Atlas of the Languages of Iran - A Working Classification
Published using Google Docs
Atlas of the Languages of Iran - A Working Classification
Updated automatically every 5 minutes

Atlas of the Languages of Iran
A working classification

Erik Anonby
Carleton University, Ottawa

email: erik.anonby@carleton.ca

2006_04_11 123.jpg*Photo © Erik Anonby 2006
Contents

Introduction

A working classification of Iran’s languages

Outstanding questions related to classification

References

Introduction

This page presents a working classification of the languages of Iran, for use in the Atlas of the Languages of Iran. It is based on the work of many scholars, and specific contributions are indicated in the accompanying notes.

In building the tree for the Iranic family, which extends over much of Iran and beyond, this document relies extensively on Stilo (1981, 2001, 2007), Windfuhr (1989, 2009), Skjærvø (2006), Borjian (2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2012, 2013a, 2013b), Jahani & Korn (2009) and Lecoq (1989a, 1989b, 1989c) as well as other articles of the Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum (1989, ed. R. Schmitt).

The following scholars (listed in alphabetical order) have also made a direct contribution by reviewing sections of the classification or answering questions related to it:

Iranic: Joan Baart, Habib Borjian, Geoff Haig, Michael Mehrdad Izady, Carina Jahani, Thomas Jügel, Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani, Maryam Nourzaei, Jaffer Sheyholislami, Don Stilo, Gernot Windfuhr, and two anonymous Kurdish-speaking referees

Indic: Vit Bubenik
Armenian: Don Stilo
Turkic: Christiane Bulut

Semitic: Sami Aydin, Ulrich Seeger, Gernot Windfuhr
Kartvelian: Babak Rezvani
Sign languages: Amir Anvari

An attempt has been made to situate all the language varieties in Iran which are mentioned in the Ethnologue (2014), although this classification departs in many important ways from the one assembled there.

Where sources differ on the classification of a language variety or a group of languages, a single working classification is adopted here, but the nature of the differences between perspectives is described in the accompanying text.

This classification is open to improvement, and all contributions which are founded on data and experience will be considered and acknowledged. To submit a suggestion for revision, please write erik.anonby@carleton.ca with your comments as well as references to publications and/or data that support the changes you are proposing.

A list of important outstanding questions related to classification is given at the end of this page.

A working classification of Iran’s languages

Varieties are grouped according to the following families in the classification (click on each family to view that section of the classification).

Iranic (Iranian)

Indic (Indo-Aryan)

Armenian

Turkic

Semitic

Kartvelian

Dravidian

Sign language

Notes:
- Commonly used alternative names and spellings are given in parentheses.
- Quotation marks (“ ”) are used for names that are inexact or pejorative.
- Language varieties followed by ‘(0)’ are in the Iranic language family but are not spoken within Iran.
- The symbol ‘†’ is used for language varieties that are extinct.

Indo-European: Indo-Iranian: Iranic (Iranian)
New Iranic Period

Middle Iranic Period[114]
Old Iranic Period[115]
Indo-European: Indo-Iranic: Indic[116] (Indo-Aryan) (only varieties within Iran are listed)
Indo-European: Armenian[118] (Armani; Erāmani) (only varieties within Iran are listed)
Turkic[120] (Turki; Türki; Torki) (only varieties within Iran are listed)
Afro-Asiatic: Semitic: Central (only varieties within Iran are listed)
Kartvelian (only varieties within Iran are listed)
Dravidian (only varieties within Iran are listed)
Sign Language
Relevant language families outside of Iran

Language families and language families relevant to the Atlas and classification, because of their contribution as substrates or contact languages, but spoken only outside of Iran, are as follows:

Outstanding questions related to classification

Some of the major questions in the classification of Iran’s languages that have not been resolved are collected here. If you have insights that will help answer any of these questions, please write us with these, along with references to the sources and data that support your view. Please state exactly where the varieties are spoken, and you view their classification. You may also write us with classification-related questions that can be added to this list. As stated above, you can contact us at erik.anonby[à]carleton.ca.

Current questions are as follows:

References

Note: references in the footnotes which are marked “p.c.” are based on personal communication with the people indicated.

Anonby, Erik. 2003. Update on Luri: How many languages? Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (third series) 13.2, 171-97.

Anonby, Erik. 2004/5. Kurdish or Luri? Laki’s disputed identity in the Luristan Province of Iran. Kurdische Studien 4/5, 7-22.

Anonby, Erik. 2012. Sociolinguistic status of Lori. Encyclopædia Iranica. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/lori-language-ii (accessed 2014/10/02).

Anonby, Erik. (forthcoming). The Keshmi (Qeshmi) dialect of Hormozgan Province, Iran: A first account. Studia Iranica.

Anonby, Erik, Jaffer Sheyholislami and Masoud Mohammadirad. 2016. Kordestan Province in the Atlas of the Languages of Iran. ICKL 3 (3rd International Conference on Kurdish Linguistics), University of Amsterdam, August 25-26, 2016.

Anonby, Erik and Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani. (forthcoming). Shipwrecked and landlocked: Discovery of Kholosi, an Indo-Aryan language in south-west Iran. Studia Iranica.

