Gurani:
Practical Language or Kurdish Literary Idiom?
Dr.
Behrooz Chaman Ara
Assistant Professor of Kurdish Language and Literature
University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj
b.chamanara@uok.ac.ir
Dr.
Cyrus Amiri
Assistant Professor of English
University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj
c.amiri@uok.ac.ir
Abstract
The family of Iranian languages consists of several
groups, of which the Kurdish language(s) is among the most diverse and problematic.
Lack of authentic knowledge of the present state of Kurdish languages and,
in some cases, the absence of proper methodologies are among the main
obstacles on the way to proper historical study of these languages. Among the
most complicated issues in Kurdish studies is Gurani. Common to most
linguistic studies of Gurani is their assumption of a mass migration of the
Kurds from the Caucasus and northern Iran to the central Zagros area and a
subsequent assimilation of local groups including the ‘Gurāns’. We have
investigated the data and the assumptions of some of the more influential
researches and have attempted to shed a new light on the concept of ‘Gurani’.
The outcome of this study—besides a critique of the methodology of linguistic
approaches to Gurani—is the redefinition of Gurani not as a distinct practical
language or dialect but as a literary idiom which, cannot be cast into any
linguistic categories. It is also shown how Gurani has played a vital role in
preserving and transmitting cultural data of diverse groups of people in the
Zagros area
Keywords: Iranian languages, Kurdish language, Gurani, literary tradition, Laki,
Kalhori, Hawrami.
- Introduction
The
term Gurani denotes a number of different phenomena. It
is usually used to refer to a tribe, a
group of the Kurds, or a language. When used
to refer to a language, it is variously understood as an independent
non-Kurdish language, a
dialect of Kurdish, or a specialized religious
idiom among the followers of the main branch of the Yarsan (Ahl-e Haqq).
The question of the Kurdish or non-Kurdish origins of Gurani is still a matter
of debate among linguists and anthropologists. The
ethno-linguistically complex structure of south-eastern Kurdish areas has led researchers (mainly politicians
and travellers of the early twentieth century) to look for probable ethnic
diversity in the region and to track the probable migrations or displacements lying
behind the assumed ethnic diversities. Lack
of reliable written resources has been among the main obstacles on the way of
such investigations.
- Gurani
Resources
For
a long time, objective knowledge of Gurani was entirely based on one manuscript
in the British Museum, “Or. 6444.” Today, the wide range of available materials
indicates that Gurani literature is more extensive than it was generally assumed.
Gurani literary tradition includes a wide range of oral and written texts
containing, among others, heroic poetry, romances, and religious teachings.
Our
knowledge of the early history of Gurani literature and its founding fathers is
still insufficient.
Sometimes a supposedly ancient Kurdish poem (presumably from 7th–8th
CE), which poignantly laments the Arab invasion of Persia, is posed as the
earliest example of extant Gurani literature. Attributed to a certain Hurmozgan
Parchment in Pahlavi script, this poem is widely regarded as
inauthentic since the existence of
the claimed original document has not been affirmed. A common assumption,
which does not seem to be accurate, dates the first appearance of Gurani back
to the 9th century, in the poems of Bahlul-i Mahi in Kermanshah
(Kurdish ‘Kirmashan’).
For
centuries Gurani poetry had been orally transmitted, until mid-15th
and early 16th centuries when examples of Yarsan religious poetry,
the narratives of the Kurdish Shanama and a body of lyrical
poetry were record and collected.
One
of the most important and interesting written records of Kurdish literary
heritage is an anthology of lyric poetry in Gurani dating back to early 1780s.
Based in Sanandaj (Kurdish Sine), the
editor introduces himself as Abdulmu’min bin Djamal-ud-din Muhammed Latif.
Sanandaj in those days was the capital of Khosraw Khan I of the Ardalān dynasty
(ca. 14th-20th CE). Archived in the British Museum as Or.
6444, the manuscript contains 84 folios, of which 46 are Gurani verses by 37
poets and the rest are Arabic and Persian texts. Among the poets included
in the anthology are Mahzuni, Shaikh Mostafa Takhti, Khana Qobadi, Yusof Yaska,
and Ahmad Bag Komasi, Mawlana Farrokh Palangani, most of whom lived in the 17th
and 18th centuries. After a few
preliminary editing of the manuscript by E. B. Soane in 1921 and V. Minorsky in
1943, D. N. Mackenzie provided the first critical edition of some of the
clearer parts of the anthology in an article in 1965.
The
poetry of Shaykh Shams-ud-din I (1506-1577) father of Shayx Mustafa Taxtayi
(1544-1637) is probably the oldest poetry included in the anthologies of Gurani.
Yusuf Yāska (Yāsama) (1592-1636), intellectual and founder of a school of
poetry, was a significant early figure who transmitted down his teachings
through his many disciples and exerted a lasting influence on the Gurani
tradition. Parishan-nama, by
Mala Parishan, a unique Gurani text from 14/15th CE, is probably the
oldest extant manuscript of Gurani poetry. He adapted the language of Gurani
poetry to suit his purpose of disseminating Hurufist ideas.
Alongside
various oral narratives, extant Gurani writings can be broadly divided into the
three groups of religious thoughts, epics and
romances, and lyrical poetry.
2.1. Religious Thoughts
The
bulk of written Yarsan teachings, known as kalam or daftar, are
poetical texts in Gurani. In line with the principles of Yarsan faith, a great
part of the kalams has been orally transmitted down by the Pirs
and other spiritual leaders of the main Yarsani clans. In
most cases, Each Yarsani clan has its own tradition and interpretation of the kalams.
Our knowledge of the exact dates of these texts is still inadequate and any
opinion as to the beginnings of the written manuscripts of the kalams would
be only one among many others.
What
makes historical readings of Yarsan kalams or daftars especially difficult
is the difficulty first to construct a coherent historical narrative of the
faith—as it is narrated in the texts themselves—and then to establish a
satisfying relationship between this internal history and other (external) histories
of the faith or of the region. Generally speaking, Yarsan texts attribute the
origins of their faith to old Iranian beliefs as understood and taught by
Bahlul-i Mahi and revived—after its near eclipse in 13th and 14th
centuries—by Sultan Sahak (d. 15th CE.) in Shahrizour. Faithful Yarsans
adhere to a linear chronological relationship among the six daftars and draw a timeline of the main
events of their faith—such as the coming of their successive prophets—according
to textual evidence from the daftars. However, it is usually difficult
to identify the historical events and individuals referred to in these
writings.
