Talk:Turkish language

Template:Vital article

Two remarks

• In History section it seems an earlier reference to Turkish had been deleted. But the next sentence had been left untouched: ...Orkhon inscriptions... between 732 and 735, constitute another important early record.... If there is no previous reference, how can Orkhun inscriptions be called another early record ?
• The subsection verbs certainly deserves more attention. The most powerful tool of Turkish is the number of tenses. In the article only the 9 simple tenses have been shown. But most of them can have 3 more time forms (Template:Lang-tr) making the number of tenses 29. Since most of these can also take the so called combined forms (Template:Lang-tr) the number of tenses may exceed 100. At least the names of these cases should have been mentioned. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add Iran, to the list of countries speaking Turkish as well. 35 000 000 Turkish living there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.248.93 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Word Order

One very important feature of Turkish language is missing from the article, which is the complete flexibility in word order in poetic or emotionally charged language. As the example in the article goes, one can use limited variations of "Hakan okula gitti" to stress different facts (stressing school or Hakan), but a mother who sent his son away to a boarding school might say "Hakanım gitti okula" (My Hakan went to school), "Gitti Hakan okula," "Okula gitti Hakan," "Gitti okula Hakan," or any other variation with perfectly acceptable grammar structure, often, but not necessarily stressing different aspects of the emotion (that he is gone, that he is gone, that he is gone to school, that he is gone to school, to school he is gone, etc.) . Okans (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)okans

Edit request from Horzel, 18 May 2010

---

and by immigrant communities in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Holland, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland , United Kingdom, United States and Canada

---

To:

---

and by immigrant communities in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, United Kingdom, United States and Canada

---

Somehow the square brackets are in the wrong place, I left out Holland, since it is a synonym for the Netherlands, which is mentioned already. Thank you, Eric Horzel (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

French vocabulary

How is there so much???Domsta333 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem? Do you think

1. that Turkish contains too many French loan words? An encyclopedia should report the facts as they are, not as anyone wishes them to be.
2. that the article cites too many French loan words? French is the second largest source of loan words in Turkish. In the article I see
   • "fırka has been replaced by the French loanword parti"
   • "Many loanwords from Arabic and French, however, take front-vowel suffixes after final back vowels:" [three examples, all from Arabic AFAIK; here it would be good to add a French example!]
   • "The road sign in the photograph above illustrates several of these features: ... a loanword also violating vowel harmony: viyadük ("viaduct" < French viaduc)"
   • [a footnote to ne oldum delisi, glossed as literally "what-have-I-become!":] "Note the similarity with the French phrase un m'as-tu-vu "a have-you-seen-me?", ie a vain and pretentious person."

All of these are appropriate. If you have a problem, state it clearly and give your reasons. --Thnidu (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

French vocabulary

How is there so much???Domsta333 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We were speaking Turkish before French was born — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.248.93 (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

ğ = [ɰ], not [ɣ]

If Turkish phonology has a velar approximant [ɰ] consonant, represented by the letter ğ, why is the character for the velar fricative [ɣ] is used instead? As it is apparent here WP:IPA for Turkish, that velar fricative [ɣ] is Azerbaijani only. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

v = [β] ?

In the Sample section, I see the character [β] (Voiced bilabial fricative) is used for the letter v, which should be pronounced as [v] (Voiced labiodental fricative) as noted at WP:IPA for Turkish. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from F.Mehmet (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, could we add Old Anatolian Turkish subtitle to the "Turkish language#History" section of this article. Thanks and Greetings. -F.Mehmet (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

wrong words in Turkish Name section

"Medine" isn't mean city (I have never heard this); city is in Turkish "Kent" or "Şehir"... And "nur" isn't light; light is "Işık" (nur is Arabic borrowing, in Turkish this mean "Holy light".. and we dont use "Cihan", World is "Dünya" (or Earth:yer, yeryüzü).. and "Volcano" is "Yanardağ"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emyr93 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The names in the section "Turkish Name" are not grammatical name (= noun); are "personal name" :-) --Kmoksy (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dimensionality of vowel system

"The Turkish vowel system can be considered as being two-dimensional, where vowels are characterised by two features: front and back and rounded and unrounded" What about vowel height?--ZealousGnome (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 18.111.43.121, 13 September 2011

Please add Iran to the list of countries where Turkish is spoken. The Azari minority, including millions of people residing in the north western areas of Iran, speak Turkish as a native language.

