The Axed Persian Identity [Archive] - Uzbekistan Online Forum - Онлайн Форум Узбекистана

Bukharan

04-19-2008, 02:55 PM

Hello Turkistan,

Kurdish is not a part of Persian mate, despite being Iranian. Have a look at the Wiki info:

The Kurdish language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language) belongs to the north-western sub-group of the Iranian languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages), which in turn belongs to the Indo-Iranian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian) branch of the Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages) family.

But the article is about the Persian language and identity. Hope you got me right this time.

As for Hazaras, they speak Persian, and yes, we do understand each other perfectly with no need for an interpreter. That means Persian is still the biggest and most powerful language in the region. The fact could not be denied just because of your pan-turkic affiliations.

And yes, I am proud that not only Turks, but even Indians spoke my language (Persian) for 700-800 years and my language has left an inerasable trace in all languages of the region, including Arabic.

Have a nice weekend.

What about Kurdish and Hazara Language ? Are they intelligible to Tajiks and Persians ? Turks have spoke Persian for about 600-700 years or even more by the way. So, it is not only your language ;).

And the reason why at turkic-speaking gatherings they need interpreters is that Turkic people are the most widespreaded people on earth. From Bosnia to Yakutia. It's amazing, just think about it. Plus just like you pasted " The process of the differentiation" b/w Turkic languages in Soviet Central Asia ..

Bukharan

04-19-2008, 03:03 PM

Thanks for a reasonable answer, Tabriz_han. The article explains it all in three parts. Iran's theocracy which is even more democratic than Central Asian "democracies" is not a hindrance for unity though. It is a big geopolitical issue for bigger powers. Pashtuns, Shias, Turks or whatever have no role in it. The majority wants it and is approaching it. If you've been following the news, a union is to be established between the Persian states.

Yes, Iran does have a Turkic minority of turkmen, kazakh etc.. But if by 'a large Turkic minority in Iran' you mean Azeris, allow me to differ. Since Azeris are Iranian (just like Kurds) and belong to the Iranic race, despite their Turkic language. If you need me to elaborate on this topic, we can open a new thread about it and I will feed your inquisitive mind with all possible info I possess.

Have a nice weekend.

The problem Bukharan is, Iran is a theocracy, she cares more for Shia Arabs of Iraq and Lebanon than Sunni Tajikistan. Afganistan itself has had many civil conflicts between tribes and ethnic groups and the Pashtoons are powerful there. Afganistan and Tajikistan don't have the best of relations and there have been a number of wars in the countries.

I would like Iranic states to form unity, the same for the Arab and Turkic world. Artificial borders have been drawn between the same peoples, these borders suit those that wish to divide, exploit and conquer and are not in the Arab, Iranic or Turkic peoples interest.

An Iranic union of states would have a large Turkic minority, a Turkich union of states a large Irani minority, the communities could act as a bridge and the two unions become allies and bring some stability to the muslim world.

Tabriz_Han

04-19-2008, 04:04 PM

BUKHARAN
As for Hazaras, they speak Persian, and yes, we do understand each other perfectly with no need for an interpreter. That means Persian is still the biggest and most powerful language in the region. The fact could not be denied just because of your pan-turkic affiliations.

Are you suffering from some sort of inferiority complex, what's with all this, "biggest" and "most powerful".

Iranic and Turkic are great languages.

Bukharan
Thanks for a reasonable answer, Tabriz_han. The article explains it all in three parts. Iran's theocracy which is even more democratic than Central Asian "democracies" is not a hindrance for unity though. It is a big geopolitical issue for bigger powers. Pashtuns, Shias, Turks or whatever have no role in it. The majority wants it and approaching it. If you've been following the news, a union is to be established between the Persian states.

Iran's theocracy isn't bothered with war torn Afganistan and Tajikistan which has no resources. Its not a big geopolitical issue, there isn't much for Iran to gain.

The majority wants it and is approaching it? to be honest there is no serious movement for a Iranic union of states today.
Let's be realistic, Afganistan isn't even a functioning state and are more likely to be incorporated into Pakistan.
First Afganistan needs to sort herself out and Tajikistan needs to stop having civil wars, then a situation may occur where a union can be formed.

Bukharan
Yes, Iran does have a Turkic minority of turkmen, kazakh etc.. But if by 'a large Turkic minority in Iran' you mean Azeris, allow me to differ. Since Azeris are Iranian (just like Kurds) and belong to the Iranic race, despite their Turkic language. If you need me to elaborate on this topic, we can open a new thread about it and I will feed your inquisitive mind with all possible info I possess.

Please stop being so ignorant.
Azeri are Iranian are Iranic like Kurds are they? funny, I'm not Iranic and I don't speak an Iranic language.

Azeri are Turks, in Iran were called Torks, our language is Turkish.
You accuse people of denying Tajiks exist, then do exactly the same to the Turks of Iran who number 20-30 million people!

There are many Azeri Turks on this forum, we can all enlighten you about how wrong you are. Your description sounds like its been influenced by misguided chauvanists.

Its like saying, Tajiks are Turks who just speak an Iranic language and think they're something that they are not.

Accept people for what they are/.

TURKiSTAN

04-19-2008, 05:54 PM

Bukharan

04-19-2008, 09:40 PM

Are you suffering from some sort of inferiority complex, what's with all this, "biggest" and "most powerful".

Iranic and Turkic are great languages.

Dear Tabriz_han, try your best to impress me with your superior attitude. This kind of language belongs to inferior people indeed.

What I meant was a historical linguistic truth and I'm sure you must be aware of that. Persian remains as the most influential language of the area. Even the first part of your nick is Persian, let me remind you.

Iran's theocracy isn't bothered with war torn Afganistan and Tajikistan which has no resources. Its not a big geopolitical issue, there isn't much for Iran to gain.

Realities apart from your fantasy tell you a different story. A union is building up between Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. An agreement was signed between the three states in Dushanbe last month. A joint Persian TV will be launched soon. So, it shouldn't be that tough for a bright guy like you to fathom out what's going on.

The majority wants it and is approaching it? to be honest there is no serious movement for a Iranic union of states today.
Let's be realistic, Afganistan isn't even a functioning state and are more likely to be incorporated into Pakistan.

Refer to the previous reply. Apart from that, it seems you are too much into your own virtual Turkic world with no imagination of whatever is happening in the Iranian world. As soon as you crawl back to the Iranic world, you can see hundreds of Iranic movements all across the globe taking shape and resisting silly separatisms supported by the West within the Iranic world. So, let's be realistic indeed and accept the facts. I can give you some more info if you still can read Persian. Afghanistan drown in a war created by mainly Pakistan, is coming out of it, and again, if you even google the notion 'Tajik', you will get what I mean. Most of the entries will belong to the Afghanistani Persians (Tajiks). Pakistan is a loser in this case.

First Afganistan needs to sort herself out and Tajikistan needs to stop having civil wars, then a situation may occur where a union can be formed.

As it seems, Afghanistan is doing what you've recommended and events are taking shape as they are meant to. As for Tajikistan, ostensibly, you still live in before 1997, since the war in Tajikistan ceased then. That means there is no more civil war in Tajikistan. The one that it had between 1992-1997 was imposed by Russia and Uzbekistan regimes. And the union is occuring, as said before. So, brother, try to catch up with the news at least once a year.

Please stop being so ignorant.
Azeri are Iranian are Iranic like Kurds are they? funny, I'm not Iranic and I don't speak an Iranic language.

Yes, my dear brother. As regards the Kurds, they still speak an Iranian language (which is Kurdi). However, it seems you are deeply ignorant about yourself. Let me remind you that Azeris are Caucasian Albainians (Alban-Alan-Aran-Arran-Aryan-Iran). They are believed to be the earliest inhabitants of the region where the modern day Rep of Azerbaijan is located. The area had been inhabited by Scythians in the ninth century BC as well. Medes (Maadhaa) came to dominate the area to the south of the Aras river afterwards. The Medes forged an empire between 900-700 BC, which was integrated into the Persian Achaemenids Emire around 550BC. All these tribes and empires were Iranian with no trace of Turkic people. Your ancestors started speaking Turkic (not Turkish) only after the Turkish (Oghuz) invasion. Even Nezami Ganjavi who was born in the modern day Rep of Azerbaijan says:

Torki sefate vafaaye maa nist,
Torkaane soxan sezaaye maa nist.

You agree with me that a real Turk would have never recited that verse. Nezami was of Azeri-Kurdish origin and regarded himself as a pure Iranian. If you think you are Turk, it's up to you. But Azeris have nothing to do with Turks, except their Turkic language. I can see the Iranian flag under your nick and it seems you are from Iran. If you are, go and read Ahmad Kasravi, an Azeri himself, who explains the issue much better than me.

Azeri are Turks, in Iran were called Torks, our language is Turkish.
You accuse people of denying Tajiks exist, then do exactly the same to the Turks of Iran who number 20-30 million people!

There are many Azeri Turks on this forum, we can all enlighten you about how wrong you are. Your description sounds like its been influenced by misguided chauvanists.

Refer to the previous paragraph to get your answer and realize that Azeris have never been Turk. As for their number, there is a huge difference between 20 to 30 million. 10 million people (which is a difference in the figures you've given) could form a nation! Therefore, you figures will sound like a child's attempt to defend a silly cause.

I am not guided by anyone except God and the knowledge accessable to anyone who seeks it.

Its like saying, Tajiks are Turks who just speak an Iranic language and think they're something that they are not.

Yes, if you disrespect the history. But history tells me something else. 'Tajik' is a synonym for Persian or Iranian and plenty of evidence could be cited for that. While 'Azeri' stands for another Iranian tribe that speak a Turkic language. Please, try to learn your people's history with no prejudice and you will get what I mean.

Accept people for what they are/.

That is precisely what I am doing.

Take it easy and all the best.

Bukharan

04-19-2008, 09:50 PM

:) :) I don't understand these Persian guys.

My dear Bukharan, i know how much you are proud of Mevlana but i don't see the least bit from him on you guys...
my dear bukharan , you and all the things makes you so proud are just a tiny little weak helpless entities in this finite space and time just like all of us...

Dearest Turkistan,

It seems you are painfully hurt, while it was not my intention at all. You asked me if I could understand Kurds and Hazaras, I answered you that Kurds do not speak Persian, they speak a different Iranian language (that I do understand, but not all Persians). Whereas Hazaras speak Persian and all Persians, obviously, understand them. Should it be that painful to realize the facts of the world where you live? And am I speaking about any kind of pride? Nothing of the kind. I am just telling you a fact that you presumably didn't know.

As for the 'finite space', I might disagree. It has always been infinite together with the time and Mowlana (Mevlana)'s verses;)

Have fun brother.