The
two main daftars of Yarsan, known as Divan-e Gawra (The Great
Divan) and Kalam of Perdiwar, are in turn divided into a number of
smaller books (periods) named after a pir, a spiritual figure, or a holy being
who dominates the period. Each period contains the thoughts and teachings of a
group of prominent Yarsani figures in the form of poetry. In the period of
Abedin Jaff and his wife Narges Khanom of Shahrizour there is a sudden drastic
change in both the language and the form of the Kalams, whereby Sorani
diction and syntax replaces Gurani and Arabic quantitative prosody replaces the
traditional syllabic meter.
A
large number of Gurani texts represent Islamic teachings. For instance, the
story of Rustam and Moghatel, which draws on the famous epic stories of Rustam,
shows Rustam as the servant of Imam Ali (the first Imam of Shia Islam). Also,
there are numerous manuscripts of Mowloud-name (Prophet Mohammad’s birth
story) which keeps circulating among the Sunni Kurds. The stories of King
Solomon, Heidar and Sonobar and Imam Ali are among the
best-known examples of this class.
Didactic
poetry forms a small portion of Gurani literature, which, due to the centrality
of faith and religious rituals in people’s lives, are mostly religious
teachings. The short book Rula Bezani (Remember my
Child!)—a father’s views on and experiences of life and his advice on good
conduct for his children’s well-being— is among the fine examples of this class.
2.2. Epics and Romances
Epics
and romances form a remarkable portion of Gurani poetry. Among the most
important Gurani texts are the heroic narratives of the Kurdish Shanama.
These narratives, which draw on an ancient tradition, are found in manuscripts
as well as in poetic compositions orally recited and transmitted by local
storytellers known as naqqals. The extant manuscripts suggest that these
narratives were first written down approximately in the early 16th
century. The various
manuscripts of the Kurdish Shanama exist under more than fifty different
titles, together containing over sixty thousand verses and each forming a distinct
part of the Kurdish Shanama cycle.
Along with the narrative of the Kurdish Shanama
there are stories of other comparably legendary heroes whose love stories,
not heroic deeds, are of primary concern. Each of the love stories of Khosro
and Shirin, Yusof and Zoleikha, Leyli and Majnoon, and Tarsa
va Sheikh-e San’an, among others, contains hundreds of Gurani verse lines
handed down in different forms by different storytellers. One significant
manuscript of such narratives is a manuscript of Mam and Zin which, some
believe, is the first Gurani translation of a Kurmanji text.
2.3. Lyrical Poetry
This
body of texts includes various works by poets from different periods who have
adapted the tradition of Gurani poetry to suit their historical moment. Among
the poets of this mode is Mulla Mostafa Besarani (1641-1702) who had a lasting
influence on subsequent generations of poets, including Abdurrahim Tawgozi (best
known as Mawlawi the Kurd, or Ma’dumi).
Gurani
lyrical poetry is usually the expression of the poet’s thoughts and feelings
sometimes couched in spiritual and mystical metaphors. Among the favourite
themes are poetic observations, detailed description of the beloved’s beauties,
lamentation over old age, and identification with natural phenomena and
inanimate objects. Yusef Yaska is generally considered as the first writer of the
so called “Gurani ghazal”— a form comparable to sonnet in the
English language. The most outstanding figure in this tradition is Mawlawī the
Kurd whose exquisite imagery, highly polished and consistent language as well
as unique observations has given him a distinct place not only among the Gurani
poets but also among all Kurdish men of letters.
- Poetics
and Prosody
Today
many manuscripts of Gurani poetry have been made available to researchers.
Regardless of their poets, their poetic forms and the dates of their production,
these poems display a set of common features which allow researchers to
construct a poetics of Gurani as a long and unique tradition transmitted
through generations of poets and storytellers from among the common folk.
Since Gurani poetry has been
essentially oral and orally-transmitted, it has received little influenced from
mainstream Persian poetry which circulated in learned circles of men of letters
who mostly had backgrounds in Islamic learning.
For
some Iranists, poetry in Middle West Iranian languages is based on syllabic
prosody. Accordingly, they regard the Yashts as well as their Indian counterparts,
the Vedas, as originally composed in eight-syllabic verse lines. For many others, including
Hennings (1977,
pp. 151-167; ibid, pp. 349-356), prosody in the Sassanid and the Parthian
empires was accentual.
There
is a good consensus among researchers on the syllabic nature of Gurani prosody.
It is generally assumed that Yarsani religious poems are among the oldest Gurani
texts. By accepting this assumption and accepting the claim of Yarsani kalams
as to their origins in early Islamic centuries, it can be said that Gurani
prosody is an immediate continuation of pre-Islamic prosody.
The
meter in Gurani poetry is “circular” syllabic, which means each verse line can
be divided into two musically equivalent halves that can serve as distinct
verse lines (Najafi 2011, p. 137). As
Najafi has meticulously observed, circular meter is distinguished from
periodic meter by the fact that
its half lines can end in a long syllable.
For
Mahmoudveysi(2011) and Naghshbandi (2014),
the meter in Gurani poetry is accentual-syllabic. However, as Jalal Khaleqi
Motlagh has convincingly argued, it is difficult to imagine that Iranians had
such an ear for accents in verse lines. For Khaleqi Motlagh, Pārsīg and Darig
are more probably based on a syllabic prosody.
Adhering
to the Pahlavi and Parthian traditions of the Pre-Islamic era, Gurani poetry seems
to have strongly resisted Arabic aesthetics. Although some scholars have
explained this conservatism in geographical terms, regarding the high
inaccessible mountains of Hawraman as the main obstacle in the way of the
Islamization of Gurani, it cannot be reduced to geographical reasons. It should
be remembered that not only in Gurani but in most Iranian languages—especially
of the West Iranian branch— regardless of their geography, folk poetry is mostly
syllabic. Folk poetry in the larger Kurdish tradition, for instance, certifies
this fact. Below are a few examples of different meters in Sorani and Kurmanji beits
and an example of eight-syllabic verse line in Kalhori.
|
|
7
|
6
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
شیرین خانم له ههوشێ
|
shē
|
Hew
|
le
|
nim
|
xa
|
Rīn
|
SHī
|
|
نقره ها بان کهوشێ
|
shē
|
Kew
|
ni
|
ba
|
ha
|
Re
|
Niq
|
|
پای پهتییه و کهوش
نهیرێ
|
rē
|
Ney
|
kewsh
|
yew
|
tī
|
Pa
|
Pay
|
|
باڵای بهرزه و خهوش
نهیرێ
|
rē
|
Ney
|
xesh
|
zaw
|
bar
|
Lay
|
Ba
|
(Jahanfard 2017, p.192)
Except
for the opening line, each line in Gurani poetry is made
up of 10 syllables (Chaman Ara 2015, pp. 54-56). There is usually a manifest
break after the fifth syllable in each line, except for cases where there is an
ezafe sign between the fifth and the sixth syllables. In the following couplet the break in the
middle of each line is marked by a comma.
