| Subject | : | Language |
| Author | : | Tom Cole |
| Date | : | 10-25-1999 on 09:51 a.m. |
| Urdu is commonly understood in Afghanistan? Only due to the proliferation of movies from India. The two major languages commonly understood and SPOKEN in Afghanistan are Pashtu and Farsi. Urdu is spoken only by the very small minority of Sikhs still living in Afghanistan (1% of the population at best), and there are fewer of them now under Taliban than ever before. Turkic languages spoken by the Uzbek and Turkomans of Afghanistan is commonly NOT understood by the remainder of the population. Regarding language in design, an examination of the recurrent themes of their oral history and mythology may shed some light on the "language" of carpet design in antique tribal rugs. |
| Subject | : | RE:Language |
| Author | : | Costa+Maroulis |
| Date | : | 10-25-1999 on 05:24 p.m. |
| cmaroulis@yahoo.com Hello-- Mr. Cole is indeed correct--I meant to say Farsi and Pushtu, not Urdu and Pushtu, as the main languages spoken in Afghanistan. As far as languages spoken within the region, I stand by my other comments: in actual fact, within the community of Afghanis that I have met and spoken with, Urdu is understood by many, even in Kabul. This is quite common throughout Eastern Afghanistan, as it is in Pakistan. As far as the methods of linguistics, it is worth noting that the field has undergone radical changes over the past 100 years. In the 19th and early 20th centuries linguistics (and the teaching of languages) followed pretty much the same course as most of the other scientific disciplines, based on classical models. There was remarkably little cultural or ethnological basis attached to either philology or linguistics until the upheaval created by the "radical" ideas espoused by Noam Chomsky hit in the 60's and 70's. And I really need to clarify terms at this point: Linguistics is the study of language, not languages. Many of us use the term as an "umbrella," under which we group the study of language and languages. Linguists study how a language is constructed; philologists study the different languages and their relationships to each other. Often the two overlap; I simply wanted to clarify for the benefit of discussion. Again, thanks for the opportunity. |
| Subject | : | RE:Language |
| Author | : | Tom Cole |
| Date | : | 10-25-1999 on 11:35 p.m. |
| Yes, the inhabitants of eastern Afghanistan may understand and be able to converse in Urdu. They are Pashtu tribespeople, many of whom have family on the other side of the border in Pakistan, and receive radio and tv transmissions from Pakistan, sometimes easier than picking up the Kabul signals. Not meaning to be argumentative, Urdu as a living language in Afghanistan does not exist. To the question at hand, many of the small, seemingly insignificant tertiary elements present in tribal weavings may be signatures of a particular clan or family. Azadi likened them to 'tamghans' or brands of a clan used on animals to designate ownership. The Herrmann theories of the great bird is an interpretation of rug design and the relationship to mythology which permeates the tribal cultures of Central Asia. Without specific imagery to discuss, it is difficult for this topic to go places. And when people do propose an interpretation of specific imagery, if it is deemed too far out without foundation, they are discouraged to come forth with more. Because the language is not commonly understood by us, those who claim to perhaps have a clue are met with disbelief at best. Who is so brave to think they have a clue? Come forth and make yourselves known. Our good moderator for this discussion, one would think, might also offer some hard opinions and speculation rather than merely standing back waiting for the public to do so. |
| Subject | : | RE:Language |
| Author | : | Erol Abit |
| Date | : | 10-30-1999 on 12:55 p.m. |
| 1. I think most of all studies by linguists or philologists are based on written literature which are sourced from city cultures where history of the language of rug making is not long. You know in old times science (i call this written literature) including linguistic or philological sciences were being done in high societies that were living in cities while it was also being studied in rural cultures without writing. So, science that we know today is written literature. We discussed about an example before. It was the word used for "thank", that is, "sagol (wishing healty)" which havent been seen in the literature till today. "Sagol" is widely used in rural culture and science even today science has not taken into its storage. Therefore, i classify science into city science and rural science in this field of cultural science. I classify because they have classified. Also, i consider the titles given to people in such subfields of science as "city professors" and "rural professors", the latter dont use their title. I am not against written literature but against calling what they are doing as science. They should call it written or city science.. I talked about these because this rug field is very good example to show such realities. I can give many examples on words which you cant find in the literature, particularly in this rug field. 2. In my opinion, the reasons of languages and differences in them are based on objects that we are naming and on time difference when we are naming them rather than human cultural differences. Human plays less important role. This less important role causes just an increase in the differences when a word is copied or transmitted from person to person. For example, carpet or chaput or whateverelse, it was a name sourced from the object and after someone copied its voice(methaporic use) into him/herself and it is copied or transferred to others. But since the history of written literature is shorter and racistic, we may be unable to see the real roots of words and language differences. I mean root of language differences are not due to nations only but also to the objects, differences between objects and differences in naming time of them and time between transfers. In this rug case, this is more visible. As a conclusion, in this rug field, i will offer that let call this language which is not based on cultures or nationalities as "language of rug country". If you (not you, Mr Maroulis), boss professors, liked this, graduate students in this part of science will be professors by reading this idea which will be found in the written literature... As it always happens. Regards, erol1999@altavista.net |
| Subject | : | RE:Language |
| Author | : | Erol Abit |
| Date | : | 10-30-1999 on 02:36 p.m. |
| Clarification: I said if you (not you, Mr Maroulis), boss professors, "liked" this idea of "language of rug country", you will insert this into rug literature. This clearly and simply shows that today science is subjective since it includes "liking". This is main cause of language differences and, like the idiom in this rug field "buy what you like", "write the word that you like" tells again subjectivism of science today. So, it is wrong way to use the subjectivism for organizing humans instead of using an objective rule that you can easily know and that its language is unique for everybody.. Anyways, i am going off the topic, i think. Ok, lets learn more about language? I wonder why some (maybe many) words in different languages have some interesting meanings falling into same topic. For example, "peace" and its pronounciaton "piis" (written form of dirty in turkish). Actually, did we found a "dirty peace" that you call it peace while turks call it dirty? In my mind, there were also other words about rugs that i dont remember now. If i remember i will write them. But I just remembered now that i have to go eating. Well, there maybe no food left for me, because of inequal sharing... You made dirty peace? Shall we correct it or not? Well, if you eat much, you will not be happy more but just become fat;). Anyways, see you later... Regards, erol1999@altavista.net |