Talk:Oghuz languages

so-called "Turcoman"

First off, great work on the page. The only thing I don't get is the part where it says, "the languages of the so-called "Turcoman" of Iran and Iraq". There's an article called Iraqi Turkmen, and a section of it called "Language". As for Iran, according to this map by the CIA, it has "Turkoman/Turkmen" at the key, and the only part of the map I can find them is near the border with Turkmenistan, which would in fact make them Turkmen people, not "so-called Turcomans". Anyways, I'm glad to see this article finally created. —Khoikhoi 02:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, certainly there are Turkoman origined people in Iran, I think "so-called" is superfluous for the text. The best thing would be to remove the word from the article. The only setback is that the link goes to the Turkmen people of Turkmenistan, which is not appropriate. So, I will unlink the word and try to find a better link for them.

Kizzuwatna 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my point is that the Iraqi Turkoman are considered different, but aren't the Turkmen in Iran the same as the Turkmen of Turkmenistan? —Khoikhoi 02:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just read from the Iraqi Turkmen article that many live in Iran, hence their name is (somewhat) misleading. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, this is very complicated since all those people originated from the same people called the Turkomans, including Turkey and Azerbaijan. That section seemed a bit ambiguous to me. But I'm so tired for the moment that I won't be able to continue. Let's keep the link you gave to Iraqi Turkmens. Tomorrow I will try to search in detail.

Kizzuwatna 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also...

Does anyone think Oghuz should become a disabmig. page now? Or are the Oghuz Turks the more common meaning than the language group? —Khoikhoi 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Oghuz Turks" gives the impression of historical ancestors of today's western Turks since there is no people called Oghuz in our times. But Oghuz languages is a linguistic category of modern day Turks, Azeris, Turkmens etc. as well as the extinct Oghuz language. So, I think there's a nuance between them.

Kizzuwatna 02:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for a disambiguation page, especially since the page on the "Oghuz Turks" is poorly written and appears to be POV. Straughn 14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And...the disambiguation page is done. See Oghuz. Straughn 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

map

excellent work to whoever made the map. this is one of the clearest maps I have seen on wikipedia, and the the use of normal text for the legend is a good idea as well, since many articles' maps expect you to click a few times to get the largest version. congrats Dan Carkner 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, not at all. That map is pure WP:OR.. Turkish is spoken in southeastern Turkey contrary to what the map suggests.. Kurdish is spoken, yes, but Turkish is also spoken. In fact, most Kurds speak Turkish as a first language because of assimilation. That map was made from a map indicating regions where Kurdish was spoken - not Turkish. Most Kurds are bilingual with Turkish being the more dominant language. It commited OR when it deduced from the Kurdish-spoken regions map that Turkish was not spoken. That is a false a contrario argument and very dangerous unacademic original research. All such maps will be removed from relevant articles, I had mentioned this in many articles for months but nothing seems to happen really. I am not removing them since I don't want to deprive the articles of maps, but if it goes likes this I will just go ahead and do it anyways. Hopefully someone will correct the maps... Baristarim 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, Baristarim. You removed the map from Khalaj language for precisely the opposite reason - because the map did not indicate that Persian is spoken in and around the same areas where Khalaj is spoken. Moreover, I don't understand how the map is OR. As far as I can tell, the distribution of languages on the map is based on information from the Ethnologue and other sources. Are you suggesting that the information on the map was completely made up? Straughn 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also confused, which map are you talking about? And yes, nowhere in the world such mishmash of information is included in a map: Turkish is the official language, and even most of the Kurdish (from TR) users here on wiki will tell you that they speak Turkish much more fluently than Kurdish - I don't want to get into a dispute over why, but that's just the way it is. Making as if Turkish is not spoken in a huge swath of Turkey is OR at its peak. Did you read my post carefully? I said "the fact that Kurdish is spoken in those areas does not exclude the fact that Turkish is spoken". Where in the Ethnologue is it written that Turkish is not spoken in SE Turkey? It says Kurdish is spoken in the SE, it doesn't say that Turkish is not spoken - that is a false a contrario argument. And yes, the info in that map, the way in which it was prepared is made up - find me one source that says Turkish is not spoken in SE Turkey. The main newspaper of the PKK, the main armed Kurdish organization, is published in "Turkish" in Europe - what more of a proof do you expect to see that Turkish is spoken in SE Turkey? This is ridicilous really: generally, barring exceptional evidence to the contrary, a language is presumed to be spoken in a place if it is the official language. I also would have absolutely no problem with a map of Persian that covers all of Iran - X being spoken doesn't exclude the fact that Y is spoken. It would be like pretending that French is not spoken in Corsica because Corsicans have a different native language. Yes, they do, but French is still the primary language. Baristarim 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly anyone speaks Turkish in Rasht or Mazandaran. The map is clearly an exaggeration and needs to changed. --alidoostzadeh 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That I don't know, I frankly don't even know where those places are! If you say so, then the map can be corrected. Baristarim 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically the areas around Caspian. See this map for Iran [1] and also this [2] and this [3]. Check the areas of Caspian. --alidoostzadeh 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some problem about south east Türkiye.The offical and traditional language is Turkish there. Of course there are many speaking Kurdish and some other but its not that big showed on the map.So map need to be re-design.We have to interfere the page till it done.--94.120.41.126 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Then draw a new map and substitute it for this one, but don't delete the whole template for the sake of some disagreement over the map. The problem is that no map of languages is accurate, no matter what you do to it. There are many areas of the world where multiple languages are spoken. You just have to compromise. The Kurdish languages are in the majority population only in a few places in the world, but to accurately represent their spread over the region, you must still show them in areas where there may be other dominant languages. This is what linguistic maps all must do--compromise between 100% accuracy and 100% explanatory power. Southeast Turkey is one of those regions. Indeed, most of the Middle East is in that same category--multiple languages spoken in almost every region. (Taivo (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

