Talk:Gilaki language

I've noticed that edits on this page are replacing IPA conventions with those commonly used in Farsi transliteration. Please use IPA conventions, particularly the use of 'kh' instead of 'x' is confusing for those not already familiar with the language. Zarrinba 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gileki? Gilaki?

Decide plskthxbye. ~Anon, 12 August 2006

Yes.

This article should appear under the title Gilaki language. Gileki with "e" is not at all common.

1) The speakers of this language call it "GILIKI" or "GELIKI" which in English version should be "GILISH", like Turkish, Kurdish, etc. So GILEKI is more correct than Gilaki.

2) Not only Gilanis but also Mazandaranis as well as the people of other parts of DEYLIM MOUNTAINS (so- called AL-Burz)call their language GILIKI or GELIKI.

3) West of Mazandaran is Deylimistan not Tabaristan.

4) Some verbs do not indicate the original forms . It reflect the destructive influence of so-called Persian language on GILISH (Giliki)language.

5) If Giliki and so-called Mazandarani have the similar vocabularies, they can't be considerred as two different languages.

It is notable that in particular elderly "Mazanmdaranis" call their language; GELIKI, not anything else.

6) Over the past seventy years, along with other non-official languages, Gileki was under the utmost restrictions. Cnsequently, most of its origional words are no longer in use and has been replaced by that of spoken in Tehran.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page to Gilaki language, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Gileki language → Gilaki language and Guilak → Gilaki people per English usage. See all references and external links here as well as major encyclopedias cited below. — AjaxSmack 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. — AjaxSmack 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the correct term is Gilish, neither gileki and nor gilaki, many of those which you think they are correct, perhaps appeared in search results, but i recommend you academic books. Gileki is the native name of this language and gilaki is maybe somewhat persians calling it --Ali (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you please give English-language sources for "Gilish"? Ethnologue/ISO, Britannica, Encarta, and Global Recordings all use Gilaki. Gilish appears to be something else. — AjaxSmack 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Today i was going to answer you, but the system crashed! and i lost what i copied to pasting here ! I'll answer you soon --Ali (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The a spelling seems to be the most widely used transliteration. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

we don't need transliteration while there are manu sources in german, whom they note as Gilisch --Ali (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Further discussion

There seem to be two different issues here:

• The transliteration of the second vowel as either e or a.

• The presence or absence of the dismbiguating word language.

It's the second issue that most interests me. English, French, and many similar terms disambiguate, while the Sioux article describes the people although the term is often used to describe one or all of the Siouan languages. Might the term Gilaki also mean the Gilaki people? Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I had overlooked "Guilak" but have modified the move request and created a disambiguation page at Gilaki. — AjaxSmack

From the survey section above:

we don't need transliteration while there are manu sources in german, whom they note as Gilisch --Ali (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this is English Wikipedia, and so far as article titles are concerned we're primarily concerned with what English speakers say and understand. This does include those (I assume you are one) who are fluent or even more fluent in other languages, but here we're only interested in what these people are comfortable to use when speaking English. Similarly, we're only interested in the English meaning of Gillish. If that differs to the meaning of the German term Gilisch then that's in some ways unfortunate, but here is not the place to promote standardisation of terminology across languages. We use them as they are. Andrewa 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Arabic" script

I believe that the Gilaki words in the table of words should be written in the "Arabic" script instead of the Latin script. Am I wrong? --Aaronshavit (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) This "Arabic" script is Persian script, Arabic got mixed with it and they stole the name.

n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.113.82 (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to comment that as far as I know, Gilaki and Mazandarani, they are not considered as different 'Languages' with Persian but just dialects of it. This fact is not reflected here. There should be an answer for this question, either for or against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.70.244 (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Gilaki language

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gilaki language's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dictionary of Languages":