Baghbidi, Hassan Rezai. 2003. The Zargari language: An endangered European Romani in Iran. Romani Studies 5.13.2, 123–148.

Belelli, Sara. (forthcoming). The Laki variety of Harsin: Grammar, texts, lexicon. Bamberg, Germany: Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg.

Blau, Joyce. 1989. Gurânî et Zâzâ. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 336-340. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Borjian, Habib. 2007. Isfahan xx. Geography of the Median dialects of Isfahan. Encyclopædia Iranica 14.1, 84-93. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/isfahan-xx-geography-of-the-median-dialects-of-isfahan (accessed 2021/05/12).

Borjian, Habib. 2008. The extinct language of Gurgān: Its sources and origins. Journal of the American Oriental Society 128.4, 681-707.

Borjian, Habib. 2012. Kashan ix. The Median dialects of Kashan. Encyclopædia Iranica 16.1, 38-47. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kashan-ix-the-median-dialects-of-kashan (accessed 2014/10/02).

Borjian, Habib. 2013. Farvi dialect. Encyclopædia Iranica. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/farvi-dialect (accessed 2014/10/02).

Borjian, Habib. 2013. The Tabaroid dialects of south-central Alborz. Acta Orientalia 66.4, 427-441.

Borjian, Habib and Maryam Borjian. 2008. The last Gālesh herdsman: Ethno-linguistic materials from south Caspian rainforests. Iranian Studies 41.3, 365-401.

Borjian, Habib and Ali Qorbāniān. (forthcoming). Tanavo’-e lahjeh dar Mārbin-e Esfahān: pazhuheshi dar radeshenāsi-ye zabān-e Fārsi [An assortment of dialects in Mārbin, Esfahān: A study in typology of the Persian language].

Bulut, Christiane. 2014. Turkic varieties in west Iran and Iraq: Representatives of a South Oghuz dialect group? Turkic language in Iran, past and present, ed. Heidi Stein, 15-99. Turcologica 100. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Bulut, Christiane. 2018. The Turkic varieties of Iran. The languages and linguistics of Western Asia: An areal perspective, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 398-444. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Clifton, John M., Gabriela Deckinga, Laura Lucht and Calvin Tiessen. 2005. Sociolinguistic situation of the Tat and Mountain Jews in Azerbaijan. SIL Electronic Survey Reports 2005-017. Available at: http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/9077  (accessed 2014/11/25).

Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 2013. Raddeh-ye zabānhā-ye irāni (Typology of Iranian languages), vol. 1. Tehran: Samt.

Dahlgren, Sven-Olof. 2002/3. Arabs in Central and Eastern Iran. Orientalia Suecana 51/52:89-94.

Doerfer, Gerhard. 2006. Irano-Turkic. Turkic-Iranian contact areas, ed. Lars Johanson and Christiane Bulut, 93-113. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Edelman, D. (Joy) I. and Leila Dodykhudoeva. 2009. The Pamir languages. The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 773-786. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Efimov, Valentin A. [1986] 2011. The Ormuri language in past and present, ed./transl. Joan L.G. Baart. FLI Language and Culture Series 6. Forum for Language Initiatives, Islamabad.

Gippert, Jost. 2000. Stammbaum der iranischen Sprachen [Genealogical tree of Iranian languages]. Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS). Frankfurt am Main: Jost Gippert. Available at: http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/iran/iranstam.htm (accessed 2015/08/31).

Haig, Geoffrey. 2013. Clitics at the syntax-pragmatics interface: The case of Delvari pronominal clitics. Paper presented at ICIL5 (The 5th International Conference of Iranian Linguistics), Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, August 23-25, 2013.

Fattah, Ismaïl Kamandâr. 2000. Les dialectes du kurde méridional. Louvain: Peeters.

Ingham, Bruce. 2007. Khuzestan Arabic. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed. Kees Versteegh et al., 571-578.

Izady, Michael Mehrdad. 2013. Linguistic composition of Iran. New York: Gulf/2000 Project. Available at: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iran_Languages_lg.png (accessed 2014/10/02).

Jahani, Carina and Agnes Korn. 2009. Balochi. The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 634-692. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Johanson, Lars. 1998. The history of Turkic. The Turkic languages, ed. Lars Johanson and Éva Á. Csató, 81-125. London/New York: Routledge.

Kieffer, Charles M. 1989. Le parâči, l'ôrmuṛi et le groupe des langues iraniennes du sud-est. Compendium linguarum iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 445-455. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Kim, Deborah. 2017. Topics in the syntax of Sarikoli (PhD dissertation). Utrecht: LOT Publications.

Korn, Agnes. 2003. Balochi and the concept of Northwestern Iranian. The Baloch and their neighbours: Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times, ed. Carina Jahani and Agnes Korn, 49-60. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Available at: http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/personal/agnes/upsala00.pdf (accessed 2015/08/31)

Kurdish Academy of Language. 2014. KAL’s Kurdish genealogy tree. Available at: http://kurdishacademy.org/?q=node/159 (accessed 2014/10/02).

Kurdish Academy of Language. 2018. Zarawekaní zimaní Kurdí [Dialects of the Kurdish Language]: Zebíhí 1988. Available at: http://www.kurdishacademy.org/?q=ku/node/214 (accessed 2018/01/01).

