you can login to your account or register with kal


No replies
zimanzan's picture
Joined: 16 Sep 2008

I don't want to expatiate due to the matter of time; however it merits a much more comprehensive issue. I think presently to preface a foreword will suffice. In my viewpoint standardizing a tongue means to adjust it in order to target the most audiences as possible and, meantime, to preserve the original characteristics as well as the state of genuineness.

Almost all celebrated languages world wide, have already established a standard form during the past centuries. Their major issue nowadays is to deal with the recent stranger loans, mainly technical and scientific words, in the most appropriate way. There are only a few, really a few, languages which own significant number of speakers, particularly up to 20 millions, that still are ridiculously lacking in a standard form to converge their numerous speakers.

It's very unfortunate to acknowledge that one of these miserable languages is my mother tongue, Kurdish, which allegedly contains 30,000,000 ~ 40,000,000 speakers. According to the conventional linguistics, Kurdish people speak three speeches that all belong to the northwestern branch of Iranian languages, with exclusive ties as a natural cause of being spoken by a unique nation.

To the present point, so many individuals and some academic assemblies have attempted to propose a Standard Kurdish language. But they all failed as a matter of fact, as we still miss a Standard Kurdish. Their failure was brought about by several factors: they mostly were lacking in proper linguistic knowledge as well as they had the faintest idea about the other Kurdish dialects and collected their stuff mainly from their own dialect or out of the several dialects they were conversant with. That is the obvious proof of incompetence. Then most of them were suffering from another thing too, a ruinous state: partiality. That's to say they couldn't blot the wrong ideas out of their minds, no matter if even science confirmed the incorrectness of those ideas. It's indisputable that these poeple had the most good wills towards their mother tongue, Kurdish, and as Imannuel Kant asserts good will is the only essentially good thing in the universe, no matter if its outcome wouldn't be good. In spite of their benevolence, they didn't obtain successful outcomes. Also another cause of their failure, which I speculate it worse than incompetency, was the absence of a unified alphabet.

Thank the Almighty now as a result of the precious efforts of Kurdish Academy of Language we have a Unified Kurdish alphabet which cannot be branded as "Turkish based" as well as it's matching with the essentials of Kurdish and is based on the prevailing Latin mainstream in the globe.

Then the only remaining obstacle to hurdle is establishing a standard Kurdish. In this case, as I described above, we got to take care of two matters: first to establish standard forms out of the diverse Kurdish varieties, second to deal with modern loans. In both cases we will be unavoidably compelled to coin neologisms.

I would like to point out these approaches:

Collectiveness, namely gathering all available counterparts in all dialects for each word, must be strictly regarded.

Exempli gratia:

Snow: Kirmanjí: wefr, ver, bewr, befr, berf, snoy; Pehlewaní: werwe, verwe, verf, vewr, vewre, vor, vare, wor

Discerning and individuating genuine characteristics of Kurdish, and appreciating them. Since these characteristics are the only proof over there to refute the conventional linguistic hypothesis that strongly argues about Kurdish being originated from Persian or another Southwestern Iranian source (as McKenzie, the renowned wetsern expert in Iranian languages, explicitly concludes in his famous work: "Origins of Kurdish").

Exempli gratia:

Kurdish : Persian : Ancient

hew : yék : eéve

Abhor partiality and biased notions in any sorts. For example Northern Kirmanjí "ez" is certainly a better choice rather than Central and Southern "min" ~ "I", as well as the Southern "wésh-" is structurally preferable compared to Central and Northern "wéjh-"/"béjh-" ~ "say", or Central "de-" is closer to the original form rather than Northern and Southern "di-"/"e-"/"ti-" ~ "durative marker". Such facts which are receiving scientific back up, should never ever been discriminated due to the personal/local/tribal/ or regional interests.

I sincerely appreciate KAL's policy and good will toward Kurdish. And I think from now on we have started the second eminent point after devising a unified Kurdish alphabet. I consider the commencement of this section as a good sign. God willing and by following rational patterns and approaches we will be seeing that day the Kurdish writers, poets, moviemakers, songwriters, and so on, use a standard Kurdish and only think about how to draw the attraction of the 30,000,000 tasteful audiences. It's the best wish for the sake of humanity to revive the unlucky languages which just remind lying bodies that are going to be corpses by the next dawn in our merciless and extra-quick modern world. I don't want this to be tagged as trite cliche, but let's make the next generations to recognize us.

Blessed Are The Meek