Talk:Turkic languages

Fuyü Gïrgïs

The easternmost Turkic language, Fuyü Gïrgïs, should be added to the classification. Fuyü Gïrgïs (a.k.a. Fu-Yu Kirgiz) is related to Khakas, Chulym and Yellow Uygur. The Fuyü Gïrgïs are probably descended from the Yenisey Kirghiz. -Andrew

Speakers

I see that the numbers are 200 and 230 million respectively. However this version for example (went to 2 years ago randomly) shows 170 million and 200 million. Same sources on Turkic peoples say 140-160 million. So someone inflated those numbers without anyone noticing it. I can not verify these numbers, and still those sources are very obsolete. We need new numbers. I wonder if Yunusbayev's source could fit here, although he says that Turkic speaking population is over 170 million (2015 dated) Beshogur (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is from a source published in 2020:

• It is impossible to produce accurate statistics for all Turkic speakers. [...] Upon the basis of recent censuses, it seems that in 2008-9 Turkic languages and dialects were spoken by about 200 million people (Rybatzki, Volker, "Altaic Languages: Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic" in Robbeets & Savelyev (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages, 2020, Oxford University Press)

Yunusbayev et al. (2015) is certainly a good source, but the speaker figure is cited from older sources, so it is less up-to-date than Rybatzki's estimate. We could do arithmetics and sum up the speaker numbers in Ethnologue, although their data on individual languages comes from various types of sources (sometimes only listing ethnic figures where language figures are not available), so that's not a good idea.

I have found some other recent sources via Google Scholar which also give a figure of 200+ million speakers (e.g. this one[1], which says "more than 200 million speakers"), but the OUP book seems to be the safest source to cite IMHO. –Austronesier (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: it looks good, can you update it? Beshogur (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Done! I have removed the two older sources, although now we don't differentiate between L1 and L2 speakers. Frankly, I find the number of 30 million L2-speakers (as implied from 170M native vs. 200M total) a bit dubious. The only Turkic language for which I would expect a significant number of L2-speakers is Turkish, but from diverse sources I gather that this number doesn't exceed 10 million. –Austronesier (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s 196 million,I counted each and every using latest statistics on all Turkic speaking people. Vofa (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Deconstructing the ,,Altaix,, hypothesis myth.

My changes keep getting reverted. I merely tried to erase the obtuse ,,Altaic hypothesis,, without sources. There are my concerns,please discuss why you think Altaic theory (which is rejected by all scholars except 3) is valid? Cheers. Vofa (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Vofa: you have changed the article to your preferred version for the third time now, even though two editors already have reverted them. Instead of WP:edit-warring, you should discuss your concerns with the last stable text of the article and your proposed changes here in order to get consensus for these changes.

I have not yet scrutinized your edits in detail, but at least one edit is problematic[2]:

• The edit summary "Fixed typos" is misleading. Among other things, "Altaic" is not a mispelling of "Turkic".
• You have changed value of the parameter |familiycolor= to "Turkic" which is not a valid value; we have a long-standing consensus to use a single color in the frame of the infobox languages belonging to the Altaic sprachbund. No commitment to the validity of Altaic is impled here, nor displayed in the infobox. I'm sure you're not aware with this technicality, so I assume good faith here (inspite of the misleading edit summary).
• You have removed "Oghuric" as a second branch of Turkic (next to Common Turkic). This is blatantly wrong, or blantant Altaicist POV ala Pritsak.
• You have changed "spoken by the Turkic peoples" to "spoken by the Turkish and Turkic peoples". Turks are one of the Turkic peoples, so this is not an improvement.

I will have look at the major part of your edits at a later time, I'm sure other regular long-time contributors to this article will do so too. This page is constantly beleaguered by POV-pushing editors, so you might have spotted some genuine flaws with the text that need to be fixed. "Brute force", however, is not the way to handle this. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this,I will refrain from any edits,but I will not get far if the last edits are made by Tuurkiish will remain. 1. Altaix theory is regarded as untrue,it seemed like a misspelling in the sentence it was used. 2. I never knew this. I should’ve known better,I did not intent to change the value in a way that would undermine the highly questionable Altaic theory. 3. I am not an Altaicist,I’ve made a mistake,I should have left it,the thing is it’s not considered as a second major branch of common Turkic. Please understand that I wanted to add (in my later edit I did) I added Bulgaric as classification for Chuvash which is more widely accepted. 4. Turks are not Turkic. This is an improvement,most people know that Turkish people are not Turkic,that they stole the language and alphabet, from various then soviet Turkic groups,and stole the name,essentialy. Turkish Language Association for help. I sincerely hope to find compromise. Vofa (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see the same pressure applied on Tuurkiiish sockpuppet. He stopped talking long ago. Vofa (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this,I will refrain from any edits,but I will not get far if the last edits are made by Tuurkiish will remain. 1. Altaix theory is regarded as untrue,it seemed like a misspelling in the sentence it was used. 2. I never knew this. I should’ve known better,I did not intent to change the value in a way that would undermine the highly questionable Altaic theory. 3. I am not an Altaicist,I’ve made a mistake,I should have left it,the thing is it’s not considered as a second major branch of common Turkic. Please understand that I wanted to add (in my later edit I did) I added Bulgaric as classification for Chuvash which is more widely accepted. 4. Turks are not Turkic. This is an improvement,most people know that Turkish people are not Turkic,that they stole the language and alphabet, from various then soviet Turkic groups,and stole the name,essentialy. Turkish Language Association for help. I sincerely hope to find compromise. Vofa (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