Lecoq, Pierre. 1989a. Le classement des langues irano-aryennes occidentales. Études irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, 247-264. Cahiers de Studia Iranica 7. Paris: Association pour l'avancement des études iraniennes.

Lecoq, Pierre. 1989b. Les dialectes du centre de l’Iran. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 313-326. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Lecoq, Pierre. 1989c. Les dialectes du sud-ouest de l’Iran. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 341-349. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Lewis, M. Paul, Gary Simons and Charles Fennig (eds.). 2014. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Seventeenth edition. Dallas: SIL International. Available at: http://www.ethnologue.com (accessed 2014/10/02).

Morgenstierne, Georg. 1926. Report on a linguistic mission to Afghanistan. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Company.

Nazari, Abdollah. 2004. Verb phrases in the Turkmen language: A minimalist program analysis (unpublished MA thesis). Zahedan: University of Sistan and Baluchestan.

Rezvani, Babak. 2009. Iranian Georgians: Prerequisites for a research. Iran and the Caucasus 13, 197-203.

Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.). 1989. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Skjærvø, P. Oktor. 2006. Iran vi. Iranian languages and scripts (2) Documentation. Encyclopædia Iranica 13.4, 348-366. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vi2-documentation (accessed 2014/10/02).

Skjærvø, P. Oktor. 1975. Notes on the dialects of Minab and Hormoz. Norwegian Journal of Linguistics (NTS) 29, 113–128.

Skjærvø, P. Oktor. 2009a. Middle West Iranian. The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 196-278. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Skjærvø, P. Oktor. 2009b. Old Iranian. The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 43-195. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Stilo, Donald. 1981. The Tati language group in the sociolinguistic context of Northwestern Iran and Transcaucasia. Iranian studies 14.3/4, 137-187.

Stilo, Donald. 2001. Gīlān, x. Languages. Encyclopædia Iranica 10.6, 660-668. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gilan-x (accessed 2014/10/02).

Stilo, Donald. 2005. Iranian as a buffer zone between the universal typologies of Turkic and Semitic. Linguistic convergence and areal diffusion, ed. Éva Csató, Bo Isaksson and Carina Jahani, 35-63. London/New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

Stilo, Donald. 2007. Isfahān, xxi. Provincial dialects. Encyclopædia Iranica 14.1, 93-112. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/isfahan-xxi-provincial-dialects (accessed 2014/10/02).

Talay, Shabo. 2011. Arabic Dialects of Mesopotamia. The Semitic languages: An international handbook, ed. Stefan Weninger, 909-919. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Werner, Eberhard. (forthcoming). The rivers: An anthropological and linguistical study of the Zaza people of Turkey including an introduction to Applied Cultural Anthropology. VTR: Nuremberg.

Windfuhr, Gernot. 1989. Western Iranian dialects. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 294-295. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Windfuhr, Gernot. 1991. Central dialects. Encyclopædia Iranica 5.3, 242-252. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/central-dialects (accessed 2015/08/22).

Windfuhr, Gernot. 2006. Iran, vii. Non-Iranian languages, 7. Turkic languages. Encyclopædia Iranica 13.4, 396-401. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vii7-turkic-languages (accessed 2014/10/02).

Windfuhr, Gernot. 2006. Iran, vii. Non-Iranian languages, 9. Arabic. Encyclopædia Iranica 13.4, 401-404. New York: Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vii9-arabic  (accessed 2014/10/02).

Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.). 2009. The Iranian languages. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

[1] Windfuhr (2009) places Zāzāki and Gorāni together with Kurdish, as does the Kurdish Academy of Language (2014, 2018), and this decision is currently followed here. Blau (1989), Haig (p.c. 2014) and Stilo (p.c. 2014) recognize that there are social connections between speakers of Zāzāki/Gorāni and Kurdish languages, and that there has been a great deal of areal convergence, especially in the lexicon; however, they note that no solid comparative linguistic evidence has ever been put forward for grouping Zāzāki and Gorāni together with Kurdish. Werner (forthcoming, p.c. 2014) states explicitly that the discussion about whether Zazaki belongs to the “Kurdish languages” is based on political issues and sociolinguistic conceptions. Specifically, he has calculated that a majority of interested scholars claim Zāzāki as a Kurdish variety, but that most of these people are scholars working with Kurmanji; in contrast, he observes that most scholars specializing in Zāzāki view it as a distinct language.

Both Borjian (p.c. 2014) and Stilo (p.c. 2014) see Zāzāki and Gorāni as closer to Northwestern language groups other than Kurdish – especially Tāti – than to Kurdish. Because of this uncertainty, the classification of this group would benefit from further investigation.

[2] The list and classification of Kurdish varieties in Kordestan Province is based on Mohammadirad (p.c. 2016) and Anonby, Sheyholislami and Mohammadirad (2016).

[3] Mohammadirad (p.c. 2016) observes that while speakers of Diwāndara Kurdish view their variety as a type of Sōrāni, it shows more more similarity with Senayi (Ardalāni of Sanandaj).

[4] Sources for the classification of Southern Kurdish are as follows: Kordestan Province - Mohammadirad (field notes 2016) and Anonby, Sheyholislami and Mohammadirad (forthcoming); Ilam Province - Gheitasi (field notes 2017).