18.111.43.121 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Don't they speak a Turkic language, but necessarily Turkish? I would think they speak mainly Azerbaijani. — Bility (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

not the offical language of cyprus.

turkish is not the offical language of cyprus but rather the turkish republic of cyprus. and even then turkish cypriot should be added also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.108.254 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Karamanoglu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Karamanoglu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional sounds?

I spent some time in Turkey, and I noticed one characteristic of the language not reflected in this article: before the letters r and l, an e is pronounced as [æ] in most cases. e.g. elma [ælma] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.228.214 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Covered at Turkish phonology. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Immigrants?

"Turkish is also spoken by several million people of immigrant origin in Western Europe, particularly in Germany"

These people are in their third or fourth generation and are still being called "immigrants" ? I wonder what that makes most of the USA's population...I dont see them being labelled "immigrants"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasikli (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

it says 'immigrant origin', which would be correct.

83 million is a not right?

Turkish is spoken by many people more that 83 million. Just Turkey's population is 74 million and there many place wherein people are turks like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and they offical language is Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.66.167 (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But it's not the native language of everyone in Turkey, and not even close in Uzbekistan – assuming you want to lump Uzbek under 'Turkish' in the first place, which we don't do. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Uzbek is a Turkic dialect like Turkish. There are some consonant/vowels changes between them and some words are different. If you know Ottoman Turkish words well, you may easily understand Uzbek language more than 90%.--88.251.205.21 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

stress in personal names

We have an anon. IP who is placing or moving stress to final syllable in many personal names, such as Roxelana, Şevval Sam, Selma Ergeç, and Tuba Büyüküstün, as well as adding vowel length not reflected in the orthography. Is this correct? I thought (ante)penultimate stress was pretty much the norm for Turkish personal names. (The user generally seems to know what they're doing, but has made elementary errors in English transcription.) — kwami (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Üçgen

I edited the source of "gen" to bring it into line with Geoffrey Lewis Jarring lecture series piece: http://www.turkishlanguage.co.uk/jarring.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammaggieryan (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Genitive in Turkish

• In Nouns section Genitive case is mentioned however in Turkish there exists no genitive case. The suffix -in is called ilgi eki in Turkish and it IS NOT a case. mrt_tufekci (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What is it? — kwami (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, its name in Turkish is ilgi eki or tamlama eki. It is the suffix of the first noun of a definite noun completion

kapı-n-ın zil-i - the door-bell - (the bell of the door)

Mehmet'-in araba-s-ı - Mehmet's car - (the car of Mehmet)

pencere-n-in perde-s-i - the window-curtain - (the curtain of the window)

This suffix gives the same meaning of genitive in other languages like greek, german, latin but in Turkish we don't have a genitive case. We have only 5 cases in Turkish and they are nominative, accusative, dative, locative, ablative.

In the web site you can find correct information about noun completion

http://www.turkishlanguage.co.uk/nouns.htm - mrt_tufekci (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrt tufekci (talk • contribs)

a) What about predicate uses like "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" or "bir milyon kimin?"

b) Reliable sources in English call it the "genitive case" (G.L. Lewis, Göksel) or "possessive definite suffix" (Thomas and Itzkowitz -- they also talk of the dative/locative/.,.. suffix, not case). --Macrakis (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of native Turkish speakers

The article has four different numbers for this:

1. 83 million (lede)
2. 51 million (infobox)
3. 93 million (infobox)
4. 77 million (Geographic distribution)

Which number is correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As with English, French, or most other languages, no-one knows. — kwami (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we use one number? It looks kind of schizophrenic when the article has different sections 42 million people apart. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should choose a best RS. But the two numbers in the box are native & total, and so do not disagree. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't find support for any of those figures. Some of them appear to have been falsified. One ref says 70M, though it is not clear if this means native speakers. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I went through the mega-long PDF and couldn't find anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How about using this for number of native speakers? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dated and unreliable. (Of course, we don't know where Syracuse got their numbers either.) — kwami (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

i see from WP:RSN that there's some controversy with using Ethnologue even though it's widely cited. Syracuse doesn't specify 70 million native speakers. Can we take "native" out? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnologue is completely unreliable. What we could do is track down their sources and cite them directly. But the Turkish number is a quarter of a century old, and the rest are from different dates or (mostly) undated.

