, "piya" yazsin. --Dersimıc 21:52, 15 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

bana göre yler hic yazilmasin, dili sadece bozuyor. zülfü selcan da zanais yaziyor ve zanayis degil. --Tornê Sey Rızay 22:01, 15 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

Bıraenê, I don't insist on not to writing, I mean, there are rules how to use the Y: if you spell it. For example: A nia niya "she is not so", it's really spelld so; the first is like a diphtong and has one, the secon has two syllables, the "i" is stressed.--Asmên 17ê Gulane 2008, 15:30 (CET)

[bıvurne] rocawan vs. şiwar (temam)

why you use "rocawan" (kurdish sorani: rojawan, kurdish kurmanci: rojava) if zazaki have an own word "şiwar" for this meaning? i asked you, if "şiwar" is iranic, but you not answered, you ignored it. again: is şiwar iranic? if yes, we should use this in the standard zazaki (its exist in the southern dialect, faruk iremet use this also). if zazaki have own words, why we should use variants they are of kurdish? --Dersimıc 21:17, 17 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

şiwar is a neologism, a new word created from H. Tornêcengi. Rocawan is used in Zazaki and it's not Kurdish. Persian has the word "âbâd". --Asmên, 18ê Gulane 2008, 10:10 (CET)

aha ok, thanks for the information. i didnt know that was a neologism, thank you. if you answer always, then the people can undersatnd your chooses better. thanks. --Dersimıc 12:31, 18 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Old Iranian Example for "go"

Paul Horn write for Avesta: şev-, Asmen say only "old iranian şiu", but dont call the old iranian language. we cant write "old iranian this and this", because there was many different old iranian languages. its not believeable, if one write "irankiyo khan: ....", we must know the old iranian langauge. in which language was this "şiu"- bira asmen? was this also in avesta "şiu-"? thank you. --Dersimıc 12:44, 18 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

edit: the zaza derbekirij want know, why is "şono" standard, thank you. --Dersimıc 17:17, 18 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] pele vs. pere

Hi, in Northern Dialect: pele, in Southern: pere, means = yaprak / sayfa. What is here the most original variant and why (please give examples of old iranian languages, thanks). --Dersimıc 13:59, 18 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Why "Gird"

Both "gird" and "girs" exist in Kirmancki (Zazaki). In Northern Kurmanci also we have "girs" where in the South Kurmanci speakers say "girz"(~big) or "girze"(~fat/huge guy) and in Semnani it exists as "guz". Also in Archaic Persian I found a word "gorasê" in meaning of "big piece of food". But etymology of these words is still foggy. So would you tell me plz how come you standardized "gird"?! Awiyer

Hi, thank you for the interesant informations. Some Zazas here did make the mistake to look to proto-indoeuropean. Therefore they did words like "ki" (also) standard, because this was in PIE with "k". But i again say: In Iranic words are only Old Iranian and Middle iranian important, other indoeuropean languages have not relevance for the standardization. Nobody should use other indoeuropean languages as reference, else we have a hard work, else then a standardziation is not possible.

Then can come northern zazas and say, "look the word "şerm" was in PIE with "s", therefore make "serm" standard". It is stupid to take Proto-Indoeuropean as reference for the standardization of iranian words. And i think, at the "gırd" issue some people made again this big mistake and looked to english "great".

But, if "zi" is standard, WHILE this was in Proto-Indoeuropean with "k", then "gırs" should be definitly standard, IF this really was in Old and Middle Iranian with "s". With Old and Middle Iranian i mean the historic phases, Old Iranian = Avesta, Old Persian, Middle Iranian = Parthian, Sogdian, Middle Persian. Every Linguist do use the terms "Old Iranian" and "Middle Iranian" for this time phases, its not wrong to use this. --Dersimıc 10:45, 25 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

I read now in Paul Horn in chapter 214 about persian buzurg:

ap. (old persian) vazarka (zaza Alphabet: vezerke)

phlv. (pehlevi): vajarg (zaza alphabet: vecerg)

Have now this "gırs" the same root as vezerke-? --Dersimıc 13:06, 25 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dersimic, it's "wuzurg" in Middle Persian (Zoroastrian Pahlavi) not "vajarg". The "vajarg" probably is ur grasp from the writting text. For example in the Middle Iranian texts they write it "lvc"* but its Parthian pronounciation is "roj" and the Zoroastrian Pahlavi is "roz".