TURKiSTAN

04-20-2008, 12:10 AM

Dearest Turkistan,

It seems you are painfully hurt, while it was not my intention at all. You asked me if I could understand Kurds and Hazaras, I answered you that Kurds do not speak Persian, they speak a different Iranian language (that I do understand, but not all Persians). Whereas Hazaras speak Persian and all Persians, obviously, understand them. Should it be that painful to realize the facts of the world where you live? And am I speaking about any kind of pride? Nothing of the kind. I am just telling you a fact that you presumably didn't know.

As for the 'finite space', I might disagree. It has always been infinite together with the time and Mowlana (Mevlana)'s versus;)

Have fun brother.

I bow before you brother. We are already having fun, can't you see...

Bukharan

04-20-2008, 01:39 AM

I bow before you brother. We are already having fun, can't you see...

Thanks for your acknowledgement brother. Just be careful, don't bend over too low;)

Does it mean you have no other questions regarding the topic?

Tabriz_Han

04-20-2008, 10:32 AM

Bukharan
Dear Tabriz_han, try your best to impress me with your superior attitude.

Says the person referring to his/her own language as "biggest and most powerful" :lol:

Actions speak louder than words, I really don't have time for your racist bigotry.

Bukharan
What I meant was a historical linguistic truth and I'm sure you must be aware of that. Persian remains as the most influential language of the area. Even the first part of your nick is Persian, let me remind you.

Turkic has been increasing in influence over the past millenia, today Persian has lost its influence, unless your living in an alternate reality a few centuries prior to our existance what you write is completely untrue.

Persian is today not a literary language, it isn't used in non-Persian talking states and has lost its influence. Speaking Persian may help you in Iran and parts of Afganistan which doesn't make it so desirable or benefial to learn today.

Tabriz is one of the largest Turkish speaking cities my friend, come and visit one day :)

Bukharan
Realities apart from your fantasy tell you a different story. A union is building up between Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. An agreement was signed between the three states in Dushanbe last month. A joint Persian TV will be launched soon.

Hope it all works out.

Bukharan
Refer to the previous reply. Apart from that, it seems you are too much into your own virtual Turkic world with no imagination of whatever is happening in the Iranian world.

Are you jeloous of Turks or do you just have a pathological twisted hatred for them.

Here get some help from Hafiz to learn to love Turks

Agar an turk-i sirazi bedest ared dil-i mara
behal-i hinduyes bahsem semerkand u buhara

Bukharan
As soon as you crawl back to the Iranic world, you can see hundreds of Iranic movements all across the globe taking shape and resisting silly separatisms supported by the West within the Iranic world.

We all believe you man, viva la revolution :lol:

Bukharan
However, it seems you are deeply ignorant about yourself. Let me remind you that Azeris are Caucasian Albainians (Alban-Alan-Aran-Arran-Aryan-Iran).

Only problem is, nobody has a Caucasian Albanian identity, nobody speaks that language, nobody belongs to any of their families or tribes. Kind of ruins your theory.

They are believed to be the earliest inhabitants of the region where the modern day Rep of Azerbaijan is located. The area had been inhabited by Scythians in the ninth century BC as well. Medes (Maadhaa) came to dominate the area to the south of the Aras river afterwards. The Medes forged an empire between 900-700 BC, which was integrated into the Persian Achaemenids Emire around 550BC.

And Iran was ruled by Turks for a millenia, so according to your logic, everybody ruled by a Turk is a Turk :shock:

Your ancestors started speaking Turkic (not Turkish) only after the Turkish (Oghuz) invasion.

We are Oghuz Turks, in language, identity and history, sorry to dissapoint you :)

Bukharan
You agree with me that a real Turk would have never recited that verse. Nezami was of Azeri-Kurdish origin and regarded himself as a pure Iranian.

A few corrections.

Azari are a completely different people, there language was Iranic, today this language is extinct.

There is no such thing as a pure Iranian and you don't have to be Persian or Iranic to be Iranian. There are Arabs, Turks, Hazaras, Baluches living in Iran as well.

Bukharan
If you think you are Turk, it's up to you. But Azeris have nothing to do with Turks, except their Turkic language. I can see the Iranian flag under your nick and it seems you are from Iran. If you are, go and read Ahmad Kasravi, an Azeri himself, who explains the issue much better than me.

You can't tell me what I am, doesn't your brain understand this.

Azeri Turks are Turks whether you like it or not in language and identity.

Babam sunni, nenem sie, durek men,
Ne farsam men, ne hindem men, turek men
Muganda mugbece, mescitte akbar
Tefavut yok...heqiqetde zirek men!

Mirza El Ekber Sabir

MƏN TЬRKƏM

Sən bizi aldatdın illərdən bəri,
Mən зərxi-fələkdən dərs gцtьrmьşəm.
Цzgə anasından sьd əmənləri,
Цzgə qulluğunda duran gцrmьşəm.

Bəsdir dцzdьyьmьz цlьmdən betər,
Kцhnə bazardakı kцhnə nırxa.
Milləti yьz yerə caladın, yetər,
Yьz arxın suyunu qatma bir arxa.

Əslimi, nəslimi tanıyıram mən,
Qarışıq deyiləm, цzьmdən hьrkəm.
Sən kimsən, sən nəsən, цzьn bilərsən,
Mən ilk qaynağımdan tьrk oğlu tьrkəm!

Sьbutdur, dəlildir, ağlın qibləsi,
Dəyişə bilərsən ağlımı ancaq.
Canım зıxanadək qəlbimin səsi,
”Tьrkəm”-gerзəyini pıзıldayacaq.

Bahtiyar Vahabzade
http://www.vahabzade.net/

One of Irans most famous modern poets, "Shahriyar" was a Turk, wrote some of his most recognised works in Turkish.

Tьrkзe dedim okusunlar цzleri

Sehriyar

Kasravi was a tool of the Pahlavi regime which was based upon racism and assimilation. All the ethnic groups were to be assimilated into Persians and so theories such as those of Kasravi were supported. However, they ultimately failed as forced assimilation never works.

Tabriz_Han

04-20-2008, 10:53 AM

Bukharan
Refer to the previous paragraph to get your answer and realize that Azeris have never been Turk.

Isn't it ironic that Bukharan was crying in another post when a user wrote that there is no such thing as Tajiks and said there is no link to Persians. However, this person does exactly the same to others.

Talk about calling the ketel black.

Well as I said, whether you like it or not Azeri, Azeri Turks or Torks are Turks, this you cannot change.

Bukharan
As for their number, there is a huge difference between 20 to 30 million.

There are various estimates.
These range between 20 and 30 million, as Iran doesn't conduct cencus based on ethnic terms the definitive figure is unknown.

Bukharan
Yes, if you disrespect the history. But history tells me something else. 'Tajik' is a synonym for Persian or Iranian and plenty of evidence could be cited for that.

You are being a total hypocrite.

Let's look into Tajik history shall we.

The Tajiks trace their more immediate ancestry to the East Iranian-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians, and Parthians, which means that the historical ancestors of the Tajiks did not speak Persian - the southwestern Iranian language, today known as 'Farsi' in Iran and Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks

The Tajiks and Persians were two different groups.

The first time Tajik was used was by, "Mahmud Qashqari" to describe non-Turkic speakers.

Persian and Tajik in history do not mean the same thing.
Today you may feel they do.

However, using your logic, this would mean Tajiks just speak a language similar to Persian.

You claim the Turks of Iran and Azerbaycan are not Turks because in history different states ruled the land and various peoples lived there. Well the same is true for Tajikistan.

While 'Azeri' stands for another Iranian tribe that speak a Turkic language.

Your mixing terms, Azari is a non-Turkic language of an extinct people.

Azeri Turks are historically known as Torks, Turkmans, Turcomans, Oghuz Turks and dominated the region from the 9th century onwards.

Azeri term was added to Turk only a century ago by Russians.

Now, the term Tajik, is Turco-Mongol etymologically
M.E. Subtelny, "The Symbiosis of Turk and Tajik" in B.F. Manz (ed.), Central Asia in Historical Perspective, (Boulder, Col. & Oxford), 1994, p. 48

And the term was first used by Turks.

Now if we use your reasoning, Tajiks are Turks.

Abu Hurayra

04-20-2008, 04:32 PM

Millatchilik jonga tegarkan, qanaqa turda bo'lsa ham...

Bukharan

04-20-2008, 05:15 PM

Dear Tabriz_han,

Hope you succeeded to let some steam out of the boiling kettle which is your devastated mind.

Turkic has been increasing in influence over the past millenia, today Persian has lost its influence, unless your living in an alternate reality a few centuries prior to our existance what you write is completely untrue.

I thought you called me inferior for praising my great language, while yourself doing the same. The only difference: I was telling you a fact, but you are deeply stuck in your vague baseless imagination shared with a couple of people. Even your ally Turkistani helped me out with reminding you how big my language is. Even in those false verses you've brought up, you can see how great the influence of Persian is on your language, so that you can't cope without it. There is a Turkic saying: No man without a hat, No Turk without a Tat. It must be quite painful for a pseudo-chauvinist to realize that 'Turk Tatsiz olmaz'.

Tat stands for Tajik/Persian.

Persian is today not a literary language, it isn't used in non-Persian talking states and has lost its influence. Speaking Persian may help you in Iran and parts of Afganistan which doesn't make it so desirable or benefial to learn today.

Now cut bs and have a look at the following map of the Persian language location to see how vast it is still:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Persian_Language_Location_Map1.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Persian_Language_Location_Map1.png

As you can see, your screams and shouts are creating a ridiculous image for you and your fellows.

Tabriz is one of the largest Turkish speaking cities my friend, come and visit one day

But the knowledge of the political map tells me Tabriz is an Iranian city where the majority speak a Turkic dialect of Azeri.

Are you jeloous of Turks or do you just have a pathological twisted hatred for them.

The facts cited before attribute both pathological twists to our dear Tabriz-han.

Here get some help from Hafiz to learn to love Turks

Agar an turk-i sirazi bedest ared dil-i mara
behal-i hinduyes bahsem semerkand u buhara

The quote is wrong and your transliteration is twisted too. Hafez the Great says:

Agar an torke Shirazi bedast arad dele mara
Be xale henduyash baxsham Samarqand o Boxarara

And yes, we love Turkish girls indeed.:lol:

Only problem is, nobody has a Caucasian Albanian identity, nobody speaks that language, nobody belongs to any of their families or tribes. Kind of ruins your theory.

The problem is that language is not all we get from our ancestors. Unless you are brainwashed enough to deny your ancestory. Try to base your funny arguments on facts, rather than raving the same line again and again.

And Iran was ruled by Turks for a millenia, so according to your logic, everybody ruled by a Turk is a Turk

:lol::lol::lol: Dream on brother. You might reach the most advanced stages of chauvinist bigotry like this. Depends who and what you mean by Turks. Iran has been ruled by Turko-Mongol savage dynasties for a couple of times, but by no means for a millenia. Other dynasties that you might call Turkic (Safavids, Afshars etc) were pure Iranian. They were not invading foreigners, they belonged to the Iranian plateau culturally and racially. They were not Turk. And don't twist my logic like your mind please. I've never said that. All Azeri BC dynasties I named were constituted from people of Azerbaijan and all of them were Iranian.

