Yes it is actually a big difference. Turkish means everything associated with the country of Turkey. This is how the English language is. It would have been different if we had this conversation in Turkish. Same way that "Persian" in the english language and "Persian" in Persian language have different meanings. For instance, carpets from Tabriz are known as "Persian carpets". In Iran we would never call any carpet for a "Persian carpet", we say Iranian Carpet. If you say "Persian carpet", you are basically saying the carpet is Persian (ethnic) or Persian (the language) which doesn't make any sense at all.
It's only a big difference if you have insecurities about it. Trust me it's minor. Most history books and academic studies of Iranian Turks use Turkish all the time.
It does, Turkish means associated with Republic of Turkey. Turkic means associated with Turks. Again, its different in English.
Just because you think that's how it should be doesn't mean that's how it is. You're just making things up. Turkish = "Turk" + "-ish"
A suffix modifies a word into another class. The noun "Turk" becomes the adjective "Turkish".
What Turkish means depends on the context.
Within the context of the Turkish republic, then you are right Turkish means belonging to the Turkish republic. But in the context of Iranian Turks, Turkish means belonging to the Turks (of Iran).
Turkic is a language group, a grouping of languages with shared characteristics. It doesn't refer to one language or people but a group of them. If you want to group all the different Turkic dialects of Iran as one, Azeri, Qashqai, Khorasani Turkish, etc. Then fair enough, but if we are talking about one particular dialect, like Azeri, then Turkish is correct not Turkic. Azeri/Azerbaijani Turkish not Turkic.
We're speaking in English. These are the rules of the English language.
No they didn't. Shah Ismail for instance wrote his poems in Azari and Persian.
I'm pretty sure he never called his language "Azari". You're projecting modern notions of national identity onto a past were these national identities didn't exist. Turk and Iran weren't competing identities. Most identities where tribal/clannish, language was spoken according to the family they were raised in. Politically they were associated with whichever dynasty ruled at the time, some of which followed traditional continuity like Persia/Iran. Others didn't. Nation states are a relatively modern phenomena.
But not once throughout 1000 years of Turkic rule, did any of the Turkic leaders, demand or even try to change the official language from Persian to Azari or any other kind of Turkic language. They were Shahs, Successors to the throne, not foreign occupiers. Persian language and culture is a part of our identity. But there seems to be a disbelief among Turkish people that only Persians are Iranian.
I'm pretty well aware that Persians aren't the only people in Iran. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? By saying only Persian language and culture is language and culture of Iran aren't you implying their Turk language and culture is foreign. Their Turk language and heritage is part of their identity TOO. Considering the large impact the Turks of Iran have had over the past thousand years, then it's not unreasonable for Iranian Turks to expect their language to recognised as one of the core languages of the country too.
This is what you don't understand. It's not about being loyal. When you say that Turks have been loyal to Iran, you are implying that we are foreigners. Would you use the term "loyal" to describe Persians feelings towards Iran? Iran is our country and our homeland. It's not a matter of loyalty, it's a matter of national identity. We have one of the richest histories in the world. Persian has always been our national language. It's as much our language as it is the Persians.
It's not about being loyal you're right. But if Iran is YOUR country what's wrong with having YOUR language recognised and promoted by the state. You keep saying you're not foreigners in Iran but then saying your language isn't the language of your country. Any implication is coming from yourself.
I don't want to argue with you about it, I just think separatism is stupid and in Iran's case, impractical because the Turk identity is so intertwined and spread throughout the country. Official recognition would of course undermine one of the main arguments for the separatist movement. But as I said I doubt it will ever happen.
On a side note, might of confused you with someone else but didn't you say before you weren't ethnically Turk but Assyrian or something?
my ignorant friend i said before some of our families live in tehran and other persian provinces, our gas and oil comes from southern provinces, there will be divide in the people over the independence and then fights and bloodshed. and over what?? that some dudes think me and a kazakh or uyghur several kilometers away have some bonds.
maybe turkey welcome any US intervention in iran but me as my part don't welcome that.
Believe me while he might welcome a US intervention, the vast majority of people in Turkey DO NOT. An invasion would be disastrous and destructive to many Turk communities in Iran. The devastation and destruction of many Turkmen communities in Iraq and Syria prove it.
If he really cared for them he would not say that.