Also an interesting source I could find is Kent's suggestion: Old Persian "vezerke-" compare to Avestan "vezre-" > Modern Persian "gorz"~"mace". I think now it got some fire steps closer to my suggested etymology of Kirmancki/Kurmanci "girs" (girz) and Semnani "guz". Kent, R.G.: The Oldest Old Persian Inscriptions, JAOS, 66, 1946, pp. 207. Awiyer.

ok thanks for the infos, we must wait of asmeno bewayis comment about this. if he support your idea, then we make "gırs" to standard. --Dersimıc 18:13, 25 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Asmen, we need you

We need your opinion Asmen. Is Emanoel Kurdistani with his linguistic researches right? --Dersimıc 13:04, 1 Hezirane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] ime vs. im

Hi, the middle iranian languages show us, that "im" is more original, why is then "ime" standard? There are really people, they use "im". As example my fahter side say "ma kırmancim, ma vanim" without "e", my mother-side use "ime". Also you use "an" and not "ane" (example: ez vanan vs. ez vanane) because of historic reasons, why you make then here an exception?? --Dersimıc 15:37, 27 Gulane 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] can vs. gan

in nisanyan does stand that "can" comes from the steme for "life":

http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/search.asp?w=can&x=0&y=0

if nisanyan is right, then is the variant with "c" the most original variant. what do you think? --Dersimıc 18:04, 18 Heziran 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] mereno vs. mıreno

i did read now in the gilgamish-article that central zazas also do use "mereno" for "he dies", are this people a minortiy or use many central zazas the variant "mereno"? because "mereno" were more original. --Dersimıc 20:12, 23 Heziran 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] têna, tenya, teyna (allone)

why is tenya standard?

Etymology ~ Fa dāna tohum, tane, özellikle tahıl tanesi ~ OFa dānag a.a. (= Ave *dānā- a.a. ) ~ HAvr *dhōnā- tahıl

Têna looks more original. the same thing could be true for word "kena", "keber", and so on. It needs soime study. --Xosere 20:53, 23 Heziran 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i also looked to nisanyan, but i dont know if "têna" comes frome the same root as "tene".

To keyber (keye+ber = home+door)), this "keye" comes from Avesta kətə, zazaki chaned the "t" to "y", so "keyber" is the most original variant, look also to:

http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/search.asp?w=k%F6y&x=0&y=0

"keyna" was in Avesta kənyā, in Old Indian kənyā-

Therefore are keyna and keye standard

Source: Paul Horn

A question to you Bira: What do you use in your dialect for "he dies"? thanks --Dersimıc 22:28, 23 Heziran 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Hamnan - does it exist or not?

Vate made "hamnan" with "h" standard, and I also found here in Wikipedia some articles with "hamnan".

http://diq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=hamnan&go=%C5%9Eo

Does this varaint now exist or not? --Dersimıc 14:49, 4 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] standardization

Another topic is: "hama" isn't a mistake, it exists in our language like "ama, emma, labelê". And "hama" wasn't a intentionally ignorance of the other variants. The more important is and I have to point out: the zazaki institute hasn't standardized some words, there isn't a standardized alphabet or word list of the institute. An alphabet booklet of U. Pulur whith our support is recently released. Concernig the standardization there are only suggestions of mine. The first concrete project is transformed here in Wikipedia. Please don't write persons names here whith perhaps wrong informations. There isn't a retirement made from a member to our institute until yet. We can private talk about it but this is should not be an argument to blacken an institute of our language. The members are also not "chosen" but it's open to everybody who accepts the statutes.

