Talk:Turkic languages

Template:Vital article

Comment

How else would you explain the fact that the word 'Altay' has a meaning in Turkish and is a common boy's or a family name. The same goes for Ural! Nearly all Central Asian, Siberian and Mongolian geographical names have a meaning in ancient Turkish.

I was wondering as to what happened to the "Edit this Page" button?--Moosh88 03:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Classification

@Isebito: Please do not insist on your changes in an edit-warring fashion, but discuss them here first. While I think that your revision is mostly ok, you should not cite a semi-active website for that purpose, even if it is apparently run by Johanson, by one of the leading subject-matter experts, but rather cite his latest publication about it: "The classification of the Turkic languages", in Martine Robbeets and Alexander Savelyev (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages, 2020, Oxford University Press, pp. 105–114. @Beshogur: Are you fine with that source for an update?

Additionally, explanatory notes should not be mixed with references. I suggest to use the {{efn}} note template here, and add {{notelist}} at the end of the article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. The classification has been based on the website of Lars Johanson since before my revision. I just revised the classification with updates of the website. I agree with the citation of "The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages". Isebito (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

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)