• From Mazanderani language: Dalb, Andrew (1998). Dictionary of Languages: The Definitive Reference to More Than 400 Languages. Columbia University Press. p. 226. ISBN 0231115687. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• From Mazanderani people: Dalb, Andrew (1998). Dictionary of Languages: The Definitive Reference to More Than 400 Languages. Columbia University Press. p. 226. ISBN 0-231-11568-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please link to original article in Gilaki wiki

In languages sidebar, this article is linked to a page that is not main article about Gilaki language. Please correct it and link to this:

http://glk.wiki.x.io/wiki/%DA%AF%D9%8A%D9%84%DA%A9%D9%8A

Varg (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A tip

the sound /ə/ is a special case of a vowel when it falls at end of a word (always stressed) or when it is unstressed (non final). it's a sound between /ɛ/ (a short /a/) and /ə/. probably it is congruent with /ɐ/. some examples: gilek /gɪ'lɐk/ but gileki /gɪlə'ki/ (see stress location). and qone /xo:'nə/ (word final), and gile-merd /gɪlə'mɐrd/ (simultaneous situation) Tabascofernandez (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

False Information on the Introductory paragraph

As requested by user HistoryofIran, I am here to write about my concern so that it is "somewhat believable".

I had made a simple change to a sentence as all of the sources COMPLETELY stated that Persian had influenced the Gilaki language, however it did not mention anything about Middle Persian influencing Gilaki. Apparently HistoryofIran can't bother to check what he claims and of course, blames me for causing disrupt. This isn't even a concern, but a fact. Since he wanted me to post here, I shall so anyone who views this can see. Check the sources he listed for yourselves, I have literarily read it all. Even by explaining my reasons why I made those edits (which were 100% valid), HistoryofIran disregarded them (I highly doubt he even read anything that I said) and assumed what I put were mere opinions.

It is such a simple matter of fact that for some reason is difficult for him to understand.

Keep talking about me in a rude manner and I'll have you reported. Also, you forgot to mention the part where you added your own pov in sourced information [1] [2]. Here [3] it says that Persian had HEAVY influence on Gilaki, yet you changed it to from "to a great extent" on the article to "an extent". Also, you randomly added more of your own POV by writing "Efforts are being made to save the language." Oopsie. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't rude, what you did to me was rude. Please do not threaten me with false accusations. You can report me, it does not matter to me because I did not say anything harmful. If it makes you feel better, I apologize for offending you. I did not insult you personally, I attacked your actions against me which is unjust. You have wronged me, my problem here is that you did not even take a second to see what I was trying to say but disregarded me like I was some idiot. I simply wrote down what you wanted me to do on here. You again failed to read anything that I said. I clearly stated that you claim it's my point of view when it is not. That first link you showed me [4], I did not edit it in a sourced information, you can clearly see it is AFTER the references. Though my statement is actually true (Look at groups working in "Khaneh-ye Farhang" in Rasht, GileGhesseh, Gilaki/Caspian Language, and many other groups that mostly operate using "telegram" social media. Also many known people such as Mr. Jaktaji, Mr. Farzinezhad/Farzinejad who are in such groups), I would agree that perhaps since it lacks a solid source to back that up at the moment, it would be better to not have that in the page (trust me there will be evidence soon.) but that does not justify undoing the other things I edited. The second link you provided [5] is you trying to blame me for writing in "my own POV". For the most part, I changed up the words a little. The biggest change I made was the link you showed [6] where I changed "great extent" to "an extent". That is about the only solid argument you have, but I again have my reasoning. Despite these sources being outdated, there are 4 sources for that sentence, two (which is not that reliable) says it was HEAVY influence while the rest just mention an influence or do not mention it (Keep in mind it's Persian, not Middle-Persian). This means that 2 mention its a heavy influence and the other two either do not mention an influence or just mention an influence. Persian, not Middle Persian has had an influence, but not as heavy as that source tries to claim. Do look into it, which I recommend you do. As for your last statement, I already mentioned it previously that I would agree for that to be deleted even though it isn't my own view but what is actually happening and I have provided sources to you right here. By using the social media app, Telegram, search up "GileGhesseh" or figures like Mr. Jaktaji (جکتاجی) or Mr. Farzinezhad/Farzinejad who are both apart of those groups along with me. I have met and am working with them, they're great people so you should check them out. I can give you more information on that if you want, Farzinejad has brought the language so far that it is being recognized by the international community and Mr. Jakaji is a brilliant man that is one person I am working with to create a script for Gilaki. These linguists would say the same thing I have said. For the majority of my edits, I used that sourced information already provided to fix what was falsely written. Even here you proved that I was right when I say that PERSIAN has influenced Gilaki, not MIDDLE PERSIAN (PAHLAVI). So how about you and I stop arguing and fix that "Oopsie" that's on the Gilaki page right now, aye? All it is, is changing Middle Persian to just Persian and I will make sure to get proof about the whole efforts being made to save language and then add it in along with the source.

