Talk:Khorasani Turkic

Language

تستعمل الكتابة اللاتينية بواسطة القبائل التركية في تركي خراساني كذلك). يحدث الاستعمال الكتابة اللاتينية هنا بشكل غير رسمي, ( مع ذلك تحتمل الإيرانية) 195.93.60.67 23:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Korasani Turkish Language"? This is a fabrication beyond imagination! Sumerians, Scythians and Parthians were Turks, and now we have "Khorasani Turks"?! Very soon we will have a new language called "Germanian Turkish Language" with an imaginary flag, and new divided map of Munich! Surena 04:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Khorasani Turkish" is a "language"??! It's hardly even a dialect. I think somebody probably mistranslated "gooyesh" into "language" when they were putting up information on Ethnologue. My father is a native of Quchan. His Azeri is almost identical to that of standard Azari.

This article is not factual. But we need supporting documentation to delete it.--Zereshk 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed some of the article to make it clearer that there is a debate as to the status of this speech variety. However, I do think that this article ought to be kept as it is sufficiently distinct from other speech varieties in the region to merit study. The two sources referenced at the bottom are indicative of that. I'm not going to remove the tags at the top - someone else can do that. Straughn 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case it is TurKIC and not TurkISH.

it is TurkIC not TurkISH,. Only far-right groups in Turkey (influential) call different TurkIC languages as TurkISH. Also the content and classification used in this article is disputed. Khorasani Turkic is based on Afshar dialect, which is also present in other parts of Iran. It is not closer more to Turkmen than to other Afshar dialects in Iran. --Babakexorramdin 07:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is TurkISH - check this source [2] and stop calling people far-rightist. That source is not a "far-right group in Turkey". Please watch for civility. Thanks. Baristarim 07:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a realible source, the proper terminology in English is "Turkic"...--07fan 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim holds some grudges on Iranians. He also supported a far right extremist who said " what da fuck is Iran" on the talk page of the Turkic language. His name better have been Savash Tarim rather than Barish Tarim. Funnily I have supported his instance that the grey Wolves should have had a place in the article. The civilized Turks rejected him and he reacts on Iranians. Funny --Babakexorramdin 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• In the ethnologue report it's written as Khorasani TurkiSH. You can check from here. Regards. E104421 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Turkish tag on this page

I wonder why this Barishtarim who supports/ says "what the fuck is Iran" on the Turkic languages page has any rights to tag the Khorasani Turkic page. Of course it is legitimate that Turkic languages are Iranian tagged, because some 30% of Iranians speak a Turkic language, and morever these languages have a longer history in Iran than in Turkey. I do not see any linkage of Xorasani Turkic to Turkey whatsoever. maybe Barish Tarim does not know where is Khorasan? In any case watch for this figure. He has made troubles with our Turkish friends in the Turkish pages too. --Babakexorramdin 10:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend you to be civil in all cases. The major reference works names it as Khorasani Turkish language. E104421 14:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

remember that only civilized can recommend others to be civil. s. g. --Babakexorramdin 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

ps to E104421: O X please see this. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0044-9202(1972)4%3A1%3C27%3ATCOTCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0. It is scientific, not of the caliber of Brenda Shaffer. Ethnologue is not reliable. TurkISH= language of Turkey. The rest are TurkIC. Is it difficult to understrand or do you have an annoying agenda mr. Pan Turk? S G --Babakexorramdin 13:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• You personal attacks cannot change the correct terminology. See the following links: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. In all these, the terminology is TurkiSH not TurkiC. Regards. E104421 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In Persian one cannot make distinction between Turkic and Turkish, both are Torki. In Istanbbuli Turkish however there are two terms Türkc,e for Turkish and Türki for Turkic, like there is iranli with regard to the country of Iran and irani with regard to the Iranic peoples. This lack of terminologies in persian has given reason to Panturks to abuse it and call Turkic languages in Iran as Turkisjh. All your sources suffer from the above mentioned fact/mechanism. And please stop your accustation about personal attacks. It is you who is a rude person obcessed with any thing Iran and who supports the Grey Wolves and MHP unconditionally--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not distinction between Turkic and Turkish in the Turkish language, both are Türkçe. Yes, In Istanbuli Turkish there is the irani word as «Türk-î / Türkî», but it's only a translitiration of the Iranian "turki" with iranian suffix «-î». You can say "Khorasani dialect of Turkish", but "Khorasani Turkic language" is not right. Al-Beri (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that some people in Turkey with purpose (or not) prefer Turkce instead of Turki, but that terminology was proposed in order to refer to the Turkic language family. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Persian Khorasani and Turkish Khorasani

All this information is taken straight from Ethnologue[9]:

The Persian dialect in Khorasan called Khorasani is Different to the language called Khorasani Turkish [10]

Khorasani, a local Persian dialect in Khorasan.

Khorasani Turkish is a member of the Turkish sub-group of Turkic Languages:

• Turkic > Southern > Turkish:
  

1. Balkan Gagauz Turkish [bgx] (Turkey (Europe))
   
2. Gagauz [gag] (Moldova)
   
3. Khorasani Turkish [kmz] (Iran)
   
4. Turkish [tur] (Turkey (Asia))
   

WillMall (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus was not to move the page. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 05:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Khorasani Turkic language → Khorasani Turkish language – There are over 225 results on Google if you search "Khorasani Turkish language". See here. While there are just 95 results about "Khorasani Turkic language", and most of those "95 results" does not mention about "Khorasani Turkic". Beshogur (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