We are Oghuz Turks, in language, identity and history, sorry to dissapoint you

You are not disappointing me at all dude. I knew from the very first second who you were. And I said and will say again: it is up to you. I believe that you are an Oghuz in your mind. But Azeri people are not. That means you are not Azeri, cuz you don't accept their historical realities. I brought so many facts to prove you wrong as I did. But you keep running after the same lame duck with no evidence to prove your fantacy. Good luck with your run;)

A few corrections.

Azari are a completely different people, there language was Iranic, today this language is extinct.

You must be writing your doctorate to distinguish Azeri from Azari. lol. That was the funniest thing I ever heard here. I didn't know you couldn't work out differences in pronunciation of the same word. On the other hand, you are accepting that you are brainwashed, since the language of your ancestors (Azaris, as you say) is extinct. But believe me, it is still alive. Just have a walk around Tabriz to get the point. The old Azeri language is an Iranic language indeed, as you accept, that was spoken by all Azeris before the Oghuz invasion. The invasion changed the language, like Arabs changed it for Egyptians, Syrians and so forth or the French changed it for African tribes. Those African tribes never became French despite the fact that they speak the language. Hazaras in Afghanistan are actually Turko-Mongol siblings, but they speak Persian. The language never made them known as an Iranic people. They are just Persophone Mongols. As Azeris are Turkophone Iranians.

There is no such thing as a pure Iranian and you don't have to be Persian or Iranic to be Iranian. There are Arabs, Turks, Hazaras, Baluches living in Iran as well.

We are speaking about 2 different notions of Iranian. Baluchis, Lors, Kurds, Azeris etc. are as Iranian as Persians in ethnical terms. While Turkic tribes and Arabs who live in Iran are Iranian in political sense of the word.

You can't tell me what I am, doesn't your brain understand this.

I never told you who you were. Try to nail it down into your frustrated brain dude. You are what you think you are. You are Oghuz if the thought of it pleases you. That makes you theoretically non-Iranian and non-Azeri, but just an Oghuz. Not even Turkish, but just a Turkic being. Enjoy your state;)

Azeri Turks are Turks whether you like it or not in language and identity.

Babam sunni, nenem sie, durek men,
Ne farsam men, ne hindem men, turek men
Muganda mugbece, mescitte akbar
Tefavut yok...heqiqetde zirek men!

I thought you'd bring some terrific example of 'Turkishness' from Nezami the Great. As you saw yesterday, Nezami, the greatest Azeri Iranian poet, did not consider himself Turk. But it seems you feed yourself with poems of the last century only. Pretty sad. Try to dig deeper if you can. Who knows your Vahabzade? Shahriar, of course, is a great figure in Persian and Turkic Azeri literature. He says:

Amadi, janam be qorbanat, vali hala chera?
Bivafa, hala ke man oftadeam az pa chera.

He was one of the greatest Persian poets of ghazal in 20th century and Persians are proud of their Azeri genius indeed. And again, he has nothing to do with Turks. He is an Iranian Azeri.

Kasravi was a tool of the Pahlavi regime which was based upon racism and assimilation. All the ethnic groups were to be assimilated into Persians and so theories such as those of Kasravi were supported. However, they ultimately failed as forced assimilation never works.

Based on your lame logic, you must be a tool of the Aliev or Turkish regimes, even their agent in Iran. You couldn't ridicule yourself better than that, could you? I'm sure you haven't read Kasravi's great works where he elaborates the roots of his ethnicity scientifically, not with sheer lies and libels like you. If you want to prove anything mate, just try to learn from great men like Kasravi. Kasravi put a full stop in this topic (Azari) for good. Nobody after him could deny his great findings.

Cheers my Oghuz brother

Bukharan

04-20-2008, 06:17 PM

Isn't it ironic that Bukharan was crying in another post when a user wrote that there is no such thing as Tajiks and said there is no link to Persians. However, this person does exactly the same to others.

It seems you are still steaming Tabriz_han. Chill out and listen carefully.

In the other topic that person did not utter the word Persian. He just said: There is no such a nation as 'Tajik'. I'm sure he gladdened sick-minded fellows of the forum. But that user took his words back by conversing in Persian and accepting the fact that Tajik means Persian.

But what I'm saying is absolutely a different thing. Have you heard me saying, "there is no such a people like 'Azeri'? Actually it is you who's repeating that now and again. I believe in Azeris' certain identity and do not call them 'Turk'. But you are saying: No, there is no such a thing as Azeri, cuz they are the same Turks. So, did you get my point now, dudie? You are denying an ethnicity (that might not belong to you as an Oghuz), but I am defending that ethnicity's identity.

Talk about calling the ketel black. What?:rolleyes:

Well as I said, whether you like it or not Azeri, Azeri Turks or Torks are Turks, this you cannot change.

Well, you can't say that, cuz you are an Oghuz. Sorry about that.;)

There are various estimates.
These range between 20 and 30 million, as Iran doesn't conduct cencus based on ethnic terms the definitive figure is unknown.

Well, if never an ethnic census have been conducted in Iran, logically, none of your figures could ever be accurate. You might be good in palm-reading, however, census is quite a different stuff. Do not mess around with it again mate.

You are being a total hypocrite.

I'm sure a mirror is in front of you every time you shout it out.;)

The Tajiks and Persians were two different groups.

The first time Tajik was used was by, "Mahmud Qashqari" to describe non-Turkic speakers.

Persian and Tajik in history do not mean the same thing.
Today you may feel they do.

You impressed me this time with your intellect Tabriz amca. Yes, the Uyghur Mahmud Kashghari was among the first Turkic writers who used the term in writing. The real meaning of the word was non-Turkic Iranians.

However, using your logic, this would mean Tajiks just speak a language similar to Persian.

Nope, you can transliterate anything from Tehrani Persian into Central Asian Persian with no alteration at all and it is 100% intelligable.

You claim the Turks of Iran and Azerbaycan are not Turks because in history different states ruled the land and various peoples lived there. Well the same is true for Tajikistan.

Twisting again? No such word in my postings. There are many Turkic people across the region ruled by different dynasties and states. And many Iranian groups as well. But Tajikistan, Iran and Afghanistan are not just Iranic or Iranian ethnic groups. Most of them speak Persian. So, being Persian-speaker of the same Iranian stock of peoples makes them Persian.

Like in Egypt. Copts or old-Egyptians were not Arab but belong to Semites. After being invaded by another Semite group called 'Arab', they turned into Arabs. Because they accepted the Arabic language and no difference - be it racial or linguistic - was left between Egyptians and Arabs. That's why they ARE Arab.

But inspite accepting Persian as their language Hazaras are not known as an Iranic tribe. Because that racial line still remains among Hazaras and other Persian-speakers. They are, therefore, Persian-speaking Turko-Mongols.

Azeris speak a Turkic language, but do not belong to the Altai group of ethnicities. Therefore, they cannot be known as Turks or a Turkic sub-group. They are still Iranian.

It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp. It is actually a well-known fact of anthropology. No anthropologist refers to Azeris as Turks.

Azeri Turks are historically known as Torks, Turkmans, Turcomans, Oghuz Turks and dominated the region from the 9th century onwards.

You lost here again. An admixture of theories has misshaped your understanding dude. All of them (Turks, Turkmen, Oghuz etc.) are separate ethnicities with their own peculiarities. We can talk about each of them and their ingredients for hours, if you wish.

Azeri term was added to Turk only a century ago by Russians.

Ha-ha-ha. And Persians copied it from Russians? Don't you think that it was vice versa? Cuz the word is of Persian origin. "Azar", "ator", "ador" are different forms of a modern Persian word "Azar" meaning "Fire". The pre-Islamic satrap of the land was Atorpad (meaning 'the guardian of the Fire). And Atrapaten (Atorpatgan, Azarbaygan, Azarbaijan) means 'the land of the guardian of the Fire'. The evidence is in all Persian pre-Islamic and post-Islamic writings. I recommend you to study a bit more before joining any discussion about Azerbaijan.

Now, the term Tajik, is Turco-Mongol etymologically
M.E. Subtelny, "The Symbiosis of Turk and Tajik" in B.F. Manz (ed.), Central Asia in Historical Perspective, (Boulder, Col. & Oxford), 1994, p. 48

And the term was first used by Turks.

I did accept that the term was first used by Turkic people and there is no need for your fervor. What's the point of repeating it again? But its etymology goes back to Pahlavi/Middle Persian (evidenced by Bartol'd and many other). Its meaning in Persian (taichik), Armenian (tachik), Chinese (dashi) in pre-Islamic ages was 'Arab'. Non-Muslim Turks who faced Iranian preachers of Islam called them 'Taazik', "Tezhek', "Tazhik' and 'Tajik' referring to the Arabic origin of Islam. Pre-Islamic Turks had no ties with Arabs and Islam was brought to steppes by Iranians.

Later, the term was used by Iranians themselves. As Sa'adi of Shiraz in Pars (Fars) says:

Shayad ke be paadshah beguyand,
Torke to berixt xune tajik

The oldest known reference of the word Tajik in Persian literature, however, can be found in the writings of Jalaleddin Rumi (Balkhi), himself being a Persian-speaker - and thus a "Tājik" - from Central Asia.

At certain periods of history, the word Tājik also referred to Persian-speaking scholars and clerks of early Islamic time who were schooled in Arabic. In the Safavid Empire, Tājik referred to the Iranian administrators and nobles of the kingdom, linked to the so-called Qezelbash movement.

First mentioned by the Uyghur historian Mahmoud Kashghari, Tājik is an old Turkic expression referring to all Persian-speaking peoples of Central Asia, but the roots of the word were not Turkic. From the 11th century on, it came to be applied principally to all East-Iranians, and later specifically to Persian-speakers. Persians in modern Iran who live in the Turkic-speaking areas of the country, also call themselves Tājik, something remarked upon in the 15th century by the Uzbek poet Navai. In addition, Tibetians call all Persian-speakers (including those in Iran) Tājik.

The term is mainly used as opposed to "Turk" and "Mongol". That's why all Persian historians use the term 'tork o tajik' instead of 'tork o irani'. Thus, Tajik is just a synonym for 'Iranian', 'Persian'.

Have a nice sleep.;)

Tabriz_Han

04-20-2008, 07:53 PM

Bukharan
I thought you called me inferior for praising my great language, while yourself doing the same.

You refer to your language as "bigger and greater" which is nothing but baseless chauvanism.

I mean look at your tone

Bukharan
with reminding you how big my language is.

Why do you have to keep emphasising this, I guess if you repeat it enough you might start to believe it.

Bukharan
Now cut bs and have a look at the following map of the Persian language location to see how vast it is still:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...ation_Map1.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...ation_Map1.png)

I took a look at it, half the region the coloured map covers is a desert.