Given that the # of native speakers is in the 70M range, I suspect that Syracuse meant native speakers. But we can say "unknown" in the box, if you like. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The population of Turkey is 74 mil, right? 18% or 13+ million are Kurds, right? So that equals 61 mil. There are a few million native speakers overseas, right? So how on earth could that add up to 70 million??? Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. I'm not disagreeing with you but you have provided no source for 51 million either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish-speaking countries, according to the number of people : Turkey mother tongue 61,000,000 , mix and second language 14,000,000 ,Iraq 2,000,000 , second language 500,000 , Syria mother tongue 1,500,000 , second language 500,000 ,TRNC mother tongue 290,000 ,Bulgaria mother tongue 766,000 , Greece mother tongue 150-200,000 , Romania mother tongue 75,000 ,Macedonia mother tongue 80,000 ,Kosovo-bosnia-albania-georgia mother tongue 100,000 The european union Mother tongue ( Turkish diaspora) Turkish citizens 5,150,000 ,settled mother-second language 3,000,000 , World Turkish diaspora ( Usa-Russia-Saudi arabia-New zeeland and) mother tongue 2,000,000 ,seconda language 500,000

The number of Turkish-speaking world : mother tongue 75,000,000 ,mix-second language 18,500,000 : total 93,500,000 person

Edit request on 26 July 2012

Burgaria should be Bulgaria in the third line Rizzoli (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Floating Boat A boat that can float! 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Population Source Change Request

The source given for the speaking population (source [3] in 30 September 2012) is not a credible source. This information must be taken from an official source. Peagasus (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"Yumuşak" or "soft" g (ğ - Ğ)

Please see explanation in TP:Turkic Languages. --E4024 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Time for FARC?

I was surprised to see that this is an FA. There's a honking layout error in the first section (we don't squeeze text like that) and some uncited bits throughout. Plus I don't see the need for that sample at the end (compare with Swedish language, which still seems to deserve featured status).

Promotion was back in May 2007—over five and a half years ago. It has never been subject to review, and it also seems that the three editors who shepherded it to the gold star have all since left the project.

Are there any knowledgeable editors reading this who can get it back up to snuff? I will take it to FARC in a week or so and see what they think. Daniel Case (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkish dialects

Up to 4th of Feb., this article used to have a section on dialects. At the moment it has none. Because User:Maunus moved the section to recently created article Turkish dialects by copy and paste method. I don't think it is fair to move a section without a serious discussion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It still has a section on dialects - what I moved was only the list of specific locations which I consider to be both a problem because it goes against the MOS on embedded lists with a huge list that breaks the article flow, and because it didn't give any real information. There is no requirement to discuss before removing but anyone can reinsert it if they disagree with my decision.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This matter was mentioned in a discussion within the ongoing FARC review, though. There are a few issues that still need to be addressed, and if you have the time, you are most welcome to do so. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2013

hello

i would like to edit the tirkish language since i would want to change some pieces. it would be nice for you to allow me 2.29.15.160 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul Turkish

Istanbul Turkish is the Received Pronunciation of Turkish, not an alternative name.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Native to ... [info box]

Please erase the entry that the Turkish language is "native to" Germany, this is incorrect. Their a quite many Turkish speakers in Germany due to Turkish immigrants and their descendants in the recent decades. But Turkish is not "native to" Germany, was and is not an official or recognized minority language in Germany, "native to" would mean that. Thank you! --78.48.159.94 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

About the map

Iğdır has Azeri majority who speaks Turkish so map is clearly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.128.154 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Turkish native language of Cyprus

