• Our popular and beloved forums are finally back, after being down since April 2018 due to hosting and server issues. We have now switched to a better platform, while maintenaing all data as it was before (contents and user names) . Thank you for your patience and loyalty. If you have any questions, need to report an error, or are having trouble logging in, please email us at: assyrianvoice@rogers.com

Turkey bomb Assyrian villages in Barwar and Nahle

mrzurnaci

Active member
was anybody hurt? Can't the Assyrian community take Turkey to the international court, for reparations, for this?
 

Cascade

Active member
mrzurnaci said:
Suryoyo and Assyrian is the same language...
Whilst both evolved from classical Syriac, they have "diverged" enough to be two separate languages. Maybe 500 years ago they would've been two homogeneous and mutually intelligible dialects? Certainly not now. I personally wouldn't consider a "dialect" that is almost 90% mutually unintelligible to us as the "same" language.

There has always been a dispute on this anyway - Some consider the modern Aramaic languages as mere dialects, whilst others tag them as languages on their own. I'm half-half on this matter...I would agree that "Chaldean", Senaya and Bohtan Neo-Aramaic are Assyrian dialects because they considerably sound Assyrian.

Lishanid Noshan/Didan, whilst more similar sounding to our tongue than Turoyo is, are also discrete languages from Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Still very closely related though. 
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Neon said:
Whilst both evolved from classical Syriac, they have "diverged" enough to be two separate languages. Maybe 500 years ago they would've been two homogeneous and mutually intelligible dialects? Certainly not now. I personally wouldn't consider a "dialect" that is almost 90% mutually intelligible to us as the "same" language.

There has always been a dispute on this anyway - Some consider the modern Aramaic languages as mere dialects, whilst others tag them as languages on their own. I'm half-half on this matter...I would agree that "Chaldean", Senaya and Bohtan Neo-Aramaic are Assyrian dialects because they considerably sound Assyrian.

Lishanid Noshan/Didan, whilst more similar sounding to our tongue than Turoyo is, are also discrete languages from Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Still very closely related though. 
They're not separate languages, they're dialects...

If they were separate languages, then we wouldn't have been able to understand each other AT ALL...

A dialect that is 90% mutually intelligible means it's the same language but as a dialect.

Doesn't matter what u say, it's a dialect whether you like it or not; especially when old, educated European men say it's a dialect...
 

Cascade

Active member
mrzurnaci said:
They're not separate languages, they're dialects...

A dialect that is 90% mutually intelligible means it's the same language but as a dialect.
Correction - I meant that Turoyo is "90% mutually UNINTELLIGIBLE" to us.

If they were separate languages, then we wouldn't have been able to understand each other AT ALL...
German and Dutch are separate languages and they understand each other to a limited degree. Does this mean that their languages are dialects too? Swedish and Danish are also mutually intelligible to a certain degree... :dry:

Doesn't matter what u say, it's a dialect whether you like it or not; especially when old, educated European men say it's a dialect...
That's a feeble argument, man. Those "old, educated European men" don't get to teach us about our OWN language thank you very much.  We know our culture more, not them. For their untrained alien ear, Turoyo and Assyrian would definitely sound alike. Outsiders are not good sources. If German and Dutch were minor ethnic languages in Asia, and if I were a rich European linguistic "expert", I would probably consider them dialects of the same (Germanic) language. Foreigners generally trivialize the importance and complexity of language.

Look, we were just watching a Suroyo TV program and my family was like "why are these people such nationalistic Assyrians and yet are speaking a wholly different language?". I actually defended these people and said that "at least, unlike Chaldeans, they're speaking Aramaic rather than Arabic, so let's give them props here". But my parents are still on the right track, these people do NOT speak our language. Their wordings, vocab, etc, are distinct. This is common sense.

Just because we speak a modern variation of Syriac/Aramaic doesn't mean that we are all speaking dialects. That's more tribal than anything, and I thought you hate "tribal bullsh!t" (as you put it). We are both evolved enough to speak a distinct language of our own. That's far less "tribal" than anything, and more nationalistic and progressive.

To put it plainly, Assyrian and Turoyo are Syriac languages, just like how Dutch, German and English are Germanic. They all come from a Proto-Germanic/Syriac language. Doesn't mean that its "children" languages are dialects. And I find it debasing to think so, to be honest - My Assyrian language is NOT a dialect. Why reduce your beautiful language to a mere "dialect" anyway? That's unpatriotic, degrading and even offensive.

Oh I take the last paragraph back - Lishanid Deni can easily be an Assyrian dialect. They sound very mutually intelligible (now they're 90% intelligible) and their accent is pretty much like Chaldeans.
 
They aren't different languages. They are dialects.

I have trouble understanding political suryayt. How can you expect to understand political suryoyo when you've never heard it before?
Understand this. The people that are, in the true meaning, fluent in Suryayt, understand Suryoyo without any problems. In my own experience, the more I hang out with Western Assyrians, the more I realize the similarities in language - it is very hard to speak it, because I am "Suryayt-indoctrinated", but I understand most of the stuff the people around me say. My mother and father speak both dialects without any problem, they also say it's the same thing.

