This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turkic languages template. |
|
Turkey Template‑class | |||||||
|
Why is Uyghur a Karluk language? Where did that classification come from anyway? Have you noticed Karluk is about a ship????? pfctdayelise ( translate?) 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, having a template for the Turkic languages is a very good idea. I propose a new design for this template and I hope you do not feel offended by this sudden change. I think the main requirements for such a template are:
Please note that I based the Turkic language groups in my edit to the current tree in the Turkic languages article, and I realize that there are some differences in this respect with the previous template. I think it is best to stick to the classification tree and group names mentioned there, and if there are any misplacements or mistakes with the group names, these should first be discussed on the Turkic languages talk page, fixed there, and then incorporated into this template. Note: I am also adding the template to the related articles with the hope that it will get more attention and contributions. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ethnologue says it is Altaic, Turkic, Eastern. I would like to see a source for classifying it as western Turkic. :/ pfctdayelise ( translate?) 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hahn (Speaking Uyghur) says: Modern Uyghur is a Turkic language of the Eastern or Chaghatay branch (p4). They are synonyms...? pfctdayelise ( translate?) 07:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As the person who selected the asterisk for the extinct languages footnote in this template, I just want to point out that the footnote symbol used by User:Strabismus to replace the astreisks is not called a "Christian cross" but rather a "dagger" (please see Dagger (typography)). It's very common to see this footnote mark used outside religious context and I don't think it's to be identified with Christianity here. Nevertheless I decided to use the more neutral looking asterisk in its place to prevent a possible revert war because of seeing a connection between the religion of Turkic peoples and the used footnote symbols. I now see the reverting started the other way and my attempt has not been successfull. Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a good idea to add Proto-Turkic. It gives the impression that Proto-Turkic was a real language when "proto-languages" are rather theories. It would be like addding Common Turkic to the list. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It says Ottoman Turkish is extinct (italics), however there are still several hundred speakers of the language still alive-- 24.171.6.27 ( talk) 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we please use the new version of this template with some edits, like in this revision ? -- PK2 ( talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Äynu has been classified as a Siberian Turkic language here, which is incorrect. I don't want to start a revert war. If you read Johanson (2001), Äynu is clearly modern Uyghur grammar with a Persian vocabulary. Tooru and the other sources I've consulted agree. I wouldn't consider Glottolog to be a very reliable source when it comes to internal classification. Straughn ( talk) 14:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turkic languages template. |
|
Turkey Template‑class | |||||||
|
Why is Uyghur a Karluk language? Where did that classification come from anyway? Have you noticed Karluk is about a ship????? pfctdayelise ( translate?) 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, having a template for the Turkic languages is a very good idea. I propose a new design for this template and I hope you do not feel offended by this sudden change. I think the main requirements for such a template are:
Please note that I based the Turkic language groups in my edit to the current tree in the Turkic languages article, and I realize that there are some differences in this respect with the previous template. I think it is best to stick to the classification tree and group names mentioned there, and if there are any misplacements or mistakes with the group names, these should first be discussed on the Turkic languages talk page, fixed there, and then incorporated into this template. Note: I am also adding the template to the related articles with the hope that it will get more attention and contributions. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ethnologue says it is Altaic, Turkic, Eastern. I would like to see a source for classifying it as western Turkic. :/ pfctdayelise ( translate?) 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hahn (Speaking Uyghur) says: Modern Uyghur is a Turkic language of the Eastern or Chaghatay branch (p4). They are synonyms...? pfctdayelise ( translate?) 07:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As the person who selected the asterisk for the extinct languages footnote in this template, I just want to point out that the footnote symbol used by User:Strabismus to replace the astreisks is not called a "Christian cross" but rather a "dagger" (please see Dagger (typography)). It's very common to see this footnote mark used outside religious context and I don't think it's to be identified with Christianity here. Nevertheless I decided to use the more neutral looking asterisk in its place to prevent a possible revert war because of seeing a connection between the religion of Turkic peoples and the used footnote symbols. I now see the reverting started the other way and my attempt has not been successfull. Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a good idea to add Proto-Turkic. It gives the impression that Proto-Turkic was a real language when "proto-languages" are rather theories. It would be like addding Common Turkic to the list. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It says Ottoman Turkish is extinct (italics), however there are still several hundred speakers of the language still alive-- 24.171.6.27 ( talk) 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we please use the new version of this template with some edits, like in this revision ? -- PK2 ( talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Äynu has been classified as a Siberian Turkic language here, which is incorrect. I don't want to start a revert war. If you read Johanson (2001), Äynu is clearly modern Uyghur grammar with a Persian vocabulary. Tooru and the other sources I've consulted agree. I wouldn't consider Glottolog to be a very reliable source when it comes to internal classification. Straughn ( talk) 14:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)