Talk:Lingua franca/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section.

Pre User:212.232.54.69 page

Previous edit:

Lingua franca, literally "Frankish language" in Italian, was originally a mixed language or jargon consisting largely of uninflected Italian plus a vocabulary drawn from Italian, Turkish, Persian, and Arabic and used for communication throughout the Middle East. The term is now applied to any mixed jargon used by speakers of different languages to communicate with one another.

See the two sections below for further details of each of these two uses of the term.

General sense

The term lingua franca refers generally to a language learned, beyond its native speakers, for international commerce or other extended intercultural interactions. It has acquired this general sense by extension from the specific language described below.

Since there is more than one, various plurals for lingua franca are used by linguists. The Italian plural lingue franche is perhaps most "correct", but, appropriately to the topic, it is also given the Anglicised plural lingua francas and the Latinised form linguae francae is also encountered. The Franks were an ancient Germanic people. The terms Frank and Frankish were used by Arabs for Latin-rite Christians. (Greeks were rumi ("Romans").

In the Western world, Koine Greek, Latin and French have all served as lingua francas at different times. French has been the language of diplomacy in Europe from the seventeenth century, and as a result is still the working language of international institutions and is seen on documents ranging from passports to airmail etiquettes. German served as a lingua franca in portions of Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries, especially in business. English is the current lingua franca of Western international business and is displacing French in diplomacy.

In other regions of the world, other languages perform the function of a lingua franca: Swahili in Eastern Africa, Russian in areas formerly associated with the Soviet Union, Hindi (along with English) in India, Malay in South-East Asia, Bislama in the Pacific Islands, and various Pidgin languages in other locations and times. Portuguese served as lingua franca in Africa and Asia in the 15th and 16th centuries. Mandarin Chinese also serves a function of providing a common spoken language between speakers of different and mutually unintelligible Chinese dialects.

Constructed languages such as Esperanto, Ido, Mondlango, and interlingua are proposed by some as a global lingua franca. Their supporters argue that a lingua franca should be as simple as possible, while still being highly expressive. They claim that English and other natural languages, being ethnically derived, are not suitable for a common language, since natural languages contain caveats and idiosyncracies that hamper their ability to be learned, confer an automatic advantage on native speakers, and are associated with political, economic, and cultural dominance of their nation of origin.

Specific language

Lingua Franca (Italian meaning "Frankish language") or Sabir ("knowledge") was an early pidgin language, used in the Mediterranean area from the fourteenth century or earlier and still in use in the twentieth century.

It had a heavy influence of Romance languages, especially Italian dialects. It was the language used between slaves and their captors in the bagnio of Algiers.

According to the monogenetic theory of the origin of pidgins pioneered by Hugo Schuchardt, Lingua Franca was known by Mediterranean sailors including the Portuguese. When Portuguese started exploring the seas of Africa, America, Asia and Oceania, they tried to communicate with the natives by mixing a Portuguese-influenced version of Lingua Franca with the local languages. When English or French ships came to compete with the Portuguese, the crew tried to learn this "broken Portuguese". Through a process of relexification, the Lingua Franca and Portuguese wordstock was substituted by the languages of the peoples in contact.

This theory explains the similarities between most of the European-based pidgins and creole languagess, like Tok Pisin, Papiamento, Sranang Tongo, Krio, Chinese English Pidgin. These languages use forms similar to sabir for "to know" and piquenho for "children".

Lingua Franca left traces in today's Algerian slang and Polari. Polari from Italian parlare ("to talk") was a cant used by London variety artists and gays.

English words like "savvy" (from sabir) and "pickanniny" can be traced to Lingua Franca.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Error (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 December 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Lingua Franca the language belongs in the other page (with the magazine thingy), because it has a capital F. The article here is mostly a dictionary definition too. 218.102.71.16 06:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the very abundance of national languages in this article is evidence that it has gone the wrong direction. A lingua franca is by definition a language that crosses national and ethnic boundaries. They should be spoken very broadly, and the list should be short. Otherwise, we could facetiously add Korean as a "lingua franca used across the Korean peninsula." Languages that have been true linguas franca include Latin, Greek, English, Swahili, Arabic, and French. Perhaps every national language was once a regional trade language, but once that region became consolidated within national boundaries, the language became a national language and not a lingua franca. The current descriptions of Twi and Krio specifically refer to being used in single countries, and should not be included. I'm still not convinced about Hebrew. And is Nepali widely spoken among non-Nepalis? Mdmcginn (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement from the article quoted below reminds me of the old joke, "If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs."

Despite constructed languages current relatively limited pool of speakers, comparisons between numbers of speakers may not be a reasonable criterion in judging the adequacy of the language itself, given that a preexisting large number of speakers further enforces a language's likelihood of being learned by other speakers. If a constructed language (or language with few speakers) were to be decided upon such as by international agreement to be used as an international auxiliary language, then the imbalance in not having enough speakers would be more readily leveled.

It is a tautological statement, if there were more speakers of constructed languages, there wouldn't be so few speakers, and there would be more if someone would make people speak them. It does not really address the question of whether the idea of constructed languages is a sound one. Ortolan88

Actually, I'm not sure that the statement is a tautology. It sounds to me like it is making the point that there would be more people willing to use a constructed language if everyone would agree on choosing one as the lingua franca. That seems like a debateable point that should not be uttered as a fact in this article, but I don't see it as a tautology. soulpatch

It's badly put, but it should be said that constructed language suffer from a vicious of circle of "too few people speak it, so nobody learns it". -- Tarquin 17:04 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit it if you like...I was just trying to point out the existence of that argument. brettz9

Now probably this could be splitted into Lingua Franca (the language) and lingua franca (the concept). -- Error

This theory explains the similarities between most of the European-based pidgins and creoles, like Tok Pisin, Papiamento, Krio, Chinese English Pidgin. These languages use forms similar to sabir for "to know" and piquenho for "children".

What a curious thing. 'To know' in Portuguese is Saber and 'Children' is Pequenos (more exactly, little ones) tought in some port. dialects pequenhos is used and piquenos is widly used (sopken, I say). Pedro 01:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed this text

adopted as a common means of communication between people of different languages

from the ungrammatical and undecodable definition. I may have gotten it wrong (my dictionary is ambiguous), if only a language widely enough used in this way that it is common for two non-native speakers to use it between themselves qualifies as a l.f. If so, someone please fix, but please don't put back the horrible version i found there.

The previous version of the "General sense" section of the article placed an excessive emphasis on the role and characteristics of English, and seemed strongly associated to the NPOV-disputed page English as a lingua franca for Europe. I toned this down and removed the link to that page. -- Brian Lucas

Hebrew

I added Hebrew, because I felt that it was important. --Nate3000 01:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

When has Hebrew been used for communication between non-jews? Apus 10:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why is Arabic up? Also, the Old Testament is written in Hebrew.(That's communication.) Christians and Muslims subscribe to it to, don't they? Nate3000 09:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus Jews aren't a homogenous group, they come from all over the world and speak many different native languages, so saying Hebrew is a Lingua Franca would make sense.Cameron Nedland 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Womtelo: Please stop editing without discussing! If you have a problem with the article, write it here. --Nate3000 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that Christians and Muslims subscribe to the Old Testament is a bit blunt, this kind of controversial statement has nothing to do here (at least not in the present article). And anyway, even if that were true, the fact that the language it was written in was Hebrew (but also Aramaic and Greek) does not make it a lingua franca: Muslims and Christians all around the world don't use Hebrew as a language of communication! Please be careful when editing Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia. To conclude, Hebrew is irrelevant to the present article. Best, Womtelo 09:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct. and to respond to Nate, the reason Arabic would be listed is because it is / was commonly used for communication outside of arabs, albeit still within islam. think: persians, egyptians, south asians, etc.