Figure 1: Syllable division and
the position of caesura in Gurani line
dīdanī dīdār , kaft ew qiyāmat bīnayī dīdam , to wa silāmat
5 5 5 5
In the second line of the following couplet,
the sixth syllable coincides with the ezafe sign “i” which combines the
two words “dawr” and “rūsam” in an ezafe construction:
|
Rustam found a resting place in the meadow,
|
|
Na pāy markhzar, pīlatan jā kard
|
|
Rakhsh (his horse) came and began grazing
around him.
|
|
Rakhsh āmā na dawr-i rūsam çara kard
|
(Chaman Ara 2015, p. 83-Vrs. 19)
In this case, as in similar cases, a break
between the fifth and the sixth syllables would
lead to a drastic change in the meaning of the verse. If the reader halts in the middle of the second
line, the result would be a ridiculously different sentence: “Rakhsh came in a
circle and Rustam began grazing.”
Another example is the
following couplet:
|
From the heathen to the Christian
and the alien
|
|
War
na har je gawr, tā tarsā ū farang
|
|
Who has killed his own son in a
battle?
|
|
Kī
kushtan farzand-e wēsh na wekht-e jeng
|
(Chaman Ara 2015, p. 219-
Vrs. 1033)
Where an emphatic stop in
the middle of the second line would result in a very different sentence which
can be translated as “who has killed the son, and himself in the battle?
In
Gurani speech, ezafe is signaled by a schwa. Unlike in the Kurdish-Latin
script where ezafe is marked by the letter “i” (as in the above
examples), in Kurdo-Arabic script this vowel finds no written mark, which makes
proper reading difficult for the unversed reader. In Sorani Kurdish, ezafe
is signaled by the long vowel “i:” which is marked by a letter in both the Kurdish-Latin
and the Kurdo-Arabic script.
Conditioned
by mainstream Persian and Arabi poetry (in which the opening verse line is
always a complete one), many copyreaders of Gurani make for the missing five
syllables of opening line by repeating the existing half line. Indeed, it seems
that in most Gurani verses the opening half line is intentionally so earmarked
as to suggest the title or the main idea of the poem. Most poetry by Mahzuni,
Mulla Taher Hawramani, Yusef Yaska, Mirza Shafi’ Kulyayi, Seyed Yaqub Mahidashti
(d. 1808), among others, apply the same technique, so that it can be regarded as
one of the main features of Gurani prosody. In late Gurani versification, due
to the rise of lyrical themes, poems get shorter and the convention of writing
out the first half of the opening line is forgotten and poets begin to compose
lines in equal measure, as it is the case in Persian and Arabic lyrics.
It is interesting to see how in each of the
following opening couplets from four different poems by Mahzuni, the first
five-syllable line serves also as the title of the poem.
|
My fiends! Who has touched?
Who has touched pain as I have touched it?
|
|
Yaran kē diyen
Ser rishte-y xeman, çūn min kē diyen
|
1
|
|
Oh
heart! He bemoaned
One
day he bemoaned, when death was well-nigh.
|
|
Diłe zarīsh kerd
Wext-i mergish bī, rwē zarīsh kerd
|
2
|
|
Oh,
thoughtless heart!
Oh
feckless, heedless, thoughtless heart!
|
|
Diłe kemter wīr
Diłe-y kem xeyał, kem fam-i kem wīr
|
3
|
|
My
Zuleika is young,
Her
two eyes are like two fawns.
|
|
Zilēxam sawan
Du dīdash wēne-y welede-y sawan
|
4
|
(Soltani 2010, p. 206 & 228-9)
The
following opening couplets from four different poems by Mawlawī exemplify how
in late Gurani poetry the first line is composed as a metrically full line,
with less intensity or significance:
|
The spring is back, the season of joy,
The scent of the blossoming freedom.
|
|
Amawa wahār, wahār-i shādī
Boy ‘atr-i nasīm, ghonça-y āzādī
|
1
|
|
Tonight, my cries are shameless, I know,
A melody keeps spiraling in my head.
|
|
imshaw diyāren, bāngim bē sharman
zāyała-y samtūr-i kalam wa garman
|
2
|
|
You are come my dear; how I missed you,
How long I waited, looking at the door.
|
|
āzīzim āmāy, āy bēqarār wēm
āy āy çamarā, āy intizār wēm
|
3
|
|
You light of my eyes, may you live for good,
I will be waiting you in the world to come.
|
|
bīnāyī dīdam, to wa siłāmat
dīdanī dīdār, kaft aw qiyāmat
|
4
|
(Modarres 1961, p. 41)
The
difficulty of distinguishing between Hawrami and Gurani dictions is among the
reasons why some scholars have considered the meter in Gurani as quantitative.
The following poem by Khana Qobadi (1700-1772)—a poet who tried his hand at
both traditions—is a revealing example of how close the two poetic languages
are and also of how easy it is for the versed reader to distinguish between the
two:
|
Oh dear! May your face
not be hidden from my eyes.
|
|
Camīnit nāzanīn lādēw, chanim
pinhān nabū shallā
|
|
|
And if hidden so, may it
not be forgotten in the soul.
|
|
agar gāyēw ja cham dūr
bo, ja dił nisyān nabū shallā
|
|
(Salehi 2001, p. 129)
The
meter in the above poem is mafa’īlon tetrameter (u---), a favorite foot
in Arabic prosody which is different in nature from Gurani versification.
Unlike
Hawrami, Gurani is a language with exclusively poetic use. It has never been
used as an everyday practical language, and there is not even a single piece of
prose among the extant Gurani texts. That is why the prose headings of Gurani
verse narratives are always Persian and sometimes Arabic. The existence of a
set of frequently-used common words has led many scholars to disregard the
essential differences between Hawrami as a living language (with both literary
and practical purposes) and Gurani as an exclusively literary idiom.
3.1.Verse Epistles and Poetic Repartees
Gurani
tradition includes a number of figures who have composed many of their poems as
parts of a dialogue carried out with another poet across a long distance and
over a sustained period of time. In some cases, such poetic dialogues
constitute a large portion of the poet’s career, so that a number of Gurani
poets have been known to audiences not as individuals, but each in relation to
his corresponding poet with whom he constitutes a literary couple. Usually, one
of the poets initiates the dialogue by sending a poem or verse epistle to his hamfard
(soul mate) inquiring about his health, discussing a matter, or describing a
person or a scene. The typical poem of this class implicitly invites an
appropriate response in the manner and on the topic established by the
initiating poet.
