Talk:Turoyo language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Turoyo a "Syriac" language?

Notwithstanding the fact that the Aramaic languages spoken by the Syriac people are sometimes referred to as "Syriac languages", I think it is technically incorrect to do so in an encyclopedia. Syriac was spoken in Edessa, whereas Turoyo was and is spoken in an area further to the East.

I think that, with reservations, it is alright to describe Turoyo as a Syriac language; after all, Turoye do so. Turoye generally refer to the classical language (Urhoyo) as Kthobonoyo (although only when spoken). In the Syriac language article I tried to make the point that the classical Aramaic of Edessa has strongly influenced the colloquial eastern Aramaic of Christians. In addition, Turoyo literature is a fairly new phenomenon: Syriac or Arabic would have been used in writing. I hold that modern Christian eastern Aramaic languages have a dual heritage: a genetic heritage to old regional Aramaic dialects, and a cultural heritage of Edessan Aramaic. I'm not sure that it is possible to split these strands, or whether that would be appropriate. Certainly, in the field of Neo-Aramaic literature, the Christian dialects are often referred to as Neo-Syriac. This and the self-referrence of Turoye as Suryoye suggests to me that the label, with reservation, is applicable. Gareth Hughes 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
In that case it might be more appropriate to link to Syriacs rather than Syriac language. As I understood it, in everyday speech, Suryoyo refers both to Edessan Aramaic and to the Tur Abdin vernacular (just as Süryanice does in Turkish). Indeed, Ktobonoyo is used when "Syriac proper" is meant. (By the way, shouldn't the b of Kthobonoyo also be spirantized?)
I guess in this case "Syriac" is more a matter of ethno-religious labelling than a matter of linguistics.
By the way, my Turoyo class started just today, so I hope to add some information about the language itself as the semestre progresses. Benne 21:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The b in Kthobonoyo should technically be spirantised, but, in practice, this is not done by most speakers. Kthobonoyo is really spoken classical Syriac, as is taught to the students in the monasteries. Turoye generally call leshono Turoyo Suryoyo, and there exists a wide body of academic literature that calls the language a Syriac dialect/language (I've recently added one to the article). The influence of Urhoyo on Turoyo is massive, even if not genetic. It is general practice to refer to all Christian dialects of Eastern Aramaic as Syriacs, especially in writing: holding that Urhoyo is the Syriac par excellence. All the best with your mestaryonutho (that's Nuro's coinage for Syriac studies)! B-hubbo Gareth Hughes 21:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Tur Abdin Neo-Aramaic

I have noticed that among some Turabdinoye, the name Turoyo has a negative connotation (literally it means mountain language). I would like to suggest to change the name of the article to Tur Abdin Neo-Aramaic. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose — I don't think there is any real evidence for negative conotations. Some Suryoye define Turoyo as 'not proper Syriac', but I believe most Turoye find the name is appropriate. All the literature on the language, academic and popular, calls it 'Turoyo'. 'Tur Abdin Neo-Aramaic' is a bit of fabrication. Such fabrications are used by Ethnologue for some other Neo-Aramaics, but that is only to avoid ambiguity. The suggestion of this as a new title is of no use: it has no basis in usage, and it confuses rather than clarifies. --Gareth Hughes 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by real evidence? Should I cite the Suryoye who'd prefer not to use the term? I've heard people from both Aramean and Assyrian sides state they'd rather not use the term Turoyo.
True, it is a bit of a fabrication, but so is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic; I have never heard that name in real life either. I wonder, what's so confusing about Tur Abdin Neo-Aramaic? It is perfectly clear what is meant by it: the modern Aramaic language spoken in Tur Abdin. ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
'Turoyo' is the widely used name for the language: it is by far the most common (Google the difference between the two names). As a Syriac specialist, if I came across an article titled 'Tur Abdin Neo-Aramaic', I would have to check to see if it really was about Turoyo. It would be interesting to have a list of sources that would support this move. --Gareth Hughes 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I myself as a Syriac Orthodox Christian Assyrian who speak "Turoyo" am not proud over that my dialect/language is called "Turoyo" here, call it Modern western Syriac, Turoyo Neo-Aramaic, Suryåyå, Suråyå but not Turoyo as a lonely word meaning "mountain language". No Suryoyo would ever be proud to see this since we refer to Turoyo only orally.--Yohanun 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Surayt

