Talk:Turkish language/Archive 1

=Comments=

unprotect this page
Can someone PLEASE unprotect this page?

...
Thus, such living languages as Mongolian, Korean, Japanese, Bulgarian and Hungarian are close or distant relatives of Turkish

I'm not sure whether such a wide family exists. Especially Japanese has no proven relatives. --User:Taw.


 * You are maybe not sure about it but Altaic family exists, Japanese, Korean and Bulgarian inclusion is still disputed though. Hungarian and Finnish are relatives of Turkish via Ural family., ,, ,, - Cansın 28 September 2005


 * Altaic (Turkic, Mongol, Tungus) is not demonstrated, but it is widely accepted. The problem is that these peoples lived side-by-side for millennia, so it's very difficult to deduce which similarities are due to common ancestry, and which are due to borrowing. Sergei Starostin in Moscow is working on an Altaic etymological dictionary. Hopefully this will settle the debate. kwami 01:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not now generally accepted that the Uralic and Altaic families belong to a superordinate 'Ural-Altaic' family. Also, Bulgarian is a Slavonic (i.e., Indo-European) language with a small amount of Turkish vocabulary - as far as I know there is no serious case for it belonging to Altaic. Japanese and Korean are sometimes thought to be related to the Altaic family, though. Matve 09:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Starostin died last week. kwami 10:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

--

The listed languages belong to Altaic and Uralic language family. They share a number of typological and structural similarities. Although debate still goes on whether they should be classified in the same family or not, they are mentioned to be relatives in the majority of classifications. You may have a look at Altaic and Uralic languages articles in [Grolier Online] User:ErdemTuzun.

Bulgarian certainly doesn't belong in this list. It's Slavic. -phma


 * The language of Bulgars is probably meant. Andres 08:12, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Ural-Altaic is not widely accepted anymore, if it ever was. It is the Ugric languages most influenced by Turkic that show the typological similarities; as you trace back to proto-Ugric and proto-Turkic, you find that the similarities decrease rather than increase. Thus this appears to be a case of a language convergence (a Sprachbund), not a language family.

Topics that still need to be covered
The following sections have been commented out of the main article, but should be addressed to be on par with other more fully-described languages:

History
Probable history of the language. What language(s) it is derived from. Dates of movement of major groups of speakers, etc.

Derived languages
Creoles and other languages that are derived from this language.

Vowels
Vowel chart and discussion of vowels.

Vowel chart added. Apokrif 16:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The vowel chart is not completely correct. the ɯ does not denote the undotted i in Turkish, the symbol is better represented by ɨ. cullen 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a table explaining the chart. Ι have followed cullen's suggestion for the phonetic represantion of undotted i. We can change it easily if needed. Examples and diphthogs are needed, because I don't speak the language and I am not familiar with its linguistic analysis. I copied and modified the table from English_language. A chart for the diphthogs is also a good idea like Dutch_language. --Michkalas 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Michkalas, for creating the table. I did my best to complete it, also providing examples. I also changed the entry of close central unrounded vowel (IPA: ) to close back unrounded vowel (IPA: ), which, I think, is a more correct rendering of the Turkish 'ı' sound and is also compatible with the existing vowel chart in the section. I hope there are no serious mistakes in this judgment of mine and the IPA renderings of the examples I provided. To the best of my knowledge, there are no diphthongs in Turkish, and I also added this fact into the section. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

so just for reference, i'm starting to believe that 'ɯ' is a better representation of the undotted i in Turkish, the more i hear, listen, and am exposed to Turkish. But as for diphthongs in Turkish, i would consider the conjunction of any vowel that is followed by 'y' a diphthong, so i would say that there are diphthongs in Turkish, despite the fact that in nearly all originally Turkish words, two vowels are never found side by side. But that is to say that none of the eight standard vowels are found together. but words such as 'böyle'(like this), 'muydum'(didn't I...), 'Nazlıyla'(with Nazlı) i would consider to have a diphthong. wouldn't you? anyone? cullen 07:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is still a problem with your vowel chart. The I and İ vowels are still switched. I'm going to fix this. I also disagree about the dipthongs. All it is is agglutanation or you are speaking to someone with another accent. My friends from Trabzon often cut off words and to anyone who doesn't speak Turkish it would sound like a dipthong, but in truth it's not. cathenryinc 1 December 2006 Türk milletinin ve tüm Türk halklarının büyük evladı üstad tarihçi Kazım MİRŞAN, uydurmak yoluyla değil büyük bilimsel analizlerle, dünya bilim adamlarınca okunamayan çok eski ve otantik anıt yazılarını ve eski yazılı eserleri deeşifre ederek göstermiştir ki Türk dilinin tarihi MÖ. 16 bin yıllarına dayanmaktadır. Bu şaşırtıcı ama muazzam önemdeki tarihi buluş, küstah batılılar ve onların yörüngesindeki tüm emperyalist bilim çevrelerince ısrarla gizlenmektedir. Ama gerçeğin mutlaka ortaya çıkmak gibi acımasız bir huyu vardır ve tüm dünya eninde sonunda tüm medeniyetin asıl yaratıcısının Türkler olduğunu analayacaktır.

The mighty son of grand Turkish nation,Kazım MIRSAN,not concocting but deciphering the scripts on oldest monuments and enrollments,has uncovered that the Turkic language has been writing down since 16 thousand years B.C. This astonishing historic fact is kepting secret since years by western imperialist science environment But the truth has a tradition of appearing.

Consonants
Consonant chart and discussion of consonants.