As
a principle, the opening half line of the first poem or verse epistle—which in Gurani
tradition serves as the title, the central idea, or the (musical) theme of the
poem—should be used as the opening line of the reply poem too. It is an
effective way to form a common ground (both thematically and formally) for
poetic cooperation. An inevitable aspect of such poetic cooperation is artistic
competition, as each of the two poets tries to outdo his co-author in artist
quality.
Among
the best examples of Gurani dialogue poems are poetic repartees— extemporaneously-composed oral poems each of which
constitutes a step in a long dialogue by two poets in the presence of other
people in an assembly, or majlis. Among the favorite examples of this
class are the repartees of Shaka (Shakaram ca. 1703-1776), a salt peddler, and
his hamfard, Khan Mansour (ca. 1693-1776), a powerful Khan under Nader
Shah (1688-1747), whose shared love of poetry brought them together across an
immeasurable social chasm and eternalized them in people’s minds as indivisible
friends. Poetry
by Yarsan authorities and pirs include some of the earliest examples of Gurani
poetic dialogues.
The
poems of Shaka and Khan Mansour, which have been made available to us through
anthologies and collective memory, are mostly descriptive poems about nature and
earthy beauty in a remarkably polished language rich with imagery and
rhetorical figures.
In
some poetic repartees, the two poets restrict the dialogue both thematically
and formally, so that proper continuation of the composition gets increasingly
difficult. In a series of poetic repartees by Tirkamir Azad Bakht (ca.
1747-1820) and Najaf Chharzabari Mahidashti (1786-1900),
known as “Najaf and Tirkamir,” for instance, the two poets engage in a long
descriptive dialogue detailing the beauties of an imagined lady, from top to
toe, showing off the readiness of their poetic inventions. What makes this
dialogue particularly difficult is the requirement to repeat a single verse
line after every four lines, relating it to the previous ones through an
intermediary verse line (bridging hemistich) which makes it an integral part of
the previous verses (see below). Each poet picks up the subject described in
the last verse of his hamfard (here, a part of the imagined lady’s body)
describing it in his own way and repeating the question “ya son’i āngoshti
kam sen’etkaren?” (what master artist has made this?) which constitutes the
refrain of the repartees. Moreover, Tirkamir and Najaf are required to repeat
or build on each other’s images and rhetorical figures and instill minute
variations to the result of ecstatic approval from their immediate audience.
They
build on each other’s repartees, moving from one part of the lady’s body to the
next until they meet at a final point, exhausting the woman’s body as well as
their own poetic resources. The poem ends in a final invocation of God,
expressing the poets’ fear of having tainted the beauty and honor of the lady
through their undeserving verses. The following illustration shows the
structure of this poetic dialogue:
· The First hemistich
· Second verse
· Third verse
· Refrain
|
Figure 2: The Structure of the Repartee
|
a…..…
|
|
a.............+…………
|
|
a............+…………
|
|
A_______ ________
|
|
b..........+………
|
|
b.............+…………
|
|
b..........+………
|
|
b.............+…………
|
|
a..........+………
|
|
A___ __________
|
- First Line
- Second Line
- Third Line
- Refrain
- Bridging hemistich
|
- Linguistic
studies of Gurani
Attempts
to define Kurdish and Gurani as two distinct languages or as a single one has resulted
in different theories in the fields of Kurdish linguistics and anthropology. In
his famous history of medieval Kurdistan (1597 CE), Sharaf-Khan-i Bedlisi regards
Guran as one of the four major Kurdish tribes.
Mokri provides some details of the ‘Gurani dialect’.
I. M. Oransky classifies Gurani, alongside “Zaza and other dialects,” as one of a range
of Kurdish dialects of north-western Iranian languages which, for him,
originated from ancient Parthian and Median languages
(emphasis added). Elsewhere, however, he seems to regard Gurani and Zaza as related
to the central group of Iranian dialects (Semnani)
and the languages of Fars (Sivand as well as the coasts of the Caspian Sea).
The
assumption that Gurani is related to modern Persian was first introduced by E.
B. Soane (1921, pp. 59-60) who drew on H.
Schindller’s extensive studies of Aryan dialects in Persia. For Soane “the Gurani
of the Anthology” has been affected by Modern Persian. He also finds a close
affinity between modern Persian dialects and “the peculiar Zāzā language of
mid-Kurdistan.” Soane’s study, in its
turn, has influenced later studies of Gurani such as Hadank (1930) and Mackenzie
(1961; 2002) among others.
Among
the major criticisms of Soane’s study, and similar studies of this class, is
that they are based on the historical-comparative method of language
classification. It is exactly why
A. Christensen (1921) compares “Auramānī” with “Semnānī”
and Hadank compares “Kandūlaī” with “Semnānī,” while it is obvious that all
southern Kurdish dialects share certain features (including vocabulary) with
other Iranian languages and dialects.
Soane’s
assumption is further developed by D. N. Mackenzie who categorises Gurani as a koiné alongside Semnānī
and languages spoken in the north of Dasht-e Kavir.
However, the prevailing view of linguists is summarized in the following
excerpt from Mackenzie:
The cradle of all Gurani dialects (as of the closely
related Zaza, or Dimlī [q.v.], dialects), was probably in the Caspian
provinces. From there their speakers migrated en bloc to the southern
Zagros at an unknown early date, and the Iraqi group after them to their
present positions. The dialects were presumably once much more widely spoken,
but many Gurani-speaking areas were subsequently overrun by Kurdish speakers,
leading to a merging of the two languages evident from the differences between
the archaic Northern and the Gurani-influenced Central Kurdish dialects.
The
weakness of this assumption, which Mackenzie (1961) himself seems to have been
aware of, is that there is no historical document or archaeological data to
support the assumed migration. Moreover, there is no available evidence to show
that Gurani has ever been used as a spoken language. Mackenzie
does not provide a clear and consistent definition of the term “Gurani.” He sometimes
applies the term broadly to refer to a combination of the dialects nowadays spoken
in southern Zagros, from Hawraman (Awrāmān) to the modern Loristān province, but
he often applies it more specifically to Hawrami, which is spoken in the
Awrāmān region.
Joyce
Blau, however, categorises the dialects in the Zagros area among the southern
Kurdish dialects (of Kermanshahi, Sanjabi, Kalhuri, Laki, and Lori-of Poshtkuh)
which she describes as a group of non-homogenous dialects that have never
turned into a literary language. For
her, the language spoken in Khanaqin is
among the central Kurdish dialects, while we know that Khanaqin is at the
centre of the Kalhuri-speaking regions which are linguistically distinct from
the Sorani-speaking regions. However, in her recent work,
Blau regards Gurani as a ‘spoken language’ which “became the common literary
language in southern Kurdistan at the courts of Baban and Soran dynasties which
were settled on the western slopes of the Zagros.” By distinguishing spoken Hawrami from “Literary Gurani” (or
Hawrami), Sediq Moftizadeh (2017, p. 54-58), underlines the importance of Gurani
as a traditional literary language.