Bukharan
As you can see, your screams and shouts are creating a ridiculous image for you and your fellows.

The only person screiming and shouting foaming at the mouth is yourself.

I just stated a simple fact

Persian is today not a literary language, it isn't used in non-Persian talking states and has lost its influence. Speaking Persian may help you in Iran and parts of Afganistan which doesn't make it so desirable or benefial to learn today.

Afganistan used to be a land of civillisation, great cities, scholors and literature, today this isn't the case. Persian has lost its prestige, centuries ago Latin was popular in Europe, now it isn't, things change.

This has nothing to do with Persian being bigger, better or any worse on a linguistic level than any other language.

Bukharan
But the knowledge of the political map tells me Tabriz is an Iranian city where the majority speak a Turkic dialect of Azeri.

Visit the region then and tell the locals about your theories see :)

The language is Turki, Oghuz Turkish, any Oghuz Turkish speaker can understand.

Here you can watch Gunaz Tv
www.gunaz.tv/ (http://www.gunaz.tv/)

Bukharan
Dream on brother. You might reach the most advanced stages of chauvinist bigotry like this. Depends who and what you mean by Turks. Iran has been ruled by Turko-Mongol savage dynasties for a couple of times

That's just classic, somebody using descriptions such as "savage dynasties" calling others chauvanist bigots.

, but by no means for a millenia.

Don't they teach you history?

Turkic rule begins in the year 975 with the Gaznavids.

Then we have the Seljuks, Khwarzemshahs, Beyliks and Atabeks up untill the Mongol invasion.

The the Timurids, Aq-qoyunlu, Qara-qoyunlu, various Atabeks.

Then the Safavids, Afshars, Qajars up until the Persian dynasty at the turn of the last century the Pahlavis.

Bukharan
Other dynasties that you might call Turkic (Safavids, Afshars etc) were pure Iranian. They were not invading foreigners, they belonged to the Iranian plateau culturally and racially. They were not Turk.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a "pure Iranian". Purity is a myth, a fiction of racists.

Iran is made up of various ethnics, Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Baluch, all are Iranian and part of Iran.

Safavids were founded by Turks, Turkmen tribes and armies. Haven't you read Sah Ismails literature? its in Turkish.

The Afshars ofcourse are Turks, you can't seriously claim otherwise.

Who are the Afshars? Afshars are a branch of the 24 Oghuz Turk clans.

Here is the Afshar clan's website and online community

http://www.avsarobasi.com/

There are Afshars and their branches in Turkmenistan, Afganistan, Iran, Azerbaycan, Turkey.

But Azeri people are not. That means you are not Azeri, cuz you don't accept their historical realities.

What is our language?
Turkish of the Oghuz Turk branch

What are we?
Turks

Historic realities? you mean the Oghuz tribes, Seljuks, Khwarzemshahs, Aq-qoyunlu, Qara-qoyunlu, Atabeks, Afshars, Timurids etc

Bukharan
You must be writing your doctorate to distinguish Azeri from Azari. lol. That was the funniest thing I ever heard here.

What is funny is that you don't know these basic school boy facts.

Azari, also spelled Adari, Adhari, is the name used for the Iranian language composed of groups of dialects which were spoken in Azerbaijan at one time. Some linguists have also designated the southern tati dialects of Azerbaijan like those spoken by the Tats[1] around Khalkhal, Harzand and Keringan as a remnant of Azari[2][3][4].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Azari_language#Pre-Turkic_Azari

Still laughing :lol:

Bukharan
On the other hand, you are accepting that you are brainwashed, since the language of your ancestors (Azaris, as you say) is extinct. But believe me, it is still alive. Just have a walk around Tabriz to get the point.

They arn't my linguistic ancestors, I don't share their identity, I don't have anything in common with them.

My forefathers, came, saw and conquered, bringing with them their language and identity which we share today.

Azari is not alive

Language extinction: gradually 1100-1600AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Azari_language#Pre-Turkic_Azari

Talysh is claimed to be an offshoot, so we could say that a modified version of Azari is spoken by around 500,000-1 million people.

Bukharan
The invasion changed the language, like Arabs changed it for Egyptians, Syrians and so forth or the French changed it for African tribes. Those African tribes never became French despite the fact that they speak the language.

Well like you have stated, the French colonised the region however, the Arabs while speaking French also know Arabic and most importantly of all, their identity is Arab or Berber.

This is where your argument falls to pieces.

We don't just speak Turkish, we are Turks, have lived as Turks in Iran for over 1000 years.

Bukharan
We are speaking about 2 different notions of Iranian. Baluchis, Lors, Kurds, Azeris etc. are as Iranian as Persians in ethnical terms.

Azeri are Turks ask any Iranian.

Bukharan
But it seems you feed yourself with poems of the last century only.

You want to read some Fuzuli, Nesimi, Xatayi? we can go back centuries if you wish.

Bukharan
He was one of the greatest Persian poets of ghazal in 20th century and Persians are proud of their Azeri genius indeed. And again, he has nothing to do with Turks.

Read, "Haydar babaya salam", he writes that he's a Turk :lol:

Ne tek İran’da ğelğele salmış nefesim
Bah ki Türkiye’de Kafkas’ta ne goğa iledim

He writes of his childhood

Çığırdığı mahalli türküler,
Anlattığı güzel ve albenili öykülerle

Bukharan
Kasravi put a full stop in this topic (Azari) for good.

You still don't understand, that Azari are a different people and language.

In Iran, Azeri Turks are simply called Torks, ask your Iranian buddies :)

Bukharan

04-20-2008, 09:54 PM

Dear Tabriz_han,

You finally proved being utterly brainwashed and living in your imaginary world that doesn't exist in reality.

The quote that you've put up there as mine, tells you that inhabitans of Azarbaijan are Iranian and you are just a brainwashed child:

Azari, also spelled Adari, Adhari, is the name used for the Iranian language composed of groups of dialects which were spoken in Azerbaijan at one time. Some linguists have also designated the southern tati dialects of Azerbaijan like those spoken by the Tats[1] around Khalkhal, Harzand and Keringan as a remnant of Azari[2][3][4].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient...e-Turkic_Azari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Azari_language#Pre-Turkic_Azari)

You refer to your language as "bigger and greater" which is nothing but baseless chauvanism. Why do you have to keep emphasising this, I guess if you repeat it enough you might start to believe it. I took a look at it, half the region the coloured map covers is a desert.

Hahaha. This is just your helpless jealousy speaking in our Oghuz brother. I feel for your indeed.

The only person screiming and shouting foaming at the mouth is yourself.

You are proving vice versa again:lol:

I just stated a simple fact

Persian is today not a literary language, it isn't used in non-Persian talking states and has lost its influence. Speaking Persian may help you in Iran and parts of Afganistan which doesn't make it so desirable or benefial to learn today.

Afganistan used to be a land of civillisation, great cities, scholors and literature, today this isn't the case. Persian has lost its prestige, centuries ago Latin was popular in Europe, now it isn't, things change.

It might be a fact for brainwashed people and lost souls, but not for academic minds. Likening Persian to Latin is a simple madness, while the former is still alive, functioning and producing in all continents and the latter has passed away. Shall I call you a school boy now? No, what is a grade below in your aul? Yeah, you must go back there.

Visit the region then and tell the locals about your theories see :)

I've been there already dude and have more than you will ever perhaps. There are plenty of enlightened Azeris in Iran who could teach you A-Z.

The language is Turki, Oghuz Turkish, any Oghuz Turkish speaker can understand.

Nope, the language is officially called Azeri. Check the republic's constitution before foaming any further.

Here you can watch Gunaz Tv
www.gunaz.tv/ (http://www.gunaz.tv/)

Why should I gardash? I know how it sounds.

That's just classic, somebody using descriptions such as "savage dynasties" calling others chauvanist bigots.

The term 'savage' is used regarding any dynasties that destroyed civilizations. Genghiz and Timur included. As for Persians, there were savage rulers like Xerxes who destroyed the Athens. Your chauvinist mind could be shattered if you try to accept the facts of history.

Don't they teach you history?

:lol::lol::lol: Some more shouts please :lol::lol::lol: I'm enjoying it.

Turkic rule begins in the year 975 with the Gaznavids.

Then we have the Seljuks, Khwarzemshahs, Beyliks and Atabeks up untill the Mongol invasion.

The the Timurids, Aq-qoyunlu, Qara-qoyunlu, various Atabeks.

Then the Safavids, Afshars, Qajars up until the Persian dynasty at the turn of the last century the Pahlavis.

There were Turko-Mongol rules in Iran, no doubt. But by pure Iranians I mean Safavids, Afshars and Qajars alike who do not fall along your Oghuz ethnic lines. They were Iranian in terms of ethnicity and race. They spoke Turkic languages, but none of them belonged to Altai race as you do.

Bukharan

04-20-2008, 09:55 PM

Iran is made up of various ethnics, Persians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Baluch, all are Iranian and part of Iran.

Yes, and again, in terms of race and ethnicity, Persians are Iranian, Arabs are Semite, Kurds are Iranian, Turks are Altai (there are just few of them in Iran), Azeris are Iranian, Baluch are Iranian, Lor are Iranian, Jews are Semite, Assyrians are Semite etc.

Safavids were founded by Turks, Turkmen tribes and armies. Haven't you read Sah Ismails literature? its in Turkish.

You can distort the facts only for your personal use dudie.

The Safavids (Persian: صفویان; Azerbaijani: Səfəvi) were an Iranian Shia dynasty of mixed Azeri and Kurdish origins, which ruled Persia from 1501/1502 to 1722. Safavids established the greatest Iranian empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia, and established the Ithnāˤashari school of Shi'a Islam as the official religion of their empire, marking one of the most important turning points in the history of Islam.

Their Azeri and Kurdish background makes them absolutely Iranian. You might cry over it for as long as you wish.

What is our language?

Turkish of the Oghuz Turk branch

What are we?

Turks

What do you mean by 'we'? As far as I see you are just one sole soul, unless you are that overesteemed to yourself.

They arn't my linguistic ancestors, I don't share their identity, I don't have anything in common with them.

They might be not yours (certainly), but they are Azeris' ethnic ancestors. Azeris only speak a Turkic language, but do not belong to Altai race.

My forefathers, came, saw and conquered, bringing with them their language and identity which we share today.

I can see how proud you are of your 'savagery' (refer to the term explained above). That means Tabriz and all Azerbaijan do not belong to you, since you are not its indigenous inhabitant. You accept that you have conquered a land that did not belong to you. But let me remind you that you do not represent all people of Azerbaijan and of course, Iranian Azeris outnumber you and your Oghuz fellows.

Azari is not alive

Repeat it again. You might even believe in your lie.

Talysh is claimed to be an offshoot, so we could say that a modified version of Azari is spoken by around 500,000-1 million people.

All Azeris used to speak a version of this language until Oghuz invasion.