Phonology
Discussion of some major phonological processes, such as important allophones or assimiliation rules.

Historical sound changes
Description of important sound changes in the history of the language. (Maybe this should go under history?)
 * It would be redundant to have a special section for historical sound changes. This belongs better to History of the Turkish language.--Michkalas 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vocabulary
This section should contain a discussion of any special features of the vocabulary (or lexicon) of the language, like if it contains a large number of borrowed words or a different sets of words for different politeness levels, taboo groups, etc.


 * Article on Turkish vocabulary added, though the "special feature" that it covers is mainly the kinds of new words that can be built up from old. David Pierce 12:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

T-V distinction
The information (relating to Turkish) in the T-V distinction article on should be included and expanded here.


 * This is now given briefly in Turkish grammar. David Pierce 12:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also in the present article. David Pierce 07:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Examples
Some short examples of the language in the writing system(s) used to write the language. You might also include sound samples of the language being spoken.

In addition, the Grammar section could use a lot more content, as could a discussion of the previous use of the arabic alphabet under Writing system. Anyone who is familiar with Turkish should feel free to add this

-- Nohat 00:22, 2004 Jan 28 (UTC)


 * See now Turkish grammar, which has a number of examples from Turkish print sources (mainly newspapers for now).
 * David Pierce 12:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In the present article, I changed "Examples" to "The language in daily life" and expanded the list of Turkish formulaic expressions. There is also more content in the Grammar and Vocabulary sections.
 * David Pierce 07:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * An example of a paragraph of continuus text in Turkish with IPA transcrition, translation and maybe a voice archive with someone reading it would add a lot to the article. See Portuguese language, a feautured article.--Michkalas 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of speakers

 * 70 million speakers in Turkey and over 85 million speakers world-wide

Turkey has a population of 71 million.

Anyway, ethnologue says 61 million speakers world-wide. I would rather trust that figure, than the one in this article that was added by an anonymous user. Bogdan | Talk 17:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The CIA factbook says 70 million, and pretty much everybody in Turkey speaks Turkish (including the Kurds). 61 million worldwide is laughably inaccurate. --Adoniscik 14:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * SIL is not always all that accurate. If anything they seem to be more concerned with cramming as many languages as possible into Ethnologue rather than making sure that classifications and facts are 100% accurate. But then again, the CIA doesn't strike me as being the best source for linguistic demographics either. Are there are any other sources that could confirm either figure?
 * Peter Isotalo 16:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the table, but the main article summary still says 100 million. Can anyone produce evidence that that figure is correct? --Mmm 06:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Republic of Turkey has a population of approx. 70 million people, and they all speak Turkish (what a surprise) other than this, only in Germany there are more than 3-4million Turkish people living and they speak this today's modern Turkish, and throught Europe lots of Turkish speaking people lives (not natives of course, nearly all of them immigrants). Also there are people whose origin is Turkish living in Greece and Bulgaria. And this is only for the Turkish spoken in Turkey, in general Turkic, the amount of speakers is quite high. It is also should not be overlooked that the last population cencus was almost a complete failure,a poorly and improperly ran and calculated one, thus it's data is not very much to be relied upon. Briefly; i say 70 million in Turkey, 75-80million worldwide.--holy damien 22:39, August 08, 2005 (UTC)


 * 80 million Turkish speakers outside of Turkey sounds like a pretty extreme guess and merely 55 million in Turkey itself sounds way too low. First off, how many monolingual speakers speak a language other than Turkish? Not all that many, one would imagine. I know for a fact that I've met many Kurds in Sweden that barely speak Kurdish, but speak Turkish fluently. And I was under the impression that the figure of Turks in Germany was closer to 1 million (which is still a lot). I say we should bring the estimates down to very conservative figures unless someone provides reliable source. To me the total 100+ million figure sounds very high.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

To understand the true number of Turkish speakers you have to realise that in the language, Turkish is simply referred to as "Türkçe", this is how all Turks refer to their language in their language.

For example I am an Azeri Turk, I only say Azeri Turk to you because their is this common myth that Turks are in Turkiye and thats it and only Turks in Turkiye speak "Türkçe". To get a true understanding you must realise that we dont have terms such as Turkic, such as I speak Turkic or I speak Azeri.

In our language we just speak Türkçe and refer to each other as Turks. In Azerbaycan we refer to each other as Turks, I am from Tabriz Iran and Persians call us "Torke" which is Farsi for Turk.

The reason for stressing this is that we are Turks aswell, there are rougly 40/50 million Azeri Turks, thats in Azerbaycan, Iran and a large number in Diaspora. We communicate with Turkiye Turks, Balkan Turks, Turkmenistani Turks incredibly easily, to us it is the same language and were the same people.

What is called "Bati Turkeli" refers to all Turks West of Turkmenistan, this Türkçe is fully understandable to the 130/140 million Türkçe speakers.

Now Uzbekistan which derives from Oz = Real, Beks = Beys/Leaders, speak Türkçe and they also refer to themselves as Turks among themselves. We call ourselves say Ozbek Turks or Azeri Turks to refer to our geographical location. Turkiye Turks because of the mainstream attention they recieve have this image in the West as if though they are the only Turks and Türkçe speakers this is totally incorrect. We refer to them as "Anadolu" or Turkiye Turks.