[5] Fattah (2000) and Belleli (forthcoming) view Kirmāshāni Laki as a Southern Kurdish variety which is nonetheless transitional to prototypical Laki spoken in Lorestan Province.

[6] Sara Belleli (p.c. 2016) and Mojtaba Gheitasi (p.c. 2017) emphasize the distinctiveness of Kordali with respect to Southern Kurdish generally. Ameneh Karimi (p.c. 2021) uses the term Palai.

[7] Most linguists (Fattah 2000:10, Anonby 2004/5) classify Laki within Kurdish, although it is unclear whether it is best classified as a separate of branch Kurdish (as shown here) or as a variety of Southern Kurdish. Still, some speakers of Laki and many Northern Lori speakers consider it part of the Lori group.

[8] Earlier classifications such as Blau (1989) usually put Zāzāki together with Gorāni, perhaps simply for the sake of convenience. However, Windfuhr (2009) separates the two groups, putting both of them them parallel to Kurdish. Haig (p.c. 2014) and Stilo (p.c. 2014), who do not consider either group as to belonging in a specific group with Kurdish, also separate Zāzāki and Gorāni since, as they note, no unifying characteristics have been found from Zāzāki and the Gorāni group to demonstrate that they constitute a group on their own in contrast to other Northwestern language groups.

[9] In contrast to the classifications developed by the Kurdish Academy of Language (2014, 2018), Stilo (p.c. 2014) does not view the Gorāni group as closely related to Central Kurdish, despite important areal similarities. Rather, he sees it as constituting a substratum of Central Kurdish, and then itself subject to a later historical overlay of Central Kurdish.

[10] Windfuhr (2009)

[11] Windfuhr (2009)

[12] Windfuhr (2009)

[13] Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that Gawrajui, which is currently being studied by a team of linguists (http://dobes.mpi.nl/projects/gorani/team/), appears to be a mixture of Gorāni and Central Kurdish.

[14] The classification of Caspian follows Stilo (2001, p.c. 2014) and Borjian (p.c. 2014).

[15] This classification of Gāleshi is from Stilo (p.c. 2014). H. Borjian (Borjian and Borjian 2008, p.c. 2014), in contrast, views Gāleshi as Persian with overlay of Gilaki or Māzandarāni, depending on the region.

[16] Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that Central Caspian varieties are transitional between Gilaki and Māzandarāni but also have features of their own, distinct from both of these other groups.

[17] Borjian (p.c. 2014)

[18] Borjian (p.c. 2014)

[19] Stilo (p.c. 2014) puts Rudbāraki here in Central Caspian, and also notes that it is distinct from Rudbāri, a Tabaroid/Tātoid variety.

[20] Stilo (p.c. 2014)

[21] Borjian (p.c. 2014) refers to this Eastern Māzandarāni, which is spoken in eastern and central Mazandaran Province, as “Māzandarāni Proper”.

[22] This classification of Gāleshi is from Stilo (p.c. 2014). H. Borjian (Borjian and Borjian 2008, p.c. 2014), in contrast, views Gāleshi as Persian with overlay of Gilaki or Māzandarāni, depending on the region.

[23] Borjian (p.c. 2014) describes Shahmirzādi as an outlier dialect of Mazanderani with some areal features of the Semnān group.

[24] The use and position of the term Tabaroid follows Borjian (2013 and p.c. 2014). Stilo (p.c. 2014) labels this group as Tātoid in consideration of a strong Tāti-like component in the extended lexicon, and places it within the Tātic branch of Northwestern.

[25] Stilo (p.c. 2014) places Rudbāri here. Windfuhr (2009), however, places it with the Central (his “Southeastern”) group of Tāti.

[26] Stilo (p.c. 2014) and Borjian (p.c. 2014) note that Gozarkhāni is most likely a subdialect (one village) of Alamuti (or possibly Tāleqāni), though the Ethnologue (Lewis et al. 2014) lists it as a distinct language.

[27] Borjian (2008b, p.c. 2014) and Stilo (p.c. 2014) note that despite its location, Gorgāni is not a Caspian type language; and that it seems to have some features of the Semnāni group. Still, further research needs to be done to see exactly where it belongs.

[28] Stilo (p.c. 2014) would put Zāzāki in this Narrow Northwestern group. He would also keep Kurdish and Balochi under a larger Wide Northwestern group, separate from Southwestern.

[29] Stilo (p.c. 2014) would put Tātoid (classified as Tabaroid above) as an additional node under Tātic.

[30] The internal classification of Tāti is based on Stilo (1981 and p.c. 2014).

[31] Stilo (p.c.) 2014 sees Western Tāti as transplanted from elsewhere.

[32] Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that adjacent varieties of Central Tāti tend to be intelligible with one another, but not varieties further away from each other in the group.

[33] This label is found in Windfuhr (2009).

[34] Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that the label Kajali refers to the village of Kajal, where it is spoken; whereas the term Khoresh-e Rostam (used in the Ethnologue (2014), where it is misspelled as Koresh-e Rostam) is the baksh (division) where this village is located.

[35] Stilo (p.c. 2014)

[36] Stilo (p.c. 2014)

[37] Stilo (p.c. 2014) tentatively puts Marāghei here, noting that even though it’s located in the Tāleqān area, it appears to be an outlier of Central Tāti.