Well like you have stated, the French colonised the region however, the Arabs while speaking French also know Arabic and most importantly of all, their identity is Arab or Berber.

This is where your argument falls to pieces.

Now tell me about Egyptians or Syrians. Do they speak their ancient languages? No. Are they have any specific identity? No. They are all Arab. Cuz their race was Semite as the race of Arabs. I hope you didn't fall this time with your argument into pieces.

We don't just speak Turkish, we are Turks, have lived as Turks in Iran for over 1000 years.

And again, a misuse of the plural form. You as being an Oghuz can say that. Not Azeris.

Azeri are Turks ask any Iranian.

They are called "Tork" among common people in Iran due to the language they speak. I've even asked Maleki, the ex-deputy foreign minister of Iran, Azeri himself. I was actually translating his conversation with diplomats from the rep of Azerbaijan. He explained very thoroughly to the diplomats amazement that all their mythes about 'Turkishness' cannot stand a simple scientific scrutiny. I remember his words perfectly: "Azeris are not Turk. I am Iranian and my people are Iranian. We are proud of being Iranian."

Please do not commit suicide now.

You want to read some Fuzuli, Nesimi, Xatayi? we can go back centuries if you wish.

I recited one from Nezami that you didn't like. But remind you, he's the founder of the Azeri literature. And he is Azeri Iranian.

Read, "Haydar babaya salam", he writes that he's a Turk

Ne tek İran’da ğelğele salmış nefesim

Bah ki Tьrkiye’de Kafkas’ta ne goğa iledim

He writes of his childhood

Зığırdığı mahalli tьrkьler,

Anlattığı gьzel ve albenili цykьlerle

Where does he call himself Turk? Did I miss it? Do you know what "Abenili oykuleri" means? Actually, this verse serves against your arguments dude. Thanks for bringing them here. That proves that Shariar knew his past very well and considered himself Iranian.

Thank you my Oghuz brother.

Qarama

04-21-2008, 04:29 AM

A correction the word "tat" in turkish means taste. So i don't understand in what you mean with "Turk tatsiz olmaz".

please compare the maps of Turkic speaking and Persian speaking people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Persian_Language_Location_Map1.png
http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/karten/turk/turklfa.jpg

we don't deny that we were influenced by Persians, but we were also the reason that the Persian language and culture was revived. After the Arabs conquered and ruled Iran, the Persians had no influence they started to "arabize".

Safavids were a Turkic state the Khwarezm Shah too they were just heavy persianized. Look at the founders of these states. But they were more a turco-persian state where the majority was Persian.

Let us say that in Azerbaijan only "Aryans" lived then i would like to know since when they live their and from the past till now how many times was it conquered and ruled by non Persian Turkic people. Ever heard something about assimilation? Look at how many times Iran was conquered and ruled by others, nobody can tell me that the Persians (tajiks included) are 100% pure Persian.

an other question do you think that the Uzbeks are Persian too?

you kinda remind me of our member Bacha :shock:

Tabriz_Han

04-21-2008, 05:51 AM

Bukharan
The quote that you've put up there as mine, tells you that inhabitans of Azarbaijan are Iranian and you are just a brainwashed child:

You either don't read or suffer from selective reading where you ignore anything which disagrees with your point of view.

Now, lets start again, read the article carefully.

Azari, also spelled Adari, Adhari, is the name used for the Iranian language composed of groups of dialects which were spoken in Azerbaijan at one time.

Incase you don't understand, "were" is past tense, Azari "was" spoken and was an Iranian language.

The old Iranic, Pahlavi based language of Azerbaijan, is now extinct, unless one considers Harzandi and other isoglosses to be remnant of it.

It is now "extinct" means it is no longer spoken, unless you consider "Harzandi" which no Torks in Iran speak a remnant of it.

Please stop making a fool of yourself.

Bukharan
I've been there already dude and have more than you will ever perhaps.

:lol:
What language is spoken in the city then.

Bukharan
There were Turko-Mongol rules in Iran, no doubt. But by pure Iranians I mean Safavids, Afshars and Qajars alike who do not fall along your Oghuz ethnic lines.

The level of ignorance your showing is shocking.

Afshar is a branch of the 24 Oghuz Turks, this is simple school boy knowledge.

Here is there Tamga

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Avsar.jpg

They are from the Boz-ok arm, the right branch, and trace ancestry to the son of Oghuz Kagans oldest son Yildiz Kagan.

Safavis were also in their foundation Oghuz Turk, they were responsible for a huge Turkic migration to north Iran resulting in a full Turkification of the area.

Qajars were from the "Quvanlu" Oghuz tribe.

Bukharan
Yes, and again, in terms of race

The only race is the human race.

Bukharan
They might be not yours (certainly), but they are Azeris' ethnic ancestors.

Again, they arn't linguistic ancestors.
They don't share the same identity.

The main obstacle you have to understanding this is your notion of racism.

When you realise this, you'll realise how ridiculous your racist theories are.

The only race is the human race.
We are all essentially the same, what differentiates us is our sense of "identity".
The elements which make up the perception of being part of a nation are, language, identity, history, socio-cultural. Race, genes or whatever you like play no part in this. Do you really know if your pure Tajik 10 or 20 generations back? would it matter if you wern't?

Thus, Azeri Turks, or Torks the term popularly used in Iran, speak Oghuz Turkish, have been living as Turks in Iran and Azerbaycan for over 1000 years and founded many states contributing to Iranian and Turkic history.

This is what's important and what counts today.

If you really believe what you write.

Persians are actually not Iranic, they are Elamites speaking Persian who think they are Persian, don't you just love the logic :shock:

Bukharan
That means Tabriz and all Azerbaijan do not belong to you, since you are not its indigenous inhabitant.You accept that you have conquered a land that did not belong to you.

It didn't 1000 years ago.

However, using this logic, Persians should leave Iran as well as they're not its indigenous inhabitants either, they conquered the land from the Elamites and other non-Persians.

Bukharan
Iranian Azeris outnumber you and your Oghuz fellows

The thing is, we are Oghuz.

Bukharan
They are called "Tork" among common people in Iran due to the language they speak.

Says you.
Most people who don't suffer from denial know its because they just happen to be "Turks" :)

Bukharan
I recited one from Nezami that you didn't like. But remind you, he's the founder of the Azeri literature.

Nope, he wrote in Persian not Turki so obviously he isn't the founder.

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 08:17 AM

A correction the word "tat" in turkish means taste. So i don't understand in what you mean with "Turk tatsiz olmaz".

Dear Qarama,

Have a look at the Tat description. It has nothing to do with your tatli Turkish mate:

The Tat are an Iranian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages)-speaking ethnic group in the Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus). The Muslim Tats are considered an Iranian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)ethnic group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group) in the Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus) and the Jewish Tats have adopted the language of Tati in ancient times. The Tats speak a southwest Iranian tongue called Tati, which is also referred to as Tat-Persian by some linguists. The Tats descend from Persians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_people) that moved into the Caucasian mountains in the 5th and 6th centuries.
You will see that proverb (No man without a hat, no Turk without a Tat) in many books, including Bartold’s Turkestan and Bergne’s The Birth of Tajikistan.

please compare the maps of Turkic speaking and Persian speaking people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Persian_Language_Location_Map1.png

http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/karten/turk/turklfa.jpg

Yes, I compared the both maps (Turkic and Persian). First, the map is not a scientific one and belongs not to a third party but to pan-Turks and can’t be trust-worthy altogether. While the Persian map is located on a third side site (Wiki).
Second, you are confused between 2 terms: Turkic and Turkish. Turkish is spoken only in Turkey that could not be compared to Iran of course. And if you compare it to the Persian language map, you will see how big the difference is.

But if you want to compare Iranian (not only Persian) and Turkic languages, the map will cover a much bigger area than even your Turkic map: half of Turkey itself will be on the Iranian linguistic map due to millions of Kurds living in that country.

we don't deny that we were influenced by Persians, but we were also the reason that the Persian language and culture was revived. After the Arabs conquered and ruled Iran, the Persians had no influence they started to "arabize".

Persians’ revival after the Arab conquest started with Samanids whom served the Turkic Ghaznavids as servants. So, Persians have never been ‘Arabized’ and Turks were not Arabized as well only thanks to Persians.

Safavids were a Turkic state the Khwarezm Shah too they were just heavy persianized. Look at the founders of these states. But they were more a turco-persian state where the majority was Persian.

With you guys daydreaming that Safavids were Turkic, they do not become Turkic. I quoted necessary info for you where it says they are Iranian (Azeri-Kurdish).

Let us say that in Azerbaijan only "Aryans" lived then i would like to know since when they live their and from the past till now how many times was it conquered and ruled by non Persian Turkic people. Ever heard something about assimilation? Look at how many times Iran was conquered and ruled by others, nobody can tell me that the Persians (tajiks included) are 100% pure Persian.

The term 'Aryan' has never been used by me in this discussion and it is you who's suggesting that in Azerbaijan only 'Aryans' live. I didn't say that. I accepted that there is, for example, one Oghuz and he's with us - Tabriz-han:lol:

Based on your logic, one can say that in future all Iraqis will be American, because the US have occupied it. Or all Indians were assimilated with the English, because the British ruled there for so long. It’s funny, isn’t it? So, Oghuz tribes might have occupied Azerbaijan, but they were not completely assimilated with Azeris.

an other question do you think that the Uzbeks are Persian too?

Uzbeks can never be Persian of course, unless they are Tajik like me but Uzbek according to their passports (millions of instances). This Turkic chauvenism has a very long history. Depends how you look like. The more you look like a Kazakh or Kyrgyz the more you are Turk. That means many Uzbeks are too mixed with Persians indeed. Nobody can deny that.

you kinda remind me of our member Bacha :shock:

I have no clue who you are talking about. But you sound like Civ Civ in Turkey Forum.:rolleyes:

Have fun;)

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 08:21 AM

Tabriz_han,

I stopped reading your bs after the first para. It seems you are dumbest person I've ever seen and can't get the fact that you are denying your ancestors. You go back and learn the tenses yourself and then read my postings again and again to finally get in your thick head what I'm talking about. I am saying that you are brain-washed, if you except that your ancestors used to speak an Iranian language and now you speak Turkic. If you say you are an Oghuz, that means you don't belong to the nation and the land doesnt belong to you. You will look like a Yankee dudie (that means American, in case you don't know) in Iraq claiming the land and the nation. Haha. Now get up, take deep breathes and realize your miserable position in this disco.

Bye

You either don't read or suffer from selective reading where you ignore anything which disagrees with your point of view.

Now, lets start again, read the article carefully.

Azari, also spelled Adari, Adhari, is the name used for the Iranian language composed of groups of dialects which were spoken in Azerbaijan at one time.

Incase you don't understand, "were" is past tense, Azari "was" spoken and was an Iranian language.