Ozbeks Türkçe is understandable to "Bati Turkeli" Turks, Khazak Türkçe depending on which part is also very understandable. They refer to themselves as Turks, for example in Hugh Pope's interview with Sultan Nazarbayez the President of Khazakistan

''The idea of being Turkish is debated. For instance, when I asked [President of Kazakhstan] Nursultan Nazarbayev, sitting in his $18 million Boeing, "Who are you," the first thing he said was, "I am a Turk," which surprised me.''

''The first compendium of Turkish languages by Mahmud Kashgari [from Kashgar in Xinjiang, China], written in 1070, is utterly nationalistic about being Turkish. Babur, the leader of the [Indian]Mogul Empire, says, "My people are Turkish. They speak Turkish." The Chaghatai, the great poets of medieval Central Asia, called their language Turkish.''

http://cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/5163

Another interesting point is that, Uygurs and Ozbeks are the same people and their Türkçe is identical, its very interesting infact that Uygurs Türkçe is very understandable.

The hardest Türkçe for us is Kirgiz Dialect of Kirgizistan.

I feel that the title should be headed Türkçe ,Turkic means nothing to us and is an artificial term invented by Stalin who Turkestan/Azerbaycan Turks generally HATE.

It should be Türkçe section, as the English Language section includes that of Australlia, New Zealand, America, Carribeans. Nobody calls Jamaican a language called Jamaican etc, our section should include our language and the wide area it is spoken in.

The total population of Türkçe speakers is roughly 200 million or over. Tabriz_Han

Loanword
What about dü&#351;man, 'enemy'? It's known to be a word that entered Turkish from an Indo-European language (see ancient Greek dusmenes, 'enemy'; Sanskrit durmanah, Persian etc.). It's a compound from PIE *dus (=bad) and PIE *men (=mind, will), 'of ill-mind'. But I'm not sure what IE language it entered Turkish from (Persian?). Decius 06:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the enormous number of Persian loanwords in Turkish and the perfect correspondence (given the usual loanwords sound shifts) to Persian doshman, I would take its Persian origin for granted. I suppose Kurdish might be worth checking, but most Iranian words in Turkish are Persian. - Mustafaa 06:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice that this word is popular, and entered Romanian (from Turkish most likely), Bosnian, and I saw that even Burushaski has a form of it. I like the word myself. Sounds good. Decius 06:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up Decius. I added that word to the list of Persian loan-words. Nonewmail 10:29 pm 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was just browsing around, and the long lists of loan words makes this article tough to read - maybe fewer examples would suffice? ZacharyS 21:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other languages
Decius, I agree that the other languages belong in Turkey, not here. Should probably be merged into the demography section, but that might be contentious. Currently, ethnic groups are listed in alphabetical order, which doesn't make sense when some are very large (Kurds) and some very small (Greeks). --Macrakis 16:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the politics involved or where exactly to transfer the material. I thought Demographics of Turkey would be the place to put it. Decius 09:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try to transfer the material into Demographics of Turkey soon. If it's accurate info, it shouldn't pose a problem. Decius 05:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Trimming sections
I moved several sections from the article here. The section "Other languages" is completely irrelevant to this article, since it is about language minorities in the state of Turkey while this article is about Turkish as a seperate language. The extremely long lists of various loan words are per se relevant, but they don't add much encyclopedic information. There's really not that much interest in making huge lists of loanwords from various languages. They are cumbersome and tedious to anyone who wants general information on Turkish. I recommend summarizing a handful from each language (more than three per language is a lot) and inserting them into actual text. It's usually best to avoid any kind of list.

Material moved from the article

Other languages
Many other languages are spoken in Turkey. 

The Kurmanji and Zaza varieties of Kurdish are spoken by perhaps 10% of the population. The Kabardian and Adyghe varieties of Northwest Caucasian (also known as Circassian) are spoken in the Kayseri area and elsewhere. Various Turkic languages are spoken, including Azerbaijani and Gagauz. Arabic is spoken near the Syrian border, especially in Mardin and Siirt provinces. Bulgarian is spoken in the Edirne area by Muslim refugees from Bulgaria. Armenian is still spoken, primarily in Istanbul. The South Caucasian languages Laz and Georgian are used in northeast Turkey. Romani, Serbian/Croatian, and Albanian have small populations. The standard Greek, Pontic Greek, Ladino, and Modern Aramaic languages were historically important in Asia Minor, but most members of those communities have emigrated.

Here are some examples of the old (Arabic origin) words with their new Turkish equivalents:

* Old words that are still used in modern Turkish together with their new Turkish counterparts.

** New words that are not as frequently used as the old words.

*** Old words that are Persian origin.

Arabic loan words
Despite the expulsion of numerous Arabic words, Turkish still has a substantial number of Arabic loan words that are used in the language today. However, some words have gone through phonetic changes in Turkish in order to accommodate the vowel harmony.


 * Some Arabic loan words are:

--- Maybe I'm just uninformed, but I'd like to know what kind of Arabic this is, because i know in modern standard, "and" is not "ve", rather "wa"; "busy" "maşģūl" (ģ being the voiced velar fricative, often transliterated as "gh" as a single phoneme) not "meşgūl", and yeah. there are some more. not only in the Arabic section that i'm questioning, but also in the persian one, like for "window", i know "pancere" not "pencere" for the word in Farsi. anyway... just wondering if anyone else noticed these potential errors... cullen 04:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian loan words

 * Though not as many as Arabic, Turkish still has a large number of Persian loan words. Some are:

French loan words

 * Turkish has also borrowed a significant number of words from French. Note that most of the words are similar to English.  Some French loan words are:

English loan words
Turkish also has borrowed words from English (especially the names of sports). Some examples are:

Better that it was removed from the article, but this is interesting info to look through. Maybe we should have this in Wiktionary? Decius 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Wikibooks is probably a better idea. Since so many people are eager to write phrasebooks and language courses, it might be good idea to start up projects for this at Wikibooks to avoid constantly having to explain why Wikipedia is not a usage guide.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki
Bahasa Turki - Muijz 22:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE unprotect this article? There are things that I would like to add, and I have been waiting. What are we still waiting for? There hasn't been really a discussion going on about the editing conflicts in this article anyway. If people start vandalizing again, perhaps it is better just to block them so that people who are willing to improve this article can still do their jobs..... (Nonewmail, 17 June 00:35)

I would like to add an other interwiki link: the Hungarian Török nyelv 217.65.98.209 28 June 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Still heard nothing about UNPROTECTING this page?