[38] Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that there are many other varieties in this group which have never been investigated or described.

[39] Stilo (p.c. 2014) says there are at least nine varieties in the Tākestān group.

[40] Stilo (p.c. 2014) puts Kharaqāni tentatively here under Southern Tāti.

[41] Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that Razajerdi is transitional between Southern Tāti and Tāleqāni (which is Tabaroid/Tātoid).

[42] Stilo (p.c. 2014) says that the languages in this group appear to have come from further north, and have gained many Central Plateau features – especially the Āshtiāni group.

[43] Stilo (p.c. 2014). Windfuhr (1991), in contrast, labels the Āshtiāni group as “Northwestern Central Plateau”, that is, along with the Central Plateau languages.

[44] Stilo (p.c. 2014) says that Āmorei looks different from the others in the Āshtiāni group, but it has not been studied in detail.

[45] Borjian (p.c. 2012) and Stilo (p.c. 2014) note that Farahāni may need to be classified as part of another existing group.

[46] The internal classification of Central Plateau languages is based on Lecoq (1989b), which uses a primarily geographical classification. The members of the group have been augmented by Stilo (2007), Borjian (p.c. 2014), and Windfuhr (1991). Borjian notes further that there are many (perhaps hundreds) more small language varieties in this group which are based on toponyms. Izady (p.c. 2014) feels that the term “Rāji” is more appropriate than "Central Plateau" for this whole group (as opposed to limiting the label to a subgroup of the Northeast Central Plateau group, as in this document); specifically, he notes: “the term Rāji/Rāyeji is actually equivalent to Rāzi ‘that of Rāyy/Rhāges (the Central Plateau)’; in fact, people from Hamadān to Yazd use the term Rāyeji for the dialect. Of course, they misunderstand it to mean ‘in common usage’ as in Arabic and Persian.). But some more localized people still call it Rāji.”

[47] Borjian (p.c. 2014) views Judeo-Hamadani and Judeo-Borujerdi as outliers among the Central Plateau languages.

[48] Windfuhr (1991) uses this latter term. He also includes a “Mahallāti” dialect, but this term is applied by speakers to many of the Central Plateau languages.

[49] There are likely no speakers of Judeo-Khunsāri remaining in this city; some older speakers are still found in the diaspora, and possibly in Tehran (Borjian, p.c. 2021). Judeo-Khunsāri has sometimes been referred to simply as “Khunsāri”, but this more general label can lead to confusion with the Persian variety now spoken there.

[50] Borjian (2012, p.c. 2014)

[51] Borjian (p.c. 2021) uses this latter term.

[52] Windfuhr (1991) uses this latter term.

[53] Yarshater (***to add reference from MahTa) documented this Persianized Central Plateau variety in Ārān. This variety, which is different from the Ārāni Persian that has replaced it (see the Persian section of the classification), is now likely extinct (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[54] Borjian (p.c. 2021) reports that there are likely no remaining speakers of this variety.

[55] This latter designation is used by Windfuhr (1991).

[56] The identity and classification of this Zoroastrian variety, which is listed in the Ethnologue (2014), needs confirmation, especially in relation to other varieties spoken by Zoroastrian communities.

[57] This variety, spoken by a very small language community in Yazd and Kerman, is distinct from Zoroastrian Yazdi (Saloumeh Gholami, p.c. 2013).

[58] This latter designation is used by Windfuhr (1991).

[59] Arsāni is likely transitional between Northeast Central Plateau and Southeast Central Plateau, also with similarities to Southwest Central Plateau; its precise affiliation remains to be determined (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[60] The term Gargui refers to ‘mountain’ in the languages of this area (Borjian, p.c. 2021). This variety is not closely related to the Gargui spoken near to Esfahan, but the names of both varieties originate in the same word.

[61] Borjian (2007) groups these varieties together.

[62] Stilo (2007) gives an account of the meaning and usage of this term.

[63] Rudashti is distinct from Rudasht Persian, although in some areas towns speaking both of these varieties are found (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[64] Stilo (2007) gives an account of the meaning and usage of this term.

[65] Borjian (p.c. 2021) notes that Qeyi is distinctive from the other Rudashti dialects, and is in fact transitional between Kupāi and Rudashti. [***TAz to put two parents in lang web.]

[66] The term Gargui refers to ‘mountain’ in the languages of this area (Borjian, p.c. 2021). This variety is not closely related to the Gargui spoken in and around Zavvareh, but the names of both varieties originate in the same word.

[67] Although Varnosfāderāni is sometimes referred to as “Sedehi” or “Old Sedehi”, it is one of a dozen distinctive varieties in the district of the historical city of Sedeh. However, unlike the other varieties, which are Persian (cf. this section of the classification), Varnosfāderāni is part of the Central Plateau division of Iranic.

[68] Windfuhr (2009), presumably based on Lecoq’s (1989c) geographic survey of languages of south-western Iran, places Sivandi in the Southwestern group. However, in that article Lecoq himself asserts that SIvandi likely belongs to the Central Plateau branch of Northwestern (1989c:341); and in an earlier (1991) article on Central Plateau languages, Windfuhr includes Sivandi as a closely related variety. The Ethnologue (2014) has “Northwestern Fārs” as a separate language, but Stilo (p.c. 2014) and Borjian (p.c. 2014) think that the only Northwestern variety in the Fārs language area (Fars Province and neighbouring areas) is Sivandi.