LouisAragon, thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, I just did some research myself, and apart from the higher number in Google Search, as demonstrated by you above, I found out that in Google Scholar, in the first ten search pages, there are numerous visible hits for "Khorasani Turkish",[11] while so far I could only find a mere three hits that mention "Khorasani Turkic".[12] On top of that SIL, Glottolog and Ethnologue all only mention "Khorasani Turkish" to refer to the language here in question, and not "Khorasani Turkic". Conclusion, I definetely support the move. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:, would you mind giving your opinion as well? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem is, it makes it sound like a variety of Turkish. That's how our article names work: New York English is the English of New York, not a separate language. Sometimes we use a less common name if it makes more sense for our purposes. But I'm not that active here any more so I won't push for it. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, ... "Turkic" sounds not sensible. The name of this language is already called as Torki, or Turk dili by this people, so it's kind of variety of Turkish. Yes not Modern Turkish or Istanbul Turkish, but still a variation. Same as "Azerbaijani Turkish". Those languages are part of Oghuz languages. If you read the article, you will see that Khurasani Turkish isn't a variety of Istanbul Turkish, Azerbaijani or Turkmen: "According some linguistics, it's been considered linguistically between Azerbaijani and Turkmen, but it's not considered as a dialect of either." I added this, to make the situation more clear. Azerbaijani is not also considered as a variation of Turkish but its other name is also "Azerbaijani Turkish" or just "Turkish". For example: can you call Tajik Persian as "Tajik Iranian"? No, it's the same situation. Beshogur (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. When framed as a quoted book search, "khorasani turkic" exceeds "khorasani turkish" by 799 to 35. Turkic languages is also the generic name, which presumably is where this comes from. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The name of the language family is Turkic languages, not Turkish languages, and the English language makes a clear distinction between Turkish, relating to the state of Turkey and/or the Turkish people, and Turkic, relating to all Turkic peoples, of which the Turkish people is only a sub-branch (just like the English language makes a clear distinction between German and Germanic)). Another reason to oppose is that I have seen far too many previous attempts to change Turkic to Turkish here on en-WP in order to make the Turkic peoples seem to derive from the Turkish people, and make the history and achievements of other Turkic peoples seem like achievements of the Turkish people (such as referring to the Old Turkic alphabet, which originated in East Asia, as the Turkish alphabet or Turkish runes). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Language?

Could we say something more about the status of this "language"? I think a widespread opinion is that this just another dialect of Turkmen. Some Turkicists may call it a language to exaggerate the variation in the Turkic family. And the Iranians certainly like the idea. (Better to have an individual language than a dialect of Turkmen to avoid any separatism.) But is it really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.221.99.106 (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Name

I know this was already discussed, but both ethnologue and glottolog are calling it as "Khorasani Turkish". Shouldn't we move it? Beshogur (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not RS for stuff like the name of languages. Glottolog is OK but some of its classifications/categories plus their names are not common. You need to convince other editors why Khorasani Turkish is more accurate and common than Khorasani Turkic by providing your rationale based on academic sources. Gerhard Doerfer used Khorasan Turkic in his works; e.g. [13] Do most scholars use Turkic or Turkish? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is more about WP:COMMONNAME, when you search "Khorasani Turkish language", you get 235,000 results, and 23,000 by "Khorasani Turkic language". "Turkish does not exclusively mean Turkish language, it has a wider meaning like "Turki", which is used by Uzbeks, Qashqai people and Uyghurs as their language. Also I found this on Iranica: "Three Oghuz nations were formed gradually: 1. The Turkmen were the descendants of those Oghuz who, for some centuries, remained in the old Oghuz territories north of the Aral lake. 2. The Khorasani Turks were the descendants of those Oghuz who had remained in Khorasan (in the broad sense: from northeastern Persia to the Amu Darya basin); during the 10th-12th/16th-18th centuries the area inhabited by speakers of Khorasani Turkish was bisected by a wedge of Turk­men-speaking nomads migrating east, so that Khora­sani Turkish is now spoken in the northeastern part of Persia and along the Amu Darya. 3. The western Oghuz (the differentiation into Osmanli Turks and Azerbai­janis only began in the Safavid period; cf. Doerfer, 1977, pp. 191-93)."Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Transcription of name in example

Beshogur, could you help me understand your reversion of my edit changing ziüäd to Ziyäd and زیود and زياد? I'm pretty ignorant of Turkic languages as you may have guessed, but ziüäd is meant to translate Ziyǟd in the non-IPA transcription in the book from which the example comes, Chorasantürkische Materialien aus Kalāt bei Esfarāyen, and interpreting y as ü doesn't agree with with how y in ey and eyleym (eylẹym in the book) and yoxdı (yo̬xdï?)and qıbläyi (g͔ïbläyi?) and näyliyäsän (nä′yliyäsän?) is taken to represent the consonant /j/ as in the Turkish alphabet and not the vowel /y/. It also doesn't agree with Allahverdi Verdizade's recent change to the IPA (ziyæːd → zijæːd). Shouldn't y be y and not ü in Ziyǟd? — Eru·tuon 23:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

To provide context, here's an attempt at a full transcription of the original text of the example in its non-IPA transcription:

1. ɑl ɣëssa bir Ziyǟd pǟdišǟhī bǟr̮ïdï.
2. xodǟʷäʹndi ǟläm ona hič ọɣul ȧtā eläʹmɑmišdi.
3. bǟdän vȧzīrä dẹdi, ey vȧzīr, mända ki ọɣul yo̮xdï, män nä čārä eylẹym.
4. vȧzīr dẹdi, pǟdⁱšā-i g͔ïblä-yi ǟläm, sän bu mǟlïämwǟlï näʹyliyäsän.

The ǟs are often rather unclear in the image I have (they tend to look like ā with smudging below the macron), and I'm not sure of the diacritic under the g͔. Based on my reading of the description of the transcription system, some symbols represent allophones, like ë, a centralized allophone of /e/. — Eru·tuon 21:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)