 * Unprotected. - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 22:41 (UTC)

Türk Dil Kurumu
The name of the Türk Dil Kurumu is given in English as Turkish Language Society by the grammarian of Turkish Geoffrey Lewis, as well as by the Turkish Embassy in Washington. The latter says the name changed later to "Turkish Linguistic Association", but no date is given, and there does not seem to be a corresponding change in the Turkish name. In Turkish, "linguistic" would normally be dilbilimsel.

-First name: Turk Dili Tetkik Cemiyeti -Last and current name: Turk Dil Kurumu --> FAOA; not only about linguistic, everything about turkish. So I think report of TEiW has some WoWr!
 * Turk Dil Kurumu means Turkish Language Association;

-sel ve -sal gibi ekler Türkçe'de yer almaz. bu ekler Latince kökenlidir. örneğin, İngilizce'deki "globe" sözcüğünden türetilen "global" sözcüğü ile Türkçe'deki "küre" sözcüğünden türetilen "küresel" sözcüğü aynı ek yardımıyla türetilmiştir. -sel ve -sal ekleriyle türetilen sözcükleri Türkçe sanan arkadaşlara duyurulur :-)
 * -SEL ve -SAL ekleri Türkçe değildir.


 * Yanlış: -sel ve -sal ekleri türkçe'de mevcuttur. Yalnız asıl görevi isimden isim türetmektir. Örnek: Kum+sal = Kumsal (sorry for Turkish explain)

Number of native speakers
The opening sentence in the article reads:

Turkish (Türkçe) is a Turkic language, spoken natively by some 55 million speakers in Turkey, with an estimated 30-80 million additional speakers worldwide.

However, the sidebar gives a figure of 150 million. These two assessments cannot easily be made consistent.

The higher figures (anything above about 75-80 million) seems unreasonable. True, Turkic peoples once were the majority population in an area much larger than Anatolia. Still, Turkey has neither signficant colonies nor a significant refugee population. It is unreasonable to think that two thirds of the native speakers living outside the home country.

--Philopedia 11:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone just upped the population to 200 million. The problem is the definition of "Turkish": is it the official language of Turkey, and of those who identify as speaking that language either in Turkey, Central Asia, or the Balkans, in which case it is spoken by 60-odd million; or is it the language of the Pan-Turkish concept of Greater Turkestan? That might be 200 million. Should we go by mutual intelligibility, or by ethno-linguistic identity? I personally favor the latter, and if someone can demonstrate that the Uzbeks etc. consider their language to be the same as that of Turkey, then I would be happy to accept the 150-200M figure (whatever it turns out to be). But I think we should have evidence that this is the general conception of the Uzbek etc people, and not just of Pan-Turkic nationalists, and also that such a definition is acceptable to the people who are most involved with this article. kwami 01:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do think that, regardless, we should estimate a more up-to-date figure. For example, the Ethnologue figure of 46.28M native speakers in Turkey is just the 1987 population time 85%, based on a guess that 15% of the population is Kurdish. Actually, the Kurdish population might be 25%. Given Turkey's current population has increased dramatically to 69.66M, that would be 52-59 million today. So we obviously need a decent estimate of the Kurdish-speaking population of Turkey. The population of Bulgaria has descreased dramatically to 7.45M; at 9.4% ethnic Turk (mostly Turkish speaking), that's a further 700k. The other countries with native speakers are under 1M. Plus of course a couple million immigrants in the EU (many Turkish immigrants are of course Kurdish speaking). Osmanli Turkish might be over 60M, but it all depends on getting a reliable figure for Kurdish. kwami 02:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's my calculation: Turkey is 20% Kurdish speaking. That's the estimate from the Kurdish article, and about average from what I've seen. (Most recent refs state that the old figure of 15% was an underestimate.) With a current population of 70M, that's 56M in Turkey. Bulgaria: 700k. Greece: emmigration offsets population growth, so perhaps still ~130k. Cyprus: N. Cyprus population now 210k. Macedonia: 1982 figure 200k; don't know about now. Uzbekistan: Population increased dramatically from 1979. At current growth rates, calculating back from 1993, the 1979 population was ~17.2M. Assuming the same percentage today, that's ~300k. Germany: 2.1M. Netherlands: 200k. Moldova: 140k Gagauz speakers. All other countries are I believe < 100k. In any case, our major uncertainty is the %age in Turkey.