In rereading your post, you are wrong about one aspect of SE Turkey--the "traditional" language in that area is not Turkish, but Kurdish, Arabic, and Aramaic. Turkish is a recent arrival on the SE Turkey linguistic scene. (Taivo (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Nothing to compromise.Just submit to ruler.--94.120.44.190 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous IP needs to 1) redraw the map if he is unhappy with it; 2) take the time to remove the map from the template without removing the template; or 3) act courteously with respect to other editors. (Taivo (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Since the anonymous IP is not making a contribution to the article, but just vandalizing it, I have requested administrative action. This usually consists of locking the article to unregistered users (i.e., anonymous IPs). (Taivo (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

What a nice choice to solve the problem. It seems that you will continue to broadcasting the wrong information till someone draw a new map. Would you do the same thing if someone draw the half of USA like speaking Spanish? What if anyone draw the true map ? Is it an answer to this problem that "do better if you dont like this"?Thats just a small game which we accustomed to. --94.120.42.37 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The current map is accurate according to the most recent linguistic maps of Turkey. See Christopher Moseley & R.E. Asher. 1994. Atlas of the World's Languages. Routledge. Map 63, 'Turkey'. This map clearly shows that Turkish is not the majority language of southeast Turkey, but that Kurdish is the majority language with scattered pockets of Turkish, and Arabic. This is a verifiable reference. This is the requirement for Wikipedia--verifiable published references, not personal observation, opinion, or research. (Taivo (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

[4] Check out the information on the website.Thats the verifiable inforrmation if you need.I can give tons of sources like that.Please dont give wrong information.--94.120.40.223 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable sources in Wikipedia are not all equal. Published books are of higher priority than websites. (Taivo (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

The language of Iraqi Turks should be placed in the Turkish of Turkey. They speak a Turkish dialect. The similarities doesn't make it Azerbaijani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunifa88 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: I doubt that Turkish is still spoken in Crete, though it was historically (though that said, most Cretan Muslims were Hellenophone).

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified.

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified.

john L.Drake

Take a look at here. Amir.azeri (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkic is an iranian-turkic creole language and oghuz turkic is an iranized turkico-iranian.

Turkic is an iranian-turkic creole language and oghuz turkic is an iranized turkico-iranian.

In the site nostratica.ru

http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(250)Clauson_against.pdf

http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(206)Greenberg%20-%20Altaic%20Exists.pdf

http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(203)Nostratic%20and%20altaic.pdf

http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(251)Vovin%20Controversy.pdf

they give iranian etymologies to turkic numbers. gi=>eki tse=>uthse tshorts=>tört pandj=>bish atshish=>alti and so on

Non oghuz turkic languages have rather an irano-altaic conjugation endings. kor-gen-men=see-past suffixe-first person(likely borrowed from iranic)ending.

But in oghuz turkic it became gor-d-um=see-iranian past suffixe d-iranian first person ending.

if you look to these maps below,you could easily see that central asia was inhabitated by iranian speaking populations(saka,chorasmians,dahae,margians,bactrians,soghds..)and of course these tribes did not disappear but merged with turkic newcomers as proven by genetic tests and also by the presence of a caucasoid phenotype and caucasoid phenotype influences amongst central asian turks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/East-Hem_323bc.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/East-Hem_200bc.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/East-Hem_600ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/East-Hem_700ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/East-Hem_800ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/East-Hem_900ad.jpg

john L.Drake

NO, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT NON-OGHUZ TURKIC DIALECTS. In non-Oghuz Turkic, The word "körgenmen" means "I have seen" NOT "I saw". Modern Oghuz dialects have no Present Perfect Tense but old Oghuz had; the word "göryenben" means "I have seen" in old Anatolian Turkish for example. If you want to say "I saw" in non-Oghuz Turkic, you must say "kördüm" instead of "körgenmen".