I don't know why this article use the expression "Jewish exile" or "exilic times". It means that an hebrew spoken person born and living in new york or paris "live in exile" or a tunisian jew from the XIX century was born, lived and died in exilic times. Wikipedia can express these statements? Seems that its an ideological item involved in the addition of exile concept in this article. 60% of jews live outside israel and seems that they are just living in their home towns nor in exile, despite their personal feeling and emotions to this country.

Yours, Sinpa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.61.30 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Old Norse

Halló! Please take a look at Talk:Old Norse language#Latin of the North too. Regards Gangleri 01:08, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article says the plural is linguae francae, implying it is Latin, and then goes on to say that it is Italian. The Italian plural would be lingue franche. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. Chameleon 13:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lingua franca didn't have plurals, did it? -- Error 23:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If Swahili is a lingua franca and Urdu is a lingua franca, then you have two of them, don't you? See article. Plural is necessary to discuss the phenomenon. (If, by your question, you mean that Lingua franca – the classic, first version – was uninflected, and that by your lights inflection includes pluralization, then you have a teeeny tiny undocumented point that has no bearing on the issue of whether the term lingua franca has a plural.) Ortolan88 00:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think he/she was just making an academic point about a feature of thr original Lingua franca language. Chameleon 09:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the attribution to Italian is incorrect (the singular would be "lingua francese", no?). I'm pretty sure the phrase itself comes from Latin -- the first Western lingua franca.

No, it is Italian. Lingua Francese means French language, Lingua Franca means Frankish language (and the Franks are not the French) Joziboy 14 March 2006, 22:28 (UTC)

Last edit looks poor to me

The edit by User:221.232.54.69 appears to have some organizational superiority, but has dropped a lot of useful information. I watch this page, but it isn't my specialty. I don't think a simple revert is the answer, but 221.232.54.69 took out all the headers and all the foreign Wikipedia links, so it needs a carefully staged reversion. I'll do it, but one of the more connected editors would probably do a better job. Ortolan88 18:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd go for reversion. -- Error 02:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

edited into sections and subsections

I have tried to take the existing text of the article, and combine it into some kind of coherent format. I think that the flow of the text is not yet good enough, and recommend you consider re-writing any parts that seem awkward to you. Tom Lougheed 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page redirect

Is there any good reason why Talk:Lingua Franca is redirected here? Lingua Franca should have its own talk page (or else (more sensibly in my opinion) be moved to Lingua Franca (magazine) to eliminate confusion). Hairy Dude 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted redirect.--Commander Keane 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin vs Italian

Why do parts of the article say that the name comes from Latin and later on say that it comes from Italian? It's definitely Italian. Joziboy 15 March 2006, 14:41 (UTC)

Say what? It's Latin because the plurals are Linguae Francae, not Lingue Franche as in Italian.Cameron Nedland 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Arabic missing?

Arabic has been used for centuries as a lingua franca and now it doesn't even appear on the list. Many ancient scientific books have been translated to Arabic while their originals have disappeared. Many people from the Occident learned Arabic to understand those books and bring that knowledge back to home.

Yes, I was about to ask about this as well. I'll add it, along with Persian,--Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your source? --Nate3000 01:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Music?

Something needs to be added here about the fact that Italian is considered the lingua franca of music, or at least was until the twentieth century.

Yes it's pretty weird nothing is mentioned about that. I was quite surprised because the fact that diplomacy's lingua franca used to be french is not as clear (in today's perception) than that italian is the mother tongue of classical music next to latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinekonata (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct etymology?

The term "lingua franca" was originally used by Arabs to name all Romance languages, and especially Italian (Arabs used to name Franks all peoples in Western Europe). Then, it meant a language with a Romance lexicon (most of words derived from Italian and Spanish) and a very simple grammar, that till the end of XIX century was used by mariners in the Mediterranean Sea, particularly in Middle East and Northern Africa.

I really doubt this is the case. Lingua Franca is not even arabic. I thought it refered to Norman French after the battle of hastings. Could anyone verify this?--Ccosta 07:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if either of you are right, but Arabs did call all Europeans Franks in the Middle Ages. This entire article is crap methinks and needs some sources and not just chauvinistic pride.

It is true that in italian "franca" means "frankish", but in ancient italian it had a more common and widespread meaning of "free", "not vinculated". For example, in Italy there are many towns named "Villafranca" or "Francavilla" which means "free town" referred to zones or cities were commerce was free of customs duties or that enjoyed other special (benevolent) tax regimes. So a more probable etymology may be that of "free language", that is: a language not vinculated to any particular ethnic group but freely shared among all.

EU

I'm not sure the mention of English becoming an working language of the EU in the mid 1990s is correct. English became an official EEC language with the UK's accession in 1973 (see [1]). --Peter Robinett 13:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish as language of diplomacy

Spanish replaced Latin as the language of diplomacy and (in some aspects) culture during the 16th and early 17th centuries, when it was replaced by French.

Is this accurate? Spain was certainly the strongest kingdom during this time, but I had not heard of its language being the diplomatic lingua franca. In fact, my understanding is that under Charles V, who was king of Spain from 1516-1556, Spanish was not necessarily the language of the court (though it was for Phillip II). 69.241.235.253 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Native American Sign Language

Many groups of Native Americans used more-or-less the same sign language to bridge the language gap before the Europeans arrived. Would that count?Cameron Nedland 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish as L. F. ?

I wouldn't want to be judgemental and I am no linguist, just a Central European with some local knowledge, but for me listing Polish alongside Latin, French, English or German as a lingua franca is an overstatement. Almost any language can have that role locally, I have heared chinese and arab traders using Hungarian (at a Budapest open-air market) as means of communication, but I would hesitate listing Hungarian here. varbal 23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Poland probably was a lingua franca simply due to the fact that it had a huge empire at one time.Cameron Nedland 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But Poland never was an empire, it was just big union country. And Polish language was a state language and don't used ouside the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (i.e. Polish never used in Russia, nor Holy Roman Empire or Kingdom of Sweden and of course in Ottoman Empire). Therefore Polish language wasn't a lingua franca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Klim (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabir

There is a section named "Sabir and Italian", but nowhere in the article is it explained what "Sabir" is. --Cotoco 02:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of Sabir: "There are many lingua francas in the world. The first was the mediterranean lingua franca called Sabir, extinct since the end of the 19th century."

I REALLY REALLY doubt this was the case as no doubt there would have been lingua francas stretching much further back than Sabir. This should be deleted or a reference provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.181.194 (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese

It says:
When the Portuguese started exploring the seas of Africa, America, Asia and Oceania, they tried to communicate with the natives by mixing a Portuguese-influenced version of Lingua Franca with the local languages.
Now, what does it mean to mix a Portuguese-influenced version of Lingua Franca with the local languages? It means there was a Language, Lingua Franca, influenced by Portuguese, that was mixed with local languages. I think it needs some explanation or rephrasing for clarification. Thanks. --Ben ^T/_C 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Article did not answer my question

I came to this page because I wanted to know what "lingua franca" meant literally and what language it was from. This article did not answer my questions and I had to go elsewhere. I immediately found the answer in the next reference I tried.