 * Total: 60.0 million (native). Is this an acceptable figure to everyone? Maybe a million more scattered around the world? kwami 02:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In Turkey, there is not a serious, well established study over how much of the population speak Turkish natively, how many percent of the population is Kurdish descent...etc? Since the constitution states that whoever is a Turkish citizen she/he is Turkish (but not by race by citizenship), the Turkish governments never make any spefications about people with different ethnic/religous backgrounds rather than minorities (Greeks and Armenians-Jewish people are also not counted as a minority in Turkey since they rejected to be a minority and specified themselves as Turkish in Treaty of Lausanne.) Based on these facts, if we use a certain number in the article it will never be correct and will harm the credibility of an encyclopedia. As an example, if we claim 70 million speak Turkish natively, some Kurdish citizens will be offended, if we use 56 or 60 million according to a Kurdish article, that will be a biased source and its credibility will be disputed. So the best way is avoiding a certain number. Nobody will die if the article states "Turkish is natively spoken in Turkey, Cyprus, Bulgaria...". Cansın 8 October 2005


 * I agree. Anyway not of the %20 of turkey is Kurdish..


 * It would be incorrect to include all Turkic languages as being of very high mutual intellegebility however the Oghuz dialect has high intellegebility, all speakers of this dialect can communicate with each other.

The dialect is "Oghuz Turkish", Anatolian, Bulgarian, Kosovan, Northern Cyprus, Iraq, Syrian, Iran(Azerbaijan/Kashkay/Turkmen), Azerbaijan, Moldova, Greece, Turkmenistan etc are all a part of this, their differences are "accents", regional lexical uses and borrowings from their neighbours. In addition to this the Crimean Tatars, Nogay's, Kazan Tatars can also be added as being mutually intellegeble as even though they belong to Kipchak Turkic they were heavily influenced by Oghuz Turkish due to the Ottomans.

The Turki spoken by the people's above are mutually intellegeble, they share the same dialect and have regional differences.

Also they identify themselves as Turks. Even Gagauz who are Christian identify themselves as Turks. All of the groups listed which are in the Balkans are and identify themselves as Turks. Crimean Tatars do. In Iran, they are called "Torke" and their language Turki. Azerbaijan has a Turkic identity. Turkmens obviously are Turkic. Anatolian Turkic speakers refer to themselves as "Turks" and so on.

This is why its very important to notify that the "Oghuz Turkish" dialect, is mutually intellegble and has 125 million speakers (including as second language).

Its all good for you knowing that you can understand the Turkish spoken of the listed above, however, outside Turkic societies this is not well known, this is why its important to include.

--Johnstevens5

Lists
As it was inappropriate to refer readers to this page in the main article, I have placed the first list above on it's own page at List of replaced loan words in Turkish. I suggest that the other lists also be placed on their own pages, or on other wikis. JPD (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Turkish Name Pronunciation
Hi, could someone please help me out. There is a place on the Mediteranean coast of Turkey called "Bençik", and it is also the surname of several people in that area. I was wondering if anyone could please tell me if this is the correct spelling of the name, and how do you pronounce this name properly. I would really appreciate it if someone could please tell me. Thanks. 82.92.119.11 5 November 2005 12:34 (UTC)


 * Don't know if it's the correct name. However, if it's pronounced as spelled, it's something like English ben-cheek or Spanish ben-chic. For place names, the stress is often on the second-last syllable, but I don't know if that's the case here. kwami 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The stress is on the first syllable for two-syllable place names like BUR-sa, IZ-mir; for three or more syllable place names it is not that simple: ex. is-TAN-bul, AN-ka-ra, ZON-gul-dak, KAS-TA-mo-nu, gi-RE-sun, di-YAR-ba-kir, SA-lih-li, de-NIZ-li etc. "Bençik" is pronounced ben-chick it sounds turkish but doesn't really mean anything.


 * That's interesting. Because if "Bençik" is pronounced "ben-chick", it could be related to the Hungarian name "Bencsik" (pronounced "ben-chick"), which I have been told is originally a Slovak name.  I think in Slovakia they spell it as "Bencik", but the pronunciation is probably the same as the Hungarian version.  As for the meaning, I'm not sure.  I went to a translation site and typed in "Bencsik" and translated it from Hungarian to English and the result that came back was the word "benedictine".  Does anyone know if all these names are the same?  Any comments? Kchishol1970 12:15, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I understand of Turkish pronunciation the name 'Bençik', according to this spelling, should be pronounced 'ben-cheek', as the 'ç' (c-cedilla) is pronounced 'ch' as in 'chair', and the 'i' (dotted i) is pronounced 'ee' as in 'see'. However, if the name 'Bençik' has the spelling 'Bençık', then it should be pronounced 'ben-chuck', as the 'ı' (undotted i) is pronounced 'uh' as in 'plus'. Another possibility is that the 'ç' (c-cedilla) is just a regular 'c', which is pronounced like th English `j' as in `jet'. Therefore the name could also be pronounced as either 'ben-jeek' or 'ben-juck'. The Question 12:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I had a look at a Turkish pronunciation guide and what The Question said is correct. It is probably safe to assume that these names are not pronounced the same in Turkish and Hungarian/Slovak, and are probably not related. Although, I'm not too sure that it means 'benedictine' in Hungarian, it could, but I can't be certain. Paul A 4 December 2005 01:12 (UTC)


