There’s a moment in Çayan Demirel’s documentary Dersim ’38 that no one should miss. When recounting her experience of the Dersim Catastrophe of 1938, the elderly Mama Dünya starts out speaking entirely in Zaza. Then Turkish words begin to creep in, till at last she ends her account with a sentence in broken Turkish: “Kimsiz kaldım, kimsiz kaldım, derdime yanak yok” (“I’m all ’lone, I’m all ’lone, I have no shoulder to cry on”). In this last sentence of hers, you can hear the impingement of two languages on each other, the intense cross-contamination of their grammar and syntax. It’s a terrifically beautiful sentence.
In the documentary, Mama Dünya’s account is accompanied by Turkish subtitles. Here I’d like to call people’s attention to something that the director, for all his good intentions, failed to notice: the original sentence in question was missing a syllable. No doubt many of the documentary’s key points were lost on me as well, but this is what catches my eye, what gives me pause, what keeps me returning to Mama Dünya’s last sentence: this missing syllable.
Both in the subtitles and in the opinion columns written about her, Mama Dünya’s sentence, “Kimsiz kaldım, kimsiz kaldım . . . ” (“I’m all ’lone, I’m all ’lone”), which she made pains to utter in her broken Turkish, was unfortunately rendered as “Kimsesiz kaldım, kimsesiz kaldım” (“I’m all alone, I’m all alone”). But Mama Dünya didn’t—couldn’t—say “Kimsesiz kaldım.” She could only say “Kimsiz kaldım,” with a missing syllable—a dropped se.
The fact that Mama Dünya switches from one language to another—beginning her account of the Catastrophe in Zaza, then using a mixture of Zaza and Turkish, and finally speaking in broken Turkish—all of this, I believe, shows just how devastating the Catastrophe was and how it has manifested itself linguistically. For we didn’t just lose lives in the Catastrophe; language, too, was damaged in the process. Notably, Mama Dünya didn’t even choose to switch from language to language; she mixed them up unwittingly.
For years, I’ve been asked, “Why do you not write in Kurdish?” And with good reason, given that I’m a Kurd and I write in Turkish. I’m sure I’ll keep being asked this question in the future, as well. In such situations, I take a gulp and try to give an answer. Deep down, I’ve always thought that if a French person asked me that question, I’d be able to reply for days on end. But generally it’s Kurds or Turks who ask. The question is, at its root, a political one; it’s always been obvious to me that the people asking it could give their own answer, perhaps at greater length than I could. Frankly, it’s never felt like a question, but a provocation, however well-meaning.
Throughout literary history, there have been two types of people who didn’t, or couldn’t, write in their native language. Some poets and writers have preferred not to do so as an intellectual choice; some have been unable to do so as a matter of necessity. Let me provide an example of each by way of explanation.
Cioran—the “eternally defeated” Cioran—says the following about language: “If a carrier pigeon could be taught geography, its unconscious flight straight to its destination would become impossible.” Then he adds: “A writer who changes his language finds himself in the same position as this pigeon whose knowledge has rendered it helpless.” Yes, Cioran is right: there’s something muddying the waters here, something dark and obscure.
Or, to cite the most elegant poet to write in Turkish, Cemal Süreya:
I would describe my linguistic journey as follows: a young child is given to a nanny, or finds itself in her hands; it loves her and thinks her to be its mother. Such is my relationship with Turkish. Eventually, homesickness is transformed into love. This language is my quilt: it smells a bit of poppy seeds and fish. It has the taste of olives.
Süreya’s use of the “nanny” metaphor was obviously intentional; he was concealing something in order to expose it.
Now, to return to the question, “Why do you not write in Kurdish?” Well, there are many whys. First, let’s recall Mama Dünya.
I was born in Diyarbakır, forty-one years after the Dersim Catastrophe, which threw Mama Dünya’s language into disarray. I inherited a language in which one says things in Turkish like “The world is cold!” Hearing this sentence, you might react by saying, “Oh, how poetic,” or, alternately, “I don’t understand.” But in Diyarbakır, no one would find this sentence odd: in Kurdish, “world” can also be used in the sense of “air” or “weather.” It’s one of the most concrete—and bizarre—illustrations of people’s tendency to think in Kurdish and speak in Turkish. By “Kurdish” and “Turkish,” I’m not referring to a pure form of either language, but one in which Turkish words infiltrate the Kurdish spoken at home, while the Turkish spoken in the streets and at school is tainted by Kurdish words, syntax, and grammar . . .
It’s a language formed by the intertwining of two mother tongues. A rootless language, and, as such, full of promise; a traumatized, dark, dark-skinned language! To be clear, I’m not talking about an “accent,” but a language that limps like it’s been in an “accident.” That is the source of all its power: it’s a language of splendid impossibility.
By way of illustration, I should say a few words about the genre of the “vagabond-piece,” or avare in Turkish.