I would edit the page, but I don't have time right now to read all the editing conventions, style guides and such. I thought I would at least leave this whiny note.

Oh, it is in Latin, and it means "Frankish Language." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.153.252.201 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

'Franca' apparently has some connections with the germanic tribe according to some sources. But the term has acquired a different meaning in latin languages. In Portuguese, for example, free entrance would be said "entrada franca". 'Franca', in this case, means "no limits" or "under no conditions". It could also imply "duty-free" or even "frank" ( for, who says whatever comes to his mind has "no restrictions"). So, "Lingua Franca" would be a language that could be used in diferent regions and with different people without the limitations of other languages. Perhaps, there is a historical explanation for the meaning that goes back to Franks, but I lack information about it.

Tupi

I corrected some imprecise information concerning the use of Tupi as Lingua Franca in Brazil. When I tried to add a citation and a reference, all the previous ones disappeared as well as the redirections to pages in other languages. Fortunately, changes were recorded. Could someone fix that up? I'm new here and not quite used to the procedures. Sorry, for the inconvenience.

This section needs more sources, especially with regards to the Jesuit influence. A whole article on it would be nice.201.21.96.49 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

TAMIL?

Tamil

   Further information: Tamil language

Tamil is commonly spoken in Tamil Nadu, India. It is also used by Tamil populations in Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa, Mauritius, Fiji, United Kingdom and United States.

This doesn't make it a Lingua Franca, it's not used by NON-Tamil populations to speak to one another is it? I'm deleting this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.21.96.49 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Persian

It's interesting that the Persian language is not mentioned in this article. Persian is, along with Arabic, the most influential language of the Islamic world and was for centuries the lingua franca of South- and West-Asia. As the leading language of the Persian Empires, it became a literary and scientific language in pre-Islamic times, and then again replaced Arabic as the main language of the Eastern Islamic lands when the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs came to power. Persian had extensive influence on Turkic languages (most of all Azeri, Ottoman Turkish, and Chaghatay/Uzbek) and on the Indo-Aryan languages of Northern India, most of all on Urdu. It was the official language of the Samanid, Ghaznavid, Ghorid, Seljuq, Timurid, Safavid, and Mughal courts and dominated the intellectual society of the Islamic world for more than a 1000 years. It gave birth to master pieces of literature, inclduing The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, Gulistan, Mathnawi, and Shahnameh, as well as to some of the most influential poets in history, including Hafiz, Rumi, Saadi, and Muhammad Iqbal. Tājik 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

Lingua franca is Latin (Medieval? Classical? I don't know.) for "Frankish Tongue"; it isn't Arabic. So the bit that says that the term Lingua franca was first used by Arabs needs to be corrected. --Kjoonlee 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "Lingua franca" was the term in a lingua franca used by Arabs & Italians. But nevertheless, without a source I cannot be certain. Anywaaaay, the bit has been deleted for now. --Kjoonlee 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern Norse?

I've been told that Norse sometimes play the role as an unofficial lingua franca in inter-nordic projects (like the Nordic Counsil). It's said to be the nordic language that's easiest to understand and read to speakers of different nordic tounge. I do know for a fact that Norweigians understand Danish better than most Swedes (I'm from Sweden). Swedes and Norweigians usually don't have any trouble in understanding each other (unless the Swede is from Stockholm ;-) ). Swedish speaking Fins seem to have some small difficulties understanding Norse. Faroese and Icelanders usually speak English when they talk to Swedes.

By 'modern Norse' do you mean Norwegian? I know that Norwegian is considered to be the most neutral and easiest to learn of the Scandinavian languages. However, I would say the lingua franca of Germanic Europe is English. I have never met a Dane or Swede who had bothered to learn Norwegian. Eggybacon (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinook Jargon

Chinook Jargon was used as a lingua franca between new settlers and indigenous people in NW USA/SW Canada, and between different groups of indigenous people. If someone has some spare time and some references... 130.56.65.24 06:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC) MWL

Filipino Lingua Franca??

I do not see why Filipino is considered to be a Lingua Franca. Could someone please elaborate its presence in the article please?--Waqas1987 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

it is not a lingua franca. just people who speak that language are really nationalistic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.219.137 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish not LF in Latin America

The article says "Today, (Spanish) is a lingua franca in most of the countries of Latin America, (with the notable exceptions of Brazil and the Guianas)". This is incorrect, because Spanish is the native language in Latin America. I wanted to run it through the discussion page, instead of doing the edit myself, since the concept of LF is still not that clear to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lveras (talk • contribs) 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Azeri

A source which is hosted by Azeris and calls Armenians parasites and brings conspiracionist theories is anything but reliable. And Parishan, this is not the first time that you labeled others edits vandalism. Please AGF. VartanM (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed. VartanM (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And this is not the first time you are removing information that is somehow related to Azeri. The nature of the website is not related to the content of the source. It was not written by the creator of that website. In any event, I replaced it with a reference to the actual book. Parishan (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism was mainly on the actual author who calls Armenians parasites and spreads conspiracy theories. You need to find a reliable source. VartanM (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your main criticism was on the fact that the text was published on a website hosted by Azerbaijanis. No need to go back on your words here. As for the source, Nikolai Trubetzkoy is a world-renowned linguist, and making a scholarly statement that Azeri was the lingua franca in the described region (objective truth) does not reflect in any way his political attitude towards Armenians (subjective truth). You might as well delete it under the rationale of the author being afraid of spiders. Racism and racial profiling was more than common to that era. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopædia contatins anti-Azeri and anti-Armenian remarks, such us suggesting that both groups give their children brain damage. But it is still used for its academic value. Parishan (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. I don't care who he is, but the claim that the common language in 6 Ottoman Armenian villeyets was Azeri will be laughed at by anyone who knows the region. You are simply discrediting the author and not increasing his credibility by still repeating this ridiculous claim. The same goes with Kumyks and other Turkic people of Dagestan, who's language is dumped as 'Azeri.' And as much ridiculous for Kurdistan, which extended in Ottoman Empire mostly. Under the circumstances that Russian intellectuals had every reason to dump foreign Turkic speaking people outside of their realm as Azeri and the ridiculousness of such a claim, you have to provide more than one source when it is contradicted with established history. Continuing over this will only makes you look like a POV pusher. VartanM (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have brought up more sources, but what is the point? You do not bother reading them anyway. Trubetzkoy does talk about Kumyk very extensively in the same paragraph clearly stating that it was the lingua franca of all of the North Caucasus between the Caspian Sea and Kabarda, except the southern part of Dagestan where the lingua franca was Azeri; since the 16th century, according to this source: [2]. Given your complete lack of knowledge on and yet active involvement in the topic, you would be surprised to know that Azeri was the only school language in all of Dagestan until 1928.[3]. And scholars like Dr. Gernot Windfuhr certainly and understandably do not find it laughable that Azeri is spoken in Eastern Anatolia, for example in editing the article Iran in Encyclopedia Iranica: "Most widely spoken is Azeri (varieties of which are spoken in eastern Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan, where it is the official language, and in northern Iraq; see AZERBAIJAN vii)". Parishan (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can not find sources be a man and say that you can not find sources. As for your repeated claim that I don't read, it couldn't have been any more far from the truth. Unlike some editors you and I know, I read ever line even the deleted ones. Now please, lets assume good faith. VartanM (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And you have the chutzpah to claim that you read the sources you are presented with? I just cited two more. Besides their relation to the topic, they perfectly reveal your lack of knowledge with regards to this issue, in light of stating what you stated above. So please do me a favour and save your lecturing for somebody else. Do not challenge me to a duel; you took up the burden to disprove the source, you do it. You cannot do it, well, too bad. Parishan (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I decided to close my eyes the last time, now I have no choice but to report you (and a request for comment for Jeruslem, to alert the community). With so much accusations and antagonistic language, I will still answer you for the sake of it. Your reply contradict your own claim. You claim it was a Lingua franca, citing the author and then claiming the author does present Kumyk, and only attribute Azeri for southern part of Dagestan. But see what was your actual edit. 'My complete lack of knowledge' yet I had bothered reading the page in question for the 'extensive' coverage, awaiting you to say it yourself, which was a matter of time, alone being enough, but again you did not resist slandering me again. Secondly, where does Gernot Windfuhr claim Azeri being a Lingua franca in Ottoman Armenia? And what about Kurdistan? VartanM (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no contradictions in what I said. I have been talking about Azeri being the lingua franca of southern Dagestan (not all of Dagestan) all along, and that is how it was worded in the article before you deleted it. So did Trubetzkoy, whom you accused of "dumping Turkic languages of Dagestan into Azeri." As for Windfuhr mentioning Azeri being spoken in Eastern Anatolia, that was to answer your claim that "the claim that the common language in 6 Ottoman Armenian villeyets was Azeri will be laughed at by anyone who knows the region." I do not see the need to cite any more than I have already cited: I still have not heard why Trubetzkoy is not a reliable source. The non-scientific comment on Armenians is not related to the discussed subject. Like I said, the Brockhaus and Efron Enc. often refers to Muslims as "fanatical" and "unsociable", but those were the attitudes of the epoch, which do not necessarily undermine scientific data. Parishan (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