"veyşan" is standard because the variant "vêsan, veysan" only exists in dialect or verniculars who nullified the distinction of Ş and S i.e. Dersim or Gerger ("sıma sande sonê koti?") to contrast whith the other vernaculars where the postalveolar sounds Ş, DJ (C), TŞ (Ç) are phonematic are inherited ("şıma şande şonê/şınê koti/çıya?"). In Dersim and some other vernaculars the producing of the sounds Ş, DJ (C), TŞ (Ç) are dependent from the following vowel i or ü. Otherwise those sound coincide whith the alveoalar ones S, DZ, TS. This is a allophony and this is the reason why the sounds DZ and TZ appear in some nothern dialects. In short, "veyşan" must be the inherited variant in Zazaki. --Asmên, 3ê Temuza 2008. , 19:56 (CET)

So, you made veyşan because of a guess standard? Why I and other Northern Zazas should accept veyşan, while this was in Old Iranian with "s". Maybe your sight is false, because its only an assumption. Why you make the thing so hard, you can use simply historic sources, then also everybody can accept the standards.

Was the word for hungry in Avesta not "vasna"? --Dersimıc 19:37, 3 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

It's not only a assumption, I described the sound law. If you are so convinced, wahy don't you study instead of rejecting and taking a little look in some books without knowing the rule? Look an Paul Horn, p. 202, 907: gurs. There are a lot of variants with Ş: vaşne, veş(a), guşne, guşnag, GWŞNA (hebr. script). --Asmên, 3ê Temuza 2008. , 22:40 (CET)

Asmen, from where you know that vêsan in Northern Zazaki is not original? Show me a middle and old iranian language, who had this "ş". vaşne < from which language is this, from New Persian or Gileki? Todays languages are not important, so i can show persian goşn and say "make voşn in zazaki standard".

And if Northern Zazaki made at vêsan really an ş > s change. And? Then i can say, Central Zazaki and Caspian languages made a change of old and middle iranian "s" to "ş".

The point is how you can convince people to accept standards? We Northern Zazas acccept everything of Central and Southern Zazaki, then you take not veysan while this is to the old iranian nearer.

If we have historic sources, why we should not use them? Will you write this ?:

"Kuzeydeki veysan veyşanın deformeş olmu hali, çünkü Kuzey "ş"leri bi çok kelimede "s"ye dönüştürmüş, nokta".

And what continue? From where comes veyşan? From which old or middle iranian language? Will the people dont ask this? And why the people should accept it? --Dersimıc 10:03, 4 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

PS: Now i looked at Paulhorn to "gurs", and here stands that vaşne is from Gileki and veş from Caspian. guşne und guşnag are anyway persian.

I can show you also new iranian languages they had conserved "v" with "s", example:

Leki: wersî = hungry.

Again Old Iranian examples: Avesta: vasna, Old Persian: *vrsna. Can you show me an old or middle iranian language (except from Middle Persian, because this changed the v -> to g), that had the ş? What was the word for "hungry" in Parthian? --Dersimıc 10:19, 4 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for that if I describe and people don't or don't want to understand so please stop nerving. Oskar Mann set a comparisement in his book "mundarten der Zâzâ" about the sound shifting -ş- in Zazaki and -rç- in Kurmanci, -rs- in Persian:

Zaz. : Krm. : Prs. heş : hırç : xers 'bear' veyşan : bırçi : gorosne 'hungry'

'goşna' exists also in Persian. The topis is the Ş and not V/G. 'Guşnag' in Baloçi isn't Persian because all with v- beginning words turned to g- or gw- but it's a recently sound change whereabout P. Horn didn't also know. Sorry if there's no oldest iranian evidence. You can dig some oldiranian graves of writers out and ask them why they didn't enough about that word. --Asmên, 4ê Temuza 2008ine , 14:09 (CET)

I understood the sound-rules always, also the rule with z+i or z+ü = ji, jü in norhtern (that with "jüan" was only politic of me)

The point is, that is hard to convince our people.

So, what i can write or you can write to the standard list at "veyşan", which historic example you will give? --Dersimıc 12:24, 4 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

PS: Its were good if you write an article about this Zazaki ş, Kurmanci: rç, Farsi rs, that we can convince the north zazas. Thank you Bira.