I was ten or eleven at the time. Those were the days when neighborhood weddings took place in the streets of Diyarbakır. The days when people’s spirits were roused by the sounds of street organs, drums, and political songs. The days when bride and groom—along with their relatives and friends—would take the stage one by one, and they’d announce by microphone to the entire neighborhood who had given how much money or jewelry to the newlyweds. A thousand people, standing shoulder to shoulder, would dance the halay; party slogans would be chanted in unison, so that the square often seemed to be hosting not a wedding but a political demonstration. Finally, toward the end of the evening, the neighborhood hobos, high on hash and drunk on two double rakıs, would take the stage a few at a time—one hand holding a jacket draped over their shoulder, the other brandishing a long knife known as a sallama—to the Bollywood tune “Awaara Hoon.” Then they’d cry out eyyyt!; the music would stop, and they’d recite their avares in the most doleful voices. Below are just two examples of those pieces, the first composed like a letter, the second more rebellious in tone. Pay attention to the syntax, with its unusual juxtapositions of vocabulary:
My most respected addressee, whose liver’s healthy as can be, full of sorrow and of glee, sometimes happy, sometimes glum, my fine American chewing-gum, my soul’s very cornerstone, my four duck-eggs white in tone, I write to you from the bottom of my heart. This is just to say I’m fine, here’s five or ten lines, the writing’s my treat, the listening’s yours . . . I ask the following of Almighty God: you and me, a sailboat on the sea, the news on TV. If you must know, I got tired and sick, I went to my doc, he wrote me a script, I looked for it but couldn’t find it, so please may I have: one egg yolk, five dames of the Gypsy-folk, seven curses, eight cuties, the kind that like to wear blue jeans, the kind that know what poverty means, bananas (one kilo’s worth), two kilos salt of the earth, put it all in a hazelnut shell and send it to this address: Love Literature Lane, I-Love-You District, Number: You and Me, Marriage Registry-th Floor. If you can’t find that address then send it to this one: the Diyarbakır pickpocket, the Ergani con artist, the Istanbul counselor, the Ankara footballer, the Trabzon anchovy-seller. As for my education: I finished primary school, passed in front of middle school, got into high school through the door and left through the window. I mistook all my woes for joy, thought a sixty-year-old dame was fifteen . . . boy, was I wrong. Sorry if I’ve read this letter too fast.
The audience would burst out in applause; “Awaara Hoon” would start up again, then another hobo would arrive and, with a cry of eyyyt, the music would stop. Then he’d begin reading his own avare:
I took five steps for my future: curse the power and might of the sixth! Is money our only logic and metric? Unemployment’s now endemic, now I pass for an academic, God damn the ink of such a pen. High society is knowledge and acuity, I see the rich reign in perpetuity, who am I to talk, my friend? Under my jacket’s the hand that grasped at royalty, my body’s carved up like a casualty: piss off, friend, to hell with your disloyalty. You bitch of a world, God damn, not you, but the one who calls you his. Even if you tear down my house, even if you hang me by the neck, I’ll shout it again: God damn, not you, but the one who calls you his, you bitch of a world!
Though I wasn’t a hobo myself, I’ll never forget how I used to memorize all those lengthy pieces, and at weddings—still only ten or eleven years old—used to go on stage with a jacket on my shoulder and a sallama in my hand, as my speech and my mind, under the influence of this strange language, grew increasingly hazy.
I don’t know what linguists would say, but it would be accurate to describe Kurdish as my mother tongue. It would also be accurate to say that I sometimes dream in Kurdish, sometimes in Turkish, and sometimes in a language that’s a hybrid of the two. Given the political nature of arguments about language, I know I need to choose my words carefully here. Politically speaking, I unequivocally defend people’s right to use their mother tongue. And I’m aware that some have devoted their lives to this cause. But as a child of this land—a land that has suffered so much devastation, suffered the Dersim Catastrophe—I’m not convinced that my mother tongue is a pure Kurdish, just as I’m not convinced that I write a pure Turkish. My mental universe, my grasp of things, my way of comprehending objects, have been shaped by a “split tongue.” And I’ve long considered this my mother tongue. I inherited this split tongue, passed down to me from Mama Dünya herself. I wouldn’t call it a “mixed” tongue, but a “mongrel” tongue.
And yet I must admit that, when conversing with some of my Turkish friends, I can’t help feeling like a tourist. Whenever my speech becomes halting, I can’t help asking, “My dear, what do you call this in Turkish?” When conversing in Kurdish with some of my Kurdish friends, I’m put in the same state of mind. Caught between these two languages, I feel “lone” and at a loss for words. I want to view writing, speech, the entire world, through the lens of this “lone” language. I want to make it my shield, to plumb its depths, to lean a bit further over this deep well and keep gazing into it. Totally aside from the question of choice or necessity, I suspect it’s only thanks to this “lone” language that I’ve been able to find my voice as a writer.
I salute all those who have embraced this “splendid impossibility,” those who have switched languages and known the elegance and opacity of writing in “another tongue.” In Turkish, there are of course Yaşar Kemal, Cemal Süreya, and Ahmed Arif; in Arabic, Salim Barakat; in Persian, Ali Ashraf Darvishian; in French, Cioran; in English, James Joyce; in German, Kafka and Emine Sevgi Özdamar. I also salute Sezai Karakoç! It was he who wrote in one of his poems: “My skin is dark, yet my uncle’s boy loves me.”1
—June 2015
1. This line is from Sezai Karakoç’s 1953 poem “Ötesini Söylemeyeceğim” (I’ll Say No More), spoken by a young Tunisian girl amidst her country’s struggle for independence from France.↩
“Muhteşem İmkânsızlık,” © 2015 by Murat Özyasar. Translation copyright © 2024 by Will Washburn. All rights reserved.