Roj Bash Kurdistan

According to this book written in the 19th century Chaldeans are actually christian Kurds, and today Assyrians are just nestorian Kurds. This book was written in England by the brits, the same people that invented the 'Assyrians'

If you tell them that ,they will freak out .Aside from their hatred they are no threat to kurds or kurdistan .

did we slained Romans ?
when ?

kurdimemin_diako wrote:did we slained Romans ?
when ?

Parthian - Roman war.

The roman general had a war with the Parthians in 'Harran' in 'south Turkey' northern Kurdistan, the romans lost and their general Killed. It's all written in what I posted, read it.

Lê heval, em nadîtin pirtûkê. Navê wê çiye?

thearabchildren wrote:Lê heval, em nadîtin pirtûkê. Navê wê çiye?

Sorry my sorani is not even that good, let along me understanding Kurmanji, please repeat in English.

No problem. What I was trying to say was "But comrade, we don't see the book. What's its name?" But in Kurmancî, you say "What's her name?" because "book" is feminine. I was sad when I learned Soranî has no grammatical gender. As far as I understand, Zazaki still has it though, yes? (Please don't break my heart, Zazas)

Kurdish nationalist moment of the day: Even "kitêb" is feminine, even though its masculine in Arabic. Because even in using an Arabic word, Kurds simply refused to care what gender Arabs thought a book was.

thearabchildren wrote:No problem. What I was trying to say was "But comrade, we don't see the book. What's its name?" But in Kurmancî, you say "What's her name?" because "book" is feminine. I was sad when I learned Soranî has no grammatical gender. As far as I understand, Zazaki still has it though, yes? (Please don't break my heart, Zazas)

You don't see the pic I posted above?

try direct link and zoom in

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/21 ... deans.jpg/

Through out history Kurds have always been known for their warrior like behavior, however unfortunately we did not use that talent to our advantage instead and when we did it was too late as wars were then fought with brains and not man power (i.e. technological advantages such as guns)

Okay ideas, here are my ideas

1. I would basically agree with the assertion that the Parthians were basically the ancestors of the Kurds. Certainly the Parthians were closer to today's Kurds than today's "Persians".
2. The selected section doesn't say that all Christians in Kurdistan are Kurds per se, but that Christian Kurds lived among the Muslims. (There are still today some self-identified Kurds who are Christians). That being said, it's entirely possible that Aramaic-speaking Christians regarded themselves as a kind of Kurd historically, the same way that (for example) many Brahui-speakers regard themselves as being effectively Baloch. However, if they today regard their language and religion as more important than living in Kurdistan, that's their business. As talsor said "they are no threat to kurds or kurdistan ."
3. It's also possible that Christian Kurds intermarried with Aramaic speakers and started speaking Aramaic. In other words: That Assyrians have Kurdish ancestors. The reverse is also possible. We're all mixed up, no matter what our religion or language is. I don't believe in "pure" "races".

thearabchildren wrote:Okay ideas, here are my ideas

1. I would basically agree with the assertion that the Parthians were basically the ancestors of the Kurds. Certainly the Parthians were closer to today's Kurds than today's "Persians".
2. The selected section doesn't say that all Christians in Kurdistan are Kurds per se, but that Christian Kurds lived among the Muslims. (There are still today some self-identified Kurds who are Christians). That being said, it's entirely possible that Aramaic-speaking Christians regarded themselves as a kind of Kurd historically, the same way that (for example) many Brahui-speakers regard themselves as being effectively Baloch. However, if they today regard their language and religion as more important than living in Kurdistan, that's their business. As talsor said "they are no threat to kurds or kurdistan ."
3. It's also possible that Christian Kurds intermarried with Aramaic speakers and started speaking Aramaic. In other words: That Assyrians have Kurdish ancestors. The reverse is also possible. We're all mixed up, no matter what our religion or language is. I don't believe in "pure" "races".

I have other sources claiming that in the 1800's the Pope was encouraging 'Chaldean' nationality and called their country 'chaldea' having said that, it's become apparent to me that the Brits tried to 'convert' kurds into Christians and when that failed they encouraged the so called Assyrian nationalism and re-invented the Assyrians that were actually instinct.

One day Turks said 'kurds are no threat' the same was said by the Arabs and co, everyone is a potential thread especially with the growing power and influence of Kurds, it could push our enemies to sponsor 'Assyrian' nationalism and even offer help.

thearabchildren wrote: As far as I understand, Zazaki still has it though, yes? (Please don't break my heart, Zazas)

Zazaki is the only Kurdish dialect that I don't understand .
But I think it should have it because it is like Hewrami and Hewrami have it .

thearabchildren wrote:No problem. What I was trying to say was "But comrade, we don't see the book. What's its name?" But in Kurmancî, you say "What's her name?" because "book" is feminine. I was sad when I learned Soranî has no grammatical gender. As far as I understand, Zazaki still has it though, yes? (Please don't break my heart, Zazas)

Kurdish nationalist moment of the day: Even "kitêb" is feminine, even though its masculine in Arabic. Because even in using an Arabic word, Kurds simply refused to care what gender Arabs thought a book was.

thats funny coz i understand what you wrote in Kurmandji. and believe me i am completly not sad that sorani is more easy - in contrary - it makes me optimistic

thearabchildren wrote:No problem. What I was trying to say was "But comrade, we don't see the book. What's its name?" But in Kurmancî, you say "What's her name?" because "book" is feminine. I was sad when I learned Soranî has no grammatical gender. As far as I understand, Zazaki still has it though, yes? (Please don't break my heart, Zazas)

Kurdish nationalist moment of the day: Even "kitêb" is feminine, even though its masculine in Arabic. Because even in using an Arabic word, Kurds simply refused to care what gender Arabs thought a book was.

I take it as a positive that Sorani doesn't have grammatical gender. And also, in my humble knowledge, out of all the four dialects of Kurdish language, Sorani is the best when it comes to word pronunciation, grammar structure, richness of vocabulary, not to mention it has perfect orthography!

ideas wrote:

thearabchildren wrote:No problem. What I was trying to say was "But comrade, we don't see the book. What's its name?" But in Kurmancî, you say "What's her name?" because "book" is feminine. I was sad when I learned Soranî has no grammatical gender. As far as I understand, Zazaki still has it though, yes? (Please don't break my heart, Zazas)

You don't see the pic I posted above?

try direct link and zoom in

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/21 ... deans.jpg/

I couldn't see the picture also. But now, we should not immediately judge the history based on only one paper. You do realize that the whole region was virtually unknown to western scholars, especially when it came to the Kurds and Christian. All I am saying is that this paper alone hardly proves anything.