Hi Vladimir,
>> - Tajik: better remove the [3], there have been plans to reintroduce
>> Arabic script as well; in addition, it should be noted that Tajik and
>> Farsi are so closely related to each other that I am not sure whether
>> listing them separately makes sense
VI> They are approximately as close to each other as Russian,
VI> Belorussian and Ukranian: people undestand each other well, but
VI> first sentence is enough to tell where it is from.
As far as I know from second-hand and (limited) first-hand experience,
Russian speakers don't understand Ukranian that well (You would know
better, probably, but I hesitate to ask a linguist informant about
layman's impressions, given their better understanding of linguistic
processes.)? The comparison to Norwegian/Swedish/Danish makes sense,
especially given the influx of Turkish/Russian loans and Turkish
syntax into Tajik where Farsi would borrow from Arabic.
VI> What is [3] in the citation above? Unfortunately I have lost sight of the
VI> beginning of the discussion.
[3] means "Formerly or historically used this script, now uses
another.". I've seen rather recent publications (read: 1990's) in
Tajik where Arabic script was employed, unfortunately I can't get hold
of them now, and they're not in our library. As far as I know [being
no Iranian languages specialist, however], the reintroduction of
Arabic was in planning at least as recently as 1996; however, I
haven't tracked the situation in Tajikistan since then.
Thank you
Philipp mailto:uzsv2k@uni-bonn.de
__________________________
Out of memory / We wish to hold the whole sky / But we never will
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Jul 28 2001 - 09:29:04 EDT