An new question, if the "rs" of Old Iranian be in Zazaki "ş", why then "veyşan" and "teyşan" and not not "vêşan" and "têşan", what historic context has this "y"? --Dersimıc 12:34, 4 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

I added know the rs- > ş changing to the list as information:

http://diq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Zazakiyê_Wikipediyao_Standard/Fonetikê_Zazakiyê_Standardi#.C5.9F_.2F_s

You can improve it. --Dersimıc 12:36, 4 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] né biye

Xosere Bıra. Why you separate the "nê" from the verb while in the speaking is this "nêbiye", this is the same stupid idea with kurdish "ez baş ım" or Vate-Zazaki "o o yo" = o odur, in our Zazaki: o oyo = o odur.

Even Kurds and Persian do write this "nê" or "na" at the verbs in one word, and even linguists use this methode for all iranian langauges. We are not english people. In english and other german languages is the "not" a seperate word.

But in iranian languages the nê- is a prefix.

And also english people write suffixes and prefixes in one word, example:

jobless and not "job less"
unnecessy and not "un necessary" --Dersimıc 20:10, 1 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Okay then we use it together. --Xosere 04:33, 2 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Aspiration

Dear friends. A sort notice about the aspiration: The opposition of aspiration and inaspiraiton was nullified since the era when iranian and indoarian languages has got divided from each other. The aspirated consonants coincided whith the inasprated ones to INASPIRATED. Indoarian language kept the distinction of the aspirata. The aspiration in the iranian languages are recently. For example oldindian "dhâ-" means "to put, lay" and "dâ-" to give. In old-iranian "dâ-" has both meanings! "to put and to give. So it's not evidential to deduce the etymology of e.g. "panc/phanc" from old- or middle-iranian because aspiration at the ancient time didn't exist or at least was not written. --Asmên, 5.7.08, 3:07 (CET)

Then why in Sanscrit five is "panca"? We agreed here to use originals not recent developments. And yes we have plenty of non-aspired examples. --Xosere 01:35, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

The Sanskrit "panca-" would be our "phanc", becausethe Skr. "p-" is inaspirated like our "ph-". But this has not an evidence because in Iranian the aspirance was nullified or the aspirata turned to fricatives, like kr. "khara-" 'donkey", Av. "xara-". Recent doesn't mean a sever4al years ago but at least hundred of years and it is adapted to the langlage system like the arabic influence of Q. --Asmên, 5.7.08, 21:47 (CET)

If in the Southern dialect doesn't exist this, why is then the un-aspiration necessaray? --Dersimıc 19:49, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Dersimic is right. It doesn't exist in the south. Why you want to push this thing? --Xosere 19:52, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Because they exist in nothern and central and more important, there are distinguishing minimal pairs, like "kal : khal" (çiğ : yaşlı), "phon : pon" (yassı : vur), "phoncê mı : poncê mı" (beşim : paçam), "khırr : kır" (kel, saçkıran : penis), "that : tat" (düz : çorap topuğu), "thırr : tırr" (osuruk : yokuş) --Asmên, 5.7.08, 22:14 (CET)

It doesn't exist in my dialect. Harun Turgut writes it as "Punc" too. As you say it's a recent development. So why all this fuss? --Xosere 20:13, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

In my dialect punc:five; puç:sock. (standard: panc and paç). I see they are already distinguished. --Xosere 20:28, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

I gave also examples from Bingöl-Solhan. I talked about that 2001 with I. Söylemez. L. Paul noticed about the inaspirata 1998 in his dissertation. "paç" is 'bez', 'puç' is 'çorap', "tat" is 'çorap topuğu' and "phaç" is 'kiss'. --Asmên, 5.7.08, 23:12 (CET)

You say it is a recent development in northern Zazaki. Then why other should accept it in the standard Zazaki? --Xosere 00:13, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Nothern AND central Zazaki. How many years should be gone not to say "recently", how much is the criteria for you to say "recently" or not? And for once: We are here not authorized to change for our pelasure the alphabet, so we should knwo our competences... --Asmên, 6.7.08, 10:52 (CET)

Ok, then "ph" and other louds should be remain, if they make a difference in the meaning. Xosere, we as beginners cant detect if there is in a word aspiration or not aspiration, maybe also in your dialect exist the aspiration.