The bar on the right lists Turkish as a native language of Northern Cyprus rather than Cyprus, as if suggesting that all Turkish speakers on the island come from the north and none are native to the rest of the island. I think this should be changed to say Cyprus (as in, the island) with no references to the Republic of Cyprus or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. 69.196.173.58 (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Especially as few countries recognize N Cyprus. But it's not native to Germany or Iraq. We might want to add Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, but I'm not familiar with the situation there. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Irregular orthography

So, why is "name" spelled ad instead of how it is pronounced, at? Is it to distinguish it from at "horse"? If so, why are other words spelled as they are pronounced despite being ambiguous that way? Also, despite our claim that this was a characteristic of loans, we have loans such as ağb "dung" which are spelled with voiced C's. — kwami (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Urdu

Urdu means Army in Turkish, the basis of Pakistan's national language is Turkish. Turkish is therefore official language in Pakistan too. http://www.dawn.com/news/676601/influence-of-turkish-on-urdu 2.31.72.196 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In Turkish that we are talking about, 'ordu' means army not 'urdu', what you're saying is Turkic, not Turkish. It differs. And is there an official source that proves 'Turkish is therefore official language in Pakistan too' ?KazekageTR (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

need a better map... map information is not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdoyduk (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2014

This article is in Turkish and it explains us that Turkish has 6 groups and there are 220 million speakers of it. http://www.esinti.biz/toplum/001.htm

And I want you to edit the number of the speakers of Turkish language. Even Turkey has 80 million people. Turkish has 80 million speakers as the first language.

78.162.88.28 (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Not done)) - That does not appear to be a reliable source and contradicts both the source used in this article and the other standard source Ethnologue - Arjayay (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Could we please add the use of "kendileri" as an example of the use of a plural form to indicate an enhanced respect level? Otherwise, it looks as if only second person pronouns can be made more formal, which is incorrect. Thanks. One other point, should we mention the use of a person's first name and an honorific, e.g. Mehmet Bey, Ayşe Hanım? In this, it is very different from English, where we say, Mister X etc.? Finally, there are also examples like, Kaptan Bey, Mudur Bey. A section on honorifics, perhaps?? TCDDFan (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

106.215.239.97 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Türkçe

The first map/picture depicts "Areas where Turkish is the native language of the majority" and "Areas where Turkish is the native language of a minority". However, these areas are seriously incorrect, probably under political aspirations. Turkish language is the native language of "all" people living within the borders of Turkey, plus 90 % of the people living in Iraq's Mosul and Kerkuk provinces. Besides, it is the native language of a much larger community in Bulgaria, hence the mass exodus to Turkey in 1989. It is also native language to the significant community of Christian Turks (Gagauz) in Moldova. The previous discussion of 18% kurds is also unfounded and arbitrary (the kurdish party vote rate is a mere 6%). Please correct or at least remove this map. 78.174.18.116 (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Once you have reliable sources to back up your claims, please reopen this request with Please change X to Y formatting. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkish language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 01:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article over the next couple of weeks. I work slowly so I hope you will be patient, if you are in a hurry please let me know so I can find another reviewer. Nonetheless the article looks better than it was at the FA review, with much less uncited content which was the major concern, so I am optimistic about the outcome. Thanks for working on this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am finding that quite a few of the sources used are not reliable sources for a GA article. That is a problem, another problem is that there are still uncited paragraphs in the article. This should be fixed very soon, because it could potentially lead to a quickfail. To anyone who is working on the article though I recommend very highly that when finding sources to cite that you focus on academically published sources, preferably in English. Both bad sourcing and no sourcing may jeopardize the review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Could you give me those sources please Maunus. And as you know, in those language explaining paragraphs, it is hard to find sources as it is a viral issue. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "viral issue", it shouldnt be hard to find sources about the Turkish language and its history. It is one of the worlds most studied languages. I have removed the unrealiable sources that I found at first look, but I think there may be more.As a rule of thumb if it iss hard to find sources about something, then it probably shouldnt be in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• The article has severe problems with criteria 2a which requires the article to contain "a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline". Currently the references list uses a plethora of different citation styles. This should be cleaned up. This is a lot of work, and frankly it doesn't seem as if the nominator has a lot of experience using citations in wikipedia, the recent introduction of bare links as references certainly definitely does not help. Cleaning up the references to follow a single citation style, and providing correctly formatted references for the missing citations (reliable sources, preferably in English, only use turkish language sources if there it is impossible to find an English language source). Rifat Bali is a reliable source, but he has also published in English, so try to find an english language source of his regarding the linguistic minorities - otherwise there are dozens of books and articles about this on google scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• When sorting out the references it would be good to separate notes from references.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• There are some descriptions of grammar and phonology that are very badly formulated and seem to misrepresent the linguistics. For example the description of vowel harmony and the description of verbal morphology are linguistically impreciseUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Given the amount of work required to make the article conform to criteria 2, and the fact that the nominator has stated they are not prepared to do this work, I will fail the article at this point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing Turks