Words that we've taken from other languages, they have preserved from Akkadian or Aramaic. For example, many say dikhtoor when the correct word is asya and they say osyo. For cars we've Assyrianized the word automobile into atnabel but the correct word is radayta whereas they say radayto. These are examples of how we may mistake our dialects for languages when in fact they are identical with the exception of some vowels. They adapted o where we use a, when we use o they use a.
 

Cascade

Active member
Assyrian_Man said:
They aren't different languages. They are dialects.

I have trouble understanding political suryayt. How can you expect to understand political suryoyo when you've never heard it before?
Understand this. The people that are, in the true meaning, fluent in Suryayt, understand Suryoyo without any problems. In my own experience, the more I hang out with Western Assyrians, the more I realize the similarities in language - it is very hard to speak it, because I am "Suryayt-indoctrinated", but I understand most of the stuff the people around me say. My mother and father speak both dialects without any problem, they also say it's the same thing.

Words that we've taken from other languages, they have preserved from Akkadian or Aramaic. For example, many say dikhtoor when the correct word is asya and they say osyo. For cars we've Assyrianized the word automobile into atnabel but the correct word is radayta whereas they say radayto. These are examples of how we may mistake our dialects for languages when in fact they are identical with the exception of some vowels. They adapted o where we use a, when we use o they use a.
Look, there is some mutual intelligibility with Turoyo, and it depends on the speaker (I never denied this). But on a general note I would consider them two different, but closely related, languages. And this has nothing to do with "separating" our people and such.

Who said I listened to political suryoyo? I watched regular people speaking & singing in it on Youtube (from TV hosts to regular people). They all sounded pretty much the same. For me it's at least 15-20% intelligible. For the average Assyrian it would be slightly higher, but I doubt most of us would understand 50% of it. We're not all educated linguists here. And if we judge languages on linguists then other closely related tongues like Swedish/Danish, German/Dutch would be "dialects" too.

I do commend them for retaining the Aramaic words for doctor (asya) and car (radayta). But that wasn't my argument. All I said was that we speak two different languages. Again, Suroyo/Suret were probably dialects (of the same language) 500 years ago. Now they're just diverged enough to be singular languages.

They're considered separate languages on language books and internet articles too. So it's not just coming from me.
 
I wrote political Suryoyo because you referenced watching Suroyo TV. ANB, Assyria TV content is not simple Assyrian. It's political language.

You don't need to be an educated linguist, if you would be fluent in Surayt you could become fluent in Suryoyo much faster than learning a different language. The words were just examples of how dialectal differences can make it seem like different languages. Some Assyrians do say radayta e.g.. Keiso in Suryoyo from kuaes Arabic, spay in Surayt from sipas Kurdish. Towo/tawa is our word for good - some use them, others do not, doesn't make it a different language.

Books and websites don't always write how it is, but how it appears. There's a clear distinction.

Why do Kurds insist on their 3-4 dialects that are far more incomprehensible to each other to be the same language, but we insist our 2 aren't?
 

Cascade

Active member
Assyrian_Man said:
I wrote political Suryoyo because you referenced watching Suroyo TV. ANB, Assyria TV content is not simple Assyrian. It's political language.
I wasn't strictly watching those and these programs still did interview "regular" people.

You don't need to be an educated linguist, if you would be fluent in Surayt you could become fluent in Suryoyo much faster than learning a different language.
Only because Suryoyo and Assyrian are two closely related languages - It's easier to learn a language that sounds close to yours. Might I mention that two separate languages can also be significantly intelligible and still not be dialects. Take a look at this (yeah it's Wikipedia, but you might get the idea or at least where I'm coming from): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_intelligibility#List_of_mutually_intelligible_languages

Books and websites don't always write how it is, but how it appears. There's a clear distinction.
Not sure what that means. Still doesn't mean that online sources and books are not accurate about languages.

Why do Kurds insist on their 3-4 dialects that are far more incomprehensible to each other to be the same language, but we insist our 2 aren't?
We have nothing on Kurds. We really shouldn't care about them or compete with them.

I'm being fair and as objective as I can be. To my ears, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo sound like closely related languages, one isn't a dialect of another (and vice versa). They sound too distinct to be dialects. Or at least, they're "divided" enough to the point where they can be their own language. There is really no harm in saying that and I would say that this is more patriotic than anything. It's always nice to speak a language rather than a dialect. So if someone asks "ah, so Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is your language?" and you would degrade it to "nah, it's a dialect"? See, it just doesn't sound dignifying.

If they're dialects of the same language then that has to be a record or something, because I don't think there's a language that has dialects where they are almost completely mutually unintelligible with each other. Heck, Iraqi Arabic and Egyptian Arabic are fairly contrasting, and even my own Assyrian family (from Iraq) would fluently understand Egyptian Arabic.
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Neon said:
Correction - I meant that Turoyo is "90% mutually UNINTELLIGIBLE" to us.
That is still wrong.

Turoyo is mutually intelligible with other Syriac dialects.

Go learn Proper Syriac and you'll understand it better.

I already told you this and you refuse to listen, I'm not going to say it again...

From Turoyo's own wikipedia article...

