Talk:Kona Yeziⱪ

Article name
Shouldn't this article be Ⱪona Yeziⱪ instead? —Typhlosion (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, why is this hidden away with Kona Yezik a redlink? And Kona yezik--shouldn't that be the article's name under our naming conventions, and redirects at Ⱪona yeziⱪ, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Nygaard (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 December 2008
 * A WP search shows that besides redlinks
 * Kona Yezik Kona yezik and Ⱪona yeziⱪ
 * mentioned above,
 * Kona yezik̡ is a Rdr to Wu'erkaixi K̡ona Yezik̡ to Ⱪona Yeziⱪ and Yengi Yeziķ to Uyghur Ereb Yéziqi
 * Typholosian's cryptic question is explained by their having subsequently made a move, logged thus:
 * 01:19, 28 March 2008 Typhlosion ...  m (moved K̡ona Yezik̡ to Ⱪona Yeziⱪ: Ⱪ is the letter used in Uyghur, not K̡.)
 * --Jerzy•t 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Means of Dab'n
"Ⱪona Yeziⱪ", or "old script" embraces two Arabic-based scripts. Apparently, the earlier one is "old" since the 1920s (when Latin- and Cyrillic-based scripts were introduced with limited success), and the other, quite new one only in the sense of its continuity with the earlier. (FWIW, the Latin one(s) should not be confused with the current Latin-Script Uyghur; they in turn are distinct from the Pinyin-based one, which uses (mostly) Latin characters but even then gives some of them values contrary to European tradition -- Pinyin Q, for instance, has the value of English and Spanish Ch, Italian C when followed by I or E, or German Tsch.)  One is Chaghatay or Chagatai script, apparently used for Uyghur before it was for Chagatai language, but perhaps so-called bcz Chagatai became the literary language of Uyghur-speakers and several other central-Asia languages. The other is Uyghur Ereb Yéziqi (a.k.a. Arabic-Script Uyghar or perhaps Uyghar Arabic Script), and apparently differs from Chagatai script much as several Latin alphabets of European languages differ from that of English. That said, i am suggesting that the accompanying Dab is ill-conceived base on a misconception that the titles Chagatai script and Uyghur Ereb Yéziqi are so clearly about different things that the corresponding topics must be treated in two articles bearing the two names. I deny that, and counsel that as when two things are sides of the same coin -- oh, say Obverse and reverse -- that coin may not have a familiar name, but it deserves a single article and finding its best title is a detail. In this case, i expect we would learn that the two alphabets are really so similar that the only sensible way is to describe one as an elaboration of the other, or to describe each symbol that appears in either, list which symbols are in both, and state which of the remaining symbols are in one and which in the other. The title may be as clumsy as Chagatai script and Uyghur Ereb Yéziqi or as smooth as Chagatai family of scripts. (In the specific case, wouldn't be inclined to Kona Yezik (special characters or no), even if there were no person so named, but that is, again, beside the point.) My last thots are that --Jerzy•t 10:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * duplication of content should generally be avoided, and that can be done (probably) by having both titles on articles, but both of them being very short and linking to Letters of the Chagatai script, and the Arabic alphabet article surely does a lousy job of satisfying users who choose that branch of the current Dab, so the research (perhaps entirely in Arabic alphabet and the Uyghur Ereb Yéziqi reference) probably deserves fairly high priority (hopefully from a linguist).