[69] Biyābānaki (Khuri group), spoken in only four towns, is distinct from Biyābānak Persian. Both varieties have been spoken for a long time in the Biyābānak region, but Biyābānaki is now only spoken by the older generation (Borjian, p.c. 2021). Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that Biyābānaki has some features of Kurdish, and Borjian (p.c. 2014) notes similarities as well as a possible genealogical relationship between Biyābānaki and Balochi. Mēreguni (Mehrejāni) has been grouped with Biyābānaki (Khuri group) but is in fact a variety of Biyābānak Persian (see this section of the classification).

[70] Speakers of Biyābānaki, as well as Persian speakers of the region, call this language “Gabri” (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[71] Borjian (2013).

[72] Stilo (p.c. 2014) notes that the languages of the Semnān group are not necessarily closely related; rather, they constitute an areal sprachbund.

[73] Windfuhr (p.c. 2014) notes that Sangesari is found in the Semnān region due to a historical influx from Central Asia.

[74] Windfuhr (2009) puts Aftari with Lāsgerdi but Borjian (p.c. 2014) prefers to keep the two varieties separate since no conclusive classification of the Semnān group has been worked out.

[75] Borjian (p.c. 2014) and Stilo (p.c. 2014) put Biābānaki with the Semnān group but acknowledge that it is divergent from the other languages there. Borjian (p.c. 2014) says it is phonologically transitional to Balochi, but morphologically more like the Semnān group. Windfuhr (2009) puts Biābānaki in a bigger group with Balochi.

[76] The internal classification of Balochi follows Jahani & Korn (2009) and Jahani (p.c. 2014).

[77] Irānshahr Balochi is transitional between Western Balochi and Southern Balochi.

[78] Jahani & Korn (2009:637) note that Sarāwāni is transitional between Western Balochi and Southern Balochi.

[79] Jahani & Korn (2009:637) note that Panjguri is transitional between Western Balochi and Southern Balochi.

[80] Bashkardi varieties spoken further inland may not all fall into either of the two main dialect groups of the Bashkard region: Molki Gāl (Bashkardi) and Marzi Gāl (Bandari group).

[81] The list of varieties in the Bandari group is based in large part on the field notes of Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014, 2015). The classification of these varieties has yet to be studied in detail.

[82] Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014) states that the grammar of Korta is similar to varieties of the Bandari group, but that its vocabulary is more similar to Balochi. He also notes that it is no longer being taught to children; all speakers are now older people.

[83] Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014) and Anonby note that the grammar of this variety, which is spoken by an Indo-Aryan (“Koli”) ethnic group, appears to be based on the surrounding languages; however, its vocabulary is somewhat different, and some of it is reportedly modified through templatic changes (reversals of syllables, etc.). It is called Pahlavāni by its speakers.

[84] Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014) notes that Kahnuji and Jirofti are close to each other, but that Jirofti is influenced by Kermāni Persian. Further, Kermāni is now replacing Jirofti.

[85] Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014) notes that while Rudāni is fundamentally part of the Bandari group, many words and structures are similar to Balochi in Kerman Province [presumably Lāshāri].

[86] Skjærvø (1975) and Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014) show that Minowi and Hormozi are very similar.

[87] Ashomi (a Bandari group variety) is different from “Achomi”, which is an alternative name for Lārestani.

[88] Anonby (forthcoming)

[89] The list of Lārestāni varieties comes from Rashidi (p.c. 2015), Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014) and Anonby (field notes, 2000).

[90] Rashidi (p.c. 2009)

[91] The list of Fārs varieties in Hormozgan Province comes from Rashidi (p.c. 2015) and Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014), and the list of Fārs varieties in Bushehr Province is based on Nemati (field notes, 2017).

[92] Dabir-Moghaddam (2013), Haig & Nemati (2013)

[93] Mohebbi Bahmani (p.c. 2014) and Nemati (p.c. 2015) make it clear that Bushehri is a Fārs variety, and not a member of the Bandari group or a dialect of Persian.

[94] The classification of Persian varieties, for which little internal variety is often assumed, requires further research. Borjian (p.c. 2014) notes that Persian consists of three standard varieties (in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan); however, the spoken varieties are much more varied and difficult to classify.

[95] Izady (2013) shows a “Khuzi” dialect of Persian in Khuzestan Province, but according to Borjian (p.c. 2014), early Arabic sources (1000 years ago) use the term to refer to one of the five languages of Iran (along with “Pārsi”, “Dari”, “Soryāni” (=Syriac), and (Iranic) “Āzari”). Borjian notes further that this designation is interpreted by some modern scholars as Elamite.

[96] This variety, which is sometimes referred to as a mixed language, exists in many registers between Kermāshāni Kurdish and Standard type Persian. In the intermediate registers, the lexicon is close to Persian but grammatical structures tend to be more like Kurdish (Amir Sharifi and Ali Ashouri, p.c. 2017).

[97] Here, we place other varieties that are modelled on Standard Colloquial Persian, and which people often consider to be Standard or “Tehrāni” but which, typically spoken with a regionally identifiable accent, are clearly distinct from Standard Colloquial Persian as well as the vernacular dialect of Tehrān itself.