"ph" and "p" are almost the some loud, "h" is not "h", "Ph" means only "P" with un-aspiration. you speak "ph" as a "p" without aspiration, and "p" as a hard p with aspiration. so its difficult to detect if your dialect use really punc or phunc. we need audio files of old people to detect this. because both louds are "P", the "h" doesnt mean "h", its only a marker for un-aspiration. --Dersimıc 11:13, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] A common sentence for "what is"

This topic is competly important for Zazaki. For me the most important topic. If we dont have common louds for fundemental things in zazaki, then its not makes since to standardize higher words.

Like we know, the sentence for "what is", is in the Northern, Central and Southern dialect from the louds totally different, so that example a Northern Zaza can not understand the south-form until he learn it.

They are all variants of the same word. This means: Its brings not richness to let the variants. Its as "amnan" and "amnon". Bring it richness if a Northern Zaza say "amnan" and a Central Zaza "amnon"? No.

Let we show the variants of the same word in the sentence "what is":

Northern: çıko
Central: çıto
Southern: çıçiyo

Historic Examples of Paul Horn:

Avesta: çit, çiş
Old Persian: çiyakaram, -çiy

So it seems, that "çıt" in Central Zazaki is the oldest Variant. The "karam" in Old Persian is I think only grammer. What do you think? Whic variant is older?

Yes, we are not here an Instiute, but nobody has interest to standardize such things, i brought the problem with the sentence "what is" in Zazaki before many years, and everybod did ignored it and do still ignore it. So we must discuss it here and now. --Dersimıc 17:16, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

The Proto-Indo-European word for "what" is "*qwod". We also know that Proto-Indo-European word for number "four" is "*qwetwor". *Qwetwor turns to Skt. "catvarah", Ave. "cathwaro", and Pers. "catvar". It looks like the Proto-Indo-European ininitial "qw" sound turns to a "ç" sound in Avestan and Zazaki and other Iranian languages like Persian and Kurdish. So we see the PIE root is "*qwod" which eventually turns to "çit" in Avestan.

--Xosere 17:34, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the important infos. --Dersimıc 19:07, 5 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

"Çit", *"Kwit"ten gelme., çünkü eski hint-iranca'da K'den sonra O Ç'ye dönüşmez, K'den sonra E veya İ geldiğinde Ç'ye dönüşmüştür. --Asmên 22:05 (CET), 5ê Temuza 2008ine

Than this shows "çıta" should be the standard. Some dictionaries write indo-european "Q" as "K" like in the case of fours as *Kwetwor". --Xosere 00:28, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

The proto-IC *kwit- is "ci" in Zazaki in: "kam-ci(n)" 'which', "kam" is from oldir. "katama-" 'which' --Asmên 10:45 (CET), 6ê Temuza 2008ine

If çı will be standard, then should be "çıyo" for "what is" standard like in many southern dialects. We need an common sentence for "what is", if we dont have even common louds in this simple sentenc, then the standardization makes not a sense. its more impiortant then things like "amnon" and "amnan" they are almost the same.

Xosere Bira, the personalending "a" defines the feminin in Zazaki (all dialects), the "o" or "u" the masculine.

Example: O lacek rındeko = The boy is beaituful, A keyneke rındeka = The girl is beutiful.

a çıya = whas is she, o çıyo = whas is he. --Dersimıc 11:04, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

How about this examples: "Name tı çıto/çıko/çıçıyo? Which one should be standard. --Xosere 16:32, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

There exist in many south dialects also "çıyo", its the most logical variant. çı = what, yo = is. asmen says, that "chit" was not in avesta "what", its had another meaning.therefore asmen put only "çı" to the standard page.

And if "çı" is standard, then is "what is" = çıyo like in many southern dialects. --Dersimıc 16:49, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Then, what is Avestan what? --Xosere 16:56, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

I saw also the variant çiş for avesta, middle persian: çih. so like asmen say are "çık", "çıçi" and "çıt" not original, the "k", "t" and "çi" came later. therefore he made çı like in kurdish to standard.

and if çı is standard, then is the sentence "what is", çı + o > çıyo like in many southern dialects. --Dersimıc 16:59, 6 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Middle Persian cannot be the only prove for standardization of words

It is plain simply a whole different animal. There are almost 2000 years between Middle Persian and Zazaki. --Xosere 16:12, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Aha, then what we should take? Believe you, if we use instead of Middle Persian "nan" a word of an other old or middle iranian language, that "nun" in Central Zazaki can be standard. In which examplse you see a problem? Do you believe that our Zazas can blieve that "ameyene" comes from Avesta "agemet-"? If i showed this to some Zazas of the different regions, they don't believe it. So Middle Persian "ameten" is the best example.