David Icke has written number of books claiming George W. Bush is a shape changing reptilian that eats humans. We have been thru this many times, so you can't claim you're uninformed, you know very well that it is possible to support anything by cherry picking sources. We should not even be here arguing about why it is laughable to even think that Azeri was a lingua franca in Ottoman Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan etc. And what is up with Dagestan, my point was not on what you wrote but what you implied. That Azeri Turkish was spoken in South Dagestan should not surprise anyone, most Azerbaijani Turks live in South Dagestan. It's like claiming Kurdish is a lingua franca in Eastern Turkey. That it was spoken in Southern Dagestan is of no significance. You are ignoring established history, to claim that in Eastern Ottoman Empire Azerbaijani was a lingua franca, when it is more than common knowledge that Ottoman Turkish was, you have to do more than what you have done. Some displaced quote from one or two scholars is far from being enough. VartanM (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You are comparing David Icke, a conspiracy theorist, to Nikolai Trubetzkoi, an acclaimed scholar and one of the fathers of structural linguistics? Marvellous. :) No further comment on that.

When a statement like "Azeri is a lingua franca of Southern Dagestan" is made, it does not mean it is just spoken there by first-language speakers, but that it is used as a language of interethnic communication between people of Southern Dagestan, of whom there are plenty besides Azeris. That is the whole point of naming it lingua franca. And one more thing. Do not expect me to restate myself over and over if your intention is to kill time. I do not mean to sound rude, but I have very little interest in your free interpretations of facts, or what seems as 'established history' and 'common knowledge' to you personally, so please refrain from sharing your impressions with me. Not interested. This is a discussion page, not your thesis paper. To you it seemed 'laughable' and contrary to 'common knowledge' to hear that Azeri is spoken in Eastern Anatolia until I referred you to Iranica. This already indicates that there is a problem with what you consider 'common knowledge.' If you believe it is common knowledge, you should not have a problem presenting sources which disprove what was stated above. And they must of equal reliability, so I do not expect seeing anything from David Icke. VartanM's common knowledge also does not count, because apparently it not everybody's common knowledge. Parishan (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Indent You have addressed none of the points raised, and your tone is unacceptable, there is at this point nothing new to add as it is obvious that this is a circular discussion. From now I will consider your edits on this page as vandalism and revert it. At very least your behavior warrants a block, it is unacceptable to reverse official history (which is that in Ottoman Armenia, langua franca was Ottoman Turkish) and replacing it by the position of Russian ideologists who dumped for political reasons any Turkish speaking people as Azeri. Your edits are ill faithed and your have not shown any signs that you are ready to stop your obvious disruptions. VartanM (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The tone is unacceptable on both sides of this discussion. Please keep it civil and work from reliable sources. Let me see if I can contribute....

Nikolai Trubetzkoy is indeed one of the great linguists of the 20th century and worked, among other things, on areal linguistics. So what he writes on lingua francas in the Caucasus is not to be taken lightly. But I thought it would be useful to look for some more recent sources. Here is what I found in relevant monographs:

Before the introduction of Russian, the Caucasus has never had a single dominating language or lingua franca as far as is known.... Multilingualism was the norm in many Caucasian communities.... ...major parts of the mainland Adyghe, Kabardian, Abkhaz, Georgian, Azeri, and Armenian populations were traditionally monolingual, though in mixed communities and in borderlands bilingualism... was more common. (p. 30-31)

Viacheslav A. Chirikba, "The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund", in Pieter Muysken, From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics, 2008 ISBN 9027231001, p. 30-31 [4]

Languages used at present or in the past as lingua franca in the Caucasus
Azeri	in Southern Daghestan
Kumyk	in Northern Daghestan
Avar	in Western Daghestan
Nogay	in Northern Daghestan
Circassian	in Western Caucasus
Russian	across the Caucasus (since the second half of the 19th c.)

Viacheslav A. Chirikba, "The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund" in Muysken, p. 74

[In Daghestan] At the turn of the nineteenth century, a shift to Azerbaijani... was advocated by a group of Jadid intellectuals and it gained precedence as both literary language and lingua franca. By the eve of the Bolshevik Revolutin, Azerbaijani had gained widespread use among a great variety of different people inhabiting the Caucasus, including some Avars, Dargins, Laks, and the Southern Kumyks, as well as many people of Southern Daghestan (Lezgins, Tabassarans, Aghuls, Rutuls and Bakhurs).

...Azerbaijani...was declared the sole language of instruction in 1923, a status that continued only briefly, until 1928, when it was replaced by Kumyk in the schools.

Lenore A. Grenoble, Language Policy in the Soviet Union, 2003 ISBN 1402012985,p. 131 [5]

So as far as I can tell, Azeri was used as a lingua franca at least in the 19th and early 20th centuries in Daghestan. I don't see evidence that it was used beyond Daghestan as a lingua franca. I will add this to the article. --macrakis (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Macrakis. Here is more supporting evidence of Azeri being used as the lingua franca in the other regions listed by Trubetzkoy in as early as the 16th century:

The language of communication or lingua franca which developed between the tribes of East Anatolia, Iran and Iraq is sometimes called 'Ajam Turkic.' Ajam Turkic was spoken at the courts in Tabriz <...> It also refers to the "historical Azerbaijani literary language" (see J. N. Postgate. Languages of Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2007; ISBN 090347221X; p. 164).