In
his 2002 article, however, Mackenzie offers a comparative phonological study (outlined
below) and suggests that Gurani is historically distinguished form both Kurdish
and Persian.
Among
Mackenzie’s errors is his inconsistent and selective use the term “Kurdish,” particularly
when he tries to differentia it from Gurani. His examples of “Kurdish” are only
those which support his argument. Moreover, he does not acknowledge his sources
for the Gurani data he includes in his study, most of which are not found in Gurani
resources.
In
an attempt to draw a clear line between Kurdish and Gurani, Mackenzie identifies
seven phonological differences between the two, illustrating each point by a few
examples. His examples of Gurani, however, seem to be selected not from extant written
texts but from the spoken varieties close to Hawrami. In what follows, we
examine his examples in the light of authentic Gurani sources.
4.1 the preservation of initial *w-, e.g.,
|
Gur.
|
Kurd.
|
|
|
[wā
|
Bā
|
“wind”]
|
|
[wāt-/wāč-
|
Bēž
|
“say”]
|
|
[warwa
|
Bafr
|
“snow”]
|
Indeed, Gurani texts do not display the
phonological features outlined by Mackenzie, including the tendency to preserve the
initial w-. The correct Gurani forms of the Kurdish examples above are bād
(wind), barf (snow), barg (leaf), ba (to/with), and bawr
(tiger).
wā | in Gur. texts: bād/bā
|
wātash pāławān xātir bikar shad
|
|
parī Rakhsh-i wēt xam bidar ba bād
|
Rostam and Sohrāb, vrs. 66
wāt | Kal. wat/wet, Lak. wet,
Gahv. wat, Hawr. wāt (Sor. got, Lor. got)
warwa | Gur. texts, barf/bafr, Kal. wafr, Lak. wafr,
Sor. bafr
4.2 The development of initial *hw- > w- in all dialects (but with occasional
secondary h- in Bāǰalānī),
|
Gur.
|
Kurd.
|
|
|
[war
|
xwar/xōr
|
“sun,”]
|
|
[wē-
|
xō-
|
“self,”]
|
|
[warm
|
xawt-/
|
“sleep”]
|
|
[wit-/ūs-
|
xaw-
|
“to sleep”]
|
|
[wāła
|
Xushk
|
“sister,”]
|
|
[wārd-/war-
|
xwārd-/xō-
|
“eat”]
|
war | in Gur. texts, xwar:
|
mast-i
bāda-y laʽł fānūs-i gawhar
|
|
shawq
dā na jāmrēz wēna-y shawq-i xwar
|
|
|
|
Rostam and Sohrāb, vrs. 89
|
wē- | Gur. texts, wē-, Lak. wē-, Kal. (Khezelī), wē-, Hawr. wē-
warm | Gur. texts, xāw/xāw
|
siłāy rūy jang na war kirdawa
|
|
sar niyā ba gwirz xāwish birdawa
|
|
|
|
Rostam and Sohrāb, vrs. 20
|
|
shī na nū-tūy xaw, hīč
nabī bīdār
|
|
bē xabar ja kār-i ay čarx-i
makār
|
|
|
|
Rostam and Sohrāb, vrs. 21
|
Kal. xaw, Lak. xaw, Sor. xaw
wāła | Gur. texts, xwāhar:
|
xwāharish ki dī mājarā-y hujīr
|
|
siyā bī ja qār, wēna-y zamharīr
|
|
|
|
Rostam and Sohrāb, vrs. 300
|
Kal. xwayshk/xwaysheg, Lak. xwē/xwayshk,
Sor. xwayshk
4.3 the coalescence of initial *y- and * wy-
in y-,
|
Gur.
|
Hawr.
|
Kurd.
|
|
|
[yawa
|
-
|
ǰaw
|
“barley”]
|
|
[-
|
yahar
|
ǰarg
|
“liver”]
|
|
[yāga
|
-
|
ǰē
|
“place”]
|
yawa |
is nowhere found in
Gur. resources.
jarg | has no records in available Gur. resources. Instead the word jarg is constantly used. The following example from the Kurdish Shanama is one
among many:
|
wa mawdāy ałmās, biranda-y xatar
|
|
jargish
pāra kard, ja dił shē wa bar
|
|
|
|
Rostam and Sohrāb, vrs. 873
|
4.4 initial *dw- > b-,
|
Gur.
|
Kurd.
|
|
|
[bara
|
Dar
|
“door”]
|
bara |has
no records in our resources, instead some components of dar- such as dargā(h)
“doorway,” and darwāza “gate” are used.
Other variations are Kal. dar, Lak. dar and Sor. dar
|
sū saḥar ja waxt-i hingāma-y xwirūs
|
|
xēzā ja dargā, ṣidā-y tapł u kūs
|
|
|
|
Rostam and Sohrāb,
vrs. 213
|
4.5 initial *x- > h-,
|
Gur.
|
Kurd.
|
|
|
[har
|
Kar
|
“donkey”]
|
|
[hāna
|
Kānī
|
“spring”]
|
har has no even one record in available Gur. texts. Also, Gur. typically
uses ĉashma and occasionally hāna. Typically change of initial x-
to h- can be seen almost everywhere in Hawr. and Lak. e.g. Lak. hare(g)
“soil,”, hoār “down,” and har “donkey”.
4.6 -rd- > -l- in distinctly non-Persian words,
|
Gur.
|
Kand.
|
Hawr.
|
Kurd.
|
|
|
[-
|
-
|
Wilī
|
Guł
|
“flower,”]
|
|
[-
|
Zil
|
-
|
Dił
|
“heart”]
|
The Gur. words for “flower” and
“heart” are guł and dił respectively; they are the same in Kalhori,
Laki and Sorani. The following couplet from Rostam and Sohrāb exemplifies the fact.
|
ba wāta-y badān, bad-wāzān-i jaŋ
|
|
wēt madar wa xam, dił māwar wa taŋ
|
|
|
|
Rostam and Sohrāb, vrs. 184
|
|
|
|
|
|
araq çun shawnem, neshtan na rūy guł
|
|
Tar kardan tātā-y,
toghrāka-y sunbuł
|
|
|
|
Mawlawi, 1961: 31
|
4.7 the retention of -m, also
< *-shm,
|
Gur.
|
Kurd.
|
|
|
[Zamīn
|
Zawī
|
“earth,”]
|
|
[Čam
|
Čāw
|
“eye”]
|
It
is notable that Kalhuri
and Laki words for “earth” and “eye” are the same as the Gurani examples
mentioned above.