[98] This variety is distinct from Old Ārāni, a now-extinct Central Plateau variety (see the Central Plateau section of the classification). However, its influence can be seen in the distinctive accent of Ārāni Persian (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[99] Biyābānak Persian is different from the Central Plateau variety Biyābānaki (Khuri group) (see the Central Plateau section of this classification) (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[100] Borjian (p.c. 2021) notes that Mēreguni, which was documented by Ivanov (MahTa to get REF***), was mistakenly classified as Biyābānaki (Khuri group). The possibility remains that a Biyābānaki (Khuri group) variety was formerly spoken in Mehrejān, but only Biyābānak Persian has been documented there and is spoken there today (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[101] Dialects of the Esfahān group are based on Borjian (p.c. 2021), Sohrabi (p.c. 2015), Rezvani (p.c. 2015), Taheri-Ardali (p.c. 2015) and Anonby (field notes, 2001).

[102] Rudasht Persian is distinct from the Central Plateau variety Rudashti, although in some areas towns speaking both of these varieties are found (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[103] As is the case for most urban Persian varieties in Iran, there is a cline between “Old Esfahāni” and levelled varieties that, while still recognizably Esfahāni, are closer to Standard Persian than they are to Old Esfahāni.

[104] Katak is a village near Hāruni in Chahar Mahal va Bakhtiari Province. Residents of Hāruni say that the language of Katak is similar to Esfahāni rather than to the languages of Chahar Mahal va Bakhtiari Province (Taheri-Ardali, field notes 2015).

[105] The Persian dialects listed in this group are documented in Borjian and Qorbāniān (forthcoming). Varnosfāderāni, a distantly related Iranic variety (Central Plateau, cf. this section of the classification) spoken alongside these Persian varieties in the district of historical Sedeh, is sometimes simply referred to as Sedehi or Old Sedehi.

[106] Judeo-Khunsāri, a Central Plateau variety listed elsewhere in the classification, has sometimes been referred to simply as “Khunsāri”, but the language of the town and surrounding areas is now a Persian variety (Borjian, p.c. 2021).

[107] This classification of Caucasian Tāt follows Clifton et al. (2005). Borjian (p.c. 2014) notes that it may be more accurate to follow only geographical rather than religious divisions to classify the dialects; in this case, there might be a basic division of the whole Caucasian Tāt group into North, Central and South groups.

[108] The listing of the main branches of this group follows Windfuhr (2009), who calls the group “Perside”.

[109] Internal classification of Lori is based on Anonby (2003, 2012).

[110] Mojtaba Gheitasi (p.c. 2016) emphasizes the distinctiveness of Shuhāni with respect to Northern Lori dialects as a group.

[111] Elham Izadi and Mehrdad Meshkinfam (p.c. 2020) have reported the existence of this variety in several towns in Hamadan Province. It appears to be an Iranic language, but its relation to the neighbouring Iranic languages (Laki, Kurdish, and Lori) is currently unclear.

[112] The internal classification of the Pamir group is outlined in Edelman & Dudykhudoeva (2009:773), and is also discussed in Kim (2017:8).

[113] The classification of this group, which follows Windfuhr (2009) here, remains unresolved. Specifically, there is a long-standing debate on the classification of Ormuri and Parāchi as either Eastern Iranic or Western Iranic languages (Baart p.c. 2014, Morgenstierne 1926:27-36, Efimov [1986] 2011:3-7, Kieffer 1989:451-453, Lecoq 1989a:247).

[114] The main structure of this classification of Middle Iranic (Middle Iranian) languages follows Windfuhr (2009) and Skjærvø (2009a). As pointed out by Jügel (p.c. 2015), there must have existed other varieties in each of the Middle Iranic subgroups, unattested in historical records but necessary to the reconstruction of languages in the New Iranic period. This is implied in Gippert’s (2000) genealogical tree of Iranic languages, and Korn (2003) has made this case for Middle West Iranic in particular, since New West Iranic languages such as Balochi and Zazaki do not share in all of the defining isoglosses often put forward for Middle West Iranic languages.

[115] The main structure of this classification of Old Iranic (Old Iranian) languages follows Windfuhr (2009) and Skjærvø (2009b). As pointed out by Jügel (p.c. 2015), and similar to the situation for Middle Iranic, there must have existed other varieties in the Old Iranic subgroups which are unattested in historical records but necessary to the reconstruction of languages in the Middle and New Iranic periods. This is likewise implied in Gippert’s (2000) genealogical tree of Iranic languages.

[116] Baghbidi (2003), Herin (p.c. 2012) and Stilo (p.c. 2014) also point out the existence of Domāri and Romāni jargons, which use the grammar of the host language groups but which have some distinctive Indic vocabulary. Following Baghbidi and Herin, we currently classify these varieties according to the host language groups whose grammar they use.

[117] Anonby & Mohebbi Bahmani (forthcoming)

[118] The internal classification of Armenian in Iran is based on Stilo (p.c. 2014).

[119] Stilo (p.c. 2014) says the classification of this variety within the Um vs. Lis group needs to be verified; and some or all speakers of this variety may have returned to Armenia.