The author clearly distinguishes this language from what he refers to as 'Old Anatolian Turkish' that had being formed separately of 'Ajam Turkic' in the 14th century (Postgate, 161). The source on Azeri being used as the lingua franca of Dagestan since the 16th century was presented above. Parishan (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's called selective quoting at best, what he calls Ajam Turkic is Persianized Seljuk Turkic, in fact neither Jstor nor other sources mention of anything called 'Ajam Turkic'. It's not Azeri which had any influence anywhere, but the fact that Persian archirecture and culture was brought in the Ottoman Empire. Also, what you quote does not support your point, developed between the tribes of East Anatolia refers to a prior period than what Trubetzkoy is referring to and those share the same heritage as the Turkmen of Iraq who are not called Azeri as well as other tribes. Why don't you use the same standard for 'Caucasian Albania' anything coming from which was in Armenian. I also have hard time understanding what you mean by any separation. Persianized Turkic was indeed separated from Arabized Turkic from the fact that one group loaned Persian and other Iranian terms in its vocabulary and the other Arabic. But such separation does not mean anything as those people after the language revolution in the 20th century could still communicate with each other in their attempt to get rid of foreign words. VartanM (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not selective quoting, as it delivers the point unambiguously and in a direct and straightforward way. Ajam Turkic is an accepted term; for starters, look up the meaning of Ajam on Wikipedia. To this day that word is used by Kurds to refer to Azeris. I have not looked thoroughly into the use of the term Ajam Turkic, but professor Nicholas Postgate is a third-party field scholar in Middle Eastern Studies and has the authority to coin terms, unlike you and your "Persianized Seljuk Turkic" deal (whatever that pseudo-historical monstrosity is supposed to mean, especially in the 16th century context, when Seljuks had been long gone and Azeri culture had been well-established See Gumilev). I do not even see the need to comment on that endeavour of yours to build an argument about 'Arabised Turkic' vs. 'Persianised Turkic' (nevermind it being downright OR) given that Postgate already provided his definition for Ajam Turkic, that being the "historical Azerbaijani literary language", and that explains it all. Yes, Postgate refers to an earlier period, so what? How does that contradict Trubetzkoy? Where did Trubetzkoy say that Azeri was the lingua franca of Eastern Anatolia only in the 20th century? Iraqi Turkmen have nothing to do with Eastern Anatolia but since you have brought them up, surprisingly for you, their language is in fact a variety of Azeri: Ethnologue Going back to Eastern Anatolia, please take a look at this 1897 ethnic map of Europe published in Austria-Hungary, and pay close attention to the ethnic group populating Eastern Anatolia and labeled as '11' in the legend: [6] Parishan (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted back to macrakis. I consider that compromise version. VartanM (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't. The version by macrakis did not account for Postgate who in turn makes Trubetzkoy's assertion valid. You are yet to comment on that. Parishan (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are distorting Postgate, the source is about Ajam Turkic not Azerbaijani. VartanM (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not distorting anything. The source itself refers to Ajam Turkic as Azerbaijani. Read closer. Parishan (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The cup of patience is now full. Revert one more time and I will report you. VartanM (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. Parishan (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I will, but first I must get my beauty rest. Meanwhile feel free to create more POV pushing diffs. --VartanM (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Get back to me when you are done. In the meantime, the page is being reverted back to its non-vandalised state. Parishan (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Plural?

What is the plural form of "lingua franca"? 218.167.167.106 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See wikt:lingua_franca#Usage_notes. László (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

English in the British Isles

The article contained:

"English is the language of England, and therefore, as the United Kingdom (England being the historically dominant part of the United Kingdom)..."

I find this misleading, because it implies that English became the dominant language of the British Isles due to English dominance of the UK, which is not really the case. (See History of the Scots language and Acts of Union 1707).

I have changed it to the more neutral "English is the dominant language of the United Kingdom, and therefore, as the UK..." Eggybacon (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tamazight (Berber language)

Why Berber language (or Tamazight) is missing??

The Berber language or better Tamazight (wich constitues of many dialcts) are spoken by millions of people in North Africa (maily in Morocco and Algeria) and in Sahel-Sahara region (Mali, Algeria...). It is spoken also in Europe (maily France, Nederlands, Spain...) by some millions of immigrants from the region cited above. Pleace could someone add this, because is more widly used than many languages included in this articles.This is unfair or isn't?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morocco rif (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Korean as a lingua franca?

Just how is/was Korean a lingua franca? The info in the article just lists that it's spoken by small communities in certain places, and natively by Koreans. How does that make it a de facto language used between people who don't speak the same language? The same can be said about just about any other language in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.43.94 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No way, in very large part of Korean history Korean (especially aristocracy and the educated ) used Classical Chinese, even among written communication between Korean themselve, let alone as a lingua franca. Make sure you do sufficient research before adding questionable statement in the article.--Da Vynci (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Phoenician, Elamite and Akkadian?

Well, I cant really consider myself an expert in liguistics, but I figured that maybe Phoenician language, Elamite language and Akkadian language would also qualify for inclusion?--Staberinde (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Greek and Latin

This article on linguae francae horribly understates Latin's use as the lingua franca of Europe up into the 17th century. All literate people, philosophers, writers, scientists, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. formed what they called the res publica litterarum an overlay of the linguistic multiplicity of Europe with one common means of communication with no native speakers (after some point in the 8th century). Many people, like Desiderius Erasmus, effectively spurned their native tongues and lived all over Europe without ever bothering to learn more than a few phrases of the local language: Latin sufficed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.132.219 (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV language

Quote: "According to Encarta, which classified Chinese as a single language, Arabic is perceived to be the second largest language among first-time speakers." What is the intention of wording it like this? Is someone trying to say that if Chinese was not classified as one, then Arabic would be superior in number? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Azeri

"The Kumyk language is "international" in almost all of the North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusive), while Azeri dominates in most of the South Caucasus (except the Black Sea coast) and, besides that, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and northern Persia." (Trubetzkoy, 1938)
"An Azerbaijanian koiné functioned for centuries as a lingua franca, serving trade and intergroup communication all over Persia, in the Caucasus region and in southeastern Dagestan. Its transregional validity continued at least until the 18th century." (Brown and Oglivie)
"...e.g. the Azerbaijanian koiné, the "lingua turcica agemica", which lacks the typical eastern Turkic elements. <...> Stein comments on a specific Turkic variety, the aforementioned Azerbaijanian "lingua turcica agemica", which was spoken in the Safavid state in the 16th and 17th century at the court, in the army and as a common lingua franca." (Csató et al.) Parishan (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is something called WP:RS which should tell you that if a source contradicts most of the sources by "linguists", then that source fails to be RS. Also north of Persia is not really what you think. You cxhanged Persian to Iran without really knowing what you do. Since your sources contradict wht the article on Safavids say.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How does it contradict "most of the sources"? Do you agree that it is pretty risky to call four independent and perfectly academic sources all agreeing on a certain fact "unreliable"? Please provide rationale in the form of academic sources that disprove this information. Also note that your removal of information not having to do with Iran qualifes as vandalism. Parishan (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that Parishan is calling an edit vandalism when all his edits are problematic. However, since the official language of Iran in most of the history has been Persian, and your source talks about "for centuries... until the 18th century Azari has been lingua francea all over Persia" and I would like to understand what they mean by "all over persia", does it mean "you find it here and there" (then you are maybe talking about today's republic of Azerbaijan), or does that mean something that only Oglivie and Csató understand? Also the way they talk about "centuries" is somewhat worring because after all Turkic is new to the region. And the contradiction is here: foreign travellers (like Chardin and Olearius) have made those claims (see the references you give) and they make it clear that they talk about "spoken turkic" and nothing like a written document in state level.(Even for Dagestan, there is a problem page 131 makes it clear that "spoken language" may have been Azeri!)--Xashaiar (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do engage in vandalism by removing information pertaining to Transcaucasia, Dagestan and Eastern Anatolia. As far as I know, you have never challenged those statements, it is just the mentioning of Iran that you are having disagreements with. My edits are not problematic, they just happen to face too much POV-pushing from users with obvious cases of Azeriphobia.

