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

Unexpected transliteration “Divânü Lügati't-Türk” with “ü”s

I doubt that the spelling ‘’Divânü Lügati't-Türk’’ is correct, since elsewhere (e.g. the Turkish language Wikipedia) I found it spelt as ‘’Dîvânu Lugâti't-Türk’’ and since at least the current Standard Arabic does not have sounds (similar to that) which in the current Turkish orthography are spelt ‘’ü’’, namely a rounded close front vowel. I can understand that in the language name this letter may be retained, but in the words ‘’Dîvânu Lugâti't’’, which apparently represent words in Arabic, I would not (immediately) expect rounded close front vowels. Or did some local variety of Arabic at the time have such vowel? Could someone knowledgeable comment on this?Redav (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Tatar in Romania

@Yokubjon Juraev and Super Dromaeosaurus: Both of you are encouraged to cease edit warring without discussion on the article talk page. I have opened this discussion as it appears a new article has been written on Tatar in Romania and there's disagreement on whether to include mention of it in this article. Let me know if a third opinion is needed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion on their talk page. It evidently should be excluded as this is a list of languages and "Tatar language in Romania" is not a language. Super Ψ Dro 19:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: You reverted multiple times without explanation and warned Yokubjon Juraev for edit warring when you had hit the 3RR upper limit, not them. Discussions on article content should generally be opened on an article talk page with in-depth explanation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Pbritti! Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with that statement. Can this be considered as a first revert of mine [2]? I hadn't ever interacted with this user up until that point and I didn't manually revert the edits of an user either, as can be shown by the lack of such a tag in the history of the page. Is this in the policy? Though it is right I could've taken a more diplomatic approach, I was hoping to be able to end with this as fast as possible. Thank you and Austronesier anyway for the help, as the conflict now appears to be solved. Super Ψ Dro 22:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will cease editing. I have never come across in any book where Romanian Tatar is called a dialect of Crimean Tatar, so I think it should be considered a language unless proven otherwise. I was a bit disappointed that the entry “Romanian Tatar” was deleted several times by several users. Super D. also unfortunately didn’t explain why he deleted it so I kept on reverting. Another reason for edit warring is because I consider expanding Turkic languages-related articles my niche! :) Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yokubjon Juraev: You're essentially adding unsourced content to a table that is explicitly sourced to Lars Johanson. I think it should be considered a language unless proven otherwise is the wrong approach: the core Wikipedia policy of WP:verifiability requires positive support for a statement to be included here. So the onus is on you to show that it is widely considered anything else but a dialect of Crimean Tatar. But since you ask for a book that does treat Romanian Tatar as a variety of Crimean Tatar, I can recommend Turkic (on page 62), a 2021 volume by Lars Johanson. –Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I agree! If you consider it right, you can revert my change. Yokubjon Juraev (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of right or wrong (after all, nobody knowingly and willingly adds wrong content here), but rather about collectively building content that is based on reliable sources and consensus among editors. Edit warring (= keeping on reverting) disrupts the calm environment that is necessary for that goal. –Austronesier (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Not even true

Turkish is an Altaic language from Mongolian-Altaic family. It is not its own linguistic category. Determined vandalism had altered linguistic category. Fixed. Claim that Turkish is a native language spoken from Eastern to Southern Europe and in the Balkans. No one speaks Turkish in any of these regions "natively" - very miniscule linguistic minorities exist, it is therefore a micro-minority language. Turkey has a few kms on the Bosphorus in Europe. It is at best a minority language in small parts of East Europe. Historiaantiqua (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What are you suggesting we change?

There already exists an article about the Altaic language family hypothesis, keep in mind that this is a very controversial and widely rejected idea and that people who want to learn about the proposed Altaic family can read about that on its own article.

Another thing, there definitely are native speakers of Turkic languages in Eastern and Southern Europe and the Balkans. Gagauz, Crimean Tatar, and Turkish (East Thrace exists) to name a few. GMFinnegan (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe the OP is referring to this change that they made and which has been reverted by Beshogur. The claim seems to be that the arch-Altaicist Martine Robbeets is now the accepted mainstream - by citing a 2021 paper. That seems unlikely but the OP needs to explain their case per WP:DUE rather than basing it on a single Robbeets et al. citation. I'm guessing they are not familiar with WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2023 (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[3]:

• 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)