Some Examples;

NON-OGHUZ TURKIC => ENGLISH => OGHUZ TURKIC

kel-gen-men => i've come => gel-yen-min (Old Oghuz)
yığla-gan-sın => you've cried => ağla-yan-sın (O.O.)
tut-gan => he/she/it has held => tut-yan (O.O.)
bas-gan-mız => we've stepped/pressed => bas-yan-ız (O.O.)
tab-gan-sız => you(plural) have found => tap-yan-sız (O.O.)
ket-gen-der => they've gone = git-yen-ler (O.O.)
.................................................................
tüshün-dü-m => i understood = düshün-dü-m
söyle-di-n => you said => söyle-di-n
bashta-dı => he/she/it began = bashla-dı
böl-dü-k => we divided => böl-dü-k
al-dı-nız => you(plural) took/get => al-dı-nız
ur-du-lar => they struck/hitted => vur-du-lar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.57.47 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy check request

I added a accuracy check request tag, as Qashqai is stated as both part of the Azerbaijani Group and as part of the Southern Oghuz Group in the classification section. --JorisvS (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

what?

   * Loss of initial *h sound (preserved only in Khalaj)
   * Loss of the instrumental case (preserved only in Sakha and Khalaj)

Neither Khalaj nor Sakha are Oghuz languages, as a quick glance at the pages for those languages makes clear (just click those links if you don't believe me!) Or you can also consult the article on Turkic languages, where it makes it clear that Khalaj is an isolate among Turkic languages. Whatever though. Go ahead and leave bullshit lying around here. This is wikipedia, after all, not to be confused with a respectable resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.113.244 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't agree with anon IP's, but in this case the anon IP is right. These two notes about Khalaj and Sakha are not relevant here in the Oghuz languages article. The information is relevant at the Turkic languages article or in the articles about Khalaj or Sakha, but not here. It's the equivalent of saying in the Mars article: "Mars is a rocky planet (but Saturn is a gaseous planet)". The information is accurate, but irrelevant and distracting. --Taivo (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The parentheticals actually explain the "shared" features: The first feature is shared with all Turkic languages but Khalaj, and the second feature is shared with all Turkic languages but Sakha. As it helps define Oghuz (or actually not, but in fact, it is also helpful to know which features might be seen as defining Oghuz by a casual observer but are actually not, because they are much more widely spread in Turkic), the parenthetical information is actually very important. I'll restore the info, but phrase it more clearly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Map isn't accurate

In places like Gaziantep, Kilis(East of Hatay) are Turkish majority and places like Iğdır (Eastern-most place neighbour to the Nakchivan) Turkish is plurality. So the map is not accurate. Also this map (at least for Turkey) shows an ethnical map, not language. In Turkey 75% arew Turkish but there are more than 85% native Turkish speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.129.225 (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oghuz languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100613160452/http://southasiaanalysis.org/papers18/paper1737.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers18%5Cpaper1737.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

About links: this seems ok:http://archive.is/G6eu2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.233.11 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR

There is no language called "Khwarezmian" in the Oghuz branch of Turkic languages family. These edits are original research and based on a non-linguistic book.[5][6][7] There is an extinc Turkic language named Khorezmian language (Turkic) but it's not Oghuz.94.176.95.96 (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References Disappeared?

So I made a small edit to fix a small error (added the word "the" before "11th century") and when I published the changes, all the references on the page disappeared? So strange. Now I can't seem to get them back, and when I look at the source for the older revisions I don't see the references there either... This is a strange glitch 173.71.95.32 (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Translations are incorrect and incomplete

These transalitons given below are incorrect and incomplete:

English: ‘The dead man rose, sat down and began to speak.’ Turkish: Ölü doğrulup oturdu ve konuşmaya başladı. Turkmen: Öli ýerinden galyp oturdy-da, geplemäge başlady. Azerbaijani: Ölü durub oturdu ve danışmağa başladı. Gagauz: Ölü oturdu da bašladï lafetmää.

Literal translation should be like this:

The dead men = Ölü adam

rose = doğruldu/yerinden kalktı/yerden kalktı

sat down = oturdu

and = ve

began to speak = konuşmaya başladı

None of the translations above contain "man = adam". Gagauz translation do not contain "yerinden kalktı"

Since these are basically the same language with some accent differences all of the translations could be very much the same while gramatically correct, understandable and being not weird:

Turkish: Ölü adam yerinden kalkıp, oturdu ve konuşmaya başladı.

Turkmen: Öli adam ýerinden galgyp, oturdy ve geplemäge başlady.

Azerbaijani: Ölü adam yerinden qalxıb, oturub ve danışmağa başladı.