The old Iranic, Pahlavi based language of Azerbaijan, is now extinct, unless one considers Harzandi and other isoglosses to be remnant of it.

It is now "extinct" means it is no longer spoken, unless you consider "Harzandi" which no Torks in Iran speak a remnant of it.

Please stop making a fool of yourself.

:lol:
What language is spoken in the city then.

The level of ignorance your showing is shocking.

Afshar is a branch of the 24 Oghuz Turks, this is simple school boy knowledge.

Here is there Tamga

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Avsar.jpg

They are from the Boz-ok arm, the right branch, and trace ancestry to the son of Oghuz Kagans oldest son Yildiz Kagan.

Safavis were also in their foundation Oghuz Turk, they were responsible for a huge Turkic migration to north Iran resulting in a full Turkification of the area.

Qajars were from the "Quvanlu" Oghuz tribe.

The only race is the human race.

Again, they arn't linguistic ancestors.
They don't share the same identity.

The main obstacle you have to understanding this is your notion of racism.

When you realise this, you'll realise how ridiculous your racist theories are.

The only race is the human race.
We are all essentially the same, what differentiates us is our sense of "identity".
The elements which make up the perception of being part of a nation are, language, identity, history, socio-cultural. Race, genes or whatever you like play no part in this. Do you really know if your pure Tajik 10 or 20 generations back? would it matter if you wern't?

Thus, Azeri Turks, or Torks the term popularly used in Iran, speak Oghuz Turkish, have been living as Turks in Iran and Azerbaycan for over 1000 years and founded many states contributing to Iranian and Turkic history.

This is what's important and what counts today.

If you really believe what you write.

Persians are actually not Iranic, they are Elamites speaking Persian who think they are Persian, don't you just love the logic :shock:

It didn't 1000 years ago.

However, using this logic, Persians should leave Iran as well as they're not its indigenous inhabitants either, they conquered the land from the Elamites and other non-Persians.

The thing is, we are Oghuz.

Says you.
Most people who don't suffer from denial know its because they just happen to be "Turks" :)

Nope, he wrote in Persian not Turki so obviously he isn't the founder.

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 08:23 AM

If it was not for Persians, there could be no Turkic writer whatsoever.

Qarama

04-21-2008, 08:59 AM

"Yes, I compared the both maps (Turkic and Persian). First, the map is not a scientific one and belongs not to a third party but to pan-Turks and can’t be trust-worthy altogether. While the Persian map is located on a third side site (Wiki)"

the map is from the University of Frankfurt!
"Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien"

"Second, you are confused between 2 terms: Turkic and Turkish. Turkish is spoken only in Turkey that could not be compared to Iran of course. And if you compare it to the Persian language map, you will see how big the difference is."

well Turkic and Turkish is an other Issue but the Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks (mostly from Afghanistan) which i know call them selfs Turks.
Turkish is not only spoken in Turkey, what about north Iraq and the Balkans? even in west Iran.

I have Iranian friends here in Germany and when i ask them to translate Afghan or Tajik texts they don't understand it.

"But if you want to compare Iranian (not only Persian) and Turkic languages, the map will cover a much bigger area than even your Turkic map: half of Turkey itself will be on the Iranian linguistic map due to millions of Kurds living in that country."

half of Turkey is not Kurdish :) please show me a map with Iranian speakers.

"Persians’ revival after the Arab conquest started with Samanids whom served the Turkic Ghaznavids as servants. So, Persians have never been ‘Arabized’ and Turks were not Arabized as well only thanks to Persians."

"The Samanid state became a staunch patron of Islamic architecture and spread the Islamo-Persian culture deep into the heart of Central Asia"
ok you are right but Turks also helped a lot. I don't deny the Persian influence.

"With you guys daydreaming that Safavids were Turkic, they do not become Turkic. I quoted necessary info for you where it says they are Iranian (Azeri-Kurdish)."

"According to Lawrence Davidson:
-Even though most Turkish nomads and Persian peasants under the Safavid rule were Sunni, Ismail was determined to unite the country politically and religiously. Within a decade the Safavids, though Turkish by race, had taken control of all of Persia.

According to Richard Frye:
-The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. Azeri Turks were the founders of Safavid dynasty"

"The term 'Aryan' has never been used by me in this discussion and it is you who's suggesting that in Azerbaijan only 'Aryans' live. I didn't say that. I accepted that there is, for example, one Oghuz and he's with us - Tabriz-han:lol:"

"Based on your logic, one can say that in future all Iraqis will be American, because the US have occupied it. Or all Indians were assimilated with the English, because the British ruled there for so long. It’s funny, isn’t it? So, Oghuz tribes might have occupied Azerbaijan, but they were not completely assimilated with Azeris."

Azerbaijan was conquered and ruled by Gokturks, Khazars, Seljuqs, Ottomans all Turkish dynasties. I'm not sure which empire ruled Azerbaijan for how long. If you can count the Golden Horde as a Turkic empire too then Azerbaijan was also conquered and ruled by them. During all those years, intermarriage and wars, battles were normal so i think a assimilation is possible. IF we say that Azeris are originally Persians.

"Uzbeks can never be Persian of course, unless they are Tajik like me but Uzbek according to their passports (millions of instances). This Turkic chauvenism has a very long history. Depends how you look like. The more you look like a Kazakh or Kyrgyz the more you are Turk. That means many Uzbeks are too mixed with Persians indeed. Nobody can deny that"

many Iranians say that Uzbeks are Persian and that Amir Timur was also a Persian. What do you mean with "The more you look like a Kazakh or Kyrgyz the more you are Turk" are Chinese also turks? because of the eyes? Then the real Persians must look like Indians (from India) because they come from north India. But for me Persians look like Arabs. Even the Gypsies from the Balkans look very similar to Indians.

"I have no clue who you are talking about. But you sound like Civ Civ in Turkey Forum.:rolleyes:

Have fun;)"

i am not a member of a turkish forum :P
but watch out civ civ is a very aggressive nickname ;)

emirkaan

04-21-2008, 11:27 AM

However, it seems you are deeply ignorant about yourself. Let me remind you that Azeris are Caucasian Albainians (Alban-Alan-Aran-Arran-Aryan-Iran). .
its then, ermenek>>> ermeni
kenya>>>konya
japanese langues: This night>>>>konya
------
ER=Hero
Man= man
Ek= zone
ermenek=Zone of hero men, seyit battal gazi
----
Konya=ikenyum

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 11:41 AM

Dear Qarama,

I’ve never seen any Uzbek, Kazakh, Kyrghyz etc. who calls himself Turk since none of them are. They are Turkic indeed, but not Turk. They do not understand Turks or each other. They got just common roots and I’m sure you know it.

It is different with Tajiks, (Tajik or Farsiwan) Afghans and Iranians: they speak Persian and they belong to the Iranian stock. So they are simultaneously both Persian and Iranian.

But Turkish is not spoken in Iran, Iraq etc. I forgot to mention Cyprus. It is spoken in Turkey and a part of Cyprus, that’s it. There are many Turkic languages in a vast area, but they differ, although they belong to the same family of languages. Even between Azeri and Turkish some notions give contradictory meanings.

You can’t say the same about Persian of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. It is completely intelligible. If you had a misfortune of meeting an Iranian who didn’t understand Afghan or Tajik texts (unless it was in Cyrillic), refer him to me together with your texts. You will definitely get the most accurate translation. Cyrillic is the only barrier that we Central Asian Tajiks (Persians) have maintained. But hopefully, it will be ditched sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, I have no map if Iranian languages, since Persian is so great that we suffice with the foremost intention to unite them first. I will try to dig it out for you. I’m sure it exists, but must be very rare. But you can imagine yourself brother. Add up Persian (the map you saw) to Kurdish, Pashto, Baluchi, Lori, Mazandarani, Badaxshani languages (like Shoghni, Roshani, Vaxani etc), Ossetian, Tati, Taleshi, Gilaki, Yaghnabi (a dialect of Soghdian), Zazaki, Zargari (a remnant of Sasanids’ Pahlavi in use among Zoroastrians) etc. Too many to name them all. But Persian is the most important Iranian language as you know.

Thanks for accepting Samanids’ role, but remember that they were the first Central Asian dynasty to rebuff the Arabs and their influence effectively resisting their influence on Turks Muslimized by Persians, not Arabs.

Even Richard Frye in your quote says that Azeris are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers. That ‘mainly’ means a lot. The language has changed, but assimilation is not evident. Oghuz Turks were of Chinese type, and you can see this kind of Azeris as well, but they are extremely outnumbered by Iranian type of Azeris.

And again, I’ve never cited that Azeris were Persian. They’ve never been Persian mate. They have always been and remained Iranian.

As I said, Uzbeks are thoroughly assimilated with Persians and the process is still going on. That’s why they are different from genuinely Turkic tribes of Kazakh and Kyrghyz. They are in the middle of Iranians and Turkic tribes.

As for Persians, Aryans did not migrate from India to Iran. The process was vice versa. With a little research you will find out that they moved from Central Asia to the modern day Iran and India.

The series of ethnic groups which comprise the Iranian peoples are traced to a branch of the ancient Indo-European Aryans known as the Iranians or Proto-Iranians. Archaeological finds in Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East have elucidated some scant information about the way of life of these early peoples.

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 11:42 AM

its then, ermenek>>> ermeni
kenya>>>konya
japanese langues: This night>>>>konya
------
ER=Hero
Man= man
Ek= zone
ermenek=Zone of hero men, seyit battal gazi
----
Konya=ikenyum

Pas borow baram peydash kon. Dalil biyar. lol

It's such a lovely day out here.;)

Qarama

04-21-2008, 12:34 PM

no not Cyrillic "agar вn Torke Shirвzi, badast вrad dele mвrв
be xвle henduyash, baxsham Samarqando Boxвrв rв" he (the Iranian friend) said i don't know. I also showed Iranian friends some Tajik or Afghan songs they had problems to understand them.

When i watch turkish tv programs which showed west Iran or Azerbaijan they don't use a translator to understand each other. Turkey, Cyprus and don't forget some areas of Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia and off course east Thrace (Greece).
Turks of Turkey can't understand 100% of Uzbek but more then 50% the traditions and proverbs are almost the same.

But whatever Bukharan it is also a fact that we lived for hundred of years together in peace and inshAllah nothing will change that amin :)

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:14 PM

If the person you are saying could not explain the verse by Hafez Shirazi, he must be either non-Iranian or just had a difficulty to explain it to you. While you must know that:

Agar an torke Shirazi be dast arad dele mara
Be xale henduyash baxsham Samarqand o Boxarara
Feghan k-in Luliyane shuxe shirinkare shahrashun
Chonan bordand sabr az del ke torkan xane yaghmara

was recited in Shiraz, the capital of Fars, located in the present Iran. So, how come an Iranian couldn't understand it? You can ask any Iranian, s/he will read it by heart for you as I can do.