"Turoyo is not mutually intelligible with Western Neo-Aramaic having been separated for over a thousand years, while mutual intelligibility with Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is considerable, but to a limited degree.[1]"
[1] - Brenzinger, Matthias (2007). Language Diversity Endangered. Walter de Gruyter. p. 268. ISBN 9783110170498.

So I proved you wrong. Turoyo is no different from saying "Turaya"
 

Bronit Omta

New member
Turkey is bombing Barwar because it's also has a large Kurdish population. They aren't bombing it because we are there. If there's members of PKK in Barwar then they will attack it.
 

Cascade

Active member
mrzurnaci said:
That is still wrong.

Turoyo is mutually intelligible with other Syriac dialects.

Go learn Proper Syriac and you'll understand it better.

I already told you this and you refuse to listen, I'm not going to say it again...

From Turoyo's own wikipedia article...

"Turoyo is not mutually intelligible with Western Neo-Aramaic having been separated for over a thousand years, while mutual intelligibility with Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is considerable, but to a limited degree.[1]"
[1] - Brenzinger, Matthias (2007). Language Diversity Endangered. Walter de Gruyter. p. 268. ISBN 9783110170498.

So I proved you wrong. Turoyo is no different from saying "Turaya"
"Is considerable, but to a LIMITED degree." Limited...There you go. Couldn't you have read that part yourself?

You really proved nothing. As I said, discrete languages can be mutually intelligible, even to a significant degree. So try again.

"Proper Syriac" is an extinct middle Aramaic language that spawned its own derivatives, which includes Assyrian, Suryoyo and a couple of others. Its "children" are all separate languages (that we split from), besides a few which are Assyrian dialects - Chaldean, Senaya, Bohtan, etc (read above).
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Neon said:
"Is considerable, but to a LIMITED degree." Limited...There you go. Couldn't you have read that part yourself?

You really proved nothing. As I said, discrete languages can be mutually intelligible, even to a significant degree. So try again.

"Proper Syriac" is an extinct middle Aramaic language language that spawned its own derivatives, which includes Assyrian, Suryoyo and a couple of others. Its "children" are all separate languages (that we split from), besides a few (read above).
limited degree meaning VOCABULARY.

The main grammatical features of all dialects are spot on.

Much of Suroyoyo/Turoyo's vocabulary derives from Syriac and a bit from Turkish whilst other dialects to the East have Persian, Kurdish, and Arabic vocabulary.

There is no "child" language. There's dialects or derived languages...

Let's define 'language'...
"A body of words, and set of methods of combining them (called grammar), understood by a community and used as a form of communication."

If Turoyo and all other syriac DIALECTS have the same grammar with simply different vocabulary, then that makes Turoyo a dialect...
 

Cascade

Active member
mrzurnaci said:
limited degree meaning VOCABULARY.

The main grammatical features of all dialects are spot on.
Vocabulary, grammar and whatnot, "limited degree" still means that the language isn't comprehensible to the other speaker. 

Much of Suroyoyo/Turoyo's vocabulary derives from Syriac and a bit from Turkish whilst other dialects to the East have Persian, Kurdish, and Arabic vocabulary.
And that's a good thing. Nobody argued against that.

There is no "child" language. There's dialects or derived languages...
Actually there is. We call it a derivative of the "parent" language. For instance, English and German both descend from a Proto-German language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language), thus making them "children" of that language. It's just a simpler way to define languages. Even scientists use it for animals species and such.

Let's define 'language'...
"A body of words, and set of methods of combining them (called grammar), understood by a community and used as a form of communication."
This doesn't disprove my disputation.

If Turoyo and all other syriac DIALECTS have the same grammar with simply different vocabulary, then that makes Turoyo a dialect...
Dialects of what language exactly? That long extinct Syriac language? Let that language rest in peace already...

A lot of language subfamilies have the same grammar, including the Romance languages (Portuguese and Galician, which are 80% mutually intelligible), now would they be mere "dialects" to you?

All dialects must simply share both the same grammar and at least SOME vocabulary, in which Turoyo and Assyrian don't - two highly unintelligible languages. This is common sense.

Most importantly, why do you want to degrade Assyrian Neo-Aramaic to a DIALECT? How debasing is that...I speak a language, not a dialect.
 

mrzurnaci

Active member
Neon said:
Dialects of what language exactly? That long extinct Syriac language? Let that language rest in peace already...

A lot of language subfamilies have the same grammar, including the Romance languages (Portuguese and Galician, which are 80% mutually intelligible), now would they be mere "dialects" to you?

All dialects must simply share both the same grammar and at least SOME vocabulary, in which Turoyo and Assyrian don't - two highly unintelligible languages. This is common sense.

Most importantly, why do you want to degrade Assyrian Neo-Aramaic to a DIALECT? How debasing is that...I speak a language, not a dialect.
because it IS a dialect and not a language. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic doesn't have different grammatical rules to allow it to be differentiated...

Syriac is not extinct, our churches all across the board use it...

Turoyo and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic aren't mutually unintelligible, why is it that I can understand them perfectly fine but you can't?

maseeleh 'natokh :)

 
Top