Gagauz: Ölü adam yerinden kalkıp, oturdu ve lafetmää bašladï.

What can be done? A linguist can check translations and retranslate this sentence in more consistent manner. 178.244.95.133 (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. There's no such word as "galgyp" in Turkmen, in fact "-g" after the main verb is added only in Kipchak, Karluk and other similar Turkic languages, like "ketken" in Kazakh or "bo'lgan" in Uzbek. Moreover, these Oghuz languages prefer employing the word "kişi" instead of "adam", whereas "ölü adam" would be "ölen adam" in Turkmen. Bu that doesn't matter, since these sentences and commentary to them were provided by a Turcologist with years of experience in that field, are properly sourced, in line wih WP:V, WP:RS. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 05:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This kind of attitude is not appropriate. How do you know that "There's no such a word no such word as "galgyp" in Turkmen"?. When you say "galgıp da getti" to any Türkmen speaker including Iraqi and Syrian Türkmens or even speakers of Türkiye Türkçesi would they understand or not? "-g" after the main verb is added also in Türkiye Türkçesi like "kalkıp da gitti" (kalk, kalk-ı-p/ galk, galg-ı-p in local usage also k-g transforation in standart Turkish) not just in Kıpçak or Karluk.

"Ölen adam", "Ölü adam" and "ölü kişi" are same in Türkmen. It is just a matter of preferrance, all of these expressions are gramatically correct, understandable and not sounds weird. Oghuz languages do not always prefer "kişi" instead of "adam". It depends on the meaning you want to give. "Yoldan geçen bir kişi gördüm" "Yoldan geçen bir adam gördüm" can be translated exactly same in to English language but emphasis is clearly different.

When it comes to translations none of them contain "man = adam". "Ölü kalktı" is not same as "ölü adam kalktı".

Gagauz translation is incomplete, it is as simple as that."Ölü oturdu da bašladï lafetmää." literally translates as "Dead sat down and started to talk/twaddle". Where is "rose/kalktı" in this translation?

For non Turkish sprakers it is not easy to grasp the logic of the language since all Turkic languages are agglutinative. There is no such a thing like "sayıklayamayabileceklerden miymişsiniz?" (say-ı-k-la-ya-ma-ya-bil-e-cek-ler-den-mi-y-miş-sin-i-z) in other non-agglutinative languages. So it does not matter if you have experience or not. Any Turkish/Turkic language speaker can easily spot the mistakes given above.

Lastly as said above "the translations could be very much the same" if you want to do it so.

Wrong and incomplete translations should be corrected. It would be "nonsense" to not to see wrong and incomplete translations. This is an open encyclopedia everyone should reach correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.129.20 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, that translation being "wrong" and "incomplete" is based on your personal opinion and influenced by your personal taste, whereas I still don't think that it's a great idea to question the work of Julian Rentzsch, who, by chance, happens to be the Prof. Dr. of Turcology. Moreover, addition of what you think is a correct version of these sentences would violate Wikipedia's policy against original research according to WP:OR. However, if you still want to counter argue the above stated and make a certain edit, please do so but in line with WP:V and WP:RS. End of discussion. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear responder would you please open and read the cited work:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%252C5&q=%22Uniformity+and+diversity+in+Turkic+inceptive+constructions%22

https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/1205105705_Rentzsch_P.pdf

It has nothing to do with the article. No one is arguing against Mr Rentzsch. In the article these sentences are not given as direct translation of the English sentence. Someone improperly cited the sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.129.20 (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sapiocrat: This discussion seems to have stalled, just wanted to add that while I would not presume to know the correct translation of the English source text for any of these languages other than Turkish, I can also see that the translations are not consistent with the source text. Perhaps it is best if the quoted section is altogether excluded from the page, as a correction would be original content as pointed out above. None of the translations refer to a man, just a singular dead person.

The Turkish translation assumes a construct for "rose" that essentially reads as:

• "The dead (man) [first] rose, [then] sat down and began to speak."
• Ölü (adam) [önce] doğrulup [sonra] oturdu ve konuşmaya başladı.

The construct used for Turkmen is also not consistent and seems to read as:

• "The dead (man) [first] rose from his place, [then] sat down and began to speak."

The Gagauz translation seems to lack a reference to any dead man rising. It seems to read:

• The dead (man) sat down and began to speak.

If by "rose" we mean the dead man revived, we would have to use the verb "dirilmek" in the past tense (dirildi) instead of "doğrulup." If we simply mean the dead man stood up (from where he was laid), we would say "(yerinden) kalktı" or "doğruldu" rather than "doğrulup" (which implies more than simply rising in the past tense). Assuming the latter is true, I would say the correct Turkish translation would be: Ölü (adam) [yerinden] kalktı, oturdu ve konuşmaya başladı. Sapiocrat (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)