And the using of other old or middle iranian languages were don't influence anything. Nan remains nan, ameyene remains ameyene, ercan remains ercan, asan remains asan, ban remains ban. If you know better sources for the examples, then you can add it. --Dersimıc 16:21, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Ah ah! man why don't you take a look at that Iranian languages tree. That MP is far away from Zazaki. Dude take O. Persian, take Avesta, and take Parthian. In all of them a variant close to "nan" or ame exist. There is an enormous 2000 years between Zazaki and MP. --Xosere 16:25, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

And where is the difference if I replace Middle Persian "nan" with Parthian "nan" (?) ? I have not examplles of Parthian with "bread". Nohting will be changed, so what is the problem with Middle Persian? Its not so far, if nothing will be change if we use examplse of other iranian languages.

Say me an example, what will be in the standard different, if we use parthian or avesta as example?

I can make it so:

I replace Middle Persian "ban" with an parthian word, but will be change anything? No, only the language name will be change. And of Parthia there are not many trust examples. And some avesta-forms are too far from Zazaki, as "agemet" etc.

If you have examples of Avesta and Parthian, then you can add it. I say nothing against them. --Dersimıc 16:29, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what will be different. Even if you get one wrong, that is by itself is a big mistake. There are 2000 YEARS between MP and Zazaki. Anybody with a basic knowledge of languages can see that it is a mistake to use MP. --Xosere 16:32, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be an argument against Zazaki Wikipedia, especially by Vate. --Xosere 16:33, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Why its wront to use middle persian, 2000 years are great. Say me what will be change, if I write instead of "Middle Persian: nan" "Parthian: nan"? Nothing. And we have not examples for "bread" or other words in Parthian. So why is this wrong, if anyway nothing will be change. --Dersimıc 16:34, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

And at words as "roce" where are avesta-examplse different we use anyway Avesta. But at words as "nan", "asan", "ban" is in avesta nothing different (except the words are longer). Nobody say that Middle Persian were the only prove. We use Middle Persian only in examplse where the words in Avesta were not different, thats all. And this makes no any problem, if you think different, then give me an example.

"there are 2000 years" is not an argument to show that were wrong. You must give me a example in a standard word, where makes the using of Middle Persian a problem.

its again the same: there are no ANY problems in the content, the problem is again based of ideologdy. if there were problems, you were able to give me an example. there are no any linguistic problems, if middle persian is the evidince for that "nan" is more original then "nun". --Dersimıc 16:45, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

In many examples you give MP as the only resource. It is not even intuitive. There were hack of a Middle Iranian languages at the time. --Xosere 16:49, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Then put Examplse of Avesta and Parthian, if you have them. In some cases is Middle Persian better, as in "ameyene". And in some cases are Avesta better as in "roce". --Dersimıc 16:51, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe there should be Avesta, Parthian, Old Persian if you have examples, like in the case of "ziwan" word. That would make things more sound. --Xosere 16:56, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

The Old Persian and Avesta example for "zıwan" is "hizû-", is this believable for our stupid Zazas you think?? Therefore I added "izwan" of Middle Persian.

Ps: Ludwig Paul writes: Old Persian: hizân-, Avseta: hizuâ-. So how we can evidence with this examples why is zıwan with "ıwa" is standard. --Dersimıc 17:06, 12 Temuz 2008 (UTC)

[bıvurne] Vacar zi esto

Lehçeya piyê mı de "vacar" (bıwane: vadzar) vaciyeno, yani ma şenime "vacar" bınuşime. Kokê xo noyo:

http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/search.asp?w=pazar&x=0&y=0

OFa wāzār a.a. (= Sogd vāçarn a.a. ) ~ EFa vahā-çārana- alışveriş, ticaret

--AliErsoy 22:14, 31 Çele 2009 (UTC)