Meskhetian Turks also speak Turkish. In their article one can find the population numbers of this unlucky people dispersed in the former Soviet Union. The infobox of this article seems to neglect them. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted that too. I think maybe Meshketian turks are mentioned by another name, but I'll have to see whats going on.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This map will be removed mate, there are lots of Turks abroad and they speak Turkish too. They have to be represented on that map either. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally we dont add minority populations abroad in the infobox map, since all the worlds major languages have expatriate populations. I think the map you are inserting would be better placed in the section on dialects.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, did you already see what is going on or you went vacations? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, what is going on?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I dunno; you said you were going to see what is going on. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I added mention of the Meskehtians in the section on dialects.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fix this?

There's a message under the Notes header that reads: "Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "lower-alpha" is not used in the content (see the help page)." Could someone fix the problem that's causing this? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ignore this message. I fixed it myself. :-P --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Hallo, I think that in the introduction Asia should be mentioned before Europe, since the sentence is related to the number of speakers, and the population of Asian turkey is almost seven times higher than that of European Turkey. The opinion that Europe should go first since modern Turkish is Istanbul Turkish is not correct here, since we sentence deals with number of speakers, and writing in this way one has the idea that the two groups are numerically equivalent: it is a case of Undue Weight. Last but not least, I am curious to know where Turkish is spoken by "Millions of people in south-eastern Europe, except eastern Thrace".Alex2006 (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not undue weight. That's a false argument. There are arguably more Turkish-speakers in the European side than in the Asian side, since Eastern Turkey is mainly Kurdish-speaking anyway. Even then, it has nothing to do with undue weight since no indication was made that it's spoken more in Europe than in Asia. You can add those details in another section of the article. The introduction is meant to be brief anyway. Or you can find the figures and add them between parentheses. Furthermore, the language is spoken by millions more Turkish-speakers in other parts of Southeastern Europe, not just Turkish Thrace. Lastly, the language itself was developed in the European side. What on Earth is wrong with having it in alphabetical order? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, there are many more Turkish speakers in Asia than in Europe, as you can see just adding up the numbers (and maybe you should do it). About Kurds, in Istanbul live about two to three millions of them, mainly on the European side, and many of them live in western europe, so your objection does not apply. Moreover, I did not add any details, but only reverted the order of the info, avoiding to give undue weight. Finally, I am still waiting that you tell me where are these "millions" of Turkish speakers in Southeastern Europe. I repeat again that the objection that the language was developed in Istanbul does not apply here, because the sentence deals with number of Turks. i hope that you are finally getting the point. Alex2006 (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, there are 15-20 million Kurds, 50 million Turks and 5-10 million 'other' ethnicities (Georgian, Albanian, Bosnian etc.) in Turkey. In the Europe and in the European side of Turkey (Turkish Thrace) there are approx. 10-15 million people who speaks Turkish. But in the Asia and the Asian side of Turkey (Anatolia), the figure might be high as 60-65 million including L2 speaking Kurds and 'other' ethnicities. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 09:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for adding up the numbers! The fact is that the barycenter of the speakers lie in Asia, not in Europe, and a sentence dealing with the total number should take it into account. This has nothing to do with considering Turkish an European or Asiatic language, which is a quite different matter. Alex2006 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Alex, I want to know how exactly putting the term "Southeastern Europe" before the term "Western Asia" gave you the false indication that Southeastern Europe has more Turkish-speakers than Western Asia. That was placed in alphabetical order, primarily to avoid this silly argument in the first place. Secondly, no such indication was made regarding which geographic area had more speakers than the other; that is nothing but your false assumption. The introduction has to be brief anyway, but you are more than welcome to add the information regarding the speakers in the appropriate section or, as I suggested, you can add the figures between parentheses. And yes, there are millions more Turkish-speakers in Southeastern Europe than just in Turkish Thrace. There are indigenous Turkish-speakers in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Kosovo, to name a few. The language is also specifically known as Istanbul Turkish by virtue of the fact it was developed in Istanbul, not in Anatolia. I offered you suggestions for a compromise, which I think is better than having a silly edit war over this. What exactly is your problem with wording it in alphabetical order and what exactly makes you assume that this order gives a false impression of where Turkish is mostly spoken? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no edit war here, there is only a discussion. About the Turkish speakers in southeastern Europe they don`t reach one million. About the alphabetic order, there is no guideline in Wikipedia that suggest to use it, and this would be anyway the only place where it is used. Otherwise considering the languages which are spoken in Europe and the Americas, like Italian or French, we should write that they are spoken in America AND Europe, which would be crazy. Alex2006 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no guideline in Wikipedia that says we should arrange the wording of a lede sentence in a language article according to the size of speakers or geographic area. The alphabetical order was added to avoid problems, not create them. Regarding the French language article, you'll notice that it has a huge section dedicated for geographic distribution, where it describes the extent to which the French language is spoken across Europe and other continents. In case of this article, the lede sentence briefly describes the geographic distribution of Turkish, and the following sections should expand on the subject. Also bear in mind that you're using one definition of Europe. Different sources have their own definitions of Europe, many of which include all of Turkey in Europe. So this isn't a black-and-white issue. Anyway, how about this: Turkish, also referred to as Istanbul Turkish, is the most widely spoken of the Turkic languages, with around 70.8 million native speakers across a small part of Southeastern Europe and a large part of Western Asia (i.e. the Balkans and Anatolia, respectively)? Please say it's okay. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. You see that you are refusing to get the point. We are talking about number of speakers, not about geographic distribution. Moreover, your sentence is wrong, since the geographic distribution in SW Europe is scattered. Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria, Thrace and Romania are not "a small part of Southeastern Europe". Alex2006 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it's fine the way it is, as you have just admitted that it's spoken in a large part of Southeastern Europe that spans Romania, Bosnia and other countries. In that case, you were engaged in an edit war for no apparent reason. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not, since we are talking about number of speakers, not of territory where these speakers live. Alex2006 (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You're draining me. Okay, how about this: Turkish, also referred to as Istanbul Turkish, is the most widely spoken of the Turkic languages, with around 70.8 million native speakers across parts of Southeastern Europe and Western Asia (i.e. the Balkans and Anatolia, respectively). It is spoken mostly in Anatolia. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, that one sucked and clearly the following sentence says Turkish speakers are predominantly located in Turkey. This one's better: Turkish, also referred to as Istanbul Turkish, is the most widely spoken of the Turkic languages, with around 70.8 million native speakers across parts of Southeastern Europe (10-15 million speakers) and Western Asia (55-60 million speakers). --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Let`s wait for the opinion of other users. We have already that of Elmasmelih. Alex2006 (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it fine with you or not? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No: as you say, we should not inflate the introduction. Alex2006 (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. That's no an inflation. Now I feel you're not really being genuine about reaching a consensus. Consider this conversation over. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, let`s wait for the opinion of other users. Alex2006 (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think the sensible thing to do would be to not mention Europe/Asia in the lead, especially in the first sentence definition, since that will undoubtedly attract editwarring in the future and compromise the possibility of having a stable article. Just note that it is primarily spoken in Turkey and by Turks abroad.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think the geographic distribution of the language has to be described, even if briefly, in the lede paragraph, much like how the geographic location of any country is normally described in the lede paragraph of its respective article. Anyway, I think the current version is the most suitable and eliminates the numerical doubts that Alex mentioned earlier: Turkish (Türkçe), also referred to as Istanbul Turkish, is the most widely spoken of the Turkic languages, with around 10–15 million native speakers in Southeastern Europe and 55–60 million native speakers in Western Asia. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is quite easy to describe the distribution without using the terms Europe and Asia, just use specific locations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And there's also nothing wrong with a brief geographic description as this is an encyclopedia. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong except that it will attract a perpetual influx of edit warriors which will keep the article from developing. For example even if the recent GA review had passed on the content the instability caused by your and other editor's editwarring over relative trivialities that could have been easily fixed with a more pragmatic approach would have meant the article couldnt be promoted.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editors and edit warriors should not discourage us from making an article as encyclopedic and as descriptive as possible. And quite frankly, there were no disputes regarding the wording until today, and if compromises still cannot be reached with the other party, despite the efforts to make the other party accept an agreement, then the problem doesn't lie with us. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Also consider the fact that a similar wording has existed in the Turkic languages article for many years without a single edit war regarding such word usage. So the problem isn't with the descriptive geographic content but, instead, the problem is with the disruption that is inevitably going to happen to an open-source encyclopedia, regardless of the events. Consider that there were no qualms regarding the wording of the lede sentence in this article until today. In any case, proposals have been made, and I think the wording now eliminates the objections that were raised in the argument of the other party. Have a good night. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Same Europe/Asia problem at Azerbaijani language, with "Eastern Europe" being given primacy because of Daghestan. At least with the recent allowance of parentheticals to explain what we mean, "Eastern Europe (the Caucasus) and Western Asia (northern Iran)", it's not misleading, but I still don't see the point. — kwami (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lewis

