Talk:Khuzi language

Huzi or Khuzi

Hi @Glennznl,

reliable sources in the Persian language indicate that the name of this people was Huzi, the name of the province in this region was Huzistan (Khuzestan), and the name of the language was Uzi. The Arabs used to refer to it as Huzi. Later, Russian historians, who had difficulty pronouncing the letter H, changed it to KH. PayamAvarwand (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, we are dealing with the English Wikipedia here. It is clear that the spelling "Khuzi" is much more common than "Huzi". Just based on Google Scholar:

- "Khuzi language" - 5 results.

- "Huzi language" - 0 results.

You can also see that here on Wikipedia, Khuzi is much more common as well. You can see how many links go to this article using the "Khuzi" spelling, rather than "Huzi". It is clear that in English, "Khuzi" is more widely used. Glennznl (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright! PayamAvarwand (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It should be called Khuzi only. The New Persian name for Khuzestan has always been خوزستان (xūzistān). Mzrvtfni (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Arabs did not call it Huzi.

"وأما لسانهم فإن عامتهم يتكلمون بالفارسية والعربية غير أن لهم لسانًا آخر خوزيان ليس بعبراني ولا سرياني ولا فارسي."

This is quoted by Ibn Hawqal in the 9th century, according to the article "The Language of the Xūz and the Fate of Elamite." He calls the people from Khuzistan "xūziyān" (خوزيان) not "hūziyān."

Every single other Arabic example in that article has the same spelling. Mzrvtfni (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Glennznl Any idea how to fix this page? I think it should be reverted to before this user edited it first. Mzrvtfni (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Possible surviving vocabulary

The sources clearly do not support the claim, and this is at best WP:SYNTH.

The idea that they are somehow Khuzi loanwords is verifiably false: for example, beraar ("brother"), khaar ("sister"), afto ("sun"), khoftidan ("to sleep") obviously have an Iranian origin. Compare Persian barâdar, khâhar, âftâb, and khoftan respectively.

A simple look at the Elamite Word List shows that there is no resemblance whatsoever in any of the vocabulary.

The article "The Language of the Xūz and the Fate of Elamite" states that Elamite/Khuzi language has little to no influence on the Persian language. It is telling that this alleged "Khuzi" vocabulary is not mentioned in any English sources. This is why I have removed the section. Mzrvtfni (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning your reason, even after the manipulation. There are 2 points to know:

1. Huzi or Khuzi people were not Elamite. AS you see in the article it's already mentioned that: according to ancient Iranian writings and books preserved by the Parsis (Zoroastrians) of India, there is no evidence that the Huzis were of Elamite origin.
2. There are two sources that modern persian language and southwest iranian dialects are affected by huzi language. Just two of sources are: - "Shushtari Proverbs" by Dr. Mohammad Zaman Khodayi, Professor of History and Archaeology at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz - "The Lors of Iran: Lor-Bozorg, Lor-Kuchak" by Safinejad, Javad | Atieh, Tehran: 2002.

PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"Huzi or Khuzi people were not Elamite."

Unsourced claim, which should be removed as well. There are multiple RS that say they were Elamite.

The books you are citing are obscure, and if you can find the claim in the book, it would be great if you can provide a quote. I am personally skeptical that it is true. Mzrvtfni (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

"Huzi or Khuzi people were not Elamite." This is sourced. Please look carefully and study it! As a tip, the source is an article from 'Fereydoon Joneydi'.

Everything in the article is sourced well. I kindly ask you to do not manipulate them, except you have a new source. In fact, the structure, arrangement, and type of content on this page are consistent with its content on Fa-WIKI and De-WIKI. PayamAvarwand (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The sentence points to citation 12 when the article in question is #14.

I don’t think we should override the claims of multiple academic articles because of one dubious newspaper article. Furthermore, you transcribed the title wrong: it clearly says خوزى (khuzi) not Huzi.

The article itself is clearly pseudo-history written by a crank. It claims that the concept of “Indo-European” languages was invented by hostile Europeans who wanted to diminish Aryan culture. It also falsely claims that historians believe the Elamites were black. And worst of all, it uses some similarities in proper nouns to argue that the Elamite language is related to old Persian (despite it being widely accepted that Elamite was a language isolated). Lastly, the article is not even about Khuzi as described by medieval Arabs, but about the ancient Elamite language which he chooses to call “Khuzi.”

The other claims about “Khuzi” vocabulary can be refuted by looking at a simple vocabulary list of the Elamite language.

Please defer to reliable sources rather than indulging such fantastical theories. Mzrvtfni (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, in that source it mentioned it as Khuzi, but we have more reliable sources like "Assyrian cuneiform" and "Iran map of the Safavid era" which confirms the name Huzi and Hizestan.

Fereydoon Joneydi is a known researcher and has held academic positions and taught at Sharif University and other academic centers. The overall subject of the article (of Fereydoon Joneydi #14) is irrelevant. What matters here is only the section that deals with the Khuzi language and the Khuzi people.

Alright, we have to correct the Source orders, I can do it.

Honestly, if I wanted to work with fantastical theories, I would say that the dialect spoken by people in the following locations today is the remnant of the Huzi language:

Abadan, Mahshahr, Sarbandar, behbahan, Shoushtar, Dezfoul, the whole province Bushehr, and many parts of the Fars Province like Kazerun. PayamAvarwand (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The name “Khuzi” or its ancestors do not appear in Assyrian cuneiform. The name was first attested in Old Persian.

I don’t think one map is evidence of anything other than a misspelling. Mzrvtfni (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mzrvtfni and PayamAvarwand: Hello, I looked at the discussion above, and also checked the sources that supposedly back up the claim that the vocabulary is of Khuzi origin. In those sources, I could not find any mention of the vocabulary listed in the article, nor the claim that it is of Khuzi origin. Therefore this part of the article seems like WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. I will remove it until more reliable, academic sources are found. --Glennznl (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)