To
reach his desired conclusion, Mackenzie has used Hawrami words instead of Gurani
in the examples above. It gets the more surprising when we remember that Mackenzie
has had access to the Gurani anthology of British Museum (Or. 6444).
Indeed,
the bulk of Mackenzie’s researches on Gurani revolve around his attempt to find
a proto-Hawrami-Zaza which he names “Gurani” and defines it as language
distinct from Kurdish. Mackenzie’s
naming is problematic, since his purely linguistic hypothesis—regardless of its
validity—is contaminated by a number of well-established extra-linguistic
meanings attached to the word Gurani, and Mackenzie, himself, has been misled
by the sheer number of meanings attached the word Gurani.
5
Further
Linguistic Studies
Many
scholars of Gurani have based their works on Mackenzie’s study. A 2011 study,
titled The Gorānī language of Gawrajū which is the
product of an extensive research project, follows Mackenzie’s hypothesis and
intends to address and identify a mixed variety of a Kurdish dialect as the
Gorani language of Gawrajū in the vicinity of Hawraman region in the
Kermanshah Province of Iran. According to the authors (Mahmoudveysi et al 2011,
p. 1):
The
inhabitants of the village belong overwhelmingly to the Ahl-e Haqq, or
Yarsesan, religious group. They speak a peculiar dialect, close to the Gorānī
language used for the sacred texts of this religion. However, they also use a
variety of Southern Kurdish as a lingua franca.
This
short introduction has a number of implications: (1) the authors regard Gurani as
a specific spoken language; (2) Gurani has a range of varieties or dialects;
(3) the sacred texts of Yaresan can be regarded as a version of Gurani; (4) Gurani
as a language is different from Kurdish; (5) the Gurani speakers of Gawrajū use
a variety of Southern Kurdish as a lingua franca.
The
book is replete with comparable claims which are briefly dealt with here:
5.1 Phonetically, Gawrajuyi is comparable to
Kalhuri and Laki. The two vowels/ü/ and /ö/ which appear frequently in Gawrajuyi
as well as in Kalhuri and Laki, seldom appear in Gurani texts, except for those
which have been produced or influenced by Kalhuri or Laki speakers.
5.2 Gawrajuyi evidently has typical features
of nominal morphology such as -(a)k(a) <rūła-kān (DEF-PL)
‘children’> which are totally absent in Gurani.
It is notable that -(a)k(a) is similarly used by the speakers of Sorani
(Central Kurdish) and the dialects of Southern Kurdish, including Laki and
Kalhori:
[Gawrajuyi,
-(a)k(a): kor-aka
(the boy)]
Sorani,
-(a)k(a): kor-aka
Laki,
-(a)k(a): kor-aka
Kalhuri,
-(a)g(a): kor-aga
5.3 Gawrajuyi is distinguished from Hawrami
by the case of nouns distinguish number (singular and plural), and
definiteness, but neither gender nor case. (ibid, p. 12)
5.4 Number marking on nouns: (e.g. Sing.
Unmarked, PL)
[Gawrajuyi
-ān, -(a)kān didān-ān (teeth), kor-akān, (boys)]
Sorani, -ān, -(a)kān diyān-ān (teeth), kor-akān
Laki,
-ān, -al dinān-ān (teeth), kor-al,
Kalhuri,
-ān, -(a)gān, -ayl digān-ān
(teeth), kor-ayl
Gurani,
-ān dinān-ān
5.5 Definiteness suffix of -(y)aka
<dit-aka ‘the girl’>, is similar to its counterpart in Laki <dit-aka>
and Sorani <kiĉ-aka, ‘the girl’ > as well as Kalhuri by changing k
to g <dit-aga, düat-aga>, also the indefiniteness suffixes are
similar to their counterparts in Laki and Sorani:
INDF
1:
[Gawrajuyi,
-(y)ē, -(y)ēk āsyāw-ē / āsyāw-ēk (a mill)]
Laki,
-(y)ē, -(y)ēk āsyāw-ē / āsyāw-ēk
Sorani,
-(y)ē, -(y)ēk āsyāw-ē / āsyāw-ēk
Kalhuri,
-(y)ē, -(y)ēg āsyāw-ē / āsyāw-ēg
Gurani
-(y)ē, ----- āsyāw-ē
INDF
2:
[Gawrajuyi,
-(y)ī ya qūr-ī arā-m bāra (bring me a jug)]
Laki,
-(y)ī ya qūr-ī ara-m bār
Kalhori,
-(y)ī ya(y) qūr-ē(g) arā-m bār
5.6 The Ezafe
In
this case we should bear in mind that the adjectives or possessives in Gurani,
as in Southern Kurdish dialects, generally follow the head noun to which they
are linked by an audible or no audible ezafe vowel. Thus, for example we
may expect kū bīsitün, kū-i bīsitün, or kū-y bīsitün (mountain
of Bisotun) as well as the reverse form bīsitün kū to refer to mount
Bisotun in Kermanshah.
5.7 Personal Pronouns
The
first following table demonstrates the resemblance between independent personal
pronouns in Gawrajuyi and Hawrami, while
the second table distinguishes both from the similar class in Gurani and Kalhuri.
Figure
3: Personal Pronouns in Gawrajuyi,
Hawrami, Literary Gurani and Kalhuri
|
|
[Gawrajuyi]
|
|
|
Hawrami
|
|
Person
|
Singular
|
Plural
|
Person
|
Singular
|
Plural
|
|
1st
|
[min
|
Ēma]
|
1st
|
min
|
ēma
|
|
2nd
|
[tu
|
Shima]
|
2nd
|
tu
|
shima
|
|
3rd
|
[ān(a), [īn(a), ānī, īnī
|
ānān(a), īnān(a), ānānī, īnānī]
|
3rd
|
ād, ā, āda, ā
|
ādysha
|
|
Person
|
Gurani
|
|
Person
|
Kalhuri
|
|
|
Singular
|
Plural
|
|
Singular
|
Plural
|
|
1st
|
Min
|
Ēma
|
1st
|
mi
|
ēma
|
|
2nd
|
Tū
|
Ēwa
|
2nd
|
te
|
`īwa, `üa
|
|
3rd
|
Aw
|
awān, āwān
|
3rd
|
aü (way)
|
awān, wān
|
5.8 Glossary Comparison
The
first column of the following table contains a number of frequently used Gawrajuyi
words recorded by the authors in their fieldwork, and the next four columns
contain their Kalhuri, Laki, Hawrami and Gurani equivalents respectively.