Just not gonna read that rant. Also Telegram is not a source that we use in Wikipedia. What's next, you want to use Facebook and Instagram as well? Lel. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a rant, you constantly refuse to read what I am trying to say. Why make excuses? Do not twist my words if you do not wish to read my response. I did not say use social media as a source for a wiki page, I made it clear that it was only for our conversation. At the end of the day, you can see that I am correct in that Middle Persian did not influence Gilaki. You've also claimed I am vandalizing and making attacking your character when I haven't. Why do you make false claims because you disagree with me? However, you can see here [7] that you undid a random edit which was unrelated to our argument just so you could say something to me. Yet, I should be the one to be blamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.200.152 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: The ethnologue source : [8] gives a figure of 2,4 millions speakers (decreasing) and 2000 Galeshi, please confirm or let me know if i'm mistaken. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Well I didn't know, since the IP is unable to put a simple source whilst editing. I simply reverted one of his many random and questionable edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, ok, so i guess you would agree if i correct the given figure according to the cited source. Thanks very much for letting me know.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad that got handled. The thing is, my edits aren't random. I keep providing an explanation for it but it is ignored. However I understand your reasoning not to trust me, I'm just a IP while you have a reputation here. Perhaps I should have added a reference, but it already is done so where it says "Native Speakers", my mistake. Listen, I constantly tried to work things out with you but you keep shutting me down. I'm still willing to bury the hatchet and move on. Next time we disagree we should just speak to each other first.

One last thing, if Wikaviani is going to be editing the page, might I also ask he also edit the part where it says "Middle Persian (Pahlavi)" to just "Persian" that has influenced Gilaki since both HistoryofIran and I agreed on that. That is unless there is more to be said but we covered it all and this whole talk was for that to start with. Thank you all.

 Done. I was only able to check this in the Iranica source (but that's enough), the 3 other sources do not have any page number. Thank you, IP. Also, please don't feel offended, we all try to keep in mind WP:EQUAL, so no, nobody here is above you or, if someone tries to behave in a dismissive way with you, then, well, he/she is just wrong. If you need any help in the future, you'll be welcome on my talk page. Happy editing.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Gileki? Gilaki?

This article should appear under the title Gileki language:

1) The speakers of this language call it "GILIKI" or "GELIKI" which in English version should be "GILISH", like Turkish, Kurdish, etc. So GILEKI is more correct than Gilaki.

2) Not only Gilanis but also Mazandaranis as well as the people of other parts of DEYLIM MOUNTAINS (so- called AL-Burz) call their language GILIKI or GELIKI.

3) Some verbs do not indicate the original forms. It reflects the destructive influence on GILISH (Giliki) language.

It is notable that in particular elderly "Mazanmdaranis" call their language; GELIKI, not anything else.

4) Over the past seventy years, along with other non-official languages, Gileki was under the utmost restrictions. Consequently, most of its original words are no longer in use and has been replaced. Sir blue (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)