We assyrians from Tur'Abdin did never, never, never called our langauge turoyo, nor did we call it suryoyo back in the old days. We didn't even use the word turoyo about ourselves. It's something new we have started with during the last century, imported from the mardelli word turani/torani. Surayt is the historical name for this language. This article must be replaced under the name Surayt. My grandpa used to say Surayt all the time, not turoyo or suryoyo. //Alfa

Hi Alfa! You are right when you say that Surayt is the old name for the language, and there has been lots written about where that name comes from — it's a very interesting name. Most of the speakers I know call it Suryoyo and refer to the classical language as Kthobonoyo. However, those who speak Kthobonoyo prefer to use the word Suryoyo for the classical language, and thus use Turoyo for the West Syriac language of Tur `Abdin. Turoyo is simply a geographical adjective, meaning to do with the Turo, but some Turoye have felt that because it was used by non-Turoye to describe them it is offensive. I don't believe that there is anything offensive in the name or that it is used with intent to offend. The problem with Surayt is that it is not often used by modern speakers to describe the language (yes, grandpas perhaps!). Also Turoyo has become the general word used in academic papers about the language. For example, Aziz Tezel, who is Turoyo, recognises problems with the naming of the language, but titled his useful paper on the language Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac (Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon. No one really wants to call the language Western Neo-Syriac, so we go back to the descriptive name Turoyo. — Gareth Hughes 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's still unfair. After all, Surayt is the real name of this language. Why Assyrians have begun to say Suryoyo is because of 20th century church-politics. Many Assyrians (especially from Turkey) still feel it hard to say Suryoyo, it's like it doesn't come from the heart, a strange feeling describing something isn't like it should be. //Alfa.
Thank you for your thoughts, Alfa. However unfortunate it might be, Turoyo has become the name of the language in all literature about produced in English (and scholarly works in other languages). The article mentions that the language is called Ṣurayt, and that that name has a long history. However, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, articles are named after their common English names. For example, our article on Deutsch happens to be called German language, and our article on Nederlands is called Dutch language. — Gareth Hughes 11:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am speaker of Turoyo, and i haven't heard anyone refer to the language as Surayt. We use the terms Suryoyo or turoyo. I also don't think you can use this [1] as a source in this article. Also read this [2]. The TriZ (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This might come as a surprise to you, TriZ, but you are not omniscient. The old name of the language is Surayt (which no one calls it so today). And the friesian nonsense has nothing to do with this. But I guess you feel enlightened by spamming it everywhere. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one calls it surayt, but the source your using is saying it is, then the source is clearly not reliable. Please do not use it, and remove the statement until you show a reliable source. The TriZ (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Surayt is the OLD NAME of the language. No one calls it Surayt today, that doesn't mean it wasn't called so way back when. What's your problem anyway with the language being called Surayt back in the days? Is it because it is connected to "Suraya", which is used by Assyrians from the Church of the East? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So the source isn't reliable then? The TriZ (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Benne, why do you keep removing this source?[3] You claim that it is an unreliable source. On what grounds? Because it doesn't say Syriacs are Aramaeans? Keep your personal POV out of the articles Benne and don't engage in revert-war for no reason. Stop wasting our time with this. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am speaker of Turoyo, and i haven't heard anyone refer to the language as Surayt. - Thats because you have never left Northern Europe in your entire life. How about expanding your horizon? Chaldean (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, obviously you dont contribue in any means, do ous all a favour and stop writing here. Go get yourself a life instead. And Elias, you said it yourself, "No one calls it Surayt today", while your source says "People who speak Turoyo call it Surayt.", which is obviously not correct. The TriZ (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen to your argument. I am speaker of Turoyo, and i haven't heard anyone refer to the language as Surayt - do you see how sorry that statement is? With you statement, one is assuming as if you have talked to every single Turoyo speaker in the world. Chaldean (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I listen, and the only thing i hear is your stupidness. The source says that the speakers is calling it Surayt (which means ALL or atleast MOST of them). Which is obviously not the case. The TriZ (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You call me stupid, yet your the one who doesn't know the difference between think and thing (BTW, capitalize the I.) The source says that the speakers is calling it Surayt - the statement says the speakers at least used to call it Surayt. Chaldean (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And why dont I know the difference? And why bother my spelling, I already told you English isnt my first or second language. The statement says that speakers is calling it (today) Surayt. Nothing else. The TriZ (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well a good advice for you is don't call people stupid in a language that you don't fully understand (because it makes you look like this guy.) The sentence says A far older name for the language is Ṣurayt, - where do you see TODAY ? Chaldean (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
TriZ, would you please knock this off? And while you're at it, cancel your account too, because you are obviously not here to work on articles seriously, but rather, instigate revert wars like your newly found friend, Benne. The language has historically been called Surayt. In recent times, and especially with Greek phonetic influence, Suroyo (from Suraya) and later Suryoyo became the dominant name for the language. You don't own this language because you speak it. You may dislike the fact that it has been called Surayt, but stop edit warring and quit wasting our time over this. Garzo above has confirmed that it has been called Surayt, and I take his word on this as fairly reliable. Quit edit warring over this or I'll take you to arbitration. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont really care if it is true or not, though I also believe that Gareth is probably right. The thing is, you and your tale Chaldean ask people for sources when you cant show it yourself. And its a fact, that the source you showed, is NOT reliable. The TriZ (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont really care if it is true or not, though I also believe that Gareth is probably right. — Then what's the big fuss about you're trying to stir up? Are you simply here to revert-war or do you intend to work on articles professionally? Because right now, you're acting like a kid. The thing is, you and your tale Chaldean ask people for sources when you cant show it yourself. — Me and User:Chaldean are two very resourceful Assyrians. And its a fact, that the source you showed, is NOT reliable. — Yeah? When was this "fact" established, on what grounds, and by whom? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Page 24, note 13 of Aziz Tezel's Comparative Etymological Studies in the Western Neo-Syriac (Ṭūrōyo) Lexicon, published by Uppsala University (ISBN 91-554-5555-7).