[120] The Turkic section of this document is based on Johanson (1998), Bulut (2014, 2018, p.c. 2014, p.c. 2020), Doerfer (2006) and Windfuhr (2006).

[121] Turkish is spoken as an immigrant language in Iran, primarily in Tehran and other cities Ethnologue (2014).

[122] Hashemi Zarajabad (p.c. 2015) states that this variety is a type of North Azerbaijani rather than South Azerbaijani.

[123] Urmiya Azerbaijani is seen as a separate variety by Zareikar (p.c. 2015).

[124] Qāqāzāni and the other Turkic varieties of Qazvin Province, Iran (Qazvin Turkic and Tākestān Turkic) are reported from the field notes of Rahmani, Haji-Shabanian and Nezhad-Bahram (p.c. 2016). The classification of Qāqāzāni has not been studied; it may belong to Southern West Oghuz.

[125] The dialectology of Turkic in Hamadan Province has not been studied, but anecdotally, some varieties (tentatively referred to here simply as “Hamadan Province Turkic”) fall within the South Azerbaijani division of Central West Oghuz, whereas other varieties belong to the Afshar division of Southern West Oghuz.

[126] Bulut (2005, p.c. 2020) views this isolated Turkic variety as transitional between Central West Oghuz and Southern West Oghuz, with additional internal developments as well as influence from Southern Kurdish.

[127] Bulut (p.c. 2020) mentions that some varieties in Southern West Oghuz, such as Sonqor Turkic, are transitional to Northern West Oghuz. However, most Southern West Oghuz varieties have not been studied closely enough to carry out a definitive classification.

[128] The dialectology of Turkic in Hamadan Province has not been studied, but anecdotally, some varieties (tentatively referred to here simply as “Hamadan Province Turkic”) fall within the South Azerbaijani division of Central West Oghuz, whereas other varieties belong to the Afshar division of Southern West Oghuz.

[129] Tāt Turkic is spoken in the districts around Bijār in Kordestan Province, Iran (Mohammadirad  p.c. 2016).

[130] Bulut (p.c. 2020) views Quchāni as a type of Western Oghuz, and notes that at least some Quchāni dialects have been influenced by neighbouring Turkmen varieties. Ethnologue (2020) (apparently) erroneously lists it as a variety of Turkish (Turkish of Turkey).

[131] With the exception of Qajari, the list of Turkmen dialects here is based on Nazari (2004).

[132] Qajari is listed as a South Azerbaijani variety in the Ethnologue (2014).

[133] Ethnologue (2014, 2020) calls this group Western Turkic, but Bulut (p.c. 2020) says that this label is more properly applied to a group of Turkic languages represented by the language Chuvash, which spoken in the Volga region, and several other languages that are now extinct.

[134] Ethnologue (2014, 2020) lists Kazakh as an immigrant language in Iran, spoken by 3,000 people in Gorgan, Golestan Province. However, Bulut (p.c. 2020) notes that the ethnonym “Kazakh” can be found across a vast area from Anatolia to Central Asia, and may be used by speakers of other Turkic languages in Iran without implying ethnic or linguistic relation to Kazakh of Kazakhstan.

[135] The classification of Mesopotamian Arabic in Iran follows Ingham (2007) and Talay (2011).

[136] The relation between Khorāsāni Arabic and other types of Arabic in Iran has yet to be established. Windfuhr (2006) and Talay (2011:909) classify Khorāsāni Arabic under Mesopotamian, but Dahlgren (2002/3) and Seeger (p.c. 2014) state that it is very different from other Mesopotamian Arabic varieties; Seeger (p.c. 2014) suggests that it might be closer to Gulf Arabic.

[137] The relation between Khamseh Arabic and other types of Arabic in Iran has yet to be established. Windfuhr (2006) classifies Khamseh Arabic under Mesopotamian, but Seeger (p.c. 2014) suggests that (along with Khorāsāni Arabic) it might be closer to Gulf Arabic.

[138] The internal classification for Aramaic in Iran is based on Aydin (p.c. 2014).

[139] The classification of Georgian is based on Rezvani (2009, p.c. 2014) and Stilo (p.c. 2014). Stilo notes that in the 1960s, when he did fieldwork in the area, there were eleven Georgian-speaking villages in the Fereydan region with a total population of 16,000 people. Rezvani (2009:197) puts the population of the ethnic Georgian community in this area at 61,000, and states that the language is still actively used.

[140] The classification of Brāhui within Iran is based on the list of dialects in the Ethnologue (2014).

[141] Officially, Persian Sign Language (PSL) is a signed version of Standard Persian. However, Amir Anvari (p.c. 2017) reports that the colloquial register of the language is structurally independent from Persian. Colloquial PSL (but not the official version of PSL) shares many signs with Qahvehkhāneh SIgn Language (QSL) and at least some of the language may be historically derived from QSL (Anvari p.c. 2017).

[142] Qahvehkhāneh Sign Language, as reported by Amir Anvari (p.c. 2017), is a language which has been used by some of the deaf community in Tehran since the early 1900s or before. It is distinct from Persian Sign Language (PSL), but may have been a related predecessor before the standardization of PSL. Currently, only a few older speakers of the language remain (Anvari p.c. 2017).