1. The Altaic hypothesis is not regarded as "untrue". There is consensus among linguists that all five families share elements in their lexicon, morphology and syntax that cannot be dismissed as the product of mere chance. The major issue is whether these commonalities are the solely the result of long-standing contacts among the five families, or whether they give evidence to common linguistic descent. The latter assumption is a minority position aming historical linguists, but it is not some random crackpot theory. But I agree with you insofar as we have to ensure that the article does not give undue weight to this minority position.

3. Oghuric and Bulg(h)aric are essentially synonyms. I cannot see that you have retained either of them in the infobox the last version of yours[3].

4. There is no definition for "Turkic peoples" that is set in stone, but the most common definition equates it with "Turkic-speaking" peoples. You will have to present very good sources to redefine the label "Turkic" (in its non-linguistic use) in the way you propose here.

And thank you for your commitment to slow down. It's not often seen in this topic area. I have addressed specifically you for the reason mentioned above. As for the other editor you mention, trust me, every novice editor in this topic area is on our sock radar. –Austronesier (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Great to know. Thank you for elaborating and working with me. Do you think it would be fair if I kept the Bulgaric hypothesis part and kept the Oghuric part and to create a possibility of Bulgaric family which (in my opinion) is Chuvash and Mishar family,as their leaders have said over time that they are autohton peoples (if you know this word) as in native to the region. Furthermore,their language varies a lot. And lastly,the Altaic theory is again,purported by people with yellow fever and elements of national socialism in their beliefs,supremacism of the ,,Turkic,, people ,,race,, on others,etc. Would you agree to let me keep the Bulgarian/Oghuric part,as in let me edit it? Please talk with Tuuurkiiish about this. He targeted me for months always reverting stuff if I provided sources (everytime I did except one time,in Yalkut discussion) cheers! Vofa (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to comment about you being "targeted" or what ever, but with your recent edits (and also the edits in Urums in a similarly edit-warring fashion) you have displayed an enormous unfamilarity with even the most basic things in the comparative linguistic study of the Turkic languages. Your rant against proponents of the Altaic hypothesis tells me that you should slow down not only in article space, but also in talk space.

So please tone down, tell us what you want to change, one by one, and don't forget to present sources for the proposed changes. On a second look at your edits, I have noticed that you have tried to make multiple changes to content that is supported by a cited source. That's bad. Unless you can show that the sources were cited improperly. –Austronesier (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I would never delete a source, you seem harsh and you seem to be talking to me like I’m a child, I dislike that. I admitted that I was wrong about the Urums. The user did target me, in the Nogai article about mere estimates of population of Turk Nogais in Turkey.

- Vofa Vofa (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

you should be banned for what you write above Turkiishh (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I should not be banned. Vofa (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As im on mobile,I forgot to include Tatars.

I can link several videos of leaders of both republics (Chuvashia) and current leader of Tatarstan saying that they are autohton people native to their republic territory or so,going back to the Khanate of Kazan. I think that Chuvash,Tatar,Mishar people are Bulgaric and that Bashkir,Nogai and Kumyk are(Not to be confused with mongolic unrelated Kalmyks) influenced by them. Vofa (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Although the loans were bidirectional, today Turkic loanwords constitute the largest foreign component in Mongolian vocabulary."

About loans (esp. during the first millenium) between Turkic and Mongolean, the sentence in the article saying

Although the loans were bidirectional, today Turkic loanwords constitute the largest foreign component in Mongolian vocabulary.

may seem to suggest

1. that loans from Turkic to Mongolean is more extensive than the other way;
2. that Mongolean loans into Turkic do not constitute the largest foreign component in Turkic.

But it doesn't actually say either of these. I think it is unclear writing. If neither 1. nor 2. are correct, "Although" should go. and the two statements should perhaps go into separate sentences. But what is true? (I do not know and haven't checked sources.) Nø (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)