Interestingly, only 1 out of 15 of these Gawrajuyi words coincides with its Hawrami
equivalent (line 11). As it is indicated by the table, Gawrajuyi is most closely
affiliated with Kalhori and Laki, at least in vocabulary, contradicts the
claims of the authors (lines 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15).
Figure
4: Glossary
Comparison
|
|
Gawrajuyi
|
Kalhuri
|
Laki
|
Hawrami
|
Gurani
|
|
1
|
[hānī (spring)]
|
Kiyanī
|
kanī
|
Hāna
|
ĉashma
|
|
2
|
[didān (tuth)]
|
dinān, digān
|
dinān
|
did(g, y)an
|
dinān
|
|
3
|
[dit (girl)]
|
düat, dit
|
dit
|
Kināĉe
|
duxtar, kināĉa
|
|
4
|
[ne-ma-zānim (I
don’t know)]
|
ni-ya-zānim
|
ni-ma-zānim
|
ni-ma-zānū
|
ni-ma-zānū(m)
|
|
5
|
[arā (why, to,
toward)]
|
Arā
|
arā
|
pay
|
pay
|
|
6
|
[mashū (he/she goes)]
|
ĉū (g)
|
maĉū
|
Malū
|
maĉū, mashū
|
|
7
|
[sē (three)]
|
Sē
|
sē
|
Yirē
|
sē
|
|
8
|
[xwiyā (God)]
|
xwidā
|
xwidā
|
xwā
|
xwidā
|
|
9
|
[bāra (bring)]
|
Bār
|
bār
|
bāra
|
bāwar
|
|
10
|
[kat-it (you fell)
|
kaft-ī(d), kat-ī(d)
|
kat-ī(d)
|
kawti
|
kaft-ī
|
|
11
|
[ī (this)]
|
Ay
|
ay, ī
|
Ī
|
ay
|
|
12
|
[shü (husband)]
|
Shü
|
shü
|
SHū
|
?
|
|
13
|
[zü (quick)]
|
Zü
|
zü
|
Zū
|
zū, zü
|
|
14
|
[žan (woman)]
|
Žin
|
žan
|
žanī
|
zan
|
|
15
|
[žinaft
(he/she has heard)]
|
žinaft, shinaft
|
shinaft
|
žinaw(f)t
|
žinaft, shinaft
|
The
above tables and their analyses show the phonological, morphological and
grammatically analogies between the so called “Gawrajuyi” language and the
Kurdish dialects of Laki and Kalhuri. They also indicate a meaningful
distinction between the so called “Gorānī of Gawrajū” and the literary Gurani
which is familiar to us from the Kalams of Yarsan and the Kurdish Shanama
narratives.
Mahmoudveysi
et al admit that many people of Kermanshah province as well as Gawrajuyi
speakers consider themselves ethnically and linguistically ‘Kurdish’ and refer
to their language as Kurdī. However, the overall tendency of their
research is to problematize this common belief by, first, creating a linguistic
boundary between Gawrajuyi and Kurdish and, then, transcending that boundary to
the advantage of the first, confiscating the whole Gurani literary tradition as
the product of their hypothetical language, Gawrajuyi.
A
thorough comparative analysis of the characteristics of ‘the Gorānī language
of Gawrajū’ and the Gurani used in the sacred texts of Yarsan would clearly
demonstrate the differences between the two.
- Gurani
as a Literary Idiom
However,
Kreyenbroek and Chamanara (2012) proposed a new categorization of what should
be understood under the term “Gurani”, regardless of whether it should
eventually be considered as Kurdish or not. According to the authors, Gurani is
divided into mutually exclusive categories of “literary Gurani” and “spoken Gurani”.
Here,
“spoken Gurani” is used as a practical collective term for a group of
linguistically related dialects spoken in Hawraman and Gurān regions of Iranian
Kurdistan as well as a number of enclaves in Khanaqin and Mosul in Iraqi
Kurdistan. The “literary Gurani”, on the other hand, is defined as an
exclusively literary idiom intended to be intelligible to speakers of a range
of “Zagrosian” languages in Iranian Kurdistan.
It was used as the language of literature in the Ardalān dynasty and those in
Kermanshah and Loristan while it has also been the language of a large part of
the religious writings of the Yarsan community. The literary Gurani has also
served as the performance language of various oral literary genres among
different ethno-linguistic communities of the region, such as Kalhurs, Hawramis, Laks and
part of the Lors.
For
Kreyenbroek and Chamanara, this literary idiom is neither a koiné nor an
independent form of Kurdish.
The reasons for defining Gurani as a composite literary language include: 1)
the striking diversity of its features and 2) its non-homogeneous borrowings, both
syntactical and lexical, from the various dialects in the Zagros areas.
Besides
dissimilarities in vocabulary, Hawrami and Gurani display significant other differences
regarding syntax. Hawrami displays ergative case in past tense sentences while Gurani
often displays accusative structure or a tendency to move from ergative
structure to the accusative. This tendency has resulted in a semi-ergative
structure which means Gurani is in transit from an ergative towards an
accusative language. Also, Hawrami indicates singular first and third persons
differently (as /u/ and /o/ respectively) while in Gurani both pronouns are
indicated by /u/. As to the semantics, Hawrami
displays number agreement between a noun and its modifiers as well as gender agreement
for verbs, while Gurani displays none of these features. And in the case of phonology, there are
phonological differences between frequently used words (see section 5) in both
languages.
- Conclusion
Adopting
a critical stance, this article provided a descriptive-historical study of Gurani.
We maintained that Gurani has been an exclusively poetic idiom, distinct from a
number of dialects with which it is erroneously identified, and that the linguistic
question of its Kurdish, or non-Kurdish, affiliations is an ill-founded query.
There is no evidence to show that Gurani has ever been used as a language for
everyday communications. Instead it has served as the literary lingua franca of
linguistically various groups of local people. Analysis of frequently-used
words and phrases indicate that Gurani is most closely affiliated with Laki and
Hawrami in vocabulary and to Kalhori and Lori in syntax. Phonemically, it is
flexible, varying from place to place, so that narrators in each region insist
on their preferred pronunciations. Although changes in pronunciations sometimes
will change the meanings of the words, there is consensus among the speakers of
Hawrami, Laki, Kalhori, Lori, as well as among some groups of Sorani speakers,
on the true meanings of the words.
Gurani
has been the bulwark of an oral culture, helping to preserve, nurture and
transmit their intellectual properties most of which has been already forgotten.
The last narrators of Gurani stories are passing the last years of their lives,
making immediate access to the tradition increasingly difficult.
Ardalan,
S. 2004. Les Kurdes Ardalân: entre la Perse et l'Empire ottoman.
Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. [Morteza Ardalan, (tr.) Nashr-e tārīx-e
Īrān, Tehran].