 * ben-chick sounds much closer. ç pronounced 'ch' as in 'chair', i is pronounced as in "he".--Ugur Basak 00:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "Arabic expression"
User 193.140.63.162 recently deleted the expression "Estağfurullah" from the table, with the comment "Arabic expression deleted". Of course, many common words and expressions in Turkish are Arabic, including many others in the table, e.g. merhaba, teşekkür, şey, (maybe even "rica"?) etc. If the expression is commonly used (I really don't know one way or the other), the fact that it's of Arabic origin shouldn't exclude it from the table. WP is not in the business of enforcing linguistic purism.... --Macrakis 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mackaris it is not widely used in new generation, but still used by older people and especially in towns. If someone will visit towns, small cities he will probably hear that word--Ugur Basak 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I will leave it up to you to decide whether it belongs there. I am certainly not competent to judge! I just want to make sure that the criteria are appropriate. --Macrakis 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Vowels in IPA
If  is back, isn't the IPA symbol supposed to be or  rather than ? To my ear, the pronunciation sometimes sounds like one and sometimes like the other (stressed syllable, maybe?). Mats 14:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. [] is used rather rarely, mostly after an ince k, like in şikayet (or şikâyet) for instance. The back [] is the normal sound. JX Bardant 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vowels
There is someting wrong with the table of vowels. The vowels in Turkish is a,e,ı,i,o,ö,u,ü but on the table there are only a,e,i,o,u and others are letter which has no place in Turkish. I know Turkish so I have much information than books. Please expalin or change to correct version. Also, Turkish is spoken in France too by immigrants. Thank you


 * The vowel letters in Turkish are a,e,ı,i,o,ö,u,ü. The table analyzes the vowel sounds, which are documented using the International Phonetic Alphabet as in all other language articles. Fortunately, Turkish spelling is very phonetic, so it is easy to convert one to the other... --Macrakis 17:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, I thought those symbols were showing the letters. Thanks; CrashMex 12 Jan 2006 18:00

The table on the page is still not entirely accurate. ɯ denotes the unrounded verision of u, which the only language I am presonally familiar with that it occurs in is Japanese. The "ı" (undotted i) is more accurately protrayed by the IPA symbol ɨ, an unrounded high central vowel. I honestly am astonished that this simple mistaked occured, i would think that one would be familiar with all the ipa vowel symbols or none at all because there are so few of them, especially in regard to the expenential number of consonents. anyway. that's my contribution: the chart isn't entirely correct. cullen 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it's a rather common mistake that the symbol ɨ (or for that matter ɯ, too) accurately describes the Turkish sound. While the Japanese vowel represented by   is unrounded it is not [ɯ].  There is no symbol that accurately describes the Japanese sound, as there is no symbol that accurately describes the Turkish vowel, and only that vowel.  It's likely that Turkish has allophones that spread across the domain, but as far as I've seen the understanding is that [ɯ] is closer to the dotless i.  Maybe the sources I have are wrong, but someone really needs to do an accoustic analysis of it (though maybe they have?)  Anyway, to my ears at least the Turkish sound is closer to [ɯ].  I've heard plenty of [ɨ]s, and to me that's too far to the center.

Turkish is spoken in...
Turkish is spoken in France too, there are many Turkish families speaking Turkish in France. It should be added to immigrant part. CrashMex 12 Jan 2006 18:06

Please find good information and add it. I think it would be nice to have something like
 * There is a large Turkish-speaking population in Germany (1.8m), and smaller groups in France (0.7m), Belgium (0.3m), ....

Of course, I am making up the numbers and the reference. The list should not be exhaustive, but cut off at some reasonable level. --Macrakis 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've found these in Turkish Wikipedia under Türkçe subject: Almanya'da 3 Milyon kişi tarafından,:3 milion people in Germany İran'da yaklaşık 25.000.000 İran Azerisi tarafından, 25 milion people in Iran Yugoslavya ve Makedonya'da 350.000 kişi tarafından, 350,000 people in Serbia and Montenegro and Macedonia Avusturya'da 200.000 kişi tarafından, 200,000 people in Austria Hollanda 175.000 kişi tarafından, 175,000 people in Netherlands Fransa 150.000 kişi tarafından, 150,000 people in France Belçika'da 70.600 kişi tarafından, 70,600 people in Belgium Romanya'da 16.000 kişi tarafından, 16,000 people Romania Amerika'da 27.000 kişi tarafından, 27,000 people in the USA Kanada'da 10.000 kişi tarafından, 10,000 people in Canada İsviçre'de 7.500 kişi tarafından, 7,500 people in Switzerland Irak'ta 3.000.000 kişi tarafından, 3,000,000 people in Iraq Avustralya'da 150.000 kişi tarafından, 150,000 people in Austria suriye'de yaklaşık 1.500.000 kişi tarafından, nearly 1,500,000 people in Syria Kırım'da 300.000 kişi tarafından 300,000 people in Ukraine Gagavuz Yerinde 200.000 kişi tarafından konuşulmaktadır. 200,000 people in Moldova Genel olarak yaklaşık 250 Milyon kişi Türkçe'yi anadili olarak konuşmaktadır. total 250,000,000 people whose native language is Turkish What do say about this? CrashMex 12 Jan 2006 18:55

The Turkish Wikipedia seems to include Uzbek and other Turkic languages along with Turkish (Osmanlı). It is also not clear where it got its figures. --Macrakis 17:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it specifically states that the number for Iran is Azeri. Also, although not stated, the numbers in Europe count Kurds as well as Turks. Kurds are overrepresented abroad compared to their population in Turkey, as they have higher emmigration rates than Turks. kwami 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Language of Azeris in Iran is Osmanli, not Azerbaijani. I've edited "spoken in..." section in article.

Vowel table vs. chart
The vowel chart is certainly much prettier than the previous vowel table. It has the disadvantage, though, that you can't link the individual symbols to their articles, which I think would be handy. What do others think? --Macrakis 17:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)--Macrakis 17:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lexical stress
There's nothing about how lexical stress works in the article. In general, it's hard to find information about this anywhere.