The form ṣūrayt is probably a contraction of either sūryōʾīṯ (actual reading with the West Syrians sūryōyīṯ), that is, "in Syriac, Syriac", or *ṣūrōʾīṯ > ṣūrōyīṯ, that is, "in Christian Syriac", an adverbial formation from ṣūrōyo, "Christian Syrian" (then any Christian), which itself is to be connected with sūrōyō and sūryōʾō which is met already in CS. According to J. Payne Smith, the forms sūrōyō and sūryōʾō are unusual spellings of sūryōyō (J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, Oxford 1903, p. 370; see also Thesaurus Syriacus, edited by R. Payne Smith, Hildesheim, New York, 1981 (Nachdruck der Ausgabe Oxford 1879-1901), col. 2585). In favour of a formation from *ṣūrōyīṯ speaks the occurrence of ṣ. Formally the term ṣūrayt is comparable to the term ṭāyayt, which was the name of Kurdish. The form ṭāyayt (for its existence see H. Ritter, Ṭūrōyo: Die Volksprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdîn, B: Wörterbuch, Beirut 1979, p. 537) is developed from ṭayōʾiṯ < ṭayyōʾīṯ, itself from ṭayōyōʾīṯ < ṭayyōyōʾīṯ (for the forms ṭayyōʾīṯ and ṭayyōyōʾīṯ see Payne Smith, op. cit. p. 171), actually "in the Arabic language of the tribe of Tay", an adverbial formation from ṭayōyō < ṭayyōyo, actually "an Arab of the tribe of Ṭay", then any "Arab, Moslem, Mohammedan" (for ṭayyōyō see Payne Smith, ibid. p. 172), which nowadays in WNS occurs only in the form ṭāyo denoting any "Moslem". The form ṭāyo is one of the interesting words demonstrating the haplological dissimilation. Knowing that there is a folk etymology associating it with the genuine WNS ṭaʿyo, "one in error", it should be emphasized that it has nothing to do with this word etymologically.

I hope this is sufficient information on the form ܨܘܪܝܬ. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Garzo. It's more than enough information. I'll try to add some of it into the article later. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old move request

Please take any move requests, if controversial, to WP:RM. Patstuarttalk|edits 00:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)