Bahar, M. A. 1937. ‘SHe’rhā-ye dah hejāyī-e kurdī’. Mehr.
No. 5/5, pp. 69-100.
Benveniste, É. 1930. Le texte du Draxt Asūrīk et
la versification pehlevie. Paris: Geuthner.
Mir-Sharaf-Khan
Bidlisi . Sharafnāma (Mohammad ʿAbbasi (ed.), First Print. (Tehran: Hadis,
1373SH/1994)
Blau, J. 1989b. “Gurani et Zaza“. Compendium
Linguarum Iranicarum. R. Schmitt (ed.),
pp. 336-40.
Blau, Joyce ‘Gurani et Zaza’in R. Schmitt (ed.). Compendium Linguarum
Iranicarum. pp. 336–340, (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1989).
Blau, J. 2010. “Written Kurdish literature”. Oral
literature of Iranian languages. Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Ulrich Marzolph
(eds.), I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London.
Fattah,
I. K. 2000. Les dialects Kurdes méridionaux: Étude linguistique et
dialectologique. Leuven.
Hassanpor,
A. 1998. “The Identity of Hawrami Speakers: Reflection on the Theory and
Ideology of Comparative Philology”. Anthology of Gurani Kurdish Poetry.
A. M. Mardoukhi (Compl.) and A. Soltani (Ed.), London.
Jahanfard,
S. 2017. Harmaneg la bedangi [Immortality in Silence]. Vol. I.,
Kermanshah: Dibacheh.
Karduxī, M. A. (coll., ed.) 1971. Diwan-i Ash‛ar Saydi.
[Divan of Saydi] (Repr. 2006, Sina) Suleymanya.
Keyvan, M. 1966.
“Peyvastegi-e Zaban-i ba Zabanha-ye Farsi: Pahlavi va Avestayi”. Yaghma.
No. 217, pp. 236-40.
Khanlari,
P. N. 1967. Vazn-e She’r-e Farsi [Persian Prosody]. Tehran: Iran Culture
Foundation.
Kreyenbroek, Philip G. 2005c. “Kurdish Written
Literature”. Encyclopædia Iranica.
(Retrieved from: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kurdish-written-literature)
Kreyenbroek, Philip G. 2010. “Orality and Religion in
Kurdistan: The Yezidi and Ahl-e Haqq Traditions”. Oral Literature of Iranian
Languages Kurdish, Pashto, Balochi, Ossetic, Persian and Tajik. P. G.
Kreyenbroek and U. Marzolph (eds.), pp. 70-89.
Kreyenbroek and
Chaman Ara "Literary Gurani: Koinè
or Continuum”. in H. Bozarslan and C. Scalbert-Yucel, Chez Les Kurdes, pp.
151-67 (Istanbul: French Institute of Anatolian Studies, 2013).
Leenzenberg, M. 1992. “Gorani Influence on Central Kurdish:
Substratum or Prestige Borrowing?”. ILLC Prepublication Series X-93-03.
Symposium on bilingualism in Iranian cultures, Bamberg.
Lerch, P.
1857-1858. Forschungen über die Kurden und die iranischen Nordchaldäer. (St.
Petersburg: Neudr. d. Ausg., 1857–1858, reprinted Amsterdam: APA Philo, 1979).
Mackenzie,
D. N. 1961. “The Origins of Kurdish”. In Transactions of the Philological
Society, pp. 68-86 (Cf. Iranica Diversa, 1999, pp.68-86).
Mackenzie, D. N. 2002. “Gurani”. Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. XI, Fasc. 4, pp. 401-3. (Retrieved
from: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gurani), Last Updated: February 24, 2012.
Mahmoudveysi,
P. 2011. “Arudh dar She’r-e Kurdī“ [Arudh in Kurdish Versification]. In Omid, Tabibzadeh (coll.). Festscherisft
of Abolhasan Najafi. Tehran: Niloofar. Pp.
615-45.
Mahmoudveysi, P. et al. The Gorani language of Gawraju
(Gawrajuyi), a village of West Iran: Texts, grammar, and lexicon, (Wiessbaden:
Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2011).
Mawlawi Tawaguzi 1961. Diwan-i Ash‛ar, Modarris,
A. K. (Coll., ed.), Al-Najah, Bagdad.
Minorsky, V. 1943. “The Gūrān”. Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.
75-103.
Mokri, M. 1994. “Lahjeha-ye gharb-e iran” [Dialects of
the West of Iran] Awena, No. 14-15, pp. 70-85.
Naghshbandi,
Z. 2013. “Sakht-e vazni-e ash’ar-e guyeshe Hawrami“ [Prosodic Structure of
Hawramni]. In Omid, Tabibzadeh (coll.). Vazn-e She’r-e Farsi az diruz ta emruz
[Persian Prosody from yesterday to now]. Tehran: Hermes. Pp. 247-60.
Najafi,
Abolhasan. 2013. “Vazn-e dawri” [Circular Meter]. In Omid, Tabibzadeh (coll.). Vazn-e
She’r-e Farsi az diruz ta emruz [Persian Prosody from yesterday to now].
Tehran: Hermes. Pp. 133-146.
Nourmohammadi,
Mulla Manucher (ed. Coll.) 2002. Diwan-e Mulla Manuchehr khan-e Kuliwand.
Aflak, Khoramabad.
Oransky, I. M. 2000. Iranian Languages. Karim
Keshavarz (Pers. tr.), Tehran: Payam.
Qaradaghi, M. A. 2011. Kashkul-i Kalapur-i Adab-i Kurdi.
Vol.7, Erbil: Aras.
Qasemi, M. A. and Khani, A. 2000. Dīwān-e kāmel-e SHāka
va Xān-Mansūr, Salahad’dīn Ayyubī, Urmia.
Rieu, Ch. 1881. “Gurani Koine”. Catalogue of the
Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum II, London, pp. 728-34.1378/20
secondary Benveniste, S., Emile, 1932. "The memorial
of Zarer, pohlevi Mazdaean poem". Asian Journal. pp.245-293.
Soane, E. B. 1921. “A Short Anthology of Guran Poetry”. Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society, Jan. 1921, pp. 57-81.
Soltani, A. (ed.) 1998. Anthology of Gorani Poetry,
Compiled by A. M. Mardoukhi (1739-1797), London. (Cf. Soltani, A. (ed.) 2010. Kashkula
shi’reki kurdi Gurani, A. M. Marduxi (Compl.) Jin Foundation, Sulaymani)
Yasemi, R. 1940. ‘Kurd va peyvastegi-e nezhadi va tarikh-e
ou’, Tehran: Ibn Sina.