According to http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~inkelas/Papers/TurkishStressFinal.pdf, a lexical unit (word or suffix) either has stress definied to a certain syllable or undefined. For a word that only contains units with undefined stress, the stress will go to the last syllable. A suffix may also make the previous syllable stressed. The above article describes what happens when a word contains more than one unit where stress is defined, more or less.


 * I suggest you add this information, and a link to the source. That's how Wikipedia improves! --Macrakis 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Return of Ottomanisms
The article talks of how Turkish has used much fewer Arabic and Persian loanwords. But recently in popular culture one finds an explosion in the usage of such loanwords. Partially this is political as Özturkce (pure Turkish without loan words) is very Ataturkist, and partly this is just people rediscovering their heritage and playing around with words (because words are cool). Maybe we should add something about this phenomenon? 129.199.224.169 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

[No Title]
Just to let everyone know, the ɯ represented in the image above is an incorrect transliteration into IPA in regard to the vowels of the Turkish language. ɯ is the unrounded counterpart of u. The ı is better represented by the IPA symbol ɨ which is a unrounded high central vowel. Either way, the ɯ is still misplaced as it articulated in the same fashion as u save for roundness, and thus should be placed in conjunction with the u. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctreddy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 April 2006.
 * Unrounded vowels tend to be further front than rounded vowels, so <ɯ> is a better match than <ɨ>, though neither are perfect. kwami 07:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Classification Issues
I am an Azeri Turk, our Turkish and that of Turkey is the same, I mean I can 100% understand and read the Turkish of Tv, we watch their Tv channels, when someone talks from Turkey on Azeri Tv there are no subtitles, we go on each others show's, I have many friends from Turkey we talk in Turkish to each other.

Turks of Turkey fully understand me, I mean we speak the same language.

On a further note, all Oguz Turk branch speakers of Turkic understand each other. I can communicate with the Turks in the Balkans in Bulgaria, Macedonia etc and with those in Irak and Turkmenistan.

So the 75 million figure is misleading and make's no sense, I'm not included in the category but that is my language aswell.

Please do somthing about this.

Maybe this can help clear things up

On Ethnologue.com is writes for Turkish of Turkey

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

For Azeri Turkish is writes

''Azerbaijani, North [azj] 8,069,453 in Azerbaijan (1989 census). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani''

For Iran

''Azerbaijani, South [azb] 23,500,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 24,364,000. Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani''

Khorasani Turkish [kmz] 400,000 (1977 Doerfer). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

Qashqa'i [qxq] 1,500,000 (1997). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani

Turkmen [tuk] 2,000,000 in Iran (1997). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkmenian

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran

For Bulgaria

Turkish [tur] 845,550 in Bulgaria (1986). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

For Macedonia

Turkish [tur] 200,000 in Macedonia (1982). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

For Moldova

Gagauz [gag] 138,000 in Moldova (2000). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

Iraq

Turkish [azb] 300,000 to 900,000 in Iraq (1982). Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani

40 million people are left out of your 75 million figure, the correct figure would be 120 million as we can all understand each other, these terms claiming that only they speak Turkish and that we somehow speak another language are unlogical and ridiculous.

Please change this.

Regards.

Tabriz_han

Khorasani Turkish
Anybody can tell me what is Khorasani Turkish?

All I can think of is "pirate turkish." Korsan means pirate and the ani ending is reminiscent of a possesive arabic ending, so my guess would be the sort of turkish spoken by pirates or some time of slang.--Abur 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool idea but actually it refers to Khorasan province in todays Iran, or Horasan, like Horasan Alp Erenleri etc.

There Turkish is mutually understandable with Turkey's Turkish.

I don't understand why other Oghuz Turkish isn't included as the same? I mean Azeri Turkish and Turkey Turkish and Balkan Turkish is 100% understandable.


 * So, Is Khorasani Turkish the language of peoples in Khorasan?


 * A Turks opinion: Defiently yes.

Help with translation
I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help, then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Turkish. Thanks, --Soman 15:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of speakers.
I'd like to note a good number of speakers live outside of Turkey at places such as Germany. The total number of speakers however must be sourced rather than a large range (being off by several million people is an unnaceptable margin of error). -- Cat out 18:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I agree completely. Indeed, in Germany alone there is some estimated 2.5 million Turks - of whom the big majority probably has Turkish as their native language! The total number can however, unfortunately, not be better than estimates, as Turkey doesn't register speakers of minority languages. Bertilvidet 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

-

Is Altaic disputed ?
If there exists a dispute, what is?. The link given[] can not be considered as a scientific article. For this reason, i shall wait for a while for any discussion, if no reliable information or source (scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles) given there, i'll remove the Altaic "(disputed)" statement. Furthermore, if there exist such a dispute, this should be done in the "Altaic Languages" or maybe better "Altaic hypothesis" section. e104421
 * Yes, Altaic is quite controversial. Basically, everybody agrees on the three main subgroups: Turkic, Tungusic, and Mongolian. It is also agreed that these three groups are typologically similar and have some words in common. What is disputed is whether Turkic, Tungusic, and Mongolian are genetically related to each other, the alternative being that the similarities result from intensive long-term language contact. I'll dig up some references.Bill 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion should be done under "Altaic Languages" or maybe better "Altaic hypothesis" section. We can continue the discussion of dispute there. For the "(disputed)" tag, my opion is that this may lead a misundestanding on the issue (as in the case, see Talk:Khazar_language) and should be removed. It somehow can be understood as wheather "x language' being Altaic is disputed". The Altaic hypothesis is controversial but the major reference works use the "Altaic" term for these languages. e104421