'All over Persia' means what it means: in English, the idiom all over means 'over the whole area or extent.' As for 'centuries', I did not use that particular wording in the article relying on Csató's more clear definition of those centuries as the time period between the 16th and 18th centuries. I believe this is clear enough.

Your references are too vague: please state clearly (author, book, publisher, ISBN number, page; if not available online, then a respective excerpt) where Chardin and Olearius state that Azeri was not a lingua franca of Iran. Note that we are not talking about a state/official language: a lingua franca is essentially a spoken vernacular used by people of different linguistic backgrounds to communicate with each other. Parishan (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious people do not write statement like "Azeri was not a lingua franca", but rather "give one or two documents that "shows Azeri was somewhere lingua franca". Clear? Moreover the quote (second) from Johanson is just an opinion, and he makes it clear that "Azerbaijani has lost its importance" (the same page). Your first and third source do not claim anything like "lingua franca statue for Azeri" (again in the first quote northern Persia is in fact above noerthern republic of Azerbaijan, right?). So it is not at all clear that Azerbaijani had any lingua franca statue anywhere. Your third reference is absolutely unrelated to the topic here. Read WP:SYNTH.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "documents"? What kind of documents? What qualifies as a document? Your request does not make sense: when we require linguistic information, we check with the works of reliable linguists, and so far you have not shown me how Csato and Johanson, prominent Swedish Turkologists, are not reliable scholars. Nor have you provided any counter-arguments. How can you say that "is not at all clear that Azerbaijani had any lingua franca statue anywhere", when all the eight sources have clear mentionings of that? Did you even bother to read them?

How is the third source "absolutely unrelated" or how does it not "claim anything like lingua franca status for Azeri" when it clearly says that "Azerbaijanian <..> was spoken in the Safavid state <...> as a common lingua franca." You cannot be serious. Your level of POV-pushing is beyond ridiculous.

The first source is a translation from Russian. The Latin term lingua franca was not used in Russian until recently; scholars use synonymous wording, such as 'international.' The full quote reads: "There are several 'international' languages that serve the mountaineers of different auls to communicate with each other. Those language are Avar and Kumyk in the northern and Azeri in the southern part of Dagestan. One of these 'international' languages obviously ought to be made official. However it certainly matters which of these languages is to be chosen. The Kumyk language is 'international' in almost all of the North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusive), while Azeri dominates in most of the South Caucasus (except the Black Sea coast) and, besides that, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and northern Persia." And no, by "northern Persia" the author does not mean the Republic of Azerbaijan; the article was written in 1925 and published in 1938, and I specifically showed the date following the first quote. You should pay more attention.

Please familiarise yourself with the text in the sources before you make any statements on this page. Otherwise you are just wasting both of our time, because you are making me repeat myself over and over. Parishan (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comment does not make any sense. Be C I V I L. However, the source you have given from Johanson (in Oghlivie et al) should be removed completely. Because its first paragraph on the location of Azerbaijan is absolute non-sense (should I quote it here?). Therefore the source is not RS. The other sources do not say anything like what you wish to believe. "YOU" are not in a possition to translate or tell the wikipedia what "international" means in language X translated to language Y. Therefore your first source is the usual nation building stuff. Your third source from Csató does not satisfy WP:POV that wikipedia should represent POV of main scholars of the topic. The section on Azeri should be removed completely from this article. Who says Azeri has ever been a lingua franca in Daghestan?--Xashaiar (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What you just said is not a reply or even an attempt to discuss. Notice how I have a quote from an academic source in every reply. All you have is hardheaded "No, it isn't"-type of replies. I am going to say this one last time. If this does not convince you, this discussion will be over, and I will invite a third party to make the final decision. Because I do not have time to repeat myself over and over only to hear baseless denial in reply. I will specifically highlight the word "Azeri/Azerbaijani", the phrase "lingua franca/international language" and the name of the region for you to be able to see clearly.

AZERI AS LINGUA FRANCA

IN IRAN:

"An Azerbaijanian koiné functioned for centuries as a lingua franca, serving trade and intergroup communication all over Persia, in the Caucasus region and in southeastern Dagestan. Its transregional validity continued at least until the 18th century." (Keith Brown, Sarah Ogilvie. Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier, 2008; ISBN 0080877745; p. 111)
"The Kumyk language is 'international' in almost all of the North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusive), while Azeri dominates in most of the South Caucasus (except the Black Sea coast) and, besides that, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and northern Persia." (Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Nasledie Chingiskhana. Agraf, 1999; p. 478)
"Stein comments on a specific Turkic variety, the aforementioned Azerbaijanian "lingua turcica agemica", which was spoken in the Safavid state in the 16th and 17th century at the court, in the army and as a common lingua franca." (Csató, Éva Ágnes et al. Linguistic convergence and areal diffusion. Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0415308046; p. 20)
"The language of communication or lingua franca which developed between the tribes of East Anatolia, Iran and Iraq is sometimes called 'Ajam Turkic.' Ajam Turkic was spoken at the courts in Tabriz <...> It also refers to the "historical Azerbaijani literary language"." (J. N. Postgate. Languages of Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2007; ISBN 090347221X; p. 164)
"Azerbaijani has long served as a lingua franca (commercial language) among various tribes and others in Iran." (United States. Central Intelligence Agency, Arabic personal names. University of Michigan, 1964; p. 63)
"Azeri serves as the somewhat hybrid lingua franca of northwestern Iran." (James Minahan. Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations; Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002; V. 4; ISBN 0313323844; p. 1766)
"Azeri serves as the lingua franca of eastern Transcaucasia, southern Daghestan and northwestern Iran." (Richard V. Weekes, Muslim peoples: a world ethnographic survey. Greenwood Press, 1984; ISBN 0313233926; p. 64)
"Azeri Turkic; belongs to the Western Oghuz Turkic group and differs very little from Turkish and the Kashkay-Hamse languages; literary language since the 14th century; lingua franca in Transcaucasia, Dagestan ASSR and northern Persia." (Bernhard Geiger, Peoples and languages of the Caucasus, Mouton, 1959; p. 52)

IN DAGESTAN:

*Languages used at present or in the past as **lingua franca** in the Caucasus*
Azeri	in Southern Daghestan
Kumyk	in Northern Daghestan
Avar	in Western Daghestan
Nogay	in Northern Daghestan
Circassian	in Western Caucasus
Russian	across the Caucasus (since the second half of the 19th c.)