I removed the reference to Lewis, since it does not support the claim that modern Turkish and Istanbul Turkish are synonims: Lewis affirms that modern turkish was built using the syntactic structure of Istanbul Turkish, but words and suffixes (fundamental in an agglutinative language like turkish) came from all Turkey. Alex2006 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Since in a week none discussed this thread, I will remove the reference to Lewis in the lead. Moreover, since what he actually writes at pg.26 of his book is that the reformed Turkish Language cannot be identified with Istanbul Turkish, I think that this claim should be discussed too. Alex2006 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2014

Please add {{Wikivoyage|Turkish phrasebook|Turkish|a phrasebook}} to the external links. It will add a link to the phrasebook for the language at Wikivoyage. Thanks. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Done --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

please add this to the list

unfortunately some countries where majority speak Turkish were left off, 35 000 000 turks in Iran and azerbijan please add this to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.174.107.172 (talk • contribs)

Regular conjugation factually incorrect

Last paragraph under the Grammar/Verbs heading claims (with no citation) "All Turkish verbs are conjugated in the same way, except for the irregular and defective verb i- [...]". This is factually incorrect. How about "gitmek -> gidiyor" but "bitmek -> bitiyor"? Also, there are exceptions in geniş zaman (vaguely corresponds to simple present); the linking vowel may change depending on the verb: "gelmek -> gelir" but "delmek -> deler". I propose the deletion of that paragraph, listing the exceptions would be more appropriate for the Turkish grammar article. Cyco130 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What here is meant is that the suffixes which are used to conjugate the verbs are always the same (of course, considering also the laws of vowel harmony) not the changes in their root. And also these have almost no exception (there are only four verbs which change their root from -t to -d, like gitmek). you have to compare this regularity (which is ackwnoledged in each turkish grammar) to the verbal chaos of many languages, like French or Italian. Alex2006 (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I do understand that Turkish conjugation is more regular than many other languages and it's a valuable information to provide. But there are nevertheless irregularities. Apart from "gitmek, etmek, tatmak, gütmek" there are some 15-20 verbs that take -i-(ı/i/u/ü) as opposed to -e- (or -a-) as a linking vowel for Geniş Zaman (gelir but deler, durur but kurar, and even yener (wins) as opposed to yenir (is eaten) etc.). "demek" and "yemek" are also somewhat irregular (diyecek instead of expected regular *deyecek etc.). Can't we at least reword it by saying something like "there are only few irregularities"? Because it is simply *wrong* to say that they're all conjugated the same way. They are *not*, as I tried to demonstrate with examples. Cyco130 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)