There is no problem of understanding whatsoever between Persians-speakers and I'm sure you know it too. If you've been following the news, you could see how representatives of three countries were exchanging their views in Persian with no interpreter. Something that doesn't happen between Uzbek and Turkish authorities.

I, as a person who understands both Uzbek and Turkish, can tell you that they are not inter-intelligible. My Turkish teacher from Stambul told me that Turks could understand 95% of Azeri, 75% of Turkmen, 45% of Kazakh and Kyrgyz, and just 25% of Uzbek. So, none of them could be known as Turkish. Each of them is a separate language with no 100% intelligibility for other Turkic peoples.

I think Tajiks have never shown the savagery of attacking on their neighbours. They have rather conquered all of them culturally, so that we can see. And I don't think that anyone out of Persians is advocating a war against our neighbours. Just try not to twist the facts, and everything will be peaceful and cool.

Take care;)

no not Cyrillic "agar вn Torke Shirвzi, badast вrad dele mвrв
be xвle henduyash, baxsham Samarqando Boxвrв rв" he (the Iranian friend) said i don't know. I also showed Iranian friends some Tajik or Afghan songs they had problems to understand them.

When i watch turkish tv programs which showed west Iran or Azerbaijan they don't use a translator to understand each other. Turkey, Cyprus and don't forget some areas of Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia and off course east Thrace (Greece).
Turks of Turkey can't understand 100% of Uzbek but more then 50% the traditions and proverbs are almost the same.

But whatever Bukharan it is also a fact that we lived for hundred of years together in peace and inshAllah nothing will change that amin :)

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:18 PM

Just an example:

Nasilsin? Qalaysan? Na (ne) jursan (sen)?

These three words are not shared mutually between Turkish, Uzbek and Azeri. While it is one of the most basics of any language.

Abu-Hafiza

04-21-2008, 01:18 PM

Bukharan, what r u trying to prove? OK, lets say you are right, so what? Would anything change?

Just chill mate, there is a huge world outside, take a deep breath, be happy :D

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:21 PM

I'm the happiest person in the room Abu-Hafiza. Thanks for your concern. Answering questions keeps me entertained;)

Cheers

Bukharan, what r u trying to prove? OK, lets say you are right, so what? Would anything change?

Just chill mate, there is a huge world outside, take a deep breath, be happy :D

Abu-Hafiza

04-21-2008, 01:23 PM

I'm the happiest person in the room Abu-Hafiza. Thanks for your concern. Answering questions keeps me entertained;)

Cheers
Good for you bro

Keep the positive energy going ;)

Qarama

04-21-2008, 01:31 PM

Well i can understand Uzbek/Uyghur more then Kazakh/Kyrgyz. So i am not sure about the % you mentioned. I try to learn Uzbek, i have also books in German for learning the language, for me the language is not hard to learn because the grammar is almost the same and the words which starts in Uzbek with a K, starts in Turkish with a G (kel-gel) the numbers are the same etc.
Turkic languages are characterized by vowel harmony, general lack of consonant groups the use of possessive suffixes, lack of gender and a general agglutination of suffixes in word formation...

We also don't want to start a war don't worry :)

Qarama

04-21-2008, 01:39 PM

Just an example:

Nasilsin? Qalaysan? Na (ne) jursan (sen)?

These three words are not shared mutually between Turkish, Uzbek and Azeri. While it is one of the most basics of any language.

Oghuz, Karluk,

nasilsin = Turkish = Oghuz
necesen, nasilsan = Azeri = Oghuz
qalaysan, qandaysan = Uzbek = Karluk
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Map-Oguz_Language_World.png
Oghuz speakers

Karluk speakers are Uyghurs and Uzbeks
http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/images/Uzbek.GIF
http://www.mapzones.com/citymap/china/xinjiang_uygur/xinjiang_uygur.jpg

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:42 PM

That percentage was mentioned not by me. I just quoted a Turk from Stanbul. And after learning the languages and travelling throughout Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tatarstan, and of course Uzbekistan, I found out that he was right.

If you are still learning Uzbek, it means you are learning a foreign language, since we Persians (throughout the Persian world) learn the language at our homes.

As regards the grammar, you are absolutely right. Turkic grammar is quite similar in all of them., cuz they got same roots. However, it's not just grammar, numeratives, and 'k' to 'g' shifts that make up a language. Numeratives are the same between Persian, Kurdish, Pamiri languages, but still, we don't understand each other 100%.

The Uzbek language lost its vowel harmony (bilirim (i-i-i), but dogdum (o-u) under the Persian influence. It's actually thoroughly Persianized and up to 60% of its vocabulary is Persian. That's why it could be difficult for other Turkic people to understand them.

And I'm not worried about a war at all, cuz I know you and it's a different time. lol;) But if there will be, I won't say stop it.:lol: But will do the same.

Well i can understand Uzbek/Uyghur more then Kazakh/Kyrgyz. So i am not sure about the % you mentioned. I try to learn Uzbek, i have also books in German for learning the language, for me the language is not hard to learn because the grammar is almost the same and the words which starts in Uzbek with a K, starts in Turkish with a G (kel-gel) the numbers are the same etc.
Turkic languages are characterized by vowel harmony, general lack of consonant groups the use of possessive suffixes, lack of gender and a general agglutination of suffixes in word formation...

We also don't want to start a war don't worry :)

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:46 PM

And still, they are so far away from each other.

Oghuz, Karluk,

nasilsin = Turkish = Oghuz
necesen, nasilsan = Azeri = Oghuz
qalaysan, qandaysan = Uzbek = Karluk
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Map-Oguz_Language_World.png
Oghuz speakers

Karluk speakers are Uyghurs and Uzbeks
http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/images/Uzbek.GIF
http://www.mapzones.com/citymap/china/xinjiang_uygur/xinjiang_uygur.jpg

Qarama

04-21-2008, 01:46 PM

Qarama

04-21-2008, 01:47 PM

do Tajiks also say "halet khube" or " na chetori" (how are you). Because i know a little iranian.

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:51 PM

"If you are still learning Uzbek, it means you are learning a foreign language, since we Persians (throughout the Persian world) learn the language at our homes."

sorry but i don't understand that what do you mean by that.

You said, you were still learning Uzbek. That means you are learning a foreign language, while Persians learn it while growing up.

Qarama

04-21-2008, 01:53 PM

You said, you were still learning Uzbek. That means you are learning a foreign language, while Persians learn it while growing up.

i'm not an Uzbek and i don't learn Uzbek regularly i sometimes open the book, read in the forum, listen to Uzbek music and that's it.

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:54 PM

do Tajiks also say "halet khube" or " na chetori" (how are you). Because i know a little iranian.

Yes, absolutely. The proper literary version of it is:

Halet che tor ast?
Che tori?

("Na chetori" does not exist. "Na" in Persian means "no").

And that literary language is the same in all 4 countries (including Uzbekistan).

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 01:55 PM

i'm not an Uzbek and i don't learn Uzbek regularly i sometimes open the book, read in the forum, listen to Uzbek music and that's it.

That's precisely what I meant. That means Turkic people speak different languages.

Qarama

04-21-2008, 01:59 PM

Tabriz_Han

04-21-2008, 01:59 PM

Bukharan
Second, you are confused between 2 terms: Turkic and Turkish. Turkish is spoken only in Turkey that could not be compared to Iran of course. And if you compare it to the Persian language map, you will see how big the difference is.

Actually Turkish is spoken in Azerbaycan, Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Gagauz, Ahiska, the Caucusus, the Balkans, Iraq, Syria and is mutually intellegible with Turkmenistan (Oghuz Turkish) and Crimean Tatar.

The total speakers are 110 million.

The mutual intelligibility with Uygur/Ozbek is high, I haven't had one lesson but now watch Ozbekistan tv and read the newspapers.

Persian is spoken by 70 million if we include Afganistan and Tajikistan.

Bukharan
So, Persians have never been ‘Arabized’

Persians were heavily Arabized after been conquered and ruled by them.

There is a large Arab impact on Persian, Farsi is an Arabized version of Parsi, after the Islamic revolution more and more Arabic words have been entering Persian.

Bukharan
With you guys daydreaming that Safavids were Turkic

Safavids founders were Turkic, Sah Ismail wrote his poetry in Turkish, the main force of the Safavids were the Turkmen tribes who had a mass migration to North Iran, one of the reasons why the region is Turkish speaking today.

Bukharan
if you except that your ancestors used to speak an Iranian language and now you speak Turkic. If you say you are an Oghuz, that means you don't belong to the nation and the land doesnt belong to you.

Oh yeah and the Persians must accept their ancestors were Elamites and they just speak Persian for the fun of it.

If we go back far enough all our ancestors are the same and spoke the same language.

This is a pointless argument, were all human and have the same origins.

However, over time we have become Turks and speak Turkish, you have another identity and speak another language.

Oghuz Turks have lived in Iran for over 1000 years, they have ruled the region since then. If you reject us then your rejecting the history of Iran, the Seljuks, Khwarzemshahs, Qaraqoyunlu, Aq-qoyunlu, Atabeks, Safavids, Afshars, Qajars...

Bukharan
But Turkish is not spoken in Iran, Iraq etc.

Yes it is.

www.gunaz.tv (http://www.gunaz.tv)

Ask members from Turkey if they understand the language spoken by Iran Turks :) how can they understand if its another language :shock:

Bukharan
You can’t say the same about Persian of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. It is completely intelligible. If you had a misfortune of meeting an Iranian who didn’t understand Afghan or Tajik texts (unless it was in Cyrillic), refer him to me together with your texts.

Afgans and Tajiks are not Iranians.
People from Iran are Iranian.

Dari is spoken by 50% of Afgans however, most of them are not Tajiks, Tajiks number 8-9 million roughly 27-33% of the population.

How then do you think Afganistan is going to unite with Iran? the elite in Afganistan today are Pashtuns and they arn't fond of such a movement.

Also why should Iran join Afganistan? apart from pleasing your utopian nationalism what benefit is there?

Bukharan
Thanks for accepting Samanids’ role, but remember that they were the first Central Asian dynasty to rebuff the Arabs and their influence effectively resisting their influence on Turks Muslimized by Persians, not Arabs.

Nope.
The Karakhanids were not ruled by Arabs.
Persians became muslim "under" Arab rule.
Turks became muslim out of free will, they were not muslimized by Persians, Ahmad Yasavi was the pioneer in the Turco-muslim movement.

Bukharan
As for Persians, Aryans did not migrate from India to Iran.

Actually, today its agreed that Aryans did migrate from India Westwards, only the Nazi's believed otherwise (from Nordic lands)

Qarama

04-21-2008, 02:02 PM

That's precisely what I meant. That means Turkic people speak different languages.

i don't think so if a Turk would learn it regular she/he would understand and speak Uzbek in 1 or 2 weeks very good.

Turkish and Uzbek is not like German and Spanish.

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 02:07 PM

i don't think so if a Turk would learn it regular she/he would understand and speak Uzbek in 1 or 2 weeks very good.