Turkish != Turkic
"If these are counted together as "Turkish", the number of native speakers is 100 million, and the total number including second-language speakers is around 125 million." What's that supposed to mean? Imagine the article of the German language claim that "if the Germanic languages (English, Dutch, all Scandinavian etc) are counted together as "German" then...". Why should they be counted together since the term "Turkish language" refers to something very specific? Miskin 11:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's not like that at all. The statement mentions only three languages from the Oghuz group of the Turkic languages, with which Turkish is highly mutually intelligible and which are in some contexts regarded as dialects of the same language rather than being separate languages themselves. You could see for yourself that the paragraph does not say anything like "Turkish = Turkic" if you just had a quick look to the Turkic languages article or the Turkic languages navigation box at the bottom of this article. In that paragraph, there is only a mention of three members of the Oghuz group (which itself includes about eight languages). And the Turkic family includes about 40 living languages.


 * Note: The situation is very much like the mutual intelligibility of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, within the Germanic family (a similarity I can confirm, being exposed to all Scandinavian languages and the mentioned three Oghuz languages). Please also check the mutual intelligibility article. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, your argument is totally un-logical.

Germans, Sweeds, Danes, Norweigian's cannot understand each other, read each other's books and watch each other's tv. In addition they do not share the same identity and don't view themselves as being of the same nation.

The issue with "Oghuz Turkish" is completely different. The dialect is "Oghuz Turkish", Anatolian, Bulgarian, Kosovan, Northern Cyprus, Iraq, Syrian, Iran(Azerbaijan/Kashkay/Turkmen), Azerbaijan, Moldova, Greece, Turkmenistan etc are all a part of this, their differences are "accents", regional lexical uses and borrowings from their neighbours. In addition to this the Crimean Tatars, Nogay's, Kazan Tatars can also be added as being mutually intellegeble as even though they belong to Kipchak Turkic they were heavily influenced by Oghuz Turkish due to the Ottomans.

The Turki spoken by the people's above are mutually intellegeble, they share the same dialect and have regional differences.

Also they identify themselves as Turks. Even Gagauz who are Christian identify themselves as Turks. All of the groups listed which are in the Balkans are and identify themselves as Turks. Crimean Tatars do. In Iran, they are called "Torke" and their language Turki. Azerbaijan has a Turkic identity. Turkmens obviously are Turkic. Anatolian Turkic speakers refer to themselves as "Turks" and so on.

This is why its very important to notify that the "Oghuz Turkish" dialect, is mutually intellegble and has 125 million speakers (including as second language).

Its all good for you knowing that you can understand the Turkish spoken of the listed above, however, outside Turkic societies this is not well known, this is why its important to include.

--Johnstevens5 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians understand each other's language (North Germanic, descendants of Old Norse) fairly well, and in written form, the languages are as high as 90% mutually intelligible. I did not talk about any identity and self-defining issue and I did not include German (West Germanic) in this discussion. I agree with your comments on the Turkic languages. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"...with Kurdish making up most of the remainder"
I think this is important and interesting information. An ignorant reader might want to know what the second most-spoken language is in Turkey, and by erasing this information we are not serving the reader. Is there any good reason why this should be taken out? &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is not important and interesting information in here! this article is Turkish Language. that must be in Turkey link. may be write under dialectics in this page. i want to take out this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwl (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 October 2006.


 * Yes this article is on the Turkish language, but the reader should know not only that not all Turkish citizens speak Turkish natively, but what main language is spoken in addition to Turkish. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

if readers are in this page they looks about turkish language. not interests first second third... languages in turkey. it s not important for this article, and this must be in Turkey. if you want -if necessary- you can create new page Turkish Citizens Languages


 * What makes you think readers wouldn't be interested? Just because this article is about the Turkish language doesn't mean we can't give one tiny little reference to Kurdish. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why we need? i must ask you? above sentences its not enough. this additions break down this article entirety.


 * We need it because it's useful information. What do you mean they "break down this article entirety"? &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

i mean this additions are out of the Turkish Language's entirety. we can write german and english, french, russian, arabic also, millions of turks' second language are these.


 * The paragraph is not talking about ethnic Turks, but citizens of Turkey. Yes, it is true that besides Turkish, Kurdish is the second-most common language in Turkey.
 * Anyways, is there some sort of compromise we can make? &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

you say also 'Kurdish is the second-most common language in Turkey'. and also it must be under the TURKEY link. i couldnt accept this reason. this additions are out of the Turkish Language's entirety. may be under dialects.


 * I disagree. :-( How about we have a footnote (like this)? &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree too but thats enough for today. this additions are out of the Turkish Language's entirety. see you soon.. bye


 * Alright then. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's useful information and it makes very good sense in that section's and paragraph's entirety. It should absolutely not be removed from there and I did not like the footnote solution either. I do not certainly see what could be wrong with mentioning Turkey's second largest linguistic group in the geographic distribution section except being politically guided. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur completely with Atilim. Bertilvidet 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

i think thats not usefull information. its not interest this article, especially geographical. Bertilvidet makes vandalism in turkey / turkish pages as a Participant

i didnt like reverts of atilim. and also i didnt like her:). why you are trying to write a note about kurdish to turkish language. this addition may be add to turkey link. this pages expalin 'turkish language'. that dont belong to that sentence.--Qwl 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)