(Viacheslav A. Chirikba, "The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund", in Pieter Muysken, From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics, 2008 ISBN 9027231001, p. 30-31)

":[In Daghestan] At the turn of the nineteenth century, a shift to Azerbaijani... was advocated by a group of Jadid intellectuals and it gained precedence as both literary language and lingua franca. By the eve of the Bolshevik Revolutin, Azerbaijani had gained widespread use among a great variety of different people inhabiting the Caucasus, including some Avars, Dargins, Laks, and the Southern Kumyks, as well as many people of Southern Daghestan (Lezgins, Tabassarans, Aghuls, Rutuls and Bakhurs)." (Lenore A. Grenoble, Language Policy in the Soviet Union, 2003 ISBN 1402012985, p. 131)
"There are several 'international' languages that serve the mountaineers of different auls to communicate with each other. Those language are Avar and Kumyk in the northern and Azeri in the southern part of Dagestan.." (Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Nasledie Chingiskhana. Agraf, 1999; p. 478)
"By the time of the Russian Revolution Azeri was in a strong position as lingua franca, especially in Southern Dagestan." (Andrew Dalby, Dictionary of Languages. Columbia University Press, 1998; ISBN 0231115687; p. 59)
"Azeri serves as the lingua franca of eastern Transcaucasia, southern Daghestan and northwestern Iran." (Richard V. Weekes, Muslim peoples: a world ethnographic survey. Greenwood Press, 1984; ISBN 0313233926; p. 64)

IN THE CAUCASUS:

"An Azerbaijanian koiné functioned for centuries as a lingua franca, serving trade and intergroup communication all over Persia, in the Caucasus region and in southeastern Dagestan. Its transregional validity continued at least until the 18th century." (Keith Brown, Sarah Ogilvie. Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier, 2008; ISBN 0080877745; p. 111)
"The majority of his ballads are in Azeri, which was the lingua franca of the Caucasus at the time." (Thomas De Waal, Black Garden. NYU Press, 2004; ISBN 0814719457; p. 80)
"The Kumyk language is 'international' in almost all of the North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusive), while Azeri dominates in most of the South Caucasus (except the Black Sea coast) and, besides that, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and northern Persia." (Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Nasledie Chingiskhana. Agraf, 1999; p. 478)
"The Turkic Azerbaijani language, in the southeastern part of the Caucasus area, has been a very important lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication." (Stephen Adolphe Wurm, "Language situation, language contacts and contact languages in the Caucasus area", in Stephen Adolphe Wurm et al, Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas. Walter de Gruyter, 1996; ISBN 3110134179; p. 956)

IN EASTERN ANATOLIA:

"As many made a livelihood by going on tours of Eastern Anatolia and Caucasia, like the most famous of them, Sayat Nova (1712-1795), they composed a large part of their compositions in Azeri Turkish, the lingua franca of the region." (Cowe, Peter, "Medieval Armenian literary and cultural trends." in Richard Hovannisian, The Armenian people from ancient to modern times. Palgrave Macmillan, 1997. ISBN 0312101694 ; V.1, p. 320)
"The Kumyk language is 'international' in almost all of the North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusive), while Azeri dominates in most of the South Caucasus (except the Black Sea coast) and, besides that, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and northern Persia." (Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Nasledie Chingiskhana. Agraf, 1999; p. 478)

IN KURDISTAN:

"The language of communication or lingua franca which developed between the tribes of East Anatolia, Iran and Iraq is sometimes called 'Ajam Turkic.' Ajam Turkic was spoken at the courts in Tabriz <...> It also refers to the "historical Azerbaijani literary language"." (J. N. Postgate. Languages of Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2007; ISBN 090347221X; p. 164)
"The Kumyk language is 'international' in almost all of the North Caucasus (from the Caspian Sea to Kabarda inclusive), while Azeri dominates in most of the South Caucasus (except the Black Sea coast) and, besides that, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and northern Persia." (Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Nasledie Chingiskhana. Agraf, 1999; p. 478)

I rest my case. It is very unlikely that so many academic sources are all "unreliable." Parishan (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

XASHAIAR'S COMMENT

Regarding Iran:

Disputed sources and OPINION of scholars not known in anything related to the materials discussed here:

The first excerpt from L. Johanson (in Ogilvie et al.): not WP:RS as the first paragraph of his/her article where the sentence above occurs reads:
1. "Location and Speakers:Azerbaijanian (Azerbaijani, Azeri) (Azerbaycan dili, Azerbaycanca) belongs, like Turkish, to the western group of the southwestern, or Oghuz, branch of the Turkic language family. It is spoken in northern and southern Azerbaijan (i.e., in the Republic of Azerbaijan), particularly in the province of Azerbaijan, and in Iran. Azerbaijanian is the official language of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azerbaycan Respublikası), which constitutes the easternmost part of Transcaucasia." (please note ", and "(, )"). If anyone can make sense of this please let us know. The source continues to state
2. "An Azerbaijanian koine functioned for centuries as a lingua franca, serving trade and intergroup communication all over Persia, in the Caucasus region and in southeastern Dagestan. Its transregional validity continued at least until the 18th century. Later on, it lost its importance in favor of Persian in the south, whereas Russian was dominant in the north." The source gives no reference to any evidence, what does "centuries" mean? from when to when? where to where? The term "all over Persia" is misinterpreted.
The second excerpt (Nikolai Trubetzkoy), is not an English source and says "northern Persia". As far as historical Persia is concerned, its northern part is outside what today's border show. Does it say when? Why he confuses northern Persia with northwestern Persia?
The third excerpt (Csató) makes a bit hard to believe as officiallanguage of Safavid Iran was Persian (cf. Safavids). But here I see an acceptable point:"azari.. was spoken in the Safavid state in the 16th and 17th century at the court, in the army", but then what is "common lingua franca"?
The fourth excerpt (J. N. Postgateis) does not say "Azari was lingua franca in Iran". It does review its develeopement made by Iranian and Iraqis and also makes the acceptable claim that "Azari was spoken at the courts in Tabriz". But then when?
The fifth excerpt (Arabic personal names) a strange source on Arabic language?! However it says "among various tribes and others in Iran". So which tribes? when? what centuries?
The sixth and seventh excerpts, the same as the second. northwestern Iran refers to west Azerbaijan province? Does it refer to northwestern portion of Greater Iran?
The eighth excerpt refers to "at most" what is today "Republic of Azerbaijan" and not Iran.

Maybe I will add about other issues later.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording "lingua franca in Transcaucasia, Dagestan ASSR and northern Persia" refers "to "at most" what is today "Republic of Azerbaijan" and not Iran"? Is that what you just said? :) Parishan (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the third time I am asking you not to confuse historical names with current names. The source apparently talks from 14th century onward and we know that Republic of Azerbaijan is at most 15 years old. and northern persia in that source considers the actual land of Persia, that is Iran and hence the discussion here about "Azari as lingua franca" can not include anything more than close to Russian-Georgian borders. This source questions "lingua franca" statue of Azeri in a land currently in Republic of Azerbaijan from a historical point of view. That's why the whole section on Azeri as lingua franca should be deleted. So from historical perspective no one ever talked about Azerbaijan. If you check wikipedia you see what northern Persia should mean in 14th century. None of your source talks about Iran other than Greater Iran. So stop using 15-year old dictionary for matters from 14-15-16th... centuries. So you should first try to understand "northern/northwestern Persia" before you claim any lingua franc-ness of Azari in Cacausian, Daghestan, or anwhere else.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Dagestan:

This and some below is disputed by other users in Talk:Lingua_franca#Azeri.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is too bad for them. It is not disputed by academic sources. Parishan (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Parishan asked me to review this discussion and see if I could somehow contribute. I'm afraid that making a useful contribution here would require more background research than I have the time for. All I can suggest is that all editors here remember that modern political boundaries are not relevant for the past, that peoples and languages are fluid, and that there are many partisan sources on all sides of issues like this. Also that you have to be careful of tertiary sources which are simply assembling information uncritically.... --macrakis (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nikolai Trubetzkoy cannot be used as a source, especially not his work Chingiskhana, where it is claimed Moscovite princes blood line originate from Chingisit Turko-Mongols. This scholar is pushing a fringe theory by lumping every Turkic speaking people under the same flag while the Soviet Union still claimed what had become then Eastern Turkey and Northern Iran (even in Armenia one census from the other Turkic tribes just vanished and were replaced by the word Azerbaijani). The Persians concerns, as the German Lieutenant Eisenmann reported in 1918: In Persia, the fact that Turkey has selected the name 'Azerbaijan' for the most eastern of the three Transcaucasian republics in order to be able to construct a claim to the Persian Azerbaijan has caused very strong ill-feelings in Persia. Agitation in Persia is even greater, because the Persians are by no means friends of the Tartars. As you know the same accusations were made towards the Soviet Union who lumped them all (as can be seen from two subsequent census). But, even assuming that you were not aware of this and that the disagreement until then can have come from a genuine editorial process, you have used the source to sustain a 16th to 20th century claim, when the source does nothing of the sort and makes clear it’s referring to the 20th century (after that 'Turkish Armenia' Armenian population simply vanished and Kurdish revolts repressed, at which point no Turkish Armenia remained, it only existed for the Soviet to lay claims against Turkey). In fact, Turkish Armenia is so obviously misleading for events after 1920 that it's hard to assume good faith on your choice of words.

Another source you use is Postgate... the author writes: historical Azerbaijani literary language and even places it in quotation marks, you can't just replace this by 'Azerbaijani'. Besides, it provides no date range and the section linking the first and the second phrase is simply missing and replaced by three dots. This too falls short of supporting your wording because this source is simply worthless without providing the missing phrase. From those limited sections making such a link between both phrases is to assume too much.

You use James Minahan, but it's not that simple, he writes: 'somewhat hybrid lingua franca', and this statement has a clear context, and besides, where are the dates?

Richard V. Weekes is ok but where are the claimed dates? You have selectively quoted and you are even adding a period which is absent in the original and then by cutting the rest of the phrase. That's dishonest and a disruptive behaviour, more so than by doing that you change the entire meaning of a text. For example, you quote Stephen Adolphe Wurm, this is the way you quoted it: The Turkic Azerbaijani language, in the southeastern part of the Caucasus area, has been a very important lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication.

However, the actual phrase is: The Turkic Azerbaijani language, in the southeastern part of the Caucasus area, has been a very important lingua franca used for inter-ethnic communication among speakers of most of the Lezgian languages of the Caucasian Daghestan Group, and also among speakers of some of the Avar languages.

This is fraudulent, unacceptable and unbecoming of you.

Given that the Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the Word remains the only source which could still be used to value what you want for the Caucasus, you have no base to stand on, because that only source is a tertiary reference. And please don't quote Thomas De Waal, because he is not a RS, he is a journalist and works for interest groups.

Now Comming to Peter Cowe, you are putting more than there really is, he's talking about the ashugh brought by the Khodja class which was mostly from New Jugha from Safavit Iran. If you read the full context, check the conclusion of the prior paragraph and the introduction of the paragraph in question, which clarify it: The prototype of this kind of poet is found at the end of the fifteenth century signficantly at the Safavid court. Their rivals such as Kurbani and Kureni brought Azeri folk meters such as the qoshma to new levels of accomplishment. Those Armenian poets originally from outside of the Ottoman Empire will go to Western Armenia on toor. This misconception on Azer comes from the fact that Dowsett has used the term 'Azeri' in his biography of Sayat Nova to distinguish different Turkish dialects, he would have turned in his grave knowing all those authors would use his wording in one single book out of context. However, the fact is that the old classical Azeri literature was Persianized Turkish. 'Azeri', 'Azerbaijan', 'Azerbaijanian' etc. have not been necessarily used to mean the same thing. See below.

For an example that they do not necessarily mean the same thing, I can refer to your misusing of one source which refers to an Azerbaijanian "lingua turcica agemica" in fact, the claimed Azerbaijanian "lingua turcica agemica" is different than what we generally intend when we claim Azerbaijani dialects of the Northern Republic. The dialect of Tabriz displays many types of convergence with Persian. Also Kiral surveys the situation in Azerbaijanian, Khalaj, a non-Oghus Turkic language in central Iran, and Kashkay in southern Iran. Azerbaijani by itself refers to an Oguz language. Placing it into context, the word 'Azerbaijanian' is more broader than what we generally intend by 'Azerbaijani'.

Also, your source 'United States. Central Intelligence Agency' does more refer to the language between the tribes not exactly Iran by itself. You probably just copy/pasted the sentence from Google book hits, the page is not available.

In any event, like VartanM said previously, anyone who knows the history of the region will laugh at the claim that in Ottoman Empire 'Azerbaijani' was used as a lingua franca, when this same claimed 'Azerbaijani' is the current qualified Turkish dialect of present day Eastern Turkey minus what came up with the language reform which regardless existed even in Azerbaijan SSR.

First, the use of 'Azerbaijani' as discussed previously for events preceding the 20th century is still questionable and you have escaped every serious discussion repeating the same arguments repeatedly. However, here are few sources which among many were already provided:

The Azeri language is similar to Turkish, and up until the 1930s they were considered to be the same language. (Peoples of the USSR, Ronald Wixman, M.E. Sharpe, 1984, p. 18)

Azerbaijani national identity is a recent growth, following a period in the early twentieth century when Azeris identified themselves with other … (New Terror, New Wars, Paul Gilbert, Edinburgh University Press, 2003 p. 61)

Azerbaijan features an official national identity based on an improbable blend... In actuality there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites. ... (National Identity and Globalization, Douglas W. Blum, Cambridge University Press, (2007) p. 106 )

Azerbaijani national identity is a relatively recent formation: before World War I, the people of this territory were alternatively referred to as Turks, Tatars, and Caucasian Muslims. (Language Policy in the Soviet Union, Lenore A. Grenoble, Springer, 2003, p. 124)

In fact, the very name Azerbaijani was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure about whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars, or something else. (Modern Hatreds, Stuart J. Kaufman, Cornell University Press, 2001, p.56)

You very well know that it goes well beyond simply finding sources. To add that with the same cherry picking I can bring also sources to claim it was Turkish, which was a lingua franca. Here:

The lingua franca of the entire Caucasus was Turkish, then termed Tatar. (The North Caucasus barrier: the Russian advance towards the Muslim world, Marie Broxup, Hurst, 1996, p. 71)

How many more similar sources do you want? See the point? The fact is that there are several Turkic dialects and the modern 'Azerbaijani' language intends the language of the 'Azerbaijani' term coined to name the people living in Azerbaijan. This is much different than what linguists intend with 'Azeri' or 'Azerbaijanian' or any language classification they came up with.

The fact is that if you wanted accuracy you would have tried making the relevant changes to address few concerns rather than accusing every editor who criticizes your edits by making everything personal. Lingua Franca is a very board term and has also a strong connotation, and if true that would mean that someone would have no difficulty finding bunch of sources to support the claim. You have redundantly here presented the same sources for different regions and many of the sources have been used in a problematic way. - Fedayee (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)