Turkish and Uzbek is not like German and Spanish.

In the same way I've learnt Pamiri languages, just a couple of weeks. But I can't claim them being Persian. They are Iranian.

In the same way you can't allege all those languages being Turkish. They are Turkic.

German is a West Germanic one and Spanish is a Romance tongue. That's why you can't learn them quickly.

Qarama

04-21-2008, 02:09 PM

what about Dutch and German?

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 02:16 PM

Good morning Tabriz_han,

I thought you'd breeze a fresh air into your boring repetative rhetoric after such a long absence, but alas. You are still the same as your words. Sheer lies with no references. With your reasoning I can put the number of Persians as high as 200 million, and claim that it is spoken in the entire world (and it is). But I think that would be a bit too silly to boast with no basis. And that's exactly what you are doing.

Even the CIA Factboolk accepts that Persian is the language of majority in Afghanistan, but you got your own statistics to refer to. :lol:

And Pashtuns have never reached 50%. They are still under 40%. But you don't care. You have your own figures. :lol:

Fanatical poor being you are dude.

The history and quotes you brought in here... everything proves you wrong, but you insist on your superiority.

It is a well-known fact and evidenced by all historians that Safavids were Iranian with Azeri/Kurdish descent, but you keep attributing your 'Oghuzness' to the poor dynasty.

You are fooling yourself in a bad way, just like a clown.

I had a real fan though, chatting with you.

Have a nice Oghuz dreams again.

Bye:lol:

[/size][/font]

Actually Turkish is spoken in Azerbaycan, Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Gagauz, Ahiska, the Caucusus, the Balkans, Iraq, Syria and is mutually intellegible with Turkmenistan (Oghuz Turkish) and Crimean Tatar.

The total speakers are 110 million.

The mutual intelligibility with Uygur/Ozbek is high, I haven't had one lesson but now watch Ozbekistan tv and read the newspapers.

Persian is spoken by 70 million if we include Afganistan and Tajikistan.

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]

Persians were heavily Arabized after been conquered and ruled by them.

There is a large Arab impact on Persian, Farsi is an Arabized version of Parsi, after the Islamic revolution more and more Arabic words have been entering Persian.

Safavids founders were Turkic, Sah Ismail wrote his poetry in Turkish, the main force of the Safavids were the Turkmen tribes who had a mass migration to North Iran, one of the reasons why the region is Turkish speaking today.

Oh yeah and the Persians must accept their ancestors were Elamites and they just speak Persian for the fun of it.

If we go back far enough all our ancestors are the same and spoke the same language.

This is a pointless argument, were all human and have the same origins.

However, over time we have become Turks and speak Turkish, you have another identity and speak another language.

Oghuz Turks have lived in Iran for over 1000 years, they have ruled the region since then. If you reject us then your rejecting the history of Iran, the Seljuks, Khwarzemshahs, Qaraqoyunlu, Aq-qoyunlu, Atabeks, Safavids, Afshars, Qajars...

Yes it is.

www.gunaz.tv (http://www.gunaz.tv)

Ask members from Turkey if they understand the language spoken by Iran Turks :) how can they understand if its another language :shock:

Afgans and Tajiks are not Iranians.
People from Iran are Iranian.

Dari is spoken by 50% of Afgans however, most of them are not Tajiks, Tajiks number 8-9 million roughly 27-33% of the population.

How then do you think Afganistan is going to unite with Iran? the elite in Afganistan today are Pashtuns and they arn't fond of such a movement.

Also why should Iran join Afganistan? apart from pleasing your utopian nationalism what benefit is there?

Nope.
The Karakhanids were not ruled by Arabs.
Persians became muslim "under" Arab rule.
Turks became muslim out of free will, they were not muslimized by Persians, Ahmad Yasavi was the pioneer in the Turco-muslim movement.

Actually, today its agreed that Aryans did migrate from India Westwards, only the Nazi's believed otherwise (from Nordic lands)

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 02:18 PM

what about Dutch and German?

Dutch is West Germanic too. Exactly like German. That's why not that difficult to learn for German-speakers. It didn't take me too long to work out sentences in Dutch, since I could speak German already. But they have specific differences in pronouncing some sounds. Like "g" in Dutch is pronounced as "kh" that makes the German "gut" sound like "khut".

emirkaan

04-21-2008, 02:19 PM

With your reasoning I can put the number of Persians as high as 200 million, and claim that it is spoken in the entire world (and it is). Have a nice Oghuz dreams again.

Bye:lol:
HONK HUNK
2oomillions:shock:
persian=endonezya ? :D:D:D
maybe, 400 later years
.if Amerika lose
----
persian population, maybe 25 million

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 02:21 PM

Tabriz_Han

04-21-2008, 02:55 PM

Bukharan
In the same way you can't allege all those languages being Turkish. They are Turkic.

Well my uncle worked in Ozbekistan for a while and didn't go to any language school however, after settling in he didn't have a problem communicating.

Bukharan
With your reasoning I can put the number of Persians as high as 200 million

Please explain?
Persians in Iran are just over or under 50% of the population.
Tajiks in Afganistan are 27-33% of the population.
Tajiks in Tajikistan are 80% of the population.
And there is a Tajik minority in Ozbekistan.

Which ever way you play with the numbers you wont reach 200 million.

Bukharan
Even the CIA Factboolk accepts that Persian is the language of majority in Afghanistan

What is really weird is how you distort what is written.

Here is what CIA factbook writes.

Languages:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/dictionary.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2098) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/listing.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html)
Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashto (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism

Which is exactly what I wrote.

It also like I early explained writes...

Ethnic groups:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/dictionary.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2075) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/listing.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html)
Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

Well it gives Tajik as 27% a little lower.

Bukharan
And Pashtuns have never reached 50%. They are still under 40%. But you don't care. You have your own figures

According to CIA factbook they are 42% of the population and the majority.

Bukharan
It is a well-known fact and evidenced by all historians that Safavids were Iranian with Azeri/Kurdish descent, but you keep attributing your 'Oghuzness' to the poor dynasty.

Shah Ismail was a descendant of Uzun Hasan, an Aq-qoyunlu ruler.
Shah Ismails main forces were Oghuz Turkmen tribes.

This is basic history.

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 03:18 PM

"agar shaba enghad tul mikeshidan mesleynke man behet fekr mikonam, hichwakht aftabi nemishod"

"dokthare ba namak shomarato behem midi lotfan?"

if you understand them translate them :D i know what they mean ;)

lol
u r trying to exam my Persian. here u go dude.

Your transliteration is defective, but I think I got you:

The first sentence: If nights were as long as my thoughts about you, the Sun would have never risen.

The second one: Spicy girl, would you gimme your number please?

So, beware. Both are a bit too romantic to use them with anyone:lol:

Bukharan

04-21-2008, 03:33 PM

Well my uncle worked in Ozbekistan for a while and didn't go to any language school however, after settling in he didn't have a problem communicating.

Well, your uncle started learning a foreign language. Don't tell me that Azeri and Uzbek are the same language. That would be a top notch of your tricks:rolleyes:

Please explain?
Persians in Iran are just over or under 50% of the population.
Tajiks in Afganistan are 27-33% of the population.
Tajiks in Tajikistan are 80% of the population.
And there is a Tajik minority in Ozbekistan.

Again, where did you get the figures from? The majority of Iran is Persian and it's a fact you can witness by going around the country. And it's not only Persians who speak Persian as their native tongue. The same is in Afghanistan. Persian doesn't belong to Tajiks only. That's why it is the language of their majority as well. Persian is spoken by every single person in Tajikistan. Persian is the most common language in all three countries. What else do you want me to explain?

As for Uzbekistan, millions of Tajiks have been registered as Uzbek on their passports. So, you can't call them just a minority. And they speak Persian in their homes. And I am from Bukhara myself, for ur info. So, the number could reach even higher than 200 m if you add up other Persian-speakers all around the globe.

What is really weird is how you distort what is written.

Here is what CIA factbook writes.

Languages:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/dictionary.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2098) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/listing.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html)
Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashto (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism

Which is exactly what I wrote.

It also like I early explained writes...

Ethnic groups:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/dictionary.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2075) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/listing.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html)
Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

lol. Have you ever seen anyone cheekier than yourself dude? Tell me honestly. It was you claiming that over 50% of Afghanistan consists of Pashtuns. And I told you, over 50% of that country speaks Persian as their native language. And those CIA figures proved my figures correct and urs wrong.

According to CIA factbook they are 42% of the population and the majority.

Now you gotta have another peek, Tabriz_han, in order to understand the meaning of 'majority' in terms of population. Anything less than 50% is not to be called 'majority'. The figures you quoted show that Persian is spoken by 50% of the people. That means Persian is the tongue of Afghanistan' majority. Was it that hard to grasp?

Shah Ismail was a descendant of Uzun Hasan, an Aq-qoyunlu ruler.
Shah Ismails main forces were Oghuz Turkmen tribes.

Safavids have nothing to do with Aq-qoyunlu, Qara-qoyunlu, Sari-qoyunlu, Gok-qoyunlu and whatever other qouyunlus you had. They are Iranian with Azeri/Kurdish descent.

This is basic history.

That was rather your story and a very ill-informed twisted one.;)

SAMARKANDI!

04-21-2008, 03:36 PM

Well, your uncle started learning a foreign language. Don't tell me that Azeri and Uzbek are the same language. That would be a top notch of your tricks:rolleyes:

Again, where did you get the figures? The majority of Iran is Persian and it's a fact you can by going around the country. And it's not only Persians who speak Persian as their native tongue. The same is in Afghanistan. Persian doesn't belong to Tajiks only. That's why it is the language of their majority as well. Persian is spoken by every single person in Tajikistan. Persian is the most common language in all three countries. What else do you want me to explain?

As for Uzbekistan, millions of Tajiks have been registered as Uzbek on their passports. So, you can't call them just a minority. And they speak Persian in their homes. And I am from Bukhara myself, for ur info. So, the number could reach even higher than 200 m if you add up other Persian-speakers all around the globe.

lol. Have you ever seen anyone cheekier than yourself dude? Tell me honestly. It was you claiming that over 50% of Afghanistan consists of Pashtuns. And I told you, over 50% of that country speaks Persian as their native language. And those CIA figures proved my figures correct and urs wrong.

Now you gotta have another peek, Tabriz_han, in order to understand the meaning of 'majority' in terms of population. Anything less than 50% is not to be called 'majority'. The figures you quoted show that Persian is spoken by 50% of the people. That means Persian is the tongue of Afghanistan' majority. Was it that hard to grasp?

Safavids have nothing to do with Aq-qoyunlu, Qara-qoyunlu, Sari-qoyunlu, Gok-qoyunlu and whatever other qouyunlus you had. They are Iranian with Azeri/Kurdish descent.

That was rather your story and a very ill-informed twisted one.;)

Ok we got it. whats next?